I have taken on board the criticism about confusing newcomers.

FWIW, here is a list of house rules I will be using. To start with I have restricted myself to addressing issues, which in my opinion, relate to questions of RAI v RAW.

• Aim: Aim tokens can only be spent if the attack pool includes dice contributed by the ranged weapon on the unit card.

• Dodge: Dodge tokens can only be spent when defending against ranged attacks.

• Suppression: Suppression tokens are not gained after melee attacks.

You do you, that's what houserules are about, but I find it very odd that you imagine that no one in a melee can possibly aim their strike or dodge an incoming hit. I don't see the reasoning from a simulation standpoint, and I don't see the need from a game balance standpoint either.

Your houserule on suppression is probably RAI based on what I've heard out of Adepticon, I'm guessing once the RRG gets its next update that will become the actual rules.

28 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

I have taken on board the criticism about confusing newcomers.

FWIW, here is a list of house rules I will be using. To start with I have restricted myself to addressing issues, which in my opinion, relate to questions of RAI v RAW.

• Aim: Aim tokens can only be spent if the attack pool includes dice contributed by the ranged weapon on the unit card.

• Dodge: Dodge tokens can only be spent when defending against ranged attacks.

• Suppression: Suppression tokens are not gained after melee attacks.

Please note, I am not seeking to change the rules.

I tend to agree with the suppression bit.

Now, how can you not aim a Melee attack? And having martial arts experience, I'll tell you that dodging a Melee attack is absolutely a thing, and actually highly encouraged in hand to hand combat.

Now, if you were talking about scopes not giving you a bonus in Melee, that I can understand.....

20 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

I tend to agree with the suppression bit.

Now, how can you not aim a Melee attack? And having martial arts experience, I'll tell you that dodging a Melee attack is absolutely a thing, and actually highly encouraged in hand to hand combat.

Now, if you were talking about scopes not giving you a bonus in Melee, that I can understand.....

That's how I think the aim rule was intended. My opinion is based on how the aim, precise x and targeting scopes rules interact with each other, not with whether you can or cannot actually aim in melee.

In fact I'm seeking to avoid including any value judgements - that's why I have omitted anything concerning troopers and the exhaust rules. I'm trying to be impartial and simply address the RAI.

29 minutes ago, shivore said:

You do you, that's what houserules are about, but I find it very odd that you imagine that no one in a melee can possibly aim their strike or dodge an incoming hit. I don't see the reasoning from a simulation standpoint, and I don't see the need from a game balance standpoint either.

I'm not approaching it from the simulation standpoint, or indeed the game balance standpoint. If I do that I am introducing my own bias which would hinder me getting at the RAI. In fact, I am looking at it from the rules structure standpoint, in order to discern the designer's intention.

9 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

That's how I think the aim rule was intended. My opinion is based on how the aim, precise x and targeting scopes rules interact with each other, not with whether you can or cannot actually aim in melee.

In fact I'm seeking to avoid including any value judgements - that's why I have omitted anything concerning troopers and the exhaust rules. I'm trying to be impartial and simply address the RAI.

...

FFG doesn't tend to have a RAI vs. RAW issue in the same way that a company like Games Workshop does. FFG tends to be very good at writing exactly what they meant to write. When they screw up, they tend to be very good at issuing erratas and FAQs or otherwise commenting on the issue.

1. While we typically use the term aim for ranged attacks, it's perfectly acceptable with melee attacks. "I got into a fight with Fred. I know he had a padded shirt on, so I aimed for his head."

2. Dodging a melee attack is also definitely a thing. "When that jerk tried to punch me in the head, I dodged to the left."

3. Suppression in melee is also definitely a thing. "Fred dodged my punch, but lost his footing a bit along the way. He had to spend some time regaining his footing..." and so took a single action instead of two actions. Attack someone enough and they might well panic and run away.

I don't see any reason to think that FFG didn't intend exactly what they wrote.

1 hour ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

• Aim: Aim tokens can only be spent if the attack pool includes dice contributed by the ranged weapon on the unit card.

As in, you can't spend an aim token on an attack of, say, nothing but grenades? But an attack of grenades plus one guy shooting, you can?

Why not just "aim tokens can only be spent on ranged attacks"?

50 minutes ago, shivore said:

You do you, that's what houserules are about, but I find it very odd that you imagine that no one in a melee can possibly aim their strike or dodge an incoming hit. I don't see the reasoning from a simulation standpoint, and I don't see the need from a game balance standpoint either.

Your houserule on suppression is probably RAI based on what I've heard out of Adepticon, I'm guessing once the RRG gets its next update that will become the actual rules.

Big +1 here. No offense but I would not play the game with these house rules. The Rulebook is clear that you can use dodge/aims on melee.

25 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

That's how I think the aim rule was intended. My opinion is based on how the aim, precise x and targeting scopes rules interact with each other, not with whether you can or cannot actually aim in melee.

In fact I'm seeking to avoid including any value judgements - that's why I have omitted anything concerning troopers and the exhaust rules. I'm trying to be impartial and simply address the RAI.

On one hand you say that you're trying to play as RAI but on the other you've arbitrarily decided in your personal view that these are how the rules are? I don't understand. Can you point me to a spot in the rule book that indicates to you that you cannot use aim/dodge in melee?

25 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

That's how I think the aim rule was intended. My opinion is based on how the aim, precise x and targeting scopes rules interact with each other, not with whether you can or cannot actually aim in melee.

In fact I'm seeking to avoid including any value judgements - that's why I have omitted anything concerning troopers and the exhaust rules. I'm trying to be impartial and simply address the RAI.

I get your point, but my my issue is that you're assuming you know the RAI of the designers, and I'm sorry but that's impossible, unless you have a secret bat-line to them?? ?

But seriously. It has been my experience so far that in an FFG game, the simplest interpretation is correct. At this point I'm totally convinced that the designers intent is, indeed, for aim and dodge to work in Melee. I'll grant you that when it comes to suppression and in particular, scopes, this is not as clear. An updated RRG would be nice......

You should house rule true LOS which actually accounts for cover. If the AT-ST can see over the barricade and the troopers aren't touching it, they get no cover.

In regards to scopes, you're better off not allowing Precise to reroll melee attacks. Aim would still work because it is more abstract than a scope. From a balance perspective, not allowing rerolls on melee will hurt Vader and Luke more than you realize. Especially when lightsabers can but people in half on a mis-swing.

Also, destroyed vehicles should remain in play and continue to grant cover.

To quote the Games Workshop community, I think some people might need to use their imagination and "forge the narrative" a bit. Targeting Scopes grants Precise 1, allowing an aim action to be a little more useful. The rules clearly allow aim actions to be taken in melee. Who's to say that the Troopers in question didn't use their Scopes to check out the enemy before melee actually started to look for weak spots. Maybe they saw that one enemy was favoring his left leg, while another kept massaging his shoulder? This knowledge, gained from their Scopes, would allow them to swing more effectively in melee while aiming at a weak arm, leg or spot of loose armor. Being able to see your enemy ahead of time via the Scopes could absolutely give you a melee advantage.

In other words, the rules work how they work. If you can't imagine a fluffy real world reason for why that might be, try harder to come up with one.

15 minutes ago, Xiervak said:

On one hand you say that you're trying to play as RAI but on the other you've arbitrarily decided in your personal view that these are how the rules are? I don't understand. Can you point me to a spot in the rule book that indicates to you that you cannot use aim/dodge in melee?

He doesn't have to point to any spot in the rule book ... the title of the thread is literally "Personal House Rules."

2 minutes ago, Rettere said:

He doesn't have to point to any spot in the rule book ... the title of the thread is literally "Personal House Rules."

That's misleading. He's also saying that he's not looking to change any rules... just interpret them differently based on an arbitrary assumption of what the authors were thinking. That's not a house rule. That's bickering over RAI vs. RAW when RAW is very clear. This happens a lot in other war games. Warhammer 40k is notorious for having ambiguously written rules, which trigger RAI vs. RAW conversations all the time. With 40k, you sometimes read the rules and think, "that can't possibly be right". The same thing doesn't tend to happen with FFG games.

15 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

To quote the Games Workshop community, I think some people might need to use their imagination and "forge the narrative" a bit. Targeting Scopes grants Precise 1, allowing an aim action to be a little more useful. The rules clearly allow aim actions to be taken in melee. Who's to say that the Troopers in question didn't use their Scopes to check out the enemy before melee actually started to look for weak spots. Maybe they saw that one enemy was favoring his left leg, while another kept massaging his shoulder? This knowledge, gained from their Scopes, would allow them to swing more effectively in melee while aiming at a weak arm, leg or spot of loose armor. Being able to see your enemy ahead of time via the Scopes could absolutely give you a melee advantage.

In other words, the rules work how they work. If you can't imagine a fluffy real world reason for why that might be, try harder to come up with one.

I think you're taking this too far. Don is looking to make house rules. The RAI vs RAW doesn't matter because he wants to play the game how he sees it was intended to be made.

I really don't get why this thread is so hostile to the notion of house rules. This isn't the rules forum.

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I think you're taking this too far. Don is looking to make house rules. The RAI vs RAW doesn't matter because he wants to play the game how he sees it was intended to be made.

I really don't get why this thread is so hostile to the notion of house rules. This isn't the rules forum.

Because I hate house rules?? ?? you do make a very valid point, however.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I think you're taking this too far. Don is looking to make house rules. The RAI vs RAW doesn't matter because he wants to play the game how he sees it was intended to be made.

I really don't get why this thread is so hostile to the notion of house rules. This isn't the rules forum.

If he just said "hey guys, what do you think of these house rules", I don't think there would be an issue. Instead, he said, and I quote...

• "FWIW, here is a list of house rules I will be using."
• "Please note, I am not seeking to change the rules."
• "In fact I'm seeking to avoid including any value judgements."
  • "... in my opinion..."
  • "That's how I think..."
  • "My opinion..."
• "I'm trying to be impartial and simply address the RAI."
• "I am looking at it from the rules structure standpoint, in order to discern the designer's intention."

He may not be seeking to change the text of the rules, but he is seeking to change how they're interpreted. He also says that he's avoiding value judgments and then riddles his posts with value judgments. He's not trying to be impartial. He's trying to apply his opinion to a rules as written interpretation. He's also providing no backup for his "rule structure standpoint" inspection, instead only giving opinion.

This is the issue I have. It's pretty much an indisputable fact that we can never, ever know the author's intent without getting a direct comment from the author in the form of an FAQ or designer's commentary type breakout. All we have are the rules as written, which need to be interpreted without preconceived notions (aiming only works for ranged attacks, dodging only works for ranged attacks, etc.).

It's usually best to avoid RAI vs. RAW debates. They tend to go nowhere unless the actual authors are involved, in which case, they end immediately with an absolute answer.

9 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

If he just said "hey guys, what do you think of these house rules", I don't think there would be an issue. Instead, he said, and I quote...

• "FWIW, here is a list of house rules I will be using."
• "Please note, I am not seeking to change the rules."
• "In fact I'm seeking to avoid including any value judgements."
  • "... in my opinion..."
  • "That's how I think..."
  • "My opinion..."
• "I'm trying to be impartial and simply address the RAI."
• "I am looking at it from the rules structure standpoint, in order to discern the designer's intention."

He may not be seeking to change the text of the rules, but he is seeking to change how they're interpreted. He also says that he's avoiding value judgments and then riddles his posts with value judgments. He's not trying to be impartial. He's trying to apply his opinion to a rules as written interpretation. He's also providing no backup for his "rule structure standpoint" inspection, instead only giving opinion.

This is the issue I have. It's pretty much an indisputable fact that we can never, ever know the author's intent without getting a direct comment from the author in the form of an FAQ or designer's commentary type breakout. All we have are the rules as written, which need to be interpreted without preconceived notions (aiming only works for ranged attacks, dodging only works for ranged attacks, etc.).

It's usually best to avoid RAI vs. RAW debates. They tend to go nowhere unless the actual authors are involved, in which case, they end immediately with an absolute answer.

And? He's looking to make house rules not argue the intent of the designers. It's clear you don't understand the intent of the thread, so quit nitpicking and play along or stop posting.

He's literally arguing what he thinks is the intent of the designers versus what is actually written. I'm not sure what thread you've been reading.

I'm happy to discuss my logic.

I'll start with Suppression. The first clue is from the L2P, which says, "Even hardened veterans will duck for cover when blaster fire rains down upon them." This is obviously not conclusive by itself, but it raised my suspicions as to the intent of the suppression rule. Then I read a post by @Undeadguy ...

On 25/03/2018 at 6:17 PM, Undeadguy said:

For what it's worth, the TO I was talking to yesterday has a direct line to Alex Davy and has been talking for a few months. She said Suppression is only gained on ranged attacks, not melee.

There were a lot of rules questions during Adepticon, so expect a large revision to the RRG in the coming weeks.

... which seemed to confirm my suspicions.

That's how I arrived at my opinion with regard to the RAI for suppression. Is that not reasonable?

1 minute ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

I'm happy to discuss my logic.

I'll start with Suppression. The first clue is from the L2P, which says, "Even hardened veterans will duck for cover when blaster fire rains down upon them." This is obviously not conclusive by itself, but it raised my suspicions as to the intent of the suppression rule. Then I read a post by @Undeadguy ...

... which seemed to confirm my suspicions.

That's how I arrived at my opinion with regard to the RAI for suppression. Is that not reasonable?

And as I said, I tend to agree with your logic here.

Whats your reasoning behind aim and dodge? Because my real life experience bears the use of both in Melee. I'm talking about the token specifically, not scopes.

4 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

I'm happy to discuss my logic.

I'll start with Suppression. The first clue is from the L2P, which says, "Even hardened veterans will duck for cover when blaster fire rains down upon them." This is obviously not conclusive by itself, but it raised my suspicions as to the intent of the suppression rule. Then I read a post by @Undeadguy ...

... which seemed to confirm my suspicions.

That's how I arrived at my opinion with regard to the RAI for suppression. Is that not reasonable?

As I said, the only way we can know RAI is if the author opines. You have unconfirmed, anecdotal evidence that the author may have opined. If that's enough for you, awesome. It's definitely interesting, and if true, I'd expect to see an errata sooner than later. I would need to see something official and in writing before implementing a rules change.

Do you have similar reasoning for your aim and dodge rules changes?

When you play a game, you accept abstractions. For example, unless you have a great arm and ludicrously good aim, there's no way you're hitting a speeder with a grenade, but I accept this as an abstraction to keep the game simple.

For this reason, I have no issue with aim, dodge or scopes benefitting melee attacks.

25 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

He's literally arguing what he thinks is the intent of the designers versus what is actually written. I'm not sure what thread you've been reading.

Why does it matter if he's going to be playing house rules anyway? That's the point of the thread, or are you assuming Don's intent here?

2 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

As I said, the only way we can know RAI is if the author opines. You have unconfirmed, anecdotal evidence that the author may have opined. If that's enough for you, awesome. It's definitely interesting, and if true, I'd expect to see an errata sooner than later. I would need to see something official and in writing before implementing a rules change.

Do you have similar reasoning for your aim and dodge rules changes?

I do, but it seems that no matter what I say you will only dismiss it out of hand, so what's the point.

I'm tired of all this hostility and verbal aggression. I'll just play my house rules and leave it at that.