News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: "For Every 10" rule interpretation  (Read 2980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ollieb

  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4414
  • Country: 00
  • I'm only here for the beer!
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2008, 08:09:53 PM »
That doesn't pass the common sense test though.  By that interpretation I can field 29 Grots before I need the third Runtherder.  Ask yourself if that really makes sense. 
Looking for a compliment here is like looking for a girlfriend in a cemetary.  You know you will probably not like what you dig up, but you'll take it anyway.
 

Offline Deathklok

  • Bad Trader, scam artist, not to be trusted. BANNED
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Finally, I got BANNED
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2008, 01:39:10 AM »
Ask yourself what side of the discussion I sound like I'm coming from... ;D

 I agree that anything above each "10" requires a Slaver. I misread Mr. John's post. :-\

And so, after much wait, BANNED

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2008, 02:43:58 AM »
I'm taking it from RAW here, though; where common sense is concerned I agree with you, Ollieb, but how often do 40k and common sense mix?

It is mostly because of the wording "For every ten" appearing in both the weapon upgrades for Boyz and the slaver upgrade for grotz, and the fact that nobody is arguing that 11 Boyz entitles you to a second Big Shoota.

Why should 11 grotz be more difficult to manage than 10 grotz, or 20 grotz more difficult than 19? Nowhere are we presented with information as to how difficult it is for a slaver to field x number of grotz; that's purely speculation. It could be that in the real world, 19 grotz ARE just as easy to handle as 10, and there's no real way to argue for or against that position from the rules.

Nowhere else does the wording "for every ten" imply "for every ten or part thereof," in all of the examples I can think of [chaos units and ork units are unfortunately all that come to mind], "for every ten" means a 1:10 ratio at minimum.

If I can get 2 Big Shootas only once I have 20 boyz, I can [and must] get two slavers only once I have 20 grotz. It totally is the word "must" that's getting people hung up; if it was strictly optional nobody ever would have mentioned it. Consider the following substitution examples:
For every 10 Boyz you may take 1 Big Shoota to
For every 10 Grotz you may take 1 Slaver to
For every 10 Grotz you must take 1 Slaver.

Again, not from common sense, but from RAW. All three of those examples share the same convention; only the first and third actually exist.

Offline Ollieb

  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4414
  • Country: 00
  • I'm only here for the beer!
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2008, 08:32:13 AM »
Jervis said it best once in a post on the old GW discussion boards.  "Sometimes a little common sense must be used where there are grey areas in the rules".  Not saying those that think 1 Runtherder is OK for 19 Grots don't have any mind you.  I guess I'm one of those players that errs on the side of my opponent in situations like this.  When reading the Grot description in the DEX it states that the larger the Grot Mob is the more numerous the Runtherds must be to control them. 
Looking for a compliment here is like looking for a girlfriend in a cemetary.  You know you will probably not like what you dig up, but you'll take it anyway.
 

Offline Deathklok

  • Bad Trader, scam artist, not to be trusted. BANNED
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Finally, I got BANNED
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2008, 10:23:15 AM »
So,  I ask again, why would the first Slaver be able to control 19 and the others only 10?
And so, after much wait, BANNED

Offline The Voivod

  • Masamune Shirork
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 714
  • Country: 00
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #25 on: March 17, 2008, 10:34:22 AM »
Dammit, as much as I like this theory, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with it.
I think it's very unlikely anyone will take grotmobs because of the slavers, that's to much points to get 3 orks.
29 grots + 3 slavers sounds perfect to me, but I'm afraid I's notr really intended that way.

Still, I do understand the reasoning and wouldn't object to an opponent doing this, since it's just another piece of unclear ruling that will never get resolved in a faq.
Torture first, then you talk. It's better that way.

Offline Fire Chicken

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 994
  • This is my well thought out and informative text
    • Help me win the war
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #26 on: March 17, 2008, 11:40:34 AM »
Consider the following substitution examples:
For every 10 Boyz you may take 1 Big Shoota to
For every 10 Grotz you may take 1 Slaver to
For every 10 Grotz you must take 1 Slaver.

Again, not from common sense, but from RAW. All three of those examples share the same convention; only the first and third actually exist.
Thanks GS  you proved my point.  I don't really know what you were trying to say, but what you said was this:  "People are saying these 2 rules are the same", but they are not.
#1 has MAY.  If you have 10 or more you may (get a thingy)  if you have 20 or more you may (get one more).... etc.
#2 does not exist.
#3 If you have 1-10 {1 group of 10} you MUST have (1 thingy)  of you have 11-20 {2 groups of 10} you MUST have (2 thingies) and if you have 21-30 {3 groups of 10} you MUST have (3 thingies).

May is not the same as must.
QED
If you can read this thank a teacher.
This is a very witty and amusing signature
http://www.40konline.com/community/index.php?topic=185621.msg2275250#msg2275250

Offline Locarno

  • Ork Boy
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6488
  • Country: 00
  • Could I interest you in a small bribe?
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #27 on: March 17, 2008, 12:18:55 PM »
May is not the same as must.

But, in 40k terms, 'may take' means 'take from zero to the number specified', whilst 'must take' means 'take the number specified'.

Neither really helps where 'the number specified' is debatable, and that part of the rule is written in the same format.

As currently written, it's a threshold; 'for every 10' is equally not the same as 'for every 10 or part thereof'. Whether it should be is a different debate and one I'm not going to try to argue. Something which is legal but logically inconsistant is far from unique in 40k.





Stories to read....
Songs of Earth
The Will to Survive Series

Tervigon Army List:
Games Played: 35
Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2685

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #28 on: March 17, 2008, 01:50:33 PM »
That's why I field grots only in squads of 10, 20 or 30, with no squads of, say, 25. It's just that frustrating, and those key numbers are the only ones I could work with that are indisputably correct and therefore not likely to cause turmoil with the more annoying people one encounters.

@ Fire Chicken: That was a logical example, and so number 2 needn't actually exist in the rules for it to be applicable. The way you and Ollieb want to interpret things is the way that I want to interpret them, but I just don't think it's clear enough for me to deny an opponent with 29 grots and only 2 slavers; similarly, I couldn't consciounably force a second slaver on a player who's fielding 11 grots. I'm not approaching the problem from the angle of "Which method can I use" but rather "What method should I avoid, to keep the game running smooth." It becomes hard to go either route, really.

While I understand the concept of thresholds and minimums, I don't know that the terminology is supported in the rulebook; though it definitely wouldn't be the first case of overloaded terms in GW work [troops and Troops being the best example].

Ah well, what can you do? My grots only come in a ten-pack.

Offline EngeKomkommer

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #29 on: March 17, 2008, 03:25:45 PM »
Consider the following substitution examples:
For every 10 Boyz you may take 1 Big Shoota to
For every 10 Grotz you may take 1 Slaver to
For every 10 Grotz you must take 1 Slaver.

Again, not from common sense, but from RAW. All three of those examples share the same convention; only the first and third actually exist.
Thanks GS  you proved my point.  I don't really know what you were trying to say, but what you said was this:  "People are saying these 2 rules are the same", but they are not.
#1 has MAY.  If you have 10 or more you may (get a thingy)  if you have 20 or more you may (get one more).... etc.
#2 does not exist.
#3 If you have 1-10 {1 group of 10} you MUST have (1 thingy)  of you have 11-20 {2 groups of 10} you MUST have (2 thingies) and if you have 21-30 {3 groups of 10} you MUST have (3 thingies).

May is not the same as must.
QED

The may or must is a non issue. You could interchange the words in the rules and it still wouldn't clear things up.

Change it to may for the slavers, and would that mean you would HAVE to take 2 to be able to have a 2nd slaver?

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #30 on: March 17, 2008, 06:21:19 PM »
It just illustrates that nobody would argue that you could take the slaver without 20 grots first. Meaning no second slaver until 20 grotz are present, at which point you "may" include another one. The rule isn't written that way, but if it were it would clearly follow the paradigm we all accept for big shoota upgrades to a squad of shoota boyz.

Then you swap the word may for must. This alters the upgrade from an option to a requirement, but logically has no effect on the conditions that permit the upgrade - in essence, by RAW you would still have to buy 20 grots before you can buy a 2nd Slaver. It's just that, at the second you have 20 Grotz, you HAVE to buy a 2nd slaver.

I agree it's pretty stupid, but that's how the RAW goes if you analyze the sentence logically. If you apply some common sense analysis though, it appears that the slavers are assigned to groups of grotz numbering between 1 and 10 grotz. It should actually be worded something to the effect of "There must be one slaver to every ten grotz," which indicates a ratio that has an upper limit [1:11 is breaking the upper limit].

Guess that's all I'm getting at.

Offline SpetZoo

  • The Undertaker!!
  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 150
  • Knipps Knipps!
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2008, 07:09:23 AM »
The "logic" in why 1 herder can handle 19 grots, 2 herders can handle 14,5 grots each and 3 herders can handle 10 each is that grots are like orks... they get stronger in larger numbers.
I know Rasmus!
No really! I do. He beats my armies all the time!

Offline Fire Chicken

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 994
  • This is my well thought out and informative text
    • Help me win the war
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2008, 07:27:17 AM »
Ah ha.  I seen what you been saying.  Well...  Shucks.

I guess (as a non-ork player with an ork adversary) that I will have to let him play it either way.  I don't see how we can be sure about one and not the other.

Darn lack of FAQ, editing or play testing!
I'm going back to my cave to grumble.  You kids stay off my lawn!
If you can read this thank a teacher.
This is a very witty and amusing signature
http://www.40konline.com/community/index.php?topic=185621.msg2275250#msg2275250

Offline OD from TV

  • Ork Warlord | Title of Doom status: pending | KoN Veteran
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1903
  • Country: us
    • OD's Project Blog
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2008, 04:36:47 PM »
Every 10 its 1.
When you have 20 its 2.
When you have 30 its 3.

Sure you can throw in words and logic arguments as much as you want, but thats not going to change the fact that I can't think of a reason why anyone would take a unit of 15 Grots the only exception being players who only have 15 Grot/Goblin minis.

All that being said I think the Grots were not playtested adequately otherwise this issue would not have errupted.  Nonetheless who other then a player who is playing an incredibly fluffy army is going to field Grots now with the lack of the old Living Shield rule?

Peace
~OD
Truly beautiful work. That's the kind of stuff that makes a true mekanik cry tears of joy.
OD, you once again prove that your are still the freakin Da Vinci of plasticard

Offline Badb Catha

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 509
  • My way isn't very sportsmanlike...
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2008, 11:31:41 PM »
Someone who wants to get used to using them before 5th ed comes out.

Offline OD from TV

  • Ork Warlord | Title of Doom status: pending | KoN Veteran
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1903
  • Country: us
    • OD's Project Blog
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2008, 12:17:33 AM »
5th Edition has NOT even been officially acknowledged by GW.  There is no smoking gun that states when 5th is being released, but there certainly are a HUGE amount of rumors flying around, which to be honest is REALLY getting annoying.

Take for example how some of the first concept drawings of the new orks were leaked.  Does anyone remember that?  That was leaked way way back in 2006.  When was the new Ork dex released?  TWO MONTHS AGO.

Just because you heard that its coming out sooner doesn't actually mean that it is, and I guaranty that at least one if not all of the supposed leaked rule changes are not factual.

In addition I ask AGAIN why would anyone want to take a unit of say 15 Grots if you have the ability (and by ability I mean the models AND the spare points) to bring a unit of 20.  Its a real small amount of points and more then that a unit at 20 to start off with is FAR superior to one of 15, if for no other reason then morale.

And yes there are a lot more reasons, but thats the big one.  By taking such small numbers you will be taking Ld tests much sooner then you would have to for 20, and with as small as the points cost is you'd be crazy not to.

And with that I think I'll log off and make my labtop fly across the room as I throw it agains the wall because once again I am hearing about 5th.

Peace and may my sanity return after some sleep
~OD
Truly beautiful work. That's the kind of stuff that makes a true mekanik cry tears of joy.
OD, you once again prove that your are still the freakin Da Vinci of plasticard

Offline Badb Catha

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 509
  • My way isn't very sportsmanlike...
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2008, 01:20:43 AM »
Wow, don't be too serious.  You asked who'd want to take grotz other than a fluffy player.  I answered you.  It doesn't mean that I believe all the rumors, but someone who did would certainly consider trying them out. 

I don't think you should be too upset about the 5th ed rumors.  It's always fun to speculate on the future of the game.  That said, I find an awful lot of the rumors I hear do end up having some truth to them.  Certainly  not all of them, or even most of them, but far more than I would have originally suspected.  Besides, if you know that 5th ed isn't coming out yet, you can just ignore all the silly internet people who are overly excited.

Maybe I just take too much with a grain of salt.  But with the internet, that's usually the safest way to go.

Offline OD from TV

  • Ork Warlord | Title of Doom status: pending | KoN Veteran
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1903
  • Country: us
    • OD's Project Blog
Re: "For Every 10" rule interpretation
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2008, 03:35:18 AM »
wow after re-reading my post I sound like a [expletive deleted].

Not my intent to sound that way.  I had a point, but I kinda went off the deep end in expressing said point.

And with that away I go back to the land of dreams

Peace and pleasant dreams
~OD
Truly beautiful work. That's the kind of stuff that makes a true mekanik cry tears of joy.
OD, you once again prove that your are still the freakin Da Vinci of plasticard

 


Powered by EzPortal