Jump to content

Clarifications/minor Changes request


Master Avoghai

Recommended Posts

I undestand your point elphilo... but what worries me is that people really need clarification about rad grenades... it's a really simple and clear rule...

 

And i think that this kind of question subtract attention to what is really broken in C:DA...

 

m2c

I wonder....

 

Do we even understand that we are arguing for the arguments shake? The very fact that there are people saying whether a FAQ is needed or not for something, is an arguement and as long as an arguement cant be resolved thereby raising questions it needs to be adressed.

 

 

I undestand your point elphilo... but what worries me is that people really need clarification about rad grenades... it's a really simple and clear rule...

 

And i think that this kind of question subtract attention to what is really broken in C:DA...

 

m2c

 

And thats my second reason to wonder. Is this endeavour an attempt to 'fix' a 'broken' codex or to clariffy rules and allow us to play our games, question and conflict free?

I wonder....

 

Do we even understand that we are arguing for the arguments shake? The very fact that there are people saying whether a FAQ is needed or not for something, is an arguement and as long as an arguement cant be resolved thereby raising questions it needs to be adressed.

 

 

I undestand your point elphilo... but what worries me is that people really need clarification about rad grenades... it's a really simple and clear rule...

 

And i think that this kind of question subtract attention to what is really broken in C:DA...

 

m2c

 

And thats my second reason to wonder. Is this endeavour an attempt to 'fix' a 'broken' codex or to clariffy rules and allow us to play our games, question and conflict free?

 

Both - the title of the thread is "clarifications/minor changes" - thus to clarify rules ambiguity and propose small changes for reasonable and justified impact.

I wonder....

Do we even understand that we are arguing for the arguments shake? The very fact that there are people saying whether a FAQ is needed or not for something, is an arguement and as long as an arguement cant be resolved thereby raising questions it needs to be adressed.

I undestand your point elphilo... but what worries me is that people really need clarification about rad grenades... it's a really simple and clear rule...

And i think that this kind of question subtract attention to what is really broken in C:DA...

m2c

And thats my second reason to wonder. Is this endeavour an attempt to 'fix' a 'broken' codex or to clariffy rules and allow us to play our games, question and conflict free?

Both - the title of the thread is "clarifications/minor changes" - thus to clarify rules ambiguity and propose small changes for reasonable and justified impact.

But threads can evolve. Just because the title says one thing doesn't mean the topic/point of the thread can't change. tongue.png

I suppose, but, a thread titled "...minor changes" is going to motivate and attract folk that are keen on petitioning for changes.

 

If folk want a call for proposals specifically for an FAQ submission,  then start a thread called that.

 

***this is going off topic we should be careful***

That's why I think we have to ask the questions :

 

The SS : most of us think the exact contrary. The wording says that you cannot claim the +1A bonus if the model BEARSa SS (not USES), so...

 

The rift cannon : it comes just after explaining that you resolve shot against flyer like snap shots, and snap shots don't work with blast weapons. so is it an additionnal rule for flyer weapon or simply a reminder about snap shots?

the storm shield not being used, is like deciding to punch some one instead of stabbing them in cc, but it seems like the rules state that if a model has that equipment they dont have a choice. 

 

the sentence in the rule book very clearly states that template, blast and large blast cannot hit zooming flyers. there are 2 points on the hard to hit rule that determine if and how you can shoot at flyers. first, if you dont have skyfire and you elect to shoot a flyer, you are resolving your shoots at bs1. 2nd, if a weapon is template or blast it cannot hit flyers in zoom mode.

 

this second sentence is not a side note or reminder, i dont understand your point. the rule is not ambiguous in any way to me.

Why doesn't everyone just pick what exactly they think needs answering/clarification rather than trying to agree on what to submit? That way GW can decide what they want to answer (since they will do that anyway), and those that only think certain things are important can make sure that's what they highlight. This thread can just be a clearing house for collected questions.

I second to Bryan Blaire here.

 

The list is just a gathering of ideas. If some of you think that only 5 of those questions deserves answers then pick those 5 and send them to GW.

 

The fact that GW receive a load of emails asking clarifications (no matter how much questions they'll find inside) will alert them for the need to take a little time and re-read what they've done. 

 

As long as they re-write the termi entry correctly, I'm fine with that :lol:

I second to Bryan Blaire here.

 

The list is just a gathering of ideas. If some of you think that only 5 of those questions deserves answers then pick those 5 and send them to GW.

 

The fact that GW receive a load of emails asking clarifications (no matter how much questions they'll find inside) will alert them for the need to take a little time and re-read what they've done. 

 

As long as they re-write the termi entry correctly, I'm fine with that :lol:

Avoghai - nooooo! I won't be happy until the Neph has Melta missiles and Quantum Shielding!!

@ plasmaspam / elphilo. I was not going vocal against it, merely wondering.

Hey I thought yours was a valid question smile.pngtongue.png

edit: forgot an R, oops

Erhm....Fast typing I guess? My keyboard is read (not really)....Red ones go fasta :P!

I wasn't trying to knock anyone's questions, questions are valid questions, regardless of whether any of us think they are already answered or not. I think we should all feel free to add or remove any questions any one of us may have/not have from the list when you individually submit the e-mails. One thing I learned being an instructor is that if one person voices a question, it's a good chance at least a few more folks in the class had the same one anyway, even if they weren't cool with saying they did. So ask away, you never know who you might be helping by getting an answer out of GW.

Guys I think we won't get more question to ask for now.

 

What I propose is the maximum of us copy/paste the list and mail it to GW. Feel free to remove/ rewrite questions if you need.

 

When we'll get answers each of us should post the GW reply he receive. That way, we'll see if we get a coherency in the answer and if a major consensus may apply.

 

Thanks for your participations! :tu:

I am thinking of sending the email too, but if somebody notices that we are sending a copy pasted questions catalogue (even reworked) they might think we are trolls. Might I humbly suggest we say that it is the result of our brainstorming here in the forum or would you guys think its unessesary?

I am thinking of sending the email too, but if somebody notices that we are sending a copy pasted questions catalogue (even reworked) they might think we are trolls. Might I humbly suggest we say that it is the result of our brainstorming here in the forum or would you guys think its unessesary?

I actually put that in mine and then just copied and pasted the bullet points on the OP.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.