IIRC, the rules they changed were that motorcycle messengers could instantly teleport across the map without being intercepted, and that the fleet of missile motorboats he was using to attack the US navy couldn’t actually mount the weapons they were previously allowed to, because the missiles alone were heavier than their actual maximum weight even without an attached launching system.
Supposedly, a computer error also teleported the US fleet directly into motorboat range.
It doesn’t really seem like losing a game against Iran rather than the game being extremely flawed.
Which is its own kind of pathetic. Imagine running a simulation and you’ve not covered basic things like “causality” and “maximum parameter value means you can’t go above that number”.
I’ve noted 40k has a rules commentary that has statements like that, and I know some gamer somewhere has had that conversation.
I know I’ve seen “it doesn’t say anywhere that a model removed from play can’t act” in the wild, which I feel like is pushing the limits of semantic readability of game rules.
I read a story on 40konline back in the day where someone placed a character on top of another model and then moved the other (much faster) model around. It’s pretty wild what shit people will pull.
If I’m doing tabletop rules writing, I try to be clear without getting trapped in the weeds of arguing with that sort of player. :/
IIRC, the rules they changed were that motorcycle messengers could instantly teleport across the map without being intercepted, and that the fleet of missile motorboats he was using to attack the US navy couldn’t actually mount the weapons they were previously allowed to, because the missiles alone were heavier than their actual maximum weight even without an attached launching system.
Supposedly, a computer error also teleported the US fleet directly into motorboat range.
It doesn’t really seem like losing a game against Iran rather than the game being extremely flawed.
Which is its own kind of pathetic. Imagine running a simulation and you’ve not covered basic things like “causality” and “maximum parameter value means you can’t go above that number”.
I’ve noted 40k has a rules commentary that has statements like that, and I know some gamer somewhere has had that conversation.
I know I’ve seen “it doesn’t say anywhere that a model removed from play can’t act” in the wild, which I feel like is pushing the limits of semantic readability of game rules.
Amazing
“There’s no rule that says a
dogmotorcycle messenger can’tplay basketballteleport!”I read a story on 40konline back in the day where someone placed a character on top of another model and then moved the other (much faster) model around. It’s pretty wild what shit people will pull.
If I’m doing tabletop rules writing, I try to be clear without getting trapped in the weeds of arguing with that sort of player. :/
At least one edition of D&D has had a “the dead condition doesn’t technically say you can’t act” prior to an errata.
Hey, it’s out-of-the-box thinking like that that had me dual-wielding Thunderhammers in my Space Wolves back in the day.
America’s finest strategies being honed on the glitchiest pre-Alpha early access game imaginable.