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.

Apple fox wrote:

This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.

They're not junk rules just because you've found some really niche idiotic way to break them. If they're ambiguous then yes, they're junk. These aren't ambiguous, it's clearly an unintended feature that's been found by meticulously dissecting wording. Even the title says it's an "EXPLOIT." Everyone knows it's not intended. Of course this can be fixed, and easily so. But it honestly shouldn't have to. It's a ridiculous thing to complain about, as if changing it to <Airborne> would have anyone say "oh, well it's allowed by the rules, so I guess you now have a fully flying army of Skitarii"

 Purifier wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.

They're not junk rules just because you've found some really niche idiotic way to break them. If they're ambiguous then yes, they're junk. These aren't ambiguous, it's clearly an unintended feature that's been found by meticulously dissecting wording. Even the title says it's an "EXPLOIT." Everyone knows it's not intended. Of course this can be fixed, and easily so. But it honestly shouldn't have to. It's a ridiculous thing to complain about, as if changing it to <Airborne> would have anyone say "oh, well it's allowed by the rules, so I guess you now have a fully flying army of Skitarii"

That does not mean that it should not be fixed, Other than Devs to lazy.
I do think 7th edition was mostly junk and worth as much as that entails But i do have hope that 8th will be good, But i just think that its rather funny how this seem to pin more on the players than the Company selling it.
Any time a game needs to fall back they should be looked at and fixed, Not entirely for the rule in question. But it should be fixed to minamize as much possibility for future rule disputes.
We shouldn't have to allow in RAI just to shoulder some rules that could be fixed with a quick thought from the dev, So that it ends up worse with other rules. The Devs intention should be laid out in the rules.

Apple fox wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.

They're not junk rules just because you've found some really niche idiotic way to break them. If they're ambiguous then yes, they're junk. These aren't ambiguous, it's clearly an unintended feature that's been found by meticulously dissecting wording. Even the title says it's an "EXPLOIT." Everyone knows it's not intended. Of course this can be fixed, and easily so. But it honestly shouldn't have to. It's a ridiculous thing to complain about, as if changing it to <Airborne> would have anyone say "oh, well it's allowed by the rules, so I guess you now have a fully flying army of Skitarii"

That does not mean that it should not be fixed, Other than Devs to lazy.
I do think 7th edition was mostly junk and worth as much as that entails But i do have hope that 8th will be good, But i just think that its rather funny how this seem to pin more on the players than the Company selling it.
Any time a game needs to fall back they should be looked at and fixed, Not entirely for the rule in question. But it should be fixed to minamize as much possibility for future rule disputes.
We shouldn't have to allow in RAI just to shoulder some rules that could be fixed with a quick thought from the dev, So that it ends up worse with other rules. The Devs intention should be laid out in the rules.

Yes, rules should be good. But at some point this isn't about rules, but about respecting your fellow gamers. This is, like I've said, not the issue of a poorly written rule. It's the blatant and disgusting disrespect shown by anyone that tries to use this exploit. This is supposed to be a fun hobby that we all enjoy. Not a way for you to screw over other people.

 Purifier wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.

They're not junk rules just because you've found some really niche idiotic way to break them. If they're ambiguous then yes, they're junk. These aren't ambiguous, it's clearly an unintended feature that's been found by meticulously dissecting wording. Even the title says it's an "EXPLOIT." Everyone knows it's not intended. Of course this can be fixed, and easily so. But it honestly shouldn't have to. It's a ridiculous thing to complain about, as if changing it to <Airborne> would have anyone say "oh, well it's allowed by the rules, so I guess you now have a fully flying army of Skitarii"

That does not mean that it should not be fixed, Other than Devs to lazy.
I do think 7th edition was mostly junk and worth as much as that entails But i do have hope that 8th will be good, But i just think that its rather funny how this seem to pin more on the players than the Company selling it.
Any time a game needs to fall back they should be looked at and fixed, Not entirely for the rule in question. But it should be fixed to minamize as much possibility for future rule disputes.
We shouldn't have to allow in RAI just to shoulder some rules that could be fixed with a quick thought from the dev, So that it ends up worse with other rules. The Devs intention should be laid out in the rules.

Yes, rules should be good. But at some point this isn't about rules, but about respecting your fellow gamers. This is, like I've said, not the issue of a poorly written rule. It's the blatant and disgusting disrespect shown by anyone that tries to use this exploit. This is supposed to be a fun hobby that we all enjoy. Not a way for you to screw over other people.

But it has been well shown in this thread there is no respect from the people who do not like it, So Respect i think went out real fast.
Following the rules is not screwing people over, Its laughable to think its disrespect. Its an exploit found, and it should be fixed. That is it, Be trying to label it as disrespect you are showing a lack of respect int he first place.
GW should just be told and they should be pushed to fix it, it shouldn't be let to pass just because some people get super emotional and start throwing stuff around.
We all share this hobby, and some people may go into it differently. But the rules should always be the default , and exploits and issues should be fixed.

Respect "went out" the second someone suggested exploiting was fair game. I'm not disrespecting by calling out disrespect. What kind of nonsense is that?

They may not want to fix it in their same way some folks want it fixed. From a fluff point of view mix hammer fits well with many army's. Now Orks can loot anything! Choas can subvert anything! If point costs are truly individualy balanced by unit it doesn't matter what units you bash together. People wanted freedom, people wanted balance, here it is. If everyone adopts the same perfect keyword list at least everyone's army will look different.

 Purifier wrote:
Respect "went out" the second someone suggested exploiting was fair game. I'm not disrespecting by calling out disrespect. What kind of nonsense is that?

Not really, Rules that are loose are just that. It may be cheating in some places, but if it isnt shown then its little more than a misunderstanding.
But its ok, i do not think abuse will be rampant and i think most places that are worth themselves will simply fix it.
AT which point, why would it not be worth to just have GW fix it correctly and bring it inline with there intended system.

You yourself said that for players this is a hobby, players may notice and see this or other inconstancy and use them in there hobby.
So i come back to the original point, why not just have it fixed like normal.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
They may not want to fix it in their same way some folks want it fixed. From a fluff point of view mix hammer fits well with many army's. Now Orks can loot anything! Choas can subvert anything! If point costs are truly individualy balanced by unit it doesn't matter what units you bash together. People wanted freedom, people wanted balance, here it is. If everyone adopts the same perfect keyword list at least everyone's army will look different.

Are you missing the part where the same exploit allows you to make every Deff Rolla, Trukk and Land Raider flying?

 Purifier wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
They may not want to fix it in their same way some folks want it fixed. From a fluff point of view mix hammer fits well with many army's. Now Orks can loot anything! Choas can subvert anything! If point costs are truly individualy balanced by unit it doesn't matter what units you bash together. People wanted freedom, people wanted balance, here it is. If everyone adopts the same perfect keyword list at least everyone's army will look different.

Are you missing the part where the same exploit allows you to make every Deff Rolla, Trukk and Land Raider flying?

It solves the "Issue" of transport vehicles getting surrounded and being unable to fall back lol.

Again, Faction keywords don't confer any abilities no matter what they are. Being from the FLY faction does nothing but allow other abilities to target that keyword, usually to your detriment. Only keywords in the abilities column confer rules. This part is clear. I don't understand why it is so controversial to want rule loopholes fixed when they are found. This isn't an attack on fluff or a demand to win through rules exploits it is simply pointing out an oversight that leads to an unintended consequence.



Edit: On further review, there is not any clarification about keyword placement. The rule for FLY just says it can do X if a model can fly. Ahh, GW. I can always count on you for shoddy rules writing. Keep on being you.

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.

You are a killjoy and have no sense of humor, really. No-one is asking you to play against those stupid army, we are just enjoying the funny fact that by RAW they are allowed to exist. Why do you hate the idea we take fun in this so much? In what way does it harm you?

This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".

The rules team has already literally stated what the rule is for, and yet people are acting like that isn,t enough. Does the Emperor need to come down off his throne carried and present a gilded parchment that says what it's meant for?

If you feel this is such a big rule issue, tweet Foley about it. He heads the rules team for this edition. Posting on Dakka doesn,t "fix" anything, it just lets a certain group fluff their ego about ow right they are.

Actually if you go strictly RAW then substituting the keyword would mean that no abilities take effect; as written, the ability affects units with <faction>. If you replace <faction> with something else, then that ability ceases to work as it can only, by RAW, affect units with the <faction> keyword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".

The rules team has already literally stated what the rule is for, and yet people are acting like that isn,t enough. Does the Emperor need to come down off his throne carried and present a gilded parchment that says what it's meant for?

If you feel this is such a big rule issue, tweet Foley about it. He heads the rules team for this edition. Posting on Dakka doesn,t "fix" anything, it just lets a certain group fluff their ego about ow right they are.

This is kind of reminding me of that time in 5th (think, or was it 6th?) when units with no eyes can't draw LoS, and as such aren't allowed to fire.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
This is kind of reminding me of that time in 5th (think, or was it 6th?) when units with no eyes can't draw LoS, and as such aren't allowed to fire.

It's on that level, yes. Those poor, blind Wraithguard...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.

You are a killjoy and have no sense of humor, really. No-one is asking you to play against those stupid army, we are just enjoying the funny fact that by RAW they are allowed to exist. Why do you hate the idea we take fun in this so much? In what way does it harm you?

To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it. That is the problem with the RAW at all costs crowd, and part of the reason GW has always had issues with their rules. They at some point assume common sense when perhaps they shouldn't. IT is common sense that it is not intended to be able to have Hive Fleet Ultramarines, allowing for Rowboat to run around with swarmlord.

I do hope this gets fixed, and have no issue pointing it out to GW, but it should also be stated that unless GW rules in favor or this stupidity, we should all agree that it is not intended and should not be allowed.

Again, the hostility in this thread is too high.
This is a simple case of RAW being no where near RAI. And both are pretty clear.
That kind of issue pops up in YMDC all the time and I bet it would have gotten barely any attention there.

It doesn't even matter what the rules says, RAW should ideally always match RAI, which is not the case here.
It's the usually shoddy GW rules writing and they should rightfully get a slap on the wrist for it. Everybody would be better of if they wrote tighter rules.
They had a whole new edition to remedy that but one glance at YMDC and you can clearly see that they didn't learn a thing in that respect.

All OP really did is point out that RAW is different from RAI. Since when does that spark such an outrage?
Also, using RAW in this case to make fluffy lists is totally fine by me.
Exploiting to get away with some broken combo is obviously not, but somebody showing up with a converted army of tau auxiliaries on the other hand is technically supported by RAW and pretty cool in my books.
It's also so far from being an issue as I'm not likely to EVER meet such a person given how rare those kinds of armies are.

Huh, I thought this was settled three pages ago.

As mentioned, yes, this is a pretty straightforward matter. I have not seen anyone on this thread argue that we actually should allow people to, for example, give all their Guardsmen Fly by putting in the regiment wildcard. This isn't a matter of "RAW at all costs", it's a matter of "While the RAI can be strongly inferred, the RAW should do a better job of communicating it."

It would also be trivially easy to make that correction, such as stating that the wildcard will be appended to the chosen keyword in order to distinguish it from other keywords (ie instead of "Cadian" it would be "Regiment: Cadian" or "Cadian Regiment"). Therefore, there's no reason for GW to not take such a common-sense measure.

This wouldn't even break things like TauGuard lists, because keyword sharing only applies within a single detachment. You can take one detachment of Tau, and a second detachment of Guard, and that's entirely legal despite the fact that they don't share a single faction keyword. It merely means that the Guard officer can't give a Crisis Suit re-rolls to hit/wound.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Actually if you go strictly RAW then substituting the keyword would mean that no abilities take effect; as written, the ability affects units with <faction>. If you replace <faction> with something else, then that ability ceases to work as it can only, by RAW, affect units with the <faction>

Except it replaces every mention of <faction>, including the abilities. See the quotes from the index. <faction> is never going to appear on the datasheet of any unit you field, because every instance of it must be replaced before the game.

As for why I posted about it here, I wanted to insure I wasn't missing something before I sent something in (and I'm still waiting for official release because contacting GW about rules I shouldn't have access to didn't seem super great to me).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".

Way funnier though!

Breng77 wrote:
To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it.

True, but the problem is that jerk, not OP!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it.

True, but the problem is that jerk, not OP!

It is both IMO, when the OP presents this as a real tactic and not just a stupid exploit, it gives the jerk a foothold when people are arguing that this is how the rules work. Then the jerk starts a rule argument they may not have even considered. I don't think most people looking at the system would go, "Hey you know what I can make Hive fleet ultramarines" and break the system. So putting it out there in public view makes the chances of a jerk finding it out much higher. If the desire was just to fix it just email GW and mention the problem.

I present to you: clan "infantry, vehicle"

Don't worry, I'll dreadsock myself with one of my metal ork dreadnaughts...

Breng77 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it.

True, but the problem is that jerk, not OP!

It is both IMO, when the OP presents this as a real tactic and not just a stupid exploit, it gives the jerk a foothold when people are arguing that this is how the rules work. Then the jerk starts a rule argument they may not have even considered. I don't think most people looking at the system would go, "Hey you know what I can make Hive fleet ultramarines" and break the system. So putting it out there in public view makes the chances of a jerk finding it out much higher. If the desire was just to fix it just email GW and mention the problem.

*Looks at name of thread*
*looks at opening post*

Pretty sure I said it was an exploit people shouldn't use. I mentioned some people might try to justify it for certain fluffy lists, which wasn't that abusive compared to totally legal things we all got used to last edition, but even that was me trying to put it into perspective.

Also, I noticed this in three days while looking to see if there was any way to make a lost and damned style list, do you really think WAAC players weren't going to pick up on the same loophole? C'mon now, it's not even hidden well.

SilverAlien wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it.

True, but the problem is that jerk, not OP!

It is both IMO, when the OP presents this as a real tactic and not just a stupid exploit, it gives the jerk a foothold when people are arguing that this is how the rules work. Then the jerk starts a rule argument they may not have even considered. I don't think most people looking at the system would go, "Hey you know what I can make Hive fleet ultramarines" and break the system. So putting it out there in public view makes the chances of a jerk finding it out much higher. If the desire was just to fix it just email GW and mention the problem.

*Looks at name of thread*
*looks at opening post*

Pretty sure I said it was an exploit people shouldn't use. I mentioned some people might try to justify it for certain fluffy lists, which wasn't that abusive compared to totally legal things we all got used to last edition, but even that was me trying to put it into perspective.

Also, I noticed this in three days while looking to see if there was any way to make a lost and damned style list, do you really think WAAC players weren't going to pick up on the same loophole? C'mon now, it's not even hidden well.

I actually don't think many would have found it. The playtesters apparently did not, and they are extremely competitive. I'm sure some would but most would not.

Breng77 wrote:
I actually don't think many would have found it. The playtesters apparently did not, and they are extremely competitive. I'm sure some would but most would not.

It is entirely possible the rules they were given didn't have this exploit or that particular portion wasn't given out for playtesting. In those cases they would logically interpret the rules as were probably intended. Likely the bit specfically explaining how to chose your keyword was a late entry, possibly something the playtesters didn't see. That or the playtesters weren't trying very hard to break the game, which is a playtester's job.

SilverAlien wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I actually don't think many would have found it. The playtesters apparently did not, and they are extremely competitive. I'm sure some would but most would not.

It is entirely possible the rules they were given didn't have this exploit or that particular portion wasn't given out for playtesting. In those cases they would logically interpret the rules as were probably intended. Likely the bit specfically explaining how to chose your keyword was a late entry, possibly something the playtesters didn't see. That or the playtesters weren't trying very hard to break the game, which is a playtester's job.

It's also entirely possible that the playtesters realized misinterpreting this rule would require the same very specific reading you are using to even call it a potential exploit. The Space Marine HQ aura on an Ultramarine Captain does not affect all models with the keyword Ultramarine. It affect all models wherein the keyword <Chapter> has been replaced with the keyword Ultramarine. <Chapter>, <Craftworld>, <Sept>, etc. are keywords in themselves that have a specific rule that allow that keyword to be replaced with a custom keyword by the player during army selection, but the model still has to have that initial keyword in order to be affected by abilities that affect that keyword.

I would imagine playtesters were more concerned with getting balance and points right than combing over GW's rules as written.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Actually if you go strictly RAW then substituting the keyword would mean that no abilities take effect; as written, the ability affects units with <faction>. If you replace <faction> with something else, then that ability ceases to work as it can only, by RAW, affect units with the <faction> keyword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".

The rules team has already literally stated what the rule is for, and yet people are acting like that isn,t enough. Does the Emperor need to come down off his throne carried and present a gilded parchment that says what it's meant for?

If you feel this is such a big rule issue, tweet Foley about it. He heads the rules team for this edition. Posting on Dakka doesn,t "fix" anything, it just lets a certain group fluff their ego about ow right they are.

This is kind of reminding me of that time in 5th (think, or was it 6th?) when units with no eyes can't draw LoS, and as such aren't allowed to fire.

My personal favorite thing about 5e was that Go to Ground involved turning your models on their side. I once asked in YDMC how this would interact with TLOS, especially when ruins/etc were involved. (Advance next to a low wall, using Incoming to hide from enemy guns)

 Roknar wrote:
Again, the hostility in this thread is too high.

Go to the Off-topic forum. You don't know what rage really is till you've been there. Shocked the mods still allow most off-topic threads.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Roknar wrote:
Again, the hostility in this thread is too high.

Go to the Off-topic forum. You don't know what rage really is till you've been there. Shocked the mods still allow most off-topic threads.

Safety valve for the rest of the forum perhaps?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Roknar wrote:
Again, the hostility in this thread is too high.

Go to the Off-topic forum. You don't know what rage really is till you've been there. Shocked the mods still allow most off-topic threads.

Lol, didn't even know that was a thing. Looking at the thread titles though and the number of locked threads, I think I'll stay up here

YMDC is cozy enough for me ^^