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.

RaW also can have ambiguities in it that the author didn't intend or believes that it is clear in meaning. Sometimes the breakdown occurs between British English and other types of English.
Just because someone puts something in writing doesn't mean that they are writing what they envisioned.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
RaW also can have ambiguities in it that the author didn't intend or believes that it is clear in meaning. Sometimes the breakdown occurs between British English and other types of English.
Just because someone puts something in writing doesn't mean that they are writing what they envisioned.

I agree, that is why errata exists.

 malamis wrote:
Yaho,

Came up last night; nobody used it because it's too icky and we all played 7th or older:

Core rules 1st column 2nd paragraph wrote:
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models. A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves.

As written, what prevents a devastator squad from having 2 lascannons at the far left corner of the deployment zone, 2 lascannons 72" away at the far right, and the sgt and a scrub hiding behind a bastion with the captain?
Reworked for less extreme example, what prevents a unit of conscripts from being joined at the hip in pairs, but 3" between each pair? Is there anything that prevents them from moving in this formation?

Is there any particular indicator this is not as intended?

The word "unit" itself is an indicator your take isn't intended. ;-)

This is one of those internet-only problems again.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Thommy H wrote:
No, that isn't what I said.

I said that, originally, the AoS rules omitted the "as a group" part, and this was the errata that was added. The 40K wording - which is basically AoS+ - has thus incorporated that change.

Nowhere does it say "group" is equivalent to "all models in coherency". The rule explicitly states you only have to be within 2" of one other model. Two pairs of models deployed 40" apart fits this rule.

Battleprimer: pg 2 - "Units"

...A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves.

According to RAW, a unit coherency is defined by characters, inclusively:
1. a unit must set up and finish any sort of move as a group.
2. every model must be within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit.

In order for your interpretation to hold true as per valid interpretation of the English language, the first clause above needs to read "...a unit must set up and finish any sort of move in groups." The statement clearly outlines that a single unit, must act as a single group.

Your example of two pairs of units placed 40" away does not fulfill the condition of "a unit being set up ...as a group,with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit" but fulfills the following misinterpretation of "a unit being set up... in groups, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit"

I think, if I wanted something in plain English without mentioning graphs or whatever, I would go with something like this:

Coherency Test
You can perform a coherency test on any opposing unit after it is deployed or finishes moving. Divide the models of the unit into two groups, A and B, however you decide, with at least one model in each group. If there is no model in group A within 2" horizontally and 6" vertically of at least one model in group B, remove the entire unit from play. Units with only one model automatically pass.

Pink Horror wrote:
I think, if I wanted something in plain English without mentioning graphs or whatever, I would go with something like this:

Coherency Test
You can perform a coherency test on any opposing unit after it is deployed or finishes moving. Divide the models of the unit into two groups, A and B, however you decide, with at least one model in each group. If there is no model in group A within 2" horizontally and 6" vertically of at least one model in group B, remove the entire unit from play. Units with only one model automatically pass.

So an enemy can kill 1 model, you forget to move it and suddenly your entire unit is killed? Seems fair.

In case anyone missed it by now; this has been answered in the FAQ (with the answer unhelpfully not using the letter string "coherenc") in that no, more than one grouping of the unit is not allowed and the whole thing has to be set up as a single group.

Let's put BCB and some other rules lawyer together in one game and see how that plays out.

I'll bring the beer.

This beer will be Natty Boh.

 Infantryman wrote:
Let's put BCB and some other rules lawyer together in one game and see how that plays out.

I'll bring the beer.

This beer will be Natty Boh.

I've seen how he acts here and on github, thanks but no, thanks...

 Infantryman wrote:
Let's put BCB and some other rules lawyer together in one game and see how that plays out.

You can mock, but I'm convinced the much-hated "rules lawyers" are exactly the sort of people GW should be getting to playtest their rules prior to publication.

Only if they get things right would they be useful. "A group" and "unit" are singular... there's plenty in the RAW of the rules and the FAQ now that prevent the shenanigans they propose. Simply adding "RAW" to a post doesn't make it correct. I do see a lot of indefensible stances defended ad nauseam round here... luckily it seems this one has run its course.

 Kriswall wrote:
The upcoming Star Wars Legion resolves the issue pretty well. You move the squad leader and then place all models in the unit within range 1 (about 6") of said squad leader. Because every model in the unit is always within 6" of the squad leader, it's impossible to break coherency. Coherency largely becomes a non issue. I THINK the squad leader has to be the last model in a unit to die.

The same way Warmachine does it now, as I mentioned (and AT-43, and plenty of historical skirmish rulesets). It's not a new method. It does mean units end up in roundish blobs, rather than dispersed lines. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of taste.

It's not even an "issue" unless you're actively trying to break the game, tbh.

Duskweaver wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
Let's put BCB and some other rules lawyer together in one game and see how that plays out.

You can mock, but I'm convinced the much-hated "rules lawyers" are exactly the sort of people GW should be getting to playtest their rules prior to publication.

I'm pretty sure the guys at GW headquarters are having a good hard laugh every time they visit this forum and take a look at rule lawyering. From what i have heard the sloppy and inconsistent rule writing has been that way for years. I believe they dont care much about the rules, thats why they introduced the most important rule. When there is a problem figure out a way both players can agree upon, or roll off, winner decides what to do, and continue the game.

 p5freak wrote:

Duskweaver wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
Let's put BCB and some other rules lawyer together in one game and see how that plays out.

You can mock, but I'm convinced the much-hated "rules lawyers" are exactly the sort of people GW should be getting to playtest their rules prior to publication.

I'm pretty sure the guys at GW headquarters are having a good hard laugh every time they visit this forum and take a look at rule lawyering. From what i have heard the sloppy and inconsistent rule writing has been that way for years. I believe they dont care much about the rules, thats why they introduced the most important rule. When there is a problem figure out a way both players can agree upon, or roll off, winner decides what to do, and continue the game.

We know they are laughing after Nick's comments on the Twitch stream about the Grinding Advance "is zero less than five" silliness.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

We know they are laughing after Nick's comments on the Twitch stream about the Grinding Advance "is zero less than five" silliness.

What?

 Crimson wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

We know they are laughing after Nick's comments on the Twitch stream about the Grinding Advance "is zero less than five" silliness.

What?

Explanation in a spoiler tag due to being off-topic. I won't go into any further detail in any further posts in this thread, as I don't want to derail the topic.

Mallich wrote:
Explanation in a spoiler tag due to being off-topic. I won't go into any further detail in any further posts in this thread, as I don't want to derail the topic.

Spoiler:

The Grinding Advance rule allows a Leman Russ to fire its main gun twice, but only if it moves less than 5 inches. Players were split into two groups as to what the rule meant.
- The vehicle can fire the main gun twice, but only if the vehicle moves, and the distance moved was less than 5 inches. A vehicle must move in order to satisfy the requirement to "move less than 5 inches", and so the vehicle would suffer the -1 penalty when firing its heavy bolters / multimeltas / etc.
- The vehicle can fire the main gun twice, but only if the vehicle doesn't move 5 or more inches. There is therefore no requirement for the vehicle to move. The tank can therefore remain still, and fire all weapons with no penalty.
IIRC, GW went with the second group while mocking the first group. This made some people unhappy.

*headdesk*

Well, GW was completely right and mocking was absolutely deserved.

Ah yes, mock those who bring legitimate issues to bear. That's a good way to keep customers.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ah yes, mock those who bring legitimate issues to bear. That's a good way to keep customers.

It was not a legitimate issue, the rule was perfectly clear. Just like this one.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ah yes, mock those who bring legitimate issues to bear. That's a good way to keep customers.

It was not a legitimate issue, the rule was perfectly clear. Just like this one.

So clear they had to errata it? So clear they had to issue an FAQ about it? Seems legit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ah yes, mock those who bring legitimate issues to bear. That's a good way to keep customers.

It was not a legitimate issue, the rule was perfectly clear. Just like this one.

So clear they had to errata it? So clear they had to issue an FAQ about it? Seems legit.

It really doesn't speak well for the intelligence of the playerbase that they had to.

I am glad that they're releasing FAQs pretty rapidly these days, but it is a shame that they have to waste their time with stuff like this. Intentionally obtuse rules lawyers are just wasting everyone's time, really, this very thread being a prime example.

 Crimson wrote:
It really doesn't speak well for the intelligence of the playerbase that they had to.

I am glad that they're releasing FAQs pretty rapidly these days, but it is a shame that they have to waste their time with stuff like this. Intentionally obtuse rules lawyers are just wasting everyone's time, really, this very thread being a prime example.

If anything it speaks to the intelligence of the rules writers, not the player base. All they would need is ONE technical writer on the team to fix all this, but they refuse, and people who enjoy playing games by the rules get stigmatised for it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If anything it speaks to the intelligence of the rules writers, not the player base. All they would need is ONE technical writer on the team to fix all this, but they refuse, and people who enjoy playing games by the rules get stigmatised for it.

I really don't want the rules to be written for people who are so stupid that they don't understand that zero is less than five. It would probably make the rules at least ten times longer, filled with explanations of what common words like 'up' or 'less' mean.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It really doesn't speak well for the intelligence of the playerbase that they had to.

I am glad that they're releasing FAQs pretty rapidly these days, but it is a shame that they have to waste their time with stuff like this. Intentionally obtuse rules lawyers are just wasting everyone's time, really, this very thread being a prime example.

If anything it speaks to the intelligence of the rules writers, not the player base. All they would need is ONE technical writer on the team to fix all this, but they refuse, and people who enjoy playing games by the rules get stigmatised for it.

Agree. The moment they decide they are making a game they should make the decision to do it correctly and hire and actual rules writer.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If anything it speaks to the intelligence of the rules writers, not the player base. All they would need is ONE technical writer on the team to fix all this, but they refuse, and people who enjoy playing games by the rules get stigmatised for it.

I really don't want the rules to be written for people who are so stupid that they don't understand that zero is less than five. It would probably make the rules at least ten times longer, filled with explanations of what common words like 'up' or 'less' mean.

It was never an issue of "is zero less than five". It was an issue of "does not moving count as moving less than a certain distance." If you claim that moving 0" is the same as moving less than X", then you'd always suffer the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons.

Not Moving can fairly and justifiably be claimed to not be the same as moving a small distance. The errata has made things clear now, and was needed.

You are fake news.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Dude... with respect, you're absolutely wrong here. Rules as Written is what was actually written on the page. Rules as Intended is what the author intended to convey when they wrote the rules. They aren't always the same.

I disagree. Authors don't accidentally write rules. They intend to write them. If they make a mistake, that is what errata is for. No errata means the RaW is intended to be that way.

Except that assumes writers are perfect which means by definition they aren't humans. You thus claim humans didn't write 40k rules

Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If anything it speaks to the intelligence of the rules writers, not the player base. All they would need is ONE technical writer on the team to fix all this, but they refuse, and people who enjoy playing games by the rules get stigmatised for it.

I really don't want the rules to be written for people who are so stupid that they don't understand that zero is less than five. It would probably make the rules at least ten times longer, filled with explanations of what common words like 'up' or 'less' mean.

It's not about rules being writen for idiots. It's about rules being written clearly. There are no rules disputes for monopoly. No rules disputes for Poker. Nobody has a forum set up with rules debates for the vast majority of games in existence. 40k has over 20 pages of FAQs and errata right now and the game is less then a year old. Thats bad by any metric.

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Dude... with respect, you're absolutely wrong here. Rules as Written is what was actually written on the page. Rules as Intended is what the author intended to convey when they wrote the rules. They aren't always the same.

I disagree. Authors don't accidentally write rules. They intend to write them. If they make a mistake, that is what errata is for. No errata means the RaW is intended to be that way.

Except that assumes writers are perfect which means by definition they aren't humans. You thus claim humans didn't write 40k rules

What a dumb thing to say. Do you have any actual point or are you just strawmaning?

 Lance845 wrote:
It's not about rules being writen for idiots. It's about rules being written clearly. There are no rules disputes for monopoly. No rules disputes for Poker. Nobody has a forum set up with rules debates for the vast majority of games in existence. 40k has over 20 pages of FAQs and errata right now and the game is less then a year old. Thats bad by any metric.

I get that having FAQs and Errata are better than not having FAQs and Errata, but there really should have been an attempt to write the rules properly to begin with.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It was never an issue of "is zero less than five". It was an issue of "does not moving count as moving less than a certain distance." If you claim that moving 0" is the same as moving less than X", then you'd always suffer the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons.

I know what the 'issue' was. It is failure to understand normal English and you're exhibiting it here. Not moving at all is indeed movin less than five inches, just as eating no pizza at all is eating less than five slices of pizza. You can simultaneously fulfill both conditions 1) Heavy weapons: did I move at all: NO, 2) Grinding Advance: was my movement less than 5: YES.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

It's not about rules being writen for idiots. It's about rules being written clearly. There are no rules disputes for monopoly. No rules disputes for Poker. Nobody has a forum set up with rules debates for the vast majority of games in existence. 40k has over 20 pages of FAQs and errata right now and the game is less then a year old. Thats bad by any metric.

I agree that rules should be written clearly and there are actually unclear rules which require an errata. And then there are perfectly clear rules which people intentionally misunderstand. For example, is anyone genuinely confused about how the squad coherency is supposed to work?