Help support TMP


"Rules as Written vs Rules as Intended (Rant) " Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Warhammer 40K Message Board


Areas of Interest

Science Fiction

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

One-Hour Skirmish Wargames


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Movie Review


1,265 hits since 7 Aug 2015
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango0107 Aug 2015 12:44 p.m. PST

"So there have been a lot of rules conundrums lately, all of which seem to be surrounding the latest Space Marines and Dark Angels releases. So many so that an FAQ REALLY REALLY REALLY needs to get released, but GW seems to be in no rush to do so.

WARNING This may be my longest post ever, so continue on if you dare…"
From main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo FingerandToeGlenn Sponsoring Member of TMP07 Aug 2015 2:27 p.m. PST

So…a proofreader and an editor are a good idea?

It might also be groupthink resulting from a too cozy relationship between the author and the editors and playtesters.

Not an easy problem to overcome, but humility helps.

15mm and 28mm Fanatik07 Aug 2015 6:54 p.m. PST

GW shouldn't have to address every loophole power gamers would exploit outside the intention and spirit of the rules or background. Players should come to an agreement on any "obscure" parts of the rules before rolling dice. If a player insists on RAW, just walk away.

Mithmee09 Aug 2015 9:02 p.m. PST

GW shouldn't have to address every loophole power gamers would exploit outside the intention and spirit of the rules or background

No what GW needs to do is write rules that are clean and that do not look like some office troll wrote them.

The only thing these rules are meant to do is get the GW Fanboyz to shell out alot of money for lousy rules.

GypsyComet09 Aug 2015 11:27 p.m. PST

GW has done this too many times to still be issuing half-baked nonsense. It's like they want to be FASA or something.

Wonkothesane15 Aug 2015 12:05 p.m. PST

Over 30 years a wargamer and I've rarely encountered any set of rules which could boast a truly literate author.

It would help if rules writers knew the difference between "effect" and "affect" – and that's just for starters.

Would a proof reader be able to cope with the accepted jargon of gaming?

From a language POV, the best were always WRG. But then you have to cope with several pages of definitions, plus all those sentences which fail the 'plain English' test. Frinstance: +1 if loose order, except female camp followers in gap mode, occupying difficult terrain but not giant mushroom forests unless they have lost their Cullen mushroom-cutting devices, but not desert pygmie ski troops with crew-served GPMGs unless conducting preparatory bombardment against unshielded close order ducks on barded horses (………………and so on.)

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.