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.

 pretre wrote:

 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.

Those I'm fine with. Things like not being able to assault after shooting with assault weapons though is clearly 100% known. No one has any doubt what that rule means. By all means, bring it up so it gets its wording fixed, but don't sit back and say your going to force an opponent to play it the way it is written just to be sour grapes about it.

Pilum wrote:
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?

The red is where you went wrong. Literally 8 pages of rules, you should give them a read sometime.

Page 5 wrote:In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons.
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.

You do know what the rule is supposed to say though. It's bad technical writing sure and it should be fixed, but its not a reason to muck up a game.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
You do know what the rule is supposed to say though. It's bad technical writing sure and it should be fixed, but its not a reason to muck up a game.

You don't know the "RAW" either. The real rules as written is just ink on a page, or the digital equivalent. The only rules you can actually use are "RAI" - not Rules as Intended, but Rules as Interpreted. And there's no single objective way to interpret what's written on the page. You can be wrong either way. You don't know either one.

Edit: I responded to the wrong person, but I'm leaving this here anyway.

 pretre wrote:
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.

Although I think we can all agree that GW never intended for plasma guns to explode more during a full moon.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pretre wrote:
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.

Although I think we can all agree that GW never intended for plasma guns to explode more during a full moon.

Of course they intended it, you just don't understand the infallible genius that is the robbin cruddace jervis johnson design team

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pretre wrote:
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.

Although I think we can all agree that GW never intended for plasma guns to explode more during a full moon.

lol Yeah, probably not.

Although, I am not going to be surprised if we get a FAQ answer telling us that they totally intended it and it is because Plasma is solar powered.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The red is where you went wrong. Literally 8 pages of rules, you should give them a read sometime.

Sadly, in your rush to be a passive-aggressive waste of organs, you clearly skipped over page 6 yourself:
A model with an assault weapon can fire it even if it Advanced earlier that turn.

Specific permission overrules general prohibition.

Pilum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The red is where you went wrong. Literally 8 pages of rules, you should give them a read sometime.

Sadly, in your rush to be a passive-aggressive waste of organs, you clearly skipped over page 6 yourself:
A model with an assault weapon can fire it even if it Advanced earlier that turn.

Specific permission overrules general prohibition.

But you can never reach that stage as you are unable to even select the unit he is part of. Hence the problem.

They gave permission to fire assault weapons after advancing, therefor you can fire assault weapons after advancing.

If you attempted to pull that logic on me you'd be kicked in the nuts.

 Melissia wrote:
They gave permission to fire assault weapons after advancing, therefor you can fire assault weapons after advancing.

If you attempted to pull that logic on me you'd be kicked in the nuts.

And if you read my earlier posts in this thread you'll see I wouldn't actually play it that way. To me, it's one of those funny quirks that GW continually lets slip in like Terminators not wearing Terminator armour or Drop Pods giving up half VPs the moment they're deployed.

Why do people keep thinking RAW=HIWPI?

I really don't understand why for the last 3 edition (at least, i haven't played editions prior to 5th), we were all fine that firing plasma at our preferred target removed any risk of overheating, but suddenly it is terrible design that a modifier can alter overheat chances...

And don't get me started on removing overheat chances by firing 2 at the same time!

Spoletta wrote:

And don't get me started on removing overheat chances by firing 2 at the same time!

This is really the best argument against people saying it started to get silly NOW.
"I'VE TAPE TWO TOGETHER TO SHOOT AT THE SAME TIME. THEY ARE NOW SIX TIMES LESS LIKELY TO BECOME HOT."
...ok.

 Purifier wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

And don't get me started on removing overheat chances by firing 2 at the same time!

This is really the best argument against people saying it started to get silly NOW.
"I'VE TAPE TWO TOGETHER TO SHOOT AT THE SAME TIME. THEY ARE NOW SIX TIMES LESS LIKELY TO BECOME HOT."
...ok.

It's only just come up because we can't allow Space Marines to be killed in any way dontchaknow.

 Selym wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

And don't get me started on removing overheat chances by firing 2 at the same time!

This is really the best argument against people saying it started to get silly NOW.
"I'VE TAPE TWO TOGETHER TO SHOOT AT THE SAME TIME. THEY ARE NOW SIX TIMES LESS LIKELY TO BECOME HOT."
...ok.

It's only just come up because we can't allow Space Marines to be killed in any way dontchaknow.

I'm Ad Mech. I have plenty of Plasma, and I think it's just fine that it has a balance between overcharge and negative modifiers. This isn't a faction-based whine, it's just people clinging to what they think is realism. People set in their ways.

 Hollow wrote:

 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.

Even in a final draft you will still have some mistakes and that's not ruining the content of a paper with a bad grade. I agree with that. However, a core rules system for a game millions of people are going to play deserves the final draft to be critiqued heavily and corrected BEFORE it goes into print. It's clear here, that didn't happen. It's also clear many rules weren't play tested OR nothing was done when players found rules that didn't work or didn't make sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

And don't get me started on removing overheat chances by firing 2 at the same time!

This is really the best argument against people saying it started to get silly NOW.
"I'VE TAPE TWO TOGETHER TO SHOOT AT THE SAME TIME. THEY ARE NOW SIX TIMES LESS LIKELY TO BECOME HOT."
...ok.

It's only just come up because we can't allow Space Marines to be killed in any way dontchaknow.

I'm Ad Mech. I have plenty of Plasma, and I think it's just fine that it has a balance between overcharge and negative modifiers. This isn't a faction-based whine, it's just people clinging to what they think is realism. People set in their ways.

Plasma cost is fine. Whats not fine? Cheap as gak units taking multiple plasma guns and getting to deep strike with them. You don't see people complaining about sterngard do you?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 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.

Even in a final draft you will still have some mistakes and that's not ruining the content of a paper with a bad grade. I agree with that. However, a core rules system for a game millions of people are going to play deserves the final draft to be critiqued heavily and corrected BEFORE it goes into print. It's clear here, that didn't happen. It's also clear many rules weren't play tested OR nothing was done when players found rules that didn't work or didn't make sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

And don't get me started on removing overheat chances by firing 2 at the same time!

This is really the best argument against people saying it started to get silly NOW.
"I'VE TAPE TWO TOGETHER TO SHOOT AT THE SAME TIME. THEY ARE NOW SIX TIMES LESS LIKELY TO BECOME HOT."
...ok.

It's only just come up because we can't allow Space Marines to be killed in any way dontchaknow.

I'm Ad Mech. I have plenty of Plasma, and I think it's just fine that it has a balance between overcharge and negative modifiers. This isn't a faction-based whine, it's just people clinging to what they think is realism. People set in their ways.

Plasma cost is fine. Whats not fine? Cheap as gak units taking multiple plasma guns and getting to deep strike with them. You don't see people complaining about sterngard do you?

Not sure what you're talking about. The conversation here was that it was silly that overcharged Plasma explodes more at night or when aiming it at someone that shimmers.

Sometimes you just have to abstract things for the sake of game design and/or balance. Maybe they are shooting more rapidly since their enemies are harder to hit, thus increasing the chance the weapon blows up.
I dunno, I didn't write the rules, but I generally don't let things like that bother me. It's no less believable than an ork with a rokett strapped to his back punching a super-sonic jet.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Sometimes you just have to abstract things for the sake of game design and/or balance. Maybe they are shooting more rapidly since their enemies are harder to hit, thus increasing the chance the weapon blows up.
I dunno, I didn't write the rules, but I generally don't let things like that bother me. It's no less believable than an ork with a rokett strapped to his back punching a super-sonic jet.

I seriously doubt this was a conscious decision though. From a simple mathhammer perspective, I still have no real reason to run a Plasma Cannon over a Grav Cannon. Funny how that works, huh?

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Sometimes you just have to abstract things for the sake of game design and/or balance. Maybe they are shooting more rapidly since their enemies are harder to hit, thus increasing the chance the weapon blows up.
I dunno, I didn't write the rules, but I generally don't let things like that bother me. It's no less believable than an ork with a rokett strapped to his back punching a super-sonic jet.

When compared to the existence of the Warp, no rules abstraction compares to the sheer amount of suspended disbelief that requires

 MagicJuggler wrote:
From a simple mathhammer perspective, I still have no real reason to run a Plasma Cannon over a Grav Cannon.

Cost and range are two reasons, not zero reasons.

Is there any news on forgeworld faq? I was getting ready to place an order but want to hold off if things are about to change heavily.