Monday, July 2
thoughts on GW rules design in 6th
So, like the rest of the gaming world this weekend was full of 6th edition. I read through the book a few times and has about half a million "Did you see..." Calls and texts to help me miss parts I skimmed over. Overall I was impressed with the rules design behind 6th. For example.
In one game I was playing an opponent who had a bastion (not that broken might I add). He remembered reading something about being able to fire the weapons in the bastion on 'auto fire.' Well when we looked at the bastion the weapon entries were
- "Gun emplacement with (weapon)" and
- 4 emplaced heavy bolters.
I was like, 'oh crap one is a gun emplacement and one is an emplaced gun... I was pretty sure this was one of those points that GW wouldn't clarify and we would be left arguing about for 5 years. "Is an emplaced gun a gun emplacement?
Well, we then cracked open the rulebook and looked up "Gun Emplacement." (p. 105) I was surprised to see that it was actually in the rulebook under its own heading, not mixed in another paragraph about weapons or something. The definition was clear as to how it fired and who could fire it. We then looked up "emplaced weapon," and by god it was in the rules too (p. 96) not only that but it talked about automatic fire and how it works.
The issue was solved and we moved on to play our game. We didn't argue or need to dice off, the rules answered things clearly for us when previous editions of the game would have left us debating "Gun emplacement vs emplaced gun."
So, despite what you think about 6th edition and its new rules I can honestly say that the book is well written and hopefully it will stop a lot of semantic arguments in the future.
Want another example? Look up snap fire and over watch, then look up "wall of death," for flamers and tell me if flamers can fire snap shots or overwatch.
What has been your experince with rules debates in 6th edition? Has the rulebook made things clear for you?
Posted by Duke at 7:52 AM