Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Packmaster/Giant Rat Hit Randomization; What about characters?
Topic Started: 25th June 2012 - 03:16 AM (1,477 Views)
TrueLancer
Grey Seer
CapAmr05
15th July 2012 - 10:55 PM
Quote:
 
Cap, please stop with the hate and rudeness. I don't appreciate it and it's simply not necessary. I don't mind having a discussion, but this condescending tone is entirely out of line. I also see what you're doing and it's not clever or fun at all. Quit it.

Some of the things I talked about are not 'rules discussion' things, but rather are different. Complaining that our "mounted models are the slowest in the game" is not me making a claim that Dwarves aren't infantry; it's me making a complaint that is a take-off of a discussion, but it's not evidence for whatever absurd things you're saying.


Sorry you read it that way, but I took no words out of your quotes (I copy and paste) and I did not take your quotes out of context (I responded piece by piece to what you've said). You brought up movement and you brought up base Size; I even quoted you on it (no one brought up movement and base size prior to your quotes). I'm not talking down to you, I'm taking the quotes you've given us and I've explained how they either do not matter to the discussion of Troop type, or I've given examples of how your statements taken to an extreme make for an absurd set of results.

Quote:
 

I don't think that word means what you think it means and you're not using it correctly.


I know exactly what the Term means and it's the logical counter I've presented to many of your claims, to help illustrate that your claims are incorrect.


Quote:
 
I said NO SUCH THING. The speed of a unit does NOT make it cavalry or not cavalry. Stop putting (stupid) words into my mouth and then arguing against them. I did not 'bring up movement and that you need to be higher than Movement Value X to be cavalry.' To be clear, nobody is saying that, stop harping on it.


Maybe you didn't mean to say that, but when I read your quote, that's how I interpreted it given the context of the rest of your 5 point argument as why you thought a Pox Rat was not a Cavalry Mount:
"On top of this, the movement value of this "cavalry" is lower than every other horsie in the game. Blah." As trying to disqualify the Pox Rat from being cavalry.

--Cap
Fair enough. However, while words may not have been taken out, it's the context that's important. Me complaining that some Skaven units are "too slow" doesn't mean I'm using that as evidence against anything; rather, it's just hearing the snippet of conversation that has the words "Movement Value 6" and giving some color commentary about it. I'm saying 'I think it's too slow,' and in that case, nothing else. "Blah!" isn't really meant to be a factual assertion of truth, but sorta' casual talk, ya' know.

But sure, all's forgiven. There's the whole "Tone + The Internet = Confusion" thing, and your willingness to apologize suggests all sorts of good things. So here's a smiley :) :rogre:




Mathusala0
15th July 2012 - 10:58 PM
er truelancer

dispite what cap may or may not have ment. and what you may or may not actually mean (I can't tell at this point) the rules on page 104 are still the primary point which you see, to either be dodging or at least have not given (and I do not mean offense) a clear answer.

A character on a pox rat is a cavalry model via the rules on page 104. he is treated as using all the rules for a character treated as cavalry, he may not gain a lookout sir for being in a unit of giant rats.

do you agree/disagree and if you disagree please post a valid rules quote that would invalidate the above. no speculating or RAW vs RAI.

we do not need another 6 page argument over something that is trivial and well written when we have so many unique and poorly written things to deal with.

at the end of the day RAI makes no difference because it's the RAW that we play with.
Eh, not dodging, so much as trying to deal with a HUGE MASSIVE BLOCK OF TEXT. I chose to prioritize the sillier accusations, like dwarf anti-infantry, or the 'is this trolling and vitriol' over 'let me reiterate with quotes...' sorts of stuff. As far as I see it now, nothing else to discuss here unless I feel interested in writing something more than a paragraph and talking a bunch. Writer instincts would take over... not getting paid... not necessarily even wanted... probably not worth the time?

I'm acknowledging that the interpretation there is easier, but there's multiple sets of rules, different sections, rules that could/should be a hard-line on how to do things but modified with soft qualifiers, an edition change, and frankly mystifying Army Book diction. The fact that there's any discussion over a "rule" at all is disgusting.

Also, while Rules as Written are certainly important, there's something to be said for some common sense. After all, obvious misprints, typos, or plain out mistakes happen and the "Rule 0" section comes into play... there are times when things are just mystifying even with photo-perfect recollection of the entire books.


EDIT: Ugh, auto-merging. I'm trying to keep separate posts from being "HUGE WALL OF TEXTY", but forum auto-merged here. Sorry if this is too long and boring and not of relevance to 'everybody.'
Edited by TrueLancer, 16th July 2012 - 12:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathusala0
Member Avatar
The Evil Underlord

again. while common sense may be great. the rules have to be followed or else they might as well not be there. we ALL know that bonebreaker is not supposed to be the armies general should we take thanqual. but according to the rules he is.
Posted Image
The Glossary of Common Underempire Lingo
The Skaven Guide to competitive list building (8th Edition)
The Skaven Castle Formation
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CapAmr05
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
There's the whole "Tone + The Internet = Confusion" thing


Totally agree, it's really weird how we can shadow intent into a conversation that was not presented (nor intended) from the Author whatsoever. Sorry again for the disconnect on my side.

Quote:
 
The fact that there's any discussion over a "rule" at all is disgusting.


I guess I'm a glutton for punishment then lol, I find rules discussions really interesting, you get to see how people interpret the rules text, get a glimpse at their thought process and I learn way more by debating and researching a rule(s) than I have by just reading it (thinking I knew what it meant) and never thinking about it again.

Quote:
 
Also, while Rules as Written are certainly important, there's something to be said for some common sense.


I agree with this also, often we get involved with a rule interaction at the Micro level (we just want to know how A and B interact) and unfortunately a lot of people never take a few steps back to look at the over arching impact at the Macro level that a certain ruling could have on the game. That was the perspective I was taking on the troop type discussion; whatever conclusion one takes on "Mounted Troop Type" will ultimately affect the long term survivability of our mounted characters via the "Look Out Sir"; that impact is more important to me honestly than the actual classification of the model (the difference between Cav and Warbeast is virtually zero when you take LOS out of the equation); the after-affect impact and that being solid in addition to the Micro answer being solid are what's important to me.

GW does their best to create a balance in logic within their rules; ofcourse with thousands of rules and tens of thousands of possible game-rule-interactions it's nigh impossible for them to sew up all the loose ends. Honestly, I've found most FAQs about rules clashing to follow GW's created "common sense" in their answers.

--Cap
Edited by CapAmr05, 16th July 2012 - 02:20 AM.
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30

The Beer Phase Podcast

Clan Skrittar
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TrueLancer
Grey Seer
CapAmr05
16th July 2012 - 02:18 AM
Quote:
 
There's the whole "Tone + The Internet = Confusion" thing


Totally agree, it's really weird how we can shadow intent into a conversation that was not presented (nor intended) from the Author whatsoever. Sorry again for the disconnect on my side.

Quote:
 
The fact that there's any discussion over a "rule" at all is disgusting.


I guess I'm a glutton for punishment then lol, I find rules discussions really interesting, you get to see how people interpret the rules text, get a glimpse at their thought process and I learn way more by debating and researching a rule(s) than I have by just reading it (thinking I knew what it meant) and never thinking about it again.

Quote:
 
Also, while Rules as Written are certainly important, there's something to be said for some common sense.


I agree with this also, often we get involved with a rule interaction at the Micro level (we just want to know how A and B interact) and unfortunately a lot of people never take a few steps back to look at the over arching impact at the Macro level that a certain ruling could have on the game. That was the perspective I was taking on the troop type discussion; whatever conclusion one takes on "Mounted Troop Type" will ultimately affect the long term survivability of our mounted characters via the "Look Out Sir"; that impact is more important to me honestly than the actual classification of the model (the difference between Cav and Warbeast is virtually zero when you take LOS out of the equation); the after-affect impact and that being solid in addition to the Micro answer being solid are what's important to me.

GW does their best to create a balance in logic within their rules; ofcourse with thousands of rules and tens of thousands of possible game-rule-interactions it's nigh impossible for them to sew up all the loose ends. Honestly, I've found most FAQs about rules clashing to follow GW's created "common sense" in their answers.

--Cap
Yeah, most of the FAQs make sense. It's just the mistakes are especially glaring and contradictory, which (I suppose) is why they stick out so much in people's minds. I'd say the majority of the stuff is great - it's just the details, the professionalism, the minutia, that makes me want to cry sometimes.

Also, the "rules discussions = disgusting" is more a complaint about not proofreading their book - I also like rules discussions. There's lots of neat things packed into the background that often doesn't get a chance to come up.


Re: Boneripper = General. That's something I saw and realized that there's no way that can be true, something unclear is being said, etc., but it's certainly defensible. And the weird thing is, the moment I say it, it sounds like it's a great thing (Ld. 10, a big tough Rat Ogre general) and it would make people rage to play against... yet a little thought reveals it's really a terrible thing (a general is linked to a wimpy caster who is just aching to be murdered, can't leave a 12" bubble around Thanquol or he becomes a defenseless little kitten). The Leadership/General rule makes it a pretty straightforward claim with no 'rules' to dispute it, but there's no possible way that can be true.

Why oh why oh why didn't an editor knowledgeable of the rules see that and immediately add in one sentence or clause to fix it? It's infuriating!
Edited by TrueLancer, 18th July 2012 - 11:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CapAmr05
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
Bonebreaker


*cough* BoneRIPPER *cough* ^_^

--Cap
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30

The Beer Phase Podcast

Clan Skrittar
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TrueLancer
Grey Seer
CapAmr05
16th July 2012 - 01:54 PM
Quote:
 
Bonebreaker


*cough* BoneRIPPER *cough* ^_^

--Cap
Oops, that was careless. Fixed!
Edited by TrueLancer, 18th July 2012 - 11:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CapAmr05
Member Avatar


I didn't even notice you'd said it, I was coughing for Math :P

--Cap
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30

The Beer Phase Podcast

Clan Skrittar
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Skaven Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply