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.

Only the scummiest rules lawyer would try to argue that assault weapon thing, and everyone would ignore it anyway and tell them to stop being an ass. Even if RAW (clearly not intended to anyone with a brain) it's the sort of thing nobody would ever enforce because, unlike most other discussion, this one is obvious what they meant.

However, I notice that many RAW advocates are selective. They'll ignore certain RAW but vehemently argue others. I've seen this first hand recently. Things which read mean one thing are ignored because everyone chooses to ignore it.

You should always read the rules with the idea that they are supposed to work. That way, when you run into problems like Assault weapons, you have the mental flexibility to make them work.

Could GW write the rules better? Absolutely. Have you ever noticed how many different meaning Wound has in the ruleset? Still, the game is very playable if you just read the rules thinking, "these are supposed to work".

I despise gw, but to be fair, real life legislatures are no better.

Wayniac wrote:
Only the scummiest rules lawyer would try to argue that assault weapon thing, and everyone would ignore it anyway and tell them to stop being an ass. Even if RAW (clearly not intended to anyone with a brain) it's the sort of thing nobody would ever enforce because, unlike most other discussion, this one is obvious what they meant.

I take the view that it is one to keep in your back pocket for if you find yourself playing against TFG - or a try-hard in a tournament...

Martel732 wrote:
I despise gw,,.

They could improve in some areas sure, but despise? At the risk of opening a can of worms can I ask why such hate? I assume you like 40K?

I'm invested and I can get a game. Does that count as liking?

GW is fairly abusive towards its customers and frequently writes rules that even with a cursory reading are ambiguous. I do wish another system had won in the early days around 2nd, back when it was possible.

I personally don't mind a bit of fun RAW interpretations, as long as they're more thought experiments that serve to poke fun at GW's rules.

It's when people say that an obviously unintended and absurd rules contrivance should translate into game play that I start getting TFG vibes.

Martel732 wrote:
GW is fairly abusive towards its customers and frequently writes rules that even with a cursory reading are ambiguous. I do wish another system had won in the early days around 2nd, back when it was possible.

I think writing armies out of the game, either through squatting or nerfing, could be seen as abusive, but rules ambiguity is surely a fairly minor gripe in the scheme of things? I mean apart from the fact that there are way too many errata and FAQ documents, in IRL, how many problems does it actually cause in the games you play?

Quite a few, actually. There are interpretation issues between the three cities I typically play in. Another reason I prefer ITC.

I actually wish GW would write out BA, DA, and SW. The game needs less power armor, and those three armies contribute NOTHING to the meta or the game. They are pointless armies that serve as punching bags for the Xenos and IG/IK. GW missed their chance to have the Nids just eat the BA out of the game. Would have been a glorious end instead of lingering on to get owned by Drukhari and Castellans.

Martel732 wrote:
Quite a few, actually. There are interpretation issues between the three cities I typically play in. Another reason I prefer ITC.

I actually wish GW would write out BA, DA, and SW. The game needs less power armor, and those three armies contribute NOTHING to the meta or the game. They are pointless armies that serve as punching bags for the Xenos and IG/IK. GW missed their chance to have the Nids just eat the BA out of the game. Would have been a glorious end instead of lingering on to get owned by Drukhari and Castellans.

What??? Yeah, I don't think so.

I don't think so, either. But BA, DA, and SW need to go, imo. They are useless factions.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think so, either. But BA, DA, and SW need to go, imo. They are useless factions.

I'm not sure they're useless but they could have been included in the main SM codex instead of the new Primaris units. I think players who have invested in those factions deserve to keep playing with them (I also expect that BA, DA, and SW players rather like having their own codexes too).

 Brother Castor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think so, either. But BA, DA, and SW need to go, imo. They are useless factions.

I'm not sure they're useless but they could have been included in the main SM codex instead of the new Primaris units. I think players who have invested in those factions deserve to keep playing with them (I also expect that BA, DA, and SW players rather like having their own codexes too).

Playing those three factions is bit like the abuse I was talking about earlier. That's my view, anyway. I'm not really GW's target audience, I guess. I'm still using models from 3rd, and I won't buy another army.

Martel732 wrote:
Playing those three factions is bit like the abuse I was talking about earlier. That's my view, anyway. I'm not really GW's target audience, I guess. I'm still using models from 3rd, and I won't buy another army.

Nothing wrong with that

What army do you play?

Blood Angels. So yeah, I'm volunteering my own army to be squatted. Because they are mostly useless anyway, and GW won't admit it or fix it.

Martel732 wrote:
Blood Angels. So yeah, I'm volunteering my own army to be squatted. Because they are mostly useless anyway, and GW won't admit it or fix it.

You singled out those factions specifically. Do you think they're worse this edition than other SM armies?

Martel732 wrote:
Blood Angels. So yeah, I'm volunteering my own army to be squatted. Because they are mostly useless anyway, and GW won't admit it or fix it.

Can't you just pretend that they have been squatted and stop playing them? The end result is the same regardless.

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Blood Angels. So yeah, I'm volunteering my own army to be squatted. Because they are mostly useless anyway, and GW won't admit it or fix it.

Can't you just pretend that they have been squatted and stop playing them? The end result is the same regardless.

Or stop posting about them, at least...

Martel732 wrote:
GW is fairly abusive towards its customers and frequently writes rules that even with a cursory reading are ambiguous.

(I'm going to regret this, aren't I?) Okay. I'll bite. How is GW "abusive" toward us?

 EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW is fairly abusive towards its customers and frequently writes rules that even with a cursory reading are ambiguous.

(I'm going to regret this, aren't I?) Okay. I'll bite. How is GW "abusive" toward us?

Why don't you people have him on ignore? He's made it clear that he will always attempt to heckle a thread into getting shut.

 EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW is fairly abusive towards its customers and frequently writes rules that even with a cursory reading are ambiguous.

(I'm going to regret this, aren't I?) Okay. I'll bite. How is GW "abusive" toward us?

Others have stated it much better than I. There's no reason to rehash it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother Castor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Blood Angels. So yeah, I'm volunteering my own army to be squatted. Because they are mostly useless anyway, and GW won't admit it or fix it.

You singled out those factions specifically. Do you think they're worse this edition than other SM armies?

Yes, and even worse, redundant.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm invested and I can get a game. Does that count as liking?

No. Continuing to invest your time and energy into to something you don't enjoy is frankly stupid.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm invested and I can get a game. Does that count as liking?

No. Continuing to invest your time and energy into to something you don't enjoy is frankly stupid.

I can't think of a reason why I would continue to hang around in a game system that I didn't seem to like, ran by people in a company I despise. I can understand hanging around to leave your parting shots, as it were, many people do that, but after a while, people just give up and move on. So there has to be something you like about the game. If I were in that position, I would try to focus on the things I like or move on. That's just me. I hope you find what you like about the game Martel732, because staying in a game for no other reason than your own stuff for it but don't enjoy it feels like a waste of time from my perspective. YMMV.

Martel732 wrote:
Quite a few, actually. There are interpretation issues between the three cities I typically play in. Another reason I prefer ITC.

I actually wish GW would write out BA, DA, and SW. The game needs less power armor, and those three armies contribute NOTHING to the meta or the game. They are pointless armies that serve as punching bags for the Xenos and IG/IK. GW missed their chance to have the Nids just eat the BA out of the game. Would have been a glorious end instead of lingering on to get owned by Drukhari and Castellans.

I play in a community that gets folks coming in from at least three major cities (we are two hours from three major metropolitan areas - at least major in a Canadian sense). Rules debates are extremely rare. If they do happen its usually when a new Codex comes out and we see how the various Stratagems interact. Nothing major. That's just my experience, but your assertion is also just based on your own experience.

Regarding your second point (which seems like an attempt at thread derailment instead of an actual point), you are free to stop playing your Blood Angels. You could sell them and buy some Ravagers. Just because you no longer enjoy Blood Angels doesn't mean that other folks should have to go without.

Martel732 wrote:
Quite a few, actually. There are interpretation issues between the three cities I typically play in. Another reason I prefer ITC.

I actually wish GW would write out BA, DA, and SW. The game needs less power armor, and those three armies contribute NOTHING to the meta or the game. They are pointless armies that serve as punching bags for the Xenos and IG/IK. GW missed their chance to have the Nids just eat the BA out of the game. Would have been a glorious end instead of lingering on to get owned by Drukhari and Castellans.

That's a bold opinion that makes zero sense.

Pretty stupid to continue doing something you despise, but who am I to get in the way of a masochist.

By 40stats, BA have a win rate of 34% as primary. SW and DA are each at 40%. They aren't adding anything to the game. That's where I'm coming from.

Martel732 wrote:
By 40stats, BA have a win rate of 34% as primary. SW and DA are each at 40%. They aren't adding anything to the game. That's where I'm coming from.

40% win rate for the worst factions seem pretty acceptable balancing to me. Granted, 34% is starting to get pretty bad. Still, winning one in three games is not a terrible play experience.

If your argument is that these faction should be just rolled into vanilla marine codex, I agree. But then again, nothing is stopping you from using you BA with vanilla rules right now if you want.

You can roll them in, but why have so many different power armor kits in the game? Very little differentiates the armies, and the results are no different, either. There's just no reason to have these different chapters/factions from a game play standpoint. They don't add anything.

Martel732 wrote:
You can roll them in, but why have so many different power armor kits in the game? Very little differentiates the armies, and the results are no different, either. There's just no reason to have these different chapters/factions from a game play standpoint. They don't add anything.

Why have so many Eldar kits either? Just remove everything except Dark Reapers. /s

The problem is in many cases those primary win rate stats are 700-100 points of primary and 650, 650 or 999 points of other factions.

It's not surprising that older player's arn't exactlly happy with this you got soup to be able to make your army functional.