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.

 Galef wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?

That depends on the use. As an absolute last resort for incredibly obscure edge-case interactions that maybe come up once every few years rule zero is fine. The problem with rule zero and lazy rule authors is that GW doesn't use it that way. They use it as an excuse to not bother to write clearer rules and clean up their mistakes, and we should not excuse that failure or refrain from calling GW's rule authors lazy and incompetent.

Not to switch "sides" on this issue, but I did once see a real @$$-hat use the roll-off rule to force a ruling in his favor on an issue that was 100% covered in the rules. I can't remember what the issue was, but it was 7E and he didn't like the rule, tried to refute it and when his opponent refused to relent, he "envoked" the roll off.
This "person", however, was later asked never to come back to the store.

-

That's not Rule Zero being at fault - other than existing - it's one player being a pile of squig excrement, while the other lacked the backbone to point out that (last time I checked - rulebook isn't to had) Rule Zero is specifically for situations not covered by the rules, and therefore wasn't applicable if the scenario was as described above.

 Dysartes wrote:
That's not Rule Zero being at fault - other than existing - it's one player being a pile of squig excrement, while the other lacked the backbone to point out that (last time I checked - rulebook isn't to had) Rule Zero is specifically for situations not covered by the rules, and therefore wasn't applicable if the scenario was as described above.

That's my point. The rules are GOOD ENOUGH that when things get that out of hand, it's one of the player's fault for being squig excrement, not the provocation of any rules inadequacy.

-

Klickor wrote:
People saying that RAI is obvious should remember that "UNIT" and "unit" are two completely different things. The Killshot stratagem only works with the normal predators and not with baal predators. Same with the whirlwind one. If I remember correctly any Landspeeder works for the spotting but only the normal Whirlwind works. Not obvious the first time you read it that it only affects certain units even if there are other units that have mostly the same name. Small details like that matters in this edition so GW shouldn't be forgiven for such mistakes.

You'd maybe have a point if it was something confusable, like say repulsor variants, but anyone who can't guess what unit might be meant as 'aggressors' or 'reivers' should go get refund for faulty common sense, then never touch anything more complicated than checkers. But they would probably confuse the various kinds of pieces even then

 Peregrine wrote:
This is exactly the problem! GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better, and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing! It's this weird "oh yes, hurt me more daddy" masochism, except without any of the sexy fun parts.

Up your reading comprehension maybe (both in this thread, and in the rules we're discussing) - no one presents this a good thing, people just say it's such a non-issue the nitpicked problem literally doesn't exist. And if anyone needs daddy, it's people incapable of picking reivers from a set of literally a single unit, not whoever you're projecting your weird fantasies onto

Also, fun fact.

Adding the word 'Infernal' to your weapon costs 4" of range now!

(See the fact they completely forgot Chaos can get Flamestorm cannons via the FW Index)

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down.

Yes*. But BCB is the boy who cried wolf. He is constantly harping on some completely trivial and noncontroversial stuff, and that has destroyed any credibility he might have had.

* (Though those are actually super rare in practice. The eight edition is literally the tightest ruleset 40K has ever had.)

On your first point, that's fair. On the second point -- I agree that 8th is as tight as it's ever been without calling the breakdowns rare. For instance, the tourney list that uses a strat multiple times at the end of the turn because "at the end of the turn" is not a phase. Really!? That was based off of a TO interpretation I believe, but that's a pretty important aspect of the game that needs to be codified by GW.

Fortunately TO judgements aren't like court proceedings. There is no precedent. That TO needs to grow a pair and not let a pedant walk all over them with clearly bs interpretations.

Gene St. Ealer wrote:You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down. BCB fixates on the ones that are mostly minutiae and comes off as pretty prickly sometimes, but can you not admit that he has a point? Like, the issue with the Master in Gravis. That is a problem, full stop -- you play with your buddy and you probably let them have that extra wound. Your buddy plays in a tournament and they probably don't get that extra wound. That sucks! We, as a community, should demand the billion pound market cap company to do better, because we have purchasing power.
So with all the record stuff that this billion pound company has been doing lately, it seems to me that the community(by voting w $€£¥) is telling them that they're on the right track.
Sounds like there needs to be a dedicated tournament ruleset.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.

A properly written game does not need the players to "decide on a ruling." If you just want to push miniatures around on a table, why do you care what people think about the rules? Why have rules at all?

true, why have rules? Why have a game, actually why do anything?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Fortunately TO judgements aren't like court proceedings. There is no precedent. That TO needs to grow a pair and not let a pedant walk all over them with clearly bs interpretations.

Except the ruling wasn't "clearly bs". In fact, it was obviously correct. There is no way to have a "once per phase limit" apply to events happening outside of a phase. I mean, how would that even work? How do you finish the "once per ..." sentence without inventing a completely new concept of a phase-like time period that is not found in any official rules.

The actual problematic thing here is that not only are you defending GW's inability to publish clear rules, you're blaming the customers for not following your personal "how it should be played" opinions and assigning all kinds of negative labels to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:
You'd maybe have a point if it was something confusable, like say repulsor variants, but anyone who can't guess what unit might be meant as 'aggressors' or 'reivers' should go get refund for faulty common sense, then never touch anything more complicated than checkers. But they would probably confuse the various kinds of pieces even then

The point is not that this one particular case is hard to deal with, it's that it's one more instance of a trend of GW being too lazy and/or incompetent to get the rules right. And some of these cases of using unit names and keywords interchangeably do involve ambiguity about how the rule is supposed to function. Stop excusing GW's failures just because you are capable of fixing the mistake this time.

Up your reading comprehension maybe (both in this thread, and in the rules we're discussing) - no one presents this a good thing, people just say it's such a non-issue the nitpicked problem literally doesn't exist. And if anyone needs daddy, it's people incapable of picking reivers from a set of literally a single unit, not whoever you're projecting your weird fantasies onto

Then you and I are clearly not reading the same thread, because I see lots of posts talking about how the rules are just fine and "make a 22 minute toy commercial cartoon" is legitimate game design.

no offense Peregrine but I hope I never have the chance to play you. I suspect neither of us would enjoy the game very much

BrianDavion wrote:
no offense Peregrine but I hope I never have the chance to play you. I suspect neither of us would enjoy the game very much

Without people criticising the rules writing we get a terrible macaroni and cheese game.
But alas, Peregrine and BCB are the devils and filthy WAAC players. I'm afraid we have to lynch them both with our pitchforks.

Oh hang on, our pitchforks can only be wielded if we have the <FORUM POSTER> tag, and we only have <FORUM CHATTER> tag.
Oh no.
What do we do now.
ARGGGH

BrianDavion wrote:
no offense Peregrine but I hope I never have the chance to play you. I suspect neither of us would enjoy the game very much

ditto.

I hate to break it to you Peregrine, the entire game has always been a 22min toy commercial & the rules were just something cool you could do with your models.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
no offense Peregrine but I hope I never have the chance to play you. I suspect neither of us would enjoy the game very much

Without people criticising the rules writing we get a terrible macaroni and cheese game.
But alas, Peregrine and BCB are the devils and filthy WAAC players. I'm afraid we have to lynch them both with our pitchforks.

Oh hang on, our pitchforks can only be wielded if we have the <FORUM POSTER> tag, and we only have <FORUM CHATTER> tag.
Oh no.
What do we do now.
ARGGGH

thats not an attack on Peregrine it's just that our priorities are clearly VERY VERY differant

Racerguy180 wrote:
I hate to break it to you Peregrine, the entire game has always been a 22min toy commercial & the rules were just something cool you could do with your models.

Why do you have such low standards for a product that you are (presumably) paying a lot of money for? And why do you defend abusive business practices?

Racerguy180 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
no offense Peregrine but I hope I never have the chance to play you. I suspect neither of us would enjoy the game very much

ditto.

I hate to break it to you Peregrine, the entire game has always been a 22min toy commercial & the rules were just something cool you could do with your models.

You like a unit due to its rules, then they the change rules, you buy different stuff cuz this stuff is better, then they change those again, you buy different stuff..ad infinitum.

It only works due to people wanting to do something different. I have never purchased a model due to how badass or not it is on the table and I'm not gonna start anytime soon. So the constant changing of rules(over time)doesnt effect my enjoyment of the game.

Scene zooms into a table in the middle of the room, one person is playing with a small grey miniature, the other his juggling a stinky brown lump.

Lump man: You're playing with them WRONG!
Lump man squeezes the lump in anger
Lump man: YOU. ARE. MEANT. TO. ENJOY. THE. LORE!
Lump man throws the lump at Minature man, hitting his black shirt and messing up the table.
Lumpless man: WHY DONT YOU ENJOY THE GAME THE SAME AS I DO?

Laugh track fades in as scene fades out

I wouldn't want to play a game with Peregrine for my own reasons, but they are not these ones. Peregrine and BCB are 100% correct. GW publishes a product you frankly overpay for and it's gak quality.

The rules shouldn't need as many FAQs as there are publications and every other game manages to do that. GW is exceptionally bad about it. The worst professional game publishers I have ever seen in the entire world. Not a exaggeration. LITERALLY no other game publisher has ever done such a consistently poor job in all my experience playing games.

Why defend that?

 Peregrine wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I hate to break it to you Peregrine, the entire game has always been a 22min toy commercial & the rules were just something cool you could do with your models.

Why do you have such low standards for a product that you are (presumably) paying a lot of money for? And why do you defend abusive business practices?

I think the more relevant question is, why are you paying a lot of money for a product you don't enjoy?

BrianDavion wrote:
I think the more relevant question is, why are you paying a lot of money for a product you don't enjoy?

Because the models are cool. I don't buy the rules.

 Lance845 wrote:
The rules shouldn't need as many FAQs as there are publications and every other game manages to do that. GW is exceptionally bad about it. The worst professional game publishers I have ever seen in the entire world. Not a exaggeration. LITERALLY no other game publisher has ever done such a consistently poor job in all my experience playing games.

WARMACHINE/Hordes second edition may only have had one FAQ/errata document, but (certainly towards the end of the edition) that document covered every book that was produced. And let's not even touch the 1st edition FAQ/errata doc - that thing was crazy big.

If the only difference is one document vs. one document per book, then that's a choice regarding presentation, not a commentary on how many books had errors.

I think we're done here.

If anyone really wants to continue this, I recommend scrolling to the post you disagree with, screaming 'You're wrong!' at the screen for three minutes, and then moving on with your day.