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.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Breton,

Your post gives me so much joy. Many laughs were had reading through it, and I am not being sarcastic when I say thank you.

Don't thank me, I found a list on the internet for most of them. The Apothecaries can't doctor up their own primarch - or their Captain from yesterday who is now Chapter Master of the Next Big Thing Chapter point was mine, though I'm not the first to figure it out. I'm sure someone can explain to me why a Chapter Apothecary can't treat any Imperium Infantry. It's not like they haven't been used to evaluate and advise on the effects of Nurgle's Rot vs a guardsman before or anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
I've said several times before but GW clearly intends people to apply a degree of common sense in the game and NOT be rules lawyer donkey-caves

One man's common sense is another man's TFG. I like to match my opponents generous interpretation for generous interpretation. For example, on the Indomitus Crusader detachment, I wouldn't mind if a BA player wanted to do it. Even after they made CP and the Detachment itself not completely stupid. If they want to tell me you can't fire assault weapons because even though assault weapons can fire after advancing the unit itself cannot, I'll match them that interpretation for interpretation too.

for the record apocatharies not being able to treat marines from other chapters I could actually see having a legit explination. I could see it as being considered a major faux pas. consider how sensitive some chapters (especially those with gene seed flaws) are about their genetic details

BrianDavion wrote:
for the record apocatharies not being able to treat marines from other chapters I could actually see having a legit explination. I could see it as being considered a major faux pas. consider how sensitive some chapters (especially those with gene seed flaws) are about their genetic details

that's unlikely to show up on a battlefield where treating a Marine or a Guardsman involves more stopping the bleeding/keeping the heart pumping than sliding a blood sample into a gene sequencer. Even more so when you realize Brother Corbulo already knows exactly whats up with Gabriel Seth but can't treat him.

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
for the record apocatharies not being able to treat marines from other chapters I could actually see having a legit explination. I could see it as being considered a major faux pas. consider how sensitive some chapters (especially those with gene seed flaws) are about their genetic details

that's unlikely to show up on a battlefield where treating a Marine or a Guardsman involves more stopping the bleeding/keeping the heart pumping than sliding a blood sample into a gene sequencer. Even more so when you realize Brother Corbulo already knows exactly whats up with Gabriel Seth but can't treat him.

Despite it potentially not being totally congruent with fluff, I really don't have a problem with it from a game design point of view. Sub faction abilities stay in the sub faction, to give youore benefit for focusing on that sub faction.

It's not a weird rules problem, it's just part of the design of 8e.

 Stux wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
for the record apocatharies not being able to treat marines from other chapters I could actually see having a legit explination. I could see it as being considered a major faux pas. consider how sensitive some chapters (especially those with gene seed flaws) are about their genetic details

that's unlikely to show up on a battlefield where treating a Marine or a Guardsman involves more stopping the bleeding/keeping the heart pumping than sliding a blood sample into a gene sequencer. Even more so when you realize Brother Corbulo already knows exactly whats up with Gabriel Seth but can't treat him.

Despite it potentially not being totally congruent with fluff, I really don't have a problem with it from a game design point of view. Sub faction abilities stay in the sub faction, to give youore benefit for focusing on that sub faction.

It's not a weird rules problem, it's just part of the design of 8e.

the alternative is 7th editions superfriends death stars

BrianDavion wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
for the record apocatharies not being able to treat marines from other chapters I could actually see having a legit explination. I could see it as being considered a major faux pas. consider how sensitive some chapters (especially those with gene seed flaws) are about their genetic details

that's unlikely to show up on a battlefield where treating a Marine or a Guardsman involves more stopping the bleeding/keeping the heart pumping than sliding a blood sample into a gene sequencer. Even more so when you realize Brother Corbulo already knows exactly whats up with Gabriel Seth but can't treat him.

Despite it potentially not being totally congruent with fluff, I really don't have a problem with it from a game design point of view. Sub faction abilities stay in the sub faction, to give youore benefit for focusing on that sub faction.

It's not a weird rules problem, it's just part of the design of 8e.

the alternative is 7th editions superfriends death stars

Exactly, and personally I'm glad that's not a thing any more.

 Stux wrote:


Despite it potentially not being totally congruent with fluff, I really don't have a problem with it from a game design point of view. Sub faction abilities stay in the sub faction, to give youore benefit for focusing on that sub faction.

It's not a weird rules problem, it's just part of the design of 8e.

And cutting down on soup is an admirable goal. It would have been better to limit apothecaries to Imperium Infantry, Bikers (And Monsters for the Primarch(s)) and limit the Guard medic to Astra Militarum - OR even create a keyword for Imperium non-Astartes on the same tier as Adeptus Astartes i.e. Adeptus Sapiens. They could have even added another Keyword or reworked the Chapter Keyword to XY Legion such that BA and their successors were limited to BA and their successors. This is the rubber band effect. They're over-correcting for a flaw from the last edition. In the past you could take XYZ Special character in either that chapter or a successor, and they didn't make much of a difference between Primogenitor and Successor which worked pretty well for people making a crusading force without Soup'ing in multiple books.

They've made a pretty ingenious system for stratifying a faction with the keyword system, but they've been lazy implementing it, and have been too quick to abandon it when they needed/wanted to as well. In theory an Ultramarine (or pick your chapter) has/would have four tiers of key words - Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, <XYZ Legion>, <Chapter> - and they can use those tiers to control just how much interaction and cooperation is allowed for a game rule system. Putting it at the Chapter or Primaris/Not Primaris levelevery time has been repeatedly mocked. Marneus Calgar is the supreme commander on Vigilus, but the Space Wolves Thunderhawk Pilot is incapable of giving him a ride. Gabriel Seth can't ride in a Flesh Tearer's Repuslor. You can do the same with Dante and a Salamander's Pilot on Armageddon, etc. It makes some sense that a V Legion (White Scars) Captain on Bike might not inspire/lead/train such that a I Legion (Dark Angels) 6 Bike, 1 Attack Bike, 1 Landspeeder Ravenwing Squadron gets rerolls of 1 to hit. But I would absolutely believe a I Legion (Dark Angels) Ravenwing Squadron that trains the same as a I Legion (Angels of Absolution) Ravenwing Squadron would get rerolls of 1 to wound from an Angels of Absolution Talonmaster. I feel supremely sorry for any sucker who made Angels of Absolution and now can't take Samael/Belial/Azrael OR a non-named counterpart - or Can but can't get any of the benefits. There is no Master on Bike for the successor Chapter 2nd companies, no generic Chapter Master.

Why do you feel sorry? They can just run Angels of Absolution using the Dark Angels rules instead of the successor rules, not lose anything, and gain the benefit of all the named characters.

It's a total non-issue.

As for different chapters helping (or not) each other, as I say - it's a game not a simulation, and I have zero problems with the decision from a game design standpoint.

That said, there are some big issues with the implementation of keywords in other regards that I really hope get cleared up in the future, specifically stuff like Blood Ravens not being Space Marines, and how marks of chaos/chaos allegiances interact.

The main problems are how "fill the blanks" keywords function actually. Most of this could be solved by instead of having <CHAPTER> and replacing it with ULTRAMARINES you had something like CHAPTER: <> which became CHAPTER: ULTRAMARINES. That way it's clear what 'sort' of faction keyword it's supposed to be after it has been changed, or if it's on a unit which has the specific chapter already selected.

it does kinda suck having to run a named character if you want to run a chaptermaster. as for blood raverns not being space marines, that's idiotic, you can't run blood ravens with the index alone, the rules are clearly an add on for codex space marines and should be treated properl;y. this is yet again a case of GW writing for players not a bunch of donkey-cave lawyers. christ they're writing a game not fething legislation.

 Stux wrote:
Why do you feel sorry? They can just run Angels of Absolution using the Dark Angels rules instead of the successor rules, not lose anything, and gain the benefit of all the named characters.

Because they're not playing Angels of Absolution anymore. Or Their specific Design Your Own Successor Chapter. They did lose something- they lost their fluff. You may not find it important, and maybe neither do I, but they might so I'll sympathize.

It's a total non-issue.

I've bought boxes just to paint the models up again with the same color scheme after I'd become a better painter. I can't imagine how batty it would drive me to have to play DA with the wrong colors. Again, just because it's not an issue for you doesn't mean it's not a kick in the pants for someone else.

As for different chapters helping (or not) each other, as I say - it's a game not a simulation, and I have zero problems with the decision from a game design standpoint.

I'd say it's both a game and a simulation. I'm not sure why you think they are mutually exclusive.

That said, there are some big issues with the implementation of keywords in other regards that I really hope get cleared up in the future, specifically stuff like Blood Ravens not being Space Marines, and how marks of chaos/chaos allegiances interact.

How do you know Blood Ravens not being Space Marines wasn't a Game Design decision that the rest of us are fine with? Its a total non-issue. See how that works? There are huge issues all up and down how they've implemented such a great system like Keywords, and more than just the ones you care about are important.

The main problems are how "fill the blanks" keywords function actually. Most of this could be solved by instead of having <CHAPTER> and replacing it with ULTRAMARINES you had something like CHAPTER: <> which became CHAPTER: ULTRAMARINES. That way it's clear what 'sort' of faction keyword it's supposed to be after it has been changed, or if it's on a unit which has the specific chapter already selected.

I have to admit, I don't see the difference between Chapter:Ultramarines and Ultramarines (Assuming each unit has the matching keyword and we're not talking about two different but supposed to be the same keywords.) Your (symptom) problem with Blood Ravens not being Space Marines is the one I already offered the (disease) root problem on. They're using Space Marine, Adeptus Astartes, and Codex Space Marine Unit a little too interchangeably and negligently. If they mean all Space Marines i.e. who can take a Repulsor Executioner - they should hang the keyword on Adeptus Astartes (All Space Marines Codex and Not Codex) or CODEX (All Codex:SM chapters) At that point Blood Ravens would be Adeptus Astartes (And Space Marines) but may or may not be CODEX and get the Codex: SM access for things like the Indomitus Crusade Specialist Detachment - or they could have spent more than 5 seconds on a knee jerk reaction and Decided "Space Marine" in that rule meant Adeptus Astartes keyword not a vague non-technical reference to Codex Space Marine armies that would somehow give UM two toys and BA zero.

The simplest way to use the Keyword system is a geometric tree. You start with 1 choice, Imperium. Which splits into two - Sapiens and Astartes, they each split into two - IG and Sisters, and Codex and Non-Codex And you just keep splitting every time you need to further seperate and restrict cross over. They don't have to maintain the one option begets two options formula though, they could easily split into more than two - Sapiens could split into IG, Sisters, Ministorum, Assasinorum and so on and so on. Imperium itself might have to split into more than two, for Custodes, Mechanicum, and Knights. The point is they were pretty lazy at using the mid tiers which is why Blood Ravens aren't Space Marines.

What are they then?

 Sir Fred wrote:
What are they then?

Blood Ravens? Damned if I know. Other people had that fight, I'm just using the result they appear to have decided on, based on the context used previously in this thread, to prove a point.

Apparently they're Space Marines, but they're not SPACE MARINES. Because making it all caps makes it a keyword, even though nothing is a SPACE MARINES because nothing has that keyword or tells you how to make that keyword, but we're supposed to imply and infer that SPACE MARINES is an invisible keyword that's supposed to mean from Codex Space Marines as opposed to DA/BA/DW/SW/etc. Like I said, I don't know. But they could have used Keywords more diligently and intelligently to prevent whatever they are from not being whatever they're supposed to be.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Why do you feel sorry? They can just run Angels of Absolution using the Dark Angels rules instead of the successor rules, not lose anything, and gain the benefit of all the named characters.

Because they're not playing Angels of Absolution anymore. Or Their specific Design Your Own Successor Chapter. They did lose something- they lost their fluff. You may not find it important, and maybe neither do I, but they might so I'll sympathize.

It's a total non-issue.

I've bought boxes just to paint the models up again with the same color scheme after I'd become a better painter. I can't imagine how batty it would drive me to have to play DA with the wrong colors. Again, just because it's not an issue for you doesn't mean it's not a kick in the pants for someone else.

As for different chapters helping (or not) each other, as I say - it's a game not a simulation, and I have zero problems with the decision from a game design standpoint.

I'd say it's both a game and a simulation. I'm not sure why you think they are mutually exclusive.

What are you talking about? You lose no fluff by using the Dark Angels rules to play your Angels of Absolution. You can paint them however you want, call them Angels of Absolution and everything. You lose NOTHING. There's nothing to sympathise with, and I am certain at this point you either don't understand the rules or are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Your other statement here equally makes no sense as part of this discussion. I've made no assertion about GWs intention for successors, so you're just comparing apples and oranges. Presumably you know that GW intended for Blood Ravens to be Space Marines right? So we don't need to play silly games about that.

I don't think being a game and a simulation are mutually exclusive, but it is first and foremost a game and it's ok to make gameplay decisions that don't completely match up with what would happen if this was all 'real'. They have to draw a line somewhere, and personally I believe there to be solid gameplay reasons for drawing it where they have with regards to sub faction abilities not being usable across sub factions.

Would be great if this thread had discussion about
New marine abilities or talk about a new primaris marines.

Maybe the moderators can just create a sub forum for the the usual subjects were they can post like the wind.

But i for one am very excited for the new line and also very disappointed how few rumors we have.

BrianDavion wrote:
I've said several times before but GW clearly intends people to apply a degree of common sense in the game and NOT be rules lawyer donkey-caves

Should such loopholes REALLY exist in the first place? I know they're not writing laws or anything, but certain aspects of the RAW are incredibly stupid, like Kharn hitting himself.

Al Haquis wrote:
Would be great if this thread had discussion about
New marine abilities or talk about a new primaris marines.
.

Sure would. Of course, that would mean there would be new abilities or new Marines to talk about. Unfortunately, you're on Page 18 of breaking news that ran out of steam on Message 3. Lacking anything new relevant, we have done what people have always done. Gossip around the water cooler. Its not like this was hijacked away from actual news about abilities or models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:


What are you talking about? You lose no fluff by using the Dark Angels rules to play your Angels of Absolution.

I'm not playing my Angels of Absolution. I'm using my Angels of Absolution Models to play my Dark Angels. There are people out there who want to play something similar but different. There are people who want to make their own chapter entirely. Your way is not the only way. My Way is not the only way. So I repeat, as it appears you've forgotten, I feel sorry for the people who want to play a Successor Chapter, but now have to struggle with GW reversing course on Counts As Special characters as well as not writing their Keyword rules, and codex to support the Successor Chapters they want people to use their creativity to make.

You can paint them however you want, call them Angels of Absolution and everything. You lose NOTHING. There's nothing to sympathise with, and I am certain at this point you either don't understand the rules or are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm pretty sure if I call them Angels of Absolution, and Sammael's rules only apply to Dark Angels, and I'm not allowed to change a special character's DARK ANGELS keyword to successor chapter Keywords I do lose something. Its in the rules and everything. Page 158. Maybe you just didn't understand?

Your other statement here equally makes no sense as part of this discussion. I've made no assertion about GWs intention for successors, so you're just comparing apples and oranges. Presumably you know that GW intended for Blood Ravens to be Space Marines right? So we don't need to play silly games about that.

I don't think being a game and a simulation are mutually exclusive, but it is first and foremost a game and it's ok to make gameplay decisions that don't completely match up with what would happen if this was all 'real'. They have to draw a line somewhere, and personally I believe there to be solid gameplay reasons for drawing it where they have with regards to sub faction abilities not being usable across sub factions.

Except when it's Blood Ravens, right? They drew the line, they had to draw it somewhere, and personally I believe there to be solid gameplay reasons for drawing where they have with regards to Blood Ravens? See how this works?

I'll even go you one further, the Blood Ravens had a Librarian as a Chapter Master. That's T-Sons, Deathguard, the Renegade Soul Drinkers, and Grey Knights. Definitely not Codex.

 Sir Fred wrote:
What are they then?

You replace Chapter with Blood Ravens.

It's not hard, but the TFGness of this board likes to take everything to 11. It's always the usual suspects, too, so it should be really easy to predict this bs.

As for who I'm talking about...you know who you are.

Lemondish wrote:

 Sir Fred wrote:
What are they then?

You replace Chapter with Blood Ravens.

It's not hard, but the TFGness of this board likes to take everything to 11. It's always the usual suspects, too, so it should be really easy to predict this bs.

As for who I'm talking about...you know who you are.

the funny thing is they admit they don't actually insist on this stupidity when they're playing...

BrianDavion wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Sir Fred wrote:
What are they then?

You replace Chapter with Blood Ravens.

It's not hard, but the TFGness of this board likes to take everything to 11. It's always the usual suspects, too, so it should be really easy to predict this bs.

As for who I'm talking about...you know who you are.

the funny thing is they admit they don't actually insist on this stupidity when they're playing...

Well of course not. A lot of us are reasonable. I'm not gonna make a player using Kharn hit himself 5× if he rolled 5 1's. That's madness after all.

HOWEVER, should the language be able to go that direction in the first place or even basically say it?

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Breton,

Your post gives me so much joy. Many laughs were had reading through it, and I am not being sarcastic when I say thank you.

I enjoyed it too, but he's wrong about ATSKNF. GW clarified that "rerolls apply before modifiers" only applies to abilities with a specific target number. Reroll 1s happens before modifiers, reroll misses happens after rerolls. ATSKNF rerolls failed morale tests rather than "morale roles of X".

I suppsoe the question is how long do we want our game documents to be, I mean, do we really want our codices to be twice as long and in full legalese?

BrianDavion wrote:
I suppsoe the question is how long do we want our game documents to be, I mean, do we really want our codices to be twice as long and in full legalese?

No. Although more precise wording doesn't always require that much more verbiage.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I suppsoe the question is how long do we want our game documents to be, I mean, do we really want our codices to be twice as long and in full legalese?

No. Although more precise wording doesn't always require that much more verbiage.

Yeah. The WarmaHordes basic rule set isn't much longer but it's substantially more precise.

The Newman wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Breton,

Your post gives me so much joy. Many laughs were had reading through it, and I am not being sarcastic when I say thank you.

I enjoyed it too, but he's wrong about ATSKNF. GW clarified that "rerolls apply before modifiers" only applies to abilities with a specific target number. Reroll 1s happens before modifiers, reroll misses happens after rerolls. ATSKNF rerolls failed morale tests rather than "morale roles of X".

Where did they "clarify" this? And I'm laughing because I can picture the staff meeting at GW when they realize their "fix" to rerolls broke a lot more than it "fixed" and they decided to "Clarify" it quickly. At this point the fix makes the Chapter Master Reroll (And Guilliman) now works like the ATSKNF roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Sir Fred wrote:
What are they then?

You replace Chapter with Blood Ravens.

It's not hard, but the TFGness of this board likes to take everything to 11. It's always the usual suspects, too, so it should be really easy to predict this bs.

As for who I'm talking about...you know who you are.

the funny thing is they admit they don't actually insist on this stupidity when they're playing...

You're confusing and conflating the theoretical and the practical.

Breton wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Breton,

Your post gives me so much joy. Many laughs were had reading through it, and I am not being sarcastic when I say thank you.

I enjoyed it too, but he's wrong about ATSKNF. GW clarified that "rerolls apply before modifiers" only applies to abilities with a specific target number. Reroll 1s happens before modifiers, reroll misses happens after rerolls. ATSKNF rerolls failed morale tests rather than "morale roles of X".

Where did they "clarify" this? And I'm laughing because I can picture the staff meeting at GW when they realize their "fix" to rerolls broke a lot more than it "fixed" and they decided to "Clarify" it quickly. At this point the fix makes the Chapter Master Reroll (And Guilliman) now works like the ATSKNF roll.

Pretty sure it's in the first Big FAQ, but there's so much errata it's hard to keep straight.

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I suppsoe the question is how long do we want our game documents to be, I mean, do we really want our codices to be twice as long and in full legalese?

No. Although more precise wording doesn't always require that much more verbiage.

Yeah. The WarmaHordes basic rule set isn't much longer but it's substantially more precise.

Warmahordes also had rule situations which required FAQs of many pages with process flow schemes to resolve it, and when they actually happened on a table required the better part of a game to resolve that action.
Too bad that one of those interactions depended on 2 highly played units (Incubi and Legionaries, if i still remember the names correctly), so it was quite common.
Having a tight ruleset is fine, but sometimes it can devolve in horrible situations (Still, i did prefer that to some GW rulings).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

So basically "we don't like change and don't want anything new". Got it.

That's the attitude I take exception to.

"New Oblits"? Cool. Great change. Glad things like that happen.

"Cents"? Dumb. Stupid change. Stuff like that shouldn't happen.

So maybe, just maybe, complaints about some change but not other change isn't basically "we don't like change and don't want anything new".

The argument is about internal consistency. A change saying a highly unstructured and chaotic force has some demon-infused guys that don't fit the Loyalist structure or fluff is internally consistent. A change saying a highly structured and rigid force has some guys who fit nowhere in their dogma or doctrines is inconsistent.

Even in the post you quote, I am clearly supportive of "change" and something "new". And further contrast it with the "change" and something "new" that I don't like. So please actually read the post you reply to.

(All this is assuming you simply failed to read/understand my post, but it's entirely plausible that you're just flaming instead.)

Dogmas change. Even the Imperium isn't immune to necessity. Although what role centurions fulfill is a little unclear.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The problem is you're expressing an opinion that I - and others - are being intentionally dishonest. And, beyond just stating opinion, you're trying to "prove" it.

"Just stating my opinion" doesn't mean as much when your "opinion" belittles others.

Maybe you aren't being dishonest. In fact I believe you. I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling.

The hate new-Havoks got that new-Oblitz didn't is, I think, much more telling. It's not "Spikes vs Non" that makes the difference.

It is quite possible that I am just a paranoid space marine fanboy even though I play practically every army in the game. The hate space marines get is second to none

You should try posting something like "CWE aren't superior to Marines in every way possible" just once. Space Marines are probably one of the *least* hated factions. CWE, IG, Knights, DE, Ynarri, Tau, and more all get much more hate.

and cents are their most hated model.

How can it simply be "People hate Marines" if Cents get more hate than other Marine kits get?

Also I forgot another reason. Grav cents hurt their feelers in 7th.

People loved the new Windrider Jetbike kit. That "hurt their feelers" far more. So did Serpents. IG Guardsmen. And many, many more kits that are much less hated than Grav Cents.

They got the ability to move and shoot without pentalty and t5 for +1 point which they still aren't very good but have the ability to shoot twice at +1 to wound standard. Their models look awesome though. The new oblitz are literally based of cents...that is the point.

For Havoks, the complaint wasn't whether they're "too good" (or bad) ruleswise. Or the quality of the model.

That Oblitz are based on Cents isn't what's being refuted. You're claiming that, if Oblitz are fine for CSM, Cents are necessarily fine for Loyalists. That leap is what's been called out for pages. CSM and Loyalists have more differences than "Spiky" vs "Shiny".

Spoletta wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I suppsoe the question is how long do we want our game documents to be, I mean, do we really want our codices to be twice as long and in full legalese?

No. Although more precise wording doesn't always require that much more verbiage.

Yeah. The WarmaHordes basic rule set isn't much longer but it's substantially more precise.

Warmahordes also had rule situations which required FAQs of many pages with process flow schemes to resolve it, and when they actually happened on a table required the better part of a game to resolve that action.
Too bad that one of those interactions depended on 2 highly played units (Incubi and Legionaries, if i still remember the names correctly), so it was quite common.
Having a tight ruleset is fine, but sometimes it can devolve in horrible situations (Still, i did prefer that to some GW rulings).

The situation you're thinking of was any Skorne unit under Death March hitting Bane Knights. It didn't actually require an errata, but it did require such convoluted activation tracking that PP eventually resolved it by saying that if such a game state came up, remove both units from the table.