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.

You're both right.

1. If what BaconCatBug is correct, then the rule is badly written.
2. Of course no one would actually play it that way.

Fact is so many of these gaping holes in the rules, or even just small ones, should never have made it to print. The fact that the community found them within minutes - in some cases before the books were even on sale thanks to leaks - really makes you wonder how much time they spent crafting their self-proclaimed "revolutionary" three ways to play.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or make sure GW does it's job. Lots of those are so bloody obvious errors how GW let them slip through is embarrassing.

Did FAQ even fix assault weapons? Because as it stands assault weapon state actually doesn't DO anything unless GW fixes it in errata...

Of course, some things genuinely needed FAQs. I think a few errors are forgivable though. What's the problem with assault weapons?

That they can fire after Advancing, presumably. Looking through the Battle Primer, I see no problem.

It says MODELS can fire after advancing. The rules for shooting tell you to select UNITS to fire as part of the procedure. Advancing makes selecting the unit impossible.

Seriously? I can see the point you're trying to make and understand a desire for tightly written rules but without meaning to be harsh this is the sort of mindset that leads to ridiculous FAQs. Would you actually suggest to an opponent that they couldn't fire assault weapons after advancing because they can't select that unit to fire - because they advanced? For 99% of people the answer is going to be no, so it's really not worth worrying about.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or make sure GW does it's job. Lots of those are so bloody obvious errors how GW let them slip through is embarrassing.

Did FAQ even fix assault weapons? Because as it stands assault weapon state actually doesn't DO anything unless GW fixes it in errata...

Of course, some things genuinely needed FAQs. I think a few errors are forgivable though. What's the problem with assault weapons?

That they can fire after Advancing, presumably. Looking through the Battle Primer, I see no problem.

It says MODELS can fire after advancing. The rules for shooting tell you to select UNITS to fire as part of the procedure. Advancing makes selecting the unit impossible.

Seriously? I can see the point you're trying to make and understand a desire for tightly written rules but without meaning to be harsh this is the sort of mindset that leads to ridiculous FAQs. Would you actually suggest to an opponent that they couldn't fire assault weapons after advancing because they can't select that unit to fire - because they advanced? For 99% of people the answer is going to be no, so it's really not worth worrying about.

Well, yes. As that is what it is by RAW.

HBMC has said you're both right. The rule is poorly written and no-one will play it that way.

Why does there seem to be a whole glut of players now on here who seem to be thinking RAW and HIWPI are always synonymous...? Someone pointing out daft rules writing does in no way mean they'll play it like in the game and they're being vilified for calling out professionals for unprofessional rules writing.

Closing off weird RAW is just to insure everyone is on the same page, as reasonable interpretations can differ from person to person. Plus weird edge cases can make the reasonable interpretation even less clear. No idea why people keep insisting poorly written rules are a none issue if the intent is clear.

Because lamenting quirks that 99% of the players will never ever find seems like a waste of time? I really don't think I would have ever found out about this "issue" in my whole life if I wouldn't have read it here.

I'm all for clear rules, but you can really over-analyze things.

Ragnar69 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or make sure GW does it's job. Lots of those are so bloody obvious errors how GW let them slip through is embarrassing.

Did FAQ even fix assault weapons? Because as it stands assault weapon state actually doesn't DO anything unless GW fixes it in errata...

Of course, some things genuinely needed FAQs. I think a few errors are forgivable though. What's the problem with assault weapons?

That they can fire after Advancing, presumably. Looking through the Battle Primer, I see no problem.

It says MODELS can fire after advancing. The rules for shooting tell you to select UNITS to fire as part of the procedure. Advancing makes selecting the unit impossible.

Oh, come on, man! This is a game not a legal contract. It is perfectly clear how the rules are intended to work. Interpreting it your way is really....masochistic. if you want to find problems, you will get problems

It should be treated as a technical document. At least the rules mechanics. Of course the Brits have never been known for their technical acumen.

Finding issues with how rules are written is a valid thing to do, it's a good thing to do. It allows for GW to publish FAQ, the rules to be clearer and for the game to become better.

The problem I think some people have with the overly picky nature of how things are going, is that it will begin to have a negative impact on how GW views community based criticism.

The example of "Models" "Units" extra above is just ridiculous. It takes what should be a positive experience (Commenting and discussing the rule-set and ultimately submitting for FAQ to GW) into a farce.

If this line of "attack" continues (and that is what it is becoming 'attacks') then I wouldn't be surprised if GW doesn't clam up once again and limit it's customer interaction due to it becoming swamped with people desperately trying to break a system, where they will literally bring the very definition of individual words into question. That isn't valid criticism. It's pedantic nit-picking.

Finally. Even when RAW rules are as clear as night, they are met with "That's stupid, it makes no sense, it's not realistic enough" such as the terrain rules.

SilverAlien wrote:
Closing off weird RAW is just to insure everyone is on the same page, as reasonable interpretations can differ from person to person. Plus weird edge cases can make the reasonable interpretation even less clear. No idea why people keep insisting poorly written rules are a none issue if the intent is clear.

Probably because in this instance, no reasonable interpretation would insist that models with assault weapons couldn't shoot if they had advanced. It's only the unreasonable interpretations that cause the problem. And far too many of those unreasonable interpretations are made on the basis of someone pushing their personal agenda and seeking to subvert rules that have very clear intent.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Closing off weird RAW is just to insure everyone is on the same page, as reasonable interpretations can differ from person to person. Plus weird edge cases can make the reasonable interpretation even less clear. No idea why people keep insisting poorly written rules are a none issue if the intent is clear.

Probably because in this instance, no reasonable interpretation would insist that models with assault weapons couldn't shoot if they had advanced. It's only the unreasonable interpretations that cause the problem. And far too many of those unreasonable interpretations are made on the basis of someone pushing their personal agenda and seeking to subvert rules that have very clear intent.

How is unreasonable? Read the order of operations again. The unit which advanced and contains said assault weapons is simply unselectable by RAW.

Now once again. No reasonable person would play it this way, but this does not stop it from being a poorly written rule. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
8 pages of rules...and 80 pages of FAQs.

Kinda like the bible.

 jeff white wrote:

It should be treated as a technical document. At least the rules mechanics. Of course the Brits have never been known for their technical acumen.

You know what they say,

If it's working it's German.
If it looks nice, it's French.
It if smells nice, it's Italian.
If it's functional, it's Russian.
If it's none of the above, it's British.

 Selym wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

It should be treated as a technical document. At least the rules mechanics. Of course the Brits have never been known for their technical acumen.

You know what they say,

If it's working it's German.
If it looks nice, it's French.
It if smells nice, it's Italian.
If it's functional, it's Russian.
If it's none of the above, it's British.

And if it was made in China, it's American!

Ruin wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Closing off weird RAW is just to insure everyone is on the same page, as reasonable interpretations can differ from person to person. Plus weird edge cases can make the reasonable interpretation even less clear. No idea why people keep insisting poorly written rules are a none issue if the intent is clear.

Probably because in this instance, no reasonable interpretation would insist that models with assault weapons couldn't shoot if they had advanced. It's only the unreasonable interpretations that cause the problem. And far too many of those unreasonable interpretations are made on the basis of someone pushing their personal agenda and seeking to subvert rules that have very clear intent.

How is unreasonable? Read the order of operations again. The unit which advanced and contains said assault weapons is simply unselectable by RAW.

Now once again. No reasonable person would play it this way, but this does not stop it from being a poorly written rule. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Because if you start approaching the writing in this manner you can almost break down anything.

The intent is very clear. That is the written word. Clear intent. It isn't mathematics.

This kind of people would insist that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says that people have the right to bear arms, so they would ask the government to amputate bears and distribute their arms to the populace. Honestly, rules-lawyering regarding RAW is what created the clustermess in the first place. Yeah, you can wordplay with it, but then again, the intent is awfully clear, because otherwise the rule makes no sense, and its inclusion would be void.

Tyranid armies will use understrength units a lot:

Composition

Tyrand Guard:

3rd edition:1-3
4th edition:1-3
5th edition: 1-3
6th edition: 1-3

8th edition: 3-6

Zoanthropes:

3rd edition:1-3
4th edition:1-3
5th edition: 1-3
6th edition: 1-3

8th edition: 3-6

Hive Guard

5th edition: 1-3
6th edition: 1-3

8th edition: 3-6

Venomthropes

5th edition: 1-3
6th edition: 1-3

8th edition: 3-6

If someone objects that I'm using units of Tyrant and Hive Guard of 2 models each then that person isn't worth my time.

The problem is with how GW writte their rules. They mix the proper rule with tonge in check and they don't writte the rules as clear as possible.

I have written some minor rulesets and I can understand that doing it that way is funnier but impractical. The ideal way to do it, if you want to add flavour (Or explications) to a rule is separate a rule in two parts. One "fluffy part" and the 100% crunch and totally clear part that is the proper rule.

With some rules writing experience under my belt as well I can say that rules writing is technical writing. There are always going to be mistakes, and you're always going to miss things, even after several sets of eyes have seen it... but you should treat it as technical writing.

There should be defined terms. The rules should not be loose. There should be as much standardisation as possible to avoid things that are the same having different rules (or the opposite, which is even weirder).

What Hollow refers to as 'nitpicking' I would call 'proof reading'. I've done it professionally on rule-sets. It's time consuming and always worth it.

GW could stand a little more of that.

Yeah, sorry, I was talking about just that.

What I refered as "fluffy part was something like:

Fluff part: "In the world of Warhammer, the lowly goblin fights against the giant and Powerfull dragon in battlefields full of magic. To represent this variation every character, monster and different unit has a attack value that represents how many swings they can do agains't his enemies!"

Crunch part: "A model can do a number of attacks agains't enemy units that he is fighting in meele equal to his attacks value"


GW many times just mix both, or just do the Crunch part without technical and clear writting.

I have to agree with the people critiquing the writing of GW's rules. From a technical standpoint it is quite poor and there are some very simple ways to combat this, but it takes some technical editing. I think one issue is that people they have designing things might have good ideas, but don't have the technical writing skills to be able to effectively and efficiently put them on paper to minimize odd wording, etc.

It's actually quite easy to put together a brief which describes precisely how units/models/etc. will be referred to, etc. You can see a lot of small odd technical errors, particularly with their consistent use of "can" as opposed to "may" (something I often get wrong when I'm writing game rules quickly). It does show that not a whole lot of quality editing was done prior to release.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What Hollow refers to as 'nitpicking' I would call 'proof reading'. I've done it professionally on rule-sets. It's time consuming and always worth it.

GW could stand a little more of that.

As an English language teacher, I have spent countless hours proof reading. (It's also one of the reasons I tend to give GW a little more slack than others when it comes to typos etc. As I know just how time-consuming and difficult it cant be.) I'm not against criticising poorly worded rules, or discussing how things could be better explained or phrased. I'm against deliberate attempts to misinterpret clear intent, in order to try and bend and break the rule-set.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
With some rules writing experience under my belt as well I can say that rules writing is technical writing. There are always going to be mistakes, and you're always going to miss things, even after several sets of eyes have seen it... but you should treat it as technical writing.

There should be defined terms. The rules should not be loose. There should be as much standardisation as possible to avoid things that are the same having different rules (or the opposite, which is even weirder).

What Hollow refers to as 'nitpicking' I would call 'proof reading'. I've done it professionally on rule-sets. It's time consuming and always worth it.

GW could stand a little more of that.

Standadisation? But but but, bespoke rules bro!

I've never met a bigger group of munchkin whiners in my life. Really? It's fine to point out the rules mistakes to have them corrected, but to insist people play them that way even though you know the absolute intent 100% is just being a jerk.

Eligius wrote:
Tyranid armies will use understrength units a lot:


If someone objects that I'm using units of Tyrant and Hive Guard of 2 models each then that person isn't worth my time.

I hope more people feel the same way as you. Too many posters have their panties in a bunch over that.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I've never met a bigger group of munchkin whiners in my life. Really? It's fine to point out the rules mistakes to have them corrected, but to insist people play them that way even though you know the absolute intent 100% is just being a jerk.

Totally agree. Given the undertaking of putting every cluster mess codex out at the same time, with the urgency to prevent a huge limbo sales lag, I think they did ok. Real codex are coming anyway, this is just a gap fill. Till then, be a sensible human.

As for the understrengthed units thing - this was NEVER a thing in 40k, why is this such a huge deal right now?

Several units in the 7th-8th edition shuffle went from unit size 1-3 to unit size 3-6. Notable ones include Mutilators/Obliterators, and Zoanthroapes/Hive Guard. Likewise, Chaos Terminators went from minimum unit size 3 to 5.

This is particularly hard on CSM, as they only have the basic Land Raider and so can't transport a character alongside a Terminator Squad. That said, More comedic IMO is how making DS no-scatter, allowing assault from DS, and only allowing disembark before moving have all made the Land Raider even more pointless as a transport than it was in 7th. *That* takes talent.

I don't understand why people who only play with friends or in casual environments get involved in rules threads. Correcting rules isn't an ego thing, at least not if a company is going to be any good at it. Hire a good rules czar/pr person, and let them handle all feedback from the community. Players who point out mistakes like the assault weapon wording may or may not be dorks with no life. Who cares? It's something GW should want corrected. Just do it and move on. Decades of inconsistency have created a schizophrenic environment that encourages threads like this. It's time to develop a consistent and professional policy that allows players of various commitment levels to play and have fun.

It nags, if the wording of the rules clearly contradicts the intent. It would be good if it was officially FAQd so at least the mistake was acknowledged. In the meantime we will play assault weapons as intended (i.e. the rule has a game effect). Please do not be angry at people who point out a rule that appears to be incorrectly worded in a thread about rules that appear to be incorrectly worded.

xmbk wrote:
I don't understand why people who only play with friends or in casual environments get involved in rules threads. Correcting rules isn't an ego thing, at least not if a company is going to be any good at it. Hire a good rules czar/pr person, and let them handle all feedback from the community. Players who point out mistakes like the assault weapon wording may or may not be dorks with no life. Who cares? It's something GW should want corrected. Just do it and move on. Decades of inconsistency have created a schizophrenic environment that encourages threads like this. It's time to develop a consistent and professional policy that allows players of various commitment levels to play and have fun.

Exactly. How much less often stress and blood pressure increases would have been if they had just IMMEDIATELY said "Add this line: Ghazgul cannot outflank with Kommandos." instead of ignoring it and causing massive arguments between people playing by the rules vs people wanting to ignore the rules in favour of "realism".

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
It's fine to point out the rules mistakes to have them corrected, but to insist people play them that way even though you know the absolute intent 100% is just being a jerk.

But we don't. As has been brought up several times in this thread, large parts of the community have believed they knew the intent of rules and made faqs for it, only to have GW rule the exact opposite in the past. Intent is largely a useless metric, since we can never know what they meant unless they FAQ it.

I still fail to see the problem.
UNITS are made up of MODELS.
I select the UNIT which advanced to perform an attack action.l in the shooting phase.
The MODELS in that UNIT which have rapid-fire weapons are then affected by the prohibition on performing the attack action. In computer game terms, they automatically click "skip turn" when it comes to this action.
The MODELS which have assault weapons are not, at the appropriate penalty.

All it takes for rationality to rule is a sentence somewhere in the rulebook or Indexes that says, as above, that UNITS consist of MODELS. Is there one?