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.

 Deadshot wrote:

I'm not making personal attacks, I'm just asking why people (in this case you because you brought it up, but its about people as a whole) feel the need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and say "this doesn't work because they forgot a comma here."

Please don't be disingenuous. It's far more than a missing comma and indeed it completely invalidates the Assault rule.

(Incidentally, don't undervalue the power of a comma to change the meaning of a sentence - "Let's eat, Grandpa!").

As to the why, because this is a discussion about the core rules? Because I thought it noteworthy that their core rules are now just ~16 pages long and they still couldn't avoid errors like this?

 Deadshot wrote:
I just don't see why its necessary or how it makes the game any better to play.

That's exactly what I think when I see mistakes like these in the rules. They are unnecessary and don't make the game any better to play.

 Deadshot wrote:
Rules aren't bulletproof

The fact that these rules aren't bulletproof does not mean that rules can't be bulletproof. It only proves that these particular rules aren't.

 Deadshot wrote:
"hmm, it's not technically allowed but we all know its supposed to work that way so why not just ignore it?"

I guess the same reason why GW can't invest in a proofreader?

 Deadshot wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would try to break the game or parts of the game through such rigid and strict reading of rules due to a tiny miniscule detail.

I have made no such attempt.

 Deadshot wrote:
Again, its not about you, its about the mindset, which is why I'm asking you.

So it's not about me, just my mindset, which is why you're asking me? Glad we cleared that up.

With regard to my mindset, all I'll say is that you seem to be ascribing thoughts and actions to me that I do not possess and that I haven't taken, respectively. You accuse me of nitpicking, yet all I have done is found a problem when simply attempting to follow the rules as written. You accused me of trying to break the game, yet I have done no such thing. Indeed, I was trying specifically to not break the game and found that this was impossible in order for the Assault rule to work as intended.

tneva82 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

That being said, GW really does need to learn how to write rules properly.

I really don't feel like it matters that much. As long as the way it's intended to work is clear, what's the problem?

Look at the YMDC full of arguments over RAW vs RAI and nitpicking loopholes.

GW doesn't write RAW=RAI and it's going to lead into arguments.

Arguments don't stop just by 8th ed being it. It stops if they write rules bullet proof. This isn't. Arguments will come.

'

This, but to elaborate, if this simple core rule has this big of a logical error in the grammar of their rules then whats going to happen when we start looking at special rules for armies and models whos RAI might not be as clear?

This doesn't bode well for whats to come.


Rules should be clear and concise and say exactly what they do. This could be fixed with a few potential changes to the wording.

1) Under Movement/Advancing remove the line "A unit that Advances cannot shoot or charge latter that turn."

2) Under Shooting/Choose a Unit to Shoot With change the line "You may not pick a unit that advanced or fell back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit" (this line also prevent pistols from working and the Fly keyword BTW) to "Unless otherwise noted a unit cannot shoot in the shooting phase if it advanced or fell back this turn, or if it is within 1" of an enemy unit."

Now the rules for Fly, Pistols, and Assault work properly because you are no longer prevented from selecting the unit to shoot. Instead you are simply not given permission to actually shoot unless something says otherwise.

3) Under Charge Phase/Choose a Unit to Charge With change the line "You may not choose a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, nor one that started the charge phase within 1" of an enemy unit." to " Unless otherwise noted a unit cannot charge if that unit Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or if it started the charge phase within 1" of an enemy unit." Now the Genestealer unit can still do it's advance and charge where as before the rules did not allow it to be selected to even try to charge.

 Deadshot wrote:
I'm not making personal attacks, I'm just asking why people (in this case you because you brought it up, but its about people as a whole) feel the need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and say "this doesn't work because they forgot a comma here." I just don't see why its necessary or how it makes the game any better to play. Rules aren't bulletproof, even the law has thousands of loopholes that can only be discovered by abuse of it, so why not just say "hmm, it's not technically allowed but we all know its supposed to work that way so why not just ignore it?"

It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would try to break the game or parts of the game through such rigid and strict reading of rules due to a tiny miniscule detail.

Again, its not about you, its about the mindset, which is why I'm asking you.

That wasn't even going through comb...

Anyway it's good to know what loop holes are there so they can be plugged for tournaments because _they will pop up there_.

People dont' magically change just because 8th ed comes. 8th ed rules have holes in it, they get exploited. YDMC isn't filled up with nitpick arguments because 7th ed players are magically different to 8th ed. It's because those rules had also holes like this. Fix them or you WILL get nitpick arguments. Simple as that.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
These rules look great to me. The terrain rule is interesting, it looks like it is going to be very very difficult for big blob/horde units to benefit from cover...which makes a ton of sense when you think about it.

I imagine that blob armies will now have a mandatory Aegis Defence Line. Now more than ever before.

I don't know why people are surprised that gw still make such mistakes.

And I don't get the need to white knight for them either.

According to point 3 on the shooting sheet, marines can shoot bolters and bolt pistols at the same time. Surely not?

Surely not. Pistols fire exclusive of non pistol weapons.

I had never realized the 40k community was so toxic: 2 pages to know if a rule telling that you can shoot after having advanced allow you to shoot after you have advanced.
Amazing.

 vipoid wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

I'm not making personal attacks, I'm just asking why people (in this case you because you brought it up, but its about people as a whole) feel the need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and say "this doesn't work because they forgot a comma here."

Please don't be disingenuous. It's far more than a missing comma and indeed it completely invalidates the Assault rule.

(Incidentally, don't undervalue the power of a comma to change the meaning of a sentence - "Let's eat, Grandpa!").

As to the why, because this is a discussion about the core rules? Because I thought it noteworthy that their core rules are now just ~16 pages long and they still couldn't avoid errors like this?

 Deadshot wrote:
I just don't see why its necessary or how it makes the game any better to play.

That's exactly what I think when I see mistakes like these in the rules. They are unnecessary and don't make the game any better to play.

 Deadshot wrote:
Rules aren't bulletproof

The fact that these rules aren't bulletproof does not mean that rules can't be bulletproof. It only proves that these particular rules aren't.

 Deadshot wrote:
"hmm, it's not technically allowed but we all know its supposed to work that way so why not just ignore it?"

I guess the same reason why GW can't invest in a proofreader?

 Deadshot wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would try to break the game or parts of the game through such rigid and strict reading of rules due to a tiny miniscule detail.

I have made no such attempt.

 Deadshot wrote:
Again, its not about you, its about the mindset, which is why I'm asking you.

So it's not about me, just my mindset, which is why you're asking me? Glad we cleared that up.

With regard to my mindset, all I'll say is that you seem to be ascribing thoughts and actions to me that I do not possess and that I haven't taken, respectively. You accuse me of nitpicking, yet all I have done is found a problem when simply attempting to follow the rules as written. You accused me of trying to break the game, yet I have done no such thing. Indeed, I was trying specifically to not break the game and found that this was impossible in order for the Assault rule to work as intended.

It doesn't invalidate it if you don't go an make a tiny nitpick of the wording. Quite clearly the way its intended it to work is as exception and it really just doesnt need to scrutinised to such an absurd degree. Everyone knows what it means, and how its intended to work, and unless you're planning to abuse that aspect to the Nth degree, why bother mentioning it? And no, you can't avoid errors. As mentioned, even the law which has hundreds of thousands of specially trained experts writing it, has loopholes such as these. Just don't abuse it.

As for the comma thing, its not. A "Let's eat Grandpa" and "Let's eat, Grandpa" mean different things, but at the end of the day, is anyone eating Grandpa? Well, I'm sure someone out there is, but doubtfully anyone playing 40k 8th Ed.

Mistakes are completely irrelevant when they have no impact on the clarity of the rule. Quite clearly Assault Weapons are meant to be fired after running, the intention is clear. They only slow the game when someone tries to abuse that minor mistake. Are you going to enjoy the game less because someone was able to fire their Stormbolter? Or are you going to enjoy it less because you had an argument over the stormbolter?

Rules cannot be bulletproof. There is always someone wanting to break them and they will find a way regardless, whether its in the wording, punctuation or simply interpretation of a line or phrase. Also, it doesn't need to be. Again, what value does it bring to argue about something like this? If it was something major like "Models in a Flyer cannot disembark." and Stormravens "Models disembarking in Zoom mode may use this method," that is a gamebreaking thing. This isn't.

YOu can proofread something a million times, doesn't guarentee you'll pick up on the minor mistake like this.

You appear to have made an attempt by pointing it out. I can happiy read over that without even mentioning the discrepancy, as it wont affect my game, as I know the intention of the rule. Why point it out or take notice if not to abuse?

Not your mindset, the mindset, of going through word by word in an attempt to find flaws with the system. Why do it if not to break the game or complain? Its nitpicking to find such a tiny mistake, that, ultimately, should not have an impact on the game and should not be a problem at all. The game uses abstraction and representation, it doesn't work when people argue about tiny details.

And again, this is not a specific thing about you. You were the one to point it out and I just want to know why you feel the need to do so.

 godardc wrote:
I had never realized the 40k community was so toxic: 2 pages to know if a rule telling that you can shoot after having advanced allow you to shoot after you have advanced.
Amazing.

Discussing Rules is not toxic, But it is sad to see people step in to defend a badly written rule. If GW is made aware of the rule that can help them int he future with writing other rules as well.
It just sucks to see players wave away a rule being wrong, As it effects perception of other rules that can be even worse to decipher.
Its half of what made the previous editions so crap so often.

As for the comma thing, its not. A "Let's eat Grandpa" and "Let's eat, Grandpa" mean different things, but at the end of the day, is anyone eating Grandpa? Well, I'm sure someone out there is, but doubtfully anyone playing 40k 8th Ed.

I'd be more curious if someone is eating Grandpa because someone messed up their grammar.

 godardc wrote:
I had never realized the 40k community was so toxic: 2 pages to know if a rule telling that you can shoot after having advanced allow you to shoot after you have advanced.
Amazing.

Hardly toxic. Being critical of a product that can be easily fixed is something to be encouraged. Don't settle for less. There's absolutely zero reasons why they couldn't have and shouldn't have caught this for a company their size, their experience in the industry, and the size of the team working on it.

If anything, the toxic behaviour is going around calling other people toxic for pointing out obvious flaws. I'm about 99% everyone will play it RAI, but that doesn't change the fact that RAW is broken and we should expect them to fix it so its clear.

Simple stuff.

Yeah the money GW asks for their product we have a right to demand it's at least logically consistant.

When you boil it down, the Assault rule is little different then the Relentless rule. Relentless only applies to the model and not to the unit, but if the unit fired a Rapid Fire/Heavy Weapon, it cannot Charge. This rule does not care if the model in the unit that fired it has Relentless or not, yet we treat it as affecting the unit in such a manner.

See... here is a new rule that will probably end up getting debated.

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/334013-full-leaked-blood-angels-rules-other-space-marine-prices/

Second image.

Black Rage: In addition roll a d6 each time this unit looses a wound. On a roll of 6 the damage is ignored.

So when does this happen?

Units don't loose wounds. Models do. Also I believe it's called suffer damage in other parts of the rules. Are you rolling it after saves but before damage and thus negated any potential damage? Is it a FNP like rule where you roll it after damage for each damage so a weapon that deals 2 damage would get 2 "Black Rage" rolls?

Personally I would say it's pretty clear it's meant to be a FNP like roll. But then, I can see why a RAW person would make a (weak) argument for it applying before damage.

Damnit GW. Just write your rules with consistent language and structure.

It is really disappointing to see that they are still writing rules like this :(
I guess They will need 9th edition to fix what they get wrong at this point.

coming soon warhammer 9th edition! rules for 500 dollars! because we had to hire a team of high priced lawyers to write them for you!

BrianDavion wrote:
coming soon warhammer 9th edition! rules for 500 dollars! because we had to hire a team of high priced lawyers to write them for you!

Without wishing to impart air into a certain musical instrument that I perhaps perchance to own, I'm going to go ahead and say that I could do a far better job at writing or proofreading these rules without needing to hire any lawyers.

 Lance845 wrote:

Black Rage: In addition roll a d6 each time this unit looses a wound. On a roll of 6 the damage is ignored.

So when does this happen?

This roll would happen after failed saves and damage applied. So if you had 6 attacks at 2 damage each, you save 4 so 2 attacks go through dealing 4 damage. You would now roll 4 dice and on a 6 one lost wound is discounted.

Basically a unit/model doesn't lose a wound until damage is applied and any ability that lets you ignore wounds is rolled after.

BrianDavion wrote:
coming soon warhammer 9th edition! rules for 500 dollars! because we had to hire a team of high priced lawyers to write them for you!

They could hire me alone for a regular hourly wage and I would be glad to go cover to cover through all 6 rule books and fix them.

It's fething simple. You create a basic structure for the rules writing that is comprehensive, concise, and avoids definitive statements so special rules can act as intended.

For instance Black Rage: "In addition, if a model from this unit suffers damage roll a d6 for each damage suffered. On a roll of 6 the damage is ignored. "


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BomBomHotdog wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Black Rage: In addition roll a d6 each time this unit looses a wound. On a roll of 6 the damage is ignored.

So when does this happen?

This roll would happen after failed saves and damage applied. So if you had 6 attacks at 2 damage each, you save 4 so 2 attacks go through dealing 4 damage. You would now roll 4 dice and on a 6 one lost wound is discounted.

Basically a unit/model doesn't lose a wound until damage is applied and any ability that lets you ignore wounds is rolled after.

I agree with your interpretation of RAI.

I'm basically going to be reading anything that says "If X loses a wound, roll Y+ to ignore" as "Y+ Feel No Pain".

 ross-128 wrote:
I'm basically going to be reading anything that says "If X loses a wound, roll Y+ to ignore" as "Y+ Feel No Pain".

Which could lead to its own problems :( If they introduce rules that should be different, but are taken as the same it means we are just going to end up with another system that is split .

Thinking about this, are they not getting a bunch of high profile people in on the testing that should have catch things like this ?
If they want to sell the books, they have to show they can get the basic rules down and quite tight, Not perfect but i do not want to see half the pages of the rules as a Faq 2 months down the line.

Honestly, considering GW is already notorious for their legal department they probably should get one of their lawyers to proofread their rules. Legalese may be stilted and awkward to read, but that's because it's an exercise in torturing all the vagueness out of the English language until only precise meaning is left.

Or they could write their rules in C, that would work too.

Yeah, the issue isn't that what's SUPPOSED to happen isn't clear. The issue is what they ACTUALLY WROTE does not line up with WHAT THEY MEANT.

Or. . . Maybe. . . They will release an FAQ that will clear it up, because they do that again now.

Yeah. An FAQ is a great way to start the edition.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. An FAQ is a great way to start the edition.

Well if people were not being super pedantic with the rules.. they wouldn't need one.

It is obvious the intention, but people want to game the system

GodDamUser wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. An FAQ is a great way to start the edition.

Well if people were not being super pedantic with the rules.. they wouldn't need one.

It is obvious the intention, but people want to game the system

This isn't being pedantic-this is reading the rules as written and realizing that GW made mistakes.

I don't think it's too much to ask that with a less than 20 page rulebook, they go over it and fix mistakes.

 JNAProductions wrote:

This isn't being pedantic-this is reading the rules as written and realizing that GW made mistakes.

I don't think it's too much to ask that with a less than 20 page rulebook, they go over it and fix mistakes.

But it isn't really a mistake..

You just don't like their grammar and/or their phrasing

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. An FAQ is a great way to start the edition.

It means they care enough to look at things, realized they feth'ed up and set out to rectify it rather then wait months later.

GodDamUser wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

This isn't being pedantic-this is reading the rules as written and realizing that GW made mistakes.

I don't think it's too much to ask that with a less than 20 page rulebook, they go over it and fix mistakes.

But it isn't really a mistake..

You just don't like their grammar and/or their phrasing

No, it IS a mistake. The Rules As Written explicitly prevent this.

"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."

That's pretty cut and dry.