<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Webway and Fortifications--poll edition!"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/15.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Webway and Fortifications--poll edition! Please confine discussion to the original thread located here.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7297345.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7297345.page GMT Webway and Fortifications--poll edition! RAW or RAI?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7297730.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7297730.page GMT Re:Webway and Fortifications--poll edition! http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300219.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300219.page GMT Webway and Fortifications--poll edition!
Advise though, change the wording on the poll to this:
RAW Yes, RAI Yes
RAW yes, RAI no, but I'd allow
RAW yes, RAI no, and I wouldn't allow it.
RAW no, RAI no

Bit more clear then just having Yes and No.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300295.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300295.page GMT Webway and Fortifications--poll edition! RAI on this...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300299.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300299.page GMT Webway and Fortifications--poll edition! Lol. As much as I would like to break this completly out in a torney. I think some Logic was required.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300311.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300311.page GMT Webway and Fortifications--poll edition! The Rules go at least four interaction deep, when you get that many of Rules working and conflicting things can get wonky really quickly but still be Rule as Written legal at first glance.
Not sure I have the time to tackle that one, but being faction-less is a big bonus for Fortifications and if it plays out... well the timing concerns would be Resolved. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300316.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300316.page GMT Re:Webway and Fortifications--poll edition! I appreciate the suggestion though! People seem to be grasping it pretty well, so I'm not too concerned. Someone in another thread had levied the claim that the community leaned towards 'yes,' and the 'no' votes were limited to a couple extremely vocal posters. Seems like that isn't so much the case.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300376.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300376.page GMT Webway and Fortifications--poll edition! http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300951.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7300951.page GMT Webway and Fortifications--poll edition! http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7301031.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7301031.page GMT Webway and Fortifications--poll edition!
Fireraven wrote:
That shows the 8 win at all costs. And the ones that would bend and break anything to get an edge over everyone else. And the 33 no's and not allow it are the ones that go no fing way is that intent of any rule to break the game in such manner.

That's a bit of a broad generalisation.

I voted 'No' because I don't think the rules allow it. I might allow it in a friendly game, however, depending on the situation, just for the fun of it. My 'No' vote was nothing to do with what I think GW did or didn't intend. There are a whole bunch of rules in 7th edition that I would never have thought GW would put in there, but they did. So I've pretty much given up on trying to divine their intent except in the most obvious cases.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7302379.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/620040/7302379.page GMT