Switch Theme:

What do we think RAW is?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Does the article snippet explain RAW well?
Yes
Mostly yes, but I disagree to a certain degree
Kind of yes, kind of no
Most of this is wrong, but it does have some valid points
No, this is absolutely wrong - this is not what RAW is
TL:DR, I don't care, I don't actually play the game

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Slipspace wrote:

This is my biggest problem with many of the threads on YMDC in general. I've had two fairly new players in my area tell me in the last month or so that they've been confused by that forum and found it unhelpful and I can understand why. To me YMDC should primarily be a resource to help players answer rules questions, but many threads turn into endless arguments over minutiae or points of principle that simply aren't important, or they're just downright confusing. It often fails to help people actually looking for help. RAW is important, but often as a starting point, not the end point of a discussion.

This has been my observation on YMDC as well. Thanks to certain individuals treating it as a medium for their persona RAW-deathmatch-e-sport, it does not function as an useful resource to the people who actually want to play the game.

   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Crimson wrote:
Slipspace wrote:

This is my biggest problem with many of the threads on YMDC in general. I've had two fairly new players in my area tell me in the last month or so that they've been confused by that forum and found it unhelpful and I can understand why. To me YMDC should primarily be a resource to help players answer rules questions, but many threads turn into endless arguments over minutiae or points of principle that simply aren't important, or they're just downright confusing. It often fails to help people actually looking for help. RAW is important, but often as a starting point, not the end point of a discussion.

This has been my observation on YMDC as well. Thanks to certain individuals treating it as a medium for their persona RAW-deathmatch-e-sport, it does not function as an useful resource to the people who actually want to play the game.


I second this, too many posts devolve into "Everyone plays it wrong except for me because i am a crusader for the RAW" and end up being useless. Honestly when most times a certain person posts and the whole thread gets hijacked, maybe that person should stop posting (willingly or not)
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Slipspace wrote:

This is my biggest problem with many of the threads on YMDC in general. I've had two fairly new players in my area tell me in the last month or so that they've been confused by that forum and found it unhelpful and I can understand why. To me YMDC should primarily be a resource to help players answer rules questions, but many threads turn into endless arguments over minutiae or points of principle that simply aren't important, or they're just downright confusing. It often fails to help people actually looking for help. RAW is important, but often as a starting point, not the end point of a discussion.

This has been my observation on YMDC as well. Thanks to certain individuals treating it as a medium for their persona RAW-deathmatch-e-sport, it does not function as an useful resource to the people who actually want to play the game.


I second this, too many posts devolve into "Everyone plays it wrong except for me because i am a crusader for the RAW" and end up being useless. Honestly when most times a certain person posts and the whole thread gets hijacked, maybe that person should stop posting (willingly or not)
Agreed. Far too often a rules question devolve into "What is RAW, and who is right" rather than who's interpretation of RAW (so twice extrapolated: Rule text -> RAW -> RAI of the RAW) is right. The latter is undoubtedly a valid discussion, the former is not. Maybe we do need a sticky on the generally accepted concept of RAW in YMDC to defer to in cases of these useless arguments.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/09 15:04:23


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Seconded. The utility of the YMDC forum has gone downhill rapidly. It seems mod warnings and mini site holidays aren’t doing any good. What’s to be done?

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 BaconCatBug wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
Do you really need the inherent fallacy of this argument to be pointed out to you again?
It's not a fallacy.

Lets use an analogy. I bake cakes. Every day I bake a pink cake. Whenever I accidently bake a red cake, I change it for a pink cake as soon as it has been pointed out to me that it is not pink.

One day I make a red cake. I keep the cake there despite it being pointed out to me that it is pink, and I do not change it.

Do you insist the red cake is intended to be pink?

The argument being, because they've directly addressed every other instance where RAW isn't RAI, any given instance brought up the RAW must be RAI?

You're assuming they've addressed every instance.

Which is more likely -
Scenario A:
-A nontrivial rulesset is released
-Various mistakes are found
-A single set of corrections are issued that resolves all mistakes in the entire rulesset
-The rulesset is now perfect

Scenario B:
-A nontrivial rulesset is released
-Various mistakes are found
-A single set of corrections are issues that resolves many mistakes
-There are other mistakes in the rulessets

Scenario A is a pipedream. It won't happen.

Look at even the most professional nontrivial rulessets out there. They continually receive new fixes and clarifications. Most are never perfect in their entire lifecycle. What really happens is:

Scenario C:
1. A nontrivial rulesset is released
2. Various mistakes are found
3. Updates are released that fix some of the mistakes
4. GOTO (2)

On an entirely different track, there's a bigger problem with your argument - GW has released more than one set of FAQs. Your argument is that, once GW has released a fix, it can safely be assumed that everything is fixed. If that were the case, there would be no need for another fix ever again. As GW has released multiple fixes over time, it's impossible for this to be true. You could argue "But this latest one is really the One True Fix!" - but what makes this most recent FAQ so special?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






 JohnnyHell wrote:
Seconded. The utility of the YMDC forum has gone downhill rapidly. It seems mod warnings and mini site holidays aren’t doing any good. What’s to be done?



I propose we split the board into two sections.
One where people get together to make an appropriate call when a game play (not theoretical) issue crops up.
The second could be called RLAW or RAWLAW or Tedious Layers Discussing Rules (TLDR). It could basically be a playground for people who enjoy this sort of thing, but don't want to get bogged down by all those miniatures or that gaming nonsense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/09 16:01:08


Like Minis and sculpts? Check out our Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/themakerscult 
   
Made in us
Soul Token




West Yorkshire, England

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Seconded. The utility of the YMDC forum has gone downhill rapidly. It seems mod warnings and mini site holidays aren’t doing any good. What’s to be done?


Topic or subforum bans.

"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich." 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Bharring wrote:
Take the top 50 video games ever.

How many of them had 0 mistakes in their rules?

I'm entirely confident in saying none of them.

Writing nontrivial rulessets perfectly is virtually impossible.


This is nonsense.

The types of errors we are talking about in 40ks rules are logic errors. In programing they cause system crashes. How many of the top 50 video games have system crashes that end the game entirely?

Wanna know some of the top 50 board games of all time with no system crashes? fething pick any of the top 500.

Chess. Checkers. Sorry. Bingo. Backgamon. Go. Poker, any version. Etc...

Games rules writing to prevent logic errors is not THAT hard. It just takes time and care. The more complex the rules the more care needs to be taken and the more likely you need a professional. GW is just gak. Dont make bad excuses for them.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Therein lies the problem with worrying about the theoretical side of a physical game too literally. Everyone here seems to think that if a rule is ever unclear both players and the board simply vanish.

Like Minis and sculpts? Check out our Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/themakerscult 
   
Made in gb
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





UK

 Crimson wrote:
Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.

Unlike most Dakka threads...

[1,800] Chaos Knights | [1,250] Thousand Sons | [1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 MattKing wrote:
Therein lies the problem with worrying about the theoretical side of a physical game too literally. Everyone here seems to think that if a rule is ever unclear both players and the board simply vanish.

That's one of the strengths of the medium (or rather, weakness of video games) - on the tabletop, the logic is tight enough that any problem or screwup is usually easy enough for the players to handle.

Consider the old case where the rules dictated that, if you tied on the go-first roll, you rerolled. While also asserting that you never reroll a reroll. What then happened? In a computer game, you'd have a crash (or similar defect). In 40k, this wouldn't even be a blip. Both players just rerolled, and maybe commented on the luck.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Brother Castor wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.

Unlike most Dakka threads...
This is totally untrue as most reasonable solutions are presented within the first 10 posts
   
Made in gb
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





UK

 skchsan wrote:
 Brother Castor wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.

Unlike most Dakka threads...
This is totally untrue as most reasonable solutions are presented within the first 10 posts

Ah - I was thinking of the ultimate resolution, you know, locked after a further 25 pages of arguing over semantics

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/09 17:35:01


[1,800] Chaos Knights | [1,250] Thousand Sons | [1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/  
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Crimson wrote:
Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.


Well then you just are not paying very much attention. If the rules as RAW were converted from their 8 pages to code in a video game the pistols and assault weapons either a) would just not be usable or b) create a logic error and system crash.

Yes. Rai is obvious. Yes. We can ignore it and move on.

Doesnt change that the basic underlying statement is still true. 40ks rules writing is bad on a level that actually just breaks games and we shouldnt have to make assumptions and work arounds.


I like the philosophical discussion on the nature of raw and what it means in a practical way for us and discusions. I think its a dumb idea to try to break up a forum about rules questions into 2 forums about rules questions because some people dont like to be told what the rules actually say (and the consequences there of). Fact is ymdc wouldnt be going down hill if 40k didnt require almost 100 documents to play with over half of them being faqs and errata, sometimes contradicting other errata, because every single one of the initially released rules documents failed in their singular purpose on the first pass.

Right now, for the forseeable future, we can expect at minimum to recieve another 4 documents a year and maybe 6. 2 faqs, chapter approved, and ca faq/errata. With faqs/errata for the other 2 faq/erratas being a distinct possibility.
Ymdc is getting worse. So is the games quality. One is a direct result of the other.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/09 17:39:18



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

My bad, wrong thread.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/09 17:38:42


 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 Lance845 wrote:
We can ignore it and move on.

Well, some of us can!

Ymdc is getting worse. So is the games quality. One is a direct result of the other.

Absolutely not. The 8th edition is the clearest edition of the game thus far. The situations where the actual intent of the rule is unclear are far fewer than in previous iterations.

   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Crimson wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
We can ignore it and move on.

Well, some of us can!

Ymdc is getting worse. So is the games quality. One is a direct result of the other.

Absolutely not. The 8th edition is the clearest edition of the game thus far. The situations where the actual intent of the rule is unclear are far fewer than in previous iterations.


Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined. Thats not clearer by a long shot. Its the opposite of clear.

Wtf is a new player supposed to do with his rule book and codex when the guy across the table from him starts quoting chapter approved, that thing that was said that one time on wathammer community and the faq errata that was released 4 months ago, AND the faq/errata for all 5 documents currently in play? Not a single shred of that is clear.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/09 17:45:27



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 Lance845 wrote:


Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8t8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined. Thats not clearer by a long shot. Its the opposite of clear.

Wtf is a new player supposed to do with his rule book a codex when the guy across the table from him starts quoting chapter approved, that thing that was said that one time on wathammer community and the faq errata that was released for all 5 documents currently in play? Not a single shred of that is clear.

That is really a issue how the rule updates are organised (which is not ideal), not an issue with the rules themselves (which are mostly unambiguous enough.)

   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Crimson wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:


Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8t8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined. Thats not clearer by a long shot. Its the opposite of clear.

Wtf is a new player supposed to do with his rule book a codex when the guy across the table from him starts quoting chapter approved, that thing that was said that one time on wathammer community and the faq errata that was released for all 5 documents currently in play? Not a single shred of that is clear.

That is really a issue how the rule updates are organised (which is not ideal), not an issue with the rules themselves (which are mostly unambiguous enough.)


Again, disagree. More then half the "updates" are not updates. They are patches to fix ambiguities and or breaks. If even 80 of the 100 documents were just well written rules i might agree with you. But its closer to 60 "updates" to 40 "rules".


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.


Well then you just are not paying very much attention. If the rules as RAW were converted from their 8 pages to code in a video game the pistols and assault weapons either a) would just not be usable or b) create a logic error and system crash.


You're missing the point. The game isn't a computer program so your points about how it would cease to function aren't relevant. The game is played between humans, which changes the requirements for how tight the rules need to be. Could they be better? Absolutely. Should we demand better from GW? Yes.

Have I ever had a game simply grind to a halt due to bad rules writing? No. Not once in over 20 years of playing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/09 17:57:42


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Slipspace wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.


Well then you just are not paying very much attention. If the rules as RAW were converted from their 8 pages to code in a video game the pistols and assault weapons either a) would just not be usable or b) create a logic error and system crash.


You're missing the point. The game isn't a computer program so your points about how it would cease to function aren't relevant. The game is played between humans, which changes the requirements for how tight the rules need to be. Could they be better? Absolutely. Should we demand better from GW? Yes.

Have I ever had a game simply grind to a halt due to bad rules writing? No. Not once in over 20 years of playing.


No. You are missing the point of any rules "litteralist". You and your friends are not me and my friends or the people down the road in the next store, or the people in the town. Or the next country. How YOU work around a game breaking flaw is just that. How YOU do it. And because the rules dont work you and any other group could be playing entirely different games because of your "interpretations, house rules, and fixes".

Here, when someone asks a rule question, the rules "literalist" is the middleground between every communities different interpretations. Play the game however the hell you want. We all do. We all HAVE to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the requirements for a quality game are EXACTLY as tight. You making due with a bad product says nothing about its requirments or quality.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/09 18:17:27



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut



Cymru

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Thing is, he’s actually often wrong but adds “RAW” anyway like it’s a stamp of veracity.

And his fallacies are never correct.

Yes, sometimes his myopic readings follow the letter of the rules ad absurdum, but what use is that in understanding how to play the game? Understand the oddities then move on and play using common sense solutions. Don’t bleat “GW IS INCOMPETENT I CANNOT PLAY” or berate others for using sensible rules patches. That’s bonkers. Yet here we are.


I think this is key to the whole issue. The rules are a guide to playing the game. It literally says that right at the start of the rules section, that is what the rules are and that is what they are for.

Treating them as sources for grammatical, logical and textual analysis is simply wrongheaded. That is not what they are for and that is not what you are supposed to do with them. If that is what you are doing with RAW then you have simply taken words out of context and are engaged in a serious error of approach.

Any discussion of rules that is not helpful as a guide to playing the game is at best useless and at worst outright confusing and counter-productive. A lot of what I see claimed as ultra-RAW falls into this category. Those who actually play the game, and frame answers to rules questions in a way reflecting an understanding of the reality of playing a tabletop game with another player, rarely fall into these illogical loops of fallacy.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






happy_inquisitor wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:


Thing is, he’s actually often wrong but adds “RAW” anyway like it’s a stamp of veracity.

And his fallacies are never correct.

Yes, sometimes his myopic readings follow the letter of the rules ad absurdum, but what use is that in understanding how to play the game? Understand the oddities then move on and play using common sense solutions. Don’t bleat “GW IS INCOMPETENT I CANNOT PLAY” or berate others for using sensible rules patches. That’s bonkers. Yet here we are.


I think this is key to the whole issue. The rules are a guide to playing the game. It literally says that right at the start of the rules section, that is what the rules are and that is what they are for.

Treating them as sources for grammatical, logical and textual analysis is simply wrongheaded. That is not what they are for and that is not what you are supposed to do with them. If that is what you are doing with RAW then you have simply taken words out of context and are engaged in a serious error of approach.

Any discussion of rules that is not helpful as a guide to playing the game is at best useless and at worst outright confusing and counter-productive. A lot of what I see claimed as ultra-RAW falls into this category. Those who actually play the game, and frame answers to rules questions in a way reflecting an understanding of the reality of playing a tabletop game with another player, rarely fall into these illogical loops of fallacy.
I see where you're getting at but it's precisely these sorts of misguided notions of "Rule" and "Rules as Written" that causes our YMDC posts to spiral out of context.

Because of the inherent linguistic ambiguities in many languages, grammatical, logical and textual (note it does not say CONtextual) analysis (aka "RAW") is required in order to arrive at potential list of meanings. In a dialogue, we are, more often than not, readily able to arrive at the logical meaning of the spoken words through context cues (intonation, emphasis, gestural, etc) and pragmatics (natural flow of conversation); however this does not come as obvious when we analyze written texts. When there are multiple possible meanings for certain texts, it's important we look to contextual cues in order to arrive at the most logical interpretation of the texts. Note that at this point, the interpretation of the rules text is no longer a RAW interpretation but rather a RAI (intended or interpreted) because we have created a certain partisan bias in "picking out" the "right" interpretation.

We then arrive again at the misuse of the term RAW - many of the RAW-elitists tend to drive their argument with their insistence on RAW to mean THE ABSOLUTE meaning of the text when this is clearly isn't so (sometimes it is; more often than not, no). At the moment one has decided this is THE ABSOLUTE meaning, there has already been an input of bias in order to arrive at the conclusion that this is the "right" reading of the text. It's imperative to understand RAW =! actual written body of the rule.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/05/09 19:19:50


 
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon





 Lance845 wrote:
Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined.


Why, though? Because the game is worse than it used to be, or because GW is better than it used to be? Feel free to add other options, as I don't intend (pun heavily intended) to create a false dilemma.

I had the privilege (?) to sit on the 7th ed ITC FAQ committee near the end of 7th. I prefer Nu GW.

Cheers!
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

DCannon4Life wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined.


Why, though? Because the game is worse than it used to be, or because GW is better than it used to be? Feel free to add other options, as I don't intend (pun heavily intended) to create a false dilemma.

I had the privilege (?) to sit on the 7th ed ITC FAQ committee near the end of 7th. I prefer Nu GW.

Cheers!

Indeed. GW went through several editions with a philosophy of producing as few FAQ documents as they possible could, while the game was an absolute mess and issues routinely went unaddressed for years on end - in some cases through multiple iterations of codexes.

So no, the existence of more rules documents is not inherently a sign that the rules are worse.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Real law doesn't follow RAW, so I'm not going to be held to a stricter standard in GW's fantasy world. Absurd results are to be discarded.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.

To paraphrase some American comedian whose name currently escapes me - Remember when we gave women the vote? And then we just couldn't stop ourselves, and before you knew it we'd also given the vote to horses, and dogs, and motorbikes, and trees?


Or maybe, just maybe, people in the real world are capable of not getting trapped on your slippery slope every time they make a decision. Choosing to interpret a rule in a way that random-guy-who-doesn't-actually-play-the-game-but-likes-to-argue-about-it-on-the-internet doesn't agree with doesn't immediately lock players into a spiral of chaos where the rules are in constant flux where the rulebook slowly dissolves into a puddle of incomprehensible goo. The vast majority of players are perfectly capable of making a distinction between 'this rule that because of the way it's written doesn't actually do anything' and 'this rule that works just fine'.


And yes, to head off that argument yet again - exactly where each player draws that line may be different, and require some discussion between the players. As much as that may horrify you, that's how the game actually works in the real world. The game is a collaboration between two players, not your personal dictatorship. Your constant harping on about your way being the only way to play the game, when you don't actually even play the game, is ridiculous and not in any way useful to the community of people who actually play the game.


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




The closest we have to a supreme court in 40K are individual TOs. The rules are what TOs say they are. They even trump GW, because its their event. Example: ITC using old wobbly model rules, even after GW's explanation.

Posters opinions on this site have no binding effect. We aren't judges invested with power from a central state.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/09 20:41:35


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






DCannon4Life wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined.


Why, though? Because the game is worse than it used to be, or because GW is better than it used to be? Feel free to add other options, as I don't intend (pun heavily intended) to create a false dilemma.

I had the privilege (?) to sit on the 7th ed ITC FAQ committee near the end of 7th. I prefer Nu GW.

Cheers!


The better 3rd option is they produce a quality document the first time that doesnt require faq/errata. Or 4th learn from their early mistakes and get better at producing quality documents.

They are not doing either. They are just flooding the document space with a confusing mess. Every document released is as poorly worded with as many problems as the ones before it. Its not better than 7th. Its worse. Its a windfall of bad instead of a slight trickle.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: