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 us
Regular Dakkanaut






 insaniak wrote:
 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.



This^ All of this. Drop the mic and lock the post, I think we're done here.

Like Minis and sculpts? Check out our Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/themakerscult 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 insaniak wrote:
 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.

Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when applied fallaciously. It is not a fallacy to assume that if someone successfully argues to ignore rule A, they will also be able to successfully ignore rule B, on the basis that they already ignored rule A and if you disagree you must be a horrible TFG rules lawyer.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Different interpretation =/= ignore.

Again, it's all up to TOs. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Martel732 wrote:
Different interpretation =/= ignore.

Again, it's all up to TOs. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter.


Assuming we are talking about a tourny and not just some people hanging about trying to follow the rule books.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Lance845 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Different interpretation =/= ignore.

Again, it's all up to TOs. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter.


Assuming we are talking about a tourny and not just some people hanging about trying to follow the rule books.


For people hanging, I've found its usually easiest to skip to 4+. It's not worth the headache. No one is going to jail or losing millions of dollars.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Martel732 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Different interpretation =/= ignore.

Again, it's all up to TOs. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter.


Assuming we are talking about a tourny and not just some people hanging about trying to follow the rule books.


For people hanging, I've found its usually easiest to skip to 4+. It's not worth the headache. No one is going to jail or losing millions of dollars.


And thats great. I really enjoy that that is hywpi. But it in no way answers anyones question when they ask what the rules actually are.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Lance845 wrote:


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?


Just going to chime in, no, 40k rules would in no way impose system crashes. I can rattle off a plenty of ways you could code the 40k rules perfectly in line with how they're written, that would work as intended.

Let's take assault weapons, it's actually really simple, you have a 'can_shoot' property which checks a series of rules against the current state of the unit, given the standard rule of:

when move_type = 'advance' return false

and the assault special rule of

when move_type = 'advance' return true

The absolute worst case, if you applied no context, or use the mere fact that it's a context driven rule to replace the standard rule, it would be an order of execution problem resulting in mildly unexpected behavior. Which you would then fix because its' a very simple and obviously stated rule. In terms of business logic implementations from specifications 90% of BCB's raw problems are things I'd happily steamroller with even bothering to consult the person who generated that specification. The other 10% I might have to think a minute, maybe two of the things I've ever seen him bring up with cause me to go back to the person behind the spec, and they'd be clarifications.

And that's with my job on the line. In my off time I'd say roll off and who ever wins get their interpretation of what it should be.... which ironically is now offically in the book as a suggestion.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Lance845 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Different interpretation =/= ignore.

Again, it's all up to TOs. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter.


Assuming we are talking about a tourny and not just some people hanging about trying to follow the rule books.


For people hanging, I've found its usually easiest to skip to 4+. It's not worth the headache. No one is going to jail or losing millions of dollars.


And thats great. I really enjoy that that is hywpi. But it in no way answers anyones question when they ask what the rules actually are.


The law school answer: it depends.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:


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?


Just going to chime in, no, 40k rules would in no way impose system crashes. I can rattle off a plenty of ways you could code the 40k rules perfectly in line with how they're written, that would work as intended.

Let's take assault weapons, it's actually really simple, you have a 'can_shoot' property which checks a series of rules against the current state of the unit, given the standard rule of:

when move_type = 'advance' return false

and the assault special rule of

when move_type = 'advance' return true

The absolute worst case, if you applied no context, or use the mere fact that it's a context driven rule to replace the standard rule, it would be an order of execution problem resulting in mildly unexpected behavior. Which you would then fix because its' a very simple and obviously stated rule. In terms of business logic implementations from specifications 90% of BCB's raw problems are things I'd happily steamroller with even bothering to consult the person who generated that specification. The other 10% I might have to think a minute, maybe two of the things I've ever seen him bring up with cause me to go back to the person behind the spec, and they'd be clarifications.

And that's with my job on the line. In my off time I'd say roll off and who ever wins get their interpretation of what it should be.... which ironically is now offically in the book as a suggestion.


Thats not how the rules are written. The question is not can shoot. Its unit can be selected to shoot. Assault weapons do not grant permission for the unit to be selected. Only for the model to fire that specific gun. I mean, what you are saying is how it SHOULD be written. But is not in fact a programing translation of the rules doc we have.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

Personally I don't mind RAW mishaps. Everyone makes mistakes, we're human. Every single rule or strategem or effect has the potential for dozens of rules interactions with every other unit, rule and stategem in the game, and when you're a small team of rules developers working on multiple deadlines trying to put out rulesets for multiple game systems at once, mistakes are bound to slip through.

What annoys me however, is how YMDC has become a circlejerk of "RAW it works this way, you're all wrong", "Citation needed", or "My Ultramarines have 500 wounds each, prove me wrong!". It goes against the idea of the subforum and probably puts new users off.

At this point I don't get what BCBs motives are. He claims to be a RAW-purist, but seems to never play the game and uses every opportunity to slate GW for their incompetence. If that's the case, why are you here? Why waste time in a forum for a game you don't play, established by a company you seem as incompetent for no reason besides "RAW is correct!"
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut



Cymru

 Lance845 wrote:


Thats not how the rules are written. The question is not can shoot. Its unit can be selected to shoot. Assault weapons do not grant permission for the unit to be selected. Only for the model to fire that specific gun. I mean, what you are saying is how it SHOULD be written. But is not in fact a programing translation of the rules doc we have.


This is the kind of silly outcome you get when you take the words out of context. The correct context is to be a guide to playing a game played on a table between players.

In that context there is really no need for the artificial distinction you are drawing between selecting a unit and it shooting, the typical flow goes something like :

p1 "Ah, right I shoot at those boyz with these guys here then. Um, -1 to hit because they advanced"

p2 "So hitting on 5's then?"

p1 "Yeah, 10 shots hitting on 5's"

<rolls dice>

In that context of a conversation between two people both are fully informed what the dice roll is about and both fully understand why modifiers are being applied, the game is being played as intended. The words in the rules were interpreted within the intended context. That is how we actually play tabletop games and in that context the rules work fine as a guide for how to play the game, which is just what they are.

If you insist on trying to treat the rules as something they are not; a formal specification, pseudocode or some similar construct then you hit problems because you took them out of context. You are then hitting problems that no reasonably normal person actually playing the game ever hits. As people keep saying - the whole supposed issue around assault weapons does not exist in real gameplay. You are only seeing a problem because you are reading the text as if it were a category of written English - such as formal specification or pseudocode - which it is not and which the rulebook tells you it is not.
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




 Valkyrie wrote:
Personally I don't mind RAW mishaps. Everyone makes mistakes, we're human. Every single rule or strategem or effect has the potential for dozens of rules interactions with every other unit, rule and stategem in the game, and when you're a small team of rules developers working on multiple deadlines trying to put out rulesets for multiple game systems at once, mistakes are bound to slip through.

What annoys me however, is how YMDC has become a circlejerk of "RAW it works this way, you're all wrong", "Citation needed", or "My Ultramarines have 500 wounds each, prove me wrong!". It goes against the idea of the subforum and probably puts new users off.

At this point I don't get what BCBs motives are. He claims to be a RAW-purist, but seems to never play the game and uses every opportunity to slate GW for their incompetence. If that's the case, why are you here? Why waste time in a forum for a game you don't play, established by a company you seem as incompetent for no reason besides "RAW is correct!"


Wait, what? If YMDC threads are having this problem, that's because they're not adhering to the rules. The rules for the subforum say to specifiy if you're asking/arguing RAW or RAI. OP's should make it clear what they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 MattKing wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 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.



This^ All of this. Drop the mic and lock the post, I think we're done here.


I think they're talking past each other to some extent, but that aside, Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/09 23:06:08


 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






Most of these problems would be solved if GW uses consistent writing across all of their media. As much as "just use common sense" seems like a good solution it really isn't. You have multiple people from multiple regions and multiple backgrounds interpreting what they see as common sense. "Author's intent is clear" is also a load of garbage since there is no real way to confirm that without the author verbally describing their intention. Look at the novel Fahrenheit 451, what is the author's intent? If you ask numerous "experts" the novel is about government censorship and control etc and it is obvious to anyone what the novel is about. If you ask Bradbury, you know the actual author, he firmly states that is not about censorship, but is instead about how television ruins any and all interest in literature. So no, even if it seems clear to you and you have a plurality on the opinion you chose then it does not mean that is what the author intended. MTG has very strict consistent writing and structure to help deal with this and 40k could really use it too. Things like "at the end of the movement phase" always come up since there isn't a dedicated END OF MOVEMENT PHASE that has a clear list of actions that can or can't be taken.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Audustum wrote:
Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match

That's what tournament FAQs are for. They take the place of the player discussion before the game.

GW aren't in the business of producing tournament rulesets. They've supported tournaments to varying degrees over the years because people keep wanting them, but it's just not the style of game that they are making. The closest they have ever come was 5th edition, which Alessio supposedly wrote with the intention of it being a tighter, more tournament-friendly ruleset, but the rest of the studio carried on with their beer-and-pretzels approach regardless.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a concise, tournament-ready 40K ruleset. But if the demands for such a thing over the last 30 years haven't been sufficient to persuade GW that this was worthwhile goal, it seems fairly safe to assume that it's unlikely to change - and given that the game has survived for 30 years in an industry where most games are lucky to last for 5, it's also hard to argue that their approach is wrong, at least for them. They're producing the game that they want to make, and by all reports it's still doing well. So wishing that it was a different kind of game entirely isn't going to get us anywhere.

 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord





United States

 BaconCatBug wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?


because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.

now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.

But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.

Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".



no, because your intent is against the rest of the playerbase. No one would let you play with 500 wounds marines, but everyone would let you shoot assault weapons after advancing.
Also , stop bringing up the "crazily buffed stats for my marines " argument, it doesnt prove anything except that youre too stubborn to view other's opinions.

As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.


You are my second favorite poster....... ( I am my first favorite poster. )

You keep on being you!


Ayn Rand "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality" 
   
Made in us
Devious Space Marine dedicated to Tzeentch




Audustum wrote:

I think they're talking past each other to some extent, but that aside, Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match


Professional sports have different officials applying different interpretations of often-subjective rules every game, and they are not perfect, but sports manage to get by regardless. Courts around the world make life or death decisions, even though the rules are applied differently depending on the lawyers and judges involved, and their particular moods that day. Society still manages to get by. Why does a 40k tournament need something better?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 02:11:17


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






happy_inquisitor wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:


Thats not how the rules are written. The question is not can shoot. Its unit can be selected to shoot. Assault weapons do not grant permission for the unit to be selected. Only for the model to fire that specific gun. I mean, what you are saying is how it SHOULD be written. But is not in fact a programing translation of the rules doc we have.


This is the kind of silly outcome you get when you take the words out of context. The correct context is to be a guide to playing a game played on a table between players.

In that context there is really no need for the artificial distinction you are drawing between selecting a unit and it shooting, the typical flow goes something like :

p1 "Ah, right I shoot at those boyz with these guys here then. Um, -1 to hit because they advanced"

p2 "So hitting on 5's then?"

p1 "Yeah, 10 shots hitting on 5's"

<rolls dice>

In that context of a conversation between two people both are fully informed what the dice roll is about and both fully understand why modifiers are being applied, the game is being played as intended. The words in the rules were interpreted within the intended context. That is how we actually play tabletop games and in that context the rules work fine as a guide for how to play the game, which is just what they are.

If you insist on trying to treat the rules as something they are not; a formal specification, pseudocode or some similar construct then you hit problems because you took them out of context. You are then hitting problems that no reasonably normal person actually playing the game ever hits. As people keep saying - the whole supposed issue around assault weapons does not exist in real gameplay. You are only seeing a problem because you are reading the text as if it were a category of written English - such as formal specification or pseudocode - which it is not and which the rulebook tells you it is not.


The rules are a formal specification because the rules lay out, in no unclear terms, an order of operation for the shooting phase. And step 1 is select a unit with the exception that units that advanced and units that are within 1" cannot be selected. Quote the place in the rules where you given permission to select a unit under those circumstances. Don't bother looking. It doesn't exist.

The argument originally made was that the top 50 video games all had bugs in their rules. I said, no. They don't. Not the logic error game breaking rules that 40k does. 40k is not just like everyone else. It is by a large margin the worst in all but the lowest leagues of rules writing. FATAL the horrible RPG is more complex, less fun, and just down right draconian in it's rules execution and yet somehow more actually functional than 40k. And that only requires 1 rules document.

Again, if you programed raw, the game would stop functioning right there.

You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Valkyrie wrote:
Personally I don't mind RAW mishaps. Everyone makes mistakes, we're human. Every single rule or strategem or effect has the potential for dozens of rules interactions with every other unit, rule and stategem in the game, and when you're a small team of rules developers working on multiple deadlines trying to put out rulesets for multiple game systems at once, mistakes are bound to slip through.


This is a load of Bull. GW are not 5 guys working out of a garage. They are a multi-million dollar corporation with many sub companies under an umbrella. If there is a "small" team of developers it's because GW the company doesn't want to pay for the proper size team for the game they are creating. Again, stop giving GW excuses for their gak product.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/10 02:49:11



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Lance845 wrote:

You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.

Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!


If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.


The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Or ask the TO.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 insaniak wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.

Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!


If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.


The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.


The assault weapon thing is the easiest of the issues. It wasn't bought up because I am arguing that I play in a way where assault weapons cannot shoot after advancing. It was bought up to debunk the argument that 40k is like the "top 50 video games of all time" with fully functioning rules. It's not. And it's the easiest and simplest example to point to in the core 8 page document.

Lets not make this mountains out of molehills crap. If one sides argument is that they are not meant to be hard and fast rules they are meant to be guidelines for play then what they are saying is that the whole YMDC forum serves no purpose because the answer to every question is "It's all just guidelines! Do what you want!"

And if it's meant to be something more structured then that then they need to stop preaching that nonsense and start looking at the rules as they are. Figure out how you want to adjust them to be functional? Sure. But no answer coming from that space is universal by it's nature.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Equally claiming “I slavishly follow this non-functional thing because I refuse to see obvious intent” is but one way to play. It’s the wrong way, it’s not how anyone actually plays, but pretend that’s what you do if it makes you feel better.

Modifying a few rules is *not* the same as throwing out the rulebook. An absolute approach is meaningless and a silly riposte. You can absolutely follow the rules... in some cases the intent/spirit of them is screamingly obvious and fixes silly wording issues. It’s how most people understand the rules and play them. Honestly, there’s not more than a handful of internet dwellers who actually claim Assault weapons don’t work. It’s a non-problem unless someone is trying to appear superior online.

 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
Norn Queen






I never said that i do. I said thats what the rules are. Claiming otherwise is just blindly giving a pass for no good reason.

Its like 6th ed pyrovores blowing up the whole table. Never once got faq/errataed. Even when they did the whole sweep of them at the end of 7th. Obviously it was never meant to take out the whole table but that IS what the rule said.

Its a complete disservice to ignore the raw because you feel it should be X. The reality is it is raw and we are all just house ruling it away because why wouldnt we?


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

 insaniak wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.

Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!


If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.


The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.


This is exactly should happen. Unfortunately with a specific mentality, it just doesnt work=system meltdown. But those people really dont play 40k. Or at least in any way with another person who may/not exist. I'm just glad I've never had the misfortune of playing(something tells me we wouldnt be playing)anyone even remotely like this.

It's kinda obvious who GW makes/markets 40k for. I'll give you a hint it's not those who take circular logic to the extremes so painfully showcased here.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Racerguy180 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.

Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!


If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.


The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.


This is exactly should happen. Unfortunately with a specific mentality, it just doesnt work=system meltdown. But those people really dont play 40k. Or at least in any way with another person who may/not exist. I'm just glad I've never had the misfortune of playing(something tells me we wouldnt be playing)anyone even remotely like this.

It's kinda obvious who GW makes/markets 40k for. I'll give you a hint it's not those who take circular logic to the extremes so painfully showcased here.


One of the issues i allways found was not the stupid mistakes like the assault weapons. That i think would be easy enough to fix for GW. Its when there is mistakes that could go ether way, and can lead to two people understanding the game differently.
It does not help with the game bloating up as well, WIth poor design on top of that for a lot of things. It all leads to confusion and i think a more spread out playerbase on what the game is trying to do.
The game gets a strong following, but i feel with a lot of player loss. I am at the point i think GW may be unhealthy for the hobby as a whole in a lot of cases. WIth players having little alternatives to move into without huge effort, and what i would say is a massive bleeding out of players as well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 06:50:12


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

Apple fox wrote:
Spoiler:
Racerguy180 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.

Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!


If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.


The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.


This is exactly should happen. Unfortunately with a specific mentality, it just doesnt work=system meltdown. But those people really dont play 40k. Or at least in any way with another person who may/not exist. I'm just glad I've never had the misfortune of playing(something tells me we wouldnt be playing)anyone even remotely like this.

It's kinda obvious who GW makes/markets 40k for. I'll give you a hint it's not those who take circular logic to the extremes so painfully showcased here.


One of the issues i allways found was not the stupid mistakes like the assault weapons. That i think would be easy enough to fix for GW. Its when there is mistakes that could go ether way, and can lead to two people understanding the game differently.
It does not help with the game bloating up as well, WIth poor design on top of that for a lot of things. It all leads to confusion and i think a more spread out playerbase on what the game is trying to do.
The game gets a strong following, but i feel with a lot of player loss. I am at the point i think GW may be unhealthy for the hobby as a whole in a lot of cases. WIth players having little alternatives to move into without huge effort, and what i would say is a massive bleeding out of players as well.


that's why GW says roll for it, if it is something that cant be agreed upon, let fate/luck decide. After all it is a DICE game.

I would venture to say that with 8th ed they're actually trying to make the game fun for a larger group of people. Like any niche hobby, people will get into something and get out of something on whims far less important than rules or whatever. Personally ive seen someone get into a hobby $10k bam like it was nothing, be into it for 6 months then dump it all when they found the next thing. Some people just like to try new stuff, have the €£¥$ to do so & dont go halfass. others find that they actually dont like it.

I'm not gonna say GW is the best thing since sliced bread but they're far from toxic.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 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.


Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when applied fallaciously. It is not a fallacy to assume that if someone successfully argues to ignore rule A, they will also be able to successfully ignore rule B, on the basis that they already ignored rule A and if you disagree you must be a horrible TFG rules lawyer.


Tautology is tautologous. It is a fallacy if the context is different, which is what everyone here is trying to tell you. The assault weapon rule is a classic example of a rule that isn't written how it should be yet works in the real world because literally everyone I've ever met knows how it should work.

I think at this stage everyone arguing that the rules should be perfect (or much better than they are) is just screaming into the abyss. GW is the most successful tabletop wargames company in the world and 40k is the most successful wargame. Their style and quality of rules have been roughly the same for around 30 years. I'm not arguing they couldn't be a lot better than they are, but anyone expecting them to be 100% watertight and unambiguous is setting themselves up for disappointment. At this stage GW have clearly decided their approach is good enough, based on the evidence of their success. You know what? They're probably right. It doesn't matter if the rules wouldn't work when translated into computer code. That's an absurd requirement for a ruleset that explicitly requires two human beings in order to play. I'll also point out that this idea that the rules need to be perfectly (or near-perfectly) written so people from different areas/countries can play a game is simply not true in my experience. I think at this point I've played people from well over a dozen countries in various environments from tournaments to the most casual of games and not once have I had a game grind to a halt because of the way the rules were written. I've had minor disagreements, but often those have actually been because one of us read a perfectly clear rule incorrectly, rather than interpreting an ambiguous rule differently. I think the idea that you need some perfect ruleset to facilitate games between people who have never met and played together is just another internet myth, frankly. I've never experienced a rules problem so serious it actually affected the enjoyment of the game.

I wish the rules were better written than they are and I wish the game balance was better than it was. GW are showing some signs they're moving in that direction but anyone expecting something approaching perfection is going to be very disappointed and at this stage I think they only have themselves to blame for that disappointment. Understanding what the RAW says is important, if only so you understand where it doesn't quite work as it should. I've never seen anyone in a face-to-face game weaponise RAW to the extent people do on this forum. That's why I say the YMDC forum is rapidly degenerating into a barely useful resource. If it highlighted where RAW doesn't quite work then went on to deal with possible real-world solutions, that would be fine, but that's not how many threads go at the moment.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/05/10 07:59:56


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut



Cymru

 Lance845 wrote:



You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.


Dude, it literally says they are a guide for playing games. Right there in the rulebook at the very start of the rules section.

If you have somehow convinced yourself that they are something other than that then I'm afraid its because your reading comprehension skills could use a little work. At this point I think you are willfully ignoring the proper context for that whole chapter, a context which they give you in black and white.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Racerguy180 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Spoiler:
Racerguy180 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.

Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!


If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.


The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.


This is exactly should happen. Unfortunately with a specific mentality, it just doesnt work=system meltdown. But those people really dont play 40k. Or at least in any way with another person who may/not exist. I'm just glad I've never had the misfortune of playing(something tells me we wouldnt be playing)anyone even remotely like this.

It's kinda obvious who GW makes/markets 40k for. I'll give you a hint it's not those who take circular logic to the extremes so painfully showcased here.


One of the issues i allways found was not the stupid mistakes like the assault weapons. That i think would be easy enough to fix for GW. Its when there is mistakes that could go ether way, and can lead to two people understanding the game differently.
It does not help with the game bloating up as well, WIth poor design on top of that for a lot of things. It all leads to confusion and i think a more spread out playerbase on what the game is trying to do.
The game gets a strong following, but i feel with a lot of player loss. I am at the point i think GW may be unhealthy for the hobby as a whole in a lot of cases. WIth players having little alternatives to move into without huge effort, and what i would say is a massive bleeding out of players as well.


that's why GW says roll for it, if it is something that cant be agreed upon, let fate/luck decide. After all it is a DICE game.

I would venture to say that with 8th ed they're actually trying to make the game fun for a larger group of people. Like any niche hobby, people will get into something and get out of something on whims far less important than rules or whatever. Personally ive seen someone get into a hobby $10k bam like it was nothing, be into it for 6 months then dump it all when they found the next thing. Some people just like to try new stuff, have the €£¥$ to do so & dont go halfass. others find that they actually dont like it.

I'm not gonna say GW is the best thing since sliced bread but they're far from toxic.


I would say the roll for it option never leaves a good moment. Particularly if you need to roll for it again latter.
If they are trying to make it more fun, I would say they are just making a worse game. They have bleed out players, the only real players for me entering would be though internet saying everyone plays it rather then telling players to ask there local groups. Or Kill team
Kill team is about all that most players i know can even bare to play. We never had a big fantasy community, So Age of sigmar release is about all players looked into it and Went NOPE out fast Never looking back.

I would still say they just suck at making a game, and unhealthy for the hobby as a whole. Not entirely there own fault.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Apple fox wrote:

I would say the roll for it option never leaves a good moment. Particularly if you need to roll for it again latter.

I have to say, I've rarely had to do this. In 25 years, I could count on one hand the number of times that I've actually would up rolling off on a rules issue. What usually happens instead is both players say how they think it should go, and agree to go with whichever of them sounds more confident that they're correct...

And once I've run into a legitimate issue mid-game, if it's with a regular opponent we'll discuss how to deal with it for future games, and if it's a pickup game the issue goes on the list of things to discuss before the game in future if it's likely to crop up again.



They have bleed out players, the only real players for me entering would be though internet saying everyone plays it rather then telling players to ask there local groups.

Given that GW's profits over the last year or two have been through the roof, clearly they're getting players from somewhere. There have always been bleed out players. Most people who pick up the game don't last more than a couple of years before moving on to either different games or different hobbies.

 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Racerguy180 775190 10442606 wrote:

that's why GW says roll for it, if it is something that cant be agreed upon, let fate/luck decide. After all it is a DICE game.

I would venture to say that with 8th ed they're actually trying to make the game fun for a larger group of people. Like any niche hobby, people will get into something and get out of something on whims far less important than rules or whatever. Personally ive seen someone get into a hobby $10k bam like it was nothing, be into it for 6 months then dump it all when they found the next thing. Some people just like to try new stuff, have the €£¥$ to do so & dont go halfass. others find that they actually dont like it.

I'm not gonna say GW is the best thing since sliced bread but they're far from toxic.

Only rolling for it is one of the most stupid and unliked rule in history. Sports had it, and no one liked it when a coin toss from a referee decided who was going up and who was losing. I am thankful that those rules are no longer used .

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: