I've noticed when people are discussing the literal rules as written (RAW) often when a rule doesn't present a clear course of action or refers to terminology from a previous edition of the game that is no longer relevant, often the term is brandied about that the RAW in this particular case 'does nothing' or 'does not work'.

I know that I myself have even used this type of terminology before, usually when trying to make a point.


But I've been thinking about it and I believe this is a fundamentally incorrect statement to be making, and when it comes to discussing rules in a forum like YMDC, it could be particularly helpful to change the way situations like these are described.


In what situations are rules often described by some as 'doing nothing' or 'not working' by the 'RAW'? Two prime examples are:


1) When a rule uses very vague terminology to the point where players cannot determine conclusively how to interpret the rule. A good recent example of this would be the Blood Angel Librarian Dreadnought which counts as having a Ld10 for "all psychic purposes". Considering the multitude of strange Ld based occurrences in the game, this terminology is vague enough that given any particular question players as a whole cannot know conclusively whether or not that situation counts for 'psychic purposes' or not. Because of that fact, sometimes this rule (and similar situations) are described as 'doing nothing' or that they 'do not work'.


2) When a rule refers to terminology that no longer exists in the game (i.e. terminology exclusive to previous editions of the game). A good example of this would be the Tau Target Lock (non-vehicle version). This rule refers to the unit taking a 'Target Priority Test' which is a test that only existed in the 4th edition of Warhammer 40K. Many players have simply overlooked this reference and continue to use the portion of the rule that make sense in the current edition of the rules, again it is sometimes said that this rule as written 'does not work' or 'does nothing' because as written we cannot follow the full rule (as there is no such thing as a 'Target Priority Test' anymore).



Fundamentally I think it is very important to understand that in both these cases the rules do not present a clear conclusive way to play. Depending on the vagueness of the wording of a particular situation a variable number of players will often claim that there is one 'clear' way to play these issues (typically citing 'common sense' as the guide). But the fact remains that these are rules that do not present a clear, conclusive way to play.

With that said, the whole point of this little tirade is: Even though these rules are most certainly inconclusive and unclear saying that by the RAW these rules 'do nothing' or 'do not work' is incorrect.

The reason I say this is because of the fundamental nature of what rules are. Rules are guidelines created for a game with the express purpose of telling people how to play the game. Therefore, the expectation of anyone playing a game and reading rules for that game is that every rule has some reason for existing. A player shouldn't be expected to know that terminology from a 4th edition of a game no longer exists in 5th edition. The fact is, when they read that a unit has to take a 'Target Priority Test' they expect that there are rules for 'Target Priority Tests' somewhere in their rulebook or codex.

To say that if a rule no longer exists in the current edition of the game means that any other rules which refer back to it 'do nothing' is just plain wrong because the expectation of all rules is that they tell the players to do something. If a rule fails to do that (because it no longer exists) then it isn't the case that the RAW 'do nothing' or 'do not work' but rather that the RAW are unclear and inconclusive.

A 'real world' example of this would be if you were reading the rules for Tennis, for example and the rulebook said that if your serve hits the net but then lands in-bounds this is considered a 'let'. You then flip through the rulebook but find that (for whatever reason) the definition of what a 'let' means to the game cannot be found. If this happened players would not simply say that 'lets' just 'don't work' and ignore the rule, because they have an expectation that the rule means something, so they would continue to search the book looking for the rule and if they couldn't find it in there they would likely consult a more experienced player or a Tennis judge (if they could find them). Now obviously this example isn't truly analogous because the rules for a 'let' are well defined in the world, but the point I'm trying to make is that rules by their very definition are supposed to have meaning, so to have a reference to a rule and say that the 'rules as written' do not work implies that the rules 'clearly' indicate that the situation behaves a certain way, when the truth is actually the opposite (that the RAW in this case are unclear).


Once you can accept that a rule is unclear and inconclusive then you have to personally take other factors into consideration, such as how you think the rule is supposed to work based on your own opinions, or how you've seen other players handle the situation or even how you've seen it played in White Dwarf Battle Reports, etc, etc. But it is vitally important to remember that whatever conclusion you come to in these situations it is ultimately your opinion on how to play an unclear and inconclusive rule. Which means when you go to play someone else, you'll need to check with their opinion on how to play the same unclear/inconclusive rule and together you'll have to decide how you want to play. Because no matter what either of you may think, the rules do not clearly tell you how to play that particular situation.

But I believe continuing to say that the rules in these situations 'do not work' or 'do nothing' is both misleading and does a disservice to players asking a question about the unclear situation. I say this because again it tends to make it sound that the rules are 'clear' in these cases that the rules 'do not work' which is fundamentally something that makes no sense. I think continuing to refer to these situations this way can help to teach players to march into their gaming store demanding that, for example, Tau Target Locks "Do not work because Target Priority Tests aren't part of the game anymore."

When in fact players should be approaching this situation by walking into their gaming store and instead saying things like, "I know the Tau Target Lock refers to 'Target Priority Tests' but since those don't exist in the game anymore how do you think it should be played?"

Now this isn't to say that there aren't some rules which simply do nothing. GW has certainly FAQ'd as much for several such rules from previous codices, and players coming to the table to discuss an unclear rule could certainly come to the conclusion that a rule simply has no effect in the current edition of the game. But the point is, players should be coming to the table understanding that rules by their very nature are supposed to have a function and to ever say that the RAW 'clearly' show that a rule 'does not work' (and honestly believe that this statement is the end of the discussion) is a fundamentally flawed concept, that I think needs to go the way of the dodo.


So I personally will be trying to never use those terms again and instead I will be attempting to stick with more truthful terms such as the RAW are 'unclear', 'vague' or 'inconclusive' in this situation, and I welcome anyone and everyone to join me. And of course don't forget to post a snarky reply to me when you see me slip-up and post that the rules as written 'don't work'.


Agree? Disagree? Am I full of crap?

First off: that was the longest post I've read with no spelling or grammatical mistakes which caught my eye at once. I'm glad to know the guy who runs the place can use his language properly.
As to your question, I wholeheartedly agree. Sometimes we're all a little harsh in our judgment of the rules and the way others choose to play them that we generalize and classify them by extremes. It sounds like a good idea to take more care in the language we use, as it can confuse players newer to the game as well as veterans on our actual viewpoints.

There is a difference between a rule that does nothing and a rule that no longer works or is too vauge to work.

An correct example of a rule that does nothing is the Warp Field rule that the Doom of Malan'tai has.

The Doom of the Malan'tai's Warp Field only doesn't work on a super-strict RAW reading, and even then it's pretty clear the DoM is a Zoanthrorpe. A better rule that does nothing would be Canis Wolfbrone's "Rending" rule.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:The Doom of the Malan'tai's Warp Field only doesn't work on a super-strict RAW reading, and even then it's pretty clear the DoM is a Zoanthrorpe. A better rule that does nothing would be Canis Wolfbrone's "Rending" rule.

Ah yes, there are a few example of that in the Blood Angels codex too, Corbulo and Seth IIRC.

I meant more along the lines of Canis not being able to use the Rending special rule (yes, I know it's a weapon type and not a USR, but I don't think Yakface wants a discussion with that level of RAW) that he gets from his Thunderwolf, as Canis only has special weapons and the Thunderwolf's Rending only works with mundane weapons.

It is important yes, more so in an environment as pedantic as YMDC.
And it's true - if people really wanted the rule to work they could go out source the knowledge to be able to apply it in their game.

It would be far better and more proper for one to say things along the lines of "The mechanics for this rules are in an earlier edition of the game and were not carried over - most people now ignore that bit as the rest of the rule still works without it."
or
"RAW it doesn't perform any actions in game terms because the elements that are referred to aren't printed in the codex/brb. Many people take the interpretation that...."

But it's in many ways the same battle as trying to stop the children from saying "he got it" "Aw you gotta go" "I got the bus" it's not a real word it's just people being lax and not using the proper language, caught, have to, took... not hard to do but hard to train and maintain.

ChrisCP wrote:It is important yes, more so in an environment as pedantic as YMDC.
And it's true - if people really wanted the rule to work they could go out source the knowledge to be able to apply it in their game.

It would be far better and more proper for one to say things along the lines of "The mechanics for this rules are in an earlier edition of the game and were not carried over - most people now ignore that bit as the rest of the rule still works without it."
or
"RAW it doesn't perform any actions in game terms because the elements that are referred to aren't printed in the codex/brb. Many people take the interpretation that...."

But it's in many ways the same battle as trying to stop the children from saying "he got it" "Aw you gotta go" "I got the bus" it's not a real word it's just people being lax and not using the proper language, caught, have to, took... not hard to do but hard to train and maintain.

How is it any different than just saying "No it doesn't work."

That sort of Sugar Coating is really annoying. Call a Spade a Spade. If a rule doesn't work, then a rule doesn't work, and you should say so.

too long op. The point was not clear enough and therefore does nothing. RAW.

Gwar! wrote:How is it any different than just saying "No it doesn't work."

That sort of Sugar Coating is really annoying. Call a Spade a Spade. If a rule doesn't work, then a rule doesn't work, and you should say so.

I really believe that this is not the case of merely sugar-coating the wording. I think the core idea that one pushes when they say that the rules 'don't work' is fundamentally different from what the truth is. The reason I say this is (to reiterate what I posted above) is that fundamentally the whole basis is that a "rule" tells a player what to do, so the expectation of anyone reading the rules is that any rule is going to have some sort of meaning.

So to use your example of the Warp Field on the Doom of Malan'tai, a player who reads the codex is going to expect (rightfully so) that if the Doom has the Warp Field ability that this ability is going to have some sort of meaning in the game. Again, this is the core expectation of any rule in any game.

Now, if that player reads the rule very closely, then they're going to become confused because their expectation (the rule does something) isn't going to be met (the rule as written doesn't seem to have any effect on the Doom of Malan'tai if you don't consider it a Zoanthrope).

But this doesn't mean you as a player should walk into a store expecting that other players are going to simply ignore this rule because it doesn't make sense as written. Again, this is the attitude that I think is being incorrectly pushed when we use terse terminology.

Just as I mentioned before, if you want to play Tennis and you find that one of the rules doesn't seem to make literal sense as written, given that the expectation of any rule is that it has some meaning, your only course of action would be to talk to your opponent and ask "what do you think they mean by this rule?"

At the end of the day you may both agree that since you can't come to a clear interpretation the best course of action is to try to play the game without using that rule at all, but that is a decision that needs to be agreed upon.

And the same is true with any game any where any time.

Rules by their very definition must have some purpose, so if a rule doesn't appear to have a purpose then you need to be discussing this incongruity with your opponent and not simply assuming that because something isn't clear it just doesn't have any effect on the game.


And again, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. I've used this terminology many times in the past but recently while thinking about the subject it occurred to me that I was treating 40K different than any other game in existence. In any other game if I encountered a rule that didn't seem to make sense or have a purpose my first thought would be 'I need to bring this up with my fellow players and ask them how they think we should proceed' instead of with 40K where I had been thinking (and many continue to do so) 'if this rule doesn't make sense then it should essentially be ignored'.

This discrepancy is what I'm pointing out and I do believe that it is necessary to change the basic way we approach 'broken' rules in 40k because it isn't correct and doesn't send the right message.

And that is where you and I differ in methodology. When I see a rule that does not work, Rules as Written, I do fully expect people to Ignore it, or to play it as doing nothing, because that is what the rule does (or doesn't in this case).

If someone DOES mention it, then I will discuss it, but as I have pointed out, I do not play ALL RAW ALL THE TIEM HURRRRRR the majority of the time, but If I were to have an opponent who wanted to play by the book, I would not have the nerve to refuse.

To add to what I feel Yak is saying.

It's about new players coming to the game/forum it's when they see our slack explanations of 'it just doesn't work' and this is the knowledge or learning they leave with. It's not healthy to have 'all these new players' running around uneducated about where something doesn't work or isn't played that way.

We as the Rules Lawyers actually have a responsibility to teach people why the game 'doesn't work' and in time it will allow people to understand how rules work - something that's missing from many peoples understanding - similar to how many people no longer understand how laws work.

And no rule ever 'does nothing' it will always impose a limitation or control over something, the subject of the rule may be absent but this having no effect is quite different from 'doesn't work' it's like if one had rule in a dart game that if one hit a stump one loses a toe - now in the context of a dart game one might think this rule is silly, when is anyone ever going to hit a stump? They things belong on a cricket field. But when a drunk brings one into the bar...

So back to a good old target priority test - what about if in 6th they bring in a new thing called a 'Target priority test' which doesn't actually do any of the things the 4th edition one did, what if it does something radically different?

Now due to the capitalisation of this new rule an experienced player will readily identify that this isn't a 'Target Priority Test' it's a new different rule - but a new player wouldn't have that background to draw upon they look at their Tau 'dex look a the rule book and bam because the target is now high priority all unit which ran in the shooting phase may now assault it. Their rule which 'did nothing' for two editions now from their perspective does something, it might not make any sense might have zero applications for the army but it does something. To throw "No it doesn't work." at them will not give the background they need to have an understanding - to be able to apply the same logic or thought process to another situation in future.

Gwar! wrote:And that is where you and I differ in methodology. When I see a rule that does not work, Rules as Written, I do fully expect people to Ignore it, or to play it as doing nothing, because that is what the rule does (or doesn't in this case).

If someone DOES mention it, then I will discuss it, but as I have pointed out, I do not play ALL RAW ALL THE TIEM HURRRRRR the majority of the time, but If I were to have an opponent who wanted to play by the book, I would not have the nerve to refuse.

What do you suppose we gain by you playing the "Devil's Advocate" in regards to RAW issues?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:What do you suppose we gain by you playing the "Devil's Advocate" in regards to RAW issues?

We can all say to ourselves, "Thank goodness nobody would ever try to actually play by Gwar's rules interpretations. The 40k rules we all play by work awesome in comparison to what Gwar thinks!", putting 40k's rules in a positive light.

Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Pretty much this.

I argue RaW because it is the only thing that is constant. Houserules are fine and all, but they are just that, House Rules.

How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

Because you do not know no-one will play that way, and that is actually the correct way to play.

If you don't like it, feel free to make up a house rule!

Inat is another example of house rules for instance.

Interpretations of RAW or outright adjustments to suggest the correct logic/application in the circumstances.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

By definition it IS consistent if it is what the rule actually *says* - even if noone plays that way it is the consistent basis for the rule that you then *knowingly houserule* to something different.

The danger in your position is you advocate not knowing what the rules tell you when you "feel" the rule is silly or some other arbitrary standard. Thsi creates inconsistent implementations which are unconscious houserules, or the "but we always play X this way!" syndrome.

Reminding people what the rules ARE is as important as saying HOW you play.

Its a pity no-one at GW wrote 'all rules are intended to mean something' in the 40k rulebook, then Gwar! would have to accept yakface's argument

Joking aside, I think the point that yakface is making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that for players who do not have Gwar!'s encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules its not helpful to simply be pedantic when people ask a question.

To take the Doom of Malan'tai question as an example. A player, particularly one who is new to the game asks about Warp Field and is told 'RAW, it doesn't work because Doom is not a Zoanthrope'. Now, Doom may well be a Zoanthrope (indeed, most people would agree this was the author's intent), but that pertinent fact has not been written down anywhere by the author.

What people need is a full explanation so that they can make an informed choice as to how they play - not just what RAW states (although this should always be included) but also the common interpretation of the rule, or how it is played in tournaments, etc.

Gwar! wrote:And that is where you and I differ in methodology. When I see a rule that does not work, Rules as Written, I do fully expect people to Ignore it, or to play it as doing nothing, because that is what the rule does (or doesn't in this case).

If someone DOES mention it, then I will discuss it, but as I have pointed out, I do not play ALL RAW ALL THE TIEM HURRRRRR the majority of the time, but If I were to have an opponent who wanted to play by the book, I would not have the nerve to refuse.

But my whole point is that there is no such thing as a rule that "does not work". That statement is an assessment based on a rule that isn't clear. Another assessment would be that I would like to come up with a different solution with my opponent is just as valid an assessment as saying that the rule 'doesn't work' and that is my whole point.

Again the whole concept of the 'RAW' is that the rules (which are a set of guidelines telling you how to play the game) present a clear path of how to play the game. In any situation where the rules don't make sense or are unclear then there is no such thing as a clear rule.

Everyone who plays a game has to accept that if the rules are unclear that discussing the unclear situation and coming to a working solution between all players is the only way to actually proceed playing the game. Throwing your arms up in the air and trying to declare that the 'RAW' dictate that a rule which isn't clear has absolutely no effect on the game is just as detrimental to trying to play a game as claiming that YOU know what the designer's intent is and therefore your opinion on how to play an unclear situation is the one correct way. Both are destructive attitudes that will not actually help to get your game played without the assistance of a third party mediator.


Just as an example, yes, there are some unclear rules that are easier to simply dismiss and say they 'don't work' and try to move on and play the game, but there are others that have no easily dismissible solution yet both are equally as unclear.

For example, as has been pointed out in other threads the rules for assaulting vehicles in CC only tell you what is needed to hit based on how far the vehicle moved in its previous movement phase. In a mission where models can Assault a vehicle on the first player turn the rules are completely unclear on what should happen.

The answer to what happens in this situation isn't that the 'rules are broken' and therefore models can't hit a vehicle in an assault on the first player turn, but rather again, that the rules are unclear in this situation and you will have to work out with your opponent on how to proceed.

But these two answers are very different. The 'rules are broken and do not work' answer in many situations is used to basically say 'this rule is unclear and therefore you don't get to do something'. This stance is a very defensive attitude which basically says "I'm right and you're wrong and that's how it is going to be", when the reality is the rule that is unclear is something that needs to be discussed between opponents to have a conclusion reached. That conclusion may end up being that the rule has no effect in the game, but that is something that needs to be agreed upon between players not declared by one player and then hammered onto their opponent.


Its like if you were playing a game of Monopoly and one player breaks open the rulebook and says that the term 'tokens' is never fully defined in the rulebook and therefore all references to a player's 'token' in the rulebook are meaningless and by the 'RAW' the game cannot be played.

To propagate this type of attitude is inaccurate and gains nothing. In that case the truth is that even if 'tokens' is not properly defined in the rulebook it would fall to the players to involved to agree upon what is meant by the term 'tokens' in this case and then apply that to their game.


So getting back to 40K, when a rule like the Warp Field on the Doom of Malan'tai is encountered. It is not accurate to say that the RAW indicate that the Warp Field does not work for the Doom of Malan'tai. If the Warp Field rules said "The Doom of Malan'tai's Warp Field has no effect", then that would be an example of the RAW clearly stating that a Warp Field has no effect for the Doom of Malan'tai.

As it stands now the rule is unclear, because the Doom of Malan'tai has a Warp Field, yet the Warp Field appears to have no effect which doesn't make sense which is why players will constantly ask this question and argue that the Warp Field save should apply to the Doom of Malan'tai.

This is not to say that the rules indicate that the Doom of Malan'tai should get the 3+ invulnerable save from Warp Field, just that acknowledging that a rule is unclear and needs to be discussed between players is the correct answer to the question.

Or at least that's my take on it.

In a way, this is giving us a minimal definition of what we can call (to draft in a term most of us are familiar with) RAI.

If there is a rule that as strict RAW "does nothing" or "is broken" then we can say that the author meant for this rule to do SOMETHING, so it gives us an indication of what the rules as intented actually are.

So the author gave a warp field to a MC that he didnt define as a zoanthrope...this gives us the RAI that he meant for the MC to be a zoanthrope.

So the author gave this dreadnought an invulnerable save (even going so far as to then say the dread can take invuln saves againt pen and glancing hits)...this gives us the RAI that the author meant for the saves to actually do something....



There are cases where because of rules changes a rule actually does now do nothing. By examining the context of the game, by considering rules that have been replaced since they were in 4th (or even 3rd or earlier) we can understand that at one time the rule meant x. But now the rule actually DOES mean nothing.

But then there are rules that dont work by RAW from the moment that they are introduced. These rules dont work by RAW, but they do give us an excellent idea as to what the RAI is in this case. These rules werent put in just to fill up space in the book, they were meant to work in some fashion. These rules really should be distinguished from the rules that are broken because of changes in the core rules over the years.


Sliggoth




There are also the rules that simply are open to more than one valid interpretation. These rules arent broken and shouldnt be so designated. They may be muddy, unclear, sloppy, poorly written GW trash; but they arent broken. And sometimes they just are truly unclear and have strong vocal camps on both sides (the deff rolla affecting vehicles rule comes to mind).

what about when GW themselves have said arule / item does nothing, and it should be ignored? do you make up a rule so it "works"? eg Thornback - by GW admission this is useless, 100% so.

The rules are not robust enough to stand up the levels of scrutiny and competitiveness they are put under by power-gamers, tournaments and 'win-at-all-cost'ers. The 'obvious' mistakes and the fact that some rule books were designed for previous generations means there will always be confusion and variation of opinion between players.

I disagree, however, that it is important to chase RAW with ruthless logic. It is in no one's interest to lawyer a point by using author precedent, wording, and three or four different page references from rulebook and codexs. There's a 14 (and growing) page thread of why this is just silly. If it is an issue and it matters (for example in a tournament) there should be a ruling by the organiser. In most situations, however, it doesn't matter. Discuss it with your opponent beforehand. Talk about it if it comes up in the game. Role a dice if you can't decide. If your opponent is getting upset about your ruling, try to think about it from his point of view. I can't stress enough just how unimportant individual rulings of this nature are.

Whenever I read a thread along the lines of, "I told an opponent a rule worked like this and after a load of shouting, he packed up and left. Was I right?", it makes me think, "obviously not. You had to stop playing the game. Who cares about RAW?".


In conclusion, RAW is amongst the least important thing about playing this game.

Whenever I ask or answer a rules question I rely on how the rule is played at official GW events like the old GTs or 'Ard Boys. This works fine for older rule books that have been round for more than 6 months as they have been played in at least one tournament. However, this does not work for new books. i apply this to all rules questions, not just the ones that don't seem to work any more. This gives the person asking the question an understanding as to how the rule would be played when they are not at their local store. The INIT FAQ, right or wrong, does the same thing. It lets people know up front how a rule will be played for that tournament.

I hope I left a few misspelled words and grammer errors in my post so those of you who like to discount opinions based on that sort of things can move on and ignore me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:what about when GW themselves have said arule / item does nothing, and it should be ignored? do you make up a rule so it "works"? eg Thornback - by GW admission this is useless, 100% so.

Absolutely positively not. I never once implied that players should feel compelled to 'make up' a rule. Anytime there is an unclear rule the players may end up deciding that the best way to approach the situation is to (if possible) ignore the rule that doesn't seem to make sense.

As you point out GW has ruled in many places in their FAQs to simply ignore rules that no longer make any sense due to a change in edition terminology. In a perfect world they would address every instance of this in their FAQs, but we all know that's never going to happen.

All I've been trying to say is that when the rules are unclear (and this includes rules that seemingly have no purpose) then the default answer to that situation is you should be prepared to discuss with your opponent how you two are going to play that particular ambiguity not to simply declare that the rules just 'don't work' and are therefore automatically ignored.

Agreed.

The game breaks unless you are prepared to compromise with the rules and discuss them with your opponent. If you can agree on house rules to keep an army fluffy or to keep out of date rules interesting then why not?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Sorry, no. A rule that GW uses in their events is The Rules. If you choose to interpret the rules strictly and ignorantly, you can do so. Just know that it is you that is making the house rules, don't try to undercut others for playing the rules the way GW says to. Basically, you are either projecting or trolling if you in all honestly think that 99.9% of the 40k population is playing by house rules.

You of all people should not sling the "troll" name around.

So when GW use a rule in their event, and in the next event changes it to something else, which one is "The rule"?

Which is the point - hte ONLY consistent ruleset is What is Written, as you are told in the tenets of this forum btw.

Nice try though. I take it you never played 4th ed, where 99% of the population, including those at GTs, played "levels" incorrectly? Your argumetn is trivial to find flaws in. What a surprise.

Edit: just noticed you made up something out of whole cloth - I never put a figure on how many players use houserules. You did. You lied about / "misrepresented" something i said. Double surprise.

I did not misinterpret a single thing that you said. I am implying that you think that 99.9% of people use house rules, because 99.9% of people would never play by a large amount of RaW interpretations that Gwar-esque people advocate.
Alas, you have misinterpreted what I said.

There is room for argument on a lot of GW rules. Some have definite grey areas, and I can see them being played differently in every group.

But things like "Doom of Malantai has no warp field" or "Runic terminator armor is not terminator armor" are just so ridiculous that it is hard to take you seriously. This is where the 99.9% comes in: I would estimate that only one person out of 1000 would actually consider one of those arguments to be honestly correct.

In conclusion, "hte" "ONLY" consistent ruleset is not What is Written, but what Everyone Except You And Gwar Plays By.

yakface wrote:But my whole point is that there is no such thing as a rule that "does not work". That statement is an assessment based on a rule that isn't clear. Another assessment would be that I would like to come up with a different solution with my opponent is just as valid an assessment as saying that the rule 'doesn't work' and that is my whole point.

One of the canons of Statutory Interpretation is to avoid absurdity - it can be taken as a given that the legislature did not intend an absurd result. It'd be nice if we could extend the same canon to 40k rules discussions - returning to the Doom and Warp Field, it would be absurd to give the Doom the Warp Field special rule, if it couldn't make use of it.

That said, I would still draw a distinction between scenarios such as this, and issues which arise from an edition change. If a rule no longer has an effect on the game, I think it's okay to say so - the old Tyranid biomorphs that increased unit size for calculating outnumbering in combat are excellent examples.

Janthkin wrote:returning to the Doom and Warp Field, it would be absurd to give the Doom the Warp Field special rule, if it couldn't make use of it.

Says you.

I for one do not think it absurd.

Odd, but not absurd.

Gwar! wrote:

Janthkin wrote:returning to the Doom and Warp Field, it would be absurd to give the Doom the Warp Field special rule, if it couldn't make use of it.

Says you.

I for one do not think it absurd.

Odd, but not absurd.

No, says the canon of statutory interpretation I was discussing: a law is presumed to be intended to have some effect, and it is absurd to interpret it in a manner which would prevent it from having any effect. Similarly, if we used any or all of the rules of interpretation as a starting point for rules discussions, then a rule should be presumed to be intended to have some effect; as such, it would be absurd for the Doom to be explicitly given a rule he couldn't benefit from.

Unsurprisingly, the legal system doesn't rely on RAW.

I agree (mostly) with yakface, pernickty bitching and overdramatic "does nothing!!" posturing is not very useful and gives the wrong impression to newbies (seriously, the fact that we can have actual arguments about Abaddon's/Calgar's weapon loadouts is just ridiculous) and a pinch of salt would go a long way to help all of this.

Did I see "Yakface" as the signoff for one of the Chapter approved rules corrections on the GW site recently?

Atre wrote:I agree (mostly) with yakface, pernickty bitching and overdramatic "does nothing!!" posturing is not very useful and gives the wrong impression to newbies (seriously, the fact that we can have actual arguments about Abaddon's/Calgar's weapon loadouts is just ridiculous) and a pinch of salt would go a long way to help all of this.

Did I see "Yakface" as the signoff for one of the Chapter approved rules corrections on the GW site recently?

GW got lazy and Yakface and co wrote some FAQs for them.

Now they don't even credit the people they take them off. -Grumble-

Janthkin wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Janthkin wrote:returning to the Doom and Warp Field, it would be absurd to give the Doom the Warp Field special rule, if it couldn't make use of it.

Says you.

I for one do not think it absurd.

Odd, but not absurd.

No, says the canon of statutory interpretation I was discussing: a law is presumed to be intended to have some effect, and it is absurd to interpret it in a manner which would prevent it from having any effect. Similarly, if we used any or all of the rules of interpretation as a starting point for rules discussions, then a rule should be presumed to be intended to have some effect; as such, it would be absurd for the Doom to be explicitly given a rule he couldn't benefit from.

Unsurprisingly, the legal system doesn't rely on RAW.

QFT.

Good idea, seems that outsourcing the corrections to the community might make those corrections come out faster - I'm not even *that* much of a rules buff and I know a huge quantity of stuff that GW has never clarified.

And if GW isn't even thanking its community then... [Insert personal attacks here]

EDIT: sp fix

Gwar! wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Pretty much this.

I argue RaW because it is the only thing that is constant. Houserules are fine and all, but they are just that, House Rules.

The whole point of this thread is that RaW isn't constant, it is full of holes and anomalies that players need to bridge in order to play the game.

You can call it "just House Rules" with a dismissive air, but the fact remains that when the "proper" rules aren't clear, players need to figure out a way to play a fun game. This happens more often than we would like.

When a so-called "House Rule" is accepted by 90% of players, it becomes the de facto rules.

I don't see the point of worshipping GW rules, they are a false idol.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Pretty much this.

I argue RaW because it is the only thing that is constant. Houserules are fine and all, but they are just that, House Rules.

The whole point of this thread is that RaW isn't constant, it is full of holes and anomalies that players need to bridge in order to play the game.

Yes.

You can call it "just House Rules" with a dismissive air, but the fact remains that when the "proper" rules aren't clear, players need to figure out a way to play a fun game. This happens more often than we would like.

Yes.

When a so-called "House Rule" is accepted by 90% of players, it becomes the de facto rules.

I don't see the point of worshipping GW rules, they are a false idol.

Yes. Unfortunately, none of the above matters when you are looking at it from the perspective of one trying to find a universal constant that can always be applied. The point is that House Rules are used in pretty much every game you play because of the holes GW digs in its merchandise, but it is important to understand the basics that every player must know, because otherwise you will have no ability to determine where your own rules start and where the opponent's begin. Assumptions are fine, but that decisive roll mid-game will turn into blood, sweat, and tears if you or your opponent does not have a firm grounding of what the RAW actually says.

Slight clarification please. Are you suggesting that we have to refer to earlier editions of the game for rule clarifications, and justifications?

I have never played this game before 5th edition and therefore have no context to any of that logic.

ph34r wrote:I did not misinterpret a single thing that you said. I am implying that you think that 99.9% of people use house rules, because 99.9% of people would never play by a large amount of RaW interpretations that Gwar-esque people advocate.
Alas, you have misinterpreted what I said.

There is room for argument on a lot of GW rules. Some have definite grey areas, and I can see them being played differently in every group.

But things like "Doom of Malantai has no warp field" or "Runic terminator armor is not terminator armor" are just so ridiculous that it is hard to take you seriously. This is where the 99.9% comes in: I would estimate that only one person out of 1000 would actually consider one of those arguments to be honestly correct.

In conclusion, "hte" "ONLY" consistent ruleset is not What is Written, but what Everyone Except You And Gwar Plays By.

I like RAW, i like it alots, when people start cooking up their own rules, or "interpretations" of rules it begins a break down of the game in my opinion, where does it stop? There are so many things you can "play by RAW" that are just absurd which of course is obviously a broken mechanic that people as players attempt to fix.. its honestly what i hate about this game, you either play by raw and exploit the out of the system to win and become TFG when your really just playing the rules your codex BRB give you... but then you have people who search out all different manner of FAQs and or attempt to make house rules (which is essentially what non GW FAQs are, no offense to you guys who write them because i know in alot of cases they do actually help smooth over issues people have and you put alot of effort into making them as well rounded and thought out as possible)



and of course, i'm a math/science major, i don't like grammarrrrzzzz


p.s. your doom can have its warp field as long as your not bustin dooods inside a transport. otherwise RAW meets RAW

Speaking of math and science, one of the things about rigorous argument is that you have to do your own compiling/de-compiling, in the sense that you have to take what the text of the rules say, and extract the content that they state about the rules of the game.

As you should all know, the same rules or code can be expressed in multiple ways, but not in all ways, and depending on context phrases can mean (express) many different things. There is a difference between what is said, and what is stated, insofar as rules are concerned.

Too many people forget that GW writes in colloquial English (for a certain value of "colloquial") rather than a formalized language developed for the purpose of coding the rules. Taking the rules as written as if they were computer code that you should implement like a program is the height of idiocy, which might explain why doing so is so popular in some quarters.

Similarly there's plenty of people that introduce spurious or extraneous information when they're extracting the information about the rules from the written text, often because they ignore important structural features of the text, or the handy diagrams provided to aid understanding. Often they say "That's how the rule was intended!" as if intention mattered when trying to get things to work.

That's why you get situations where a rule seems to lack any effect in the game, because its extension was lost with a change in the rules between editions. Or you get situations with 4th edition codexes where the rules didn't have an effect (or beneficial effect) until there was a change in the rules between editions!

This is actually more important when you're working stuff out with the people you're actually playing with rather than the wise persons of YMMV, because in the real world you have to come to an agreement not only about how the rule is properly read, but how it is to be implemented, so you need to not only extract the rules information from the text, but be able to compile it into the game.

The tl;dr version: Don't treat the rules as computer code or as a set of instructions, but as the expression of that code or set of instructions.

Nurglitch wrote:

Similarly there's plenty of people that introduce spurious or extraneous information when they're extracting the information about the rules from the written text, often because they ignore important structural features of the text, or the handy diagrams provided to aid understanding. Often they say "That's how the rule was intended!" as if intention mattered when trying to get things to work.

this specifically makes me hate playing 40k. this is where people need to be sent back to gradeschool and be taught how to properly read a text.

ph34r wrote:I did not misinterpret a single thing that you said. I am implying that you think that 99.9% of people use house rules, because 99.9% of people would never play by a large amount of RaW interpretations that Gwar-esque people advocate.

Wrong, you lied when you stated 99.9% of people do X, and stated that was what I said. It was in fact something you made up, commonly held to be a Bad thing(TM) when arguiing.

ph34r wrote:Alas, you have misinterpreted what I said.

No, you said that, what GW events decide are The Rules, are The Rules. Then I pointed out that what GW decided differes all the time - e.g. Deff Rollas at last years GW Ard Boyz. What about this then? They changed "the rules" so what are "the rules"?

I instead reject that *inconsistent* approach and go by this simple maxim - the Book of Rules (gee, what an odd name!) ARE The Rules. That's it. And the forum tenets agree with me, and not you.

Everything else is, by definition, a houserule. everything.

ph34r wrote:There is room for argument on a lot of GW rules. Some have definite grey areas, and I can see them being played differently in every group.

there are very very few rules that have any argument other than "i dont like this" as the basis for disagreement. See Shrike. The VAST majority of rules have a single interpretation that is supported by the language, and that is The Rules. Anything else is a houserule.

ph34r wrote:But things like "Doom of Malantai has no warp field" or "Runic terminator armor is not terminator armor" are just so ridiculous that it is hard to take you seriously.

And you are mixing up who is who. I personally dont take you seriously because you lie about what people state and dont back up your arguments with logic or rules, instead making up plausible sounding numbers to try to make your argument sound better. And you do this consistently, normally "contributing" nothing more than troll like comments attacking Gwar! or other people.

ph34r wrote:This is where the 99.9% comes in: I would estimate that only one person out of 1000 would actually consider one of those arguments to be honestly correct.

Then DONT attribute it to something I said - commonly called "lying" - otherwise you get called on it.

And again: this is not about "honestly correct", this is about Rules. You have the benefit of knowing these are recent rules, and are likely to do something - however what about Thornback? It is clearly meant to do *something*, just in this edition it doesnt - so do you make it work?

ph34r wrote:In conclusion, "hte" "ONLY" consistent ruleset is not What is Written, but what Everyone Except You And Gwar Plays By.

And again you confuse REALITY with FORUMS meant to discuss the *rules*. You have *no evidence* to say *how* I play games, and therefore this is a pernicious slur that I demand you retract. Also apparently everyone else doesnt use true LOS in 5th ed, as that is waht I play - odd that none of my opponents this last weekend actually mentioned this, idiots! /sarcasm

If you expect to ever be taken seriously dont attack the person, attack the argument. Although it is probably too late for most to take you seriuosly.

The *point* (or part of it!) is to determine What the Rules Say. Not what we would like them to say, but what the rules actually *are* . This helps determine Consistency by giving a basis to work from.

De facto rules are not consistent, hence knowing the De Jure IS important to know WHERE you have made a hosuerule. You have nothing to argue against THIS point, do you? Or else how do you handle unconscious houserules across many groups, when those groups inevitably meet?

GW is far more clear then it was back in Rogue Trade, second edition, third edition, I missed out on fourth edition, and all the supplements in between ( ie: Chapter Approved ). Yet some things I see argued in RAW like there is no such thing as a power sword so it does nothing just makes me want to take a baseball bat and clobber some one. Its really not hard to not have someone from GW hold your hand to say its a power weapon, especially after playing for over two decades as so. Then to see posts where RAW is implied that a model like Eldrad can't attack in hand to hand because he has three weapons and RAW doesn't cover how to handle this. In truth most people would simply say " state which you are using for this combat round and go".

No matter tho how you look at the rules or how you interpret them most people seem to have missed out at the begining of the rule book as the most important rule on top of page 2.

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
- the choice is entirely yours.

All this is not to say RAW is not important as the game is based on a set of rules but even GW admits to not being able to cover them all that may arise. In some cases you need to go with RAI which can be hard as the intent of the designer is only something they know but some times common sense and logic can quickly cover this rule. Other times we can look back to previous editions to get a better understanding of how possibly the rule was intended or maybe it was covered more clearly there. Any rules that you know ahead of time that may cause issue, I find these are easily taken care of with a quick discussion before the game with my oppponent. Most of us play to have a good time, socialize and push our figures across the table while doing so.

Perhaps I was too confusing or unclear for you to understand correctly. I will try to clarify everything that I have said so that you might not draw as much insult from it as you choose to.

My initial post saying "you" was addressing everyone that believes that using terminator armor rules for runic terminator armor is a house rule. First misinterpretation by you.

Deff rollas are a grey area that is heavily debated and played much less consistently, with even GW switching up their ruling. Therefore, they are not a clear rule, and up for debate.
Runic Terminator Armor is played 99.9% the same way, I might go so far as to say 100% of people play that in reality but someone will play it otherwise just to break that argument.

If the overwhelming majority of people see that a rule is meant to be played one way, there is no doubt in my mind that it is the correct way.

The Dictionary wrote:
house rule
 
–noun
a rule that is used in a game only in a specific place, as a particular casino, or only among a certain group of players.

So in this case, the "only among a certain group of players" would be you and Gwar (provided you actually play by those rules, I suspect you might not). This also potentially includes others, that I may have not read posts by or met. In real life I have met zero of these such people in my travels.

If a rule is played in a diverse way instead of a nearly unanimous way, then it is likely a grey area where arguments can be made for both sides.

Furthermore, I am not mixing up who is who. I am providing examples. If you don't like my examples, don't read them. Also, stop insulting things that you imagine in my posts, it makes you look quite foolish.

If a rule does nothing due to being invalidated, then it has no function. If a rule "does nothing" due to 1 person out of 1000 trying to argue that it should do nothing and that's the way the rules should work, that 1 person should be (and is) ignored by the community as a whole. And by ignored, I mean such rules interpretations are not used.

I refuse to retract anything that you took as a deep personal insult. I made no insults towards you, aside from in this post saying that you interpreting malice into my posts makes you look foolish.
I am making an educated guess based on the information available to me. If one makes strong and spirited arguments in support of one rules interpretation, I find it more likely than not that they follow those rules interpretations. If you don't actually play by the arguments that you are making, feel free to inform me of such and it will be duly noted, and I will no longer suggest that you play by such interpretations. I may have been unclear when I said that the consistent rules set was the one that you and gwar do not play: this does not apply to every rule and not every rule that you play by is disagreed upon by the vast majority of the population. To think such would be ridiculous.

We know what the rules say as we can mean them. Thanks to the definition of the word house rule, if the distinct smaller group of people are the only ones not playing by the house rule, then the "house rule" is by definition of the word not a house rule and in fact the real rules, with the specific case only interpretation being the house rule.

As I have said multiple times, some rules are less clear than other and should be treated as such. In the case of rules interpretations that only 1 or 2 internet personalities even advocate, with an unclear potentially zero amount of people actually playing by them in 40k, the fact that the potentially unused interpretation is a house rule is obvious and by the definition of the word correct.

Also I fear that we are veering too far off topic, so if we could try to wrap things up, we might avoid irking Yakface too much.

ph34r wrote:
My initial post saying "you" was addressing everyone that believes that using terminator armor rules for runic terminator armor is a house rule. First misinterpretation by you.

Deff rollas are a grey area that is heavily debated and played much less consistently, with even GW switching up their ruling. Therefore, they are not a clear rule, and up for debate.

The Dictionary wrote:
.

Play nice pHeAr~!

Firstly your failure to use the proper language 'one' or 'people' and using 'you' instead is a personal address - you're to blame in this situation because of a failure to use proper English.

GW did no such thing with the Rolla - They merely clarified the Ram - was indeed a type of tank-shock - for people who did not feel this was true and were not allowing DR to affect vehicles.

Thirdly - wow quoting The Dictionary he's a pretty smart guy, you know.

Nightwatch wrote:Yes. Unfortunately, none of the above matters when you are looking at it from the perspective of one trying to find a universal constant that can always be applied. The point is that House Rules are used in pretty much every game you play because of the holes GW digs in its merchandise, but it is important to understand the basics that every player must know, because otherwise you will have no ability to determine where your own rules start and where the opponent's begin. Assumptions are fine, but that decisive roll mid-game will turn into blood, sweat, and tears if you or your opponent does not have a firm grounding of what the RAW actually says.

So, in finding a universal constant that should always be applied, we should say a rule that never should be used is correct?

ChrisCP wrote:Firstly your failure to use the proper language 'one' or 'people' and using 'you' instead is a personal address - you're to blame in this situation because of a failure to use proper English.

GW did no such thing with the Rolla - They merely clarified the Ram - was indeed a type of tank-shock - for people who did not feel this was true and were not allowing DR to affect vehicles.

Thirdly - wow quoting The Dictionary he's a pretty smart guy, you know.

You may be used to address more than one person at once. It's a little known fact that I learned in elementary school. Here's a quote from the dictionary for you!

The Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:2: one; anyone; people in general

As for your second point, GW did such a thing with the rolla. In one round of Ard Boyz deffrolla ramming was disallowed, and in another it was allowed.

Thirdly, I enjoy quoting the dictionary to people, as it is generally harder to come up with an argument against the truth when a more or less indisputable source is presented.

Zero for three, ouch. Please feel free to bring up any other points that you have issues with. Also, please take the time to type my name correctly in the future, as the numbers are indeed an integral part

EDIT: Actually, please don't bring up any other issues that you have, as it just takes the thread further off topic

ph34r wrote:Perhaps I was too confusing or unclear for you to understand correctly. I will try to clarify everything that I have said so that you might not draw as much insult from it as you choose to.

Snide insults are still insults you know. Carry on though, you're quite amusing when youre in "defending your trolling" mode.

ph34r wrote:My initial post saying "you" was addressing everyone that believes that using terminator armor rules for runic terminator armor is a house rule. First misinterpretation by you.

Wrong, if this is true it was simply YOUR first misuse of the English language: you specifically addressed MY point, quoting ME, and then said "You" said X. None of these are correct if you "claim" you "meant" to be adressing a diffuse group of people. You're doing a good job of making yourself look increasingly foolish however.

It is not a misinterpretation when you state something VERY clearly and then attempt to dissemble and claim otherwise.

ph34r wrote:Deff rollas are a grey area that is heavily debated and played much less consistently, with even GW switching up their ruling. Therefore, they are not a clear rule, and up for debate.

Wrong, actually.

It is not heavily debated as it finally has a clear FAQ that confirms that, when the rulebook says a ram is a tank shock, they meant it. It was only "heavily up for debate" by people who attempted to ignore that rule and simply made stuff up to support their side.

Just because something is debated does not mean it is unclear, that is a false premise and again - what a surprise from you! - one that is easily shown to be false. Most rules are debated either from ignorance of the language, the rules or from bias - my "i dont want it to work that way" idea.

ph34r wrote:Runic Terminator Armor is played 99.9% the same way, I might go so far as to say 100% of people play that in reality but someone will play it otherwise just to break that argument.

Again with making up figures.

ph34r wrote:If the overwhelming majority of people see that a rule is meant to be played one way, there is no doubt in my mind that it is the correct way.

Except the majority of people *did* get 4th ed rules wrong as they were written - witness the invisible magic height 3 cylinder. And this wasnt the correct way, as the studio said when they released 5th ed.

Again de facto /= de jure, de jure is the *correct* way, de facto is the *accepted* way. There is a huge gulf between the two concepts.

The Dictionary wrote:
house rule

Clever person this "dictionary" - what was your source? OED? Webster? lol

ph34r wrote:So in this case, the "only among a certain group of players" would be you and Gwar (provided you actually play by those rules, I suspect you might not). This also potentially includes others, that I may have not read posts by or met. In real life I have met zero of these such people in my travels.

Agani with the easily disprovable premise: the definition you cited does not exclude the *same* houserule being played at multiple *independent* locations, does it?

By definition NOT playing the rules that are written down MUST be a "house rule".

ph34r wrote:Furthermore, I am not mixing up who is who. I am providing examples.

Nope, you were using the personal again, clearly addressed as if *I* said that. Stop misusing the English language to attempt to hide your own foolish attempts and ill thought out arguments.

ph34r wrote:If you don't like my examples, don't read them. Also, stop insulting things that you imagine in my posts, it makes you look quite foolish.

Nope, youre doing a fine job of making yourself look incredibly foolish, digging deeper with every post.

ph34r wrote:If a rule does nothing due to being invalidated, then it has no function.

How is the person to know it has been invalidated? In your version of things it is impossible to know this.

ph34r wrote:If a rule "does nothing" due to 1 person out of 1000 trying to argue that it should do nothing and that's the way the rules should work, that 1 person should be (and is) ignored by the community as a whole. And by ignored, I mean such rules interpretations are not used.

And here is when you, again, miss the point by a country mile.

The *point* is that when the rules STATE something, you should know what the rules STATE so you know if you agree with that rule and how it works according to the Book of Rules. If you dont agree with it, you can then play by a Houserule - but it is important to know the difference.

For example Chaos Terminators do NOT have relentless, terefore cannot fire combi bolters at 24" if they move. Very, VERY clear in the rules, and is not open to interpretation - not at all. 90% of people I have played against (i've used terminators at least 20 times in 5th, and can only recall 2 people who didnt houserule it, therefore my number is on the low side to err on caution. I'd suggest you do the same sometimes) play it that they can move and fire as if stationary - doesnt mean it is the actual rule, and for some it IS an unconscious rule and are surprised when I pointed it out - they simply assumed they worked as they used to, and as loyalists currently do.

And this is the problem that you are failing to understand, even in ph34r (mad skillz, well done) terms: unconcscious houserules cause arguments, or can do so. So why not eliminate them? Why are you so against determining a single, consistent basis of what the RULES actually say (as in, the ones that are in the Book of Rules, the handy document you want to ignore when it suits you and argue this is "consistent") and *then* determine if you want to houserule?

ph34r wrote:I refuse to retract anything that you took as a deep personal insult. I made no insults towards you, aside from in this post saying that you interpreting malice into my posts makes you look foolish.

You stated that I played the game in a certain fashion, and did so in derogatory terms. THat IS an insult, and one on which you have no basis to make that judgement. I didnt think you actually would retract, I just enjoy seeing you try to justify yourself and your insults.

ph34r wrote:I am making an educated guess based on the information available to me.

It is not an "educated guess" when you, repeatedly (as I've called you on this before) make the same error: you confuse real, in game with forum, out of game. Forum, out of game is *necessarily* different to in game, and for good reasons.

You either deliberately ignore this to "score points" with snide insults, or you cannot comprehend the difference. I would assume the former but I do wonder.

ph34r wrote:If one makes strong and spirited arguments in support of one rules interpretation, I find it more likely than not that they follow those rules interpretations. If you don't actually play by the arguments that you are making, feel free to inform me of such and it will be duly noted, and I will no longer suggest that you play by such interpretations.

Amazing, you make this claim yet have never actually followed through and "duly noted" it.

ph34r wrote: I may have been unclear when I said that the consistent rules set was the one that you and gwar do not play: this does not apply to every rule and not every rule that you play by is disagreed upon by the vast majority of the population. To think such would be ridiculous.

Just your misuse of the English language again then, who could have thought.

ph34r wrote:We know what the rules say as we can mean them. Thanks to the definition of the word house rule, if the distinct smaller group of people are the only ones not playing by the house rule, then the "house rule" is by definition of the word not a house rule and in fact the real rules, with the specific case only interpretation being the house rule.

INcorrect, see above. Your definition (with no backnig as to where it came from, well done for that!) does not preclude repeated independent decisions to use the same houserule. Nice try though, shame it was as fatally flawed as most arguments you have tried so far.

ph34r wrote:As I have said multiple times, some rules are less clear than other and should be treated as such. In the case of rules interpretations that only 1 or 2 internet personalities even advocate, with an unclear potentially zero amount of people actually playing by them in 40k, the fact that the potentially unused interpretation is a house rule is obvious and by the definition of the word correct.

And I've repeatedly stated the cause of most "debates" on rules.

You keep hanging on this definition, despite the flaws. Again, marks for some consistency at least.

ph34r wrote:Also I fear that we are veering too far off topic, so if we could try to wrap things up, we might avoid irking Yakface too much.

Nope, not off topic - this is the heart of the topic: that some rules DO NOT WORK. Period. Acknowledging they do not work, and providing a "but this is how people tend to houserule it" is perfectly valid.

I've tried my best to not insult you, but if you want to be insulted by my posts, whatever. I can't stop you.

I can use "you" in whatever context I mean. Sorry that you couldn't connect the dots to realize that the logical thing (referring to separate issues with the form of you that works in the situation).
Basically, you are assuming incorrectly to make it seem like there is an issue with my statement, when with the correct definition it works perfectly.

It is not heavily debated... any more. It used to be. For a long time, GW tournaments ruled that it could not be used.
What I said was all true: the conclusion was often unclear after the dust settled over the 30+ page threads. The population was quite divided.
Again you make poor assumptions that lead you to think that I am wrong, stop it, you are being ridiculous. It was heavily up for debate by the population of DakkaDakka and of the people I know in real life.

I am making up that figure based on what I have seen from posts concerning similar issues, and people that I have met in real life. I have never seen someone actually play with a rules interpretation such as that, and am unsure of if anyone that argues for it on the internet actually does.
Do you play with Runic Terminator Armor is not Terminator Armor? If you do it would at least prove that 100% of people is an incorrect figure, as I suspected.

4th edition LOS rules were a mess. There was no overwhelming conclusion. It is not an appropriate example of a rules issue like Runic Terminator Armor.

The Merriam Webster dictionary. I can find a different dictionary if you don't like Merriam Webster. I suspect you will be disappointed with what the result is.

Key word: only. The only is you and gwar and whatever imaginary people actually play by awful rules interpretations. You just keep setting yourself up to get shot down. Pick a few of my points that you think are bad, and pick what you think are the weakest ones, because refuting all your stupid false statements gets really dull.

I'm sorry you did not understand my post. The rest of the internet and the human race can understand me just find, but I'll remember to break out the crayons for you in the future.

The only thing that I'm doing with every post is wasting time refuting all your ridiculous text blocks of wrongness.

The person knows that it is invalidated due to a rule that the special rule references no longer existing, rather than an overly strict interpretation that breaks a brand new rule.

As stated earlier, house rule is what the dictionary defines it as, not what you want it to be.

The Chaos terminator example is indeed clear and cut and I have yet to meet a person who did not follow it the same way as the majority of your experiences.

If I ever run into a person that honest to goodness thinks that Doom should not have an invulnerable save, first off I will be shocked and awed, and second off I will revise my statistics.

I think that the way that a person chooses to play the rules is bad if they use interpretations along the lines of "Doom has no invlun". If you follow this, I think that your rules interpretations are bad. If I said otherwise I would be lying.

I have fairly consistently reminded you that I recognize the difference between people arguing one point online and playing the same way. What is the issue here?

Do you play by the rules interpretations that you argue or not? Simple question, no need for debate on this point.

To clarify, when I say "I may have been unclear" I am implying that you are purposefully being dense in order to have something to argue about.

I have backing for my definition, if you would read my posts. Please read the posts I make before replying to them, it makes discussion a lot more clear. Also, please see my previous point refuting you: House Rule is defined as a rule that applies only among a certain group. If many groups have the same "house rule" as you would call it, then it is not a house rule, as it is not only among a certain group, unless you consider "the vast majority of people, 'those who consider Runic Terminator Armor to be Terminator Armor' to be only a certain group, which would be stretching the meaning of House Rule to the point of it being meaningless.

Also, if you cut out the insults you could probably cut your post volume in half and save me some reading time. That would be great. Also please note that trolling is not what you think it is, to troll is to say something that you believe to be false in order to stir up emotions, while I am stating my opinion along with facts that you do not seem to like.

By definition NOT playing the rules that are written down MUST be a "house rule".

? why? Surely not playing by the rules as designed by GW is by definition a "house rule", don't see what translating their written text in the most literal way possible has to do with this.

Back to the main topic I disagree with the notion that any rule that doesn't give you a defined way of working using pure literalism is necessarily unclear. Whilst in many cases such a rule would be unclear in many other cases the rule would be entirely clear (e.g The target lock rules). Language can be understood beyond the literal and indeed the primary function of language in all cultures is that it is understood beyond the literal (i.e. I understand what chav actually means when he uses a double negative or when a northerner uses the French word for ice cream to mean glass ). The core "rules" we lives our life by are also understood and interpreted beyond the literal. Yet you have a "poorly" written rules set for a game of toy soldier and all of a sudden literalism is the only way to interprete the written text and anything else is "cheating", "house rules" or "not clear (enough for adults play a game of toy soldiers)".

When poeples future freedom (or in some countries literally their lives) are on the line we can use beyond reasonable doubt and interpret rules (laws) beyond the literal (i.e. with the spirit and intention of the law), yet for a dice game of toy soldiers this isn't robust enough? Seriously? How certain do you have to be becuase you're willing to rule out that we are not having a group halucination as to what is written yet you won't beleive when they say Shrike gives his the unit the ability to infiltrate that means he gives his unit the ability to infiltrate...

ph34r wrote:I've tried my best to not insult you, but if you want to be insulted by my posts, whatever. I can't stop you.

Snide insults are still insults, you do realise this dont you?

ph34r wrote:I can use "you" in whatever context I mean. Sorry that you couldn't connect the dots to realize that the logical thing (referring to separate issues with the form of you that works in the situation).

So when you use "you" in the context that makes it the personal form you can claim it wasnt, and that you "meant" it in the general?

well done!

ph34r wrote:Basically, you are assuming incorrectly to make it seem like there is an issue with my statement, when with the correct definition it works perfectly.

With "a" definition -and not assuming, interpreting your written statement and the context you presented it in to come to the only valid-in-english conclusion. Carry on continuing to look foolish though.

ph34r wrote:It is not heavily debated... any more. It used to be. For a long time, GW tournaments ruled that it could not be used.

Nope, youre thinking US centric again. Gw tournaments in UK did rule it could be used.

ph34r wrote:What I said was all true: the conclusion was often unclear after the dust settled over the 30+ page threads. The population was quite divided.
Again you make poor assumptions that lead you to think that I am wrong, stop it, you are being ridiculous. It was heavily up for debate by the population of DakkaDakka and of the people I know in real life.

And I've posted the reasons people found it unclear - basic mangling of language to misconstrue a sentence, with admitted bias from the no-ram crowd that they didnt want it to work.

ph34r wrote:I am making up that figure based on what I have seen from posts concerning similar issues, and people that I have met in real life. I have never seen someone actually play with a rules interpretation such as that, and am unsure of if anyone that argues for it on the internet actually does.
Do you play with Runic Terminator Armor is not Terminator Armor? If you do it would at least prove that 100% of people is an incorrect figure, as I suspected.

Made up figures are still made up figures.

ph34r wrote:4th edition LOS rules were a mess. There was no overwhelming conclusion. It is not an appropriate example of a rules issue like Runic Terminator Armor.

Actually they werent a mess, people misunderstood when Levels were used, and tended to take the "easy" route of area terraining everything.

It IS an appropriate example of the majority *NOT* playing the Rule (as defined in the RuleBook) but instead playing by a houserule, and is an appropriate example that disproves your assertion.

ph34r wrote:The Merriam Webster dictionary. I can find a different dictionary if you don't like Merriam Webster. I suspect you will be disappointed with what the result is.

Try OED, for a rulebook written in actual English this is a good start.

ph34r wrote:Key word: only. The only is you and gwar and whatever imaginary people actually play by awful rules interpretations. You just keep setting yourself up to get shot down. Pick a few of my points that you think are bad, and pick what you think are the weakest ones, because refuting all your stupid false statements gets really dull.

So, yet again you make a baseless and repeatedly refuted assumption about how I play - BRAVO for pointing out that you deliberately ignore contradictory to your view statements. 100% for effort here!

Oh, I'm sorry, maybe this was the collective "you" that "you" keep pretending is contextually correct, despite the rules of the english language (oops, sorry, I forget you and rules dont see eye to eye...) saying otherwise?

THen stop responding - nothing forces you to continue posting illogical, badly supported and trivially reduced arguments.

ph34r wrote:I'm sorry you did not understand my post. The rest of the internet and the human race can understand me just find, but I'll remember to break out the crayons for you in the future.

Sorry, what part of the above is you "not insulting" me?

I understood it jsut fine, and responded and refuted your arguments. You just posted...this.

ph34r wrote:The only thing that I'm doing with every post is wasting time refuting all your ridiculous text blocks of wrongness.

Nope, not so far you havent.

BTW It is your time you're wasting, you CAN stop if you truly dont want to do it...I just find it funny how deeep you're going to dig this hole for yourself.

ph34r wrote:The person knows that it is invalidated due to a rule that the special rule references no longer existing, rather than an overly strict interpretation that breaks a brand new rule.

How are you defining "overly strict"? Using the written words that define the Rules of the game to determine that a rule, as written, does not function?

What about Chaos terminators not having the abiltiy to move and fire as if stationary? This is NOT a special rule referenced in their ruleset, but was part of the 4th ed rulebook.

Your "approach", for lack of a better word to describe the mess you made here, leads to inconsistency .

ph34r wrote:As stated earlier, house rule is what the dictionary defines it as, not what you want it to be.

ANd the dictionary deos not say what you think it does, which still invalidates your point. You keep plugging away though, eventually someone will listen to you.

ph34r wrote:The Chaos terminator example is indeed clear and cut and I have yet to meet a person who did not follow it the same way as the majority of your experiences.

So will you address the actual point of that part of the post anytime soon? Or shoudl it be taken as read that you agree with it, that unconscious houserules (the assumption that chaos terminators work exactly the same as before) CAN lead to issues?

ph34r wrote:If I ever run into a person that honest to goodness thinks that Doom should not have an invulnerable save, first off I will be shocked and awed, and second off I will revise my statistics.

You confuse "should" with "does not". Strictly "does not", probably "should" - however unlike yourself I am not arrogant enough to assume I *know* for 100% accuracy what the author intended.

ph34r wrote:I think that the way that a person chooses to play the rules is bad if they use interpretations along the lines of "Doom has no invlun". If you follow this, I think that your rules interpretations are bad. If I said otherwise I would be lying.

You get two things confused here: the way rules are interpreted, whcih if done according to the rulebook are not inherently "bad" or "good", they just *are*, and the way someone plays.

You, lie? Shock.

ph34r wrote:I have fairly consistently reminded you that I recognize the difference between people arguing one point online and playing the same way. What is the issue here?

BEcause you consistently conflate the two, and make unwarranted assumption to link the two together despite being *repeatedly* told otherwise?

Essentially the issue is you are either dishonest or incapable of practicing what you preach.

ph34r wrote:Do you play by the rules interpretations that you argue or not? Simple question, no need for debate on this point.

Yes, I do.


Now, if you had asked do I play by *all* of them then you may have a different answer - however you didnt.

ph34r wrote:To clarify, when I say "I may have been unclear" I am implying that you are purposefully being dense in order to have something to argue about.

Again with the "not being insulting" insults! Your doublethink is on TOP form today!

ph34r wrote:I have backing for my definition, if you would read my posts. Please read the posts I make before replying to them, it makes discussion a lot more clear.

Yawn. I dissected your post clearly, you have provided a wall of text that jumps about all over the place.

ph34r wrote: Also, please see my previous point refuting you: House Rule is defined as a rule that applies only among a certain group. If many groups have the same "house rule" as you would call it, then it is not a house rule, as it is not only among a certain group, unless you consider "the vast majority of people, 'those who consider Runic Terminator Armor to be Terminator Armor' to be only a certain group, which would be stretching the meaning of House Rule to the point of it being meaningless.

And yet the definition still does not say what you want it to say. Good try though, again you're consistent in your "misunderstanding"'s

ph34r wrote:Also, if you cut out the insults you could probably cut your post volume in half and save me some reading time. That would be great. Also please note that trolling is not what you think it is, to troll is to say something that you believe to be false in order to stir up emotions, while I am stating my opinion along with facts that you do not seem to like.

Sorry, what "facts"? You made up some numbers, lied about posts and their attribution, dissembled by trying to claim something else, and then resorted to baseless insults while claiming to not actually be insulting me. That fits one definition of "troll" btw.

I havent insulted you, just raised incredulity that you appear incapable of understanding a simple premise: unconcsious House Rules are BAD(tm) as they cause arguments. I have seen this happen many, many times when disparate groups meet and play without understanding all the CHANGES they have made to the Rules as provided in that handily named Rule Book. Your "solution" to this is - what now?

If you can't take a snide insult stop packing your posts so full of blatant insults.

Your comprehension of the English language is poor. You are bad at reading posts. You are bad at understanding posts.

Find me a definition that you like better if you don't like the definition in the English language. I will carry on Being Right.

Thank you for supporting my point. GW was divided on the issue, not only in time but in area.

You have not posted all the reasons for why it is unclear, to do so would be to reiterate dozens of pages of well presented arguments. There was no obviously correct answer to the deffrolla ram question. There was a favored answer, but there is no parallel to the current issue.

I make the best conclusions I can with my sample set. If you would like to help me refine my statistic, please do, as it would benefit both of us.
Do you play with Runic Terminator Armor is not Terminator Armor?

4th edition LOS rules WERE a mess. They were interpreted so differently that there was no clear majority. Again, there was no overwhelming conclusion, it serves no purpose in this discussion, it is not an appropriate example of a rules issue like Runic Terminator Armor.

According to OED, "house rule" has no definition. According to RAW, house rule has no meaning, we should refrain from using it in the future. I mean, we could use a different English Rulebook for the definition if you want, but I'm fine with "house rule" not existing. It makes this conversation a lot more funny.

You keep refusing to answer my question (because you are embarrassed to admit that you don't play the way you argue? I cannot say for sure.) so I'm going with your arguments as a basis for how you play. You're the one keeping me guessing, don't get all flustered when I guess the one that you don't like.
I find it hilarious that you trash my arguments as trivially reduced, while consistently ignoring my questions and going back to old issues that I have already answered for you.

The part with the crayons is an insult. I consider you childish.

The dictionary says that "house rule" has no meaning, I guess it doesn't mean what you want it to be or what it actually is

Unconscious house rules can lead to issues. However when everyone except potentially two people agree on a rule, it is not a house rule, as I have said a million times, unless house rule has no meaning (RAW, see OED for reference) in which case this section of argument is meaningless.

Okay. Does not. You somehow are arrogant enough to construct an insulting internet argument with a stranger, supporting a position that your do not practice in play (or so I suspect, you still evade my blunt question).

I would never lie intentionally in an argument.

Okay, cool, what is your stance on Runic Terminator Armor?
If you think it does not function a terminator armor, there is a link between the two for yo.
If you think that it doesn't, then you are incapable of practicing in reality what you preach in theory, making you quite a hypocrite. Unless your argument is merely for the sake of argument, which you still won't tell me.

Do you play by all the rules interpretations that you argue or not?
It's hard to get a straight answer out of you. One would think that you would just answer the question, but you really don't want the world to know.

That was an insult. Sometimes I get bored of being polite to you and return your insults in kind.

I answer your quotes in order, not jumping back and forth. You apparently do not read my posts, as you insult me and ask for backing, in response to a post where I show backing.

Read the post again. Reading comprehension skills are important, clearly you do not understand it.

Still wrong. Facts: the evidence I have provided referencing past dakka posts, my experiences, my online experiences.
Also still incorrect on the meaning of troll. You are pretty bad at this.

Unconscious un-house rules are worse than house rules.

If we could perhaps refrain from making cracks about each others reading capability, personalities and general intelligence that'd be super.. and also comply to the the Dakka posting rules as well.

Take a breath, count to 10 etc etc.

Leaving out all of your insults (bravo for coming clean on them) which makes up 99% of the wall of text post above, I will respond to one thing only:

I *did* answer your question, you just didnt ask a good question. You also a) only asked it once, so i couldnt "continually evade" it, and b) you have made up a new question just then, different to the question I *did* answer.

Edit: to clarify IF I ever come across Doom, I will let my opponent use it as a 3++ save. If I ever use Doom myself, I would not *expect* to be able to use a 3++ save.

THAT is the difference between your advocated position (ignorance of the actual Rules of the game in favour of <something&gt and mine: I acknowledge the rules, and where i thin kthey have problems, but do not expect my opponent to always agree to use a houserule. I consider making the *assumption* that your houserule is the only way to play to be highly arrogant and unsporting.

The OED not having a definition of "house rule" does not mean that "RAW", house rules cannot exist. De facto rules the roost where de jure does not exist. Also any discussion of English should only use the OED, only when you use qualified English (US, Australian) would you use the appropriate dictionary. This is more important than you appear to realise, as US and English "wield" have different meanings, to use a simple example which changes how 2CCW section is read.

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

Because you do not know no-one will play that way, and that is actually the correct way to play.

If you don't like it, feel free to make up a house rule!

No its your INTERPRETATION of how the rule works. It doesn't make it right, only your interpretation. There's literally a million lawyers making themselves wealthy on interpreting the same law, over and over and over, differently for their advantage.

Thats the fallacy of this. There can be multiple correct interpretations of what the RAW actually is. Its also why I generally avoid this portion of the board like the plague, and if anyone ever used some of the more esoteric RAW arguments from YMDC (not just Dakka but other locations) I'd laugh out loud and ignore them utterly.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

Because you do not know no-one will play that way, and that is actually the correct way to play.

If you don't like it, feel free to make up a house rule!

No its your INTERPRETATION of how the rule works. It doesn't make it right, only your interpretation. There's literally a million lawyers making themselves wealthy on interpreting the same law, over and over and over, differently for their advantage.

Thats the fallacy of this. There can be multiple correct interpretations of what the RAW actually is. Its also why I generally avoid this portion of the board like the plague, and if anyone ever used some of the more esoteric RAW arguments from YMDC (not just Dakka but other locations) I'd laugh out loud and ignore them utterly.

And you are more than free to. It doesn't change what the rules actually say!

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

Because you do not know no-one will play that way, and that is actually the correct way to play.

If you don't like it, feel free to make up a house rule!

No its your INTERPRETATION of how the rule works. It doesn't make it right, only your interpretation. There's literally a million lawyers making themselves wealthy on interpreting the same law, over and over and over, differently for their advantage.

Thats the fallacy of this. There can be multiple correct interpretations of what the RAW actually is. Its also why I generally avoid this portion of the board like the plague, and if anyone ever used some of the more esoteric RAW arguments from YMDC (not just Dakka but other locations) I'd laugh out loud and ignore them utterly.

And you are more than free to. It doesn't change what the rules actually say!

which kinda makes it an oxymoron that you guys make INAT Faqs for rules clarifications.. lol

nosferatu1001 wrote:Leaving out all of your insults (bravo for coming clean on them) which makes up 99% of the wall of text post above, I will respond to one thing only:

I *did* answer your question, you just didnt ask a good question. You also a) only asked it once, so i couldnt "continually evade" it, and b) you have made up a new question just then, different to the question I *did* answer.

Edit: to clarify IF I ever come across Doom, I will let my opponent use it as a 3++ save. If I ever use Doom myself, I would not *expect* to be able to use a 3++ save.

THAT is the difference between your advocated position (ignorance of the actual Rules of the game in favour of <something&gt and mine: I acknowledge the rules, and where i thin kthey have problems, but do not expect my opponent to always agree to use a houserule. I consider making the *assumption* that your houserule is the only way to play to be highly arrogant and unsporting.

The OED not having a definition of "house rule" does not mean that "RAW", house rules cannot exist. De facto rules the roost where de jure does not exist. Also any discussion of English should only use the OED, only when you use qualified English (US, Australian) would you use the appropriate dictionary. This is more important than you appear to realise, as US and English "wield" have different meanings, to use a simple example which changes how 2CCW section is read.

Sorry. This is another one of those things where I guess I just wasn't clear enough. It must be some sort of mysterious America/England language barrier, because I cannot say that I would ever purposefully not answer a question just because it was phrased in a way that it can be "answered" without actually answering the question. Thanks for actually answering it, for the Doom example at least.

How can you say that using the rules as everyone except a few people (you for yourself not your opponent, possibly gwar though he has his own faq, other people who I have not heard of and I doubt the existence of) is a house rule? The one definition of house pretty clearly states that the group that is the distinct only group to use the particular rule, is using the house rule. In this case the vast majority that does not use that rule would not be the house rule.
You can't debate on whether or not something is a house rule if the only dictionary that you want to use does not define house rule. You can't just choose to fill that void with whatever you think house rule means.

Also, can we agree on all of the statements in my previous post that were not insults? I assure you that "99%" of it is not only insults, this is a fact that can be measured quantitatively.

Quite frankly no, your post is not worth the time to dissect.

You asked a very simple question: do I play with my rules interpretations. I answered "yes". That perfectly answered the question you asked. Whether that was the question you wanted to ask, or thought you were asking, is not really MY problem but yours.

The RULEBOOK defines THE RULES. That is what the RULEBOOK does. Got it yet?

So if you play a rule that is *not* in the rulebook, for example by changing a rule, you ARE playing by a "house rule", by definition of the term in common usage in the UK. As in, when I ask someone "what is a houserule", they would answer something very differently to the mildly bizarre definition you are so concerned with.

That was my "de facto rules the roost where de jure is absent" bit, since you seemed to miss that entirely. The one definitiion in a language the rulebook is not written in, that has some quite pertinent differences to the language the book was written in, is not exactly relevant to me or to my argument. You may think it is relevant, but that doesnt actually make it so.

I've used the argument "It does nothing" or "The rule would not work" as a case of reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the contradiction. That is, I would state that if my opponent's understanding of the rule were to be correct, then the rule would do nothing and since this cannot be the case, we must conclude the opposite of his/her position (or something else) is true.

I take the "Rulebook" to be a "Guidebook" (P2 SRB) and as such I will err on the side of playability as opposed to incomprehensibility. With that said, I believe that every sentence of the guidebook does say something about how the game is to be played and as such I will pay attention when the guidebook speaks about an issue; however, I will never again take the guidebook to be a legal document, that is, I will not look at it as a rulebook ever again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The RULEBOOK defines THE RULES. That is what the RULEBOOK does. Got it yet?

Yes, and the "Rulebook" states that the rules are not important, so what was your position again? (Page 2 "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!")

visavismeyou wrote:
Yes, and the "Rulebook" states that the rules are not important, so what was your position again? (Page 2 "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!")

Which is a rule, so using your reductio ad absurdum arguments we shouldn't listen to it because it isn't important.
So what was your position again?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Quite frankly no, your post is not worth the time to dissect.

You asked a very simple question: do I play with my rules interpretations. I answered "yes". That perfectly answered the question you asked. Whether that was the question you wanted to ask, or thought you were asking, is not really MY problem but yours.

The RULEBOOK defines THE RULES. That is what the RULEBOOK does. Got it yet?

So if you play a rule that is *not* in the rulebook, for example by changing a rule, you ARE playing by a "house rule", by definition of the term in common usage in the UK. As in, when I ask someone "what is a houserule", they would answer something very differently to the mildly bizarre definition you are so concerned with.

That was my "de facto rules the roost where de jure is absent" bit, since you seemed to miss that entirely. The one definitiion in a language the rulebook is not written in, that has some quite pertinent differences to the language the book was written in, is not exactly relevant to me or to my argument. You may think it is relevant, but that doesnt actually make it so.

If you are not capable enough to read a question without trying to RaW your way out of it, then I am flabbergasted, though I really should not as it fits your character perfectly. If you are not capable of responding to my points where I prove you wrong again and again, then I accept your concession of the argument, and you may simply stop responding.

As you may not be aware, de facto (by the law we should say, as you become enraged at the sight of even English that is not from a British dictionary being used) is open to interpretation. This is why lawyers and judges exist, to interpret the law. You are free to come up with an argument for why 99% of people use house rules, but you may not make up your own definition of the word. Sorry, it does not work that way. The only house rule is the one where Doom does not have a 3+ invulnerable: as this is the only group where it is used, in comparison to the rest of the population where it is not.

I cannot allow you to base your argument on the "common usage in the UK" as that is not factually provable and is entirely meaningless. We can use the OED that you love so much, in which case your entire argument is meaningless, or we can use a dictionary that defines House Rule, in which case I am right, but we will not be using the "because I said so and it makes me right" definition of the word as the basis for this discussion. Choose one, or abandon your argument. It's up to you.

Gorkamorka wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:
Yes, and the "Rulebook" states that the rules are not important, so what was your position again? (Page 2 "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!")

Which is a rule, so using your reductio ad absurdum arguments we shouldn't listen to it because it isn't important.
So what was your position again?

You misunderstand, every time you say the rules are more important than playing (which is what you're argument chalks up to), you are violating your own argument. I am not saying "we should not listen to them" that is a confusion you have generated ex nihilo and does not affect my argument whatsoever.

Nightwatch wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Pretty much this.

I argue RaW because it is the only thing that is constant. Houserules are fine and all, but they are just that, House Rules.

The whole point of this thread is that RaW isn't constant, it is full of holes and anomalies that players need to bridge in order to play the game.

Yes.

You can call it "just House Rules" with a dismissive air, but the fact remains that when the "proper" rules aren't clear, players need to figure out a way to play a fun game. This happens more often than we would like.

Yes.

When a so-called "House Rule" is accepted by 90% of players, it becomes the de facto rules.

I don't see the point of worshipping GW rules, they are a false idol.

Yes. Unfortunately, none of the above matters when you are looking at it from the perspective of one trying to find a universal constant that can always be applied. The point is that House Rules are used in pretty much every game you play because of the holes GW digs in its merchandise, but it is important to understand the basics that every player must know, because otherwise you will have no ability to determine where your own rules start and where the opponent's begin. Assumptions are fine, but that decisive roll mid-game will turn into blood, sweat, and tears if you or your opponent does not have a firm grounding of what the RAW actually says.

Oh come. Do you really think there is some ultimate truth behind GW's rules?

It isn't a philosophical quest for the meaning of Life, The Universe and Everything, it's just a skirmish wargame.

The reality of argument comes from the players being TFG as much as from discrepancies in the rules.

ph34r wrote:If you are not capable enough to read a question without trying to RaW your way out of it, then I am flabbergasted,

Insult 1. well done, I thought you had stopped with the baseless insults?

I answered your questions, both of them, and gave clear and concise answers. You being unhappy that the answers didnt prove your "point" is, again, not my problem but yours.

I answered your questions. Accept that you were not "capable" enough to correctly state your position, which you should not be so flabbergasted at - you've been doing it in almost every post so far.

ph34r wrote:though I really should not as it fits your character perfectly.

SO poor attempts at character assasination is the limits of your intelligent debate now?

Hilarious. Keep digging that hole. What were those posting guidelines again?

ph34r wrote:If you are not capable of responding to my points where I prove you wrong again and again, then I accept your concession of the argument, and you may simply stop responding.

On the contrary - I proved you were incorrect. Many times. Again: your self delusion is not my problem, and while you continue to lie - i have not conceded anything, so at best you are misrepresenting here - I will continue to post to show your flawed statements.

Or was this again your mythical non-personal "you" where you, despite all context, claim it wasnt aimed at a singular person? It';s very hard to tell with your persistent mangling and abuse of the language.

ph34r wrote:As you may not be aware, de facto (by the law we should say, as you become enraged at the sight of even English that is not from a British dictionary being used)

Yawn, your insults are getting poor. When have I become enraged? I simply pointed out that a) citing "a dictionary" was a bad start, and b) citing a dictionary that has significant differences to the language the book was written in is a poor basis for your argument. Not that your argument has a good basis anyway, but at least get the foundations right for a change? It would be an improvement.

Secondly - you are wrong. De facto is "by the fact", not "by the law" - you meant de jure - as I already stated. At least 3 times. Hence "de facto rules the roost where de jure is absent" - in absentia an actual rule (dictionary definition) then the definition as used in practice (what people actually use) is the only thing that is important.

ph34r wrote: is open to interpretation. This is why lawyers and judges exist, to interpret the law.

and your point is? I mean, you got it wrong to start with but carry on. Some form of conclusion would be useful.

ph34r wrote:You are free to come up with an argument for why 99% of people use house rules, but you may not make up your own definition of the word.

Actually that is how language works - you did know that, right? How do you think new words get in the dictionary? Have you any idea how the first dictionary was written? Are you truly as ignorant as your post suggests? The last is rhetorical: I think the quality of your posts speak loudly here.

ph34r wrote: Sorry, it does not work that way. The only house rule is the one where Doom does not have a 3+ invulnerable: as this is the only group where it is used, in comparison to the rest of the population where it is not.

according to an american definition of the term, one that your have then misconstrued to say what you want it to say.

Not following the rules in the rule book means you are creating a houserule, irrespective of how many people do this. By definition as soon as you dont follow the Rules and follow your own rules you are using House rules. Your precious definition does not define terms or limits, and is therefore meaningless to begin with.

ph34r wrote:I cannot allow you to base your argument

Actually you have no choice in the matter - you have based your argument on something demonstrably wrong, and then misconstrued it in an attempt to make it say what you want it to say, I have simply based it on accepted terms.

You can disagree, odesnt make you right, but you cannot "disallow" me from doing something - you are entirely powerless in your trollage.

ph34r wrote:on the "common usage in the UK" as that is not factually provable and is entirely meaningless.

And your argument is entirely false to begin with, so I guess you should concede defeat now?

ph34r wrote:We can use the OED that you love so much,

Again with the attempt to insult - I was pointing out an appropriate, as opposed to an inappropriate, source for you to base an argument off.

If you cannot respect the language the book is written in, and the differences to Webster et al version, then dont expect your argument to be taken seriously - ever.

ph34r wrote: in which case your entire argument is meaningless, or we can use a dictionary that defines House Rule, in which case I am right, but we will not be using the "because I said so and it makes me right" definition of the word as the basis for this discussion. Choose one, or abandon your argument. It's up to you.

Ah yes, the logical fallacy - present two options as if they are the only choice possible! well done - you have an argument based on a flawed premise and source, which does nto follow a logical construct, ignores pertinent examples in an attempt to dissemble, relies on lying and insults in an attempt to distract from the flaws, and YOU decide I have to abandon my argument?

Wrong. so, so wrong. In so many ways.

If you do not follow the Rules as given in the Rulebook then you are not playing by THE rules, but another set of rules. A common term for this is you are using "house rules", and unconcious "hosue rules" can create friction between groups when they meet. as such determining the ACTUAL RULES is an important function of this forum, and is a good practice for forming a logical, consistent basis from which to work out the changes you make in order to make the game work as you want. This can help reduce the potential for arguments.

Now, your argument appears to be that sticking your fingers in your ears and going "naaah naaah Im right!" makes you right. Honestly, after this many incoherent posts I cant actually see what youre trying to do- are you arguing that people shouldnt know what the Rules say?

Maybe he likes the number 99?

My bad. Maybe you are capable of reading my question, but you choose not to. I have no way of knowing.
You "answered" my question, but you did not actually answer my question. If in British society it is perfectly acceptable to "answer" someone's question without actually answering it, then I'm sorry I didn't know. Example: can you hand me that paper? Your answer would be "I could". In America, this would be considered rude and not a fitting answer.

If you think that is character assassination it speaks only of how you consider yourself, as RaW interpreting a question fits perfectly with RaW interpreting rules.

Please stop saying that I am "deluded", as I have provided time and time again reasons why your arguments are bad, why my statements are not unfounded, and why I am right and you are wrong.

It is quite ironic when you accuse me of lying when I preface everything with "if" to avoid such an possibility, but you can find a bone to pick with anything. There was no lie, I said "if ... then ..."
In the case that the "if" is disagreed with, then the "then" does not apply, and there is no lie. You are therefore incorrect in accusing me of lying, and in a sense lying about me lying.

Please stop clinging onto the "but I don't know waht type of you you are using!!!111", it is not a substitute for a real argument to hand on to your misunderstanding and apply it to every other word.

Okay, sorry. You are not enraged, that is what I gathered from your posting style. I'm not psychic, you know.
My bad on the typo switching facto and jure. In any case, my argument remains the same, as the meaning of the word was not important to the statement. Pick either "ONLY BRITISH ENGLISH OTHER WORDS DO NOT EXIST!!!!!111 YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID!!!111" or be open to other languages, you can't have both and insult me too.

So this entire argument that you have made...
Is based on you making up whatever definition you want for house rule. That doesn't fly.

No, wrong. You have based your argument on something that you want to be true. I have based my argument on a dictionary. Anyone can see who is right here (except you!). Also good job accusing me of trolling, did you know that false accusations of trolling is one of the most common forms of trolling?

My argument is founded in reality. Your argument is founded in "generally accepted by British people which I cannot prove"

I gave you two options to make things easy for you. You see, you are wrong, and the two options present the ways that you can go about things (the 3rd way is insult me and my arguments, that is the path that you have chosen, good job Neo) by either using a dictionary definition or dropping the argument. Your argument is as unfounded as me saying that "house rule" is a phrase that means "whatever rule you don't like". There is no 3rd way where you decide what house rule means in the absence of a British dictionary having a definition and the American dictionary having one you don't want.

This is how you sound: "The American dictionary disagrees with me and the British dictionary does not provide any information so I get to make up whatever I want for a definition. That's you. Single you. nosferatu1001. Making up the definition because you don't like the one that exists.

Your last paragraph is totally meaningless and adds no value to your post.

Unconscious house rules can create friction, great, I never disagreed on that. Unfortunately something as singular as a group of ~1 playing by the "Doom has no invuln" does not qualify the other way of playing as a house rule, by definition of the word house rule.


So, what definition of house rule are you using? The one that you are making up to make yourself correct? The one that is in a dictionary? Something else?

The answer to the previous question will settle many points. By the definition of house rule that is in a dictionary, I am correct.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you do not follow the Rules as given in the Rulebook then you are not playing by THE rules, but another set of rules. A common term for this is you are using "house rules", and unconcious "hosue rules" can create friction between groups when they meet. as such determining the ACTUAL RULES is an important function of this forum, and is a good practice for forming a logical, consistent basis from which to work out the changes you make in order to make the game work as you want. This can help reduce the potential for arguments.

Again, you're really about 3 weeks behind me, until I truly got to know how and why the "Guidebook" was written, I too was fooled into thinking it was a "Rulebook". But now that I have really delved into an exegesis of the book, I have learned that it is in fact nothing more than a Guidebook.

You are expecting a rulebook on par with Magic the Gathering's rulebook, you're not going to get that here and until you accept that, you will not play the same game as 99% of the rest of the WH40k community plays. But, the beauty of the WH40k guidebook is that it allows people like you to take the "Guidance" it offers as hard rules and you too can have your own niche of people who think that the guidebook is actually a legal document. You, however, will be doomed to relegating yourselves to house rules to fill in the obvious gaps.

All I can say is good luck making up your own rules!

Imagine a rules discussion forum where players kept their arguments de personalized and could politely agree to disagree. No WALL OF TEXT responses focused upon insulting others. Imagine that...

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Imagine a rules discussion forum where players kept their arguments de personalized and could politely agree to disagree. No WALL OF TEXT responses focused upon insulting others. Imagine that...

G

You're right, I would much prefer if things were calmed down. I've edited my most recent post to be less offensive, hopefully this will reduce the reply from a wall of anger to a few arguments on key points.

ph34r wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:Imagine a rules discussion forum where players kept their arguments de personalized and could politely agree to disagree. No WALL OF TEXT responses focused upon insulting others. Imagine that...

G

You're right, I would much prefer if things were calmed down. I've edited my most recent post to be less offensive, hopefully this will reduce the reply from a wall of anger to a few arguments on key points.

Yes, that is a good idea.

Let's all hope that is what actually happens going forward.

(Yes, that was a hint.)

ph34r - fine, if you are so convinced I did not answer your question, please repost a question OR explain what part of my two answers you find fault with. Vague insults are not exactly helpful - neither is your wall of text. try quoting, it helps context.

I provided a very clear answer: in actual play I do not *expect* to be able to use houserules, henc I discuss them with my opponent first. This has the advantage of clearing up ANY potential for misunderstandings FIRST, before we're in the game when such misunderstandings would be harder to deal with fairly.

Why is that something you dislike so much? Are you anti-good communications with your opponent? Do you play all games in a stony silence? Or do you simply disgaree that two groups can have different houserules? I am intrigued as to your experiences.

[As for your if....then - given I have proven you wrong (the "if" is true) the then follows...]

I also am not "clinging" to the "i dont know what "you" you used" - I know *exactly* what form you used, as the context was abundantly clear. I was more pointing out your frankly laughable attempts at pretending you werent levying personal insults was one of your many manglings of the language. You got caught, get over it, wriggling doesnt help.

Finally - language. the rulebook is written in English. Note the lack of a qualifier. If you are using dictionary quotes to "prove" your argument, then your only option if you want to have a *meaningful* basis is to use a dictionary written in the language the game is written in - as I have pointed out with pertinent examples the differences between US and English English can dramatically alter the way rules are read. If you are so caught up in your own world that you cannot see that that, then again - that isnt my problem. Until you DO see that however your argument is flawed, right from the start.

Going back to Yakface's original question: what happens in a situation which is clearly not defined in the rules (as opposed to a situation not being clearly defined).

For example; denying outflankers by blocking table edges
or
the 3 valkyrie squadron + 3 infantry platoon conundrum. (one squad from each platoon on a valkyrie in each squadron; how many rolls do you make for reserve?)

Many people (even the super rules laywers) claim that in the first example, the unit is Destroyed. When in fact there is no rule saying such a thing will happen. This is an opinion, a house rule, but many rules lawyers stand by it.

I also find it amusing, even ironic, that many people advocating strict RAW interpretations of rules are called Lawyers. Because in real life, the Law is much much more formally defined than the rules are in 40k, yet legal interpretation is still big business, and 'the law as written' is seldom the sole, accepted or best interpretation of the law. But then we get to a miniatures game, where the rules are written in prose and dotted with 'witty' anecdotes, and people expect there to be a single, reasonable, consistent interpretation. There is a site HERE where some players (for a while) attempted to adapt the US Statutory Interpretation Canon for rules debates (unfortunately they seem to have stopped doing this).

There is an interesting recent interview with Gav Thorpe HERE in which he basically says 'if we get the rules to work in 90% of situations for 90% of the playerbase, that's good enough in our view'. With that kind of attitude coming down from the rules developers, it astounds me that people cling to 'RAW' as a shield when there is so much evidence that the designers are uninterested in that point of view.

One of the main issues that I have with the 'does not work' line of reasoning is that it goes against the logical reading of the rules - the reading that causes the least confusion. For example
Premise #1: Developers write exactly what they want to write.
Premise #2: The rules as written have no function.
Conclusion: The developers intended to write a nonfunctional rule.
We would assume however that the conclusion is incorrect, therefore one of our premises is incorrect.

Hmm. Well this is rambling a bit, so I'm not sure how to sum up (i hope I made at least one valid point in there). But, TLR I agree with Yakface. Don't use 'does not work' but instead use 'ambiguous', 'inconclusive' or 'unclear'.

You missed out: and the codex and rulebook rules change over time, not in step with eachother

Trasvi wrote:Going back to Yakface's original question: what happens in a situation which is clearly not defined in the rules (as opposed to a situation not being clearly defined).

For example; denying outflankers by blocking table edges
or
the 3 valkyrie squadron + 3 infantry platoon conundrum. (one squad from each platoon on a valkyrie in each squadron; how many rolls do you make for reserve?)

Many people (even the super rules laywers) claim that in the first example, the unit is Destroyed. When in fact there is no rule saying such a thing will happen. This is an opinion, a house rule, but many rules lawyers stand by it.

I also find it amusing, even ironic, that many people advocating strict RAW interpretations of rules are called Lawyers. Because in real life, the Law is much much more formally defined than the rules are in 40k, yet legal interpretation is still big business, and 'the law as written' is seldom the sole, accepted or best interpretation of the law. But then we get to a miniatures game, where the rules are written in prose and dotted with 'witty' anecdotes, and people expect there to be a single, reasonable, consistent interpretation. There is a site HERE where some players (for a while) attempted to adapt the US Statutory Interpretation Canon for rules debates (unfortunately they seem to have stopped doing this).

Yea, I tried point this obvious point out to Nosferatu but he wouldn't pay attention to any argument which completely deracinates his own position. Fact: There are holes in the guidebook. Fact: The guidebook is not a rulebook nor a legal document no matter how much you wish it to be Nosferatu, it is not a legal document with rules in it, it is a book with guidance in it how to play the same game so that we are all, roughly, on the same page.

As I said before, if you want to pretend that the guidebook is in fact a "Rulebook" stuffed full of rules and pretend it is a legal document, the guidebook says you are allowed to do so. Too bad that you then have to find extralegal means to fill in the holes in the rulebook. Whenever you apply something arbitrary, whenever you make your own house rules, you admit that you are wrong Nosferatu.

Just so you dont make the same mistake twice, nowhere above did I say anything about "We should ignore the Games-Workshop Rulebook as published"; I actually said quite the opposite.

Vis - you were ignored because the very first page, page 1, is entitled "THE RULES", which makes a complete nonsense of your entire post. Again.

You may disagree, unfortunately you are wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - fine, if you are so convinced I did not answer your question, please repost a question OR explain what part of my two answers you find fault with. Vague insults are not exactly helpful - neither is your wall of text. try quoting, it helps context.

"Yes, I do.


Now, if you had asked do I play by *all* of them then you may have a different answer - however you didnt. "
This is the part I have issue with. You trying to evade simple questions and locking on to perceived (and nonexistent) grammar errors ("I think that the "you" you used was meaning the wrong definition of you! I will post about this forever and not admit that I am mistaken"!) makes debating with you tiresome.

I provided a very clear answer: in actual play I do not *expect* to be able to use houserules, henc I discuss them with my opponent first. This has the advantage of clearing up ANY potential for misunderstandings FIRST, before we're in the game when such misunderstandings would be harder to deal with fairly.

You answered my question later, after I had to badger you to get an answer out. For things like Doom invuln save, it is not a house rule, as given by the definition of house rule. For things where the population is actually divided, it is a good idea to talk things over with your opponent.

Why is that something you dislike so much? Are you anti-good communications with your opponent? Do you play all games in a stony silence? Or do you simply disgaree that two groups can have different houserules? I am intrigued as to your experiences.

It isn't, I am not, I do not, I do not. Sorry I couldn't comply with your "do you do this bad thing or do you do this bad thing pick one" "question". My experiences are that of someone who has never had issues with rules in real life. All rules discrepancies are discussed and settled.

[As for your if....then - given I have proven you wrong (the "if" is true) the then follows...]

Are you implying that you are not capable of responding, but my "then" is true? You have responded, so you are capable apparently. If you have issues with my if...then statements, please state your issue more clearly, as there is no room for issue in the statements.

I also am not "clinging" to the "i dont know what "you" you used" - I know *exactly* what form you used, as the context was abundantly clear. I was more pointing out your frankly laughable attempts at pretending you werent levying personal insults was one of your many manglings of the language. You got caught, get over it, wriggling doesnt help.

You don't know exactly what form I used, as you are not me and not psychic. Sorry that it was confusing for you, but really, I know what I wrote and you need to drop it as your clinging to it as a central part of your arguments is not helping you one bit.

Finally - language. the rulebook is written in English. Note the lack of a qualifier. If you are using dictionary quotes to "prove" your argument, then your only option if you want to have a *meaningful* basis is to use a dictionary written in the language the game is written in - as I have pointed out with pertinent examples the differences between US and English English can dramatically alter the way rules are read. If you are so caught up in your own world that you cannot see that that, then again - that isnt my problem. Until you DO see that however your argument is flawed, right from the start.

Your entire argument is based on the word house rule. The definition that you have made up for it is the only thing keeping you afloat. I have an actual source to back me up, you have nothing. Your argument is the one flawed from the start, because you have either no backing, or backing that disagrees with you. There is no situation in which your argument is supported, there is only no conclusion or I am correct.

Do you two find it even slightly ironic that you are arguing over interpretations of what each other has said?
Inserting incorrect emphasis, interpreting phrasing in different ways than what it was intended... just goes to show that any given sentence in the English language can be interpreted in multiple ways, one/all/none of which can be correct.
So when the rules are interpreted in multiple different ways, why do some people suddenly advocate ignoring context, ignoring precedence and taking the most literal meaning of the rules, when we can see from the argument above that a literal reading of the text is often inappropriate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You missed out: and the codex and rulebook rules change over time, not in step with each other

I left that out because it does not apply to situations which occur within the same codex. Case in point Doom vs Zoanthrope. We get back to an obviously incorrect conclusion that developers purposefully wrote non-functional rules.

@visavismeyou. I disagree with your assessment of 'the guidebook'. It is obviously a rulebook, it contains rules from which to play the game; it just so happens that the developers are uninterested in writing a water-tight rule set (see interview with gav thorpe, see lack of errata/faq), so we need to apply some interpretation to resolve some disputes.

And I think this discussion is going away from where Yakface wanted it. While it was inevitable to degenerate into a RAW vs RAI debate, what is really being discussed is; if me make a very small assumption that the rules are designed to work, then in a RAW debate is it kosher to claim "it does not work", or should the resolution be more along the lines of "a literal interpretation gives no sensible resolution".

yakface wrote:I've used this terminology many times in the past but recently while thinking about the subject it occurred to me that I was treating 40K different than any other game in existence. In any other game if I encountered a rule that didn't seem to make sense or have a purpose my first thought would be 'I need to bring this up with my fellow players and ask them how they think we should proceed' instead of with 40K where I had been thinking (and many continue to do so) 'if this rule doesn't make sense then it should essentially be ignored'.

Killkrazy wrote:The whole point of this thread is that RaW isn't constant, it is full of holes and anomalies that players need to bridge in order to play the game.

You can call it "just House Rules" with a dismissive air, but the fact remains that when the "proper" rules aren't clear, players need to figure out a way to play a fun game. This happens more often than we would like.

When a so-called "House Rule" is accepted by 90% of players, it becomes the de facto rules.

I don't see the point of worshipping GW rules, they are a false idol.

These two are the most important statements in the thread.

GW games, including 40K, are not intricately designed rulesets, worded with exacting precision and constantly revised and modified to account for any discrepancies. To treat them as if they are designed that way is to not only give them a false air of precision, but also to treat them like no other games or sports on earth are treated. Applying that sort of rigid, structured thinking to them is nothing more than a mental exercise at best. And insisting that their wording is rigidly sacrosanct is the sort of pure foolishness you can only find in people who think they are highly intelligent.

Except that no-one is expecting them to be. We are expecting them to be halfway decent, which as it is, they are not.

Gwar! wrote:Except that no-one is expecting them to be. We are expecting them to be halfway decent, which as it is, they are not.

And if you agree that they are not, why treat them as if they are?

I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

Relic_OMO wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Except that no-one is expecting them to be. We are expecting them to be halfway decent, which as it is, they are not.

And if you agree that they are not, why treat them as if they are?

Even treating them as halfway decent leads to the same situation. A Halfway Decent ruleset would say "A model with the Warp Field Special rule has a 3+ Invulnerable Save". Instead, we have a rule that gives ONE SPECIFIC model a save which is then given to models that aren't that model.

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

And where do you get your data suggesting that the "great majority" finds no issues with the rules and that "everyone understands the rules just fine"? I assume you have done some sort of scientifically correct survey? If so, where can I access this data? Which journal did you send it for peer review?

And before someone gets upset and reports me, I am not being snarky, I would truly like to know if this claim that "everyone" knows the rules fine is substantiated or just pulled out of thin air.

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

For the most part, everyone understands the majority of the rules just fine. The "problems" with the rules that arise result when one person, who interprets a slightly vague rule a certain way, plays a game with another person, who interprets the exact same rule differently for any number of possible reasons.

It is important to know what RAW actually is. This is because everyone plays by the same rule book. While their own interpretations of the few less-than-perfect rules may seem valid, not everyone else will play them the same way. By knowing RaW, you are accepting a standard that all other people can relate to, and this lets you determine with your opponent before the game which rules need clearing up and which rules stand as they are. Very few of the people who argue RaW on Dakka actually play them that way. We know they don't make sense if interpreted literally. We just don't want to fall into the trap of thinking that our interpretations are correct, because they can and will differ from the interpretations that others have.

Trasvi wrote:

There is an interesting recent interview with Gav Thorpe HERE in which he basically says 'if we get the rules to work in 90% of situations for 90% of the playerbase, that's good enough in our view'. With that kind of attitude coming down from the rules developers, it astounds me that people cling to 'RAW' as a shield when there is so much evidence that the designers are uninterested in that point of view.

Now I haven't clicked that link but personally I find is disgusting that anyone who provides a good/service could say this, like at a hospital "Oh well we admit about 90% of the serious cases that come here. And yes of them about 90% recive treatment" or to not use an extra example - what if someone from that 10% (one in ten - that's bloody huge) meets another person from that 10% - so on soforth what Mr. Gav thorpe has effectivly said is well if only 80% of people can play the game with no problems it doesn't seem to be effecting my bottom line so it can't be that serious...

ChrisCP wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

There is an interesting recent interview with Gav Thorpe HERE in which he basically says 'if we get the rules to work in 90% of situations for 90% of the playerbase, that's good enough in our view'. With that kind of attitude coming down from the rules developers, it astounds me that people cling to 'RAW' as a shield when there is so much evidence that the designers are uninterested in that point of view.

Now I haven't clicked that link but personally I find is disgusting that anyone who provides a good/service could say this, like at a hospital "Oh well we admit about 90% of the serious cases that come here. And yes of them about 90% recive treatment" or to not use an extra example - what if someone from that 10% (one in ten - that's bloody huge) meets another person from that 10% - so on soforth what Mr. Gav thorpe has effectivly said is well if only 80% of people can play the game with no problems it doesn't seem to be effecting my bottom line so it can't be that serious...

Well, there is a bit of a difference between a hospital and a gaming company. GW doesn't seem to want to make a perfect product, or at least try. Why should they? People buy it anyway.

Good post.

Ultimately, when rules lack clarity the only thing that matters is your locality (and player group). Message boards might point the debate in certain directions but the 'game' is still a social contract between two players sharing time together.

That said, it is nice to have a consistency to games with your mates and using an abridged FAQ (Or the INAT as we do) helps players prepare a bit more. Which brings me to what I consider the real issue with vague rules; timing. I don't believe I've ever seen someone grow angry with another player over FAQ'd rules before a game. However, enter the game at a telling moment late in the 4th turn...well a house rule might ruin (or make) someone's game. A little discussion before hand (How do you play Explodes Results in terms of disembarking?) goes a long way.

Gwar! wrote:
Even treating them as halfway decent leads to the same situation. A Halfway Decent ruleset would say "A model with the Warp Field Special rule has a 3+ Invulnerable Save". Instead, we have a rule that gives ONE SPECIFIC model a save which is then given to models that aren't that model.

So you agree, then, that they aren't even halfway decent. Which would make trying to impose a highly precise and literal interpretation onto them an even more futile and foolish exercise.

Back to OP.

I've felt for awhile that the only RaW responses consist of, "As it says on Page XYZ..."

There's a lot of unclear rules in 40k. It's improved in the past few years (although, it seems like Nids and SW are step backs for 'good rules'), but it's still not a tight ruleset. And it's not meant to be.

I think the RaW is a lot less important than the 'how do you play it'? view. RaW answers of "See page XYZ" are pretty straight forward. YMDC is full of conflicting special rules and incomplete rules, but there's still not a RaW answer to most of them.

Relic_OMO wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Even treating them as halfway decent leads to the same situation. A Halfway Decent ruleset would say "A model with the Warp Field Special rule has a 3+ Invulnerable Save". Instead, we have a rule that gives ONE SPECIFIC model a save which is then given to models that aren't that model.

So you agree, then, that they aren't even halfway decent. Which would make trying to impose a highly precise and literal interpretation onto them an even more futile and foolish exercise.

No, I agree they are not halfway decent, but that doesn't change what they say. If a Rule A says "Model X has Rule Y" and Model Z has Rule A, why would you think that Model Z benefits from Rule A?

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

And where do you get your data suggesting that the "great majority" finds no issues with the rules and that "everyone understands the rules just fine"? I assume you have done some sort of scientifically correct survey? If so, where can I access this data? Which journal did you send it for peer review?

And before someone gets upset and reports me, I am not being snarky, I would truly like to know if this claim that "everyone" knows the rules fine is substantiated or just pulled out of thin air.

Based on replies to RaW vs RaI threads, general YMDC, and people I know in real life, the vast majority of people understand the rules (as intended) just fine. Nobody I have ever played against has been confused by Doom's warp field rule, or anything of that level of "vagueness". I don't actually know of anyone that plays the rules in cases like Doom invlun field as RaW. If I did, then I might be more on the "rules are confusing and different between groups" side, but I have never had a rules interpretation difference from anyone that isn't on the internet and/or only argues for RaW in theory and/or devil's advocate.

Gwar! wrote:

Relic_OMO wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Even treating them as halfway decent leads to the same situation. A Halfway Decent ruleset would say "A model with the Warp Field Special rule has a 3+ Invulnerable Save". Instead, we have a rule that gives ONE SPECIFIC model a save which is then given to models that aren't that model.

So you agree, then, that they aren't even halfway decent. Which would make trying to impose a highly precise and literal interpretation onto them an even more futile and foolish exercise.

No, I agree they are not halfway decent, but that doesn't change what they say. If a Rule A says "Model X has Rule Y" and Model Z has Rule A, why would you think that Model Z benefits from Rule A?

Because Model Z is a Model X.

ph34r wrote:Based on replies to RaW vs RaI threads, general YMDC, and people I know in real life, the vast majority of people understand the rules (as intended) just fine. Nobody I have ever played against has been confused by Doom's warp field rule, or anything of that level of "vagueness". I don't actually know of anyone that plays the rules in cases like Doom invlun field as RaW. If I did, then I might be more on the "rules are confusing and different between groups" side, but I have never had a rules interpretation difference from anyone that isn't on the internet and/or only argues for RaW in theory and/or devil's advocate.

So your experiences playing a completely negligible portion of games with a negligible portion of people (when compared to the number of games and people playing worldwide) let you claim that "everyone" understands the rules?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Because Model Z is a Model X.

Z != X. Model Z is not a Model X. If it were a Model X, it would not be a Model Z.

Gwar! wrote:

be nice to the kitty...
give the kitty its treats...
don't make nice kitty angry...

ROOOAAARRRRRRR NOM NOM NOM NOM

kitty just ate your face

just quoting you so we everyone knows who im talking about

lol i always enjoy gwar responses to people you made me laugh when ive been havin a crap day to gwar

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Based on replies to RaW vs RaI threads, general YMDC, and people I know in real life, the vast majority of people understand the rules (as intended) just fine. Nobody I have ever played against has been confused by Doom's warp field rule, or anything of that level of "vagueness". I don't actually know of anyone that plays the rules in cases like Doom invlun field as RaW. If I did, then I might be more on the "rules are confusing and different between groups" side, but I have never had a rules interpretation difference from anyone that isn't on the internet and/or only argues for RaW in theory and/or devil's advocate.

So your experiences playing a completely negligible portion of games with a negligible portion of people (when compared to the number of games and people playing worldwide) let you claim that "everyone" understands the rules?

My experiences indicate that people do not have issues with the the majority of the rules. This includes real life and online aside from people who argue simply for the sake of argument. My knowledge taken from forums and real life indicate that most people do not have anywhere near as many problems with the rules as you do.

You are somewhat of a unique case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TopC wrote:lol i always enjoy gwar responses to people you made me laugh when ive been havin a crap day to gwar

Gwar's comments do always seem to provoke a chuckle. It's therapeutic almost.

I think Gwars! point, ph34r, is that as you havent played a sstatistically significant portion of the WH40K popoulation, you cannot claim" the majorioty" do anything. Essentially - be more precise in your responses.

Additionally: I do know what "you" you used: context. In the context of the sentences the "you" was personal, not group. So either you cannot write correctly formatted english sentences, or you lied.

Anyway - did you even read the part about De Facto? Do you understand what that means? Do you understand a) hiow dictionaries are written and b) how they are updated?

Finally: I *did* answer your question, and you keep returning to my initial answer and complaining about it. You inability to ask the question you meant to ask isnt my problem. Your inabiltiy to be happy that I then provided another answer to a marginally better written question is not my problem. All of these issues are imaginary - they exist solely in your head.

You can make such a claim based on the frequent polls we have in Dakka about "How do you play this situation..."


I have to say if a rule says a model has a rule, I would assume the model has the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I think Gwars! point, ph34r, is that as you havent played a sstatistically significant portion of the WH40K popoulation, you cannot claim" the majorioty" do anything. Essentially - be more precise in your responses.

I have observed as much of the 40k population as I can, and made projections based on it. The evidence is strongly in my favor and it would be unwise to ignore it.

Additionally: I do know what "you" you used: context. In the context of the sentences the "you" was personal, not group. So either you cannot write correctly formatted english sentences, or you lied.

I just wrote a correctly formatted English sentence up above, so looks like option one is out, and I do not lie, so bye bye option two, so looks like both of your "options" are wrong.
Oh wait, you are the one that misinterprets debate posts based on "RaW", so I should probably actually prove you wrong instead of getting out of defending myself on a technicality/misinterpretation like you would do.
My sentence was correctly formatted English. You assumed what "you" I used based on context that you interpreted. You were incorrect. I both can write English sentences and did not lie. You on the other hand, have misspelled more words in your post than my little cousin does when he writes a story.

Anyway - did you even read the part about De Facto? Do you understand what that means? Do you understand a) hiow dictionaries are written and b) how they are updated?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thanks for your questions, that was easy.

Finally: I *did* answer your question, and you keep returning to my initial answer and complaining about it. You inability to ask the question you meant to ask isnt my problem. Your inabiltiy to be happy that I then provided another answer to a marginally better written question is not my problem. All of these issues are imaginary - they exist solely in your head.

You answered my question technically, but not to the extent that a normal person would expect a question answered. It's like when you ask little Timmy who is throwing a tantrum to hand you something. "Could you hand me that Timmy?" "I could." Timmy answered the question just as well as you did the first time. Would society consider this a satisfactory answer? No. Did I consider your answer satisfactory when you initially "answered" my question? No.

Kilkrazy wrote:You can make such a claim based on the frequent polls we have in Dakka about "How do you play this situation..."

Indeed. Even with more grey-area RaW arguments, the majority sides with RaI. With something as obvious as Doom warp field, the numbers would be crushing in favor of RaI.

Gwar! wrote:No, I agree they are not halfway decent, but that doesn't change what they say. If a Rule A says "Model X has Rule Y" and Model Z has Rule A, why would you think that Model Z benefits from Rule A?

I wouldn't. But I would then consider it strange, even logically absurd, that a precise and watertight ruleset would give Model Z Rule A, when it has no function. Then I'd remember that it's not a watertight and precise ruleset, and use inductive interpretation to work out a consistent alternative. It would be foolish to do otherwise. It would be especially foolish to consider the ruleset weak, poorly worded and designed, yet refuse to use inductive reasoning to fill in the glaring gaps, and thus treat it with a reverence that not only does it not deserve, but also has never been shown to any ruleset for any game or sport.

While i agree that obsolete stats and rules are a sore to the eye in the sense that you know these things were factored in when the model pts were calculated, trying to restore their full function definitely belongs in houserule domain.
There are other such eyesores in my opinion, but not sure they 're fixable without codex revision, some units/armies lost bit of their shine due to rules being reshuffled, pinning getting weaker due to proliferation of fearless units, eldar/genestealer used to be the only ones that could run, now only the only part that remains exclusive is the assault after run, genestealers got fixed. Eldar skimmers still carry the pricetag they had to pay for the holofield/skimmer moving fast cheesyness and defensive weaps of str 6. Starcannon shots were lowered by 1 in an edition before they boosted cover saves across the board. I think that summs up about all the reasons why i'm keeping my eldar chilled until the next codex and playing orks instead. And oh yeah fear my strategy rating of 4 :p

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vis - you were ignored because the very first page, page 1, is entitled "THE RULES", which makes a complete nonsense of your entire post. Again.

You may disagree, unfortunately you are wrong.

Hrm... how to say this a third way that you might understand... Ok, so the problem you're having is the fact that the technical use of a word of art and the colloquial use of the same word are not synonymous. "Severability" come to mind as a decent, although not perfect, example. This is a word of art in the legal field and people who are not well versed in this field may not understand how to properly use this or may understand it a little bit and use it incorrectly. Ok, so, words of art are complicated and require an examination and perhaps guidance by one who understands it in order to understand it.

Back around to you, your equivocation comes from the fact that the word "Rule" can mean guidance in the colloquial sense; a parent may set down rules for his or her children but these are by no sense of the word "law" as it means in the technical sense; instead, the parent is simply stating that he or she is setting up guidance for the child, not technical laws as you would find in the UN Charter or the UCMJ or the Constitution.

Thus, you are equivocating when you say "the rulebook is full of the rules". First you start out saying in the colloquial sense, "set of guidance I call the rulebook but the writer's call guidelines with the colloquial title of 'rulebook'" is a set of "technical laws on par with the UCMJ or the Constitution..." This is pure equivocation on your part nosferatu, again, you may misunderstand this point, but that does not make you right.

Essentially my argument chalks up to, don't judge a book by its cover... which is exactly what you're doing... in order to understand whether a book with the title "Rulebook" is actually a technical set of laws or a colloquial set of guidelines, you need to examine the book. In the absence of this examination qua 'law', and in the absence of the understanding of what "law" means in the technical sense, you are not able to espouse a coherent opinion on the topic of whether it is a set of laws or set of guidelines.

A 4th way: Simply because it has the colloquial title "Rulebook" does not indicate the book is full of technical rules, id est, laws; actually, it is quite the opposite. Since the writers overtly tell us they mean this in the colloquial sense, the title "Rulebook" is just the same as the parent laying down rules for the child, they are not even remotely attempting to create technical laws, they are attempting to create mere guidelines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

This is in error. By an objective analysis of the book, irrespective of what you call it, one can easily find many real holes. Furthermore, the writers overtly state that you're going to find holes. Finally I never tried to find a hole in the rules regarding my white scars outflanking, my friend thought it would be a great way to keep my troops off of the table and as such deployed his troops along the board edge. We were both ignorant to the reality that the rulebook did not cover this, we were both ignorant to the fact that this has occurred in what appears to be a highly controversial and now popular interaction at a tournament. We did not try to find problems, he employed a tactic in an attempt to counter my outflanking tactic and we stumbled upon this obvious and unequivocal hole in the rules, whether or not the majority of the players understand the guidance in that book, the book has many holes, if this is what you define as "Decent" then sure, they're decent.

ph34r wrote:I have observed as much of the 40k population as I can, and made projections based on it. The evidence is strongly in my favor and it would be unwise to ignore it.

Then provide the evidence - I cannot "allow" you to base your argument on something with no basis or standard of proof.

ph34r wrote:I just wrote a correctly formatted English sentence up above, so looks like option one is out, and I do not lie, so bye bye option two, so looks like both of your "options" are wrong.

Nope, just means your last claim is also an untruth.

ph34r wrote:Oh wait, you are the one that misinterprets debate posts based on "RaW", so I should probably actually prove you wrong instead of getting out of defending myself on a technicality/misinterpretation like you would do.

Projection again?

Sorry, was that the wrong "you" again?

ph34r wrote:You assumed what "you" I used based on context that you interpreted. You were incorrect.

Bsaed on the rules of the english language there was only one way to interpret it. good try at trying to weasel out of admitting you were being abusive - you acknowledged your insults in later posts, why the problem with this one?

Given that other posters came to the same conclusion shows you dont pass the "reasonable man" test in your claims at least.

ph34r wrote:I both can write English sentences and did not lie. You on the other hand, have misspelled more words in your post than my little cousin does when he writes a story.

Wow, your insults get *more* petty, dont they? Struggling to find a point to your posts still?

ph34r wrote:Yes. Yes. Thanks for your questions, that was easy.

Ah, you understand but dont practice?

Nice one.

ph34r wrote:You answered my question technically, but not to the extent that a normal person would expect a question answered.

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to base your argument on something which is not provable and has no evidential basis.

Gets annoying doesnt it.

ph34r wrote: It's like when you ask little Timmy who is throwing a tantrum to hand you something. "Could you hand me that Timmy?" "I could." Timmy answered the question just as well as you did the first time. Would society consider this a satisfactory answer?

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to base you argument on something that you cannot prove.

ph34r wrote: No. Did I consider your answer satisfactory when you initially "answered" my question? No.

And again, this is *your* problem, not mine - get it yet? The probvlem exists SOLELY in your head.

Vis - they certainly can provide a set of rules to be followed in a game universe they control, that has no interface to the "real" laws.

Not all rules are laws.

"The Rules" is enoguh for a reasonable person to conclude they do, actually, mean to wite Rules.

Then provide the evidence - I cannot "allow" you to base your argument on something with no basis or standard of proof.

I am not going to compile a list of names, social security numbers, and stances on RaW. The evidence is all right here on the forums, for you to see. If you don't want to look at it, too bad for you.

Nope, just means your last claim is also an untruth.

Hah. No. You are still wrong on the "you" matter. You think that nosferatu1001 is the one that decides what ph34r means when he types. You are wrong. It would be insane to think otherwise.

Projection again?

You try to RaW the definition of words, rules in 40k, and questions I ask. I most certainly am not projecting

Bsaed on the rules of the english language there was only one way to interpret it. good try at trying to weasel out of admitting you were being abusive - you acknowledged your insults in later posts, why the problem with this one?

Because it's not an insult, you misinterpreted what I say, and nothing you can say will change what I wrote, because I wrote it, and I know what form of you I used. No matter how much you want it to be so, it will always be the you that I wanted to use.

Wow, your insults get *more* petty, dont they? Struggling to find a point to your posts still?

No. Try to make your posts more presentable. You arguing one second about the sanctity of the English (that's capitalized, you know) language and the next misspelling every other words is not supporting your argument.

Ah, you understand but dont practice?

Wrong.

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to base your argument on something which is not provable and has no evidential basis.

Gets annoying doesnt it.

You are seriously arguing that it is perfectly normal to answer a question without actually answering it.
Wow, I guess you are an donkey-cave in real life as well. Okay, whatever goes for normal in your life.

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to base you argument on something that you cannot prove.

You really are running out of arguments aren't you?

And again, this is *your* problem, not mine - get it yet? The probvlem exists SOLELY in your head.

No. It very much is your problem. If you consider the question sufficiently answered then you are an ill mannered individual who I do not enjoy conversing with. You are less fun and interesting to talk to than mad little Timmy.
Also, I feel like I am reading copy+paste from your earlier posts, if you don't have anything better to use to defend your position just forfeit the argument. You don't have any more real evidence to stand on, now that the whole house rule situation turned against you.

Vis - they certainly can provide a set of rules to be followed in a game universe they control, that has no interface to the "real" laws.

Not all rules are laws.

"The Rules" is enoguh for a reasonable person to conclude they do, actually, mean to wite Rules.

What is this Vis? I don't see it in my copy of OED. Please find a new argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

visavismeyou wrote:

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

This is in error. By an objective analysis of the book, irrespective of what you call it, one can easily find many real holes. Furthermore, the writers overtly state that you're going to find holes. Finally I never tried to find a hole in the rules regarding my white scars outflanking, my friend thought it would be a great way to keep my troops off of the table and as such deployed his troops along the board edge. We were both ignorant to the reality that the rulebook did not cover this, we were both ignorant to the fact that this has occurred in what appears to be a highly controversial and now popular interaction at a tournament. We did not try to find problems, he employed a tactic in an attempt to counter my outflanking tactic and we stumbled upon this obvious and unequivocal hole in the rules, whether or not the majority of the players understand the guidance in that book, the book has many holes, if this is what you define as "Decent" then sure, they're decent.

A reasonable point. I don't think that all rules in the book are airtight, but for the purposes of most play they work well. Some rules are definitely in need of FAQ, such as the one you provided an example of.

ph34r wrote:I am not going to compile a list of names, social security numbers, and stances on RaW. The evidence is all right here on the forums, for you to see. If you don't want to look at it, too bad for you.

Ah, so what you mean is you DONT have any evidence that can be cehcked? Please provide thread links etc to your "proof" if you argue otherwise.

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to not provide evidence to back up your assertions

ph34r wrote:Hah. No. You are still wrong on the "you" matter. You think that nosferatu1001 is the one that decides what ph34r means when he types. You are wrong. It would be insane to think otherwise.

Context states it. In a text only forum WHAT YOU WRITE, oddly enough, determines WHAT you wrote. You may have been thinkiing something else, but you did not express it. So again we're back at you inability to write clear English sentences or you lied.

Simple.

ph34r wrote:You try to RaW the definition of words, rules in 40k, and questions I ask. I most certainly am not projecting

Says the persons using the wrong dictionary to "RAW" the definition of a word in the way they want. Pot, kettle, black. definitely projection.

ph34r wrote:Because it's not an insult, you misinterpreted what I say, and nothing you can say will change what I wrote, because I wrote it, and I know what form of you I used. No matter how much you want it to be so, it will always be the you that I wanted to use.

See above. the "you" you used was personal based on context. Yet again your problem exists SOLELY in your own head.

ph34r wrote:Wrong.

Nope, not wrong - you seem to believe the only place a definition can be is in the dictionary, meaning de facto cannot exist according to you. Good one!

ph34r wrote:You are seriously arguing that it is perfectly normal to answer a question without actually answering it.

No, I *did* answer the question. You are arguing it is OK on a text only forum (not real life, you struggle with the difference here) to ask a question, have it answered 100% accurately, and then claim the other person should have read your mind and answered a *different* question to the one that was asked?

Really?

Sorry, your inabilty to formulate a question is not my problem. You being unhappy with my answer is not my problem. All of these are problems that only exist in your head - commoinly called delusions by other people.

ph34r wrote:Wow, I guess you are an donkey-cave in real life as well. Okay, whatever goes for normal in your life.

Again with the insults. Theres something about resorting to insults and losing arguments that I cant quite put my finger on...of course, this would have applied what, 2 pages back? the rest has just been you, digging deeper.

ph34r wrote:No. It very much is your problem.

Oddly enough given you are the only person with a problem it IS your problem, not mine.

ph34r wrote:If you consider the question sufficiently answered then you are an ill mannered individual who I do not enjoy conversing with. You are less fun and interesting to talk to than mad little Timmy.

Then feel free to quit the thread - I find you quite amusing in how you attempt to duck everything and frantically try to cover up your insults as something else.

ph34r wrote:Also, I feel like I am reading copy+paste from your earlier posts, if you don't have anything better to use to defend your position just forfeit the argument. You don't have any more real evidence to stand on, now that the whole house rule situation turned against you.

"Now"? how has it turned against me?

You seem to think a hosuerule is only a houserule if only *1* group uses it. Meaning your definition is functionally useless. I have also explained the other issues with your definition, but you ignore them and pretend they dont exist.

You stopped debating (as in, actually argiung the point and not the person) as soon as it was pointed out your definition did not exist in the language the book was written in. Ever since then we have had desperate clutching at straws (but but but you have to have A definition!) and further insults. You're quite amusing at times.

ph34r wrote:What is this Vis? I don't see it in my copy of OED. Please find a new argument.

So, deliberate obtuseness again? "vis...." does not capitilise their avatar name, so when I shortened it I did not either.

I assume that you ignore the words "The Rules" as well?

It seems like this thread has run its course.

Locking thread.