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.
I am following the rules, I am neither being rude nor am I insulting anyone.
Dismissing opinions that differ from your own as 'whining' is rude. Hence my reference to Dakka's Rule #1. This is not a negotiation - If you can't follow the rules of the site, then your ability to post on the site will be removed.
I am observing a series of behaviors and pointing out my observations. But you see this as me being negative,...
No, I see it as you being rude.
You can be as negative as you want, so long as it is on-topic and polite.
Isn't you job to help remove negative things from the forums?
No. My 'job' here is to make sure everyone follows the rules. A job that should be largely uneccessary, since we're theoretically a bunch of adults (or near-adults) just here to talk about our toy soldiers. One would think that it should be uneccessary to constantly have to remind such people to not be rude to each other.
Posts aren't removed because they are contradicting someone who is being negative. They're removed because they break the rules, or continue a side-track that disrupts the thread. The opinions of the poster have nothing to do with the decision to remove a post - it's how those opinions are presented that matters.
Also. Don't threaten me dude. I understand that I am on an internet forum, you should understand that as well, show respect for people, even if they disagree with you and call you out on your crap.
There was no threat. There was a simple statement that your behaviour determines whether or not you will continue to post on these forums.
We're all here to talk about our hobby. If you can't do that in a civil fashion in the face of people having a different opinion to your own, then maybe this platform of discussion just isn't right for you.
If you really feel the need to argue that further, I would suggest that you take it to PM rather than continuing to drag this thread off-topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously, folks, if you have anything further to add to the actual topic, feel free. Otherwise, please refrain from further derailing the thread, as any such posts will be removed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/27 05:56:49
Unit1126PLL wrote: Alright everyone, lemme preface this by saying that I recognize that there are some very valid issues with Games Workshop, which need addressing sooner rather than later.
That said, I've seen quite a few things lately:
1) I've seen people complaining that the faster pace of updated rules is so bad that they cannot possibly keep up:
WarOne wrote: I simply cannot keep up with their update schedule and what I want to buy.
2) Alongside people saying that GW should update their rules faster:
morgoth wrote: It may have made sense back then though, because GW didn't have any possibility to update the rules easily.
I think it's different now, because they could make the rules available for free and update them frequently without any problems arising other than "What version of the rules are you playing ?".
3) I'd say updating of the codices could be faster. Not to fast mind you, but fast enough to be at least an edition behind. Ork codex should have been out a while ago, not this month. BA codex coming this year would be great.
Also, it's about time to turn everything into digital, no more books at all, people should get with the times.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
Lobomalo wrote: 3) I'd say updating of the codices could be faster. Not to fast mind you, but fast enough to be at least an edition behind. Ork codex should have been out a while ago, not this month. BA codex coming this year would be great.
That's definitely WHY I wanted to see faster codex releases. The flip side (which is why GW isn't "winning") is because the quality of the recent codices has been pretty average to the point where people are suggesting just continuing to play with older versions of their codices.
Also, it's about time to turn everything into digital, no more books at all, people should get with the times.
Not really, books are still very popular with the nerdy type and to disregard that would be folly. I'm not against digital, but we're not at the point where digital is a replacement to print, it's simply a supplement to it. Also, as long as "everything digital" doesn't equal "everything ipad" I have less problems with it. The non-ipad ebook versions GW have been putting out are terrible. The ipad versions look fine from what I've seen, but not everyone owns nor wants to buy an ipad.
There's plenty of articles out there showing digital book sales have started losing ground to print. Many people like to read a printed book over reading a tablet screen, simple as that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 06:16:01
Lobomalo wrote: 3) I'd say updating of the codices could be faster. Not to fast mind you, but fast enough to be at least an edition behind. Ork codex should have been out a while ago, not this month. BA codex coming this year would be great.
That's definitely WHY I wanted to see faster codex releases. The flip side (which is why GW isn't "winning") is because the quality of the recent codices has been pretty average to the point where people are suggesting just continuing to play with older versions of their codices.
Also, it's about time to turn everything into digital, no more books at all, people should get with the times.
Not really, books are still very popular with the nerdy type and to disregard that would be folly. I'm not against digital, but we're not at the point where digital is a replacement to print, it's simply a supplement to it. Also, as long as "everything digital" doesn't equal "everything ipad" I have less problems with it. The non-ipad ebook versions GW have been putting out are terrible. The ipad versions look fine from what I've seen, but not everyone owns nor wants to buy an ipad.
There's plenty of articles out there showing digital book sales have started losing ground to print. Many people like to read a printed book over reading a tablet screen, simple as that.
Not all Ipad, but definitely digital. A friend of mine works for the City library where he is at and they have him looking into a fully digital library and seeing how they are run, pros and cons and the like. While full digital according to what he's found is acceptable for the younger generation i.e., millennials, the older, more traditional people favor books. But the ground is shifting towards digital on a daily basis and its only a matter of time before everything is digital. Much more convenient tbh and, besides being too poor to own one of the devices, in this day and age, at least in America, there is no excuse for not having a computer or other digital device capable of reading digital media.
I figure that last line will be an issue for some, but honestly, its a reality. Gone are the days when people could get away with not being tech savvy, holding onto outdated technology. Literally, in the modern era, it's keep up or be left behind and while I love the traditional book and pen and paper approach, the convenience of digital is appealing as I tend to be on the go a lot more now than I was when I was younger.
Also, not sure where your data is from but digital sales for books have been steadily climbing, so much so that companies have increased the prices schools and libraries need to pay to even borrow e-books from publishers. If sales were going down, money would drop. If anything, audiobooks are taking center stage moreso than e-books
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 06:40:06
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
Orktavius wrote: If GW wrote rules like that the rulebook would make the collected volumes of the encyclopedia britanica look like a god damn kids coloring book by size comparison. I get it, drones don't have 'eyes' and so you feel the need to be a dick and say they can't shoot. That's doesn't say anything about the rules GW wrote, that says more about you (I realize your likely not actually making such arguments so don't be defensive it's an example) Frankly the idea that GW could write rules for every codex and edition that perfectly mesh with each other with no hiccups or problems while keeping all what...14 factions? unique and full of cool flavor is a joke.
MTG has way more potential combinations and interactions than 40k. MTG does not have any rule issues. Please stop repeating this claim that GW can't make a functioning game without an unreasonable rulebook length, because it has been thoroughly disproved by other games that do the "impossible".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orktavius wrote: Magic? You mean the game that had to ban common lands in a block because they were to powerful? The game that's 100% entirely unbalanced unless they ban or restrict massive swathes of cards in every format they run in order for the game not to implode from the sheer brokeness?
Current banned list for standard: {empty space}. And this is hardly an exception to the rule, even "broken" standard metagames haven't led to bans on more than one or two cards. Older formats do have longer banned lists but those bans are heavily concentrated on the very oldest sets, from before anyone understood the game well enough to avoid balance issues. If you banned all 40k units/options that have a similar level of balance problems you'd have a much longer banned list relative to the total number of cards/units/etc. The only reason 40k is able to avoid having a banned list is that GW doesn't care about publishing a good game and expects the players to voluntarily ban themselves from abusing any of their balance mistakes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/27 06:50:08
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Lobomalo wrote: Things become problems for people when people allow things to become problems to them. Handle things better, no problems. Learn to adapt, no problems. I understand that there are issues in the game, but I also know that there has been for a very long time. If this game lasts another 20 years I guarantee there will be problems with that edition as well. But seriously, what are you going to do to solve the problem. A legitimate question that has yet to be answered by anyone sufficiently enough.
And how should I handle things better?
Should I refuse to buy the BRB and have my 2000 euro collection sit around collecting dust because everyone moved on to seventh edition?
Or should I pirate the rules and bring my print-out to a store? I'm sure they'd love that! I'm sure this forum would love it if I advocated piracy.
KommissarKarl wrote: Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to? Which dog is it? What do you mean by "brown"? How do you know it's a dog? How do you know that you and I have the same meaning of dog?
Really? Really?
Let's get back to the actual discussion:
'The dog is brown' is clear enough.
"The colour of the dog is dependent on chocolate" however is NOT clear.
Klerych wrote: But the Tau gun drones have that glaring eye-like optical sensor under their trashcan cover plate in the front part of the model..!
*looks at gun drone model*
Nope. There is nothing that is even close to obviously being an eye/optical sensor/etc. If your defense for your house rule not being a house rule consists of "you can find some random vaguely roundish bit and call it an eye" then you're really getting desperate. Just admit the obvious, the rule as-written is broken and requires house rules to fix it.
You dense.. hah, just kidding. You're a stubborn 'un, huh?
Are you saying that you can't see the glaring frickin' red optical sensor under the dish on the gun drones..?
It's right under their armoured plate. You can see the red edge of the lenses under it's front.
Another great examples.
And guess what, it's exactly where are the optical sensors on all other Tau drones! Just smaller!
And finally..
Tell me I'm still doing some house rule on that and I'll lose all my hope in reason on Dakka.
Klerych wrote: Tell me I'm still doing some house rule on that and I'll lose all my hope in reason on Dakka.
Some TFG could claim they don't have eyes and he'd be 100% right that they cannot draw LoS.
In that case the tournament/playgroup would have to quickly house-rule it to actually work.
A well spent 100 euro!
lastly, haven't played warmachine/hordes, despite what people keep telling me everytime I price up a list I see online to get a feel for it I seem to be paying $400 for less then 20 models.....
Care to share that list that has less than 20 models and costs 400$ with the rest of the class? Just so we know that you aren't just making things up to try and prove a point, of course.
and I have issue with a game that requires you to take 2 damn lists so your opponent can avoid the one they'll never beat "balanced"
The game doesn't require 2 lists so your opponent can avoid the one they'll never beat, that is patently false. I could go on and explain to you what the 2 list format accomplishes in the WMH meta, but that would be the what? 3rd time that someone explained this to you, so at this point its pretty pointless, since you'll obviously just continue spouting your views about something that you obviously know nothing and apparently have no interest in learning about...
Klerych wrote: Tell me I'm still doing some house rule on that and I'll lose all my hope in reason on Dakka.
Some TFG could claim they don't have eyes and he'd be 100% right that they cannot draw LoS.
In that case the tournament/playgroup would have to quickly house-rule it to actually work.
A well spent 100 euro!
Merrily enough TFG would be treated with contempt by the whole community and he'd later feel very.. unwelcome unless he changed his TFGy attitude where I live. Here people have balls and act like grownups that can take care of those that ruin the fun for others by constant arguing. In fact if someone says, at the tourney here, that "optical sensors" aren't "eyes" and that the rule doesn't apply, he'd be laughed at even by the referees and told to stop being stupid. If he'd keep arguing he could even get penalty points for ruining the fun for others. In case of extreme TFGism he'd just get banned and every group in my city would know better than to play with him. Point is - you can't be a TFG and expect people to stand your behaviour for too long.
Klerych wrote: Are you saying that you can't see the glaring frickin' red optical sensor under the dish on the gun drones..?
The fact that some people choose to paint a random vaguely roundish blob as a lens does not make it an obvious optical sensor. When I was painting my own drones I just assumed it was part of the random detail, since it looks nothing like an eye/lens/etc. I didn't even think about the possibility of it being a point to draw LOS from until it was mentioned in this thread. And apparently neither did a lot of other people, since a quick search for gun drone pictures turns up some nicely painted models with no lens effects on the supposed "eye".
(And yes, I still drew LOS from my drones, we just house ruled it to be from somewhere approximately in the center of the model.)
And guess what, it's exactly where are the optical sensors on all other Tau drones! Just smaller!
No, it's not the same at all. I have a Remora sitting on my desk here and it has obvious sharply defined lenses (which, while they aren't eyes and therefore can't be used to draw LOS, at least provide a useful starting point for a house rule). The gun drone, on the other hand, has a vaguely roundish blob that looks nothing like the Remora's lenses.
Tell me I'm still doing some house rule on that and I'll lose all my hope in reason on Dakka.
Is it an eye? No. Are you drawing LOS from it? Yes. This makes it indisputably a house rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klerych wrote: In fact if someone says, at the tourney here, that "optical sensors" aren't "eyes" and that the rule doesn't apply, he'd be laughed at even by the referees and told to stop being stupid. If he'd keep arguing he could even get penalty points for ruining the fun for others. In case of extreme TFGism he'd just get banned and every group in my city would know better than to play with him.
So let me get this straight: the rules are so broken that you have to resort to shunning anyone who doesn't accept your house rules if you want the game/community to function, and you're fine with this? You honestly consider this a sign of a high-quality game with clear and consistent rules?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 09:06:11
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: The fact that some people choose to paint a random vaguely roundish blob as a lens does not make it an obvious optical sensor. When I was painting my own drones I just assumed it was part of the random detail, since it looks nothing like an eye/lens/etc. I didn't even think about the possibility of it being a point to draw LOS from until it was mentioned in this thread. And apparently neither did a lot of other people, since a quick search for gun drone pictures turns up some nicely painted models with no lens effects on the supposed "eye".
But those T'au sept drones I linked are OFFICIAL GW images from GW site. You can clearly see that the lenses are painted red, even though the photos are shot at an angle. If you can't see red there, you're colourblind.
And I love how you call everything "house ruling". Because the optical sensors aren't drones' eyes. Oh well, done arguing. And no, people get shunned for being TFGs. "TFG" relates to very negative behaviour. If he insists on nitpicking about obvious stuff just because he can't comprehend that "eyes" was used figuratively in that rule and it's intent was obvious, he will be treated like any other TFG in any other community. Shunned, laughed at and overall unpleasant to interact with. Although yes, that also applies to commonly accepted house rules too. If a big community decides to use some house rule because it makes the game better for them, he is either to comply or go look for games somewhere else. Harsh, but true. If he wants to be a part of the community, he has to comply rather than ruin the fun for them and/or expect the whole group to change their established way of playing.
lastly, haven't played warmachine/hordes, despite what people keep telling me everytime I price up a list I see online to get a feel for it I seem to be paying $400 for less then 20 models.....
Care to share that list that has less than 20 models and costs 400$ with the rest of the class? Just so we know that you aren't just making things up to try and prove a point, of course.
Not sure about the model count(can't bother counting them), but I have an army that was pretty close to that.
Which nets us ~368$. Not 400 on the spot as he mentioned, but(arguably) close. Of course the colossal does the heavy lifting at that terrible price, but yeah, it's an army I play. :-) Unfortunately the prices here can be bit higher than retail ones because Privateer Press largely ignores Poland as a possible market and we only have one small retailer that imports all the 'obscure' titles.
Edit: Of course that army is 50pts, so a high price is kinda expected.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/27 09:33:14
Hang on, did I just stumble upon a conversation Re: weather or not drones don't have specific 'eyes' and as a result you cant draw line of sight....really?
You draw line of sight from any point in the weapons fire arc from the edge of the base\model, why is this a thing that drones may or may not be able to see??
Which nets us ~368$. Not 400 on the spot as he mentioned, but(arguably) close. Of course the colossal does the heavy lifting at that terrible price, but yeah, it's an army I play. :-) Unfortunately the prices here can be bit higher than retail ones because Privateer Press largely ignores Poland as a possible market and we only have one small retailer that imports all the 'obscure' titles.
Edit: Of course that army is 50pts, so a high price is kinda expected.
Not only is that army less than 400$ but it also has more than 20 models (28 to be exact, one of which is a Colossal).
I'll continue waiting on the 400$ army for 20 models.
P.S.- It might even be possible to build such an army, you just need to look for the faction with the lowest point-for-$ ratio and build an army exclusively from those models. I just wan't to know to what lengths Orktavius will go to build such a list and how it will look.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rick_1138 wrote: Hang on, did I just stumble upon a conversation Re: weather or not drones don't have specific 'eyes' and as a result you cant draw line of sight....really?
You draw line of sight from any point in the weapons fire arc from the edge of the base\model, why is this a thing that drones may or may not be able to see??
Anyway carry on.....
Yes, you did just stumble on this conversation so you might have taken a moment to better inform yourself before posting.
The discussion was about the 6th edition (and previous) rules, that specifically mentioned that LOS was drawn from the eyes of the miniature.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/27 09:59:53
Klerych wrote: But those T'au sept drones I linked are OFFICIAL GW images from GW site. You can clearly see that the lenses are painted red, even though the photos are shot at an angle. If you can't see red there, you're colourblind.
Well, sorry if I don't analyze every single detail of the GW catalog pictures before painting my models. If the vaguely roundish blob on a drone isn't obviously a lens (like it is on the Remora) then it isn't reasonable to expect that everyone will figure out that it is an optical sensor. So now you have a case of GW not only expecting you to interpret the rules to allow you to draw LOS from optical sensors, even though they didn't bother to say so in the book they published, but to obsessively look for anything that could possibly be an optical sensor, no matter how unclear it is on the actual model.
And I love how you call everything "house ruling".
Not everything, just when you play by rules which are blatantly against the ones published in the rulebook.
Because the optical sensors aren't drones' eyes.
And a car's wheels are its "legs". I don't care if they have the same function, an optical sensor is an optical sensor, not an eye. The problem here is GW's refusal to include a "or whatever a model uses to see, in the case of models without eyes", define LOS from any part of the model like in 7th, or any of various possible solutions.
If he insists on nitpicking about obvious stuff just because he can't comprehend that "eyes" was used figuratively in that rule and it's intent was obvious, he will be treated like any other TFG in any other community. Shunned, laughed at and overall unpleasant to interact with.
Except that's NOT how it works in other communities. Want to play strictly by the published rules without "interpreting" anything in a game of X-Wing/MTG/etc? Sure, have fun. In fact it's the standard way of playing the game, and everyone understands that any changes are optional house rules that you need to ask your opponent to use before the game begins and should not feel entitled to have approved. The fact that 40k has rules where following the published text is "TFG behavior" is a problem. Is it a problem that can be overcome? Sure. But that doesn't excuse GW's laughably unprofessional writing quality.
Although yes, that also applies to commonly accepted house rules too. If a big community decides to use some house rule because it makes the game better for them, he is either to comply or go look for games somewhere else. Harsh, but true. If he wants to be a part of the community, he has to comply rather than ruin the fun for them and/or expect the whole group to change their established way of playing.
Like I said, the game is broken. If you have to shun anyone who tries to play the game according to the published rules instead of the "obvious" changes that you have made to the game then something is wrong. The only question here is why you continue to defend GW's shamefully bad products.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Rick_1138 wrote: Hang on, did I just stumble upon a conversation Re: weather or not drones don't have specific 'eyes' and as a result you cant draw line of sight....really?
You draw line of sight from any point in the weapons fire arc from the edge of the base\model, why is this a thing that drones may or may not be able to see??
Anyway carry on.....
Read the whole topic. Please.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Rick_1138 wrote: Hang on, did I just stumble upon a conversation Re: weather or not drones don't have specific 'eyes' and as a result you cant draw line of sight....really?
Exactly. According to the rules GW published before 6th edition that's exactly how it works. In fact, it's even worse: it isn't just drones, any model wearing a helmet does not have eyes, which means entire armies are unable to shoot or charge. The point here is that this is such an obvious mistake with such an easy solution that allowing it to exist in the rules for decades is incredible incompetence and/or lack of concern for the quality of their games. A better company would have fixed it several editions ago, but GW just pretends the problem doesn't exist and whines about how you're supposed to "forge a narrative" and not complain about how you paid $100 for a rough draft of a rulebook.
Since then we've moved on to discussing why certain players feel compelled to defend GW's actions, instead of accepting the obvious fact that 40k's rules suck.
You draw line of sight from any point in the weapons fire arc from the edge of the base\model, why is this a thing that drones may or may not be able to see??
...
You do realize that this "rule" does not in any way resemble the actual rules of 40k, even ignoring the "eyes" issue, right? You do NOT draw LOS from the edge of the base/model, and non-vehicle models do not have fire arcs. Please don't add to the confusion by citing rules which don't exist.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Also, not sure where your data is from but digital sales for books have been steadily climbing, so much so that companies have increased the prices schools and libraries need to pay to even borrow e-books from publishers. If sales were going down, money would drop. If anything, audiobooks are taking center stage moreso than e-books
I'm on a mobile device so I can't check the efficacy of these articles, but check them out:
I definitely think digital has a place. But at least at this point it's not to entirely replace print. IMO, part of that is simply because people like to read printed books, it may sound obvious, but there are a lot of things I prefer just to flick through pages or hold a physical book than read on a tablet or PC. Has nothing to do with bring computer illiterate. There's definitely many advantages to digital (space requirements, whenever I read a text book I'm looking for the ctrl+F ), but there's also reasons people like print.
I spend a lot of time reading journal articles, I love digital for flipping through the hundreds of articles and reading abstracts, but when it comes to a big chunky article that I really want to sit down and understand it, I head straight to the "print" button and pull out my pen and highlighter. I think part of it, whether natural or engrained, comes to the brain making links to the structure of a printed text vs just words scrolling on a screen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 10:29:11
Peregrine, there is a given level of common sense that apparently was expected, and some people either lack it (and by such should probably not be allowed to leave the house, as they clearly lack the tools not to get into darwin awards) or they choose to ignore it in order to favor themselves, and as such are douches.
They fact people try to bend rather obvious common sense to their favor is nothing unique to 40k, its why we have laywers (talking about real lawyers here too, not just game rule laywers), and why people hate them. they abuse things that were written for the sake of simplicity in a way that conveys the intent, rather then every single possible scenario.
Yes they said "eyes" rather then "eyes, camera, optical sensor and/or other visual instrument..." and went on blabing for twenty pages on how you define these body parts or machines, but have they does so on every damn occasion the book would have been far longer, dragged out, and annoying to readm and even then people would have gotten OTHER loopholes, as many models got themselves secondary sensory systems who are obviously not intended as the vision tool, but are still in there. (markerlights? target locks? the SMdev cover-reducing thing? saint celestine's little angel's own eyes? bet there are a ton more)
There is NO way to write airtight rules that no dumbass interpretations can ever me made when it comes to models unless you give each and every one a clear diagram of exactly his measurements, where his "eye" area, what counts as "bling" and what is actual body, etc. (and by that moment you can't even have pose-able and customizable multi-part kits, forget about conversions and scratch builds)
You demand for the impossible, the undesirable and the irrational, and then get angry for people disagreeing with you just because nobody NEEDS that level of rule tightness.
There are enough examples of mistakes in the books of "they thought it was obvious, but its not", you really have to stick to the DUMBEST one?
Then you insist that "any competent company would have fixed it long ago", except the fact nobody ever made rules like that, because its practically pointless, and nobody (except you apparently) needs it.
And the fact you pointed to MTG as an example of "having way more rules and a good balance" is pathetic, as MTG is probably the single most unblanaced game ever, including hundreds of cases of "strictly better" (you get more for the same cost, or the same for a lower cost, without any even remote or incredibly rare disadvantage) and not only does WotC admit it, they outright said they are aware of it and that they do it on purpose.
I have already understood how you tick long ago peregrine, and the sad fact is that nothing GW will do will ever, EVER please you, even if they somehow made a masterpiece of balanced, well-knitted, versatile rules you would still be complaining over the most mundane things, because that's just what you do.
You do not enjoy the game, you do not enjoy the company, and you do not enjoy the community. you just enjoy complaining about it all.
Do us, GW and yourself a favor, and just quit.
(To any and all mods: I apologize if I went a bit out of line here, but in all honesty, the dude deserve to be put in his place, and I toned myself down quite a bit here anyway.)
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now.
BoomWolf wrote: Peregrine, there is a given level of common sense that apparently was expected, and some people either lack it (and by such should probably not be allowed to leave the house, as they clearly lack the tools not to get into darwin awards) or they choose to ignore it in order to favor themselves, and as such are douches.
And you are missing the point completely. COMMON SENSE SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED FOR THE RULES OF A GAME. That has always been the issue, not LOS specifically, not psyker powers, not if a dog is brown, the key point in all these examples is to show that rules should be clear, concise, and not up for interpretation, hence why they are RULES. It is a shoddy rule, and a shoddy rule system, that leaves rules up to interpretation even when that interpretation is entirely reasonable to be the assumed default. Hell, an assume default would have fixed the rule as well (e.g. "If a model does not have visible eyes, measure from the model's head"). The point is to illustrate how a rule that isn't clear or concise is fundamentally broken because it requires you to decide how it's actually meant to work, and then make sure that everybody else is okay with your assumption, otherwise you have a rules dispute.
Neither Peregrine nor anybody here likely actually would try to argue that a Drone, for example, has no eyes and can't draw LOS. Not only is that a jerk move, but it's pretty silly to boot. However, it illustrates the fact that technically, by the rules, it COULD NOT draw LOS because a sensor is not an eye, and the rules specifically mention "eyes". Hence, the point is to illustrate that the rule was poorly written, which it was. A better, and relevant, example is the aforementioned psychic powers. How, exactly, do you determine the number of psychic powers a psyker can cast in a turn? The rules are vague, stating that it is "dependent upon their Mastery Level" with no indication of how it's dependent - the general assumption is that it's equal, but this is not stated explicitly and therefore is not a guaranteed opinion.
There is ambiguity, therefore the rule is up to interpretation, ergo the rule is poorly written.
There is NO way to write airtight rules that no dumbass interpretations can ever me made when it comes to models unless you give each and every one a clear diagram of exactly his measurements, where his "eye" area, what counts as "bling" and what is actual body, etc. (and by that moment you can't even have pose-able and customizable multi-part kits, forget about conversions and scratch builds)
Sure there is, other games do it just fine. You start by not determining LOS from something as stupid as the "eyes" of a model. Anyways, that's not the point. The point is that other game companies, much smaller than GW (except possibly barring WotC which might be larger?), manage to write clear and concise rules without any of these problems. GW alone writes rules in a vague fashion that leaves them up to interpretation.
Which nets us ~368$. Not 400 on the spot as he mentioned, but(arguably) close. Of course the colossal does the heavy lifting at that terrible price, but yeah, it's an army I play. :-) Unfortunately the prices here can be bit higher than retail ones because Privateer Press largely ignores Poland as a possible market and we only have one small retailer that imports all the 'obscure' titles.
Edit: Of course that army is 50pts, so a high price is kinda expected.
Okay, and that's a 50 point list that includes a Stormwall that's a hefty chunk of change (also not taking into account discounts). Now price out an 1850 point 40k army and tell me how much that costs, since a 50 point WM/H list is functionally equivalent.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/27 10:50:39
BoomWolf wrote: Peregrine, there is a given level of common sense that apparently was expected, and some people either lack it (and by such should probably not be allowed to leave the house, as they clearly lack the tools not to get into darwin awards) or they choose to ignore it in order to favor themselves, and as such are douches.
Except, again, this "common sense" isn't required in other games. If you play a game of MTG you follow the published rules exactly, and there's nothing to "interpret". Every rule question can be indisputably resolved by reading the relevant section of the rules and following them. The fact that GW not only fails to meet that same standard, but proudly declares that meeting that standard is bad, is shamefully unprofessional behavior from a game company.
(Of course it's kind of understandable behavior when the company in question is obsessively focused on milking their cash cow of selling space marine starter sets to children as efficiently as possible, the only bizarre part is that GW's customers will actually defend the rules and GW's attitude of "pay us $100 for the rough draft of a rulebook".)
Yes they said "eyes" rather then "eyes, camera, optical sensor and/or other visual instrument..." and went on blabing for twenty pages on how you define these body parts or machines, but have they does so on every damn occasion the book would have been far longer, dragged out, and annoying to readm and even then people would have gotten OTHER loopholes, as many models got themselves secondary sensory systems who are obviously not intended as the vision tool, but are still in there. (markerlights? target locks? the SMdev cover-reducing thing? saint celestine's little angel's own eyes? bet there are a ton more)
Please stop repeating this claim about how difficult it would be to fix the problem. 7th edition resolved it entirely without adding more than a word or two of additional length, and even the "or other sensor" option would at least make it clear that you're supposed to use alternatives when necessary.
There is NO way to write airtight rules that no dumbass interpretations can ever me made when it comes to models unless you give each and every one a clear diagram of exactly his measurements, where his "eye" area, what counts as "bling" and what is actual body, etc. (and by that moment you can't even have pose-able and customizable multi-part kits, forget about conversions and scratch builds)
This assumes that you absolutely must have TLOS drawn from a model's eyes. A more reasonable game designer might have realized that this simply creates lots of arguments about where to draw LOS from, and most of the time the difference between drawing LOS from the eyes vs. drawing LOS from the feet is smaller than the margin of error in the ability of most players to check LOS accurately. And then that other game designer might have decided to use a different system, such as drawing LOS from the center of the model's base.
And the fact you pointed to MTG as an example of "having way more rules and a good balance" is pathetic, as MTG is probably the single most unblanaced game ever, including hundreds of cases of "strictly better" (you get more for the same cost, or the same for a lower cost, without any even remote or incredibly rare disadvantage) and not only does WotC admit it, they outright said they are aware of it and that they do it on purpose.
...
Seriously, have you ever even played MTG? The game overall has much better balance than 40k, and most of those "strictly better" cards are balanced around sealed/draft formats, something 40k doesn't have any equivalent to. Don't confuse deliberate balance choices involving weak cards to make sealed/draft work properly with the inability to make a balanced game. WOTC makes things that don't fit the balance standards of a tabletop wargame as part of a deliberate balance process to make their card game work. GW makes things that don't fit the balance standards of a tabletop wargame because they don't care about balance and/or are too incompetent to do any better.
I have already understood how you tick long ago peregrine, and the sad fact is that nothing GW will do will ever, EVER please you, even if they somehow made a masterpiece of balanced, well-knitted, versatile rules you would still be complaining over the most mundane things, because that's just what you do.
Nice personal attack, but no. I'd be quite happy if GW made a good game, and I would praise it. Check my comments about X-Wing (the other main game I play), where I will gladly say that things are done well. The only reason I always criticize GW and 40k is that the rules for 40k are unbelievably bad and have nothing worth praising. It's just unfortunate that there is no realistic hope of this changing until GW goes bankrupt and the IP is bought by a better company.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 10:49:06
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Well, sorry if I don't analyze every single detail of the GW catalog pictures before painting my models. If the vaguely roundish blob on a drone isn't obviously a lens (like it is on the Remora) then it isn't reasonable to expect that everyone will figure out that it is an optical sensor. So now you have a case of GW not only expecting you to interpret the rules to allow you to draw LOS from optical sensors, even though they didn't bother to say so in the book they published, but to obsessively look for anything that could possibly be an optical sensor, no matter how unclear it is on the actual model.
Still, I'm right and you know it. You can feel somewhat excused because of the optical sensor not being explicitly stated to be said optical sensor, but it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong there, mate. I'm slowly starting to think that you're too stubborn to admit that you might've been wrong and someone you argued with might be right. I'm not saying that to bash you or something, I respect you like any other person. It's just that it's nice to admit that someone else is right when he proves it in an argument.
Except that's NOT how it works in other communities. Want to play strictly by the published rules without "interpreting" anything in a game of X-Wing/MTG/etc? Sure, have fun. In fact it's the standard way of playing the game, and everyone understands that any changes are optional house rules that you need to ask your opponent to use before the game begins and should not feel entitled to have approved. The fact that 40k has rules where following the published text is "TFG behavior" is a problem. Is it a problem that can be overcome? Sure. But that doesn't excuse GW's laughably unprofessional writing quality.
Okay, let me make it clear - I never said that, one - GW is excused for their often poor wording, two - that I mean explicitly playing "rules as written" as being TFG behaviour. My example of people having to either adjust to the community they want to join or scram because it's not their place was that of a perfectly spherical community(of any sort, not just wargaming) in perfect vacuum. What I said wasn't related to RAW or any other rules. If your nearby boxing group had a different rule than one in the "regular" boxing ruleset, a potential new member would have to either comply or go away. If local poker group had some special rule that is different from official poker rules a new player would have to either comply or scram. That was my point. It had nothing to do with GW, RAW, wording or any particular case mentioned in this thread. Just basics of functioning in the society. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough in the first place.
Like I said, the game is broken. If you have to shun anyone who tries to play the game according to the published rules instead of the "obvious" changes that you have made to the game then something is wrong. The only question here is why you continue to defend GW's shamefully bad products.
Well.. saying that the game is broken is really, really silly. It's still -totally- playable and lots of people have fun with it, so yeah, exaggerating much. And I don't really get why are you claiming that I'm defending GW's "shamefully bad products" that sell like hot cake in my area and we see an influx of new players picking 40k up. I'm just saying that some of the "issues" are ridiculously overblown by cheap sensation seeking TFGs. As someone mentioned - issues like that rarely occur in 'real world' where a group just plays stuff because those more reasonable find the 'solutions' to be obvious and TFGs are tempered or too 'afraid' to female dog about it and it's the forums where they can have all their cheap, sensationalist, arguing, TFGRAW goodness.
Again - I never said the rules are perfectly good, nor that they're great quality and perfectly clear, but they're not even half as bad as some people claim and they're perfectly playable without any real effort. It's that mentally impaired angry mob/sheep herd mentality where the loudest(not necessarily smartest) yell stuff and the rest picks it up, because if he's yelling, he must be right. Just look how any angry mob works.
P.s. - I'm sorry if I sound somewhat rude, it just how my posts turn out on the internet - I mean no disrespect nor insult. :-)
Hmm.. not sure if you know what I am talking about there, mate. I said that I am right because I have proven, using official GW model photos, that this part of Gun Drone(or any other regular drone model) is the optical sensor. Which is also obvious to exist on the model because, one - it's roughly there on every single Drone model in the game unless it has some other custom location for it and two - there is, as far as I remember, no single model(aside from those that don't wear helmets) in whole Tau range that doesn't have an optical sensor/visor outside the sniper drone team controller, because his faceplate is burried in the targetting computer. I know my army's model range pretty well. And it's easy to prove by just looking at model photos on GW site. With T'au sept colours it's always red lenses.
Which nets us ~368$. Not 400 on the spot as he mentioned, but(arguably) close. Of course the colossal does the heavy lifting at that terrible price, but yeah, it's an army I play. :-) Unfortunately the prices here can be bit higher than retail ones because Privateer Press largely ignores Poland as a possible market and we only have one small retailer that imports all the 'obscure' titles.
Edit: Of course that army is 50pts, so a high price is kinda expected.
Not only is that army less than 400$ but it also has more than 20 models (28 to be exact, one of which is a Colossal).
I'll continue waiting on the 400$ army for 20 models.
P.S.- It might even be possible to build such an army, you just need to look for the faction with the lowest point-for-$ ratio and build an army exclusively from those models. I just wan't to know to what lengths Orktavius will go to build such a list and how it will look.
It may be possible the Cavalry models, strictly due to high cost/model count.
Orktavius wrote: Magic? You mean the game that had to ban common lands in a block because they were to powerful? The game that's 100% entirely unbalanced unless they ban or restrict massive swathes of cards in every format they run in order for the game not to implode from the sheer brokeness?
Current banned list for standard: {empty space}. And this is hardly an exception to the rule, even "broken" standard metagames haven't led to bans on more than one or two cards. Older formats do have longer banned lists but those bans are heavily concentrated on the very oldest sets, from before anyone understood the game well enough to avoid balance issues. If you banned all 40k units/options that have a similar level of balance problems you'd have a much longer banned list relative to the total number of cards/units/etc. The only reason 40k is able to avoid having a banned list is that GW doesn't care about publishing a good game and expects the players to voluntarily ban themselves from abusing any of their balance mistakes.
If you think about it 40k have quite a long list of models and items that you aren't allowed in tournaments according to the rules they were published or have recent rules allowing them to be played.
On top of my head:
Imperial/Eldar Robots
Large number of special characters for every faction
Various upgrades including but not limited to multiple weapon choices including special and heavy weapons for most characters and some units, multiple grenade options for models, various biomorph upgrades etc.
Mad boyz, Boarboyz,
Imperial guard rough rider commands squads, including commissars.
Spore pods
Genestealer Cults
The entire line of Squats(snacks )
Cult Terminators
Pariahs
And thats just from memory alone, there is many more models that can't be used with the rules they had when released (or an updated version of those)
So the list of models that have been available for 40k that is no longer useable in tournaments today is quite long and properly more extensive than M:TG already.
As a 40k player you get so used to having random models banned with every new edition/codex and to help us keep track GW provides only lists and rules for models allowed
Hmm.. not sure if you know what I am talking about there, mate. I said that I am right because I have proven, using official GW model photos, that this part of Gun Drone(or any other regular drone model) is the optical sensor.
Is an "Optical sensor" an "Eye"? > No, it is an "Optical sensor". Therefore it is not an "Eye", and LoS cannot be drawn from it, as per the rules.
So no, you're wrong.
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.
I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
In the works
Oh well, done arguing. And no, people get shunned for being 
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
)
