Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

2012 FAQ Plan

 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:05 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9609
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I'd like to keep this as a general thread discussion the FAQ and progress. If you want to argue a particular rule, please take it up in another thread.

As with all the other issues, this is still a difference in interpretation. The difference of opinion here is over whether there are gaps in the WE rules, with the "all changes described below" text being part of the oversight, or if the "all changes described below" text is definitive.

Again, there is a split across those two interpretations and either way one of the groups is going to experience a "rules change" at the end of things.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: UK
stompzilla wrote:
Since both Teleporting and Difficult terrain are not then described "in detail as follows" in the rulebook then the definition of unit is clearly not different for War Engines than the clearly set out definition:
As mentioned previously in this thread, in fact dangerous terrain for war engines is described in the rulebook. Not sure if it was introduced in the 2008 errata, but:

The rulebook wrote:
3.1 WAR ENGINE MOVEMENT
War engines follow the same movement rules as any other unit. War engines that fail a dangerous terrain test suffer a hit (see the damage rules below).



On the other hand, I do myself have quite a formal way of viewing the rules and frequently am exasperated with "making up rules" - perhaps you're coming from the same place stomp. But TBH I don't think you should see this particular issue (teleporting WEs) as clear cut as you are doing, stomp. The "for most rules purposes" bit adds a lot of ambiguity that goes quite far I think, or at least more than you are making out. Personally I think neal's interpretation with respect to "aggregate effects" being different from "per-unit effects" is over-reaching somewhat in terms of whether it comes directly from the rules (e.g. CC/FF attacks are per unit but still > 1), but it does make sense as a framework for filling in the blanks. And if you come from the perspective that the rules are ambiguous, it's arguably a valid conclusion.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: UK
nealhunt wrote:
I'd like to keep this as a general thread discussion the FAQ and progress. If you want to argue a particular rule, please take it up in another thread.

As with all the other issues, this is still a difference in interpretation. The difference of opinion here is over whether there are gaps in the WE rules, with the "all changes described below" text being part of the oversight, or if the "all changes described below" text is definitive.

Again, there is a split across those two interpretations and either way one of the groups is going to experience a "rules change" at the end of things.

My own perspective is this:

If there is ambiguity, there should be an FAQ. But I think the "answer" should be derived by considering which option requires the absolute minimum of making stuff up. Sometimes the answer will necessarily break one of two contradicting rules. That's fine so long as it has the smallest effect of all the possible answers, but I don't like the creation of new rules out of nowhere just because the rulebook doesn't mention that exact situation explicitly. This way, there can be no divergence based on what different people perceive as the "intention" behind the rules.

For a contrived example, aircraft with a transport capacity can land. Maybe in future it might make sense for a different type of aircraft to be able to land, but the rules never considered it. I would be against creating a new FAQ to allow certain types of units to also be able to land, because the rules are already clear (they just don't work the way you subjectively want them to).

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20812
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
For a contrived example, aircraft with a transport capacity can land. Maybe in future it might make sense for a different type of aircraft to be able to land,

No need for a FAQ, give such an aircraft a transport capacity of "5000 cubic litres of air". :-)

_________________
6mm scale Scifi Plastic Sprues available here!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:11 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9609
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Kyrt: I can't fault anything you've said.

How much do you think the "for most rules purposes" explanation should weight the considerations of whether a particular situation was inadvertently omitted, needing some sort of ad hoc rule, versus sticking with a stricter RAW? Similarly, how much do you think the "these are all the changes" statement should mean if there is a suspected omission?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5432
Location: London, UK
While I agree with most of what Kyrt suggests, E:A has also developed a bit beyond thel scope of the original rules and races, so I think there is still some scope for "creativity". Consider the number of "special rules" that have been created to cater for particular situations not originally envisaged. So when reviewing the 'Sniper' in assault question (for FF) you might also ponder a variant CC "assassin" style rule.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5432
Location: London, UK
Neal, you might want to consider 'gates etc (blocking etc), as well as the arrival of off-table forces.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: UK
nealhunt wrote:
Kyrt: I can't fault anything you've said.

How much do you think the "for most rules purposes" explanation should weight the considerations of whether a particular situation was inadvertently omitted, needing some sort of ad hoc rule, versus sticking with a stricter RAW? Similarly, how much do you think the "these are all the changes" statement should mean if there is a suspected omission?

To be honest I am ambivalent, but if forced to go one way or the other in a binary fashion I think I would tend on the side of rigidity. That is, "these and all the other changes are described below" is more explicit and more tightly defined than "for most rules purposes", so I would go with that more restrictive set of exceptions.

As I say, sometimes things are omitted and if we would go back we might include them, but for me unless it actually breaks things I prefer to leave them omitted and just accept it for what it is. Otherwise you open the door for disagreement on whether something should be covered or not, and since we lack an ultimate official arbiter (i.e. GW), it will never truly be resolved and the FAQs will always be open to challenge. Teleport is a case in point. You have come up with a general framework which determines how effects like teleport are handled and I think it makes as much sense as any other, but in the end an individual could argue it either way - some people would reasonably say that you would only "expect" one roll, others could reasonably argue that one roll per DC is more appropriate. By making the FAQ ruling much higher up the chain, i.e. at the "these are all the changes" level, you bypass a lot of the ambiguity that comes after.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:39 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Mooskirchen, Austria
http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/ ... 22#p464122 Would be nice to include?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5432
Location: London, UK
And also Lance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2012 FAQ Plan
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5432
Location: London, UK
And also the timing of Lance hit allocation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net