No they don't. In diagram one the wall is necessarily low enough that it could be vaulted by an S2 mini (<37.5mm: the exact height will depend on the thickness of the wall). Conceptually, though, climbing up and down a 2" high wall works with anything with a 6" Move and up to a 40mm base. Which means that they really need a FAQ. But it's entirely playable on most tables with the way IJW has described.
I know that it's a deep flaw in the structure of a rule when the text of said rule doesn't match either of the example diagrams for it. There's no doubt that there is a core issue with the way the rule text and supporting elements have been created.
No ones saying the rulebook isn’t broken but I don’t think you mean this unless youre happy for MY playgroup to decide “the best gameplay” for everyone else? ;-)
No, I'm not happy with a single meta of relatively non-significant people dictating the best gameplay, but I'm happy for the forums to reach broad consensus on what they think is the best gameplay, or even for positions of authority such as IJW and/or Psychoticstorm to dictate something as "best gameplay". I'm happy with that when we are open about what's happening, can have a discussion on the gameplay implications without having to worry about which is more RAW, and reach a conclusion. It's when we get caught up in "what is more RAW" for a broken rule with multiple clearly supported interpretations that I think we might be wasting time, and if the arguments continue to come from that place you end up with circular discussions like this thread.
Wise words indeed. But this isn't really the case in the other thread. We're in despute over LOF being Open Information and how it's glaringly obvious if you place a Hafza disguised as a Sekban. Give it a rest mate and vent off your frustrations somewhere nice, I hope the weather is as good in your country as it currently is here in Denmark.
Yeah, I think the numerous and amusingly ironic flaws of this idea are probably lost on its proponent! The idea that any person or group's voice is most valuable because they themselves have determined what's the best gameplay reduces to "We say what's best, and because it's best, what we say is right" and which circularity lacks any degree of common sense. The proposition could still be attractive as long as the 'valued' voice is echoing our own, so there's plenty of self-interest to recommend the view, just not a great deal of integrity obviously... And as you're saying, any group's opinion on 'best gameplay' is unlikely to be welcome elsewhere, and since if there were such a group it'd likely be one in Barcelona, Madrid or maybe Warsaw, the proposition doesn't seem terribly well thought-out.
Your devotion to your friends on the Spleen account is admirable no doubt, but maybe it's time you put me on your Ignore list?
And here this line this particular debate stops, thank you very much. I know were it will lead and I am not interested in seen its conclusion. As for the question there is no "best way" to play the game it is the way the designer intended and everything else. Sure some groups may feel their way is better and maybe it is, if it proves to be, maybe, it may be addressed with a FAQ or an errata, until then their way of playing the game is in the "everything else" category.
Thanks Storm, I appreciate you stepping in in light of the personal attacks being made by some users.
Sorry if you feel attacked spleen I was just making fun of how you said your idea. You made it sound like one group can decide they have the best gameplay and so they should tell everyone else that’s the way it’s played! Just saying obviously that doesn’t make sense but not attacking you personally. So yeah maybe groups do work out what’s better but their way isn’t the correct way unless cb say so. It’s just what PS said sad but true :(l
