Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I take that not answering the question about the Heldrake measuring from its base when shooting is a concession.

Its been asked 4-5 times throughout the thread and has been ignored since it proves the position of "faqs dont change rules" wrong.

Ah but Mywik, Fling doesnt seem to believe that "THE RULES" are actually "the rules" - so any perceived change due to a FAQ cant be a change, thats just what the rule meant to say all along. We just didnt know it, because we were foolish in believing that when they wrote "X" that that is what they meant to write, and not "Y"

In other words, GW was lying when they said the rulebook contains "THE RULES", they have deliberately set out to trick us!

Yes, the entirety of the words are the Rules. however some of those rules are broken. I acknowledge this, nothing you state is true or new

FAQs therefore can change the rules, as they change what is literally written. Out of Range is a literal change to the rules.

So who decides what is broken? You? So your position is RAW is the law therefore FAQs can't change the rulers. However as that proves me wrong I decide that those words are broken so FAQs can change the rules.

No, you are claiming the section called THE RULES is not, in fact, the rules. That is 100% your position. Making the name THE RULES a lie, in your eyes. I go for GW not deliberately misleading us by publishing a book of RULES called a RULEBOOK with a section called THE RULES yet these somehow are not "the rules"., thanks

Well that wasn't what I underlined I underlined the part where you stated I make up the rules which I don't. I don't say GW are lying when they give us the title of the rules. I just claim that GW us language in the way every human being does, i.e. to communicate ideas. Not what you seem to believe as create an overlord that must be obeyed. The Rules is the section where they communicate to us the rules. That is literally what a rulebook is for.

I have 2 friends who work in the studio, neither of them believe your stance on the rules to be true. I hold their opinion >>>>>>>>>>>> yours.

So your friends in the studio do not believe that the design team designed the rules? This is my stance. As I have stated over and over.

I never said that

In the passage immediately preceding that one you even reiterated it.

I never said that. Youre good at this.

So now you're admitting my stance isn't absurd?

You dont sensibly discuss rules, however. RAW ARE THE RULES.

No they are not the rules are what the GW design team designed them to be.

They are the rules as GW have communicated them to us. Your position is we should try to divine RAI - which is, functionally, impossible without being the studio. Making discussion of "RAI" functionally useless. There is no debate possible with RAI arguments, as they are just opinions.

Divining RAW is no more possible than diving RAI. Both are literal impossibilities as you well know. Can it be easier to come to a concensus on RAW? Perhaps though how many threads on this very site prove that that is far from a given. The fact that you feel it is impossible to debate RaI has me confused. Are you saying it is impossible to ever understand something beyond the purely literal? Because I certainly can and everyone I know can. Why is debating RaI useless?

Wrong, I successfully attacked, with rules support, that position. You disagreed. You havent proivided proof, in fact posited a hypocritical position - that the Shrine wording is infallible, yet other words arent. We have proven otherwise, over and over.

Your position is debunked. Concede gracefully.

Actually I don't see the shrine wording as infallible I see what an FAQ is for and thus know it does not change the rules it simply tells us what the RaI is for that given situation. You are the one making the claim that the words are infallible except where you decide for them not to be.

The issue is that the idea that RAW =The Rules debunks itself. Unless you can show RAW proof that FAQs have permission to change the rules they can't RAW. Therefore if they ever disagree with RAW (as lots of people on this thread have pointed out) that proves that RAW =/= The Rules as the FAQs have changed RAW but cannot change The Rules. So please provide RAW permission for FAQs to change the rules, if you do not I'll accept that as you conceding that RaW =/= The Rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:
I take that not answering the question about the Heldrake measuring from its base when shooting is a concession.

Its been asked 4-5 times throughout the thread and has been ignored since it proves the position of "faqs dont change rules" wrong.

I have indeed answered this. It does not prove FAQs don't change the rules it merely proves the obvious truth of RAW =/= The Rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Its been asked 4-5 times throughout the thread and has been ignored since it proves the position of "faqs dont change rules" wrong.

I have indeed answered this. It does not prove FAQs don't change the rules it merely proves the obvious truth of RAW =/= The Rules.

Wait ... a faq that changes rules (as written) because the rules (as written) didnt reflect their intention proves that Rules (as written)=/=the rules?

So i ask you. What rules do you use for the heldrake and why? Do you let him shoot from its base because it was intended that way or because the written rules tell you to do so?

Im done here ... this is just a ridiculous standpoint and not worth the time discussing it. You have been proven wrong in every other post in this thread and are indeed arguing for the sake of arguing.

Can you provide RAW permission for an FAQ to change the rules? By RAW FAQs can't change the rules. So if they disagree with RAW therefore, by RAW, RAW can not possible be the rules.

I play the Helldrake the way I believe it is intended to play I have deducted this from what is written. I've read what is written and determined what I believe is meant by what is written. You are free to disagree with my interpretation on the Helldrake just as I am free to disagree with yours. Before the FAQ came out I would have believed the Helldrake add a hull fitting if someone disagreed with me we could discuss it using the model and written text to put forth our case and then either come to a concensus, dice off or defer to high authority (like a TO). As turns out my interpretation was wrong the FAQ has shown this so I now play according to that clarification.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Can you provide RAW permission for an FAQ to change the rules? By RAW FAQs can't change the rules. So if they disagree with RAW therefore, by RAW, RAW can not possible be the rules.

Several examples were posted that are either rules change or if they are not rule changes wouldnt work at all. Therefore FaQs can change rules or are dysfunctional most of the time. You think faqs that change rules are dysfunctional? Then you have to play the heldrake how his rules are described in the BRB. This means it measures from its weapons mount and doesnt have a turret mounted weapon.

No matter how you turn it. You either have to ignore all rules changes within faqs or acknowledge they are able to change them.
Note that houserules on how to play have to be marked as such. You suggest playing the heldrake with the faq in mind would be a house rule.

Several examples were posted that are either rules change or if they are not rule changes wouldnt work at all. Therefore FaQs can change rules or are dysfunctional most of the time. You think faqs that change rules are dysfunctional?

No the FAQs do work as non-changes to the rules. Since you can't provide any evidence that FAQs can change the rules we are left with:

1) FAQs are dysfunctional
2) Your definition of The Rules is wrong.

Which is it?

Again - Flings position is that those were the ruels all along, we just guessed at them badly

Fling - I wont entertain your OT posts longer, as there is little point it seems.

I have pointed out that the Rules of this game dont always work; that doesnt mean "RAW" is wrong per se. RAI on the other hand is a minefield, as you well know - some things are totally obvious, but later on the rule is change to something else. Not a single person saw Out of Range being changed to something completely different, but it was. Heldrakes ignoring vehciel shooting rules? Not a one.

THAT is why "debating" RAI is fairly pointless - it has no basis for debate, it is opinion. Its like bringing fluff justiofications in - I cna justify, both ways from fluff, embarked models on a nightscythe taking and not taking damage from being blown up.

RAW IS the rules, as that is what I have been told by my friends on the studio - that they mean you to follow what theyve written, unless you dont want to.

Lastly - stop putting words in my mouth. Youve been asked, then told, repeatedly. Back on ignore, as nothing productive will come from further "discussing" your untenable position.

You are intentionally missing Flingit's point. What GW has always put fourth it what they believe conveys the rules that they have in their heads. Which is the rules then the rules as put forth with a multitude of issues and unexplained occurrences or what the designers have in their heads? I would assume that it is what is in their heads. That being the case the times they put out FAQs that seem to contradict what is in the BRB and Codexs are not rule changes but changes in their incredibly poorly written explinations of what they want the rules to be.

As players we constantly have to interpret what they write to form a cohesive rule set. Many times the information that has been given to us does not convey intent so we are left to try to figure this out. It is inherent that when we look at rules we would like them to favor us and this colors many peoples perceptions. If you try to argue that stance please define via rules why Drop Pods do not mishap when they would land on an enemy model as it does not mention avoiding mishaps just what it would land on. If you can see where that info is tracking from then you will see that is built into every person who reads something written by someone else. Other companies fix this issue by having non-creators play test their rules to get this stuff fixed, sadly it does not appear that GW does this.

It is impossible to play RAW, we all play RAWATI, Rules As We Assume They Intended. In the end we all have to take a step back and breathe if you have the stance that you have to be right and that means your look has to be the only one that can be correct then you are probably not playing the game correctly on some level. Accept that you are not going to see eye to eye with everyone and move on.

What Flingit's stance is really conveying is an outlook of if it looks like it changes a rule what it is really changing is that poorly written framework they sent us not generally what they had intended. The FAQs much like every other corporate produced thing in our world will most likely not be produced by the same group that wrote what it is referencing. IE Matt Ward probably does not write many if any faq answers based on the rules he has written.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Several examples were posted that are either rules change or if they are not rule changes wouldnt work at all. Therefore FaQs can change rules or are dysfunctional most of the time. You think faqs that change rules are dysfunctional?

No the FAQs do work as non-changes to the rules. Since you can't provide any evidence that FAQs can change the rules we are left with:

Plenty of evidence was provided in this thread. You ignore it. But okay ... you dont consider the rules to be the rules. To each his own

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) FAQs are dysfunctional
2) Your definition of The Rules is wrong.

Which is it?

I see there's no option 3 for "Fling is wrong". Why are we not allowed to discuss that option?
It's the option where FAQ's clearly have and do change rules.

So do we ignore all rule changing FAQ's?
Or accept that they do change rules?

Grav - no, again you are falling into Flings error. Fling assumes they only have ONE way they meant the game to be played all along. This isnt true. They change their minds all the time, and reflect this in the FAQs

Initially they wanted Out of Range as it was written - it was an utterly unambiguous rule. They then decided this was possibly too abstract, so came up with a new rule. Now, ideally they would errata, however they chose not to. Doent stop it being a change to the rule.

Same for LOS! and abusing multi wound "grunts" - they didnt realise this was an outcome, so changed the rule so it couldnt occur.

It is a huge mistake to assume that the ruleset is unchanging; theyre human, they play the game (I know this for a fact, as do others on here - they just dont usually take it as serious as some do) and realise some things dont work as well as they want. HEll they also read fora, and find out what irks people - this we know for a fact.

However, it doesnt alter that the proposed solution by Fling - treat everything as RAI (apart from the Shrine - apparently that is infallible. Hypocritical position) - leads you down the bigger rabbit hole of: who are you to say what is intended?

Not a single person I know of thought they intended Heldrakes to fire 360 from the base. Not a one. Anyone playing like that pre-FAQ would have, rightly, been derided for cheating - as it is SUCH an aggregious change to the rules (entirely ignoiring the entirety of the vehicle shooting rules) that you would have to assume it is deliberate. YEt, apparently in Flings view this was meant all along

It also means that, when they contradict their own FAQs, not only did they not get itheir commuinication right the first time, but also the second time

Rationally however, ONE of the rulings must be a change in the rules.

Once you take the "intended" crap out of it, you realise this: the rule set is fluid, able to be changed by a change to the written rules at the whim of the studio. No idea of one-rule-to-bind-them anylonger.

Much healthier

SO no, there is no misinterpreting of Flings stance her e- it is still an absurd one to hold, in a functional ruleset, that every rule should be debated on "RAI" grounds. It is an impossible standard to uphold - as I bet Fling does not adhere to it, as it woul dliterraly mean deciding on what they meant "a" to mean in 40k terms, and working up from there.

Some common ground HAS to be found, and that common ground IS RAW. Once you understand where the RAW breaks down (and ignore flings strawman argument that by saying RAW you are somehow saying the written rules are infallible) you can then discuss THOSE issues.

One is, if applied thoroughly, unplayable. The other isnt. I'll go with the one where GW are apparently not misleading us.

FAQs can not change the rules! Except for all the times in the past when they have. Force weapons are made to instantly kill pretty much anything in one melee attack. That is why they are high risk, high reward. You pay a lot to get a force weapon, and if it hits you gamble even further to make it get its instant kill. Really, just arguing that something is wrong because you do not like it is invalid. Otherwise, my Chaos Marines would have a LOT of new toys. A great example is the many nerfs in 5th to keep the game somewhat "balanced". They were introduced in FAQs and stung badly to anyone exploiting them.

This thread is nothing to do with YMDC/40k rules.