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.

Actually, in this particular case it is possible to know the intent of the authors. You can, in fact, find examples 5th edition games played by the designers using the spearhead deployment. I will leave you in suspense as to the result...

Modquisition on:
Its not a personal attack but everyone's getting snarky. Lets move back to rules discussing or the thread will be closed. Thanks. Edit: Olympia beat me to it.

olympia wrote:Actually, in this particular case it is possible to know the intent of the authors. You can, in fact, find examples 5th edition games played by the designers using the spearhead deployment. I will leave you in suspense as to the result...

Oh Noes! Battle Reports with Errors! UNPOSSIBLE!

Gaming club member just brought this thread to our attention.

I am paid in part to do technical writing, and let me tell you that sometimes you get so close to the text and your own intentions in what you're trying to explain that you utterly fail to recognize that there's some basic assumption, some sort of technological comprehension, that one would need first in order to understand what you're trying to say. There's a missing piece that you naturally fill in as you edit the text because "Of course that's how it is."


I propose that the 5th Ed. rulebook writers were in much the same predicament. Does anyone know how many drafts and polishes they went through? Through how many pairs of hands the rulebook passed during development, with requisite changes afterwards?

Lord knows how close the writers were to the text. When people make these arguments "They couldn't have spared [x number] of words to make this more clear?" it always sound quasi-asinine to me.

Perhaps the writers just didn't realize you needed those words because it sounded crystal clear to them, and they'd been working on it for months and so their intention was very clear in their own minds, and they didn't want to treat their audience like idiots by explaining what seemed obvious to them.


I propose the following: the preponderance of how players have interpreted the Spearhead deployment rules is the correct deployment scheme. The authors of the rulebook tried their best to make the meaning clear, and then it's up to the players to read the language and follow it.

I would guess that the vast, vast preponderance of 40K 5th Edition players enforce the 12" pushback from table center on player 2 in a Spearhead scenario.

Lacking a concrete argument that this is wrong; and lacking a FAQ to make this clear - we then must have some faith that when there's clearly just a vocal minority arguing RAW incessantly and trying to overturn what a thousand-times-their-number of people have interpreted the rules to mean that the vocal minority is loud, but also wrong.

Clearly most people got what the authors were intending...and I have not heard a panoply of outcries that player 2 somehow gets screwed in a Spearhead deployment due to having to follow the same restrictions.

I would argue that if there was only a 12" pushback for one player and not both you would not have the diagram included in the deployment directions as there would only ever be one table quarter in which the pushback was enforced - and you would seriously have to be retarded to require a diagram of a circle to make it clear to you that said pushback for that single player, in that single table quarter, was enforced on ALL four table quarters no matter which one they chose.

I believe that falls into "No gak, Sherlock" territory.

Gwar! wrote:

I know how I'll play this. By the rules. The one that says "The most important rule..." on page 2.

I have reported this post for a breach of the Dakkadakka YMTC Rule #7, which sates that "Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates." I Politely ask you familiarise yourself with these rules before posting again.

I also want to point out that this is Proof that TMIR is only ever used to get your own way.

A fine example why nr 7 shouldnt exist.

Gwar! wrote:

olympia wrote:Actually, in this particular case it is possible to know the intent of the authors. You can, in fact, find examples 5th edition games played by the designers using the spearhead deployment. I will leave you in suspense as to the result...

Oh Noes! Battle Reports with Errors! UNPOSSIBLE!

Are you so lacking in confidence that you assume your fundamentalist RAW interpretation does not square with how the actual game writers play their game

Rules change, that can't be denied, but there are certain trends that can normally be relied on for rules changes between editions. First, GW announces the big ones ahead of time. Second, most changes are made in groups, where several rules change to create a new balance (no more target priority but gaining cover saves from your own troops, Kill Points instead of victory points coupled with pure objective missions).

Yes there are rules changes that are unannounced and stand alone (things like frag grenades being S4 against vehicles in close combat), but they also tend to be explicit. What concerns me is that the basic missions have been dramatically re-worked with no real announcment, and seemingly nothing to counter balance the huge advantage that could give some armies. I add in the years of balanced play we've gotten out of 24" buffers, and those simply seem like bad missions.

olympia wrote:Are you so lacking in confidence that you assume your fundamentalist RAW interpretation does not square with how the actual game writers play their game

I am saying the Game Writers played the game incorrectly, as they did not play the game as they wrote it. Just more proof of the low standard of GW employees.

olympia wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

olympia wrote:Actually, in this particular case it is possible to know the intent of the authors. You can, in fact, find examples 5th edition games played by the designers using the spearhead deployment. I will leave you in suspense as to the result...

Oh Noes! Battle Reports with Errors! UNPOSSIBLE!

Are you so lacking in confidence that you assume your fundamentalist RAW interpretation does not square with how the actual game writers play their game

1. Last warning to all. Politeness is required and we're hitting that point. Lets not go there.
2. I may have to steal part of this for sig material.

NOTICE * THIS IS NOT SNARKY OR A PERSONAL ATTACK

Gwar if we end up following your examples eventually we will all have to carry knives and guns when we play to enforce our interpretations of the rules. It is really a lot simpler than you are letting on.

G

1. We don't now?
2. This is OT to the discussion.

I personally intend on using my Rambo knife to carve symmetrical deployment zones into the playing surface.

Note this is a "How You Will Play It" post and is not intended to convey literal RAW.

If the text works, and the diagrams fit only player 1's deployment options, nothing needs added nor removed to play the way the authors wrote it. In all three scenarios this is true - note the lack of an 18" marker for player 2 in the Dawn of War.

As for intentions? YMDC

The Green Git wrote:I personally intend on using my Rambo knife to carve symmetrical deployment zones into the playing surface.

Note this is a "How You Will Play It" post and is not intended to convey literal RAW.

Again, we're not supposed to do that now? Mmm...that explains the falloff in opponents lately...

ITS MARBO KNIFE! DUDE TOTALLY SEZ SO IN THE FLUFF UR PLAYING IT WRONG!

(that was a joke, please don't modhammer me)

Kitzz wrote:ITS MARBO KNIFE! DUDE TOTALLY SEZ SO IN THE FLUFF UR PLAYING IT WRONG!

(that was a joke, please don't modhammer me)

Again... I'm playing it as a "Rambo" knife but know it's not RAW.

As to the: "I'm a technical writer and I understand them screwing up" argument: It's an eloquent explanation for why you would play RaI. The problem is that we know the RaW and can only guess at RaI, and even then we're not sure that our understanding of intent will be agreed upon (this is why debates often argue RaI).

As to there being a loud but wrong minority: If the minority is advocating RaW, it cannot be wrong, because it agrees with the rules by definition. It can be unpopular or unsportsmanlike, and sometimes is, but it cannot be wrong.

Cairnius wrote:I propose the following: the preponderance of how players have interpreted the Spearhead deployment rules is the correct deployment scheme. The authors of the rulebook tried their best to make the meaning clear, and then it's up to the players to read the language and follow it.

I would guess that the vast, vast preponderance of 40K 5th Edition players enforce the 12" pushback from table center on player 2 in a Spearhead scenario.

That may be a good point.

To nearly everyone who read the rules for mission deployment, the rulebook said to deploy symmetrically.

A majority of people, even a vast majority of people, may be wrong.

This is why Republic > Democracy.

kirsanth wrote:Leave RAI out.

Assumptions = RAI.

RAW = Text and diagrams from 5e books

Fixed that for ya

Alerian wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Leave RAI out.

Assumptions = RAI.

RAW = Text and diagrams from 5e books

Fixed that for ya

QFT

Kirsanth wrote:If the text works, and the diagrams fit only player 1's deployment options, nothing needs added nor removed to play the way the authors wrote it. In all three scenarios this is true - note the lack of an 18" marker for player 2 in the Dawn of War.

ajfirecracker wrote:A majority of people, even a vast majority of people, may be wrong.

But how do you go about proving that to be the case for something that doesn't physically exist?

Orkeosaurus wrote
But how do you go about proving that to be the case for something that doesn't physically exist?

well apparently you have never taken a philosophy course, it happens all the time.
As others point out all the time, RAI is fail. Think about the beatles when they wrote any song. It is impossible for us to deduce what he intended the song to be, it is also impossible for himself to say what he intended the song to be because as he was writing it his intentions may have changed. This goes with any author of any book from any time period. English 101.

Now in the first page of topics Gwar! posted the exact rules from the rulebook. Now, I would suggest you go and read the passage again. This time when you attempt to interpret the rules, take the rules, READ WHAT IT SAYS, and DO NOT ADD ANYTHING ELSE. People are interpreting the chart to mean 2 different things; if it doesn't have a caption, it is not interpretable (because you would be adding something). From what the WORDS actually say, second player can deploy anywhere in his table quarter.

Now I will accept all arguements that have zero of your personal interpretation of the rules. I do not care what you THINK about the rules, I care about what the rules ACTUALLY SAY. Once you do this you will realize that the second player can deploy anywhere within his table quarter.

Orkeosaurus: You look at whatever evidence you have. In 40K, evidence of right and wrong ways to play the game is given by the rules.

Grey Knight Luke wrote:well apparently you have never taken a philosophy course, it happens all the time.

Then explain it to me.

As others point out all the time, RAI is fail. Think about the beatles when they wrote any song. It is impossible for us to deduce what he intended the song to be, it is also impossible for himself to say what he intended the song to be because as he was writing it his intentions may have changed. This goes with any author of any book from any time period. English 101.

"English 101." is a little patronizing for someone who referred to The Beatles as "he".

Now in the first page of topics Gwar! posted the exact rules from the rulebook. Now, I would suggest you go and read the passage again. This time when you attempt to interpret the rules, take the rules, READ WHAT IT SAYS, and DO NOT ADD ANYTHING ELSE. People are interpreting the chart to mean 2 different things; if it doesn't have a caption, it is not interpretable (because you would be adding something). From what the WORDS actually say, second player can deploy anywhere in his table quarter.

Now I will accept all arguements that have zero of your personal interpretation of the rules. I do not care what you THINK about the rules, I care about what the rules ACTUALLY SAY. Once you do this you will realize that the second player can deploy anywhere within his table quarter.

For one: I don't really care what you, personally, will or will not accept.

For two: I would be interested in how you go about reading something written in English without outside knowledge of, say, the English language.

ajfirecracker wrote:You look at whatever evidence you have. In 40K, evidence of right and wrong ways to play the game is given by the rules.

But most people think the rules say you deploy symmetrically, so what the evidence there means is contested.

@ Orkish:

Good job, you can dissect my post for any and all errors, point out the flaws and understand what I said. Why can't you do that with the actual rules?

Did I wrong you in some manner prior to this?

@ Orkish:

no not at all, I would just ask that you take the rules, write it out like a post and dissect what it says. then you will have an answer. Its a simple thing. OR go look at the first posts by Gwar. I am not taking Gwar's side. He has already done the work for you. What else is there to argue.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:A majority of people, even a vast majority of people, may be wrong.

But how do you go about proving that to be the case for something that doesn't physically exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles#Indiscernibility_of_identicals

As much as I could get flamed by non-believers or believers, the above are examples of things you are looking for. Various people throughout history have argued as to whether or not they exist. How they each went about it can be found in various historical documents, provided as references to those pages. Others can probably be found via google search.