Let's Contact GW!

Discuss any rules that are confusing or bothering you.
User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2262

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#127 » Jul 16 2017 10:54

Sorry AnonAmbientLight, but if everything would be so obvious and easy to tell there wouldn't be discussions about those specific rules in the first place.
If YOU know all the answers and your local group plays along then that's fine. But don't just assume it's the same everywhere else because it clearly is not.

Imo the list from Gragagrogog is a good one and well worded for the most part so GW should get an idea which parts still need clarification.


Also: since those are rules that we noticed need clarification because people DO interpret things differently, there is NO point in starting a discussion about every single one of those right here. You won't convince everyone of your "correct" interpretation because it didn't work before already.
Discussing these rules is not the point of this thread and would only clutter it.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Posts: 758

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#128 » Jul 17 2017 12:41

Panzer wrote:Sorry AnonAmbientLight, but if everything would be so obvious and easy to tell there wouldn't be discussions about those specific rules in the first place.


That's not true at all and that's actually a bandwagon fallacy. There are some genuinely uncertain rule interactions I have pointed out earlier, but A LOT OF THEM are rules that are easily explained if you read the book.

Panzer wrote:If YOU know all the answers and your local group plays along then that's fine. But don't just assume it's the same everywhere else because it clearly is not.


People are still asking about Longstrike buffing himself when it is clear if you read the rule book how that interacts. Is it a failure of the designer, or the person who hasn't read the rule? Which part needs to be fixed?


Panzer wrote:Imo the list from Gragagrogog is a good one and well worded for the most part so GW should get an idea which parts still need clarification.


I would temper your expectations then. They will answer the most confusing ones, but leave the ones that require you to familiarize yourself with the rule book up to familiarizing yourself with the rule book.


Panzer wrote:Also: since those are rules that we noticed need clarification because people DO interpret things differently,


Again, who is at fault for that? Some of the questions here are genuinely confusing, but most of them are decidedly not. Like asking whether or not units can move after declaring Kauyon. I honestly cannot believe that's a difficult question.

Or if "at the end of your movement phase" means you can do other movement stuff too. I mean, come on, that's a product of the player not understanding basic language. GW can't FAQ language skills.


Panzer wrote:there is NO point in starting a discussion about every single one of those right here. You won't convince everyone of your "correct" interpretation because it didn't work before already. Discussing these rules is not the point of this thread and would only clutter it.


Actually there is a point. If you're looking to get things clarified, then the actual uncertain questions should be asked. Am I wrong? Isn't that what this thread is about? If GW could only answer three questions on this list, are you SURE you want one of those to be "It says Longstrike buffs Hammerheads. The Core Rule book states that models that buff other models buff themselves as long as they have the keyword. Longstrike has the Hammerhead keyword. Does this mean that Longstrike can buff himself?" Seriously?

I'm not starting a conversation on every single one of those right here. I'm actually pointing out the ones that are easily explained if you read the rules, understand basic language composition, and "order of operations". It's why I said, at the top of my post, "Some of these can be answered already."
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2262

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#129 » Jul 17 2017 12:56

Well let us agree to disagree then.

User avatar
StealthKnightSteg
Shas'Saal
Posts: 39
Contact:

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#130 » Jul 17 2017 06:18

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Actually there is a point. If you're looking to get things clarified, then the actual uncertain questions should be asked. Am I wrong? Isn't that what this thread is about? If GW could only answer three questions on this list, are you SURE you want one of those to be "It says Longstrike buffs Hammerheads. The Core Rule book states that models that buff other models buff themselves as long as they have the keyword. Longstrike has the Hammerhead keyword. Does this mean that Longstrike can buff himself?" Seriously?

I'm not starting a conversation on every single one of those right here. I'm actually pointing out the ones that are easily explained if you read the rules, understand basic language composition, and "order of operations". It's why I said, at the top of my post, "Some of these can be answered already."


If I understand you correctly (and sorry if I didn't) you say Longstrike can buff himself. As per the read the rules simplistic view.

And with the wording you put up here (at the moment not bothering to filter the other thread for your comment on the subject) I would be in agreement of your statement, but the ability does not hold his own keyword and thus is not buffing himself.

And yes I do read rule books multiple times about these issues and I also read other asorted stuff that has something to do with these kind of rules.

So If I'm right with the interpertation here about You: Longstrike buffs him self and Me: No he doesn't due to not holding the keyword in the ability then we still do have an issue GW needs to clearify. As there are clearly 2 points of view that both have valid points besides the RTFM argument.

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Posts: 281

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#131 » Jul 17 2017 07:15

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Gragagrogog wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:Some of these can be answered already.


Yes, I know these can be answered. I have an answer for.... hold on... don't fly off your chair... ALL OF THEM.


Really? I missed all that. Most of your answers consisted of "No one can decide, so we are going to ask."

But most of the questions have pretty clear and definitive answers. The last three, and the Tidewall example are really the only questions. Everything else is explained.


What's funny is that when you listed some "answers" about these questions and presented them as "easily answerable, no need to ask GW", I only agree with one of your answers. (If you don't count the ones I presented in the list only to get an official, quick "no", which is clear from the commentary(and sure these wouldn't have to be in FAQ...))

To be honest, I didn't even expect any discussion about these questions themselves here, what I expected was disagreement about the state of consensus. The purpose of FAQ is to homogenise the game for every1 playing it. It wouldn't matter if every1 in the world interpreted a rule the wrong way(differently from how GW intended), if every1 played it the same way. For this purpose, telling your interpretation of a rule which you think is absolutely clear is absolutely worthless when you have evidence that other people either disagree with you or aren't exactly sure or if it's asked very often by new players. And it also doesn't matter what "motive" they have for interpreting a rule in certain way, they may be the biggest WAAC richards, that doesn't invalidate any logical arguments. In any way, please feel free to reword/slice/extract any of these questions and send them to GW too, I'm having doubts my 1 email will reach any important people, as I can imagine one employee simple trashing it because it's too long ("who cares it solves basically one whole faction worth of questions, TL;DR !) :D

As for the state of the blurriness of the rules in 8th, they did simplify basic rules, which lowers the barrier of entry into the game, but they didn't take many special rules into consideration. As a game designer, you have to think about how people will abuse different combined rules together. Gamers will find those and abuse them. Sky is blue. They always were bad game designers from this perspective, yea it got better recently, but not by much overall. Though at least this rate of releasing FAQs is somewhat acceptable to me, and you can be a little less harsh at them because most rules issues come from re-releasing every faction at once, there wouldn't be many conflicts if every unit didn't have "abilities" box in it's datasheet.

Return to “Rules & FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TwilightFox and 1 guest