GW, GK and the state of Rules

[wkz]

Just a rant. Feel free to counter-rant against me. (edit: yeeesh, I wrote that much?? Be warned: wall of text with no tl;dr summary)

The recent Gray Knight Codex release has brought another batch of GW's patented "Poor rules writing" onto the table yet again. We have big arguments on "Dreadknight DCCW weapons!!", "Falchions is +1 or +2 total??", "Teleport Homers not affecting Summon Deep Strike?", etc ... Even "Astral Aim shooting through the HULL!!" making the BOLS's front page.

But how much of this is GW's fault? How much of it is instead certain people trying to illegally push the boundaries?

Now to begin with, GW really DOES make really weird and/or ambiguous rules at times. How, for example, does a Mawloc work?? Is Arjac throwing a thunderhammer, or rather throwing a hunk of metal that does not cause the other model to end up as Initiative 1?? How... you can probably recall a few yourself if you think back.

There's just too many of these questions left and right, all the way back into GW's history. And the main problem is that although these are rules that work outside the norm (aka rules which contradict the BRB in some way) they're not 100% covered by Rules As Written in some way or other. In fact, in some cases if we're using the RAW, anything can be interpreted from the interaction of the rules... as Written, these new modification to the rules is friggin' inadequate to say the least.

Thus, Rules As Intended. Since 4th edition and before that, RAI is a "rules patch by fans" so as to speak, using design intention as seen from older rulesets. It allows for the community to remove obvious rules mistakes (such as Rhinos to have access points when there are none written down), and more importantly it allows for certain rules to have a "general consensus" rule interpretation before GW gives an explanation of their actual intended meaning in due time (read: releasing their FAQs slowly~~).

RAI is good, because RAI does what GW did not do in the past (and even now, at least not fast enough): It allows the community to act against rules ambiguity. In the murky time period before the official word comes out (in the form of GW's FAQ, or even sometimes AFTER those FAQs, as seen by GW's FAQ on Space Wolves's counter charge FAQ), in a game where multiple rules keep clashing/interacting with one another (and there's a LOT of them activating just from the BRB itself, before we even add the Codex rules blurring things even further), RAI is definitely needed.

So we have a rules system which has a bad rep, and the RAI being used to patch things for years now... along came 5th edition and its brand of crazy: Basically, 5th edition have a LOT of game-shaking funky stuff with no precedence, and codexes belonging to 5th tend to have quite a few "out of this world" special rules that tend to blow up BRB core rules left and right. Units who'd "purposely mishap a deepstrike", a scoring unit who'd suddenly split into two, "single model HQ choice without the IC rule", etc.

Basically, RAI is suddenly like a ship with the wind taken out of the sails. HOW exactly do you even start to consider certain things that has never happened before, such as a non-walker taking a traditionally walker weapon for example? There's no precedence for that happening in the past, nor is there any FAQ/designer interviews to shed light on such new-fangled rules.

And therein lies the danger: without precedence of these unique cases, RAI runs the danger of interpreting rules every which way. RAW may say something that seems clear-cut, such as (taking the Dreadknight DCCW example) DCCW only granting its double-strength advantage to a walker. BUT RAI will show up and shout down actual RAW, because precedence has always been saying "everything that has had a DCCW has befitted from double strength!!". Is RAW correct? Is RAI correct? What about the "different types of the same wargear"?? And "allies in the new world"? Who knows?

In short, in new situations, we just simply don't know what the INTENTION of the designers are. And in such situations where RAI gets short circuited... is it still safe to continue using the RAI to interpret rules?

My opinion: Yes, and No. Yes, at least in RAI's traditional role: if pure, distilled RAW itself cannot determine the outcome of the rule involved, it is better to insert RAI (just make sure your interpretation of the Intention is the same as your opponent's...), at least until the FAQ comes out.

But more importantly No, if RAW can say something about the rules-clash in the first place, simply because you just don't know the INTENTION of the creators of the rules, especially in 5th edition...

But most importantly, depends... there IS the most important rule: you can always roll a 4+ on it and have fun first. Afterwards, discuss the rule, and if needed make it a house rule. (of course, this is a luxury that does not exist in tournaments... which is why good tournament packs usually include their own mile long FAQs...)

(Edit, forgot to add this) But one thing for certain: GW really need to push out those FAQs a LOT faster, seriously.

At least, that's my opinion on the matter. What's yours?

[Grimfoe]

Quite honestly, the play testers and editors at GW are obviously not very good.

There is a correct way to examine a set of rules and avoid such problems. The funny part is, there is such a large gaming community and it would be very easy to find competant testers.

These rules should be examined by professionals at several different levels. Professional editors that are also gamers. Professional Engineers that are also gamers. Lawyers that are also gamers.

If you want the holes in a codex pointed out before it's released, give it to a 20 year game vet that practices law.


These are people that are used to interpreting codes and laws in unusual ways. They'll find things in the codex the designers never knew were there.

[Gir]

I personally think the play testers do a decent job, and half the problems that arise weren't problems for the playtesters because they're not ******* idiots like the internet.

[Rapture]

Playing any game with rules more complicated than Monopoly requires an IQ somewhere over 75. Judging by some of the comments and interpretations that float around here, the average IQ for a 40k player is somewhere around 65.

Ex. Shooting through a transport because models ignore LOS.

[eldargal]

I agree with Gir.

[elmir]

I don't know if I agree with that Gir. If you are to playtest something thouroughly, it means you have to play the role of the "asshat" who interprets everything for his own benefit and tries to find loopholes wherever possible. That's a good playtester, not somebody who uses his common sence all the time.... :p

Then again, the way GW releases their stuff and codexes compared to privateer press, something is bound to go wrong at some point. I don't blame them for that however. The privateer press model of releases wouldn't be possible if you had as many different armies as GW does.

[SonicPara]

In my opinion Gir nailed it. Playtesting does the best job that they can but people looking to squeeze every ounce of power out of a codex at the expense of common sense and reason will always find the technical loopholes. I have always found that those who preach RAW are the aforementioned people who use RAW to legitimize their power-gaming ways, but that is just my personal disdain for rules-lawyers surfacing. On with the post.

With any game, whether it be tabletop or a videogame or any other format, you can't expect the developer to address and solve every potential issue and exploit prior to the game's release. The developer can only pay so many people to test their game for so many hours before the product must hit shelves and start earning returns on any investments made into it. Of course even the most robust testing team is dwarfed by the community that will play the game upon release and so the issues discovered by the community then surface post-launch and are addressed through patches/FAQs and Errata.

Now, seeing as how the community make the best testers due to their sheer volume, video game developers have implemented the private beta to help with testing. They still have their corps of paid testers who are on hand from the first moment that the game is playable but with a beta the developer can somewhat access the power of community testing but prior to launch. Beta programs have served to improve endless video games over the years and only serve to help plug the numerous ineviable holes in the game prior to release.

GW could implement a beta program as well, releasing an incomplete beta-stage codex that only includes a slice of the overall codex to allow the public to try out the new rules and report back their findings about each unit. A beta codex would be incomplete not only in presentation but also in total unit entries so an open beta test would not compromise sales of the final codex.

[DrLove42]

I personally think the play testers do a decent job, and half the problems that arise weren't problems for the playtesters because they're not ******* idiots like the internet.

This.

I know they do playtesting outside the design studio (least I hope they do) and everyone wishes that they tested with more people. But testing outside the trusted community carries the huge risk of leaks and things hitting the market tooo early.

Most of the rules problems only surface when they reach the masses online. Personally reading through the codex i'd never notice any problems that people point out. When GW releases GAQ's that say "we missed a word here, put it in" thats usually the first time i've noticed it missing. I'd never think of being able to shoot thought the hull (cos you can't) or the other rubbish that surfaces.

Its noticeable on other things as well. Play any online video game and it never takes long for legions of people to take advantages of bugs, glitches and unsporting tactics that the developers never thought of.

The simple way of remembering it is that 75% of People are D-Bags. Most don't show it until they're put onto the podium of anonymity that is the internet. If the "Astral Aim" thing hadn't surfaced before, or had never been commented on, do you think someone would have tried to pull it at Adepticon or a major tournement? Or even just in store or at a club meet. Its only once the anonymous power gaming, rule bending, RAI interpreting crowd get hold of it does anyone suddenly think of changing the rules

[Skragger]

If you want the holes in a codex pointed out before it's released, give it to a 20 year game vet that practices law.


These are people that are used to interpreting codes and laws in unusual ways. They'll find things in the codex the designers never knew were there.

This one I find to be true. Just sit down with the codex and read it through and through. Generally speaking, you're the last person who should be proofreading your own work. Invariably you will miss the typos and skip over areas unconciously. It's always best to have someone else read through your work, as it gives a fresh set of eyes and mind to the document. Ideas that may make perfect sense to you when you write them down may make no sense to others when they read it.

Thats all not to say that GW doesn't employ people to read their documents, but sometimes they do need to clairify a bit more on their writing a bit more, and getting that veteren gamer to read the codex during 'beta' is the best way to do it.

Maybe they're afraid of leakage?

[DarkLink]

Some people lack reading comprehension, but the root of the problem lies with GW. GW has an utter inability to precisely define exactly what their rules do far too often, which is exacerbated by the aforementioned lack of reading comprehension.

But really, GW has no excuse. If Warmachine and Magic can have a wide range of complex special rules that are very "tight", so can 40k. The occasional mistake is one thing. This is something else.

[UltramarineFan]

I personally think the play testers do a decent job, and half the problems that arise weren't problems for the playtesters because they're not ******* idiots like the internet.

Amen. I hate people who blame GW's playtesters just because they've decided to play in the spirit of the game and not like WAAC douchebags (who are usually the people who make these rules queries actually matter at all)

[Fellend]

Why bother with releasing incomplete codexes. Do like they always do. Leak it two weeks before launch. Let everyone argue. Fix what needs to be fixed and if there's still problem faq it within a week or two.

This is nothing more than GW being extremely hands off. All they need to do is go onto BOLS rules forum and say yes and no to the questions. They are GW, they wrote it, it's not like they need to explain themselves

[Skragger]

Amen. I hate people who blame GW's playtesters just because they've decided to play in the spirit of the game and not like WAAC douchebags (who are usually the people who make these rules queries actually matter at all)

I don't mind the idea of playing in the spirit of the game, but as play testors and beta testors they're not paid to do that. They're paid (or should be paid) to find every possible glitch, hole, bug, and loop. Beta testors are asked to make reports of bugs, and issues so that they can be ironed out. When it comes to rules sets, this means looking HARD at the rules and going "how can I break this?" so that its caught now. If they played like WAAC Demiurge's then we wouldn't have to have half of the FAQ junk we deal with.

[Daemonette666]

I tend to agree with WKZ and Grimfoe. Sure you can play test, but by now GW should realise that there are power gamers out there who will try to bend the rules and squeeze every bit out of a codex. GW themselves have said codex beats BRB, and before they release a codex, especially the new 5th edition powered up codex creep released codexes, they have to play test with not only the lawyer types, but power gamers, your average IQ 75 gamers, and gamers/ play testers of every level.

The BRB is large, complex, and even with an index can be confusing as hell. Jumping from one page to another to refer to an obscure rule. Those new to 40K can get lost in the rules, and with a new army coming out, you have to spend time reading and playing against or with the new army to really understand its quirks, and rules properly. Many poorer gamers do not buy every codex that comes out. Back when they had PDFs of the codexes in 4th edition, I had copies of them that my mate gave to me.

The whole time line, fluff, basic rules and codex set up has to be organised centrally with a definite plan to keep everything in order. Currently we have one rule in a codex contradicting a basic rule, then another codex gives a character or upgrade that alters the basic rule to the other extreme. Game designers, black library writers, play testers and management have to get organised.

Sure they have a lot to do, and they have so many armies to release, and they are in the process of planning to soon release a new edition of 40K, but they have a great deal of resources, specialists and staff to back them up and get the job done right. When they make a mistake, they should just face up to it, and get the FAQ and errata out as quickly as they can to correct the problem.

I believe they should have a better system in place to get feedback from gamers about the rule conflicts, and be able to have a ruling made on them. Once a ruling is made - feed it back down the line so the country/regional HQs can head off the questions, and then officially add to the FAQs on a regular basis.

The old email us with your enquiry link on the GW website was great, but from what I know, it also caused them a lot of headaches, and down time for at least one employee who had to answer all the enquiries. I have also heard the rumour that it was one of the so called inquiries about when Squats would be released that caused Jervis to have them killed off by the Tyranids, and that was why they dropped the feedback / inquiry service.

Even so, I think they should bring it back in an official way for rule clarifications. Locally we have one GW shop that uses the rule that you have to move characters in first when you assault, and that if your unit is locked in close combat and is assaulted by a new unit, they can not fight the new unit. The main store in the city says that it is closest model to closest unengaged model first, and then next closest, and so on, and if assaulted by a new unit unengaged models may move up to 6" to get into base contact with the new unit assaulting them and may attack them.

2 GW stores in the same state, and 2 different playing styles - same rules, same FAQs, just different interpretations of those same rules - go figure that one out.

I think websites like this one are the saviour of the game. Having Veteran gamers answering questions about rules in order to clarify things for those who have not been in the game that long, or who have one of those power gamers in their club who interprets the rules to suit themselves.

Sure GW has a lot on their plate, but they need to play test more, and act smarter and dumber when play testing in order to find the flaws when played at all gaming levels. The script writers should also check it twice before it goes to print. Gw are likely to sprout secrets y and privacy reasons for not overly play testing it or using too many people to test it, but surely they can do something better to work out the kinks and bugs.

And yes there are some idiots out there asking questions that do not make sense like can i shoot through a tank that blocks line of sight because the models ignore LOS. A clear cut set of Tournament rules for each codex as it is released, and having it linked to a set of tournament rules based on the BRB is a good idea. Hold isn't that what FAQs are for? LOL. When they finally come out that is. We are still waiting for the Grey Knights FAQs and already we have so many rule interpretation questions on them that we have at lest 3 threads looking at different views/ angles to the problem.

We will still have these problems for years to come, and it is because as has been said by a few people on this website - GW is a miniature selling company first and foremost. they sell the game and codexes as an addition to the miniatures, and the game was not designed to be balanced or specifically designed with tournaments in mind. It is a social game and is designed for fun, and to sell miniatures. It has just gotten so popular that GW has not been able to develop the resources correctly to evolve it into anything beyond what it started out as. The game needs to evolve to bring it into line with its own evolution, and this can be done while still keeping the miniature sales high.

[isotope99]

As someone who works in financial services and has a stack of books 2 feet high on business tax alone, I can say that writing any kind of rules framework where parts of it change at different times is very difficult and I don't think that GW's rules are as bad as we complain they are. There are a few basic things that I think could have been clearer, such as whether the Dreadknight's CCW gives a bonus attack with the sword/hammeror not.

I think the answers are as follows, with a little bit of everything:

1) Write a little more in the rules by way of examples, you're never going to cover all eventuialities but some scenarios are more obvious than others. The "can you shoot out of transports with Astral Aim?" is a good example as I can see it both ways, there isn't conceptually much difference between shooting through a brick wall and shooting through the wall of your tank.

2) Once the rules are pinned down but before the final proof, ask the playtesters to deliberately try and break the game, act like jerks etc. and see if there are any rules that need adjusting or clarifying. Testing to destruction is very common in software and mechanical engineering and helps shake out any iffy issues. I know they're worried about rules leaking, but in the age of the internet this should take second place as its virtually inevitable that they'll get out anyway (the pdf leak being an obvious example). Things like the 'shunt punch' or extreme army lists should be picked up by this.

3) Get the FAQ out early. GW got the DE one out relatively early I think, so hopefully the grey knights should follow suit. It doesn't take a huge amount of effort to monitor these forums (we're all arguing over similar points) and I'm sure they get lots of emails. Lots of these can be resolved by teh developers with one word answers very quickly.

[Unzuul the Lascivious]

Two things: -

1) House Rules rule, ok?

2) Players should really think within the bounds of what seems sensible. Astral Aim seems to me to be completely straightforward! If you're in a transport and firing out of firing points, rule applies. If the target is in a transport or otherwise enclosed, i.e. in a bunker, no dice! Only mongs are going to argue that their GK can guide psybolts and psycannon rounds through firing points. Anyone with a brain can see how this rule is supposed to work, i.e RAI, so tell these people to jog on.

However, some rules make absolutely no frigging sense at all. So your assault cannon is only within range of one member of that Ork squad? That's ok, you can hit all of them anyway, as this represents the movement of battle. Give me a break - you get shot at, you don't start running into it do you? Silly rule...

Common sense, fair play and not being a complete Scopey - FAQs would be a lot shorter if people weren't such drooling spazmos...

[dethangel]

In my opinion Gir nailed it. Playtesting does the best job that they can but people looking to squeeze every ounce of power out of a codex at the expense of common sense and reason will always find the technical loopholes. I have always found that those who preach RAW are the aforementioned people who use RAW to legitimize their power-gaming ways, but that is just my personal disdain for rules-lawyers surfacing. On with the post.

With any game, whether it be tabletop or a videogame or any other format, you can't expect the developer to address and solve every potential issue and exploit prior to the game's release. The developer can only pay so many people to test their game for so many hours before the product must hit shelves and start earning returns on any investments made into it. Of course even the most robust testing team is dwarfed by the community that will play the game upon release and so the issues discovered by the community then surface post-launch and are addressed through patches/FAQs and Errata.

i personally dont see a problem with trying to squeeze the most out of there codex. if GW cant write the rules with clear intent, its not the players fault.
now im a veteren of real war and even in real war there are rules to be followed(rules of engagement, laws of physics, orders from command,ect.) a unit commander must assess the situation and the given rules to come up with a plan that gets the job done and limit the potental casulties. this means sometime streaching the rules as far as you can, to save the lives of your solders. thats no small task.
if you dont want players finding loop-holes in the rules. then the answer is simple, write more comprehensive rules...

[Skragger]

As someone who works in financial services and has a stack of books 2 feet high on business tax alone, I can say that writing any kind of rules framework where parts of it change at different times is very difficult

...

2) Once the rules are pinned down but before the final proof, ask the playtesters to deliberately try and break the game, act like jerks etc. and see if there are any rules that need adjusting or clarifying. Testing to destruction is very common in software and mechanical engineering and helps shake out any iffy issues. I know they're worried about rules leaking, but in the age of the internet this should take second place as its virtually inevitable that they'll get out anyway (the pdf leak being an obvious example). Things like the 'shunt punch' or extreme army lists should be picked up by this.

Amen to the first part from the Insurance side! But you're right about testing to destruction. I used to build blackberries (/fills with shame :() and they don't test those things by typing out text messages. They used to do some pretty impressive destruction tests on them. Even unlikely stuff too like hitting them with a hammer (ahh.. happy thoughts). Its better to give someone something and say "find the flaws" vs "tell me if this works.. please..?"

[DarkLink]

Why bother with releasing incomplete codexes. Do like they always do. Leak it two weeks before launch. Let everyone argue. Fix what needs to be fixed and if there's still problem faq it within a week or two.


Well, two weeks before release the codices have already been printed, so it's too late by then. Printing a couple hundred thousand books isn't an overnight thing.

But, yeah, handing the rules to the players is the best way of finding all the issues.


2) Players should really think within the bounds of what seems sensible.

So you can make up whatever rules you want, so long as it's sensible? What you or I think of as sensible is not objective. Clearly written rules that require no such arbitrary interpretation is objective.

You shouldn't have to houserule stuff to make the rules work.

[Hive Mind]

As someone who has spent the last four years with their nose buried in law textbooks I don't really see any problem with the rules. It never needs more than a few minutes thought to divine the 'correct' rule IMO. If the RAW is ambiguous (and IMO very few actually are) then simply use other, similar, rules or FAQ answers as precedent or use the fluff to divine RAI.

There'll never be a 100% perfect rules system in such a complex game, as mentioned it simply isn't commercially feasible to play-test 'to destruction', as it were.

That said, I don't ever play 'competitive games' so my experiences probably won't be typical for most here.

[Grimfoe]

I'm not here to bash GW. Judging by sheer volume alone, you can see they make the best game. Maybe not your favorite, but clearly the best if only in the respect that more people play it than any other.

But to say the rules are "too complex" not to be frought with contradictions and combinations that were not anticipated by the designers is just not accurate. I started playing a long time ago. Second edition rules were MUCH more complex and didn't have anywhere near the playability problems and contradictions you have today. Add to that the stupid typos and sheer number of corrections in the errata. It's a little silly, really. If nothing else, you'd have to agree they need better proof readers. How can you issue book after book with typos in them? When released, it should be perfect. There's really no excuse for anything else. Even if the rules aren't right, you should have typos and incorrectly spelled words.

I also think bashing other players is a cop out. I particularly think it is a cop out when GW does it. I love the idea of insinuating that your client base is stupid or devious and is misinterpreting your rule set either out of ignorance or with malicious intent. If you wrote the rules well, they couldn't do that. If you can't write them that well, then have people examine them TRYING to find the loopholes. In short, do your job and stop making excuses.

[Hive Mind]

I guess that's aimed at me, even though I didn't bash other players or indeed anything you've posted.

I said that there'll never be a 100% perfect rule system. Your 2nd Ed. example doesn't refute that since you allude to it still having 'playability problems and contradictions'. I don't think there are playability problems or contradictions but like I said I've spent four years learning how to read statutes and legislation so maybe it's just a skill that I've picked up that others don't possess. Is that bashing other players? I don't think so.

The typos are irritating for sure, but that's all they are. They aren't an impediment to the game.

It's all very well for us to sit here and say 'well it should be perfect before release' but we live in a world with commercial and time sensitivities and it simply isn't feasible to cover all bases. Hell man, look thru the statute books of wherever you live. Even the lawmakers who get paid vast sums of money to write laws don't cover all the bases and frequently unveil poorly drafted provisions. Look at the Malawian 'anti-farting' Bill for example. It's easy to counter it though, you just devise a system of divining meaning from whatever source you have. I/we use RAW where possible and if that fails I/we come up with an interpretation that's consistent with already decided issues per stare decisis or if that fails we use the fluff to interpret the RAI.

Again though, I don't play competitively so once more, my experiences may not be typical.

[jmach]

I'm going to agree with Gir and Eldargal on this thread.

[Grimfoe]

I'm not saying that the rules will be perfect. There will always be something that the testers don't see or anticipate. I'm saying that there shouldn't be typos and mistakes of that nature, at all.

With regard to the rules, I'm saying it should be a lot closer to perfect than it is. A trained chimp could find loopholes in the rules as they are written now.

I'm also saying that I take exception to GW blaming the players for misinterpreting GW's crappy rule set. If you don't want players misinterpreting your rules, write them better.

With regard to other players, I just think it's a little silly to imply that the average 40K player is a complete slob and an idiot. If that were true, you wouldn't want to game with them. There are complete jerks in the game, but honestly, if you go to a tournament and play 5 games, chances are you'll like 4 of the players.

I don't mean any offense, I'm just saying we're a little too hard on the customer.

With regard to the post above, I'm not sure that using lawmakers in our government as an example really helps your point. Let's face it, government isn't really good at doing anything but wasting time and money. If I ran my business like the government I would have to have fired my help and gone bankrupt long ago.

Maybe that IS what GW is doing. Maybe they've been infiltrated by former government employees.

Hmm.......;)

[Bean]

In my opinion Gir nailed it. Playtesting does the best job that they can but people looking to squeeze every ounce of power out of a codex at the expense of common sense and reason will always find the technical loopholes. I have always found that those who preach RAW are the aforementioned people who use RAW to legitimize their power-gaming ways, but that is just my personal disdain for rules-lawyers surfacing.

This might legitimately be an accurate description of your experience, but if it is, your experience is sadly, sadly lacking--to the extent where you are basically not competent to speak on this issue.

I mean, all you have to do is look at the rules forums of this very community to find examples of odd-ball rules issues--places where the rules-as-written seem to go against the rules-as-intended--where the rules as written are worse for the players of that army than the rules as intended.

Take the DCCW question--grey knight players are pointing out that, as per RAW, the Dreadknight is worse than it seems like it ought to be. That isn't rules-lawyers trying to squeeze every last ounce of advantage out of their codex--it's the exact opposite--and it isn't a particularly notable exception, either. Frankly, if you look at the evidence without a polarized lens of personal bias, you'll find that rules issues are routinely brought up by all sorts of people for all sorts of different reasons, without any significant bias towards rules-lawyers squeezing for advantage at all.

Your assertions are just wrong and your attitude unfounded. Rules lawyers aren't the problem--rule-lawyering is nothing more and nothing less than trying to play the game by the rules. The problem lies solely and exclusively with the rules themselves and their routine failure to function properly.

Imagine you're finished building a house. Someone comes up to you and says, "check this out--you forgot o build a door for this room. The room's there, but you can't get in except through the window." Is it that guy's fault that the room doesn't have a door? No. It's your fault for forgetting to put the door in--he's doing everyone a favor by pointing it out. That guy is the rules-lawyer. Blaming him would be stupid--exactly as stupid as blaming the rules-lawyer for finding places where the rules don't seem to work as intended.

[DadExtraordinaire]

This is nothing new. I recall the heady days of WRG rules for Ancient and Medieval Wargames particularly 6th / 7th edition which were funnily enough designed for competitions. The furor that was caused by those rules still lingers to this day even though those particulalry editions haven't been used in a competition for decades.

I have had hardly any issues whatsoever with the releases of the past 4 to 5 codices.

If GW brings an FAQ so be it. However, round here we tend to discuss the pros and cons of an issue and move on on the stronger evidence and if the evidence is balanced we roll a D6 and get on with life.

What I disagree with is one camp or the other using the BOLS or B&C etc as a means to justify their own interpretations on a alleged hole / broken rule and then ask for a "crusade" for an FAQ to GW HQ......when really one is not required, certainly the maount time players have said this is broken that is broken, usually is just utter nonsense.

One other point. The play testers do NOT get paid. They are trusted volunteers.

I do not believe with the money GW makes (£100 mil T.O) that they are incredibly stupid to release a buggy codex. 9 times out of 10 if there is an issue usually it's not been corrected before print, or total quality management has failed somewhere along the line. There are some incredibly talented individuals / teams within GW...give them a break, it is after all only a game.

[DarkLink]

If you're laid back, then it's no problem. When you run into a blind gap in the middle of a tournament and need a clear, concise answer where one doesn't exist, though, it gets very frustrating, especially when other gaming systems like Warmachine do a much, much better job.


Amen. I hate people who blame GW's playtesters just because they've decided to play in the spirit of the game and not like WAAC douchebags (who are usually the people who make these rules queries actually matter at all)

Wow. You've just blindly claimed to hate me for some arbitrary reason, and on top of that you try and slap an imaginary label on people like me and call me a douchebag.

You, and so many other people on the internet, would do well to just forget about anything related to 'WAAC douchebags". Yes, there is an occasional guy to whom this term might apply. He is not worth playing. For the other 95% of the competitive players out there whom you directly insult, we're not doing it out of some intention to cheat, or to curb-stomp everyone we play. We want clear rules because it is frustrating to run into a problem in the middle of a game that can't be answered.

Imagine how mad people would be if you go to the Superbowl and the game was tied with ten seconds left on the clock, and suddenly something happened that wasn't covered by the rules and there was no clear way to find out who won? Yeah, you can slap some arbitrary ruling on the situation to find an answer, but the whole situation is frustrating for the players and the fans. Better to avoid the whole situation in the first place.

Now, I don't expect GW to solve every single possible solution. But there was a 3-page long list of questions for an FAQ on Bolter and Chainsword two weeks before the codex came out. That isn't a case of the playtesters missing a few little details. That's a case of the playtesters not doing their job.

[Hive Mind]

With regard to the rules, I'm saying it should be a lot closer to perfect than it is. A trained chimp could find loopholes in the rules as they are written now.

Perhaps, but taken together with rules for similar situations, previous FAQs and the fluff it's pretty clear (at least to me and the people I play with) what the rule(s) should be.



I'm also saying that I take exception to GW blaming the players for misinterpreting GW's crappy rule set. If you don't want players misinterpreting your rules, write them better.


I haven't seen them do that but if they do I'd agree, calling your customers out isn't a good idea.



With regard to other players, I just think it's a little silly to imply that the average 40K player is a complete slob and an idiot. If that were true, you wouldn't want to game with them. There are complete jerks in the game, but honestly, if you go to a tournament and play 5 games, chances are you'll like 4 of the players.


If that's what you took from my post then I apologise because that wasn't my intention. All I meant was that it's possible, if not likely, that four years of legal experience has given me a skill for interpretation and assessing relevant information that others might not possess.

With all that said though, you shouldn't need specialised experience to play a game so... point conceded.



With regard to the post above, I'm not sure that using lawmakers in our government as an example really helps your point. Let's face it, government isn't really good at doing anything but wasting time and money. If I ran my business like the government I would have to have fired my help and gone bankrupt long ago.

Maybe that IS what GW is doing. Maybe they've been infiltrated by former government employees.

Hmm.......;)

Given that you seem to be erring on the side of libertarian while I'm practically a socialist it would probably be wise to drop this aspect of the conversation. :)

[DrLove42]

I have really bad short term memory...but were there this many rules disputes or queries (as DarkLink says 3 pages even before release is a bit extreme) with past codices? Were there this many disputes on the DE codex? Or before that the BA and SW? Or the same in Fantasy? Was/Is there this much dispute over the new Orks and Goblins? Will the Tomb Kings see the same?

or is the GK just a really bad example that people are using as one bad example to tear GW a new one?

[SonicPara]

Take the DCCW question--grey knight players are pointing out that, as per RAW, the Dreadknight is worse than it seems like it ought to be. That isn't rules-lawyers trying to squeeze every last ounce of advantage out of their codex--it's the exact opposite--and it isn't a particularly notable exception, either. Frankly, if you look at the evidence without a polarized lens of personal bias, you'll find that rules issues are routinely brought up by all sorts of people for all sorts of different reasons, without any significant bias towards rules-lawyers squeezing for advantage at all.

Of course all generalizations are false and my delirious post last night/this morning is no different. Even then, in my local meta nearly 100% of the rules lawyers are TFG. They constantly look to neuter other codices while playing their own (commonly Space Wolves and IG) without the same scrutiny. That is where my disdain towards rules-lawyers comes from and while I apologize for not being completely clear in my original post, I did intend to indicate through "I have always found" that the view was unique to myself and my meta.

As for your example I actually find it one where RAI, with reason, can offer a proper solution. Firstly, the Dreadknight comes with the DCCWs for free. Secondly, there is an option for a Daemonhammer which performs the same core task (S10) as the DCCW would. Seeing as how the Daemonhammer is a paid upgrade, we can infer that GW wants the Dreadknight to pay in order to be S10. With that conclusion, it becomes understandable that DCCWs granting S10 to the Dreadknight is not their intended use. However, a Dreadknight with 2 DCCWs would still be granted an additional attack for having two of the same close combat weapon.

[Bean]

Of course all generalizations are false and my delirious post last night/this morning is no different. Even then, in my local meta nearly 100% of the rules lawyers are TFG. They constantly look to neuter other codices while playing their own (commonly Space Wolves and IG) without the same scrutiny. That is where my disdain towards rules-lawyers comes from and while I apologize for not being completely clear in my original post, I did intend to indicate through "I have always found" that the view was unique to myself and my meta.

As for your example I actually find it one where RAI, with reason, can offer a proper solution. Firstly, the Dreadknight comes with the DCCWs for free. Secondly, there is an option for a Daemonhammer which performs the same core task (S10) as the DCCW would. Seeing as how the Daemonhammer is a paid upgrade, we can infer that GW wants the Dreadknight to pay in order to be S10. With that conclusion, it becomes understandable that DCCWs granting S10 to the Dreadknight is not their intended use. However, a Dreadknight with 2 DCCWs would still be granted an additional attack for having two of the same close combat weapon.

No problem, dude. Sorry I kinda blew up at you about it. I get hit with the rules-lawyer hammer a lot, and I'm a bit touchy about it. We're not all just doing anything we can to win, and I'm sorry that you have to deal with people who are.

As for the Dreadknight--I'm inclined to disagree. While the Doomfists are perfectly fair without doubling the Dreadknight's strength, I just don't see that being the intent--I mean, if they'd wanted it to work that way they could have just given it regular close combat weapons. Dreadnought close combat weapons seem like a very odd choice, given that none of their special abilities do anything for the dreadnought at all.

[Lemt]

IMHO GW make the rules a bit hazy on purpose. Sure, you can have beta-testers, but the real world has a couple thousand people that will always find things that seep through.
If you don't have hazy wording and something totally broken is found, you have to change it. And people don't like being told their shiny new codex is being nerfed.
If you write hazy rules, specially on things that could be OP, you can just FAQ them to say what you want the rules to mean. AKA you're not "nerfing", you are "explaining".

[Bean]

IMHO GW make the rules a bit hazy on purpose. Sure, you can have beta-testers, but the real world has a couple thousand people that will always find things that seep through.
If you don't have hazy wording and something totally broken is found, you have to change it. And people don't like being told their shiny new codex is being nerfed.
If you write hazy rules, specially on things that could be OP, you can just FAQ them to say what you want the rules to mean. AKA you're not "nerfing", you are "explaining".

I have a hard time believing that GW is really helping their customers' opinions of them through this tactic--it might indeed be their goal, but the reasoning just doesn't seem sound.

[L192837465]

If they aren't playtesting their rules for every demographic of person playing their games, they aren't playtesting.

It's that simple. They just simply aren't doing their jobs. I don't know why they don't give a pre-book to a few groups around the world to playtest the hell out of it. The GK book has been out for less than a week and there are PAGES of questions. These could have all been resolved in the printed book.

House rules don't matter. If you change even one major rule because it's "more fair", you aren't playing Warhammer anymore.

[DarkLink]

So long as everything is clearly defined, there shouldn't be a whole lot of need for testing for different demographics. If you can write precise rules that satisfy a competitive player who is going to look at every little detail, then you can satisfy a drunk guy playing fast and loose. Making sure that the internal balance of each codex is good, and that it's on par with the other recent codices, and everyone's happy. Hire good writers so everyone likes the fluff, and you're good.

[Lerra]

It's difficult to write tight and clear rules. It's reasonable to expect that a large company like GW could hire better editors and tighten things up, but it's not a game-breaking problem imo.

What really frustrates me is the lack of timely FAQs. If video game companies can release patches in a matter of days to fix bugs, GW should be able to release a 2-page FAQ document within a week of the codex release. It's not like they have to develop any new rules or do any playtesting - just clarify how the playtesters interpreted the rules and/or what the author intended. An intern could write it up in less than a day.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I personally think the play testers do a decent job, and half the problems that arise weren't problems for the playtesters because they're not ******* idiots like the internet.1000% true. I point you directly to the Coteaz unlimited troops debate. It is very obvious what it is supposed to mean. Every "issue" with the GK codex has similarly obvious resolutions that no reasonable player would even question.

The Falchions +1/+2A debate exists largely because people are ignoring the fact that, as they are all armed with storm bolters, a GK would never otherwise get a bonus attack. The falchions obviously are bought as a "single weapon" so the rule is there to give a benefit that otherwise might not have been there, as opposed to something like lightning claws. Even barring reason and logic...it says you get a single extra attack. Why are we debating it when it says it right in front of our eyes?

DCCWs are just power fists that strike at Initiative so I never got why there was a debate there at all. We know what a dreadnought close combat weapon is - so why the hell do we care what is holding it, when we know what it does, regardless of its wielder?

I may be alone in this, and I'm sure out here on the 40k-loathing internet I will be portrayed as such regardless, but there isn't a single thing in that book that I couldn't almost instantaneously resolve in a playable and reasonable fashion without the rulebook and codex and nothing else. I am completely horrified at the online community -- which is always so quick to villify rules lawyering -- picking on every last letter of these rules.

The fact is the more unique and powerful the rules are, the more people will try to exploit them. It has nothing to do with GW's playtesting and everything to do with the armchair-general theory-hammering *******s we play this game with.

@Lerra: Most video game companies have the patch done far ahead of time if it is an early patch. Sometimes its as obvious as changing a single variable. It takes far longer to get a feel for what the issues are in a new codex; I wouldn't even have the slightest expectation of getting an FAQ within a month or so.

[wkz]

...
The Falchions +1/+2A debate exists largely because people are ignoring the fact that, as they are all armed with storm bolters, a GK would never otherwise get a bonus attack. The falchions obviously are bought as a "single weapon" so the rule is there to give a benefit that otherwise might not have been there, as opposed to something like lightning claws. Even barring reason and logic...it says you get a single extra attack. Why are we debating it when it says it right in front of our eyes?

DCCWs are just power fists that strike at Initiative so I never got why there was a debate there at all. We know what a dreadnought close combat weapon is - so why the hell do we care what is holding it, when we know what it does, regardless of its wielder?And THAT is what I'm talking about when I said RAI is shortcircuiting: in the craziness of 5th, is the above really true? After all, there are 2 precedence-breaking trends written right here:
- a PAIR of weapons traditionally not having the +1A description (see: pair of lightning claws) but suddenly having "+1A" tacked onto the rules.
- a traditionally Walker weapon... NOT on a walker.
Should we really go with RAI in this case?



I may be alone in this, and I'm sure out here on the 40k-loathing internet I will be portrayed as such regardless, but there isn't a single thing in that book that I couldn't almost instantaneously resolve in a playable and reasonable fashion without the rulebook and codex and nothing else. I am completely horrified at the online community -- which is always so quick to villify rules lawyering -- picking on every last letter of these rules. Just by the above 2 examples alone, don't you agree there are things that can't be resolved?

Note that "My way, or the highway" is NOT resolving things... THAT is actually ignoring the most important rule outright in order to be correct (via your interpretation)

(Note: sorry about the attack nature of this response, but this IS one of the major reasons why I wrote the wall of text earlier: is RAI still really working as Intended?)


The fact is the more unique and powerful the rules are, the more people will try to exploit them. It has nothing to do with GW's playtesting and everything to do with the armchair-general theory-hammering *******s we play this game with.Truth.
...
erm... people are trying to downsize the DCCW by the way...


@Lerra: Most video game companies have the patch done far ahead of time if it is an early patch. Sometimes its as obvious as changing a single variable. It takes far longer to get a feel for what the issues are in a new codex; I wouldn't even have the slightest expectation of getting an FAQ within a month or so.As various people have said: what's the harm in pre-leaking/releasing/etc codexes to a small community for playtesting? We already know GW's track record in keeping new codexes secret anyways (intentionally(?) CRAPPILY poor secret)

Edit:

IMHO GW make the rules a bit hazy on purpose. Sure, you can have beta-testers, but the real world has a couple thousand people that will always find things that seep through.
If you don't have hazy wording and something totally broken is found, you have to change it. And people don't like being told their shiny new codex is being nerfed.
If you write hazy rules, specially on things that could be OP, you can just FAQ them to say what you want the rules to mean. AKA you're not "nerfing", you are "explaining".
This... WILL backfire. In fact, it already have: Quick, answer the following question.

What do you think of GW rules?

If you automatically think "crap", then it really DID backfire...

Edit #2:
Also, someone mentioned Warmachine. Please put off your jaded lenses... before their MkII balance patch, they have major problems themselves...

Plus, IIRC, Warmachine don't "break the core rules" with a unit's rules, but rather they have "use core rules to up-power" unit rules instead. The core rules remaining more or less intact is one of the reason of the solidness of the Warmachine ruleset.

GW, with their multiple codexes breaking the core rules, have long lost the right/chance to follow suit.


Also, something that came up which I never thought of: playtesters vs the community.

Frankly, I think this is one of the issues that'll never be resolved. Lets put it simply: 1 billion hackers > 1 thousand security experts. And GW is probably not even hiring a thousand play-testers... as horridly "overpriced" as their rumored, supposed, "ripoff" profit margin is, they just simply cannot afford that many testers.

BUT GW have a tendency of being secretive, its probably in their business model somehow... the crappy secrets keeper I mentioned earlier? Those codexes were leaked probably only after the printing cycle has commenced (aka: too late to change anything in the codex itself)

So, by not using the community (because of secret keeping), and by not being able to hire enough people (seriously, 1 thousand playtesters? That's a cool chunk of money per month at least. Get real), codex rules will always have holes at release I guess.

[wolflold]

There are always >>ALWAYS<< people who just want to bend the rules. These people only play to win and they should be shot on sight! Yess some rules are a bit hazy, but ffs, stop bending and get a life!

[wkz]

Good, I will start shooting... right until you explain: what is your definition of "bending the rules". And no: "Interpretations different from my own interpretation" doesn't count.

I'll wait.

PS: read the above as: people are ALLOWED to have their own opinion, dude

[Lerra]

And GW is probably not even hiring a thousand play-testers... as horridly "overpriced" as their rumored, supposed, "ripoff" profit margin is, they just simply cannot afford that many testers.

GW doesn't hire any playtesters. They are all volunteers, just regular gamers who are invited by GW employees sign an NDA and play around with the new codex. Playtesters send questions/feedback to the author via email (a lot of playtesters aren't local to GW headquarters). It's not like they have any dedicated QC/QA people for thoroughly testing a codex.

[DarkLink]

I don't really blame them for not hiring playtesters. As mentioned, GW's profit margin isn't quite what some people may think, and frankly I don't think GW really cares too much how good the codices are. People will complain, but still play even if there are gaps in the rules. And GW will eventually get around to FAQ'ing a few of those questions, so it doesn't matter to much to them.

Edit:

Also, someone mentioned Warmachine. Please put off your jaded lenses... before their MkII balance patch, they have major problems themselves...

Actually, I'm a fairly new Warmachine player. I never played before MkII. Regardless, I've been much more impressed at the quality of PP's rules writing with MkII than by anything I've ever seen GW do.

[elmir]

Also, someone mentioned Warmachine. Please put off your jaded lenses... before their MkII balance patch, they have major problems themselves...



That is true. And the developers of that game actually did trace the problems back to the way they released their stuff. Their problems came from using different wording for the same things, and a lot of that was incredibly well streamlined when mkII hit the shelves. Also, the "layered" releases meant that special rules were stacking over special rules and causing all sorts of rules headaches.

And the reason why ppl mention this, is that PP was able to sit back and do all their rules and balancing in ONE major release. And guess what, they did openly release the beta mkII rules and unit cards unto the community before making the final product. They did that with hordes as well in fact, to make sure warmahordes as a whole would be better balanced.

And that strategy worked out VERY well when you compare how clearcut their rules are compared to current GW 5th rules. However, considering how vast the GW line up of models and armies has become, I doubt the aproach that PP used would ever be feasable for GW. Not unless they reorganise and hire a ton more ppl for their development.

[Grimfoe]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: While there will always be some people that will deliberately misinterpret the rules and bend them to their benefit, it would be much less of a problem if GW did a better job vetting the rules. Playtesters should be looking in that direction. They should be trying to bend the rules in every way possible so the rules released should be a clean as possible. I think GW has made some progress in this area of late, but they still have not yet reached the level of coordination they had when I played almost 20 years ago.

One of my first games back after over a 10 year hiatus, an Ork player put Ghazghul in a unit of Kommandos with Snikrot and snuck onto my table edge to attack me from behind. He admitted it was a "douchey" move but attacked me anyway. I didn't get mad, there was nothing I could find at the time that prevented him from doing so. It struck me though, that there should have been. If GW could anticipate that one may try to infiltrate with Terminator Armor and put the kibosh on that, why didn't they think to do the same with Mega Armor? That's poor playtesting and rule writing. Is the player working outside the spirit of the rules? Absolutely. But GW could have cut that off when the codex was written. Just one example of a much larger and more systemic problem.

I would also caution against the elitism that I see in several of the posts here. "Well most gamers are just dumb." Not so. This is how we are treated, from time to time, when we point out difficulties in the games we love. This is a large reason that I stayed away from the game so long.

When I go to a tournament and play 5 games. I enjoy them all and I generally like 4 of 5 of the people I play with. That's much better than I do in the professional world. I tend to like gamers. I don't find them to be dumb. Even the Ork player I discussed above. He was a great guy. He warned me ahead of time. I didn't have a problem with what he did. I thought it was stupid he was able to do it, but I just dealt with it on the table.

I guess I'm saying don't blame others for your own short comings. Whether you're a gamer or a game company.

[Hive Mind]

A unit loses Infiltrate if joined by an IC that doesn't have it...

[DarkLink]

Yeah, most "bending" the rules is actually cheating. People try and take that sort of behavior and blame it on "rules lawyers", when really it's just some random guy who's lying to you in order to cheat. It's not some secret WAAC conspiracy designed to cheat you at every turn. It's just some random guy you shouldn't bother to play.

[Grimfoe]

A unit loses Infiltrate if joined by an IC that doesn't have it...

He didn't infiltrate. He used Snikrot's "Ambush" ability.

[FlyinFungi]

I don't really blame them for not hiring playtesters. As mentioned, GW's profit margin isn't quite what some people may think, and frankly I don't think GW really cares too much how good the codices are. People will complain, but still play even if there are gaps in the rules. And GW will eventually get around to FAQ'ing a few of those questions, so it doesn't matter to much to them.

Edit:


Actually, I'm a fairly new Warmachine player. I never played before MkII. Regardless, I've been much more impressed at the quality of PP's rules writing with MkII than by anything I've ever seen GW do.

You made me make an account sir. Thats good because I have been lurking and been trying to play again within the past few months.

Because Games Workshop is a public company here is their profit margin at 12.7%
http://investor.games-workshop.com/downloads/results/results2010/2009-10_FinalFullYearReport.pdf#page=23

Which means they are doing well. They have about 200 million dollar revenue a year. Now compare this to Privateer press which makes about 2.5 - 5 million dollars in revenue a year. (Not the best source guys, help me out if you know of a better one.) http://www.manta.com/c/mmsmnny/privateer-press-inc

Games Workshop could fix this if by focusing on the problem. There are more complex games than 40k that get rules handled in a more timely manner than them. Magic the Gathering for instance has their rules down so well they were able to make an online program. You can even get rulings from different tiers of official judges. They have frequent QA sessions with their members. It is Games Workshop inability to respond to their fan base which pisses me off and wish I never bought their miniatures. I think it is company culture and those at the top which are responsible for this.

[Hive Mind]

He didn't infiltrate. He used Snikrot's "Ambush" ability.

Ambush is a modification of the Infiltrate rule being used to Outflank. Attaching an IC without Infiltrate and then Outflanking from any table edge isn't the result of a badly written rule, it's cheating.

[Grimfoe]

Ambush is a modification of the Infiltrate rule being used to Outflank. Attaching an IC without Infiltrate and then Outflanking from any table edge isn't the result of a badly written rule, it's cheating.

Where does it say this? This is an interesting take on the rule. You state the above as if it were fact with no supporting information at all.

When this was done to me, I hadn't any real basis to debate my opponent's interpretation as I had not played at all in about 10 years. Since you wrote this I decided to look it up.

I can't find any reference to support your assertion. These orks are not outflanking, they're ambushing. It is a separate rule unique to the ork codex. Without any verbiage in that codex to tie it to the special rules of the rule book or any other codex, it can only be judged wth the text that accompanies it.

Looking at the section on ICs, I don't see any reference to Ambush, so I don't see how you can argue with such certainty that Ghazghkull can't ambush along with Snikrot. Snikrot's ability is not listed with the special rules that are lost by a unit when a special character joins.

It doesn't make sense, but it's not against the rules.

This is an interesting case study in the different ways that gamers view the rules. You don't like this rule. You feel it is against the spirit of the rules. On this, we agree. But that doesn't mean your opponent can't do it. Just because it feels wrong, you don't get to decide which rules are followed and which rules are not. There are books included with the game for that.

It's not unlike the law. :cool:

[Hive Mind]

Where does it say this? This is an interesting take on the rule. You state the above as if it were fact with no supporting information at all.

When this was done to me, I hadn't any real basis to debate my opponent's interpretation as I had not played at all in about 10 years. Since you wrote this I decided to look it up.

I can't find any reference to support your assertion. These orks are not outflanking, they're ambushing. It is a separate rule unique to the ork codex. Without any verbiage in that codex to tie it to the special rules of the rule book or any other codex, it can only be judged wth the text that accompanies it.

Looking at the section on ICs, I don't see any reference to Ambush, so I don't see how you can argue with such certainty that Ghazghkull can't ambush along with Snikrot. Snikrot's ability is not listed with the special rules that are lost by a unit when a special character joins.

It doesn't make sense, but it's not against the rules.

This is an interesting case study in the different ways that gamers view the rules. You don't like this rule. You feel it is against the spirit of the rules. On this, we agree. But that doesn't mean your opponent can't do it. Just because it feels wrong, you don't get to decide which rules are followed and which rules are not. There are books included with the game for that.

It's not unlike the law. :cool:

Look at the language in the Outflank rule. Ambush is a modification of Outflank. You can't Outflank unless you can Infiltrate or have the Scout USR. You can't Infiltrate if an IC without Infiltrate has joined the unit.

[Lerra]

At every tournament I've been to, it's been ruled that Independent Characters can still use Ambush. Ambush is not infiltrate.

[Grimfoe]

Look at the language in the Outflank rule. Ambush is a modification of Outflank. You can't Outflank unless you can Infiltrate or have the Scout USR. You can't Infiltrate if an IC without Infiltrate has joined the unit.

Why would I look up the outflank rule? Outflank is never referred to in the entry for Ambush.

I'm not outflanking, I'm ambushing. While the two are similar, one has nothing to do with the other. It's like citing international law as precedent in the Supreme Court. It makes no sense.

This is the difference between RAW and RAI. Anyone can see the RAW, but trying to understand the RAI is entirely too subjective.

:D

(Edit: Rereading my post, it came off a lot more confrontational than I planned. My apologies)

[wkz]

GW doesn't hire any playtesters. They are all volunteers, just regular gamers who are invited by GW employees sign an NDA and play around with the new codex. Playtesters send questions/feedback to the author via email (a lot of playtesters aren't local to GW headquarters). It's not like they have any dedicated QC/QA people for thoroughly testing a codex.
And that's the truth? Really? Any sources?
Hmmmm... could've sworn they have playtesters...



Yeah, most "bending" the rules is actually cheating. People try and take that sort of behavior and blame it on "rules lawyers", when really it's just some random guy who's lying to you in order to cheat. It's not some secret WAAC conspiracy designed to cheat you at every turn. It's just some random guy you shouldn't bother to play.

That's a very frightening generalization you're making here. There ARE "murky" rules in GW, and making an opinion one way or the other on how those rules interact IS "bending" the rules towards your opinion.

Are EVERYONE in the rules section of the BOLS forums "actually cheating"?


Why would I look up the outflank rule? Outflank is never referred to in the entry for Ambush.

I'm not outflanking, I'm ambushing. While the two are similar, one has nothing to do with the other. It's like citing international law as precedent in the Supreme Court. It makes no sense.

This is the difference between RAW and RAI. Anyone can see the RAW, but trying to understand the RAI is entirely too subjective.

:D

(Edit: Rereading my post, it came off a lot more confrontational than I planned. My apologies)

But the feeling that something might be wrong causes people to try and apply RAI to it... ... ... but it flies in the face of RAW.

Here we go again... RAI in the blue corner, RAW in the red. FIIIIGHT!!!

[Hive Mind]

Why would I look up the outflank rule? Outflank is never referred to in the entry for Ambush.

I'm not outflanking, I'm ambushing. While the two are similar, one has nothing to do with the other. It's like citing international law as precedent in the Supreme Court. It makes no sense.


I see Ambush as being a specialised Outflank move.

By the way, international law is cited in res judicata courts. It's not binding but it can be persuasive.



This is the difference between RAW and RAI. Anyone can see the RAW, but trying to understand the RAI is entirely too subjective.

:D

(Edit: Rereading my post, it came off a lot more confrontational than I planned. My apologies)

I suspect this difference stems from the differing way we play. You seem to play competitive and pick-up games. I play against people I've known for years and we only ever play campaign, fluffy, story-based games. In that setting, RAI is easy to discern. In my gaming circle, a Goff Warlord of Thraka's stature being sneaky simply wouldn't happen unless it had been included in the storyline.

No need to apologise but appreciated anyway. In my experience of forums its quite rare to come across posters who aren't moments away from apoplectic rage. Maybe that's just hockey fans because people here seem quite placid.

By way of further explanation I will only try to apply RAI is applying RAW leads to an absurd result. I would say that Thraka, in his noisy, clunky mega-armour, skulking around behind enemy lines is an absurd result which goes against all fluff and similar rules. Thus, I would apply RAI.

[scadugenga]

I think the main problem GW faces is that they don't have a consolidated writing style, or set roles for the writers.

I'm going to use PP as an example, as really at this point they are the chief competitor to GW in the miniature wargaming market.

GW: Each codex is written by one person. Codices are written by different authors with differing writing styles, particular grammar, and get to invent new rules.

PP: There is always a Lead Writer. This is (to my knowledge (as I don't have every MkII book out yet) the same person for each book. There are additional writers. They are also the same people from book to book.

PP books are balanced and work within the same framework as each other army book.

GW codices very wildly in their consistency from codex to codex. You have "ambiguous" rules, and rules-wording, accusations of codex creep, overpowered units/rules, etc. IMO, it's almost as if the GW writers have a "I can do better with my codex than X did with his" syndrome.

There's no denying PP had "codex creep," but it was from Mk I book release to book release, so each faction gained power. But ultimately, it broke the game, so they revised into Mk II to address those issues.

As for playtesting--the point of playtesting isn't to play casually and pat each other on the back about how good the new product is going to be.

The point of playtesting is to break it to hell and gone as nasty as possible to see where the game fails, and try to make it better.

PP did that with Mk II by releasing the playtest to the entire player base.

To my knowledge, GW playtesting is very hush hush. Codices do not even have a "playtester recognition" entry. PP army books (and most other game systems I've played) have a section in the credits specifically mentioning the playtesters.

[Lane]

Hmmmm... could've sworn they have playtesters...


AFAIK they do have playtesters, however they are not paid.

I also suspect that they do not include a Playtesters Credit section to minimize leaks and harasment of the playtesters. Imagine if you were listed as a playtester and had signed an NDA. Because people knew you were play testing previous codex they would assume you were doing the same with new ones. Alls sorts of people would pester you for leaks or to join your gaming group so they could be playtesters. If you did let a new person in the group and they leaked something then GW could exclude your entire group from future play testing.

I have heard that years ago GW stopped all outside play testing for quite a while after an unfortunate event. Rumor has it a WHFB Army Book had to be re-written after a playtester applied for copyright to the near final version of the book, then offered to sell GW the copyright. It was easier to re-write the book than to wait for a court case to complete.

[DarkLink]

That's a very frightening generalization you're making here. There ARE "murky" rules in GW, and making an opinion one way or the other on how those rules interact IS "bending" the rules towards your opinion.

Are EVERYONE in the rules section of the BOLS forums "actually cheating"?


Actually, my point there is that there is a small population of actual cheaters out there who we ought to just ignore and leave out in the cold, so don't bother worrying about them.


As for everyone else that actually matters, we have a set of rules that does not always have clear answers. I've made it very clear in general that I am not impressed with the quality of GW's rules. I feel that GW should do a better job at having clear and concise rules with as few gaps as possible, because people like to accuse anyone who dissagrees with them as being a WAAC douchebag and that they're wrong because RAI is clearly this and they're arguing that... yeah, better just to avoid the whole situation with well written rules. And to not be the sort of douchebag that goes around calling everyone that disagrees with them douchebags.

[Hive Mind]

I have heard that years ago GW stopped all outside play testing for quite a while after an unfortunate event. Rumor has it a WHFB Army Book had to be re-written after a playtester applied for copyright to the near final version of the book, then offered to sell GW the copyright. It was easier to re-write the book than to wait for a court case to complete.

Granted, I haven't studied intellectual property law but there is no way that is true unless GW is totally, totally inept.

[DarkLink]

I don't know, the lady that sued mcdonalds because she spilled her coffee won her case. There's some pretty stupid stuff that happens on occasion.

[Hive Mind]

I don't know, the lady that sued mcdonalds because she spilled her coffee won her case. There's some pretty stupid stuff that happens on occasion.

Despite what was reported by the tabloid press and the received wisdom on that case, the lady in question had a valid claim. It wasn't simply 'hot' coffee, it was hot enough to cause severe burns. She didn't claim millions either (not that you said she did), that's simply a lie made up by the press. She claimed for medical expenses and loss of earnings, that's all and she had the damages she was awarded reduced by 20% because of contributory negligence on her part.

So yeah. Almost everything everyone thinks they know about the McDonalds Coffee case is wrong. Through no real fault of their own I might add. The press just told a lot of massive lies about it.

/rant.

Broadly speaking, the only way someone could register GW's IP as their own and stand even a remote chance of actually claiming it as theirs would be for GW to send out the material to be playtested/reviewed/whatever without any kind of formal contract and without them retaining a copy of the same material that can be dated prior to the new claim. Given how easy it is to protect IP it's unthinkable that they wouldn't do so.

[Crevab]

As for your example I actually find it one where RAI, with reason, can offer a proper solution. Firstly, the Dreadknight comes with the DCCWs for free. Secondly, there is an option for a Daemonhammer which performs the same core task (S10) as the DCCW would. Seeing as how the Daemonhammer is a paid upgrade, we can infer that GW wants the Dreadknight to pay in order to be S10. With that conclusion, it becomes understandable that DCCWs granting S10 to the Dreadknight is not their intended use. However, a Dreadknight with 2 DCCWs would still be granted an additional attack for having two of the same close combat weapon.

And yet, it's equally reasonable that the extra cost is from gaining the additional benefits of a Thunder Hammer.

[Wildcard]

half the problems that arise weren't problems for the playtesters because they're not ******* idiots like the internet.

That may be one way of looking into things..

However, I myself may seem like an idiot here on forums with lots of questions, witch most of can be answered by an average TT player without any kind of arguing following on the later posts.

The questions usually contain issues that can be easily interpreted as trying to find ways to abuse stuff or make other players feel miserable in our small gaming group etc..

But in truth, no question (of mine) ever contain any ill intended meanings, or ways to abuse rules. The reason why such questions arise is because none of us are native English speakers witch at minimum doubles the amount of debates concerning interpreting of rules (and the very intended meanings behind them)

Just for an example where a small wording can cause debate, even where one player (we usually play 3-4people at the same game): "Psyker may then take a Psychic test to use the weapon's power against any one opponent that suffered an unsaved wound by the weapon in that player turn.."

This, although fairly simple wording to a native, to us it easily leads to a debate does it mean:
1)"Choose one of the models that suffered the wound" as in one of any
2)"All models that were wounded are affected by the force weapons effects" as in all of the wounded

This type of things are not debated on the basis of them being abused, but just how result altering effect they have.. (kinda makes a different if a squad of 10 nobs suffer 4 instant death wounds or just 1 instant death and 3 normal wounds..)

[BrotherWill]

Just for an example where a small wording can cause debate, even where one player (we usually play 3-4people at the same game): "Psyker may then take a Psychic test to use the weapon's power against any one opponent that suffered an unsaved wound by the weapon in that player turn.."

This, although fairly simple wording to a native, to us it easily leads to a debate does it mean:
1)"Choose one of the models that suffered the wound" as in one of any
2)"All models that were wounded are affected by the force weapons effects" as in all of the wounded

This type of things are not debated on the basis of them being abused, but just how result altering effect they have.. (kinda makes a different if a squad of 10 nobs suffer 4 instant death wounds or just 1 instant death and 3 normal wounds..)

What are you talking about? First, the normal FW rule is very clear in that it says "against any ONE opponent that suffered an unsaved wound". There is no ambiguity here, it clearly says one. There is no wording such as ""All models that were wounded are affected by the force weapons effects" as in all of the wounded" that has anything to do with normal FW.

Secondly, if you are referring as to how Nemesis FW behave, you are confusing two different rules. Nemesis FW follow Nemesis FW rules, not standard FW rules. It appears you are trying to mix the two. If you read the NFW rules, it is also very clear in that one psychic test means every single unsaved wound cause instant death from every weapon in the unit.

As has been said above, this stuff is only difficult if you make it difficult.

[scadugenga]

I don't know, the lady that sued mcdonalds because she spilled her coffee won her case. There's some pretty stupid stuff that happens on occasion.

But her case was overturned in appeals, I believe.

[Unzuul the Lascivious]

You shouldn't have to houserule stuff to make the rules work.

Fair point. All I'm saying is people take advantage of ambiguous rules writing, and they should be told to stop being a bell end. My favourite suggestion so far is that some people may try to counter Crowe's sword effect with Dark Excommunication! Ha, someone will try it for sure, and they should be mocked and have rotten fruit thrown at them...

[Unzuul the Lascivious]

RAI - DreadKnight's DCCW double it's strength. It's a dreadnought-like construct. There would be no point giving it DCCW if they didn't double the strength. That's what it's for. The Daemonhammer upgrade is essentially for the additional rules granted by equipping it. We all know that to be the case really....

Dark Link is right - they really should just write the rules more carefully, I mean what sort of ice cream couldn't see that that would be questioned?

[Grimfoe]

I see Ambush as being a specialised Outflank move.

By the way, international law is cited in res judicata courts. It's not binding but it can be persuasive.



I suspect this difference stems from the differing way we play. You seem to play competitive and pick-up games. I play against people I've known for years and we only ever play campaign, fluffy, story-based games. In that setting, RAI is easy to discern. In my gaming circle, a Goff Warlord of Thraka's stature being sneaky simply wouldn't happen unless it had been included in the storyline.

No need to apologise but appreciated anyway. In my experience of forums its quite rare to come across posters who aren't moments away from apoplectic rage. Maybe that's just hockey fans because people here seem quite placid.

By way of further explanation I will only try to apply RAI is applying RAW leads to an absurd result. I would say that Thraka, in his noisy, clunky mega-armour, skulking around behind enemy lines is an absurd result which goes against all fluff and similar rules. Thus, I would apply RAI.

Hive Mind, the debate with you has facinated me. It really demonstrates our different ways of approaching the game. It's all the more interesting because I believe we would arrive at the same place. If you and I played together, we'd have no issues. I'd not lump Ghazghkull with Snikrot either.

You wouldn't do it because you feel it violates the RAI and it simply feels wrong. I wouldn't because I don't like to win games with gimmicks.

Where you and I differ on this issue is our approach to the game. I agree that this would be a cheesy move. I agree that you and your opponent have every right to shake hands and agree that neither of you will have the largest ork in the known universe don his mega armor and sneak through the dead of the night to surround and surprise the enemy force. It's perfectly reasonable for you to make that agreement.

If your opponent wants to do it, however, you're SOL. All you can do is decide not to play him or call him a name and take it on the chin. This is where you and I differ. You'd like to take your interpretation of RAI and beat him over the head because you deem it stupid. You can't do that. The game is played within a set of rules. Those rules are modified only through official releases of errata and FAQ. If he's within the RAW, it doesn't matter how you much you hate the RAW. He can still do it.

Likewise, you state citing international law in US courts as being "very persuasive." So what? You don't go to court to argue what the law should be. You go to argue what the law is. You can't change the law in court. At least, you're not supposed to. If you want to cite international law, do it at the legislature where the law is written.

If you want to argue that Ghazghkull can't sneak up on an entire army in his mega armor, get GW to write an official response to your FAQ. That is the system of rules GW put in place, and that's why it is so important that GW write a good, tight rule set and be quick to correct the mistakes and oversights found by the community after release. Blaming the players for taking advantage of someone else's screw up is pointless. You can refuse to play that type of opponent, but you can't change how they play. You can try and get clarifications that will prevent running into specific combinations or cheese at tournaments, however.

Where are you from, anyway? I'd be interested in playing you. I think we'd have a blast.

[Hive Mind]

But her case was overturned in appeals, I believe.

No, it wasn't. The awarded damages were reduced on appeal.



If your opponent wants to do it, however, you're SOL. All you can do is decide not to play him or call him a name and take it on the chin. This is where you and I differ. You'd like to take your interpretation of RAI and beat him over the head because you deem it stupid. You can't do that. The game is played within a set of rules. Those rules are modified only through official releases of errata and FAQ. If he's within the RAW, it doesn't matter how you much you hate the RAW. He can still do it

If I did play pick-up games and the like I'd be more than happy to simply roll a d6 and get on with it if we couldn't reach amicable agreement. I'd still think that using Ambush with Thraka is wrong but I accept that RAW trumps RAI if there isn't agreement. Thankfully it's not an issue in my gaming circle.



Likewise, you state citing international law in US courts as being "very persuasive." So what? You don't go to court to argue what the law should be. You go to argue what the law is. You can't change the law in court. At least, you're not supposed to. If you want to cite international law, do it at the legislature where the law is written.


I just meant courts of last instance rather than the US Supreme Court specifically but where there's ambiguity in a law a court can and often does consider material that isn't binding on it when reaching judgment. UK courts sometimes use Australian, Canadian or US judgments when there's no clear precedent. Similarly, they sometimes use decisions by the International Court of Justice or European Court of Justice where they're relevant.



If you want to argue that Ghazghkull can't sneak up on an entire army in his mega armor, get GW to write an official response to your FAQ. That is the system of rules GW put in place, and that's why it is so important that GW write a good, tight rule set and be quick to correct the mistakes and oversights found by the community after release. Blaming the players for taking advantage of someone else's screw up is pointless. You can refuse to play that type of opponent, but you can't change how they play. You can try and get clarifications that will prevent running into specific combinations or cheese at tournaments, however.


I'm not blaming any player however, nor do I 'refuse' to play them. Not directly at least.

Look at it this way, the material is written in such a way that people can use Thraka to Ambush if that's the style of game they play and,taken with the fluff, it can prevent Thraka from Ambushing if you play how I/we play.

To me, that's pretty well written and flexible. It allows each player to take what they want out of the game. I'm not saying GW are perfect, I have said that they aren't and never will be.

Again, RAI is only used when RAW produces an absurd result, within the paramters set by the fluff, not when RAW kill lots of my gribblies.



Where are you from, anyway? I'd be interested in playing you. I think we'd have a blast.

Sadly nowhere near Albany. I live in Leicester, UK during the academic year and southwest Ontario during the summer.

[Grimfoe]

Another interesting insight. I would never consider "flexibility" in the rule set to be an advantage. I'm not saying that you shouldn't, but I don't like the ambiguity that entails. It's an interesing point of view. I guess it may really be a matter of preference. I don't like the ambiguity or flexibility that RAI produces. I think of it as a weakness in GW's rules. As a result, I think that GW's rules are not very well done, because they have so many things that are ambiguous. If you like that style of game play and the debate that results, then you'll like the way they produce the rules.

Likewise, you say the UK courts introduce international law when it is relevant. I would argue that it never is.

I guess that's the difference between an engineer and a lawyer. :D

[Gir]

I don't know, the lady that sued mcdonalds because she spilled her coffee won her case. There's some pretty stupid stuff that happens on occasion.

The coffee was so hot she received 3rd degree burns to a large portion of her legs. The payout was only enough to cover her legal and medical bills.