Exception-based design is tearing 4th Edition apart.

[Koumei]

I like the "both roll a d6" method of WH. Except that it also applies to any old rules argument. All that's preventing you from demanding a roll-off any time your opponent attacks ("Bullshit, the rules don't allow you to fire bolters. If you insist they do, I guess we have to roll off.") is a punch in the face (or if you're playing at a store, being told not to be a twat).

There used to be a page somewhere of "How to annoy other players". It was huge. One of the listed methods was to, any time your opponent ever did anything, ask if the rules let them do it. Then say "prove it". Claim it was a printing error when shown, and demand to see different books. Finally claim that even GW get it wrong from time to time so you should roll for it.

Incidentally, on the topic of "Healing effects affected by other things that don't state how it works", how would Augment Healing (add spell level to healing amount of all Conjuration (Healing) effects) affect Vigour (gain 1 HP per round for X rounds, Conjuration (Healing))?

It doesn't say anywhere, because obviously the designers only thought about the Cure X Wounds line and Heal, despite them being in the same 3.5 book. As it is, it could be any one of "You get bonus healing on the first round", "It lasts for additional rounds" or "Score! Bonus healing every round, yay!"

[MartinHarper]

Evil Eye could be used as a keyword, though I don't think you ever would. A PC ability referencing it would be too specialised, and a monster ability referencing it would be too complicated. At best it can come into play with meta-abilities: "name a power. No creature can use that power in this encounter".

I like the "both roll a d6" method of WH. Except that it also applies to any old rules argument. All that's preventing you from demanding a roll-off any time your opponent attacks ("Bullshit, the rules don't allow you to fire bolters. If you insist they do, I guess we have to roll off.") is a punch in the face (or if you're playing at a store, being told not to be a twat).

That's what I didn't like about it. It's a mechanic that rewards being a rules-lawyering idiot, penalises listening to your opponent, and is balanced by violence and insults. I remember White Dwarf having a page where people slagged off their friends for taking advantage of gaping loopholes and imbalances in the rules, instead of slagging off Games Workshop for designing games with gaping loopholes and imbalances.

Thank god for Starcraft, frankly.

[Koumei]

Thank god for Starcraft

Oh, you didn't. You best be trolling.

[Draco_Argentum]

I remember the old Warhammer rule: if two rules conflict, both sides roll a d6 and the highest roll wins. I found that completely inane.

People use it as a defense on forums all the time. Just d6 is is a common response even if one side is obviously wrong. That said Warhammer does need some method for resolving a tough rules question mid game. If you can't figure it out in a couple minutes d6 and look it up after the game.

[RandomCasualty2]

It would be better if they had at least some commonality, even if it was just that they are all range 20 minor actions or whatever. M:tG has that type of effect a fair amount, and it seems to work.

M:tG was actually really good about avoiding name duplication. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any two different cards that share the same name.

[MartinHarper]

M:tG was actually really good about avoiding name duplication. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any two different cards that share the same name.

I was thinking of Slivers, for example. They all have variations on the same mechanic, but different card names. Different Cyclops have different names, but their Evil Eye powers are not variations on the same mechanic: they're just random stuff.

[Thymos]

Apparently I never played with dicks, but I never used the roll a d6 method when we could actually find the rule. We only ever used it when looking at unclear rules and the local guy who knew all the rules didn't have an answer (or wasn't at the store).

[angelfromanotherpin]

GW also instituted 'punchin' legal.'

When a questionable combo rose up in Mordheim, their response was that the rules supported it, but only a 'tosspot' would use them that way, so if anyone tried that combo on you, you should 'give 'em a good thumping.'

Yes, they decided that instead of revising their text to reflect authorial intent, they would just advise players to assault each other.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

That rule is common among all games. It is called the "don't be a douchbag" mechanic.

[Username17]

That rule is common among all games. It is called the "don't be a douchbag" mechanic.

The point is that GW seriously hides behind it to cover up their mistakes. To the point that they will publish units which are noticeably more powerful than other similar units and only after this fact is generally known do they come out and make vague pronouncements that using such units in any number constitutes being a douchebag.

Rather than do something like errata the offending units or playtest the fucking things ahead of time so this doesn't happen as often.

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

If a game has a combo that I don't like, for whatever reason, the sensible options are:
1) Agree with my opponent not to use that combo.
2) Play the game as written and live with it.
3) Play another game.

Thumping the other player is not a sensible option.

[angelfromanotherpin]

On the one hand, I totally understand where they're coming from: it's a hobby, it's a game, don't take it too seriously, we're all here to have fun, etc. That would be fine if they weren't (over)charging people for their work, but they're professionals now, it's time they saddled up and behaved like it.

Some of them have gotten with the program, but they're in the minority.

[RandomCasualty2]

The point is that GW seriously hides behind it to cover up their mistakes. To the point that they will publish units which are noticeably more powerful than other similar units and only after this fact is generally known do they come out and make vague pronouncements that using such units in any number constitutes being a douchebag.

Yeah, which is especially stupid for an adversarial game.

[Koumei]

Yeah, at our store, no-one tries anything particularly stupid and the roll-off would only be called for actual "We don't know what's supposed to happen" cases. But I'm not saying that makes bad rule design OK, because Rule Zero is not a Get Out of Jail Free card.

My store is good, other groups might not be, and it wouldn't matter if they made more coherent rules.

But it IS a shame, especially how every new edition seems to be "Let's fix anything from last edition that made other things good against SPESS MEHRINS!" So now, 'nids are really shit if you don't basically take 2 mandatory Troops (genestealers or Gaunts Without Number - that one is good if combined with the Forgeworld brood nest which you deploy close to objectives) and fill the rest up with shooty Monstrous Creatures.

Which in turn really shits everyone else up the wall because they bought template/blast tanks in the hopes of destroying MASSES of smaller bugs. Especially Imperial Guard, as their non-tanks basically can't hurt MCs, though the new Codex is likely to put more tanks on their field, so w/e. And SMs aren't too worried about NidZilla armies: everything has lascannons.

Note that some 'nid choices are now objectively bad: under the current rules, if you put rippers onto your MCs, then you're paying points for the privilege of having them count as extra casualties when they die.

[Draco_Argentum]

M:tG was actually really good about avoiding name duplication. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any two different cards that share the same name.

In the age of easy and cheap databases there shouldn't be either.

[name_here]

Given how often name-based things come up in the rules and on cards, name duplication would totally shatter the system.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Look at this, an issue as simple of whether powers that grant extra AP that tell you that you must spend them is causing the system to crack.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.ph ... st17943550

First of all, using anything from CharOp in a discussion about practical game play is an exercise in foolishness.

Second of all, I'm a 4e DM and player, and "EBD" works just fine.

And thirdly...if you hate 4e so much, stop reading, posting and obsessing about it.

TS

[Lago PARANOIA]

First of all, using anything from CharOp in a discussion about practical game play is an exercise in foolishness.

Err, why?

You'd think that a board devoted to squeezing every bit of power you could get out of the rules would have their thumb on the pulse of the rules.

If the people who are best versed in the rules don't understand the rules then the system is fucked, don't you think?

Second of all, I'm a 4e DM and player, and "EBD" works just fine.

It only works 'just fine' if everyone is on the same page. As you can see from that thread, people can't determine something as simple as whether one exception overrides another.

I really hate the stupid 'my interpretation works just fine--what's wrong with you?' argument that gets bandied about on the Internet all the time. Not everyone has the same interpretation as you do.

And thirdly...if you hate 4e so much, stop reading, posting and obsessing about it.

I don't hate 4E. I think it's poorly designed in some critical areas and I hate a lot of the design philosophies. So it's just like 3rd Edition in that respect.

[Crissa]

Honestly, this thread had much more complaining of the policies at Games Workshop than of Wizards.

What's wrong with being critical of a commercial product?

-Crissa

[Tequila Sunrise]

First of all, using anything from CharOp in a discussion about practical game play is an exercise in foolishness.

Err, why?

You'd think that a board devoted to squeezing every bit of power you could get out of the rules would have their thumb on the pulse of the rules.

If the people who are best versed in the rules don't understand the rules then the system is fucked, don't you think?

Okay then, go ahead and depend on CharOp for insight into the game. Me, I'll depend on my common sense which has always served me better than a thousand pages of theoretical rule bickering.

Second of all, I'm a 4e DM and player, and "EBD" works just fine.

It only works 'just fine' if everyone is on the same page. As you can see from that thread, people can't determine something as simple as whether one exception overrides another.

I really hate the stupid 'my interpretation works just fine--what's wrong with you?' argument that gets bandied about on the Internet all the time. Not everyone has the same interpretation as you do.

Thankfully, I'm the DM so it doesn't matter if we can't agree on a single interpretation. When you're the DM, we'll use yours.

There isn't an rpg in the world that's free of ambiguity, and thinking otherwise is foolish and elitist, as is thinking that there ever will be.

And thirdly...if you hate 4e so much, stop reading, posting and obsessing about it.

I don't hate 4E. I think it's poorly designed in some critical areas and I hate a lot of the design philosophies. So it's just like 3rd Edition in that respect.

Potatoes, potaatoes. I'll tell you what: you write an rpg, get a significant fan base, set up a global online forum to discuss it and then see how long it takes a bunch of rules lawyers to "tear it apart" with your own design philosophies.

TS

[Crissa]

I dare say most posters here have written an RPG or contributed to one by now, even if it was only modules for D&D or unpublished d20 content. (Seriously, at the store I worked at most of the employees who did the game side had written a workup or faction for a wargame, a board game, or campaign setting. It's not hard, just most people don't think about how to publish it, or why to.

Frank has several writing credits to his name, and most of the others have a game flavor or contributed to Tome.

That complaint is tiresome on the WotC boards, and it seriously doesn't fly here. It doesn't take someone published to critique a game, just like it doesn't take a chef to write a review of a restaurant, and like anyone can grade papers, you need not be a professor. I may not be able to draw, but I can tell when a figure has broken limbs.

What a tired and sore troll.

-Crissa

[Psychic Robot]

Potatoes, potaatoes. I'll tell you what: you write an rpg, get a significant fan base, set up a global online forum to discuss it and then see how long it takes a bunch of rules lawyers to "tear it apart" with your own design philosophies.

How many movie reviewers have directed a movie? Your ad hominem falls flat.

[Fuchs]

You don't need to be able to build a car to tell that it doesn't work anymore.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Since that question was never satisfactorily answered in that thread due to certain people having an aneurysm, I'm going to repeat said question.

You get dazed. But you have Boots of Eagerness. Are you allowed you use that extra move action from your boots while you're dazed? Are you allowed to spend an action point while you're dazed?

[Username17]

Since that question was never satisfactorily answered in that thread due to certain people having an aneurysm, I'm going to repeat said question.

You get dazed. But you have Boots of Eagerness. Are you allowed you use that extra move action from your boots while you're dazed? Are you allowed to spend an action point while you're dazed?

Yes you can. Daze is very poorly worded, but it explicitly does not take your free actions away. So you can still activate the boots or spend an action point to get the extra action out of the deal.

Daze should say that it reduces your normal actions to a single Move or Standard. As is, a literal wording is that the Standard or Move you get for being Dazed doesn't preclude the Move and Standard you get just for being a character. I mean, I know that Daze isn't supposed to double your attacks, the laughably clumsy wording is something you just have to take in stride like being adjacent to yourself and your own enemy.

-Username17