Heresy Online: The Unofficial FAQ - Page 4 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
40k Rules Discussion Post any Warhammer 40k rules queries and discussions here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-07-09, 09:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Sqwerlpunk's Avatar
Sqwerlpunk's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nebraska, U.S.A.
Posts: 899
Reputation: 1
Default

Perhaps faction specific suggestion threads (one at a time, of course, to reduce clutter, so you would only have one faction being worked on at a time) combined with scouring of recent topics to provide a basis for the beginnings of this would be a better way to start rather than picking the odd argument and throwing a members RAW into this?

Has the Infiltrate USR {NTGU}
>>Sqwerl's Tactical Squads<<

Sqwerlpunk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-07-09, 09:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Revelations's Avatar
Revelations's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,124
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galahad View Post
This is a good idea, Vaz (which is why I stickied it) though I think if you;re going to use RAI, those answers need to be highlighted in some way. Perhaps a different color and a line saying "The rules in this case are (unclear/contradictary/nonexistant/argued over for a dozen pages), so the following answer is based on general consensus and the collective opinion of what was intended rather than the rules as written." or something like that.

Similarly, if there is a clear RAW answer, but people feel it isn't as intended, then both answers need to be presented and labeled for what they are.

I'm fine for including RAI, but I really think it needs to be branded as such. I would hate for some kid to get in an argument over rules thinking he's got the right answer from us only to find ouot that, while reasonable, the answer isn't actually taken from the rules.
Possibly wishful thinking, but is there a way the "team" (for the lack of a better... something) to have a place to discuss all this in length? Or would we simply use the existing rule forum to create threads?

And I agree many of the rules interpretations should be discuss as RAW, RAI and as interprtetations.

Pondering...
Revelations is offline  
post #33 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-07-09, 10:05 PM
I Piss in your Cheerios
 
TheKingElessar's Avatar
TheKingElessar's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,370
Reputation: 2
Default

What I've been doing is trawling old threads, taking our conclusions, and rewording them to make them more official sounding, and easier to read. IMO, it's as simple as that. Once we've cleared up the backlog, then we start to add to the FAQ, and it becomes a living entity, like the official ones should be.
TheKingElessar is offline  
 
post #34 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-07-09, 10:07 PM
WFB Moderator
 
Tim/Steve's Avatar
Tim/Steve's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Posts: 8,248
Reputation: 13
Default

We should get a locked sticky admin only FAQ thread- keep the different armies' rulings seperated and clear. Have just the 1 post which gets editted for every rule that gets updated, with different colours for RAW, RAI and suggested anti-RAW rulings (where RAW is clear but blatantly stupid or wrong).

If we allow replies then it'll just get confusing and if a heresy FAQ was done it needs to be clear and, if possible, in an easily printed (or copy-paste print) format.

Tim/Steve is offline  
post #35 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-07-09, 10:17 PM
I Piss in your Cheerios
 
TheKingElessar's Avatar
TheKingElessar's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,370
Reputation: 2
Default

I agree, but that makes updating it more time consuming, even with Gal on board. I move that we get all the rulings we want/need to see collated first, then we keep this thread as a submissions thread, and create a new one for the finished version.
TheKingElessar is offline  
post #36 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-08-09, 01:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Sqwerlpunk's Avatar
Sqwerlpunk's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nebraska, U.S.A.
Posts: 899
Reputation: 1
Default

I move that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqwerlpunk View Post
Perhaps faction specific suggestion threads (one at a time, of course, to reduce clutter, so you would only have one faction being worked on at a time) combined with scouring of recent topics to provide a basis for the beginnings of this would be a better way to start rather than picking the odd argument and throwing a members RAW into this?

Has the Infiltrate USR {NTGU}
>>Sqwerl's Tactical Squads<<

Sqwerlpunk is offline  
post #37 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-10-09, 08:07 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 253
Default

This is a great idea (and if allowed I'd like to assist)! I think making something like this would give good reference for allot of players to discuss, and lead to more streamlined play for anyone having it (given it won't be official, but will be able to shed light on matters in a way less wordy players have trouble doing).

Also in a bit of unrelated news, what was the consensus we reached on the tyrant + retinue? xD I've always wondered as a nid player, but am currently counting it as two (even though I disagree with it because of some unknown bias xD).

Thanks,

~MC
Master_Caleb is offline  
post #38 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-10-09, 08:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Mabrothrax's Avatar
Mabrothrax's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: In a shoe box
Posts: 145
Reputation: 1
Default

If it's kill points your talkng about I'm pretty sure it's 2, one for the tyrant, and one for the guard... unless the tyrant loses its IC status. Would have to go check the codex, but it's upstairs and I'm on the sofa with chocolate.
Mabrothrax is offline  
post #39 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-10-09, 09:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 532
Reputation: 1
Default

When the IC rules start streaming out....whoo boy things will get heated. Ill help where I can.

All I ask is that if we rule some way with that, then it needs to be ruled that way every time. For instance if we decide that an IC with a retinue behaves like a sergeant in a squad, we need to apply that to every instance.
Pauly55 is offline  
post #40 of 74 (permalink) Old 06-10-09, 09:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Revelations's Avatar
Revelations's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,124
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Caleb View Post
Also in a bit of unrelated news, what was the consensus we reached on the tyrant + retinue? xD I've always wondered as a nid player, but am currently counting it as two (even though I disagree with it because of some unknown bias xD).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mabrothrax View Post
If it's kill points your talkng about I'm pretty sure it's 2, one for the tyrant, and one for the guard... unless the tyrant loses its IC status. Would have to go check the codex, but it's upstairs and I'm on the sofa with chocolate.
This is the kind of thing I feel the need to caution against. The FAQ is a "general consensus" of how certain rules work under the concepts of; RAW & RAI. Being general, not everyone is going to agree with them and some people, even seeing the reasoning behind them, will still choose to interpret them differently. This FAQ is far from official and should be treated as what "a select group of people have decided to be the best course of action in their opinion" and nothing more.

I really don't want to see the FAQ thread being blown apart by rules debates. That's why we have the forum, if you disgaree with something in the FAQ, by all means create a thread to discuss it, but be prepared to come up with something tangible that hasn't already been mentioned in the FAQ. (Please look at the 'God of War' thread for an example of this, 100+ pages of people saying they disagree with the meaning and intent of a single word gets pretty tiring)

Just keep in mind; their plastic space men.

Pondering...
Revelations is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > 40k Rules Discussion

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome