Sigh Context is everything
This kind of statement makes me wonder why anybody - netERC, rules group, ACs or developers, even bother.

In future can we all step back and allow whoever the last person who registered for the boards is to answer rules queries

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

The point is this: the standard rules in chapter #1 have a number of interrelated concepts regarding the definition of an assault, the use of CC or FF capabilities, hit allocation etc. However these rules are then modified or even overrriden by the rules in the subsequent chapters;

• in the case of 'Skimmer', the unit may force the assault to be done under FF rules;
• in the case of MW hit allocation and resolution, this is done as a second round after 'normal' hits are allocated and resolved.

To be fair, the rules and even the FAQ can be mis-interpreted at times - and experienced players get things wrong as well from time to time. If that happens in-game the players are encouraged to resolve it quickly and amicably.
But players are also encouraged to post the topic on these boards so that we can answer the particular question, and potentially add or improve the FAQ.

This isn't a case of beating your head against a wall because you feel under-appreciated. But ok we're being dramatic so I'll follow suit....

If things were written less "contextually" more often I wouldn't complain about it. It's one of my biggest irritations about this game so I'm going to vent my displeasure at it.

It's simple. If you want new (and old) people to be less confused about this game, then rules need to be clearly written. No ambiguity (even misunderstood ambiguity) or contextual situations - particularly in an FAQ. It's not a big thing to ask is it? This thread is case-in-point about this issue. Some folks don't understand the rules the way that other players do.

That is worse than not having an Army Compendium because it goes directly to the heart of the game and how it is perceived.

/drama

Buy the rulebook, read the rules+the FAQs in the context they were written, apply common sense, don't look for loopholes/try to abuse the rules/be a rules lawyer. Simple.

If you don't want people to react to statements quit the constant jibes.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Don't make me stab someone with occam's razor!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

A related question, why doesn't Skimmer negate Skimmer? For example, if the Nightbringer engages a WS in BtB and the WS uses Skimmer, why can't the Nightbringer use Skimmer and whack it in CC?

That was debated at length at one point, with the idea being tossed out that a Skimmer with a faster move could choose to CC a skimmer with a slower move. I think we arrived at where we are because it was felt that skimmers weren't maneuverable enough to force CC on one another.

I remember Shining Spears featuring prominently in that discussion, not the C'Tan though. Giving the same ability to Jump Pack troops was suggested as well, I don't think that gained any traction though either.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

We playtests jump pack troops negating the skimmer ff ability for a few months around 2006ish IIRC - way overpowered at current points levels.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

As Dave says, it was debated and then chucked out as being physically impractical / impossible.

The point being that the 'aerial' combat being simulated would naturally involve speed and manoeuverability, not unlike the Harry Potter games of Quidditch; as these increase while it is harder to be hit by someone on the ground, it is also harder to get close enough to a flying opponent to get into hand-to-hand combat with them.

Done, done, done and never. The ambiguities still exist and folks still get confused.... <shrug>

In the interests of mediation...

I think what Dobbsy is saying is that the FAQs are often worded as if they came out of some previous and specific conversation amongst a group of people, which looks strange to those who weren't party to that context. I don't think it's intended to be a jibe against the NetERC or anyone else. I have to admit I can see examples of this myself - that is, quite often a ruling can seem to be a giant leap based around the local meta of a few people, when in actuality there is a whole context behind it that may make perfect sense but not immediately obvious. Because it's important for FAQs to be perceived as authoritative as possible, this can undermine their credibility.

The point is, if you have to explain the context, justification or scope of the FAQ, then it's fair to say that there is room to improve the way the FAQ was written (or add something to justify it). That is why it's great that neal is posting potential FAQs for people to check the interpretation etc.

On the other hand, Dobbsy could really have chosen less negative language...

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

This is not correct. The Powerfist is a CC weapon. There is no such thing as a "base to base" weapon.

"Base to base" is not the same thing as "Close Combat." Base contact has several effects, not just CC.

The Skimmer rules specifically sever the concepts of "base to base" from the kind of attacks made in the assault. If a Skimmer forces FF, no CC attacks apply. Every other effect of being in base contact, like losing the Zone of Control, would still apply as normal even though the units are using FF attacks instead of CC.

===

Ginger got it all correct.

Then please put this in the FAQ und make it clearly what is meant.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

hi,

since i started this one in the german forum and black legion transferred it to taccom i comment here as well.

i think it's much more easy just to refer to small arms and assault weapons category.

for game mechanisms (and per rules).
assault weapons generate the units cc value. small arms generate the units ff value exclusively.



this means:

a skimmer may force an enemy in b2b to use its ff value. if this is the case and the ff value is used it relates exclusively to small arms (and the corresponding ff value). no assault weapons may be used since they would relate to the cc value.
the powerfist is an assault weapon.

summary from the german forum and my two cents.

thanks