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.

puma713 wrote:
I call bull****. That's just passing the buck. I won't hate on GW because people are trying to exploit poorly written/edited rules without applying logic simply because they feel that is the purist way to play. It's like playing an MMORPG and having people exploit/hack the game because of loopholes in the build. Don't hate the exploiters, hate the programmers. What? So, don't hold anyone accountable? As long as it's the people in power that screw up, it's okay, and then you should just turn your anger on them? Nah, I don't believe that. You could hold the person standing across the table accountable and when they say, "You can't use those flickerfields, ya know?" You can look at them and say, "Really, dude?" instead of throwing your fist in the air screaming, "Damn you, GW!!!"

Well, there is a bit of a difference here. We're not actually playing 40k currently, and no one is actually trying to use these "exploits" in a game against you. I mean, how many of us have actually played a real life game where someone pulls some of these RAW loopholes on you?

Many people's stance on YMDC basically boils down to: "The only thing we can make definitive judgments on is what is literally written in the rules. Once you start interpreting them to make sense, there's going to be a disagreement between people, and no answer you can be 100% sure of." Sometimes that can go to far (IMO) and cause things not to work that really, really look like they should.

But, ultimately, the rules of 40k work. In friendly games, people tend to allow RAI interpretations that allow abilities to work. And, in tourneys, a judge usually does what a Judge (courtroom style) does, and interprets the rules that aren't 100% clear so that they make sense.

Gwar! wrote:I have fun by playing by the rules.

Playing by the rules and having fun are not exclusive you know...

Can't wait to see how your FAQ pans out with how hilariously bad this codex is (not that its bad, its just the wording on alot of things is rather poorly thought out)

Also, Bjorn has an invunlerable save, so he's your precident.
Also, Will be fun to see if grey knights can still bypass them and become the anti-DE army with tons of stormbolters to mow down 5/6 infantry, and invuln-ignoring weapons.

There's a difference between rules lawyering some things that are open to interpretation, and rules lawyering something Games Workshop clearly meant to give to something.

Yea, the author would really write "5++ save" under the wargear entry, and actually mean "nothing".

Same with the flamestorm cannon. "Derp derp you know RAW you can't fire that right"? Yea, because the Codex author put the flamestorm cannon in as an April Fools joke guys; it's not actually a real weapon that's meant to work.

If someone called that on me and was serious, I'd pack up and leave. What they're saying is "RAW it doesn't work", but what they really mean is "I matter more than GW, the people who actually made the game, and wrote the rules".

Magnalon wrote:There's a difference between rules lawyering some things that are open to interpretation, and rules lawyering something Games Workshop clearly meant to give to something.

Yea, the author would really write "5++ save" under the wargear entry, and actually mean "nothing".

If someone called that on me and was serious, I'd pack up and leave.

Which tells us a lot more about your maturity than your opponents, to be honest.

So you're telling me by gloating, and saying "you're doing me a favor" for a rule Games Workshop obviously meant to be "5+ obscure cover save", you're the bigger man?

I don't play against people like that. It's an uphill battle the entire game trying to just win via rules lawyering. It's a meta-game on top of a game that I like to play for fun. I don't have to enjoy the meta-game to enjoy 40K.

It's a personal preference of mine, and a call that I personally make. I'd just concede the game, say "you win, good game", and move on. What's not mature is sitting there arguing back and forth for hours just to get through one shooting phase.

As long as I don't make a big deal about it, I don't see how I'm not being mature in the slightest. I'm choosing not to play against someone with bad sportsmanship.

Magnalon wrote:So you're telling me by gloating, and saying "you're doing me a favor" for a rule Games Workshop obviously meant to be "5+ obscure cover save", you're the bigger man?

I don't play against people like that. It's an uphill battle the entire game trying to just win via rules lawyering. It's a meta-game on top of a game that I like to play for fun. I don't have to enjoy the meta-game to enjoy 40K.

It's a personal preference of mine, and a call that I personally make. I'd just concede the game, say "you win, good game", and move on. What's not mature is sitting there arguing back and forth for hours just for one movement phase.

I am not gloating at all. I am saying "Strictly speaking, this rule does not work. I have no idea what GW intended because I didn't write the damn thing."

How we go from there depends on your reaction. If you start whining like a child (as it seems you would), you bet your ass I'll make you play RaW. If you go "Oh, Derp Derp GW Derp would you like to house rule it?" I would day yes.

If you're talking about a Tourney - the TO can make whatever call he wants - it's his tourney.

But if we were playing a friendly game in a local store, and I spent the points for the 5++ invunerable; if you smirked and said "you know you just wasted your points right?", that's just awful.

Also I never stated I would whine in the slightest. If you see my post above, you'd see that I'd obviously try to calmly ask "are you serious?", and if they were to cross their arms and go "No! You don't get it!", then I'd choose to calmly pack up my things, say good game, and walk away.

Of course I'd try to reason with them.

Magnalon wrote:If you're talking about a Tourney - the TO can make whatever call he wants - it's his tourney.

But if we were playing a friendly game in a local store, and I spent the points for the 5++ invunerable; if you smirked and said "you know you just wasted your points right?", that's just awful.

Again with the strawman. No-one is going to gloat and go "Haha you are stupid for wasting points!" No, I am going to point out, exactly as I said before, that it technically doesn't work, and leave it at that.

Your reaction will dictate mine.

So it seems we had a misunderstanding then (albeit with you calling me out personally first).

Of course I'd try to reason in a calm manner.

I've just played against a few of those people before when I first started playing, and it's not fun in the slightest. When every single action you take is under a magnifying glass, and you're always wrong apparently, it completely takes the fun out of the game.

Grakmar wrote:

puma713 wrote:
I call bull****. That's just passing the buck. I won't hate on GW because people are trying to exploit poorly written/edited rules without applying logic simply because they feel that is the purist way to play. It's like playing an MMORPG and having people exploit/hack the game because of loopholes in the build. Don't hate the exploiters, hate the programmers. What? So, don't hold anyone accountable? As long as it's the people in power that screw up, it's okay, and then you should just turn your anger on them? Nah, I don't believe that. You could hold the person standing across the table accountable and when they say, "You can't use those flickerfields, ya know?" You can look at them and say, "Really, dude?" instead of throwing your fist in the air screaming, "Damn you, GW!!!"

Well, there is a bit of a difference here. We're not actually playing 40k currently, and no one is actually trying to use these "exploits" in a game against you. I mean, how many of us have actually played a real life game where someone pulls some of these RAW loopholes on you?

And that's my point. If you're not going to play it that way, then why argue it? If you're arguing it, it stands to reason that you'd play it that way - otherwise, you're simply playing Devil's Advocate, not "Making the Call". When people ask what to do in a situation, they're not asking a quesiton about an arbitrary situation - they're generally asking because they want to know how to play. And when someone tells them something that is pure RAW, but logically absurd, that person is going to go into a game thinking that they can do something that another player is going to call them out on.

Grakmar wrote:
But, ultimately, the rules of 40k work. In friendly games, people tend to allow RAI interpretations that allow abilities to work. And, in tourneys, a judge usually does what a Judge (courtroom style) does, and interprets the rules that aren't 100% clear so that they make sense.

True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

puma713 wrote:
True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

olympia wrote:

puma713 wrote:True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

Actually, the Errata is changes to the rules, so they are RaW. The FAQs are just House Rules (by their own admission) so are neither RaW or RaI, especially considering the authors do not write them (*coughcough*).

What was your point again?

So does anyone actually play in this pure RAW manner or is it just pointless theory?

*makes flickerfield save*

DE player "Yes!"

RAW player "Sorry bro, No."

Gwar! wrote:

olympia wrote:

puma713 wrote:True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

Actually, the Errata is changes to the rules, so they are RaW. The FAQs are just House Rules (by their own admission) so are neither RaW or RaI, especially considering the authors do not write them (*coughcough*).

What was your point again?

My point is that you and your RAW fundamentalist ilk serve a limited purpose.

@puma713: What about players that try to exploit RAI to gain an advantage? People who like to say that their Dark Angels get 3++ storm shields, or that Eldrad should gain a bonus attack when using his Witchblade, because "obviously he should get it," or that (pre FAQ) Deff Rollas shouldn't be used as a ramming weapon since "that's clearly not what was intended."

Obviously, there are plenty of examples of where "RAI" (to use the term loosely) makes sense, such as Bjorn's save, etc, and also plenty of examples where house ruling poor GW oversights does not unfairly rebalance the game.

However, when some competitive jerk tries to say that some rule was "intended" to work a certain way, just to gain an advantage over me, I'd say that's just as bad as any RAW rules lawyer. It goes both ways. The problem is that it's much harder to argue with someone who's rules claims are based on an arbitrary notion of "intended."

olympia wrote:

puma713 wrote:
True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

except the tyranid one XD

@puma713: What about players that try to exploit RAI to gain an advantage? People who like to say that their Dark Angels get 3++ storm shields, or that Eldrad should gain a bonus attack when using his Witchblade, because "obviously he should get it," or that (pre FAQ) Deff Rollas shouldn't be used as a ramming weapon since "that's clearly not what was intended."

Obviously, there are plenty of examples of where "RAI" (to use the term loosely) makes sense, such as Bjorn's save, etc, and also plenty of examples where house ruling poor GW oversights does not unfairly rebalance the game.

However, when some competitive jerk tries to say that some rule was "intended" to work a certain way, just to gain an advantage over me, I'd say that's just as bad as any RAW rules lawyer. It goes both ways. The problem is that it's much harder to argue with someone who's rules claims are based on an arbitrary notion of "intended."

Intent is tough to prove. Obviously, RAW should be the first option. In cases where RAW is unclear then players have to come to an agreement. I agree to use the GW FAQ's. Anything not covered here has to be though out. People just need to be reasonable.

Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing? The intent here is clear. They get a 5++ inv save. There is no arguing that Flickerfields were added to trick noobs into paying for them so RAW guys could laugh and deny them saves. It is a case of poor wording. Same with vehicles with hull mounted flamers. The intent was obviously not for them to be a trap for people who don't know better. They are supposed to work. A rules oversight should not stop any reasonable person from letting them work.

In cases like the "falling back from a failed morale check in a vehicle" where there are no rules, just be reasonable. To say "oh there in nothing that lets them fall back so they die" is just over the top. It's just a game for fun. Albeit a poorly written game that needs better customer service when it comes to fixing holes in their product. Nevertheless, play with the intent of fun. I'm a competitive person who loves to win. Despite this I would never feel good about a win that I claimed because I stopped some guy I was playing from using his 5++ saves he paid for, or not letting them fire a vehicle flamer. How would anyone feel good about doing that? What's the point?

The problem I see with strictly RaW players is that rationality is generally left out in favor of exact wording.

It does seem that the Dark-Eldar's vehicles will not benefit from a 5 up invul going strictly off of RaW, but if we apply logic to this matter, why would a vehicle be given a constant save if it did nothing?

Clearly, it is meant to do something, give the vehicle a 5 up save from whatever hits it. Now I must ask those really fighting over this, how hard of a concept is this to understand?

Brother-Thunder wrote:why would a vehicle be given a constant save if it did nothing?

Lilith(Hormagaunts/etc.) has BS9 and no ranged attacks.
Raveners have Acute Senses.
Monoliths have a rule that lets them fire weapons while moving.

I could go on, but there is a multi-page thread covering rules that make little or no sense as written.

Saying that people who prefer to use the rules in their rule books are missing the point, is missing the point.

If GW was really as blindly ignoring what is written in favor of biased arbitrary assertions, they would explain themselves so those assertions are not so biased and arbitrary.

Instead they publish hundreds of pages for people to. . .ignore?
. . .use as a spring board for their own system?
. . .kill trees?
. . .read the rules for the game they make?

im confused....how is it that raw takes away a vehicles 5++ invun save when the dex says it gets a 5++ invun?? pay the points = invun save. plain and simple.... unless there is some rule in the brb stating vehicles cant have invuns. but then dosent 'dex trump brb anyway?

Sure, Lilith might have BS9, but that might be for a "Ballistic Skill Test" from some psychic power that's yet to be made. Ghazkull has an initiative value higher than 1 for the purposes of JOWW initiative tests, but he still always strikes at Initiative 1.

That stuff doesn't *hurt* anything. What's clear is how flickerfield was put in as it's own rightful wargear entry, and clearly is meant to do *something*.

Whether that something is a 5++ invunerable that works against melee, or a 5++ obscured vehicle save is unknown, but common sense would tell you that it would mean *something*.

Magnalon wrote:Ghazkull has an initiative value higher than 1 for the purposes of JOWW initiative tests, but he still always strikes at Initiative 1.

Actually, in 4th, you could choose to not use the Power Fist, so it made sense.

But it hasn't been errated, so RAW in 5th, it doesn't make sense.

Magnalon wrote:But it hasn't been errated, so RAW in 5th, it doesn't make sense.

RaW, it does make sense. He has I4. That means when he Sweeps or Takes an initiative check, he uses I4.

What about Normal Terminators? They always have a Power Fist. They still have I4. Is this nonsensical RaW? No, because they use their Initiative for other things.

Magnalon wrote:That stuff doesn't *hurt* anything. What's clear is how flickerfield was put in as it's own rightful wargear entry, and clearly is meant to do *something*..

Which is true about many other listings as well.

Admittedly there is a much better case to be made for such a new codex (as opposed to the monoliths rule that really does not do *something*).

I do not (generally) play vehicle invuln saves as worthless, but they do (generally) read that way.

Saves apply to wounds, unless the special rule says otherwise--which iirc Bjorn's does. (I cannot locate that book to check atm. rarrr)
The annoying part is that the people writing the rules apparently know this, as they have written clear versions before.
Using rules with different words makes it hard to assert that the rules are the same.

olympia wrote:

puma713 wrote:
True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

Actually, there's no "consistently" about it. GW's FAQ answers are generally equal parts of RAW, RAI/changes and answering questions about stuff that was perfectly clear to begin with. If anything they lean slightly more to the RAW side usually.

Gwar! wrote:

Magnalon wrote:But it hasn't been errated, so RAW in 5th, it doesn't make sense.

RaW, it does make sense. He has I4. That means when he Sweeps or Takes an initiative check, he uses I4.

What about Normal Terminators? They always have a Power Fist. They still have I4. Is this nonsensical RaW? No, because they use their Initiative for other things.

By "sweep" you mean "Do nothing" right? He's a fatass.

Also I've yet to meet a raw player who'd find a clever loophole(That wasn't from DD), kindly point it out on the table when it came into play, then wave it off as "Oh GW are so silly, so how many orks do you kill with that hull-mounted flamer?"

It's usually just trolling irl, and usually it's answered by me laughing as them then coughing up blood after the convulsions become violent as I fathom how sad a person one must be to hold that as a point of pride. That or I say "Neat." Followed by a glassy stare as I focus on something more interesting, like the color of the walls, ceilings, or various other socially polite things I can stare at behind them while mimicing the sentiment that I am listening to the golden gate bridge troll.

If you are capable of managing that impossible feat of being the bare minimum of a human being while explaining with a mirthful air that according to the rules flamers cant fire over cars, then you sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.(And a shark, presumably)

And he supplied a bad example of extraneous statistics and rules.One might be something like, Fabius Biles entire statline as it's never seen on the field of play.

As for the dark eldar, they were given an invul save so GK can rape the evil clean out of them

LordWaffles wrote:By "sweep" you mean "Do nothing" right? He's a fatass

Errm... What?

Ghazgul can sweeping advance...

Well, he can SA as he doesnt have a rule preventing it...

But the point is this ISNT real life. This is an out of game place to discuss rules. Despite pumas assertion it is worth arguing to find what the rules ACTUALLY say, so you know when you are playing houserules. Unfortunatley puma doesnt seem to understand the value of knowing the actual rules, namely it helps you when playing outside of your group - those unconscious houserules you play within a group that can cause confusion between different groups.

Gwar! wrote:

LordWaffles wrote:By "sweep" you mean "Do nothing" right? He's a fatass

Errm... What?

Ghazgul can sweeping advance...

Woah this one is totally on me, I keep forgetting Phil Kelly wrote the codex and thus basic logic should be followed(By us, not him)

IE) Ghazghull is a terminator equivalent, only shittier due to SaP. Somehow this makes him faster at chasing people then regular, well-built terminators. Lolwat.