Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:24:02
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Lobomalo wrote: azreal13 wrote: 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. You keep insisting I am someone else, you're wrong, stop embarrassing yourself. Look up the word Dependent in a dictionary, all of its definitions. Examples in other sentences, hell, ask an English professor because you obviously have no understanding of what you are reading. de·pend·ent [dih-pen-duhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. relying on someone or something else for aid, support, etc. 2. conditioned or determined by something else; contingent: Our trip is dependent on the weather. 3. subordinate; subject: a dependent territory. 4. Grammar . not used in isolation; used only in connection with other forms. In I walked out when the bell rang, when the bell rang is a dependent clause. Compare independent ( def 14 ) , main1 ( def 4 ) . 5. hanging down; pendent.
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted. Now don't get me wrong this seems like a silly conflict as obviously the intention is equality, BUT I can see where there would be a disagreement because of the fundamental difference between RAW and RAI.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/23 16:25:20
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:24:18
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Lobomalo wrote:
Then I was right and the reason why you find vagueness in the rules is your own understanding of the words presented in front of you.
No, we actually have concluded the same thing, that one ML = one attempt! the issue you're not grasping is we've made an assumption that is not supported anywhere in the rulebook, and that's a hole a rules lawyer could drive a bus through.
You literally have done nothing but insult my intelligence and called me naive. So, start producing facts, or go away. Until then, you literally have nothing worth reading.
Really? You've fallen back into ad Homs already?
GW may have stated that their target audience is teenage boys, but that is literally not the player base that has embraced the game. Not only do they not have the budget for the game but they lack the time needed to play, hence why everywhere I play, every video I watch, the majority of people I talk to online about the game, are all adults.
Citation needed, I take quite an interest in the business side of GW, as it dovetails with my academic and professional background, and I haven't seen anything that breaks down the demographic of their customer base.
Couldn't be another assumption could it?
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:25:15
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
WayneTheGame wrote:
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
|
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:26:30
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Lobomalo wrote:WayneTheGame wrote: #2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted. Determined by something else. That would be the ML Yes, I'm not arguing that, I'm stating it does not say HOW the ML affects it. There is nothing beyond assumption to indicate anything about equality, just that the ML affects the number of powers, but it doesn't state in what way. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that it's on a 1:1 basis. It could be two powers for every ML (which would still be wrong because it doesn't state a number, but I digress).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/23 16:27:33
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:26:54
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Lobomalo wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
Another assumption.
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:26:59
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
azreal13 wrote:
Citation needed, I take quite an interest in the business side of GW, as it dovetails with my academic and professional background, and I haven't seen anything that breaks down the demographic of their customer base.
Couldn't be another assumption could it?
Personal experience, eye-witness testimony, simple understanding of money vs interest
Automatically Appended Next Post: azreal13 wrote: Lobomalo wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
Another assumption.
No that is literal meaning. It's part of the definition.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/23 16:27:22
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:28:16
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
azreal13 wrote: Lobomalo wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
Another assumption.
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:29:50
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
WayneTheGame wrote:
Yes, I'm not arguing that, I'm stating it does not say HOW the ML affects it. There is nothing beyond assumption to indicate anything about equality, just that the ML affects the number of powers, but it doesn't state in what way. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that it's on a 1:1 basis. It could be two powers for every ML (which would still be wrong because it doesn't state a number, but I digress).
There is the crux of the issue. Some people, looking for issues with the rules, find one by exploiting loop holes and perceived issues in definitions and word usage. If you poke hard enough at any rule, you can flat out break it in half, especially when you are picking and choosing definitions, blatantly ignoring how the sentence itself reads and means, which is what happened in that thread and many others. One of which is ongoing right now which I find really hilarious.
|
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:30:00
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Lobomalo wrote: azreal13 wrote:
Citation needed, I take quite an interest in the business side of GW, as it dovetails with my academic and professional background, and I haven't seen anything that breaks down the demographic of their customer base.
Couldn't be another assumption could it?
Personal experience, eye-witness testimony, simple understanding of money vs interest
Right, so nothing with any real merit.
azreal13 wrote: Lobomalo wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
Another assumption.
No that is literal meaning. It's part of the definition.
Dependent literally means equal to? That definition you quoted didn't mention that!!
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:30:30
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
The number needed for a to hit roll is dependent upon the BS of the shooting model. Is that true, or false?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/23 16:31:02
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:30:40
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
WayneTheGame wrote:
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
Not specifically written to accommodate those individuals who insist on having everything spelled out for them, not poor rules.
|
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:32:15
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
PP really, really should provide bases with molded facing markers! They do that for huge bases already, now do that for small, medium and big too!
|
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:33:10
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
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. I suggest you ask some people who have a scientific background. Saying there is a relationship between two variables is useless if you don't also specify the form of that relationship. It could be linear, exponential, logarithmic etc. For example my interpretation could be that the number of powers increases exponentially as mastery level increases. This satisfies all the requirements set out in the rule and is also common sense as many, many things in the world have an exponential relationship. Powers cast = e^(mastery level) (rounding fractions down) See the problem now?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/23 16:34:45
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:33:48
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
text removed.
Reds8n
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/23 17:11:46
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:35:17
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
A Town Called Malus wrote:For example my interpretation could be that the number of powers increases exponentially as mastery level increases. This satisfies all the requirements set out in the rule and is also common sense as many, many things in the world have an exponential relationship.
Powers cast = e^(mastery level) (rounding fractions down)
My interpretation is that is works like BS. So, if you are mastery level 1, you get 6 powers. If you are mastery level 4, you have 3 powers. If you are mastery level 6, you get 2 powers, but if you do not like them, you can reroll 6 powers instead.
|
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:37:58
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
Lobomalo wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
Not specifically written to accommodate those individuals who insist on having everything spelled out for them, not poor rules.
As someone who studies a subject where clarity and fact is everything, you're wrong.
In a scientific paper written for fellow experts you would still not leave anything to "common sense". They should be able to read your paper and reproduce your experiment with absolutely no variation on your own method. If one thing is different, even the material your thermometer is made out of, the results could be very different.
Rules writing should be the same.
|
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:41:46
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
A Town Called Malus wrote:
I suggest you ask some people who have a scientific background. Saying there is a relationship between two variables is useless if you don't also specify the form of that relationship. It could be linear, exponential, logarithmic etc.
Would two Chemists and a Biologist work? Can have their answers by the end of the day. Could also ask some historians, a P.E. teacher and a handful of random people, hell I'll ask a janitor for you if you like.
The thing is, I can poll a million people, get a million answers supporting my argument and people on this forum would still disagree because it still wouldn't be something written specific enough for them, that is the part of the problem, this need to have everything spelled out for them.
|
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:43:21
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Yes, because the logical and reasonable interpretation isn't in question.
What is in question is the wooly writing that leaves room for any doubt.
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:43:48
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
A Town Called Malus wrote: Lobomalo wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
Not specifically written to accommodate those individuals who insist on having everything spelled out for them, not poor rules.
As someone who studies a subject where clarity and fact is everything, you're wrong.
In a scientific paper written for fellow experts you would still not leave anything to "common sense". They should be able to read your paper and reproduce your experiment with absolutely no variation on your own method. If one thing is different, even the material your thermometer is made out of, the results could be very different.
Rules writing should be the same.
Have you ever read or written a scientific paper? Because there are things flat out not mentioned when it is reviewed by other within the community because the underlying mechanics and theories are already widely known. Though admittedly I am not a professional scientist, I do on occasion read the new and exciting papers published in journals as it keeps me updated as to what is going on out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote:Yes, because the logical and reasonable interpretation isn't in question.
What is in question is the wooly writing that leaves room for any doubt.
Honestly there is no doubt until people start looking for loop holes and issues within the rules themselves.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/23 17:12:55
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:48:14
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Lobomalo wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:
I suggest you ask some people who have a scientific background. Saying there is a relationship between two variables is useless if you don't also specify the form of that relationship. It could be linear, exponential, logarithmic etc.
Would two Chemists and a Biologist work? Can have their answers by the end of the day. Could also ask some historians, a P.E. teacher and a handful of random people, hell I'll ask a janitor for you if you like.
You had previously mentioned one argument fallacy, I'd like to bring up appeal to popularity and appeal to authority.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:49:35
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
We've offered plenty of proof, you just automatically dismiss it.
|
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:49:40
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Lobomalo wrote:For example, Warmachine models, Retribution specifically as this is what I've been working on, the bulk units are actually more expensive than the bulk models of 40k products. I have to search online for places who offer discounts to find something less than $40 bucks.
The difference here is that each of those goes much longer than GW, and represents a bigger part of your army. $50 for a unit that you need one of is one thing, $50 for a unit when you need 2-3 is totally different, and over on the WHFB side of things $50 when you need two boxes just to make a single unit is even worse.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:50:52
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
Lobomalo wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: Lobomalo wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
Not specifically written to accommodate those individuals who insist on having everything spelled out for them, not poor rules.
As someone who studies a subject where clarity and fact is everything, you're wrong.
In a scientific paper written for fellow experts you would still not leave anything to "common sense". They should be able to read your paper and reproduce your experiment with absolutely no variation on your own method. If one thing is different, even the material your thermometer is made out of, the results could be very different.
Rules writing should be the same.
Have you ever read or written a scientific paper? Because there are things flat out not mentioned when it is reviewed by other within the community because the underlying mechanics and theories are already widely known. Though admittedly I am not a professional scientist, I do on occasion read the new and exciting papers published in journals as it keeps me updated as to what is going on out there.
Wait, wait, you call out Malus for not being a professional, then go on to state that you're not one either? That's... a new one.
Malus is 100% correct, by the way.
|
Pretre: OOOOHHHHH snap. That's like driving away from hitting a pedestrian.
Pacific:First person to Photoshop a GW store into the streets of Kabul wins the thread.
Selym: "Be true to thyself, play Chaos" - Jesus, Daemon Prince of Cegorach.
H.B.M.C: You can't lobotomise someone twice. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:52:17
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
Lobomalo, you did not answer that :
|
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:54:13
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
Lobomalo wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: Lobomalo wrote:WayneTheGame wrote: Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules. Not specifically written to accommodate those individuals who insist on having everything spelled out for them, not poor rules. As someone who studies a subject where clarity and fact is everything, you're wrong. In a scientific paper written for fellow experts you would still not leave anything to "common sense". They should be able to read your paper and reproduce your experiment with absolutely no variation on your own method. If one thing is different, even the material your thermometer is made out of, the results could be very different. Rules writing should be the same. Have you ever read or written a scientific paper? Because there are things flat out not mentioned when it is reviewed by other within the community because the underlying mechanics and theories are already widely known. Though admittedly I am not a professional scientist, I do on occasion read the new and exciting papers published in journals as it keeps me updated as to what is going on out there. Yes, I have read papers. I haven't published one yet as I have only just finished my proper first year (I did a foundation year last year as I'd been out of education for a while working). However within those two years I have had 2 modules dedicated to writing papers with the scientific rigour required to get published and maintaining a properly detailed lab book with which any of the experiments I carried out over those two years can be recreated entirely from the notes I made when doing them. You are right that you need not quote every theory as you can assume basic scientific knowledge (however you must still reference them) but when it comes to actually recreating the experiment, there must be no detail left out as to the steps taken to recreate the result. So I guess a rulebook for a wargame would be more akin to a lab report. It tells you what you need and exactly how to do it to get the result that the writer got. So in a well written game we should be able to read the rules and then, using only what is written in the rules, play the game exactly as the person who wrote the rules did.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/06/23 17:23:07
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 16:56:19
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
Beside we have all those software dedicated to bibliography for a reason. What is not in the paper is in its references.
|
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 17:02:31
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Beside we have all those software dedicated to bibliography for a reason. What is not in the paper is in its references.
Same for history papers. Clarity and source material is a must.
Here's an example I wrote a while ago.
http://minimumwagehistorian.com/essay-about-the-carlisle-indian-industrial-school/
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/23 17:04:11
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 17:04:14
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Tea-Kettle of Blood
|
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.
Cool story and I'm willing to bet that that law was introduced there because there was some weird interaction with another law that stated that the inside of your car was your own personal property and you could do whatever you wanted there.
Now what does this very cool story has to do with rules for a game?
Lobomalo wrote:
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.
Laws aren't written using the exact same principals of technical writing, they are written using a different subset called legal writing that due to its archaic expressions and citation system makes it very hard to understand to a layman, that is why you generally need a law degree to read and interpret them accurately.
If something is written using technical writing, there really can't be any cause for open interpretation and its the author's fault if any such confusion arises.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 17:11:45
Subject: Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
Lobomalo wrote:Have you ever read or written a scientific paper? Because there are things flat out not mentioned when it is reviewed by other within the community because the underlying mechanics and theories are already widely known. Though admittedly I am not a professional scientist, I do on occasion read the new and exciting papers published in journals as it keeps me updated as to what is going on out there.
I have written peer reviewed and published scientific papers and you're wrong. Even if it's something that's widely known, you still state it and/or reference it. You might say "applying blah blah from whotsesname" and then not explain what blah blah is, but you'll still reference it. The only time you might not is when it's something that is within itself already well defined, like "applying Newton's second law", because Newton's second law is a well defined thing in and of itself that you can look up in any old text book, it doesn't need to be explained.
However, "dependence" does not in and of itself imply equality, in fact, I'd say it is less likely to imply equality than not. If I were writing a scientific paper and used the phrase "X depends on Y" I'd most certainly explain the dependence, either with some sort of function or if the dependence has no obvious function, I'll explain the nature of the dependence.
When I read that rule, my first thought isn't "casting powers is dependent on mastery level, cool, that means they're equal", my first thought is "err, where's the rest of the paragraph which describes the dependence".
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/23 17:13:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/23 17:14:02
Subject: Re:Sometimes, I feel GW can't win
|
 |
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego
|
If you cannot post without attacking or insulting another poster then it's better you do not post at all.
|
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king, |
|
 |
 |
|