Page 4 of 4

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:18 pm
by subversive
Thrax: yes, it's a CC attack; you're absolutely right, and I've said as much. I can't (and don't) argue against it.

The conversation has shifted to the difference between engaging in a discussion and shutting down discussion by saying "that's the rule, period," and what the difference in approach means to sportsmanship. The point I'm making at this stage is that there's a diplomatic way to address this stuff that can help everyone enjoy the game more. I think people in the RAW camp tend to get frustrated with the fluffers and vice-versa (I tend to fall on the RAW side more often than not and certainly feel that way sometimes when I try to get people to understand that RAW works best 9 times out of 10), and that there's got to be some kind of happy middle ground, at least in terms of addressing discussions. If nothing else, think of it as working on talking points for addressing the rules disputes that inevitably come up. Maybe I'm being naive: this conversation has been raging for a lot longer than I've been playing 40K, so what do I have to add that hasn't already been said?

On a more general note, it's my own personal bitch fest that GW products have a habit of obscuring precision with the fluff they write, which leads to people having a fuzzy feeling that a rule should be interpreted one way when the actual rule says something completely different

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:28 pm
by subversive
@ed: you're taking the view that fluff is fluff and rules are rules, which I agree with in principle, and I've been convinced in this case that it's the "winning" argument if push comes to shove. But we both know that there are a lot of people out there that disagree with that point of view, and will continue to do so. Hell, you do it yourself in flouting soft score rules at tournaments. And don't say it's different. Whatever justification you've worked up in your head still amounts to exactly the same thing: you don't like how the rules work, so you don't follow them, or even make a half hearted attempt to

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:29 pm
by -dumbuket
Here's the exact quote, GW be damned:

""Creatures with bio-plasma may make a single extra close combat attack, worked out at double the models initiative (ie, Initiative 8 for a Gargoyle, etc). The bioplasma hits on a roll of 4+ on a D6 regardless of the target type or WS. It inflicts a hit with a Strength equal to the creature +1 (to a maximum of S10) - this hit is unaffected by the benefits of the monstrous creature special rule. Any casualties caused by bioplasma do count toward combat resolution."

I wish tyranids played according to the fluff. Then if a lictor deployed outside of synapse it wouldn't stand around looking stupid after it fails its instinctive behavior test. Sadly, just because the fluff calls them advanced scouts that rove "ahead of tyranid ground swarms" doesn't mean they don't need to be synapse-babysat. I'd happily trade this bioplasmic nonsense for reworked, "fluffy" synapse.

Edit: Changed my mind...I'll let you all know ahead of time that in the october tourney, my bioplasma will rend. So practice drawing those zeros ahead of time. It's not like tyranid warriors are game winners anyway.

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:44 pm
by savaughn
The fact that this stuff comes up time and again indicates that there are (at least) two distinct types of players: the people who see a distinction between fluff and rules and ignore the fluff, and the people who try to incorporate the fluff as written into their game play and are a little looser with the rules.

Dude, in this case, this has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fluff description explicitly says that it is only describing one of the possible ways rending claws work.

And you want to bludgeon your opponents and say it MUST be this way. You want to push this SO HARD that you actually feel that playing by the very clear and explicit rules is somehow a sportsmanship issue. Stay with me on this - the fluff descriptions work absolutely fine with the rules! But the rules are different than what they were in the previous version and violate what YOU want the fluff to be.

And because it's different than what YOU want the fluff and rules to be, you think everyone else is being a bad sportsman by playing the rules.

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:56 pm
by subversive
elaborating further on the fluff vs. rules conflict (I'm on a roll here... I should be doing something else, which, of course, is why I'm thinking about gamecraft):

The view that fluff is fluff and rules are rules is an assumption. There's nowhere in the book that says "this is the way you read the rules: ignore the fluffy bit, follow the rule." Being veteran GW product players, we're familiar with their writing style and have learned over the years that that's the effective way to read and interpret the writing, but if you're coming to the game new, or if you're someone who's played for a long time without bothering to follow internet discussions, or if you're simply obstinant and refuse to accept that premise, technically everything between the covers is a "rule," unless it's clearly defined in the callout boxes where they put the fiction, or on the pretty color pages. It's easy to see from that perspective why some people look at us funny when we point at our self-defined fluffy bit and say "but that's not the rule." Where did that come from? We made it up. It's not supported by the written rules anywhere that I've seen

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:59 pm
by subversive
Dude, who's bludgeoning? I agreed numerous posts ago that it was the right way to interpret the rule. All I'm doing is bitching about fluff interfering with rules now