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.

kombatwombat wrote:
The Y’vahra flat out invalidates a close combat army. If you can’t kill it from range you simply can’t kill it. It used to be slightly less obnoxious when its Overwatch was capped at 8” so you could charge it from 8.1” away safely, but with the new Sept rule increasing the range to 14” there’s nowhere to hide. Very, very few things get through that thing’s Overwatch, and anything that does must kill it in one go or it simply flies out of combat and shoots it again. Coupled with its speed, durability and drones, a single 400pt model can shut down an entire 2000pt army.

I actually think it could very easily be fixed by what should have been a basic rule from the start of 8th Ed: any single unit can only fire Overwatch once per turn. Then maybe give T’au a Stratagem to do it a second time.

Try charging it from outside LOS if you can. Force FTGG to disable overwatch. If there are 2 of them do not multicharge them. Basically it goes like this, charge one and force the other to help. The one that helped can no longer overwatch even for itself. Now you charge that one. Y'Varhas are actually in a worse place right now then they were pre-faq since drones cannot be aggressively deployed via deep strike. Don't get me wrong they are very good for their price, but they are far from unbeatable.

With 8th ed rules how you charge it out of LOS when tiniest piece visible from any part of the huge model is enough???

That depends on terrain. Depending on your army you can also just bring things that ignore overwatch and charge with those first.

Almost like dealing with it requires some thought to positioning and planning instead of running straight at it. But this is 40k. Stuff like that doesn't exist.

tneva82 wrote:
With 8th ed rules how you charge it out of LOS when tiniest piece visible from any part of the huge model is enough???

Flying units are really helpful for this. Snuggle up next to terrain or big blocky things as much as possible. Chances are the Y'Varha is going to position itself in a way to reduce incoming long range AT which means something is blocking LOS. If you have literally 0 long range AT then you kinda deserve what is about to happen. Even smite is better than nothing. At the very least kill the drones so it has to tank its own damage.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
With 8th ed rules how you charge it out of LOS when tiniest piece visible from any part of the huge model is enough???

Flying units are really helpful for this. Snuggle up next to terrain or big blocky things as much as possible. Chances are the Y'Varha is going to position itself in a way to reduce incoming long range AT which means something is blocking LOS. If you have literally 0 long range AT then you kinda deserve what is about to happen. Even smite is better than nothing. At the very least kill the drones so it has to tank its own damage.

You would need some specifically custom made scenery to work(nothing GW produces would certainly be useless) and then have tau player dumb enough to do that.

That thing is huge and with all the windows etc making for example GW made terrains useless for LOS blocking not many tables have anything to LOS block LEMAN RUSS let alone that big suit

And yet i have a feeling that we are not going to see many Y'Varha around. You know, it's pretty clear by now that nothing FW can be competitive for long.

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
With 8th ed rules how you charge it out of LOS when tiniest piece visible from any part of the huge model is enough???

Flying units are really helpful for this. Snuggle up next to terrain or big blocky things as much as possible. Chances are the Y'Varha is going to position itself in a way to reduce incoming long range AT which means something is blocking LOS. If you have literally 0 long range AT then you kinda deserve what is about to happen. Even smite is better than nothing. At the very least kill the drones so it has to tank its own damage.

You would need some specifically custom made scenery to work(nothing GW produces would certainly be useless) and then have tau player dumb enough to do that.

That thing is huge and with all the windows etc making for example GW made terrains useless for LOS blocking not many tables have anything to LOS block LEMAN RUSS let alone that big suit

That's why you have to get your units as close as possible to the terrain or piece you are using to block LOS. It works much better with elites or single model units. It is not ideal by any means, but it is a tool you can use. The Munitorum containers stacked on top of each other are probably the best GW terrain for this. Moving on from that, The picture was good and it clarified intent. The problem is like you said they need to go one step further and its more or less a perfect way for dealing with beta rules.The laziness is "nah we aren't going to change the text of the rule until its finally released."It is important though that people stay civil during all this. The one consistent thing I have noticed is how many insults have been thrown my way either through passive aggressive implications or outright insults. C'mon people you can call me wrong all you want that is fine, and honestly helpful. As long as you do so in a way that uses evidence besides "U SO DUMB ITS SO OBVIOUS I DONT HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT OMG" That is how you make beta rules better. Polite discourse.

True you can charge from out of LOS. It's very easy for the tau player to predic that and shut it down too. ESP with the +6" range sept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
And yet i have a feeling that we are not going to see many Y'Varha around. You know, it's pretty clear by now that nothing FW can be competitive for long.

This one in particular has been competitive for about 3 years.

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

tneva82 wrote:
With 8th ed rules how you charge it out of LOS when tiniest piece visible from any part of the huge model is enough???

Usually using a character, if you're honestly asking. Tuck it in under a ruin or behind a rock and it's pretty easy to hide one model.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.

The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.

 EnTyme wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.

The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.

No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.

Why not though? It's literally as simple as going into the FAQ file - making changes to the text about beta reserves and saving it. It is really that simple.

It's actually easier than drafting a series of images and pointing out each individual change and posting it on Facebook (what they actually did).

 DominayTrix wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.

The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.

No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.

Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.

Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?

(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.

The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.

No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.

Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.

Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?

(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)

Probably because warmahordes has a real playtesting team/community. 40k's most play tested edition ever is actually just a beta test and large tornaments are their testing ground.

The 40k tournament scene is made awful by poor rules and imbalance.

I would happily play in a tournament where each list was defined prior to entry. So if I wanted, for instance, to play Tyranids, I had to play the exact copy of the Tyranid list they defined for the event.

I would also happily play in a "highlander" format where no unit could be repeated.

GW could publish guidelines and they would immediately be used to frame events. If they published highlander rules, people would play them. If they published "fixed lists" people would play them.

The playerbase will get pulled in all kinds of different directions, and that will cause disagreements, etc, because we're sort of making it up as we go along.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.

The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.

No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.

Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.

Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?

(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)

Probably because warmahordes has a real playtesting team/community. 40k's most play tested edition ever is actually just a beta test and large tornaments are their testing ground.

Please tell me that was badly expressed sarcasm. Warmahordes is a broken mess, 40K 8th is at a much higher level than that. In WH you will probably have a cleaner ruleset, true, but it generates completely abstract situations, you can't even understand what that rule is trying to represent most of the time, and the internal balance of the factions is simply nowhere to be found.

WH is the MtG of the miniature games, that game is so broken that the game is BASED around things being broken!

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.

The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.

No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.

Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.

Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?

(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)

Probably because warmahordes has a real playtesting team/community. 40k's most play tested edition ever is actually just a beta test and large tornaments are their testing ground.

Please tell me that was badly expressed sarcasm. Warmahordes is a broken mess, 40K 8th is at a much higher level than that. In WH you will probably have a cleaner ruleset, true, but it generates completely abstract situations, you can't even understand what that rule is trying to represent most of the time, and the internal balance of the factions is simply nowhere to be found.

WH is the MtG of the miniature games, that game is so broken that the game is BASED around things being broken!

Is this a joke? Are you joking? You're probably joking. You're joking right?

I've always considered WH (40k and formerly FB) to be the D&D of wargaming. It's not designed to be competitive. It's designed to allow people to craft their personal characters and armies, and have a good time arbitrated by dice. (Better balance would still be good, though.)

I'd consider WMH more similar to MTG, in that they write a rulesset to be competitive and specific over immersive and fluffy.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.

The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.

No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.

Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.

Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?

(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)

Probably because warmahordes has a real playtesting team/community. 40k's most play tested edition ever is actually just a beta test and large tornaments are their testing ground.

Please tell me that was badly expressed sarcasm. Warmahordes is a broken mess, 40K 8th is at a much higher level than that. In WH you will probably have a cleaner ruleset, true, but it generates completely abstract situations, you can't even understand what that rule is trying to represent most of the time, and the internal balance of the factions is simply nowhere to be found.

WH is the MtG of the miniature games, that game is so broken that the game is BASED around things being broken!

Is this a joke? Are you joking? You're probably joking. You're joking right?

No jokes, I've played that game for years, but now my Everblights have been taking dust on a shelf for quite some time. Admittedly i have no idea if MK3 fixed the problems of that game, but MK1 and MK2 were a disaster, in my area (Rome) it completely died and i'm not surprised. I don't understand why it is used as a meter of what GW should do, it had literally all the same problems of 7th (terrible balance, power creep, rules creep, unapproachable by new players...). At least 7th had good looking minis.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.

Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.

They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.

So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.

I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.

The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.

No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.

Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.

Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?

(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)

GW owns the game and controls the rules. It may absolutely be the fault of ITC and other tournament organizations, but that doesn't change that it is still their game and GW is the only group that is any position to fix it. Even if it became the defacto standard regardless of outside tournaments influence it is still only GW that can really fix it. Even if every tournament organization around the world came up with their own additions to the beta rules to perfectly fix all clarifications it would not solve the problem. Anyone outside of a tournament will not be effected. People then try to argue "well figure it out with your opponent beforehand" like that is a normal acceptable thing for a game. It can create awkward unnecessary social tension. Do I let the guy ignore beta rules so I can play a game? Did the winnner only win only because I did or did not allow them to T1 deepstrike? It sours the mood either way and can be completely eliminated by GW adding in one or two lines of text. They know it was a problem, but made some intern create a picture to post on facebook instead and said "nah we aren't going to fix things this is close enough." There are literally zero drawbacks to them clarifying the rule. What does status quo actually accomplish here?

That is the first post I've ever seen where "talk things out with your opponent beforehand" was considered a bad idea.

I've done that in literally every wargame ever and I think it's a necessary feature of tabletop wargaming with any system.

Spoletta wrote:

Please tell me that was badly expressed sarcasm. Warmahordes is a broken mess, 40K 8th is at a much higher level than that. In WH you will probably have a cleaner ruleset, true, but it generates completely abstract situations, you can't even understand what that rule is trying to represent most of the time, and the internal balance of the factions is simply nowhere to be found.

WH is the MtG of the miniature games, that game is so broken that the game is BASED around things being broken!

Spoletta wrote:

No jokes, I've played that game for years, but now my Everblights have been taking dust on a shelf for quite some time. Admittedly i have no idea if MK3 fixed the problems of that game, but MK1 and MK2 were a disaster, in my area (Rome) it completely died and i'm not surprised. I don't understand why it is used as a meter of what GW should do, it had literally all the same problems of 7th (terrible balance, power creep, rules creep, unapproachable by new players...). At least 7th had good looking minis.

How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you follow the 1st statement with the admission you have no idea about Mk3? Simply bizarre.

Because as i've said i've left that game years ago, before MK3, so if it was somehow fixed by that edition, then good for those that still play it, but it doesn't in any way invalidate what i say since the "GW sucks, PP rocks" is an argument as old as MK1. I doubt that it was fixed though if i have to believe the feedbacks that i'm receiving on MK3.

Spoletta wrote:
Because as i've said i've left that game years ago, before MK3, so if it was somehow fixed by that edition, then good for those that still play it, but it doesn't in any way invalidate what i say since the "GW sucks, PP rocks" is an argument as old as MK1. I doubt that it was fixed though if i have to believe the feedbacks that i'm receiving on MK3.

You said "Warmahordes IS a broken mess" Don't you see how I might regard your latest statement as bizarreness squared? How can you not see that admitting to know nothing about the game for the last 2 years of a new edition might put into question the validity of the statement "Warmahordes is a broken mess" I can't even........

Ix_Tab wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Because as i've said i've left that game years ago, before MK3, so if it was somehow fixed by that edition, then good for those that still play it, but it doesn't in any way invalidate what i say since the "GW sucks, PP rocks" is an argument as old as MK1. I doubt that it was fixed though if i have to believe the feedbacks that i'm receiving on MK3.

You said "Warmahordes IS a broken mess" Don't you see how I might regard your latest statement as bizarreness squared? How can you not see that admitting to know nothing about the game for the last 2 years of a new edition might put into question the validity of the statement "Warmahordes is a broken mess" I can't even........

To be fair, Mk 3 is a broken mess too. In order to avoid the thread derail I will just say this...

... want to buy a Khador 'jack-only army led by Karchev? I'm selling.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That is the first post I've ever seen where "talk things out with your opponent beforehand" was considered a bad idea.

I've done that in literally every wargame ever and I think it's a necessary feature of tabletop wargaming with any system.

Doing it is a good thing, The fact that you have to because certain rules are painfully ambiguous or unclear is a bad thing. The more you have to clarify before game the worse it is. I would prefer to limit it to things like "is forgeworld ok?" Chapter approved missions or BRB?" Things that have more to deal with personal preference. Ideally you should not have to discuss things before hand, but we all know that is never going to happen. We should still strive for that ideal by reducing as many things that have to be agreed upon before the game. "Talking before game with your opponent is a bad idea" is a gross oversimplification.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That is the first post I've ever seen where "talk things out with your opponent beforehand" was considered a bad idea.

I've done that in literally every wargame ever and I think it's a necessary feature of tabletop wargaming with any system.

Doing it is a good thing, The fact that you have to because certain rules are painfully ambiguous or unclear is a bad thing. The more you have to clarify before game the worse it is. I would prefer to limit it to things like "is forgeworld ok?" Chapter approved missions or BRB?" Things that have more to deal with personal preference. Ideally you should not have to discuss things before hand, but we all know that is never going to happen. We should still strive for that ideal by reducing as many things that have to be agreed upon before the game. Talking before game with your opponent is a bad idea is a gross oversimplification.

But that's literally the point of the beta rule, it's for testing. It's like logging into a game with my friend and saying "PTS server or main game?"

Beta tests of future content is a routine thing, and playing with a friend on, say, Elder Scrolls Online means you need to figure out whether you're playing the beta test (Public Test Server PTS) or playing the main version. I don't know why that's such a bad thing in wargaming.