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.

 Nicorex wrote:
Can anyone decipher this?

"The Vanguard (X) Special Rule
Change the second bullet point included as part of this
Special Rule to read as follows:
• If a Unit that includes a majority of Models with the
Vanguard (X) Special Rule has at least one attack made
for it in a Combat that results in one or more enemy
Units that had at least one Model within 3" of an
Objective at the start of that Assault Phase either Falling
Back from Combat or being Massacred."

Please tell me how something like this gets printed. Jesus H Christ, I thought the rules in Legions Imperialis were badly written.

beast_gts wrote:
[url=https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/vjcrg9dz/horus-heresy-downloads-talons-of-the-emperor-and-errata/]
Talons PDF
FAQ

And I thought that Sisters of Silence couldn't get any more screwed!

EDIT:
'The armoury of the Silent Sisterhood is incredibly well served, second only perhaps to the Legio Custodes in the scope and customisation of its arsenal'
Trollolololol

As long as you want a bolter or a flamer, obvs!

 Pacific wrote:

 Nicorex wrote:
Can anyone decipher this?

"The Vanguard (X) Special Rule
Change the second bullet point included as part of this
Special Rule to read as follows:
• If a Unit that includes a majority of Models with the
Vanguard (X) Special Rule has at least one attack made
for it in a Combat that results in one or more enemy
Units that had at least one Model within 3" of an
Objective at the start of that Assault Phase either Falling
Back from Combat or being Massacred."

Please tell me how something like this gets printed. Jesus H Christ, I thought the rules in Legions Imperialis were badly written.

that is the more sane part lf the rules, there is worse stuff in there

 kodos wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 Nicorex wrote:
Can anyone decipher this?

"The Vanguard (X) Special Rule
Change the second bullet point included as part of this
Special Rule to read as follows:
• If a Unit that includes a majority of Models with the
Vanguard (X) Special Rule has at least one attack made
for it in a Combat that results in one or more enemy
Units that had at least one Model within 3" of an
Objective at the start of that Assault Phase either Falling
Back from Combat or being Massacred."

Please tell me how something like this gets printed. Jesus H Christ, I thought the rules in Legions Imperialis were badly written.

that is the more sane part lf the rules, there is worse stuff in there

Like the Anathema rules that by RAW, ignores most of itself.

That’s the thing with writing rules, isn’t it. To reduce room for misinterpretation, let alone deliberate misinterpretation, you’ve got to use the precise wording.

Precise does not mean short.

And here, we’ve an orphan paragraph. Because it’s a change to one paragraph of a larger whole. Which can easily come across as gobbledegook when presented without the remaining wording and context.

At work, I often find the need to quote specific rules when sharing my recommendations. That’s because I don’t have a free hand in all things. If it’s a concern over jurisdiction, I can’t just cite the sub-clause I’m relying on, because without the rest of the relevant context? It doesn’t mean anything.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Do they lift the lord of war point cap for knight amd titan armies?

Not sure: this is everything I know about Titans.

And the super lame bit about how you can't use them in regular games. You can only use them in "Engine Kill" Missions.

You can use them in regular games via that first option of using it to fill your Primary LoW detachment. It's only if you want to use the Titanicus Primary Detachment that you have to play Engine Kill.

Sure. But the Titanicus detachment lets you play far smaller games.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That’s the thing with writing rules, isn’t it. To reduce room for misinterpretation, let alone deliberate misinterpretation, you’ve got to use the precise wording.

Precise does not mean short.

And here, we’ve an orphan paragraph. Because it’s a change to one paragraph of a larger whole. Which can easily come across as gobbledegook when presented without the remaining wording and context.

At work, I often find the need to quote specific rules when sharing my recommendations. That’s because I don’t have a free hand in all things. If it’s a concern over jurisdiction, I can’t just cite the sub-clause I’m relying on, because without the rest of the relevant context? It doesn’t mean anything.

Brevity. Wit.

People can (and do) write very technical rules without the need to be overwrought, at least not to the level that GW does. GW books usually are very, very badly written, and check.

But many people did hope the book was better written and organized, this time around.

There is no need to post snippets that "look bad", one can simply pick up one of the current books, like, for example, HH 2.0.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That’s the thing with writing rules, isn’t it. To reduce room for misinterpretation, let alone deliberate misinterpretation, you’ve got to use the precise wording.

Precise does not mean short.

And here, we’ve an orphan paragraph. Because it’s a change to one paragraph of a larger whole. Which can easily come across as gobbledegook when presented without the remaining wording and context.

At work, I often find the need to quote specific rules when sharing my recommendations. That’s because I don’t have a free hand in all things. If it’s a concern over jurisdiction, I can’t just cite the sub-clause I’m relying on, because without the rest of the relevant context? It doesn’t mean anything.

I'd contest the assertion that precision is the highest priority. Rules need a measure of precision, yes, but not at the expense of clarity. What GW resorts to of late is the kind of technical writing you would expect of physicists, IT people and similar professions, where precision is of the utmost importance and clarity is served via professional training.

Wargame rules are open to a wide range of backgrounds, and the most important thing about them is that as wide a pool of players have a shared understanding of how these rules work. For that you need simple and clear presentation. Precise rules mechanics are desirable, but not the highest priority.

I suspect that there are no qualified linguists left at GW that would raise this objection, given GW's recent obsession with the current way of presenting rules.

GW tried making the rules as short as possible and it didn't work.
Therefore making the rules as wordy as possible MUST be the solution.
Simple logic.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
GW tried making the rules as short as possible and it didn't work.
Therefore making the rules as wordy as possible MUST be the solution.
Simple logic.

You mean with the 9th edition pamphlet?

So, and I appreciate from country flags English isn’t everyone’s mother tongue so I’m not being a dick here, what is it that people are struggling with about this rule? Or, well, this specific paragraph?

That Vanguard section was all clauses, like an entire sentence of just clauses. If something has that many clauses it needs to be bullet points or an if/then chart.

Also "attacks made for it"? If I was a rules lawyer I'd be arguing units make attacks or not, they don't get attacks made for them.

 kronk wrote:
I was in the group of wanting HH 2.0 to be more like 9th edition 40k at the time, as I liked how streamlined it was over 1.0 HH. I also would have preferred that HH 3.0 be more like 10th edition, which I very much enjoy. Alas, we got what looks like a more complicated edition to HH 2.0 at initial glance.

Wow, each to their own, but I thought the main draw of HH was the difference between it and 40k. I've played a bit of 10th lately, and whilst I didn't dislike it, I am looking forward to geetting back to HH. Whilst the main rules are more complicated, the various army rules, unit rules, stratagems, etc in 40 mean I actually find HH simpler.

(That's not a dig, just an observation - we're each entitled to like what we like.)

 ScarletRose wrote:
That Vanguard section was all clauses, like an entire sentence of just clauses. If something has that many clauses it needs to be bullet points or an if/then chart.

Also "attacks made for it"? If I was a rules lawyer I'd be arguing units make attacks or not, they don't get attacks made for them.

On the second point I partially agree. But, right now we don’t know how the “how to smash people in the face” section reads.

I mean, some will because previews and Reddit and that. But for the purposes of this conversation? That’s missing information.

With Vanguard, part of the issue was also that if you applied a status, the unit no longer controls objectives, so they also had to add the bit about "if it controlled an objective at the start of the turn"

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So, and I appreciate from country flags English isn’t everyone’s mother tongue so I’m not being a dick here, what is it that people are struggling with about this rule? Or, well, this specific paragraph?

It feels very convolutedly written. One would expect something more like:

- If a unit in which at least half their numbers have the Vanguard (X) rule attacks in combat any objective unit at 3'' or closer to an objective, and the objective falls back or is massacred

..or something, dunno, I'm not native. But there's also the fact that those rules are really specific, so they go onnn and onnn.

This week I've been reading Mantic's Epic Warpath and it's waaay easier to parse and understand than LIpms, for example. It's just the way GW writes rules.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
That Vanguard section was all clauses, like an entire sentence of just clauses. If something has that many clauses it needs to be bullet points or an if/then chart.

Also "attacks made for it"? If I was a rules lawyer I'd be arguing units make attacks or not, they don't get attacks made for them.

On the second point I partially agree. But, right now we don’t know how the “how to smash people in the face” section reads.

I mean, some will because previews and Reddit and that. But for the purposes of this conversation? That’s missing information.

I mean, the entire rulebook is out there if you know where to look, it's how I referenced what this rule originally said.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Do they lift the lord of war point cap for knight amd titan armies?

Not sure: this is everything I know about Titans.

And the super lame bit about how you can't use them in regular games. You can only use them in "Engine Kill" Missions.

So if im understanding correctly we are limited to only being able to field a single titan at a time, given both approaches only allow for 1 LOW slot (technically you can field a second LOW detachment in engine kill missions, but with the explicit provisio that it cannot be used to take an adeptus titanicus unit)?

Mega lame, so much for fiekding a pair of warhounds.... not that I have a pair of warhounds, but the fluff has always been that they typically operate in pairs.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So, and I appreciate from country flags English isn’t everyone’s mother tongue so I’m not being a dick here, what is it that people are struggling with about this rule? Or, well, this specific paragraph?

It feels very convolutedly written. One would expect something more like:

- If a unit in which at least half their numbers have the Vanguard (X) rule attacks in combat any objective unit at 3'' or closer to an objective, and the objective falls back or is massacred

..or something, dunno, I'm not native. But there's also the fact that those rules are really specific, so they go onnn and onnn.

This week I've been reading Mantic's Epic Warpath and it's waaay easier to parse and understand than LIpms, for example. It's just the way GW writes rules.

But there, you’ve missed the condition that it’s the enemy unit that needs to be within 3” of the objective.

I do of course get yours is an off the cuff post, and in a second language so please don’t think I’m attacking you or just trying to semantic my way to victory.

An uncharitable power gaming tit could also argue, from your wording, that as soon as I’ve got said unit to below 50% casualties? It’s Vanguard does nowt. Not necessarily successfully I’ll grant you, but Majority is still a better descriptor.

I actually think that "any objective unit at 3'' or closer to an objective" would be more than enough to convey that (changing "objective unit" to "target" I guess, to avoid confusion), but it's there.

EDIT: Otherwise I'd have written "If a unit at 3'' or closer to an objective in which at least half their numbers have the Vanguard (X) rule attacks in combat any target unit, and the target falls back or is massacred". Not sure if I'm making my point clear or not >_>

And isn't "majority" literally "more than half"?

But as you said, it was an off the cuff example, thought out and written in all of 2 minutes, not rules on a book. Just trying to show a bit what I meant.

Now you have to define Objective Unit.

Again, right now I don’t actually know what Vanguard actually does. But, the paragraph in question has set it out nicely. It allows me to add a non-Vanguard character to the unit, and not lose whatever it is Vanguard actually does for me, and when Vanguard will apply.

Is it wordy? Yes. But it is precise wording. Specifically, for it to kick in, I need to be duffing up an enemy Unit which, itself, has at least one model within 3” of an Objective. And it cites other specifically defined (capitalised words) which I’ll also need to know the definition of.

Majority and More Than Half? Not necessarily, no, when a unit can change in number count. Hence my example of a Rules Lawyer argument which wouldn’t necessarily bear fruits but would lead to the game slowing down. And Majority is fewer words than More Than Half

Well then, when I know what it means, I'll word it differently

That said, that term is not really the problem there, I don't think anyone would have issues leaving it for a "general terms" explanation somewhere else.

The problem is that if every rule is worded like the one bullet point we were talking about, the rules will be a miserable slog, and difficult to parse.

D&D 4E's rules were quite miserable to read, mind, and I love it, but it was very easy to reference in game, clear, concise. That's what I feel the above lacks.

Again, people want complexity and crunch compared to 40k, you got it. Along with the mandatory thesaurus and A-level English language course.

Edit: I'll quote a friend of mine "it all seems obvious to me, I'll play it how I interpret it from the rule". So in other words, its not clea enough to avoid subjective interpretation and have no common basis. The fists bolter rule is a good example.

If a unit with majority of models having Vanguard (x) rule cause an enemy unit to fall back or beeing massacred, the vanguard unit score (x) victory points if the target enemy unit had atleast 1 model withing 3 inches of an objective that assault phase.

?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So, and I appreciate from country flags English isn’t everyone’s mother tongue so I’m not being a dick here, what is it that people are struggling with about this rule? Or, well, this specific paragraph?

It feels very convolutedly written. One would expect something more like:

- If a unit in which at least half their numbers have the Vanguard (X) rule attacks in combat any objective unit at 3'' or closer to an objective, and the objective falls back or is massacred

..or something, dunno, I'm not native. But there's also the fact that those rules are really specific, so they go onnn and onnn.

This week I've been reading Mantic's Epic Warpath and it's waaay easier to parse and understand than LIpms, for example. It's just the way GW writes rules.

But there, you’ve missed the condition that it’s the enemy unit that needs to be within 3” of the objective.

I do of course get yours is an off the cuff post, and in a second language so please don’t think I’m attacking you or just trying to semantic my way to victory.

An uncharitable power gaming tit could also argue, from your wording, that as soon as I’ve got said unit to below 50% casualties? It’s Vanguard does nowt. Not necessarily successfully I’ll grant you, but Majority is still a better descriptor.

And the solution to that kind of gamer was always and should remain official mockery(remember when the FAQs actually took the piss out of people who asked silly nonsense like that?) and social ostracisation, not turning the rules into contract law. You're never going to write completely airtight rules in human language because human language is incapable of that level of precision and unambiguity - if it was lawyers would be out of a job, and writing a gaming ruleset to try and shut down the fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the playerbase who're genuine That Guys at the expense of making the rest of us wade through five paragraphs of output from ChatGWPT 3.0 to extract information that was clearly conveyed to 99.99999% of people previously using a couple of sentences and, in monstrously complex instances, a brief example of use scenario is perhaps the silliest "solution" to the "problem" they could have devised.

Dudeface wrote:
Again, people want complexity and crunch compared to 40k, you got it. Along with the mandatory thesaurus and A-level English language course.

Edit: I'll quote a friend of mine "it all seems obvious to me, I'll play it how I interpret it from the rule". So in other words, its not clea enough to avoid subjective interpretation and have no common basis. The fists bolter rule is a good example.

Anyone choosing to interpret the Imperial Fists rule in any way other than requiring both bolt/auto weapons AND five or more dice in the fire group is not arguing from a position of good faith. And and or are not synonyms.

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

And the solution to that kind of gamer was always and should remain official mockery(remember when the FAQs actually took the piss out of people who asked silly nonsense like that?) and social ostracisation, not turning the rules into contract law. You're never going to write completely airtight rules in human language because human language is incapable of that level of precision and unambiguity - if it was lawyers would be out of a job, and writing a gaming ruleset to try and shut down the fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the playerbase who're genuine That Guys at the expense of making the rest of us wade through five paragraphs of output from ChatGWPT 3.0 to extract information that was clearly conveyed to 99.99999% of people previously using a couple of sentences and, in monstrously complex instances, a brief example of use scenario is perhaps the silliest "solution" to the "problem" they could have devised.

Atom bomb to flatten a mole hill situation.

Reading through all of the above, it looks like we are going to need rules lawyers…

Which is it, GW?

Rulebook: "Psychic Weapons will have the Psychic Trait to identify them."

FAQ: "Q: Are a Psychic Weapon and a Weapon with the Psychic
Trait the same thing?
A: No."