Author Topic: Spot and Stealth  (Read 6972 times)

Offline Bagomba

  • Journeyman
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Karma: +5/-1
Re: Spot and Stealth
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2011, 12:31:51 PM »

Further, this issue has actually been discussed by the FAQ Team along with the Big Kahuna, himself, and we are all in agreement on this.  No one is rewriting rules in this instance.

why canīt the discussion be in the forum ? and yes itīs a rewriting of section 6.2.7, indeed.
They are in front of me, beside and behind me....
They canīt escape
ATTTAAACK !!!!!

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Spot and Stealth
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2011, 03:46:47 AM »
Apparently, I am not explaining this well enough.

As I understand it, the rules are clear.  There are other references which contradict other rules within the entirety of the UWZ rules.  It is my strongest opinion that this case is an example of contradiction.

Perhaps it is, indeed, an interpretation issue.

Suffice to say that the ruling is in the interest of game balance, game play, game speed and minimizing bookkeeping.  If a Concealed model is revealed, all models on the board may see it.  If it may return to a Concealed status, then all models lose sight of it.

A ruling was requested.  A ruling has been given.  Unless and until an update is posted and/or entered into the FAQ, this is the official ruling.  The official ruling only applies if you wish it to apply; no one (least of all, me) is able to force you to use the rule.

If this still remains unclear, I am unsure how to be clearer.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline micmellon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Spot and Stealth
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2011, 03:47:19 AM »

I am unsure how one would differentiate between which units could see a formerly concealed unit, and which would still need to Spot it.


This is easy. Just place next to each stealth unit a marker. Each unit who can see the stealth unit gets an identical marker. When they are finally revealed then take the markers away.
It's just a flesh wound - Black Night

Offline dane

  • Board Member
  • The Board
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 170
  • Karma: +7/-0
Re: Spot and Stealth
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2011, 06:08:46 AM »
"A ruling was requested.  A ruling has been given."

I have to say I am going to rib you for the royal tone on that one this weekend my brother. I agree with the ruling, but you said that in a funny way.

Just so you guys know dmgee1 is one of the best dudes to play this game with, I recommend it highly. He is a competitive PITA, but never loses sight of the fun and when I win against him, it was a worthy fight. I am not shooting for the "can we just get along" post, everybody stated themselves well.

Play the game the way you have fun guys, if the house rule has been working for you, then by all means enjoy. We will debate the issue if we meet at a convention someday, I look forward to it.

That is why I bring template weapons guys, solves the argument at the first model spotted.

Dark Symmetry rules
We are all who we say we are. So long as our actions are the same as our words.

Mishima prophet

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Spot and Stealth
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2011, 05:38:42 PM »
Forgive the tone of authority.  What I was trying to convey was that I cannot tell someone to use whatever rules they see fit; it would go against not only my inner nature with regard to house rules and it would cause confusion for tournaments and/or other "official" events.

Neither am I stating that my word is law.  I qualified that with the "unless and until" clause.

For fear of being misunderstood through translation, I stated as clearly and as succinctly as I am able, "This is the rule.  The rule is official.  It is how it would be interpreted in a tournament or other official event in which I was the referee."

If I have offended anyone or if I am being too heavy-handed, I apologize.  Please, understand; I make every attempt to make my interpretations of the rules from the letter of the entire body of the rules.  When I am unsure, I do, indeed, seek guidance from others on the FAQ Team and from Thom.  In their absence and/or unavailability, I present my interpretations in an attempt to avoid delays in answering what are, obviously, very important questions to the players.

When I stated...
A ruling was requested.  A ruling has been given.
...it was my way of saying that I did not know how to be clearer regarding this issue and that I could not offer further insight if the questioner was going to simply to continue to argue their point in the face of an explanaton.

I appreciate the patience and support shown by all, thus far.  Thank you.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 05:40:40 PM by dmcgee1 »
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline micmellon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Spot and Stealth
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2011, 06:25:09 AM »
As a first thing I and I think everybody of my gaming group really appreciate the work and effort of every member of the forum and of the FAQ-Team to solve issues and to keep some progress in the game. And hey this is not my first and for sure not my last discussion with DMCGEE1 and I am used to his humor and his sometimes a little bit grumpy way to answer after I harassed him a little bit. I think he is used to my style of writing, too. At least I hope so.

Generally we are happy to agree to the final answers we get in the forum but in some cases it just don’t fit to our way how to interpret the rules. I even think this is really the first time I can’t agree at all. I mean I understand somehow your way how to tackle the problem but the answer is to extremely far off the rules of the book and not necessary from our experience. That is just my opinion.

We have a certain philosophy how to handle rule questions. The foundations are the rule book and the first FAQ document from 2007. Everything else has to fit to these two documents. All answers, new rules, and house rules has to fit without causing conflicts to the existing rules.

If you take a look into our house rules you see at the end some rules we are still testing. These rules a quite new and it took us some time. We all had ideas where some small changes would gain us a better game flow or more fun but at the end more than half of the ideas were discarded and the ones left will be tested some time before we finally decide which we will keep and which one we won’t use in future.

Our house rules are not written in stone anyway. Maybe in one or one and a half year some house rules are changed one more time or even discarded because we found out that these rules are not okay like they be.
It's just a flesh wound - Black Night