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.
Arguing raw vs rai is almost always a lesson in futility. We all know that GW leaves holes in their rules but it is usually pretty obvious what they are trying to get at. It'll probably just get FAQed at some point if it confuses enough people.
These disussions always just end up in 20 pages of circular arguments, descending into name calling and other nonsense. What is the point?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/31 01:12:35
Aparently you think its excessive to point out that logically it just doesnt work. Thats your perogative. You're wrong. But its ok. You are allowed to be wrong.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
D&D's long history is filled with numerous examples of how a simple oversight like that can turn out much worse. Such as the Locate City Bomb.
.
and here I thought you where going to mention "and not shall be left saved shattered thrones with no rulers but the dead. Dragons shall rule the world entire" vs "and not shall be left saved shattered thrones with no rulers but the dead Dragons shall rule the world entire"
cause yeah, Forgotten realms created an entire evil orginization based around a grammer error in a prophecy
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous.
The difference between a unit and model in a rule is not a minor detail. Just look at the difference between Relentless and Slow and Purposeful for such a "minor detail".
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Yeah we have a lot of the pieces of the story but are still in the dark as how they properly fit. Wich piece belongs where in what order? Also we have less pieces then some people might think.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/31 11:25:25
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/31 11:43:15
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Make them aware all you want. I don't think you realize how long printing, production, packing, shipping to distribution centers and then actual shipping takes. If they plan on releasing that starter box on the 17th then I guarantee you those starter boxes are already wrapped in shrink wrap packed into cardboard boxes and being palatalized to be shipped to distribution centers in the next week or so.
If they are not in or on the way to distribution centers by the end of the week there is no way they can ensure the product will be in the stores on release.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Make them aware all you want. I don't think you realize how long printing, production, packing, shipping to distribution centers and then actual shipping takes. If they plan on releasing that starter box on the 17th then I guarantee you those starter boxes are already wrapped in shrink wrap packed into cardboard boxes and being palatalized to be shipped to distribution centers in the next week or so.
If they are not in or on the way to distribution centers by the end of the week there is no way they can ensure the product will be in the stores on release.
I know all of that it is not some mystery at all, which in turns spins it all back around to GW Just got no clue And this edition will be rocky again since they need someone in the design staff that is up to modern standards.
This is the what may be the sad Reality, GW Cannot Bring the rules standard up with the current design leadership. Its not like they should be unaware at this point where there rules in the passed have been, and should be extra carefull.
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Only if they are reading the rules to the Nth degree like in this thread. Most likely the playtesting is done as actual game to determine balance, so instead of reading the syllables every single time, they do what every single player does after learning the rules enough to know the effect.
"What do Assault Weapons do now?"
"They can be fired after Advancing."
"Sweet. I'm going to Advance and fire my stormbolter."
As it should be done, in a friendly verbal way adhering to the spirit of the game.
I'm celebrating 8 years on Dakka Dakka!
I started an Instagram! Follow me at Deadshot Miniatures! DR:90+S++G+++M+B+IPw40k08#-D+++A+++/cwd363R+++T(Ot)DM+ Check out my Deathwatch story, Aftermath in the fiction section!
Credit to Castiel for banner. Thanks Cas!
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Only if they are reading the rules to the Nth degree like in this thread. Most likely the playtesting is done as actual game to determine balance, so instead of reading the syllables every single time, they do what every single player does after learning the rules enough to know the effect.
"What do Assault Weapons do now?"
"They can be fired after Advancing."
"Sweet. I'm going to Advance and fire my stormbolter."
As it should be done, in a friendly verbal way adhering to the spirit of the game.
When rules have issues at the base level it filters up, It is there job to make a product for SALE.
Why pay for shoddy work, It take less than a day here to catch.
Just because that is how a rule should work, does not mean a mistake in the rule cannot cause issues latter.
Also some people actually play the game to the rules written if possible to avoid arguments, its just whats normal in the other games i play. GW has to proove they can do this, They are sorta passed there chances phase.
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Only if they are reading the rules to the Nth degree like in this thread. Most likely the playtesting is done as actual game to determine balance, so instead of reading the syllables every single time, they do what every single player does after learning the rules enough to know the effect.
"What do Assault Weapons do now?"
"They can be fired after Advancing."
"Sweet. I'm going to Advance and fire my stormbolter."
As it should be done, in a friendly verbal way adhering to the spirit of the game.
You're wrong. It's fine. You are allowed to be wrong. But you are still wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, the core books leaked. Interesting points.
1) they mention codexes and what they will include that you will not find in the indexes or the free rules on the websites.
Namely, Warlord traits, stratagems and relics. They are not gone, they just don't exist yet.
2) the gak wording in the core rules is in the BRB. It's official. RAW, Assault, Pistols, and such don't actually work in the game. Strap in everyone. YMDC is going to be a gak storm over the next couple months.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/31 19:53:54
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Jambles wrote: and Dakka's already found a 'contradictory' rule
The rule isn't contradictory (not even if you put the word in inverted commas) - it is outright nonfunctional if you attempt to follow the rules as written.
Excuse me while I contact the Oxford English Dictionary and inform them that the definition of 'ruthlessly analyse' has been changed to 'reading the rules'.
Jambles wrote: without any semblance of common sense and obvious intention?
Does it make you feel big when you outright lie about people?
Jambles wrote: I'm saving this post for when they fix the 'mistake' by issuing some smug reply to all the rules lawyers on Facebook
People like you are why the rest of us have to put up with GW's sloppy writing. People like you who will defend atrociously-written rules because of 'obvious intention', apparently oblivious to the thousands of pages of rule disputes on this forum alone. People like you, who think that the appropriate response by a company, when someone points out a mistake in their rules, is for them to post a smug reply on Facebook instead of making an effort to actually fix the mistake and improve their sloppy writing.
But feel free to save my above post if it somehow pleases you. I have said nothing I regret and am satisfied with the arguments I provided. If GW issues a smug reply via Facebook, all it will prove is that they have no actual rebuttal nor any excuse for their poor writing. If that puts you in awe of GW as a company, then that is your problem and not mine.
Oh wow, I touched a nerve! You went and replied not just sentence by sentence, but broke up the sentences into individual parts! Had a bad day?
I'm just kidding around, man. I'm sorry you got upset, but you're taking this way too personally. If you really want to take it there, I'm not the only one who thinks the same way about rules lawyering, and surely you've encountered these people before, so why be so defensive? My post didn't attack or insult you personally, although you seem to think it did, and it wasn't aggressive or inflammatory; all things your post most assuredly did and was. The Facebook bit was a JOKE, man, and for that you've pegged me as the ultimate GW apologist and the root cause of all your woes? How's that projection working out?
Fastest ignore of my life.
Lance845 wrote: YMDC is going to be a gak storm over the next couple months.
When has it ever not been? It doesn't usually bleed into the other sections of the forum though...
I'm digging the Battlezone rules in the BRB. The way they've implemented night fighting as a combination of the old sight line restrictions and mysterious objectives is neat. I'm interested in what else they'll be adding for those in the future, I'd like to see some reprints of old White Dwarf rules like jungle death worlds and daemon worlds.
lol, damn people are getting a bit to heated over this stuff, I am just excited to try out these new rules... even though I just learned the old rules but you know whatever. Just like any game some folks take gak way to seriously, that said IF there is a miswording in the rules I hope they correct it in a post on the community page or something but I am not going to through a fit over it. These games and the hobby in general take to much time as it is, not gunna waste more of it crying about something I cant change.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
And this edition will be rocky again since they need someone in the design staff that is up to modern standards.
It doesn't usually bleed into the other sections of the forum though...