Ok, so this is interesting:

BotWD states that "models... have a 2+ ward save against all WOUNDS caused by spells..."

Black Horror states that: "...must pass a Strength test or be SLAIN OUTRIGHT with no armour saves allowed (a model MAY TAKE a single WARD SAVE, if it has one".

So, does the BotWD grant a 2+ ward against wounds caused by the Black Horror. I would be inclined to say no, because BotWD does specifically say Wounds and Black Horror specifically says slain outright, which I believe are two different things (could be argued otherwise though). That said, Black Horror grants specific permission to use a ward save.

I'm fairly sure it wouldn't work, but I play with and against HE a lot, so I thought I would best seek clarification/opinions before the inevitability of this cropping up in game.

No; no wounds are caused.

EDIT:

Looking this over, I'd like to change my vote. I think you would get the Banner effect.

All ward saves are taken against wounds so if that is the issue then you never get a Ward save against black horror despite it clearly saying you do.

No ward save.
Black horror is an instant kill. Most noticeably by its strength test. With instant kills wounds become irrelevant. (Instant kills brb pg44)

 Peasant wrote:
No ward save.
Black horror is an instant kill. Most noticeably by its strength test. With instant kills wounds become irrelevant. (Instant kills brb pg44)

However, in the Black Horror entry, it says rather explicitly that a model can take a ward save.

I should have been more clear.
No ward save from the BotWD.
BotWD grants a ward vs. wounds
Instant kills don't cause wounds.

And all ward saves are taken against wounds...

Unless they say they don't. New lizard sword.

 FlingitNow wrote:
And all ward saves are taken against wounds...

Armour of Destiny doesn't.
Talisman of Preservation doesn't.
Talisman of Protdction doesn't.
Mark of Tzeentch doesn't.
They all just state that they grant a ward save, not tha it is only against wounds.
Instant kills (p4?) don't cause wounds, so BOTWD doesn't grant a ward.

Niteware check the ward save rules. All those things give ward saves ward saves are taken against wounds.

Wounds are on of the things that wards can be taken against, however some ward saves define that they can only be taken against specific things: poison, flaming, magic and wounds being examples. Ward saves that do not specify can be used in any situation that allows a ward save. Wards which specify criteria can only bebused when those conditions apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reading the ward save section p44, there is nothing that says they are for wounds. The only mention of wound is an example that says that a 5+ ward would need a 5 or higher to prevent a wound. So what were you meaning before?

Niteware wrote:
Wounds are on of the things that wards can be taken against, however some ward saves define that they can only be taken against specific things: poison, flaming, magic and wounds being examples. Ward saves that do not specify can be used in any situation that allows a ward save. Wards which specify criteria can only bebused when those conditions apply.

But the point is all ward saves are taken against wounds, this spell over rides that criteria. The reason you have wounds in the BotWD wording is because you take ward saves against sounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reading the ward save section p44, there is nothing that says they are for wounds. The only mention of wound is an example that says that a 5+ ward would need a 5 or higher to prevent a wound. So what were you meaning before?

Yes... ward saves are a type of save. They are not defined in terms of wounds, only as a type of save. There are two main things that you take warss against: wounds and instant kills.
It seems like your argument is "ward saves can stop wounds, so anything stopped by a ward save is a wound" which is the same arguement as "Men can be American, so all Americans are men" or "A bus went past my house, so everything which passes my house is a bus".
Is there more to your argument than that? If so, sorry for missing it.

Ward saves can be taken against instant kills? Remember a Killing Blow is a To Wound roll (that has an additional effect), or are you trying to claim BotWD doesn't give a 2+ ward vs Killing Blows?

BOTWD doesn't give a ward against KB - there are other threads which deal with that - but KB tecjnically isn't defined as an instant kill. Instant Kills are test or die characteristic tests, which sometimes allow a ward save. They specifically state that they don't cause wounds, so BOTWD doesn't work.

Many Ward saves save against anything.
There are spelss that tell you that you get no saves of any kind. Like Purple Sun of Xereus or Pit of shades
BotWD would give you 2+ vs, spells like Uranons thunderbolt or Fate of Bjuna and Sprit Leech
I'd say BothWD would save against KB but any more comments on that you'll need to read the thread.

Instant Kills are test or die characteristic tests, which sometimes allow a ward save.

Give me an example of such a test that you get a ward save against other than Black Horror.

p44 Instant Kills
Some special attacks don't inflict wounds, but require models to be removed as casualties (after failing a Ld or T test for example). Where this is the case, not only are no saves of any kind allowed (unless specified otherwise) but the number of wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant - just remove the model from play and hope for better luck next time.

This should be enough, as it is clearly the exact same template and categorically states that no wound was caused.

Can't think of any of top that actually allow a save atm (apart from the grey area of KB), but the option was explicitly left open. Others may be able to help you with examples.

Its not causing wounds though, so there is no trigger to set off the ward save.
It seems to bypass the banner without issue simply because it removes them without causing any wounds.

It doesn't matter there is a test or not. The word that matters is Wounds on the banner. A ward save is just a save and it crops up in shooting attacks, cc attacks, or when required in special rules. Final Transmutation doesn't have any kind of test at all, any kind of save at all, it just poofs you dead. No save, no wound, no banner.

If a spell/attack/weapon doesn't Wound, actually have the word "wound" in it, it doesn't apply to the banner. Now, pretty much every attack and weapon is going to wound. We know successful (Heroic) Killing Blows don't, just like final transmutation. But pretty much every other attack is just some version of a shooting or cc attack and it's going to cause wounds if successful.

The question is where do stuff like Blade of Realities (no ward saves) fall? The blade says no ward, but the banner says ward.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Instant Kills are test or die characteristic tests, which sometimes allow a ward save.

Give me an example of such a test that you get a ward save against other than Black Horror.

There aren't going to be many tests that the banner will protect you from, that is the point of the instant kills. How many points is the banner? If it gave you a 2+ward against everything it would have to be something crazy like 1000 pts.

But other spells it wouldn't work against are simple. Direct damage and magic missiles will most likely get the save. Hex, augment and vortex you would not.

If I understand your question right Spirit Leech is closest to what you are looking for. You roll d6 and add ld, then take a wound based on how many points the caster beats you by.
But again this is direct damage and also references wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:

The question is where do stuff like Blade of Realities (no ward saves) fall? The blade says no ward, but the banner says ward.

That is a good question. Which gets the trump card. I'd probably roll a dice. 50/50 shot either way. That will need some input form GW.

BotWD gives you a Ward save against magical damage unless that damage ignores ward saves. Like basically every test or die spell before Black Horror which specifically allows ward saves. Hence you'd get a ward save from BotWD as it is magical damage. The BotWD uses the term wounds as all saves are taken against wounds. Does anyone genuinely believe they'll FAQ the banner to not work against this spell?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blade of realities certainly does ignore BotWD. Specific over rules generally. The Banner gives you a ward save the Blade specifies ward saves don't work.

Blade of realities and banner are both specific. They are both army level. Blade is a magic weapon that ignores ward saves. Banner gives a ward save vs. magic weapons.

Botwd doesn't give a ward save against "magical damage" or it would save magical damage. It gives a save against wounds from magical attacks.

 FlingitNow wrote:
BotWD gives you a Ward save against magical damage unless that damage ignores ward saves. Like basically every test or die spell before Black Horror which specifically allows ward saves. Hence you'd get a ward save from BotWD as it is magical damage. The BotWD uses the term wounds as all saves are taken against wounds. Does anyone genuinely believe they'll FAQ the banner to not work against this spell?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blade of realities certainly does ignore BotWD. Specific over rules generally. The Banner gives you a ward save the Blade specifies ward saves don't work.

Do you have any rules that back up anything you wrote.? Wards never state that they only save wounds, the banner specifically states that it does. Black Horror specifically doesn't cause wounds. How can you think these things are irrelevant?
As to banner vs blades, I think blades wins, since it says no ward aave, while banner doesn't say you always get a ward - botwd gives you a ward save if you are allowed to take one ie you are wounded and allowed a save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for FAQ, it would have to FAQ it for the banner to work, as RAW is pretty clear - one specidlfically does not cause wounds, the other specifically wards against wounds.

I agree RaW that the Banner doesn't work. I was just explaining why it is written the way it is. I guess against the old stream of corruption which required you to take a toughness test or suffer a wound you'd take all your toughness test and say nobody takes a wound as you had taken the test? Or that you play that anything with an armour save written in their Army Book can't have it modified by strength as Army book trumps Rulebook?

Erm, no... don't see how "blatamtly not followwing the rules" could be inferrsd from "talking about how the rules work, which you agree is RAW".
Army book only trumps rule book when they tell you to do different things. So if the army book said that a unit's AS couldn't be modified by S, then you would play that. Otherwise you would follow the rules...

You're a sore loser in this argument FlinItNow
the rules are very clear in this case, no BotWD against Black Horror as it doesn't cause any wounds, same as no BotWD against KB / HKB (except of course if you have a rule that makes you ignore KB / HKB) as you could save the wound caused by the 6, but not the "secondary" effect triggered by the 6 because that effect isn't causing any wounds, just "slaying you outright"

Not being a sore loser, just illustrating I was trying to argue for the actual rules not just the RaW. Niteware convinced me of a ruling in another thread and I thanked him for it. Again I understand how the KB argument works but I would be surprised to see anyone actually play it that way. I don't play HE so don't have a vested interest in this working, but the intent seems clear to me.

As for HIWPI, I would let my opponent take the ward, but point out that this wasn't RAW - unless it was a competitive game, where I think rules should be followed.

If the intent of the BotWD was to have a blanket save against everything magic, why did they add the "against wounds" part while every other regular Ward save item is not specifically against wounds?
Plus it's nice to have them unable to laugh in the face of their hated brothers "lulz, I has skillzbanner!"

Even they have to break thing down into actual game events. A hit is not a wound. And a roll to wound isn't a wound. Remaining moves isn't all movement which is just a charge. There's all kinds of limitations that apply to those very specific sub-phases.

If the intent of the BotWD was to have a blanket save against everything magic, why did they add the "against wounds" part while every other regular Ward save item is not specifically against wounds?

Its not like they added the "against wounds" part they are defining what types of damage the BotWD gives a ward space against. Damage in Warhammer is almost always in the form of wounds "... 2+ ward save against all Wounds caused by spells, magic weapons and magical attacks." It would have been difficult to word it such that it ignored all damage from such sources without using the wounds terminology (as damage is not really defined in any other way), plus adding in stuff like instant kills would give you ward saves against Dwellers and other IK spells that don't normally allow ward saves, then add in the fact that no IK attack allowed ward saves before and why they put the against all wounds language in there. The wounds isn't the restriction it is the spells, magic weapons and magical attacks that are the restrictions that need to be met to get the ward save (I know this isn't the RaW but it is the clear intention).

I disagree that it is a clear intention. Setting aside KB, which the banner doesn't block - see various other threads - GW creatsd a very specific save. If they had wanted to make it cover instant kills which allow saves, they could just have dropped the word wounds. " A 2+ ward save against spells, magic weapons and magical attacks" would have been perfectly cpear. You still wouldn't have got it against dwellers etc, because those spells state no saves of any kind. You would get it against KB and Black Horror.
The inclusion of the word wounds shows the intent that it should only work on wounds.

The way I go about reasoning it out.
First, is black horror a magical attack or effect? Yes
Second, does it say no saves of any kind are allowed? No
Third, does it allow ward saves? Yes
Fourth, does the BotWD provide a WS? Yes
Fifth, how does GW quantify damage? Wounds

Therefore you get a save.

Matt ward wrote both books. He created black horror and BotWD. If he didn't want the banner to work on black horror then he would have totally omitted the ward save part of the spell.

Fourth, does the BotWD provide a WS? Yes

Only against Wounds, Bloack Horror does not cause wounds, otherwise all "slain outright" effects would need to be replaced with the "multiple wound(10)" rule

TanKoL wrote:

Fourth, does the BotWD provide a WS? Yes

Only against Wounds, Bloack Horror does not cause wounds, otherwise all "slain outright" effects would need to be replaced with the "multiple wound(10)" rule

Yet Ward Saves like other saves are all taken against wounds. There is specific permission in this spell (as there is for killing blow) to take a ward save against it instead of against wounds (telling you to ignore the effect if the save is passed).

There is specific permission in this spell (as there is for killing blow) to take a ward save against it instead of against wounds

Nope, it's just a "slain outright spell" that does authorizes Ward Saves if you have one, not "Ward saves as if it was a wound"
Nothing in the BRB says what "slain outright" effects authorizes save-wise, every effect of this category specifically says what saves can be taken (usually none, except KB and Black Horror), they still don't cause wounds

TanKoL wrote:

There is specific permission in this spell (as there is for killing blow) to take a ward save against it instead of against wounds

Nope, it's just a "slain outright spell" that does authorizes Ward Saves if you have one, not "Ward saves as if it was a wound"
Nothing in the BRB says what "slain outright" effects authorizes save-wise, every effect of this category specifically says what saves can be taken (usually none, except KB and Black Horror), they still don't cause wounds

The issue is that you're apply a level of accuracy to the language that the rules simply weren't written with. That is not a good way to work out what the actual rule is. RaW is a useful tool to a point but it is not the best tool to work out RaI in many situations.

Remember that Canadians get to vote, so everyone who votes is Canadian. Therefore changing how Egyptians get to vte would break Canadian law. Not RAW, but RAI.

Ridiculous backwards logic.

Niteware wrote:
Remember that Canadians get to vote, so everyone who votes is Canadian. Therefore changing how Egyptians get to vte would break Canadian law. Not RAW, but RAI.

Ridiculous backwards logic.

That's not even remotely close to what I've said. If you're going to use strawmen then at least use some based on the claim some one has made.

 FlingitNow wrote:

TanKoL wrote:

There is specific permission in this spell (as there is for killing blow) to take a ward save against it instead of against wounds

Nope, it's just a "slain outright spell" that does authorizes Ward Saves if you have one, not "Ward saves as if it was a wound"
Nothing in the BRB says what "slain outright" effects authorizes save-wise, every effect of this category specifically says what saves can be taken (usually none, except KB and Black Horror), they still don't cause wounds

The issue is that you're apply a level of accuracy to the language that the rules simply weren't written with. That is not a good way to work out what the actual rule is. RaW is a useful tool to a point but it is not the best tool to work out RaI in many situations.

How many other rules do you assume were written badly? Wards against flaming always apply, because flaming was just an exclamtion (Drat those flaming wounds)?

Sorry what are you saying? Are you saying it is impossible to work out what the writers meant beyond the most literal translation of the text?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Remember that Canadians get to vote, so everyone who votes is Canadian. Therefore changing how Egyptians get to vte would break Canadian law. Not RAW, but RAI.

Ridiculous backwards logic.

That's not even remotely close to what I've said. If you're going to use strawmen then at least use some based on the claim some one has made.

Ok then, I'll repeat what I said earlier. The fact that you get a ward against wounds does not mean that wounds are the only thing you get warss against. Matt Ward is quite capable of writing what he intends (even if what he intends is usually stupid), and he specifically wrote wounds on the BOTWD. Being too accurate with rules is not a valid criticism in a rules forum. You can say how you would play it, but don't confuse that with rules.

Ok then, I'll repeat what I said earlier. The fact that you get a ward against wounds does not mean that wounds are the only thing you get wards against

You need specific permission to take ward saves against anything other than wounds though. The general ward save rules define only how they are taken against wounds. Thus given this context the BotWD makes perfect sense to mention wounds as that is what ward saves are normally taken against and anything else gives you explicit permission to take ward saves and tells you what passing that save means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You can say how you would play it, but don't confuse that with rules.

And you can state RAW, but don't confuse that with the actual rules...

As a primer - Fling has tried the rules != RAW argument repeatedly in the 40k forum, and warned against it there by Mods. Same should be applied here.

That's not entirely true I been earned for derailing threads. Not for arguing that the GW design team designed the rules, something you disagree with rather bizarrely.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ok then, I'll repeat what I said earlier. The fact that you get a ward against wounds does not mean that wounds are the only thing you get wards against

You need specific permission to take ward saves against anything other than wounds though. The general ward save rules define only how they are taken against wounds. Thus given this context the BotWD makes perfect sense to mention wounds as that is what ward saves are normally taken against and anything else gives you explicit permission to take ward saves and tells you what passing that save means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You can say how you would play it, but don't confuse that with rules.

And you can state RAW, but don't confuse that with the actual rules...

1) Read the OP, you have specific permission to take a ward
2) No other ward save specifies that it is against wounds. Why do you think the only one which does must mean something different?
3) RAW is the rules. Period. That is what "the rules as written" means. RAI means what you think was meant. This is not the rules.
4) Seeing as your assumptions neither make sense (2) or are the rules (3), do you have anything further which will be useful for the discussion?

1) Yes I know and I believe that permission extends to the BotWD.
2) All saves specify they are taken against wounds, why do you think this other save would be any different?
3) RAW is the literal translation of the written text. RaI is the actual rules that GW designed. My interpretation of RAI is just that an interpretation of what the actual rules are using the written text. It of course could be wrong, just as my interpretation of RaW could be wrong (as it was in the other thread about mounts and Murderous Prowess). Unless you are claiming the rules were not designed by the GW design team as Nos believes.
4) Hopefully I've explained them better now.

I am trying to discuss the actual rules using the written texts and FAQs to deduce them. If you do not wish to discuss this and wish only to discuss RaW then don't argue against my posts as we will be talking cross purposes and will get nowhere.

Ward saves are not specifically taken against wounds alone
For instance you can take a Ward against a KB / HKB if said ward is available to you
agreed, a successful KB / HKB usually means that you are taking a wound as well, but it's two separate effects (you could trigger a HKB -dealing d6 wounds in this case- on a Toad dragon but not wound it if you're less than S4)

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) Yes I know and I believe that permission extends to the BotWD.
2) All saves specify they are taken against wounds, why do you think this other save would be any different?
3) RAW is the literal translation of the written text. RaI is the actual rules that GW designed. My interpretation of RAI is just that an interpretation of what the actual rules are using the written text. It of course could be wrong, just as my interpretation of RaW could be wrong (as it was in the other thread about mounts and Murderous Prowess). Unless you are claiming the rules were not designed by the GW design team as Nos believes.
4) Hopefully I've explained them better now.

I am trying to discuss the actual rules using the written texts and FAQs to deduce them. If you do not wish to discuss this and wish only to discuss RaW then don't argue against my posts as we will be talking cross purposes and will get nowhere.

1) Why do you think it can be taken, seeing as Black Horror explicitly does not cause wounds and you agree that RAW BOTWD only protects against wounds. Do you mean that you would let your opponent take it / hope that your opponent would let you take it?
2) The fact that saves can be taken agaunst wounds does not mean they can only be taken against wounds. BOTWD specifies that it can be taken against wounds, but no other ward save does. Why do YOU think that it is written differently to every other ward save?
3) Ok... that is not the rules though. Nobody else means RAI when they talk about rules, because it is entirely subjective. You can ague that any rule doesn't mean what it says, because you don't think that is what was intended The actual rules for a game are the ines that are written down. Look up the word rules ifyou ddon't believe me.
Arguing RAI is fine, as long as you are clear that that is what you are arguing, rather than actual rules.

RaI is the actual rules unless you are stating you don't believe the GW design team designed the rules?

As for fallacious arguments about you could argue anything is RaI you could do the same with RAW (you say RAW says an Orc is T4 I say you're hallucinating and that RaW says Orcs are T10, you can't prove that anyone isn't hallucinating, see how pointless arguments are pointless).

RaI is not subjective however our interpretations of it are, but then so can the same be said about RAW. There is more certainty and more clarity in RAW I agree that is what makes it a useful tool and a great way to create a house rule when RaI isn't clear. You may say that we can't agree what the rule is so we will default to RaW as our house rule in such situations. Some times the RaI will be unclear and the RaW clear yet we'll still not decide to play RaW. Like the Empire Detachments Steadfast rule, it could have been meant to work a couple of ways but the actual RaW was completely stupid so I don't know anyone that played it by the RaW, the FAQ came out and gave us the answer that is was the most generous of the likely RaI answers, but before that FAQ no one could say they knew what the actual rule was unless they were on the GW design team or spoke to one of them directly.

As for the difference in wording between BotWD and normal saves I really don't see it. Normal saves say you take them against wounds "Each wound suffered may be cancelled if..." Banner of the World Dragon says you get a save against wounds. I really don't see the difference given the context of how each rule was written.

RAI is hard to divine from GW's often cryptic writings.

RAI is hard to divine from GW's often cryptic writings

It sure can be, but also remember a lot of people argue RaW just for the sake of it. Whilst others are actively looking for loop holes. These things make the issue seem far bigger than it is (plus no one discusses the rules that are clear in RaI and RAW for 8-10 pages so they don't make the headlines). Remember even in law where language is written far more precisely the spirit and intention (RaI) of the law is what matters not the letter(RaW) of the law.

If GW did write rules as precisely as laws it would create 2 issues:

1) Rulebooks would double if not triple or more in price. Lawyers aren't cheap.
2) Only lawyers could play the game as no one else would understand what was written...

Would you really want that?

RaI is the actual rules unless you are stating you don't believe the GW design team designed the rules?

No. RAI would be the rules if the people who designed the system had written them that way. Except that that would be RAW.
If you could definitely guarantee that a particular thing was meant by the development team, but that they had instead written something else, you might be able to claim that those were the rules. Except they wouldn't be - because what the team actually wrote would be the rules.
If the team, at some point, decide that what they have written is not what they intended the rules to be, they can FAQ it.

As for fallacious arguments about you could argue anything is RaI you could do the same with RAW (you say RAW says an Orc is T4 I say you're hallucinating and that RaW says Orcs are T10, you can't prove that anyone isn't hallucinating, see how pointless arguments are pointless).

The difference being that RAW is in black and white, RAI is not. You can gather a group of people and they can all read the paper which has the rules on. RAI is the argument "I know that X is what is written, but I think they meant Y", which is far more open to debate / silly arguments.

more clarity in RAW I agree that is what makes it a useful tool and a great way to create a house rule when RaI isn't clear

Hang on, you want to use the actual written rules as "a house rule" when the version of them that you have made up is unclear?

Like the Empire Detachments Steadfast rule, it could have been meant to work a couple of ways but the actual RaW was completely stupid so I don't know anyone that played it by the RaW,

This is the actual meaning of playing a house rule. When you, as a playing group, decide that RAW is not what you should play. The "house" then makes a ruling, rather than using the actual, written rules.

he FAQ came out and gave us the answer that is was the most generous of the likely RaI answers, but before that FAQ no one could say they knew what the actual rule was unless they were on the GW design team or spoke to one of them directly.

Highlighting my point above and showing the problem with using RAI in the first place.

Normal saves say you take them against wounds

1) Find any item that that is true for. BOTWD is a magic item that grants a specific ward save. Find any other - I have already provided a list of some that don't
2) Normal saves do not say that you take them against wounds. They say how you take them against wounds, but do not limit themselves in any way to only apply to wounds.
3) It seems like you are trying to compare a misreading of a general rule with the effects of an item, rather than comparing items to each other. This doesn't work; BOTWD doesn't provide a new type of save (which would allow you to compare a BOTWD save to a ward save), it provides a type of ward save. This means that you need to compare the ward save provided by BOTWD with ward saves provided by other items. Read the effects of different magical items (I would suggest Armour of Destiny, Talisman of Protection, BOTWD and Dragonbane gem) and compare them.
Next, re-read the section on ward saves and try and find anything which tells you that it only applies to wounds.
BOTWD provides a different type of ward save which specifies that it affects all types of magical wound, but that is all.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

RAI is hard to divine from GW's often cryptic writings

It sure can be, but also remember a lot of people argue RaW just for the sake of it. Whilst others are actively looking for loop holes. These things make the issue seem far bigger than it is (plus no one discusses the rules that are clear in RaI and RAW for 8-10 pages so they don't make the headlines). Remember even in law where language is written far more precisely the spirit and intention (RaI) of the law is what matters not the letter(RaW) of the law.

If GW did write rules as precisely as laws it would create 2 issues:

1) Rulebooks would double if not triple or more in price. Lawyers aren't cheap.
2) Only lawyers could play the game as no one else would understand what was written...

Would you really want that?

Firstly, the letter of the law is actually what matters in most cases - people refer to it as "getting off on a technicality" when the letter of law has not been broken, but the spirit of the law has.
Secondly, depending on your legal system, most law isn't written. UK law, for example, is largely based on common law, which is previous court judgements. It is, therefore, a very bad example for a game with written rules.
Finally, the main problem, as I see it, with GW writing an accurate rulebook would be that it would be very dull to read - they would have to use the same word every time they meant the same thing, have no fluff in rules etc. That being said, the current system of FAQ>Army Book>RAW>RAI>WIWL works pretty well most of the time.

No. RAI would be the rules if the people who designed the system had written them that way. Except that that would be RAW.
If you could definitely guarantee that a particular thing was meant by the development team, but that they had instead written something else, you might be able to claim that those were the rules. Except they wouldn't be - because what the team actually wrote would be the rules.
If the team, at some point, decide that what they have written is not what they intended the rules to be, they can FAQ it.

No FAQs don't change rules they clarify what is meant by them, Errata changes rules. GW designed the game I find it bizarre that you think what they designed isn't the rules. If you want me to explain in further detail why the rules are what GW made them please PM me on this and I'll explain in greater detail let's not derail this thread into an argument about whether GW designed the rules.

The difference being that RAW is in black and white, RAI is not.

Yes it is this is what makes it a useful tool or a common ground people can choose to house rule from.

This is the actual meaning of playing a house rule. When you, as a playing group, decide that RAW is not what you should play. The "house" then makes a ruling, rather than using the actual, written rules.

No a house rule is when you either know what the RaI is but choose to change it. Or you don't know (or can't agree) what the actual rule is so create one yo handle the situation.

Highlighting my point above and showing the problem with using RAI in the first place.

Just because RaI can be impossible to determine at times (so can RaW) does not mean that the GW design team didn't design the rules. I don't understand why you'd think it would?

If some says to you " Can you tell me the time please?"
Do you:
a) Reply "Yes" and walk off glad you were able to help him with his query, and get confused when he thinks you haven't.
b) Look at your watch/phone etc and then tell him the time.

Then to your numbered section:

1) Every single item that provides a save according yo the saves rules gets to use that save against wounds and by those rules are only permitted to use those saves against wounds. Other rules then tell you when you get to use a save against them if they do not cause wounds and detail how that works.
2) permissive ruleset the normal saves rules only give you permission to use saves against wounds. This is the same argument you are using to deny BotWD as it too only gives permission to use saves against wounds.
3) Yes BotWD provides a ward save. Does Black Horror allow ward saves? Is it a Spell?

Not but as an often times judge at the local tourneys i prefer to know the strictest form of RAW in order to have a high quality rules pack for events.

1) Every single item that provides a save according yo the saves rules gets to use that save against wounds and by those rules are only permitted to use those saves against wounds. Other rules then tell you when you get to use a save against them if they do not cause wounds and detail how that works.
2) permissive ruleset the normal saves rules only give you permission to use saves against wounds. This is the same argument you are using to deny BotWD as it too only gives permission to use saves against wounds.
3) Yes BotWD provides a ward save. Does Black Horror allow ward saves? Is it a Spell?

You are absolutely wrong about 1 and 2. Unless you can demonstrate where it is written, or even implied. The rules define what a ward save is, without any reference to wounds in that description. They then give an example of how that works for wounds, but that is not the same as defining the scope of a ward save.
Items which detail specific circumstances in which they can be used can only ever be used in those circumstances. Seeing as you want to think about what was intended instead of what is written, do you think that Mat Ward might have been indicating that he intended something different when he decided to use different language than for any other item? Including items in the same army book. Is that not pretty clear sign of intent?

As to your question, in the street I would give the time. In a court, I would answer "Yes" and leave it at that. Giving extra information in court is really bad practice.

FAQs don't change rules

This would be true a) if GW used Errata properly and b) If FAQs didn't sometimes change to be the exact opposite of what they previously were - crumble and overrun for example.

No a house rule is when you either know what the RaW is but choose to change it. Or you don't know (or can't agree) what the actual rule is so create one to handle the situation.

Fixed that for you.

 HoverBoy wrote:
Not but as an often times judge at the local tourneys i prefer to know the strictest form of RAW in order to have a high quality rules pack for events.

I completely agree with this. I just don't think we should lose sight of the fact that RaW =/= The Rules as many people claim. RaW has its place and is a very useful tool. Only on internet forums and in tournaments do I ever come across the idea that RaI isn't the rules and in person no one has ever stuck yo that when pointed out that GW designs the rules. Only on the Internet's do I ever see people claiming the rulebook overrides the writers.

I completely agree with this. I just don't think we should lose sight of the fact that RaW =/= The Rules as many people claim. RaW has its place and is a very useful tool. Only on internet forums and in tournaments do I ever come across the idea that RaI isn't the rules and in person no one has ever stuck yo that when pointed out that GW designs the rules. Only on the Internet's do I ever see people claiming the rulebook overrides the writers.

The only time that could ever matter is if you were playing with a developer. Apart from that, you have what the developers have written. That is what people usually refer to as the rules.
RAI = what people make up when they think the actual rules don't work / they don't understand the rules. Unless you are a developer or are with one, you have no basis to say that what they wrote is not what they intended and even less basis to over rule what is written.

Fling - I'm guessing you have the team on stand by then and always ready for a quick chat when you want to know what they mean by a rule?

While RAW can be played through various loop-holes, RAI can also be twisted just as easily to suit a certain need when the time arises.

The issue with RAI is that it is very hard to actually prove that point unless the rule makes no sense when reading it any other way.

RAW remains alot more solid since we have the words infront of us and can simply follow them like the instructions that they are.
We do not have to decide what the writer was trying to achieve at the time of making said rule.



OT - I believe you dont get the saves.

The banner only provides the save against a wound.
Horror does not cause any wounds, so the banner would fail to trigger.
Just because it does allow a ward save does not mean its a wound being caused.
It simply means they are not making it an over powered spell (to some degree)

Alot of times in WHFB you are forced to make the same tests or rolls, but from a different source.

Also, you will find that people argue these rules alot in actual games, aswell as on the internet.
The old deathroller debate was a good bit of proof of this one.



Granted, im not saying this is the best way to play it, but its easier to use whats actually written and use it as instructions, as opposed to trying to stab a guess at what the writer had in mind with the rule.

Read page 43 for my reference on what I was saying for 1&2. If you want me to explain to you that GW designed the rules please do so on PM but don't say fixed that for you in reference to making a ludicrous statement like RaW = The Rules.

Back on topic: pages 43&44 don't give examples of how to take saves the literally define how saves are taken. Please point me to the other section that deals with how saves are taken if you believe this not to be the case (and by that I mean a section that deals with saves in general not an exception to the normal saves rules that allows you to take as save against that specific rule).

Why did they write the banner as they did? Well I think I've covered that already. As for claiming the banner is written differently to other rules in the book I suggest you take a look at the Fireborn rule.

Most of what Flingitnow write is insane.
In any post relating to GW.

Jakal if you want to discuss the rules vs RaW then PM me I don't want to derail this thread. Though I am curious do you play or believe that the rules are that any model that does not have eyes (or has something covering where its eyes should be like a helmet or face mask) can't ever charge, shoot or use spells that require LoS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:
Most of what Flingitnow write is insane.
In any post relating to GW.

Personal attacks aren't necessary or helpful. But why do you think it is insane to believe the GW design team designed the rules to Warhammer? Personally I find it frankly bizarre to suggest otherwise.

I was meaning that as a literal truth, not a personal attack.

Feel free to report it.

What you post is regularly incorrect or full of opinions posted as rules.

Kirsanth so another personal attack. I would ask you to refrain from such posts I won't report you but a mod may still look at it differently. We are supposed to be polite at all times. Do you have anything to say regarding the actual subject? Do you believe BotWD provides a ward save against ABH? And why?

To be clear, my point in reiteration was that my statement was not personal but rather an objective view of what you have written.

Even so, I think that taking a save to prevent a wound that is not dealt is irrational.

How does the game describe what ways wounds are dealt?

While I'm somewhat proud for creating a fairly heated YMDC thread, I do feel this is heading in the direction of the KB + Ethereal thread. I was just looking for clarification.

Surely the fact that BotWD specifically says it's 2++ can only be taken against WOUNDS caused, is enough?

In either case, I hope there's only one way of stuff dying in 9th edition...

Saying something is a rule because other stuff kinda looks like it isn't RAW. RAW means, as written. You can mouse over that term.

The reason I bring up Blade of Realities from Lizardman so much is because it breaks a lot of that "this is always the way it is" nonsense even though it's so short. You cannot take armor or ward saves against wounds caused by the magic weapon Blade of Realities.

But you can take Regeneration saves, because it doesn't say you can't. That might the only instance in all the army books and BRB where you get that situation. But without the Blade, that was still possible. Just because it never existed before doesn't mean it can't be done.

When you break into a special rule, you follow the guidelines of the special rule. Sometimes the special rule will link back to the normal actions you split off from, sometimes it doesn't. Like when a giant goes to attack, you do a giant's special rules and don't worry about anything other than his special rules--though when he applies Hits/Wounds you still respond as usual, if he stuffs you in a bag, you die. When you use armor piercing on an attack, that is just a modification of a normal CC attack and you behave as normal.

We know how to respond if something is a Hit. You take a S->T test then save. We know how to respond if something is a Wound, you take a save. Those are game terms. If something says you die, then you die. If it says you get to take a T test or LD test or Ward save, then you get that, but that is because the special rule says so not because it is in the BRB. RAW isn't magic, it's just reading.

 The Shadow wrote:
While I'm somewhat proud for creating a fairly heated YMDC thread, I do feel this is heading in the direction of the KB + Ethereal thread. I was just looking for clarification.

Surely the fact that BotWD specifically says it's 2++ can only be taken against WOUNDS caused, is enough?

In either case, I hope there's only one way of stuff dying in 9th edition...

For everyone who believes that rules are what is written down, BOTWD doesn't give a save.
For those who have their own rules in their head, it will remain a grey area.

DukeRustfield wrote:
RAW isn't magic, it's just reading.

This is one of my favorite posts.
Ever.

For everyone who believes that rules aren't what GW designed, BOTWD doesn't give a save.
For those who want to play by the rules GW designed, it will remain a grey area.

FTFY.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RAW isn't magic, it's just reading.

The issue is that RaW is reading without comprehension beyond the pure literal.

Understanding the literal is the basis of written communication.

Understanding the literal is the most basic way to interpret written communication. I'd agree with that. Communication is the process where by human share ideas, thoughts, feelings and knowledge. Language itself is not capable of thought and does not create rules it merely communicates them.

^ and love destroys evil.

But back on planet reality and in the context of a miniature game, or in the context of any game in history, the written rules are what we use to play. Even if RAI is something different, no one knows what RAI is. If the author wanted to communicate it, it would still at some point have to be RAW (kind of like the Army Book he created already...) because we do not have telepathic links to the author. The FAQs are just RAI that are converted into RAW and are the last word. But until they are made RAW, the maybe-sorta-who-knows of RAI is always trumped by RAW because RAI is just conjecture and opinion.

I think Flingitnow just has really close connections to the dev team, so he can tell every time they wrote one thing but meant something totally different. They are with him everywhere he goes, so he can talk to them. All day, all night.
That is why he gets to reroll to hit (wfter all, the rulebook mentions ererolls for attacks at one point, so they probably meant it to apply). He also gets to take a ward save for everything, since that is the stage after AS. They meant that to mean that everything gets a 1+ ward, again with rerolls, unless stated otherwise.
The fact that this is nonsense is only evident if you read the rulss, but my feelings say it is true, so it must be. RAI is bliss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Understanding the literal is the most basic way to interpret written communication. I'd agree with that. Communication is the process where by human share ideas, thoughts, feelings and knowledge. Language itself is not capable of thought and does not create rules it merely communicates them.

Language communicatss thoughts. Written language perhaps? That we might read? And then apply as written? Unless you are suggesting that the BRB is bursting with metaphors and similes. Or just hints at therules? If only they had left sections of the "to wound" chart blank, we could have guessed what they meant there too...
As to my quote which you "fixed" did you disagree with the content? For people who believe rules = RAW, the question IS obvious. For people who believe rules have a loose connection to what is written, it iS a grey area. Where was your objection?

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is that RaW is reading without comprehension beyond the pure literal.

This is a ruleset, literal is the best way to interpret it.
Or are you saying that we as gamers should go pirate and just treat the rules as guidelines.

This thread is obviously getting sensitive and off subject. To everyone who believes BoTWD receives their ward save in this case let me ask you one question. Does a model with a 2+ ward against flaming attacks get their ward save against black horror simply because it does in fact have a ward save? If your answer is no (because black horror isn't flaming) you obviously understand how triggered ward saves work. Therefore you should understand why the banner does not work here. As for rules you are free to do whatever you want with them in your circle of friends but don't get all bent out of shape when your made up rules don't hold up in a tournament.

Ward saves that are allowed are universal non triggered wards (such as from talisman of preservation)

 HoverBoy wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is that RaW is reading without comprehension beyond the pure literal.

This is a ruleset, literal is the best way to interpret it.
Or are you saying that we as gamers should go pirate and just treat the rules as guidelines.

It is drifting off topic but I think what he is getting at is that the rules need to be taken as a whole, not broken down by sentence. Each sentence requires the other and the more literal you become the more unintended conflict you create.
Yet these are the problems, by the topic creator himself, that occur when we start picking at the literal definitions.
Anyone remember this line...
.it depends what the meaning of 'is' is...

I think Flingitnow just has really close connections to the dev team, so he can tell every time they wrote one thing but meant something totally different. They are with him everywhere he goes, so he can talk to them. All day, all night.
That is why he gets to reroll to hit (wfter all, the rulebook mentions ererolls for attacks at one point, so they probably meant it to apply). He also gets to take a ward save for everything, since that is the stage after AS. They meant that to mean that everything gets a 1+ ward, again with rerolls, unless stated otherwise.
The fact that this is nonsense is only evident if you read the rulss, but my feelings say it is true, so it must be. RAI is bliss.

Or we live in RAW land where there are literally no rules so we can't play. We only play by rules we can be 100% sure on an since we can not prove we are having a mass hallucination we can not know what is said in the book. What a pointless way to play a game.

Right guys if you don't understand the purpose of language, how the rules are created and/or what is important in rules sets please pm me rather than derail this thread. Everyone accepts some RaI as RaW (for instance LoS for models without eyes) so to claim that you don't is being dishonest. RaI is literally by definition the rules. RaW is simply a method of interpreting them. If you don't understand this PM me and I'll explain it to you. But don't make outlandish ludicrous claims like those above or that RaW = The rules.

The rulebook in 40k has a section called "THE RULES"

Fling truly, honestly believes that those are NOT the rules the designer intended to put to paper, but are instead something else they accidentally put there.

I believe the designers intended to write rules down, in the section called "THE RULES", and that those ARE the rules of the game. By definition the written rules ARE the rules.

Fling has been told, repeatedly, to not present their view in other threads, as it neither serves a purpose, nor logically can be understood. It is their own creation.

Indeed. I'm intigued that tyere are some votes acruing for allowing the banner save, but nobody posting in favour of it. HE players hoping to pull a fast one do you think?

That does seem odd - its not like BotWD isnt already awesome sauce, it doesnt need to be able to be used when you explicitly do not cause wounds....

The rulebook in 40k has a section called "THE RULES"

Fling truly, honestly believes that those are NOT the rules the designer intended to put to paper, but are instead something else they accidentally put there.

No they are what the designer intended to put there to communicate the rules to us. You don't believe the rules are what the GW design team designed...

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaI is literally by definition the rules.

This is only true if you mean RaI = Rules as Interpreted.

Because, as has been pointed out a million times before, your belief of what the rules writers intended is no more valid than any other competing belief of what the rules writers intended.

You don't have a mystical connection to the minds of the design team thereby making your belief as to their intentions more valid than anyone elses.

This is only true if you mean RaI = Rules as Interpreted.

Because, as has been pointed out a million times before, your belief of what the rules writers intended is no more valid than any other competing belief of what the rules writers intended.

You don't have a mystical connection to the minds of the design team thereby making your belief as to their intentions more valid than anyone elses.

No RaI is the rules as intended. My assertation of what the RaI of a particular rule is just that my interpretation of the RaI. As you point out this is not intrinsically more or less valid than anyone else's interpretation.

Thus when we play a game for each rule one of 3 things happen:

1) we both read the RaI as the same and play it that way.
2) we have different interpretations of the RaI and discuss them and come to a consensus on what the RaI is and play by that.
3) we have different interpretations of the RaI and are unable to come to a consensus, thus we either dice off or agree a house rule to cover the situation.

Notice all the above is still true if you put RaW in there instead of RaI. The difference is with RaI you are trying to play by the actual rules, with RaW you are being a slave to the written word and will get some really really dumb rules.

Lol for the trolling by fling.

Read the RAI? Cracks me up.

Still not a single comment that suggests a) why the banner is written differently to practically every other ward ie with a specific wounds trigger
b) why anyone would assume that they should ignore that trigger for an attack that specifically doesn't cause that trigger
Or c) Whether they think that the 2+ from dragonbane gem could be taken, since it is also a ward save (and since we can ignore triggers...)

 FlingitNow wrote:

The rulebook in 40k has a section called "THE RULES"

Fling truly, honestly believes that those are NOT the rules the designer intended to put to paper, but are instead something else they accidentally put there.

No they are what the designer intended to put there to communicate the rules to us. You don't believe the rules are what the GW design team designed...

They are what the designer specifically wrote down, to state the rules. Those ARE the rules. It is why they are in a section called "THE RULES"

I remember now why I had you on ignore.

Nah, not playing anymore.

I'm beginning to remember why I never bother to read any of Fling's posts.

Welcome to #3 on the ignore list in all my time on Dakka (including the time on the pre-conversion site).

Yea well i believe the design team intended for saurus to fly and skinks to fart fireballs, anyone who disagrees with this is clearly a rules lawyering douchetitan.

Similarly, I believe that, since the rules say you can take a ward save or a regen save, my Chimeras can take a ward save. As it has no value, it must be 2+, since if it was less good they would have let me know.

Skinks do fart fireballs.

So I take it you both steal and commit murders on a regular basis as the Law is an RaI based rule system?

Equally by RaW we can never play a game as we have no rules to read because you can't prove the rulebook is not an hallucination. See AGAIN how pointless hyperbole is pointless hyperbole.

If you do believe RAW is the rules you must believe one of the following please explain which:

1) GW write their rules perfectly so RaW = RaI
2) The rulebook thought up the rules.
3) Language itself thought up the rules

Please enlighten me.

Allow me to help.
RAW= the law and how it is written
RAI=how law gets interpreted and how it is used to set the final stage of action
RAW/law= it is illegal to kill someone
RAI= how did you kill them, which will generate the resulting penalties or benefits

RAW= You are allowed to Move your models.
RAI=You choose how you move within the guidelines
The RAW of movement is that you can move up to the maximum M characteristic.
The RAI of movement is anything from 0-x inches.
Some RAW are definitely more concrete then others but the written rule must be played as it was intended.
You remove a dead model from the table, that is both RAW and RAI.
They both fully rely on each other.
@Fling-They may be missing the sarcasm in your hyperbole.

@Peasant: Again, that is confusing Rules as Intended with Rules as Interpreted.

Just because you (or anyone else) reads a rule and makes a decision on how to play it in no way means that said interpretation matches the intention of the game designer.

If the posted speed limit is 55 MPH, and the police decide to only write tickets for people driving at speeds greater than 70 MPH, that doesn't suddenly mean that the people who posted the speed limit intended it to be 70 MPH. How the law gets interpreted has little to nothing to do with what the intentions were when the law was created.

Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

@Fling is it your belief that GW cannot write or that GW don't understand what they have written. It must be one or thr other.

Niteware wrote:
@Fling is it your belief that GW cannot write or that GW don't understand what they have written. It must be one or thr other.

Its hardly the most outlandish statement ever to suggest GWs writing team do not write rules 100% correctly, heck even laws are not always 100% air tight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Civil may be less open to interpretation. But what is the actual law is spirit and its intent or the letter? If you live in a society who's entire rule system is based on RaI why do you baulk so much at the idea of other rules systems being based the same way?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

@Fling: In law, neither matters.

What matters is who has the best lawyers.

But that doesn't change the fact that how a law is adjudicated doesn't change how the law actually reads and may have no relationship to the intentions of the rules writer.

Saldiven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

@Fling: In law, neither matters.

What matters is who has the best lawyers.

But that doesn't change the fact that how a law is adjudicated doesn't change how the law actually reads and may have no relationship to the intentions of the rules writer.

Not so much in the UK lawyers have less of an impact on cases. But the law states it is the spirit and intention of the law that matters not the letter.

Saldiven wrote:
@Peasant: Again, that is confusing Rules as Intended with Rules as Interpreted.

Just because you (or anyone else) reads a rule and makes a decision on how to play it in no way means that said interpretation matches the intention of the game designer.

If the posted speed limit is 55 MPH, and the police decide to only write tickets for people driving at speeds greater than 70 MPH, that doesn't suddenly mean that the people who posted the speed limit intended it to be 70 MPH. How the law gets interpreted has little to nothing to do with what the intentions were when the law was created.

Last I checked RAI that everyone likes to throw around is 'Rules as Intended'.
RAW cannot exist without Rules as Intended.

As far as interpretation goes that is what many attempt to make claim as facts. Like KB not causing wounds. The writing and Intent is quite obviously wounds, the interpretation by others is that it doesn't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Straw man, attempt to avoid answering a simple question.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

@Fling: In law, neither matters.

What matters is who has the best lawyers.

But that doesn't change the fact that how a law is adjudicated doesn't change how the law actually reads and may have no relationship to the intentions of the rules writer.

Not so much in the UK lawyers have less of an impact on cases. But the law states it is the spirit and intention of the law that matters not the letter.

It really, realy isn't the spirit of the law that matters in civil law, whuch is the only place that the law is written down. In Common Law, the law is not written.
Anyway, your weird "the rules aren't the rules" arguement aside, you still haven't answeeed the questions I asked OT.

Anyway, your weird "the rules aren't the rules" arguement aside, you still haven't answeeed the questions I asked OT.

I have never said the rules aren't the rules. Anyway your frankly bizarre the rules weren't designed by the GW design team argument aside, I'm fairly certain I have answered your questions.

But here goes again:

1) All saves are triggered by wounds BotWD is no different, passed saves ignore wounds caused. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg65)
2) Ward saves may be taken against any source of wounds BotWD may only be taken if that source is magical attacks, spells or magic weapons. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg65)

Black horror does not do wounds, however it gives us express permission to take a Ward save and tells us the effect of passing it thus over riding requirement 1. Most ward saves don't have a requirement 2, but fortunately for the banner Black Horror is a spell so that meets requirement 2. So we get our 2+ ward and we know the effect if we pass it.

Do Dragonbane Gem or Fireborn get their save:

1) All saves are triggered by wounds DBG/FB are no different, passed saves ignore wounds caused. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg36)
2) Ward saves may be taken against any source of wounds but DBG & FB may only be taken if that source is flaming attacks (BrB pg43-44 & 503, HE pg36)

Black horror does not do wounds, however it gives us express permission to take a Ward save and tells us the effect of passing it thus over riding requirement 1. Black Horror does not have the flaming attacks rule therefore requirement 2 is not met and neither gives the model a ward save.

Peasant wrote:

me wrote:
Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Straw man, attempt to avoid answering a simple question.

No, that isnt a strawman. I didnt create an argument similar to Flings that could be easily disproved, then disproved it. THAT would have been a strawman.

Before flinging round terms you dont fully understand, try researching them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was asked "in law" - I then asked what law, and explained the difference between two common types.

The answer is: it depends on the law you are working under. Now in the UK that is commonly Common law, where interpretation of intent CAN be used, and often IS used, however precedent is usually the binding factor, and it is likely this that Fling was attempting to get at.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Anyway, your weird "the rules aren't the rules" arguement aside, you still haven't answeeed the questions I asked OT.

I have never said the rules aren't the rules. Anyway your frankly bizarre the rules weren't designed by the GW design team argument aside, I'm fairly certain I have answered your questions.

But here goes again:

1) All saves are triggered by wounds BotWD is no different, passed saves ignore wounds caused. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg65)
2) Ward saves may be taken against any source of wounds BotWD may only be taken if that source is magical attacks, spells or magic weapons. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg65)

Black horror does not do wounds, however it gives us express permission to take a Ward save and tells us the effect of passing it thus over riding requirement 1. Most ward saves don't have a requirement 2, but fortunately for the banner Black Horror is a spell so that meets requirement 2. So we get our 2+ ward and we know the effect if we pass it.

Do Dragonbane Gem or Fireborn get their save:

1) All saves are triggered by wounds DBG/FB are no different, passed saves ignore wounds caused. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg36)
2) Ward saves may be taken against any source of wounds but DBG & FB may only be taken if that source is flaming attacks (BrB pg43-44 & 503, HE pg36)

Black horror does not do wounds, however it gives us express permission to take a Ward save and tells us the effect of passing it thus over riding requirement 1. Black Horror does not have the flaming attacks rule therefore requirement 2 is not met and neither gives the model a ward save.

Black Horror does not do wounds. As you stated. So we ignore the bit that says the banner is only for wounds? Even thiugh most wards don't specify that they are for wounds? And you don't se why that is ridiculous?
So you are saying that GW obviously meant it to function in every circumstance, whuch is why they wrote a trigger that we are expected to ignore. Which other things that they explicitly wrote should be ignored?

Black Horror does not do wounds. As you stated. So we ignore the bit that says the banner is only for wounds? Even though most wards don't specify that they are for wounds?

All saves specify they are taken against wounds. The banner is no different, it does not state only wounds. It says "against all wounds caused..." vs normal saves say against "each wound suffered" I really don't see the huge distinction.

And you don't se why that is ridiculous?

No more ridiculous than taking any other ward save against Black Horror.

Which other things that they explicitly wrote should be ignored?

Any case where common sense tells us what they meant when they've used imprecise language to describe a rule (i.e. drawing LoS from a models eyes for models that don't have eyes sculpted on them).

So you are saying that GW obviously meant it to function in every circumstance

No they meant it to work against damage (normally defined as wounds in BrB) from specific sources. Is this an intentional lie or did you not read or understand what I said because I made no such claim.

which is why they wrote a trigger that we are expected to ignore.

We're not expected to ignore the triggers magic atracks/weapons or spells. Black Horror allows us to take a ward save against its damage instead of against wounds as is normally the case.

Fling - your claim is that, even though BH does not cause wounds, you should be able to take a ward save that specifically states it can only be used against wounds anyway? Despite you not meeting the criteria for the ward save even existing?

Do you not see the extremely illogical position you are trying to build here?

BotWD creates a condition under which it grants a ward save. BH does NOT MEET THAT CONDITION, therefore no ward save exists.

Given you lack any rules argument, please mark it as HYWPI, so we know not to try to argue against it.

All saves specify they are taken against wounds.

Lie. All saves state that they can be taken against wounds. True.

The banner... vs normal saves

The banner is not a different type of save. It is a type of ward save that has conditions on its use. Like Dragonbane Gem. The two conditions are that there are wounds and that their source is magical. You can;t just ignore one of the conditions.

No more ridiculous than taking any other ward save against Black Horror.

Except that the majority of items which grant ward saves do not state that they need to be against wounds. Anywhere. In any rule.

they meant it to work against damage

If this were the case, they would have written damage, as they did with KB

Same is true for the Deamon army wide ward.

when they've used imprecise language to describe a rule

How could they have been more precise that to say wounds caused by magic, magical weapons and magical attacks? That is pretty darn precise.

We're not expected to ignore the triggers

Glad you agree. Since all of the BOTWD triggers are wounds from magical sources, you'll agree that things which don't wound don't get the ward.

All saves specify they are taken against wounds.

Lie. All saves state that they can be taken against wounds. True

Banner of the World Dragon can be taken against wounds too. Please find any permission in the Ward Saves rules to take a save against anything other than wounds.

So either:

1) Black Horror overrides the requirement for saves to be taken against wounds so BotWD works
2) Black Horror overrides all requirements for saves so anything with any type of ward gets a save.
3) Black Horror does not override any requirements and thus no ward saves work against it.

Which is it?

Mostly 1) , however your conclusion is false. You have created a false trichotomy, another fallacy.

You are equating a specific extension of permission (taking ward saves against BH damage) with something else entirely - giving permission to BotWD to take saves from non-wounding damage.

You CANNOT show that permission, you therefore CANNOT create your 3 options and pretend only one is correct.

I would suggest you reread on how permissive systems work, as currently you have a bizarre notion indeed.

 FlingitNow wrote:

All saves specify they are taken against wounds.

Lie. All saves state that they can be taken against wounds. True

Banner of the World Dragon can be taken against wounds too. Please find any permission in the Ward Saves rules to take a save against anything other than wounds.

So either:

1) Black Horror overrides the requirement for saves to be taken against wounds so BotWD works
2) Black Horror overrides all requirements for saves so anything with any type of ward gets a save.
3) Black Horror does not override any requirements and thus no ward saves work against it.

Which is it?

You are working off a false premise. Wards saves just describe how a save works. The basic description does not say it is a save against anything in particular, just that it is a save. Other rules then allow you to take a save at some points.
So Black Horror, for example, lets you take any save that fits the ward save rule ajd has had its triggers met. Talisman of Presrvation for example. The banner is nit triggered because it specifies that it only works on wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are still writing as if BOTWD was not just a powerful but limited ward save.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Please find any permission in the Ward Saves rules to take a save against anything other than wounds.

There is none, this is why any rule that damages without wounding will specifically say if you get a ward save or not.
Good examples are KB, Stuff into bag, Black horror, Purple sun and many others who specify how they interact with wards.

People have been having a lot of trouble with reading, lately. A special rule is a special rule. You do what it tells you to do. You don't assume that just because most save are Wounds that you get to ignore the literal text of the special rule which limits it to wounds.

In the very same book Teclis wounds on a 2+ regardless of S->T. Are you going to say that only applies when he fights units with T of 0 (which would be dead anyway)? Because all rolls of 2+ to wound would require him to be that much ahead of his enemy's T. And he has a lousy 2S. Or are you going to go by the literal special rule that is written that says forget what you normally do for to-wound and try and roll 2+ regardless of what you're fighting?

Archaon can never be wounded on <3+ (He and Teclis...). So do you read that long special rule that is very clear, shot him with a cannon and then wound him on a 2+?

There are many instances that break the 99.99999% normal activities of the game and go off into their own special circumstances. If there's a special rule that says you take a ward save to see if you can attack...well, then that's what you do.

There is none, this is why any rule that damages without wounding will specifically say if you get a ward save or not.
Good examples are KB, Stuff into bag, Black horror, Purple sun and many others who specify how they interact with wards

Exactly and that permission applies just as much to BotWD as it does any other ward save that normally only has permission to work against wounds...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:

me wrote:
Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Straw man, attempt to avoid answering a simple question.

No, that isnt a strawman. I didnt create an argument similar to Flings that could be easily disproved, then disproved it. THAT would have been a strawman.

Before flinging round terms you dont fully understand, try researching them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was asked "in law" - I then asked what law, and explained the difference between two common types.

The answer is: it depends on the law you are working under. Now in the UK that is commonly Common law, where interpretation of intent CAN be used, and often IS used, however precedent is usually the binding factor, and it is likely this that Fling was attempting to get at.

Actually you did and apparently you don't realize it.
This was the question...
Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?
To which you replied..
Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation
Then you say...
I was asked "in law" - I then asked what law, and explained the difference between two common types.
In case you forgot, the question is above, you weren't asked about 'in law'. You had a specific question with 2 possible answers.

YOU scream RAW, yet you can't answer the question as written. You had TWO options to respond with #1 or #2 and you answered with neither.
You created the straw man that the type of law, common or civil will make a difference. Changing the topic to discussion of common vs. civil law. Though there was not an actual position to refute you generated a new topic (surprisingly successful) giving the appearance of answering the question.
You can't even answer the question as written but try to tell others that they don't play parts of the game as written. Obviously interpretation is much more important than written as you have shown with this simple avoidance of a question.
You are literal when it suits you, and then general when you are cornered. So in the 'literal' sense, I suppose there was no straw man created, but the feigned importance of civil vs common to create a different discussion did in fact create a strawman.

 Peasant wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:

me wrote:
Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Straw man, attempt to avoid answering a simple question.

No, that isnt a strawman. I didnt create an argument similar to Flings that could be easily disproved, then disproved it. THAT would have been a strawman.

Before flinging round terms you dont fully understand, try researching them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was asked "in law" - I then asked what law, and explained the difference between two common types.

The answer is: it depends on the law you are working under. Now in the UK that is commonly Common law, where interpretation of intent CAN be used, and often IS used, however precedent is usually the binding factor, and it is likely this that Fling was attempting to get at.

Actually you did and apparently you don't realize it.
This was the question...
Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

This of course varies by context and country. Peace Officers locally can choose to enforce letter of the law, but you are less likely you'll be convicted when spirit and intention vary greatly.
If you want to set up a question where you're forcing one of two answers, you need to provide more background.
Basically, your format isn't specific enough for the provided choices, as both can be correct or incorrect.

-Matt

I believe it was Socrates who didn't want written laws because then you could get around the "LETTER OF THE LAW." Which is basically what lawyers do.

California had a helmet law for motorcyclists. A biker got pulled over for not wearing a helmet. But he did have on a helmet, he was just wearing it on his knee instead of his head. He was found not guilty.

While some podunk judge might throw stuff out and make their own proclamations, laws are the definition of RAW. There are a ton of "clubs" in Hollywood where if you go in them they have off in the corner somewhere a place where you can buy cheese sticks or chicken fingers. And you're like, who on earth would buy this messy snack food at a hip club? No one. But by selling food they can call themselves restaurants under the law instead of night clubs and the licenses are much cheaper and less strict. That's pure RAW.

An inordinate amount of corporations are registered in Delaware as their primary place of business because they have very relaxed corporate requirements. Even though Delaware is a tiny state with hardly any population and the corporations in question don't actually do any business there. That's RAW.

Delaware acquired its status as a corporate haven in the early 20th century. Following the example of New Jersey, which enacted corporate-friendly laws at the end of the 19th century to attract businesses from New York, Delaware played the game of fiscal competition by adopting in 1899 a general incorporation act aimed at attracting more businesses. Before the rise of general incorporation acts, forming a corporation required a special act of the state legislature. General incorporation allowed anyone to form a corporation by simply raising money and filing articles of incorporation with the state government's secretary of state.

laws are the definition of RAW.

Not in any remotely sensible country and certainly not for law in the UK (you know where the rules for 40k are from).

My first post in this thread still stands.

Written laws (or "laws") are in fact written rules, which is the definition of the rules as written.

It takes insanity to claim that written rules are not written rules.

The fact that some things go outside of what is written does not make it a rule as written, in fact it is literally impossible for this to be true.

That is actually why there are written laws allowing laws to be interpreted.
Or to put it bluntly, your "sensible" countries are sane enough to have rules written to allow rules to be interpreted.

And laws to punish those claiming that the laws of the country do not apply to them because the offenders claim the intention was otherwise.

It takes insanity to claim that written rules are not written rules

Just as it takes insanity to claim the rules to a game designed by the GW design team are not the rules the GW design team designed...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The difference being I have not made your claim you make the one Ive said...

I never stated that the rules as written by GW are not RAW - exactly the opposite, in reality.

Your statement was off-kilter reference to it though, you said that written laws are not rules as written.
(to whit:

 FlingitNow wrote:

laws are the definition of RAW.

Not in any remotely sensible country and certainly not for law in the UK (you know where the rules for 40k are from).

)

The rules in discussion were related to laws, thus my quote, and your implication was that the body of written rules were not RAW in any sensible country.

If I misinterpreted, please explain.
Or are you waffling about the difference between rules and laws?

DukeRustfield wrote:
I believe it was Socrates who didn't want written laws because then you could get around the "LETTER OF THE LAW." Which is basically what lawyers do.

California had a helmet law for motorcyclists. A biker got pulled over for not wearing a helmet. But he did have on a helmet, he was just wearing it on his knee instead of his head. He was found not guilty.

While some podunk judge might throw stuff out and make their own proclamations, laws are the definition of RAW. There are a ton of "clubs" in Hollywood where if you go in them they have off in the corner somewhere a place where you can buy cheese sticks or chicken fingers. And you're like, who on earth would buy this messy snack food at a hip club? No one. But by selling food they can call themselves restaurants under the law instead of night clubs and the licenses are much cheaper and less strict. That's pure RAW.

An inordinate amount of corporations are registered in Delaware as their primary place of business because they have very relaxed corporate requirements. Even though Delaware is a tiny state with hardly any population and the corporations in question don't actually do any business there. That's RAW.

Delaware acquired its status as a corporate haven in the early 20th century. Following the example of New Jersey, which enacted corporate-friendly laws at the end of the 19th century to attract businesses from New York, Delaware played the game of fiscal competition by adopting in 1899 a general incorporation act aimed at attracting more businesses. Before the rise of general incorporation acts, forming a corporation required a special act of the state legislature. General incorporation allowed anyone to form a corporation by simply raising money and filing articles of incorporation with the state government's secretary of state.

This post doesn't do much for your RAW argument.

What would you think the intent of that motorcycle law be?
The motorcyclist got off thanks to the RAW that was determined to be more important than the Intent.
The RAW makes the nightclub effectively into a restaurant.

Does this post mean that you prefer to play the RAW because it lets you get through a loophole when you find something undesirable? Which is fine, at least own it.

 FlingitNow wrote:

There is none, this is why any rule that damages without wounding will specifically say if you get a ward save or not.
Good examples are KB, Stuff into bag, Black horror, Purple sun and many others who specify how they interact with wards

Exactly and that permission applies just as much to BotWD as it does any other ward save that normally only has permission to work against wounds...

This is true. Except for every law passed in Westminster. Oh, and Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and Brussels. And by all the regulators. So, actually only for civil law. Which isn't written but is based exclusivelynon precedent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, nicely derailed Fling. OT, we still have A that protects against wounds and B which doesn't wound, meaning that A doesn't work on B.

It was not so much derailed as removed from reality once more.

never stated that the rules as written by GW are not RAW - exactly the opposite, in reality.

No but you do say the rules design by GW are not the rules.

Your statement was off-kilter reference to it though, you said that written laws are not rules as written.

I think you should read the post you quoted I did not say that. In future please read what people say rather than assuming they're going to have said something.

The rules in discussion were related to laws, thus my quote, and your implication was that the body of written rules were not RAW in any sensible country.

No I didn't I said the Law was not RaW but RaI. The written body of the law is the written body of the law. But the law itself defines the spirit and intention of the law to be what matters (despite Nos and Nitewares handwaving about how it is applied).

Anyway, nicely derailed Fling. OT, we still have A that protects against wounds and B which doesn't wound, meaning that A doesn't work on B.

Yeah because I derailed the thread with the outrageous claim that the GW design team designed the rules then repeated told people to pm me if they didn't understand that. Heck even the quote you posted was not about the subject you then brought up in your post.

Right guys can we leave the whole GW didn't design the rules argument at home and PM me if you want to discuss that.

So we know all saves are taken against wounds and BotWD is no different. So does no one get a ward against Black Horror?

Again, you are talking ninsense Fling. You are replacing the possible "can be" with the definite "are" whuch is leading to your issue. All saves can be taken against wounds.
Some saves can be taken in other circumstances too. BoTWD is not one of those saves, since it specifically says it is for wounds.This puts it in the category with other limited wards, which only work in triggerred circumstances.
YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE HALF THE TRIGGER.

I'm going to point out that the analogy of a game's rules to actual laws is pretty falacious on the surface, and I apologize for getting sucked into that discussion at all.

You only need one example of how an analogy is inaccurate to invalidate the analogy in its entirety. If you violate a rule in a game, you do not face jail time or fines, and you don't need a lawyer to represent you to avoid those penalties, the way you do with a broken law.

Can we please get away from the discussion of laws? They really have no bearing on how a game's rules function.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/07/argument-by-ana.html

Saldiven wrote:
I'm going to point out that the analogy of a game's rules to actual laws is pretty falacious on the surface, and I apologize for getting sucked into that discussion at all.

You only need one example of how an analogy is inaccurate to invalidate the analogy in its entirety. If you violate a rule in a game, you do not face jail time or fines, and you don't need a lawyer to represent you to avoid those penalties, the way you do with a broken law.

Can we please get away from the discussion of laws? They really have no bearing on how a game's rules function.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/07/argument-by-ana.html

However it is not an argument by analogy. One side says it is impossible to have a rule set based on RaI and if you do you get to do whatever you want. Then the fact that the ruleset we all live our lives by is based on RaI demonstrably illustrates how ludicrous a position it is hold and is thus relevant. Basically we can choose to believe the GW design team didn't design the rules and therefore have RaW as our rule set. Which is a bizarre belief to have or we can choose to assume the rules were designed by the GW design team and like pretty much every ruleset it is RaI that matters. To base a ruleset off RAW is moronic given how open to abuse such a system would be and how difficult it wwould be to write accurate rules for it and how impossible those rules would be to understand by anyone who doesn't have a law degree.

Its like talking to children on here at times with the pathological need for clarity and control of the rule system and a complete inability to understand anything beyond the literal.

Rule Number 2 is Stay On Topic. This thread is beyond the pale.