Jump to content

AoS 3 New Rules Discussion


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Xil said:

Can someone enlighten me on the Redeploy vs Unleash dilemma? What is it about? What do people mean with stopping shooting with redeploy?

Redeploy, as part of its effects, specifically prohibits shooting later in the turn.  

Since you can only use Redeploy in your opponents turn, the only possible reason for including that text is to prevent shooting from things like Unleash Hell (abilities and effects that allow you to shoot out of turn).

However, some folks are arguing because Unleash Hell already allows you to shoot when you're normally not allowed to do so, you can still Unleash Hell and shoot (because specific overrides general or something?).

Personally, I think there's a fundamental difference between 'not normally allowed to shoot because its not the appropriate phase or turn', which Unleash Hell allows you to ignore, and 'not allowed to shoot because an ability says so' which Unleash Hell very much should not override.

Also, to reiterate - Redeploy's prohibition against shooting can only be understood as to apply to abilities and effects that allow you to shoot out of turn when you normally couldn't - so clearly, it does so.

Edited by KrispyXIV
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KrispyXIV said:

Redeploy, as part of its effects, specifically prohibits shooting later in the turn.  

Since you can only use Redeploy in your opponents turn, the only possible reason for including that text is to prevent shooting from things like Unleash Hell.

However, some folks are arguing because Unleash Hell already allows you to shoot when you're normally not allowed to do so, you can still Unleash Hell and shoot.

Personally, I think there's a fundamental difference between 'not normally allowed to shoot because its not the appropriate phase', which Unleash Hell allows you to ignore, and 'not allowed to shoot because an ability says so' which Unleash Hell very much does not override.

Also, Redeploys prohibition against shooting can only be understood as to apply to abilities and effects that allow you to shoot out of turn when you normally couldn't - so clearly, it does so.

Ah ok, i understand. It's clear for me and i wouldn't use 'unleash' after redeploying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KrispyXIV said:

However, some folks are arguing because Unleash Hell already allows you to shoot when you're normally not allowed to do so, you can still Unleash Hell and shoot (because specific overrides general or something?).

 

Errr, no, that is not even close. This is simply because of 1.6.3 rule of Core Rules, the last ability applied takes precedence, so RAW effects of Unleash Hell override effects of Redeploy.  It's a case of GW breaking their own intent with their rules construction.

 

Mind you, I will still prefer playing with Redeploy blocking Unleash Hell, it's just this issue needs a FAQ to stop RAW interpretation from ruining the balance.

Edited by Zeblasky
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zeblasky said:

Errr, no, that is not even close. This is simply because of 1.6.3 rule of Core Rules, the last ability applied takes precedence, so RAW effects of Unleash Hell overrides effects of Redeploy.  It's a case of GW breaking their own intent with their rules construction.

 

Mind you, I will still prefer playing with Redeploy blocking Unleash Hell, it's just this issue needs a FAQ to stop RAW interpretation from ruining the balance.

You're missing the point.  Unleash Hell allows you to shoot in a phase other than the shooting phase - that's it.  

It does not allow you to shoot when you are "not allowed to shoot".  

There's not actually a conflict here - you're reading Unleash as doing something it in no way does.  

  • Like 1
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KrispyXIV said:

You're missing the point.  Unleash Hell allows you to shoot in a phase other than the shooting phase - that's it.  

It does not allow you to shoot when you are "not allowed to shoot".  

There's not actually a conflict here - you're reading Unleash as doing something it in no way does.  

Please, reread what I've said in a previous post and reread 1.6.3 rule of Core book, because right you it seems that you're completely misunderstanding me and answering to something I was not saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Reinholt said:

I can guarantee it is definitely not 100% clear given some of the hilarious GW FAQ's of the past... maybe 95%, but that's about where you max out with GW.

 

And this is part of the problem: the people arguing that "we don't know the minds of the designers we just know what is written down" are correct that you can Unleash Hell after Redeploy right now, assuming they are both abilities (hilariously also seems obvious and yet not defined...).

 

Watertight indeed. What GW really needs is a proper technical writer reviewing the rules.

I mean, the same people will tell the rules writers they are wrong too. Happened to Cruddace two years ago in the NOVA open 40k finals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KrispyXIV said:

You're missing the point.  Unleash Hell allows you to shoot in a phase other than the shooting phase - that's it.  

It does not allow you to shoot when you are "not allowed to shoot".  

There's not actually a conflict here - you're reading Unleash as doing something it in no way does.  

A subtle detail that is easy to miss, as explained in my earlier posts. People often make assumptions or add things that simply are not there, as you've shown.

Well stated.

Edited by Sleboda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, stratigo said:

I mean, the same people will tell the rules writers they are wrong too. Happened to Cruddace two years ago in the NOVA open 40k finals

Rules writers can be wrong. Famous example is Tolkien chiding an editor for correcting Dwarves to Dwarfs with the remark that he was a writer in that dictionary, and it remained Dwarves in the Tolkien world.

Didn't make it correct (though I prefer Dwarves, so the dictionary shouod change).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Rules writers can be wrong. Famous example is Tolkien chiding an editor for correcting Dwarves to Dwarfs with the remark that he was a writer in that dictionary, and it remained Dwarves in the Tolkien world.

Didn't make it correct (though I prefer Dwarves, so the dictionary shouod change).

 

"We can't know the intent of the rules"

 

The literal writer of the rule "Here is what I intended"

 

"You're wrong"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, stratigo said:

 

"We can't know the intent of the rules"

The literal writer of the rule "Here is what I intended"

…then why didn’t you write it down like that? 
 

Rule 1.6.3: in case of contradiction, the 2nd ability overrules the 1st

1st: …but you can’t shoot later this turn

2nd: You are hereby permitted to shoot in this phase…

 

and this is how you write rules for highly competitive people, who think they play the „casualties go into the fire pit, winner gets 20k and the remaining models of the losers army“ variation of AoS

#tonygrippando

just to throw some dirt at the poor guy, whose apparently one&only slip in etiquette and sportsmanship was broadcasted worldwide 🤣


and this dumpsterfire of heated discussion is as old as 3.0, so they could/should have had the time to faq a quick: c’mone cheesemongers, of course u can’t have both… 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, stratigo said:

"We can't know the intent of the rules"

The literal writer of the rule "Here is what I intended"

"You're wrong"

happend because a) the designers playing with changes/house rules that never made it to the public and b) what was written into the rules was not what they had in mind

in 30 years this came up very often, and specially was annoying in tactic articles in White Dwarf, as an example when a designer said he likes his Empire Cavalry with 2 hand weapons for +1 attack and not only did knights not have that options, the core rules explicit said that 2 hand weapons have no effect for cavalry

or remember for Aos2 with the first published how to play video got rules wrong and it was easier (and cheaper) for GW to change them via FAQ than to make a new video

what the designer wants, what rules the designers use and what was written down in the books for the people to read have always been 3 different things

this is also were RAW vs RAI comes from, not because the text can be read in different ways but because the text is very clearly saying the opposite of what is needed for the game to work

which usually happens because some leftover from previous rules are still there (copy & paste old text because it did not change) without adjusting them for new rules because the designer know how it should work do he don't need to write it down

Edited by Kodos der Henker
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kodos der Henker said:

happend because a) the designers playing with changes/house rules that never made it to the public and b) what was written into the rules was not what they had in mind

in 30 years this came up very often, and specially was annoying in tactic articles in White Dwarf, as an example when a designer said he likes his Empire Cavalry with 2 hand weapons for +1 attack and not only did knights not have that options, the core rules explicit said that 2 hand weapons have no effect for cavalry

or remember for Aos2 with the first published how to play video got rules wrong and it was easier (and cheaper) for GW to change them via FAQ than to make a new video

what the designer wants, what rules the designers use and what was written down in the books for the people to read have always been 3 different things

this is also were RAW vs RAI comes from, not because the text can be read in different ways but because the text is very clearly saying the opposite of what is needed for the game to work

which usually happens because some leftover from previous rules are still there (copy & paste old text because it did not change) without adjusting them for new rules because the designer know how it should work do he don't need to write it down

Obviously he should of written FAQ on the back of a napkin and told the players it was official.

 

 

But it is amusing to me for people to warble on about how we can't know intent when we all know full well that intent doesn't matter to them. It isn't that you can't divine intent, it's that you don't care.

Edited by stratigo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have two effects that say:

1. Choose any color 

2. You can't choose red

Can you pick red? No, obviously not. #2 contradicts #1, but not the other way around. The order they apply in does not matter because they don't mutually contradict.

Edited by PJetski
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PJetski said:

If you have two effects that say:

1. Choose any color 

2. You can't choose red

Can you pick red? No, obviously not. #2 contradicts #1, but not the other way around. The order they apply in does not matter because they don't mutually contradict.

This is an obvious example. Let me give a less obvious example:

1. You may not shoot if you did X.

2. You may shoot when you use this ability.

Assuming that earlier in the phase you did X, which of those trumps? That's actually much more complicated and relies on override/order of operations type issues. The former tells you that you cannot shoot, the latter tells you that you can shoot with no further restrictions.

GW needs to get much better at saying things like "You may never shoot in this turn if you did X at any point in the turn, even if another ability or effect would allow you to do so" if that's what they mean.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Can you pick red? No, obviously not.

True, but turn that around…

1. can’t choose red

2. choose any color you want

and then, that’s the kicker, sprinkle 

Rule 1.6.3 (the Second ability trumps first) over it aaaand voilà „red, please“


And of course the „cannot shoot this turn“ points directly at UH, because the trigger is the enemies movement phase 🙄 what else shoots during enemies turn 🤔 (skinks iirc).

one additional sentence could have prevented pages of heated discussion and infectious spittle flying over the table screaming at the opponent.

Best rules ever, clear and concise, sadly my Gravelords will suffer for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Honk said:

True, but turn that around…

1. can’t choose red

2. choose any color you want

and then, that’s the kicker, sprinkle 

Rule 1.6.3 (the Second ability trumps first) over it aaaand voilà „red, please“


And of course the „cannot shoot this turn“ points directly at UH, because the trigger is the enemies movement phase 🙄 what else shoots during enemies turn 🤔 (skinks iirc).

one additional sentence could have prevented pages of heated discussion and infectious spittle flying over the table screaming at the opponent.

Best rules ever, clear and concise, sadly my Gravelords will suffer for it.

See my post:

"#2 contradicts #1, but not the other way around. The order they apply in does not matter because they don't mutually contradict."

1.6.3 does not apply

Edit: If it was "pick red" and "don't pick red" then it would be two mutual contradictions and the timing would matter because they are in direct contradiction with each other.

Edited by PJetski
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PJetski said:

but not the other way around.

not sure if I dare jump into that rabbit hole, but:


The limitation to „not choose red“ does not contradict your ability to choose any color you like?

Please pick a color…red… no, you can’t have that!
Are my choices limited? Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

See my post:

"#2 contradicts #1, but not the other way around. The order they apply in does not matter because they don't mutually contradict."

1.6.3 does not apply

I'm sympathetic to what you are trying to do here, and while the distinction you are trying to make does make sense logically (being able to derive a contradiction from two rules vs. being immediately contradictory), I don't think it's supported by RAW. The core rules just talk about two rules being contradictory, with no concern about how immediate that contradiction is.

Since I think arguing this point would rely on RAI assumptions anyway, let's just make things easy on ourselves and go this way instead: GW rules writers probably intended the "units can't shoot" bit on Redeploy to do something rather than nothing. It sucks that they did not write the rules in a way that actually supports this, but it's about as obvious a case of designer intention as you are can possibly get.

Really, this debate shows the whole difficulty of being very specific with the rules. If you define stuff to an extremely specific standard, you have to be that specific everywhere or people will start arguing that command abilities are not abilities because they are not defined as such anywhere.

Edited by Neil Arthur Hotep
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I'm sympathetic to what you are trying to do here, and while the distinction you are trying to make does make sense logically (being able to derive a contradiction from two rules vs. being immediately contradictory), I don't think it's supported by RAW. The core rules just talk about two rules being contradictory, with no concern about how immediate that contradiction is.

Since I think arguing this point would rely on RAI assumptions anyway, let's just make things easy on ourselves and go this way instead: GW rules writers probably intended the "units can't shoot" bit on Redeploy to do something rather than nothing. It sucks that they did not write the rules in a way that actually supports this, but it's about as obvious a case of designer intention as you are can possibly get.

Really, this debate shows the whole difficulty of being very specific with the rules. If you define stuff to an extremely specific standard, you have to be that specific everywhere or people will start arguing that command abilities are not abilities because they are not defined as such anywhere.

I will once again state that these are pretty solvable problems if you actually design your rules set properly. 

 

There will always be edge cases but GW's extreme looseness with language creates way more problems than necessary. Do I think I could create a perfect ruleset? No, zero chance. Nothing is perfect. Do I think anyone with a solid background in something like contract law, technical writing, or certain forms of software design could edit for GW and produce a rules set with 90% less ambiguity out of the gate? Yes, trivially.

 

So many of these are own goals by GW (making abilities a thing then failing to define what those are or giving things a keyword that clearly defines them) that it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at them after their claims. But these are not watertight rules. This basket is so loose that marbles and bricks will fall out of it, much less water.

 

The sad part is for a close to zero pound expenditure of just studying some methods of writing clarity / technical design / proper QA so that this stuff doesn't leave the house before being looked at, GW could fix most of this. That they choose not to, as a billion pound company, is on par with Elon Musk smashing the unbreakable windows of his truck on stage.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with GW rules writing is in the fact that the game started out as a garage heartbreaker wargame that found success by chance and over three decades and billions of dollars later it... just inexplicably remains on par with garage heartbreaker wargames when it comes to game design. It still seems like an inexperienced group of people whipping out their own wargame in their spare time, emulating certain elements from other games they are familiar with, without really understanding why those elements are there in the first place.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

The problem with GW rules writing is in the fact that the game started out as a garage heartbreaker wargame that found success by chance and over three decades and billions of dollars later it... just inexplicably remains on par with garage heartbreaker wargames when it comes to game design. It still seems like an inexperienced group of people whipping out their own wargame in their spare time, emulating certain elements from other games they are familiar with, without really understanding why those elements are there in the first place.

And for all that it is a genuinely fun game with layers of complexity that doesn’t get hung up on the minutiae of precise wheel arcs.

Which isn’t to say that there aren’t a few bad apples spoiling the barrel (Gotrek, any god character that isn’t Alarielle).

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

And for all that it is a genuinely fun game with layers of complexity that doesn’t get hung up on the minutiae of precise wheel arcs.

Fun is a very subjective thing and hard to discuss in any medium. Best way to go about it would be: "This book/song/painting/movie/game is trying to evoke a particular mood in the audience by doing X. Does it really do X? Does it use all the tools and techniques available in the medium to achieve X? How well does it use those tools when compared to other examples of the medium?" etc. There is a reason why a good movie or book critique does not just speak of fun but of more quantifiable things, like pacing, character development, framing devices etc. That way you do not get the answer if the piece of work is fun, but you do get an answer if it does its thing well or not and each of us can then make a decision if that would be fun or not for us. I would never watch a buddy cop comedy, even if it is exceptional and critically acclaimed, but might try out average sci-fi if I have nothing better to do.

That said I am curious about this complexity you mentioned. What exactly do you mean by it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PrimeElectrid said:

any god character that isn’t Alarielle

16hp 3+, the automated healing is over 9000, the 24“ 6dmg spear? 
model can retreat and shoot/charge, with battering ram? Casts 3 spells, with the cast bonus cheese?

All the big models are a bit wonky, Nagash could rolfstomp your whole army or get shot off the board turn 1-2

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...