Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Their aggressive and bullying business practices don't earn a lot of good will either.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.

This is the same for 40k in my experience. When actually playing the game, when rule issues appear it takes less than a few minutes to find an answer. When rule issues appear on the forums, it's a 12 page argument.

When there's a 12 page argument it's usually because the rule isn't clear and people have different opinions on what was intended and/or the wording is imprecise so again could be taken in different ways.

GW have a tendency to use very imprecise language such that multiple interpretations can arise.

They also tend to create specific definitions for words (which is good) but then don't refer to them correctly or use those same words in different contexts that may or may not mean the specific definition you thought it did.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.

This is the same for 40k in my experience. When actually playing the game, when rule issues appear it takes less than a few minutes to find an answer. When rule issues appear on the forums, it's a 12 page argument.

When there's a 12 page argument it's usually because the rule isn't clear and people have different opinions on what was intended and/or the wording is imprecise so again could be taken in different ways.

GW have a tendency to use very imprecise language such that multiple interpretations can arise.

They also tend to create specific definitions for words (which is good) but then don't refer to them correctly or use those same words in different contexts that may or may not mean the specific definition you thought it did.

If you actually looked at the arguments, it isn't people arguing about the rule, it's them arguing over specific words in the ruling, trying to dig through it, find a loop hole and a flaw in the rule to prove their point. There are rule disputes there that are glaringly obvious, but some posters look at them and cannot help to see a problem where none exists.

 Lobomalo wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.

This is the same for 40k in my experience. When actually playing the game, when rule issues appear it takes less than a few minutes to find an answer. When rule issues appear on the forums, it's a 12 page argument.

When there's a 12 page argument it's usually because the rule isn't clear and people have different opinions on what was intended and/or the wording is imprecise so again could be taken in different ways.

GW have a tendency to use very imprecise language such that multiple interpretations can arise.

They also tend to create specific definitions for words (which is good) but then don't refer to them correctly or use those same words in different contexts that may or may not mean the specific definition you thought it did.

If you actually looked at the arguments, it isn't people arguing about the rule, it's them arguing over specific words in the ruling, trying to dig through it, find a loop hole and a flaw in the rule to prove their point. There are rule disputes there that are glaringly obvious, but some posters look at them and cannot help to see a problem where none exists.

The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

Because that's objectively wrong, that's why they can't understand it.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

Wat? If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, then the writer is at fault for not being clearer in their writing.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

Now Now. As an English Major (and I believe you said "teacher" at some point?) you of all people should understand that it is possible for two people to read the same work an come up with different interpretations based on their own history and perceptions. It is what makes poetry groups and such interesting. Given that GW does not have a consistent "Phrase-Bible", it is entirely possible to achieve different interpretations of the rules, without it reflecting poorly on anyone's reading comprehension.

Thing is, GW's rules aren't a story or poetry where it's left up to your imagination or has a lot of metaphorical or allegorical things that you need to glean what the intent was. They're meant to be rules for a game. If we both read the same rule, and at the end need to discuss WTF it actually meant, then GW is at fault for not making the rules clear what it means.

Being vague in text is fine for literature and philosophy books, not rules for a game.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

Now Now. As an English Major (and I believe you said "teacher" at some point?) you of all people should understand that it is possible for two people to read the same work an come up with different interpretations based on their own history and perceptions. It is what makes poetry groups and such interesting. Given that GW does not have a consistent "Phrase-Bible", it is entirely possible to achieve different interpretations of the rules, without it reflecting poorly on anyone's reading comprehension.

But, then how can he insult people that have different opinions than he does?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

Now Now. As an English Major (and I believe you said "teacher" at some point?) you of all people should understand that it is possible for two people to read the same work an come up with different interpretations based on their own history and perceptions. It is what makes poetry groups and such interesting. Given that GW does not have a consistent "Phrase-Bible", it is entirely possible to achieve different interpretations of the rules, without it reflecting poorly on anyone's reading comprehension.

Agreed, it also does not mean the wording is inherently vague either.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

But, then how can he insult people that have different opinions than he does?

Sorry, but do you ever have anything constructive to say? Or will it just be passive aggressive insults from you?

You have made it abundantly clear in three threads, just in this sub-forum, how you feel about 40k. Yet all you have done when approached with an actual solution is compare it to other games and how they are more "balanced" and the rules written more "clearly".

Clarity is and always has been the purview of the people looking/reading/understanding something. What is clear to some is not always clear to others, but this does not mean that what is written or being observed is vague or unclear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Thing is, GW's rules aren't a story or poetry where it's left up to your imagination or has a lot of metaphorical or allegorical things that you need to glean what the intent was. They're meant to be rules for a game. If we both read the same rule, and at the end need to discuss WTF it actually meant, then GW is at fault for not making the rules clear what it means.

Being vague in text is fine for literature and philosophy books, not rules for a game.

You have a limited understanding of what English majors do, but I won't get into that.

Again, something that is vague to you and isn't vague to someone else, the issue is with you more so than it is the thing being written. There really is no arguing that point actually, because you have no understanding of the people who are not seeing something vague and you are judging the vagueness of the writing purely on your own interpretations of the words being used.

The purpose of making definitions is to provide clarity in circumstances where sword or phrase admits of more than one possible meaning. Having made a definition you have to stick to it.

"The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The purpose of making definitions is to provide clarity in circumstances where sword or phrase admits of more than one possible meaning. Having made a definition you have to stick to it.

Except this isn't always how it works as words have multiple definitions and depending upon how they are used, the meaning can change dramatically.

Now I'll agree that GW could and probably should be more specific with their rules as other games have done so, but then I think of the age group of the player base and really, they shouldn't imo. There comes a time when you should no longer need to have everything spelled out for you. But again, this is simply my opinion.

The organization of GW rules absolutely sucks balls, no denying that, but clarity, at least for me, hasn't been an issue, though I will admit, I haven't been around for years and years so this could effect my understanding.

Except we are all reading the 7th edition rulebook, which to me is quite clear, so then we get back to the crux of the problem, is it a player issue or a GW one? Can the rules be written more clearly in order to clear up confusion, sure. Do they need to be? Not at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
"The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.

Literally the answer is right there in the sentence.

A Psyker can only cast a number of spells equal to their Mastery Level.

It is right there for you and literally has no other way of being read, that is simple English dude. Hence why that topic turned into utter garbage and was locked.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The purpose of making definitions is to provide clarity in circumstances where sword or phrase admits of more than one possible meaning. Having made a definition you have to stick to it.

Except this isn't always how it works as words have multiple definitions and depending upon how they are used, the meaning can change dramatically.

Except when you define a word in gameplay terms, it should really be protected and not used in any other context, it isn't like the English language is short of synonyms.

Now I'll agree that GW could and probably should be more specific with their rules as other games have done so, but then I think of the age group of the player base and really, they shouldn't imo. There comes a time when you should no longer need to have everything spelled out for you. But again, this is simply my opinion.

An opinion based in flawed information apparently, as GW have stated that their targeted player base is teenage boys, who really would likely benefit from as much clarity as possible.

The organization of GW rules absolutely sucks balls, no denying that, but clarity, at least for me, hasn't been an issue, though I will admit, I haven't been around for years and years so this could effect my understanding.

Yep, you're naive to a whole lot, as is evidenced by your arguments in YMDC.

Except we are all reading the 7th edition rulebook, which to me is quite clear, so then we get back to the crux of the problem, is it a player issue or a GW one? Can the rules be written more clearly in order to clear up confusion, sure. Do they need to be? Not at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
"The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.

Literally the answer is right there in the sentence.

A Psyker can only cast a number of spells equal to their Mastery Level.

It is right there for you and literally has no other way of being read, that is simple English dude. Hence why that topic turned into utter garbage and was locked.

Wrong!

Try again.

The problem is they try to sound "nice" in their writing, it is to read like entertainment or a "friend" explaining the rules to you.

Clear, concise writing reads like a manual and would make a great sleep aid.

I write procedures, work instructions standards and most people would not like to read them on their social time.

This is the distinction, what hamstrings GW is trying to appeal to the masses. The incredibly clear rules of old I was used to, read like an instruction for doing your taxes but very few rules arguments occurred.

For example: "you could" vs. "you shall", "you may re-roll" vs. "choose to re-roll or not", "you automatically fail a leadership check, no need to roll" vs "You automatically fall back, no leadership check" (so I do not get a leadership check or do I? Commissar wants to shoot someone).

Examples of wording in the interest of not being too dry makes for a hard time with rules as written interpretations.

I think if I was them (always good form to suggest a solution) would be to put a box around the key rule with the most brutally direct "commandment" (editors and play testers: have at it!, authors: "kill your darlings") of the rule and anything outside of the box to explain it, give examples and to be all friendly but make it clear that anything outside of that rule is just support.

 azreal13 wrote:
"The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.

Does the 7th Edition rule book actually say that? That could be game changing. If I knew what it meant.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

That is patently and objectively false (not to mean insulting) and since you claim to be an English teacher, you really should know better!

Even if we were just talking about normal prose, the varying interpretations that could arise from reading would be perfectly normal and neither the writer or the reader would be at fault, but when we are talking about rules manuals then the principles of Technical Writing should be applied and in that case, if several interpretations arise from the same instruction, then the fault truly is on the writer's side (especially when we are talking about such comparatively trivial matters as rules mechanics for a game).

You do understand what Technical Writing is and how it should be applied to things like rules manuals, right?

 xole wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
"The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.

Does the 7th Edition rule book actually say that? That could be game changing. If I knew what it meant.

It does and literally has no other interpretation.

But here, let's conduct an experiment where we analyze the words being used and what they mean to a person. I have went ahead and conducted this experiment multiple times so I already know the result.

Go find someone who has never played Warhammer, or any other miniature game.

Have them read Azrael's sentence and have them tell you what they think it means.

It's the control group of the experiment to analyze clarity of words so it would be entirely reliable, whereas anything between players on forums is going to be a senseless argument.

As an author my editor tells me all the time that if someone has a problem with my writing (misinterpretation, not clear) it's always the author's fault. And it's true in the vast majority of cases. It's my job as a writer to be clear and concise.

If people are misinterpreting the rules, it's GW's fault.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

That is patently and objectively false (not to mean insulting) and since you claim to be an English teacher, you really should know better!

Even if we were just talking about normal prose, the varying interpretations that could arise from reading would be perfectly normal and neither the writer or the reader would be at fault, but when we are talking about rules manuals then the principles of Technical Writing should be applied and in that case, if several interpretations arise from the same instruction, then the fault truly is on the writer's side (especially when we are talking about such comparatively trivial matters as rules mechanics for a game).

You do understand what Technical Writing is and how it should be applied to things like rules manuals, right?

Did you know that in the California Driver's Manual, there is a specific law telling you that you cannot shoot a gun out of your car window at stop signs?

Do people really need to be told not to do something like this when shooting a gun out of your car window is already illegal?

Common sense tells you that shooting a gun out of a car window is not only a stupid idea but an illegal one, yet people do it anyway so they had to put in a law specifically telling people something obvious.

I completely understand Technical Writing in its application to rule manuals, as well as for laws and instructions. Yet I'm willing to bet that the majority of the average joe citizens, if they were to ever read a law book, wouldn't understand a single thing being said. Even though the words are things they would commonly use or hear.

So is the problem the laws being written or is the problem with the person who simply cannot understand what they are reading? It may not be a polite thing to say, telling people they cannot understand something, but when it's true, it's true. I've flat out told parents of some of the kids I teach that their children sometimes have no understanding of simple English and while harsh, it's completely true. We speak the language all the time, but really, how many people actually understand what they are saying? A lot less than you'd think.

We're not talking about legal writing, but an instruction manual for a game. It should be clear and precise.

I admit, I don't know what's vague about the psyker quote. It does read to me like "you can cast X many powers per turn" where X is equal to your mastery level.

 MWHistorian wrote:
As an author my editor tells me all the time that if someone has a problem with your writing (misinterpretation, not clear) it's always the author's fault. And it's true in the vast majority of cases. It's my job as a writer to be clear and concise.

If people are misinterpreting the rules, it's GW's fault.

What do you write? Fiction or non-fiction, from there, what sub-genres and topics do you focus on as it changes depending on what you are writing. For instance, Science Fiction can be written to leave misinterpretation and this is just fine. People often mislead in Auto-Biographies which are heralded as non-fiction works when everyone knows that the subject of the Auto-Biography is going to paint themselves in the best light possible.

Also, you've stated you've been published before. What, may I ask, have you published? I would honestly love to read some of the things you've wrote, if you are published I mean.

When you write something, you have a meaning, an intent inside your mind when writing it. If someone misinterprets what you right, it isn't your fault, they simply lack the understanding you had when you wrote it.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Did you know that in the California Driver's Manual, there is a specific law telling you that you cannot shoot a gun out of your car window at stop signs?

Do people really need to be told not to do something like this when shooting a gun out of your car window is already illegal?

Common sense tells you that shooting a gun out of a car window is not only a stupid idea but an illegal one, yet people do it anyway so they had to put in a law specifically telling people something obvious.

I completely understand Technical Writing in its application to rule manuals, as well as for laws and instructions. Yet I'm willing to bet that the majority of the average joe citizens, if they were to ever read a law book, wouldn't understand a single thing being said. Even though the words are things they would commonly use or hear.

And I wager this is because someone, at one point, tried to argue a loophole in the law, hence why it was clarified. An extreme example, but one that illustrates why clarity is a good thing.

 MWHistorian wrote:
We're not talking about legal writing, but an instruction manual for a game. It should be clear and precise.

There isn't much difference between rule writing and law writing. Case in point, look through MtG comprehensive rule book, it reads like a law book.

You are talking about instruction manual writing, I am talking about understanding the words and the meaning of those words, how they are used and how they read to people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:


And I wager this is because someone, at one point, tried to argue a loophole in the law, hence why it was clarified. An extreme example, but one that illustrates why clarity is a good thing.

Agreed, but also a clear illustration of a lack in the comprehension skills of the reader as well as their own common sense.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 xole wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
"The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.

Does the 7th Edition rule book actually say that? That could be game changing. If I knew what it meant.

It does and literally has no other interpretation.

But here, let's conduct an experiment where we analyze the words being used and what they mean to a person. I have went ahead and conducted this experiment multiple times so I already know the result.

Go find someone who has never played Warhammer, or any other miniature game.

Have them read Azrael's sentence and have them tell you what they think it means.

It's the control group of the experiment to analyze clarity of words so it would be entirely reliable, whereas anything between players on forums is going to be a senseless argument.

Yet again, you're confusing RAW, RAI and HIWPI. There was another user that posted all over the boards recently had the same issues.

Yes, the logical assumption is that the dependency is a 1:1 correlation. But nowhere is this explicitly defined. Therefore, I am free to make the assumption that the correlation is 3:1, or hell, if I was a Dark Eldar or Necrons player 1:3, and there is nothing in the rulebook that contradicts my interpretation.

You can argue that it isn't logical to do so, but then we're moving into the subjective, if I genuinely read it that way, where does it say I'm wrong?

Now if it was written...

"The number of powers a Psyker may attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."

Then we'd have no argument.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I admit, I don't know what's vague about the psyker quote. It does read to me like "you can cast X many powers per turn" where X is equal to your mastery level.

It's because there isn't anything vague with it. The individuals in that thread in question were looking for issues with the wording, and everyone knows that when you go around looking for problems, you're going to find them. But that doesn't always mean there is one.

The OP in that topic asked a cut and dry question and got numerous answers based on what was written and simple analysis. A handful, really the exact same 3 people who always argue rule interpretations fought vehemently to point out vagueness where there was none, the topic was then locked.

 azreal13 wrote:
Now if it was written...

"The number of powers a Psyker may attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."

Then we'd have no argument.

Oh ho ho I get it. "Dependent on" is not the same thing as "equal to", just that it's based on their mastery level, but that could indicate a missing chart or something, or some formula, etc.

A very subtle difference, but a difference. TFG could argue that "dependent on" means something else, and technically they would be right because the rules don't clarify what "dependent on" actually means.

text removed.


Reds8n