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.

Over the past few months I have noticed the lack of common sense that is shown when it comes to the rules. For example, Gwar's Space Wolves FAQ mentioned that the "Scout" rule was the same as the "Scouts" rule, just like how GW has had to change the IG FAQ so that it says "Valkyries and Vendettas have one access point...", despite the fact that they both use the same model.

There are more examples, which surely simply require common sense to figure out, so why do people make such a big deal about things such as this?

"Oh no, they've put the word "Scout" instead of "Scouts", I'm so confused I can't play the game properly" Seriously, shows lack of common sense.

Rant over. What are you opinions on this?

Valkyrie

Well i'm not sure about most of that.
But getting told one things right but then being told its wrong is very VERY confusing.

Commons sense only applies when there is much in common (and even then, it is not as common as people like to think).
When playing people you have never met, nor talked to, it should not be surprising to find out that there is not too much in common between you.
Especially when it comes to defining vaguely written rules.

kirsanth wrote:Commons sense only applies when there is much in common (and even then, it is not as common as people like to think).
When playing people you have never met, nor talked to, it should not be surprising to find out that there is not too much in common between you.
Especially when it comes to defining vaguely written rules.

It's not the fact that the rules are vague, it's that people get so confused and create discussions about pointless slight rule changes which can be solved by even the slightest amount of common sense.

There is a great lack of common sense these days. I think a lot of it stems to using RAW.

G

I would welcome the return of common sense.
But this may need everyone participating to have an idea of common sense.

Your issue could be a cultural one, maybe GW should put a explanation sheet into some localizations....

( hint: "scout" is an obvious typo. Not happening in my SW codex. )

There is no simple solution, since several posters like to have a debate based on mistakes / typos / ... and as GW didnt use editors
we will not see this cease.

Maybe just ignore those who feel uncomfortable if they are not always right?
Or be stubborn enough to insist on a reasonable solution until the "is right at all costs" faction breaks and runs crying away?

Just my 0,01 €...

Common sense is destroyed by rule lawyer and power gamers.

Shame on those people!

LunaHound wrote:Common sense is destroyed by rule lawyer and power gamers.

Shame on those people!

Silly casaul gamers like you, act like 'power gamers' are evil bastards who eat babies.

Shame on you!

Unfortunately you have people (even on here) that play RAW and think they are playing the game, uhh... "more right" because they are following the rulebook word for word. The ironic thing about this is that theyre actually breaking the game in a way GW did not intend for it to be, throwing off balance and limiting the number of army builds in a lot of cases.

When people dont use common sense, it slows down and makes the game an unenjoyable experience.

And the power gamers who play it word-by-word often break The Most Important Rule

Anti-Raw/Powergamer thread #9187419418.
Yawn.

Common sense is anything but common, while stupidity has been allowed free reign.

Some people these days need (or expect) to be spoonfed everything. Working it out on your own is so old school it makes Fred Flintstone look like Dexter.

I still am confused that people equate the two.

Most people that use RaW, in my experience, use it to their own disadvantage as well. Its the RaI people that claim its infringing on their fun to follow the rules.

ymmv

/shrug

Uhh, you equate the two because by RAW, a lot of things dont work or dont make sense....which is the point of this topic - think for yourself.

I suppose an easy fix for some of these "misinterpretations" is more examples in the Rules/Codex's. I mean there are already a ton in the new 5th Edition rule book. But Codex's seem to lack from time to time.

I know there was a huge discussion on the way Lash should work for Chaos, on whether or not the whole unit should move as a whole (ie. same distance from each other just moved X inches in the chosen direction) or they are moved to the moving players will and set at the Chaos players chosen distance/formation (ie. clumped together to make best effect of blast weapons to kill as many as possible).

If there was but a simple 2-4 line example of intended rule usage I'm sure most of these disputes would go away. But that's just my thoughts.

Valkyrie wrote:Over the past few months I have noticed the lack of common sense that is shown when it comes to the rules. For example, Gwar's Space Wolves FAQ mentioned that the "Scout" rule was the same as the "Scouts" rule, just like how GW has had to change the IG FAQ so that it says "Valkyries and Vendettas have one access point...", despite the fact that they both use the same model.

There are more examples, which surely simply require common sense to figure out, so why do people make such a big deal about things such as this?

"Oh no, they've put the word "Scout" instead of "Scouts", I'm so confused I can't play the game properly" Seriously, shows lack of common sense.

Rant over. What are you opinions on this?

Valkyrie

The problem is that GW often make this kind of mistake which genuinely is confusing, and that sets low expectations.

For example, Tau Empire Codex:

Sniper Drones are a set of three drones and a team leader. The sniper drones have their own Ld stat and stealth fields, unlike wargear drones, indicating they are characters in their own right and not dependant on the team leader.

The leader has a drone controller wargear. In the Wargear section it says a drone controller lets the owner have two drones.

Does the team leader need the controller to control the three drones already there (if so, why does this break the wargear rule) or has he been given it so he can take a couple of shield drones if he wants to?

I think it is clear that the second interpretation is more obviously correct, considering the rest of the Tau rules.

However, when the FAQ came out, GW said the first interpretation was correct.

That is just one example. Thanks to many others, experienced players have become used to GW publishing rules which either don't make sense, or else when FAQed turn out to mean the opposite of what did make sense.

So when GW publish a codex using the rule Scout (as opposed to Scouts) it is not unreasonable to suppose that a new rule called Scout is going to be published in another codex, or errata or FAQ.

It isn't rocket science to check your spelling, especially if they are proprietary IP terms which GW like to TM all over the place.

When I worked in magazine publishing, a team of three and I put out the equivalent of two to three codexes a month, completely new original material, without making that kind of simple mistake. Compare that level of production with GW's design studio.

To be frank, GW don't reach the quality level of a high school yearbook, and they are a £100 million global corporation. It's shameful, don't you think?

So there you have it. GW are useless, but its the players' fault for expecting a basic level of competence in return for their money.

I enjoy their rules system, and often swivel it in casual games to increase the realism/excitement. (I.e An aspiring champion attempts to kill some guardsmen and flunks...so my chaos lord smacks him! (D3 str 4 hits )) Every person is different-we should all adapt to each other.