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.

This is not a rules question; but rather a reminder and hopeful sticky.

8th Edition has 3 levels of play with some different governances: Open, Narrative, and Matched.

It also has 2 different levels of rules: Basic and Advanced.

There have been threads that pop up discussing how certain rules in the BRB do not work because the Basic and Advanced rules are in conflict. There have also been responses to questions where Matched play rules ate treated as the Gospel Truth.

Both of these are wrong in relation to 8th as a whole.

Yes; in matched play, many things are limited. But, we should be clear that we are talking about matched play when asking or answering questions where there is a difference.

Yes; sometimes there is a Conflict between the Battlefield Terrain rules and the Core rules on Cover and Movement(even the Fight Phase in at least 1 instance). This fact is meaningless in a very Basic: core vs Advanced basis. Basically, if an advanced rule(found in the so-named section of the brb) is in conflict with the core rules; then the advanced rule takes precedence in that conflict.

I really hate that this has to be said in this format, it shames us as a comunity that we are not open to the idea of people not playing in tournaments, or that we have several page arguments and discussions over core vs advanced rules that claim some advanced rule "doesn't work" because it says something different than tbe core rule(which is invariably quoted as proof); then GW is blamed for "writing crummy rules". They do, but not here. Here is us, we are wrong. We are overcomplicating a simple rule-set to try and squeeze something out of it.

Yes, the more specific rule always trumps the general rule. That's why said specific rule is there to begin with.


Example:

Models cannot advance and then charge.
overridden by-
Genestealers can advance and still charge.

The genestealer rule is specific to them and only them, so it trumps the general rule.

I didn't look into the rules in details, what rules are conflicting with each other (just for my information).
But I agree with your post, it shouldn't need to exist, but it is still a useful reminder.

 godardc wrote:
I didn't look into the rules in details, what rules are conflicting with each other (just for my information).
But I agree with your post, it shouldn't need to exist, but it is still a useful reminder.

Ruins in the FAQ and the Battlefield Terrain section of the advanced rules, they are very different from the generic terrain movement and cover rules in the core rules.

Some of the questions that get asked here in YMDC do not indicate play level nor rules level and are nearly always answered assuming matched play and advanced rules with the counter arguments citing core rules.

It is little differences like how a vehicle in core rules gains the benefits of cover while in any terrain and can climb up levels while infantry cannot walk through the walls. In advanced rules everything changes with Infantry freely moving through the walls and vehicles are stuck on ground level needing 50% obscured.

While I agree in principal:
When someone raises questions about Ruins we know they are referring to the Advanced Rules, because Rules for an object called 'Ruins' do not exists anywhere within the Basic Rules....

The fun part is when they start talking about a Building in general as no Rules exist, period, for Buildings!
So many people want to apply the Rule for Ruins, even though it is not a Ruin, by default....

 JinxDragon wrote:
While I agree in principal:
When someone raises questions about Ruins we know they are referring to the Advanced Rules, because Rules for an object called 'Ruins' do not exists anywhere within the Basic Rules....

The fun part is when they start talking about a Building in general as no Rules exist, period, for Buildings!
So many people want to apply the Rule for Ruins, even though it is not a Ruin, by default....

A piece of plastic that looks like ruins is called ruins by most people though.

If someone came to you a piece of plastic shaped as a Ruin in one hand and a piece of plastic shaped as a Wood in the other, wanting to know the difference between them....
Would they be asking about a the basic Rule of all terrain pieces, or the specific Rules relating to the two pieces of plastic in question?


Like I said, I agree in principal and will never fault people for taking a moment to explain the difference between the two if they believe it is something related to the topic being discussed. Not only would it be extremely hypocritical of me to state otherwise, with the lengths I go into details when it isn't even required, but it is the only way to ensure there is no confusion when using a text based language completely void of body-language and other contextual clues. I still stand by the point, however, that it is not required to go into that amount of depth in every single post simply because the different Rule-sets exist. It is entirely possible to formulate an answer that fits the Situation being discussed within the Opening Post by using the terminology within the Opening Post to determine which Rule-set is being discussed. When someone brings up the difference between the two, then it becomes a good time to discuss the difference between the two. Hope Kommissar Kel forgives me for the use of the word 'debate' instead of the word 'discussion' within that one post, he clearly feels strongly about this topic.

But, and I hate to use words against someone... Kommissar Kel does enjoy the word 'Context.'
That is my entire point in a nutshell - Answering the Question in the Context put forth by the Poster is not a bad thing... is it?

 JinxDragon wrote:
If someone came to you a piece of plastic shaped as a Ruin in one hand and a piece of plastic shaped as a Wood in the other, wanting to know the difference between them....
Would they be asking about a the basic Rule of all terrain pieces, or the specific Rules relating to the two pieces of plastic in question?

How is the material relevant in any way? I was saying "if it looks like a ruin I call it a ruin" even if it's "terrain". You can't assume everyone uses the perfect wording, especially when they're not sure how the rules you derived that wording from work or are even unknown to that person.

If someone brought me those lumps of plastic; I would ask for the context, core or advanced(and likely later down the line chapter approved or some scenery-specific book).

Also Jinx; you seemed to have missed the point, it is not just the not being specific to core or advanced. The issue is that, in this case, posters have complained about "GWs crummy rules writing" with advanced rules allowing infantry to move through the walls freely while the core rules state that walls stop all models, who have to go around or over.

Specific play levels also come into place with regard to reserves, and first turn questions(yes many times the context of the question can be gleaned, but that does not help brand-new players with a similar question on a different play level).

Most people play Matched Play. I get your well-meant point, but this will be like fighting the tide to try and prevent.

I think the general assumption is that a rules question is in relation to 'Matched Play, Advanced Rules' unless stated otherwise. That's kinda the default for most/many people.

To piggy back on JohnnyHell, not only do most people play Matched Play, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the average super-casual, open-play, never does tournaments player probably isn't in YMDC arguing about the exact meant of "allocate" or whatever.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If someone brought me those lumps of plastic; I would ask for the context, core or advanced(and likely later down the line chapter approved or some scenery-specific book).

Also Jinx; you seemed to have missed the point, it is not just the not being specific to core or advanced. The issue is that, in this case, posters have complained about "GWs crummy rules writing" with advanced rules allowing infantry to move through the walls freely while the core rules state that walls stop all models, who have to go around or over.

Specific play levels also come into place with regard to reserves, and first turn questions(yes many times the context of the question can be gleaned, but that does not help brand-new players with a similar question on a different play level).

True, I really don't have to deal with such people anymore, and thus did not considered those lacking the understand of... well... basics such as 'basic vs advanced.'
Not like there are two entire pages dedicated to explaining that Advanced Rules exist, and are a 'new way to play the game!,' or anything.

I am still going to point out something about your answer that bothers me:- Do you really need more context to show someone where to find the different Rules for Ruins and Woods?
How about we bring up 'Advanced vs Basic' when someone makes the mistake, or the Opening Post's problem can he solved by explaining these differences?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnFéasógMór,

I prove you wrong, sorry.
I never play the game like I discuss it here, and argue vocally that people shouldn't play the game by strict Rule. Even during previous editions where I rule lawyer hard here; I make up fun and playful Rules all the time, never played a Matched Game of 8th in my life (to be fair, I only played a few games on Vassal period and the All-Bubblechukka list was underwhelming), never again to collect models and never entered a Tourney even when I was inclined to collect models. I actually came to this site to originally try and make sense of the game from a lawyer point of view, because it really is poorly compiled and had all sorts of things to laugh about.

Hell, I still to this day go around yelling:
Tanks can climb ladders!

 JinxDragon wrote:

AnFéasógMór,

I prove you wrong, sorry.
I never play the game like I discuss it here, and argue vocally that people shouldn't play the game by strict Rule. Even during previous editions where I rule lawyer hard here; I make up fun and playful Rules all the time, never played a Matched Game of 8th in my life (to be fair, I only played a few games on Vassal period and the All-Bubblechukka list was underwhelming), never again to collect models and never entered a Tourney even when I was inclined to collect models. I actually came to this site to originally try and make sense of the game from a lawyer point of view, because it really is poorly compiled and had all sorts of things to laugh about.

Hell, I still to this day go around yelling:
Tanks can climb ladders!

That...that doesn't "prove me wrong" in the slightest. That's like people who say "global warming is a hoax because it snowed yesterday". The fact that you, or even a handful of people in this forum, don't play matched play as their primary style doesn't disprove the argument that most people in this forum do, that most people who are strongly concerned with precise interpretations of rules do, and that that is why answers in this forum focus on that as the standard.

This is nothing like Global Warming, which is probability Trends drifting over periods of time....

You made an all-inclusive statement when you went out onto that limb when you stated that the average super-casual, open-play, never does tournaments player probably isn't in YMDC arguing about the exact meant of "allocate" or whatever.
All I needed is a single point of data to prove it was indeed probable, and luck might have it... I am a super casual player.

 JinxDragon wrote:
This is nothing like Global Warming, which is probability Trends drifting over periods of time....

You made an all-inclusive statement when you went out onto that limb when you stated that the average super-casual, open-play, never does tournaments player probably isn't in YMDC arguing about the exact meant of "allocate" or whatever.
All I needed is a single point of data to prove it was indeed probable, and luck might have it... I am a super casual player.

"Average" is, by its very definition, not all inclusive (or rather, not representative of all).

If I say "the average carpenter is white, male, 40, and has a high school degree", that doesn't mean that there are no 25 year old, black, female, college-educated carpenters, it means that if you pick one carpenter at random out of a million, chances are that that ain't them.

Seriously, if you think all you need is a single point of data to disprove a trend, you really need to retake math.

Never said anything about proving a shifting probability trend, just disproving your statement about the probability of such players being here.

Also, the only thing I have going for me is the fact I am so average... please don't tell me I am no longer average, it might break my heart!
Addition: Would you like this me to get a Kilt?

I have 2: blackwatch plaid and Perthshire district.

Ooh, Blackwatch plaid, nice.

This is going nowhere fast now.

RULE #2 is STAY ON TOPIC.

So please, STAY ON TOPIC.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 JinxDragon wrote:

AnFéasógMór,

I prove you wrong, sorry.
I never play the game like I discuss it here, and argue vocally that people shouldn't play the game by strict Rule. Even during previous editions where I rule lawyer hard here; I make up fun and playful Rules all the time, never played a Matched Game of 8th in my life (to be fair, I only played a few games on Vassal period and the All-Bubblechukka list was underwhelming), never again to collect models and never entered a Tourney even when I was inclined to collect models. I actually came to this site to originally try and make sense of the game from a lawyer point of view, because it really is poorly compiled and had all sorts of things to laugh about.

Hell, I still to this day go around yelling:
Tanks can climb ladders!

That...that doesn't "prove me wrong" in the slightest. That's like people who say "global warming is a hoax because it snowed yesterday". The fact that you, or even a handful of people in this forum, don't play matched play as their primary style doesn't disprove the argument that most people in this forum do, that most people who are strongly concerned with precise interpretations of rules do, and that that is why answers in this forum focus on that as the standard.

It doesn't prove you wrong, but your point doessn't prove you right. Your argument was "the average super-casual, open-play, never does tournaments player probably isn't in YMDC arguing about the exact meant of "allocate" or whatever. " It's completely irrelevant that most people here use matched play as their primary style. For your argument, it only matters that the ones who aren't mainly using matched play aren't the "average super-casual, open-play, never does tournaments players"

All his point shows it that there is at least one person here who doesn't use matched-play as their main style who is hanging out here. This is fine; if there's one there are undoubtedly others, and it would be nice to consider their play style as well when there's a question asked and it's not obvious that it's a matched play setting.

I have decided to yield the point though - my win/loss rate clearly marks me as a below-average player.