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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
None of these are "optional" rules. The only ones that could even remotely be considered optional are the Organised Play rules. A lot of them are explicit matched play rules.

Shockingly, not everyone plays matched play, and a few of these are beta rules which dont have to be used even in matched play

If you want to go down that route then literally EVERY rule is "optional" and then at that point why bother discussing anything.

How does having different rulesets for different types of gameplay mean that all rules are optional? How does having beta rules for one of those types of gameplay mean that all rules are optional?

I don't think the results are correctly processed.

I would observe that the sum of the votes for all the categories is equal to the number of total independent votes, which probably isn't accurate. [It's reporting it as if 834 people each voted for a single option, basically]

Of course, that could be the case, but I suspect it's more like 80-odd people responded affirmative for the majority of the rule options.



It does appear that all the rules are used nearly evenly with the exception of "Recommended Battlefield Size", which is about a third as likely to be used as the other options. Detachment limits is second least used.

 Billagio wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
None of these are "optional" rules. The only ones that could even remotely be considered optional are the Organised Play rules. A lot of them are explicit matched play rules.

Shockingly, not everyone plays matched play, and a few of these are beta rules which dont have to be used even in matched play

If you want to go down that route then literally EVERY rule is "optional" and then at that point why bother discussing anything.

How does having different rulesets for different types of gameplay mean that all rules are optional? How does having beta rules for one of those types of gameplay mean that all rules are optional?

As to the former, because essentially everything is optional in open or matched play, it's just what you agree on, so the discussion widens to the point of meaninglessness.

To the latter, I don't think that is what he or she meant.

Sure, for matched and open play you can do whatever, and the discussion around what rules you use is what this thread is about...Even in matched play you arnt required to use all the "matched play rules" just the matched play rules that are not beta or for organized events. Most Matched Play players probably use both these as well (though theres no way to really know for sure), but some dont....Again, the point of this thread

Who the hell would want +1 Smite for each successive cast? You want Thousand Sons and Tzeentch to become ungodly broken?

bibotot wrote:
Who the hell would want +1 Smite for each successive cast? You want Thousand Sons and Tzeentch to become ungodly broken?

I think he means +1 to what you need to pass the test, aka the psychic focus rule from the faq

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Who cares?

We will not reach a representative sample size anyways, so any result won't be scientifically relevant either way.

The relative difference between the most used rule and whatever other rule is enough to sate my curiosity and prove general trends.

Of course since you don't have an option for people who don't use the optional rules you don't have a frame of reference for any of this as well

It could be 1000 people not using them vs the 50 or so who do and voted on your poll and you would never know

From experience, those options are just as unreliable as not having them, since some people just check all/random boxes for whatever reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
Some of the rules at the top are default matched play rules, but some are optional organised play suggestions. So the thread title is a little misleading. Some of them aren't optional (except insofar as everything about the game is optional of course!).

Well, I had "Points instead of PL" in there as well, but I feared it would de-rail the thread into the same discussion we have seen ten times before.
I have seen games played next to me at the store without any rules outside the battle primer, with one guy casting warp time on half his army and the other having no coherrent detachments whatsoever, with a single IG tank among some mixed imperial characters (the whole triumvirate) and space marines from DV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
None of these are "optional" rules. The only ones that could even remotely be considered optional are the Organised Play rules. A lot of them are explicit matched play rules.

When playing a narrative mission or apocalypse every single one of those rules is optional. Anything not in the battle primer is optional, including all of the additional rules for open play, narrative play and matched play. Maybe the self-proclaimed king of RAW should have a look at the rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It does appear that all the rules are used nearly evenly with the exception of "Recommended Battlefield Size", which is about a third as likely to be used as the other options. Detachment limits is second least used.

I find that quite surprising. I would have thought more people ignore the rule of 3 than the limit on battalions.

I'm not at all surprised about people ignoring the table sizes though.