![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 21st, 2009 07:18 am I don't know, maybe I should use the "Oh, bugger!" icon for this post.
I went to see if the old group I used to play Warhammer with in Virginia had any insights on the new edition of the rules for 40K. I found that not only have two new acronyms arisen in the Warhammer-playing world (RAW--rules as written, and RAI--rules as intended, suggesting an awful lot of debate over the obvious difference between the two, which suggests *really* badly written rules, or people trying to be rules lawyers, or both) but something even better.
They are arguing, frequently and acrimoniously, over conflicts between the basic rules (which tell you how all the basic game mechanisms work) and the codexes (which tell you how the individual army units for the specialised armies work). Most of their arguments are over dissimilarities of wording for the same general concept (e.g., the rulebook refers to "bonuses" for something that in the codex is a negative factor, still beneficial because the codex was written for the previous edition of the rules).
Yes, that's right. They are bickering over wording that doesn't match because the basic rules have been rewritten and the specialised rules haven't been reissued since then. Ye gods, what a bunch of numbnuts!
And they're not even thinking about what they're arguing about. There's a furious debate about whether Troop Type A should get a defensive bonus when shot at under Circumstance X. They normally get it for moving very fast. A special rule allows them a move jsut before the start of the game. The argument is about whether the defensive benefit should apply because their special pregame movement is not "in the Movement Phase" and that's when the rules specify you get it.
Geeks I have time for. I enjoy many geeks. STUPID geeks, I have no time for...
I went to see if the old group I used to play Warhammer with in Virginia had any insights on the new edition of the rules for 40K. I found that not only have two new acronyms arisen in the Warhammer-playing world (RAW--rules as written, and RAI--rules as intended, suggesting an awful lot of debate over the obvious difference between the two, which suggests *really* badly written rules, or people trying to be rules lawyers, or both) but something even better.
They are arguing, frequently and acrimoniously, over conflicts between the basic rules (which tell you how all the basic game mechanisms work) and the codexes (which tell you how the individual army units for the specialised armies work). Most of their arguments are over dissimilarities of wording for the same general concept (e.g., the rulebook refers to "bonuses" for something that in the codex is a negative factor, still beneficial because the codex was written for the previous edition of the rules).
Yes, that's right. They are bickering over wording that doesn't match because the basic rules have been rewritten and the specialised rules haven't been reissued since then. Ye gods, what a bunch of numbnuts!
And they're not even thinking about what they're arguing about. There's a furious debate about whether Troop Type A should get a defensive bonus when shot at under Circumstance X. They normally get it for moving very fast. A special rule allows them a move jsut before the start of the game. The argument is about whether the defensive benefit should apply because their special pregame movement is not "in the Movement Phase" and that's when the rules specify you get it.
Geeks I have time for. I enjoy many geeks. STUPID geeks, I have no time for...
