New boy...

[Isiah]

A quick hello...

 

You may have noticed me lurking. I will be lurking more as I am helping out Preager for the next few weeks :).

 

First off am not a rules 'guru' and I intend to learn as much as I can. Like many other gamers I have picked up bad 'gaming' habits along the way, usually through a combination quickness / poor misinterpretation / poor memory. So hopefully I can focus more and improve in all these aspects ;).

 

It goes without saying that my role here with Preager will be to both maintain the high standards that the B&C stands for, to contribute where I can and generally keep the ++OR++ as nice a place to be for both vets and newcomers alike with any rules questions they have (ot that the ++OR++ isn't already of course – I'm just highlighting that goal ;)).

 

So for me that means swearing is out. Any asterisked or other swear-filter dodging methods are likely to get you a warning, so please be mindful of that and use more appropriate family-friendly language or the :): emoticon. Also out is any flaming or derogatory posting. At the very least I am likely to simply edit or delete any posts containing the above.

 

I'm not an idiot and I realise that things can get a little heated in here (a lot more heated than in the DA section that's for sure) and that's kind of with the territory of rules debates/issues I guess, however as always constructive/helpful posting will be encouraged and any other not.

 

 

Any ideas for the ++OR++?

 

What I would like, if there is a handful of common questions (with answers) that keep coming up, or if you see anything that might be worth stickied, or added into a Rules 101 thread say then please post an answer below.

 

Additionally are there any items that you'd think the OR forum could do as a community – for instance: 'The changes of 40k gameplay through each edition' etc etc. Projects could be anything rules-orientated of course. Again post as an answer to this topic.

 

 

That's about it.

 

Cheers

I

[SeattleDV8]

Welcome in Isiah. Glad to have you along.

[angronn]

Welcome, Isiah. Have fun...

[Captain Malachi]

Good luck Isiah, you might need it :D

[Steelmage99]

I think there should be some sort of guidelines for use when discussing the official rules.

 

I humbly submit what might be the beginning of such a set of guidelines.

In no particular order;

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1. We need a rule to tell us to do something, in order to do anything.

 

The way GW has set up the rules, means that they describe a set number of things allowed to us. An action not expresly allowed in the rules cannot be taken. Also know as the "The rules doesn't say, that I can't do it-fallacy".

 

2. Break no rule.

 

If a given solution to a rules dispute require us to ignore a rule (without being told to), the solution is unplayable and needs to be rethought.

 

3. Codex trumps Rulebook.

 

If a situation occurs where the Rulebook and a Codex is in opposition, the Codex is used to resolve the issue.

 

4. Fluff is not rules.

 

The fluff is a literary tool used to tell good stories and set a mood. Nothing more.

Drop Pods land in a storm of fire, Orks can crush a mans skull in his hand and Genestealers move so fast Marines even miss them. This is not rules and cannot be used to argue as such.

 

5. "The Golden Days".

 

What has gone before does not effect what comes after.

Drop Pods used to be able to shoot on the turn they Deep Strike, Land Speeder Tornados used to be exclusive to Ravenwing and Orks used to be able to buy Bolt-on Big Shootas on their Battle Wagons. Things change and we must change along with them.

 

6. "Intention"

 

None of us knows the intentions of the Games Designers. Using sentences like; "The Games Designers clearly intended..." or "The intention is obviously...." will only make you look silly. The proper sentence would be; "I believe/It is my oppinion that the Games Designers intended that....." and one must realize that such an argument can be refuted by a simple; "I don't/I disagree".

 

7. Rules are rules.

 

The rules come out of the Rulebook, the various Codecii and on GW-released PDFs.

The word of John Turner, you local Red/Black-shirt, GT tournaments, not even Phil Kelly/Jervis Johnson are rules unless presented in the above mentioned formats. They can indeed give us an indication of which way FAQs and the future rules make take, but they have no effect on the current rules.

 

8. Houserules

 

Everything can be changed by houserules. Feel like making Bolters strength 5, give Tyranids save 2+ across the board and make Terminators Troops? Go ahead and make it a houserule. Presenting a houserule that you use, is of a very limited help in a rules discussion.

 

9. Proof

 

The plural of "anecdote" is not "proof".

We all have horror stories about Gretchin shooting up Terminators and Guardsmen tearing Genestealers a new orifice in close combat. This is not proof that Gretchin are reliable shooters not is it evidence that an all-assault army of Guardsmen is viable.

 

10. Math.

 

(removed due to lack of relevance in a rules discussion)

 

11. Please answer the question asked.

 

When a poster asks a rules question, take the time to notice what he/she is actually asking for.

A question concerning Flamer Templates, has nothing to gain from a reference to the Blast rules.

A question about where a given rule can be found, has nothing to gain from an answer about how you seem to remember how the rule is. Take the time to read the original post carefully.

 

 

12. Gamesystems and realism.

 

Warhammer 40K is a constant compromise between realism, playability and gamebalance. A reference to how a given situation would work in real life might not be too relevant. Suspension of disbelief is key in understanding the rules, just as it is in enjoying a fictional movie. In essence the "reality" of WH40k is defined by the rules, not the real life Earth physics.

 

13. Honesty and politeness.

 

Honesty and politeness are not mutually exclusive. Facts can be easily be presented politely. And should one feel the desire to attack something, please attack the argument itself and not the person presenting the argument.

 

14. Quoting rules.

 

When quoting a rule, please take the time to quote it correctly. A correct interpretation is highly dependant on the specific wording. May/Must and others make a big difference.

[Commander Sasha]

OK Who would win in a diplomacy match: Steelmage99 or Obama :P

Wise words!

 

If it doesn't already exist, could B&C do an "Errata/Addendum" section to the 5th, containing a summary of arguments that have arisen regarding a grey area, perhaps with poll results; I know a lot of adult players prefer this site to others, and I would be proud to declare at gaming clubs that I play standard/B&C rules!

[Isiah]

Steelmage99 that's a neat little guide – something well worth considering as a stickied "Read me first before posting" type of thing, so me very well made points.

 

As an observation I always think that there is a danger of too much restriction being placed so frightening people off, the OR is part of a discussion forum after all, a little latitude goes some way to stopping the place feeling too stifled. My personal views of course.

 

Commander Sasha do you think that's actually achievable? And what kind of examples of grey would you like to see covered [just a few to give an idea]. Are you thinking that the B&C should be producing something akin to the INATv2 faq used at Adepticon – or something smaller?

 

Cheers

I

[nighthawks]

something like our own "yakfaq" but ruled on by our votes / members as opposed to mr. Regul (no offense to any DD fans intended at all)

[Commander Sasha]

Commander Sasha do you think that's actually achievable? And what kind of examples of grey would you like to see covered [just a few to give an idea]. Are you thinking that the B&C should be producing something akin to the INATv2 faq used at Adepticon – or something smaller?

 

Cheers

I

Not familiar with the INATv2 faq :blush:

A recent example: the thread on this site "Tactical squad clarification please"; I queried whether both guys on the attack bike added to a 2 wheeled bike squad could be the ones that upgraded to a melta; the consensus was that the word 'biker' referred solely to a single rider, as distinct from a 'bike sergeant' and an 'attack bike' (ie a unit with 3 wheels, 2 heads, 4 legs but definitely NOT 2 bikers on a vehicle). So, no!

 

With so many of us debating the finer points of unclear wording, and usually(!) coming to a consensus, these debatable points could be nailed down as they occur, and future posts asking questions that have already arisen could be directed without having to resurrect the arguments.

 

If the wizards that run this site (cue: Organ music) could even compile the final decisions, with an index, it could appear in /Tactica Astartes/Official Rules/Important topics, perhaps as a PDF file that we could print off and have in the book pockets of our army bags...? :drool: :thanks:

 

Like writing a dictionary, this would be a lot of work initially, but once caught up, it would only be a matter of adding successful threads in occasionally.

I also appreciate that as this may be crossing intellectual property/copyright laws, GW might consider that tidying up is their own perogative; if so may I politely ask the GW moderators of this site if such a useful publication will be released soon...? :) (Hope that covers my/our backs!)

[Kurasuke]

I'd also like to add to the rules for the section that the plural of codex is codices, not codexes or codecii or anything else. ;)

[nighthawks]

I'd also like to add to the rules for the section that the plural of codex is codices, not codexes or codecii or anything else. :lol:

dude, thank you!!!!!

 

oh, and it's "fora" nor "forums"

formulae not formulas

etc...

[Isiah]

With so many of us debating the finer points of unclear wording, and usually(!) coming to a consensus, these debatable points could be nailed down as they occur, and future posts asking questions that have already arisen could be directed without having to resurrect the arguments.

 

If the wizards that run this site (cue: Organ music) could even compile the final decisions, with an index, it could appear in /Tactica Astartes/Official Rules/Important topics, perhaps as a PDF file that we could print off and have in the book pockets of our army bags...? :drool: ;)

 

Like writing a dictionary, this would be a lot of work initially, but once caught up, it would only be a matter of adding successful threads in occasionally.

 

I also appreciate that as this may be crossing intellectual property/copyright laws, GW might consider that tidying up is their own perogative; if so may I politely ask the GW moderators of this site if such a useful publication will be released soon...? :P (Hope that covers my/our backs!)

 

Yes the concluded debates compilation is a good idea. Maybe the quickest way to achieve this is to form an index thread listing the rule queries with their conlusion and a link to the relevant discussion thread for those who wanted to follow the issues. It would be a massive undertaking, and would need a consensus on every topic that it had been successfully 'concluded'.

 

On IP: as we are discussing rules here the IP issue isn't an issue providing great tracts of rules are not posted verbatum.

 

Comments?? A useful thing to do??

 

Cheers

I