What makes the FAQ ruling on FNP vs Force a change in the rules as opposed to a clarification?

I read the ruling and I see it as clarification that the use of immediately should be taken into account when completing SR's. What evidence of it changing the rules is there?

there isnt any, it was a clarification,

people who disagree because they didnt read it as such, will disagree

My take is that it's intented that way because if one of the rules takes place, the other can't anymore .Oh wait, that'd be so the other way as well... Sigh

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
My take is that it's intented that way because if one of the rules takes place, the other can't anymore .Oh wait, that'd be so the other way as well... Sigh

Take it to it's logical: If you had a multi-wound model with FNP that takes a wound from a Force weapon(failing or denied his save), then take and fail your FNP, which your opponent then activates the force weapon; you have then broken the FNP rule via attempting the roll.

Sure a passed FNP would prevent the FW to activate at all, but the first unsaved wound(assuming multiple attacks on the FW wielder) that sticks and then gets successfully activates makes all wounds caused by the FW ID retroactively causing the first FNP to again have become illegal.

Really it is the new Force Weapon activation rules that sets this more in the realm of clarification than it does a rules change; everyone just seems to forget that.

Oh I agree it should be this way , but I'm getting tired of GW rulewriting ...

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
Oh I agree it should be this way , but I'm getting tired of GW rulewriting ...

Try reading GW rules as plain-language.

GW doesn't write rules for Pre-law or English major Students; they write rules in 7th grade English. It is the community that wants to read more into what the rules say than what they say when you just read them.

The game is easy, quick and fun when played in Plain language; where you are not looking for the most over the top rules interactions an loop-holes.


On Topic-ish; I really do like the Clarification on Force Weapons and FNP, It sets precedent/Clarifies that all rules interaction where the possibility of a denial to one rule based on the success of another rule errs on the side of the restrictive rule.

Agreed. Which means that FNP can (and does) stop ES, etc. from applying.

The Force vs FNP was a clarification on the timing of both rules. Force activates "immediately" after an unsaved wound, while FNP does not. This was clarified to Force activating "before" FNP. Plain-language reading of the rule, as Kommisar Kel suggests, agrees with the result. Rules that activate immediately after the trigger event resolve before other rules that activate with the same trigger event, but don't resolve immediately. So actually the faq sets a precedent on the timing of rules that activate on the same event but one resolves immediately, and the other does not.

A you're triggering two events and only resolving one?
Why does Force have the ability to go back in time and stop FNP but FNP cannot possibly go back in time to stop, for example, ES?

I normally would agree with you copper.talos, as intimidate is a the terminology they use to say 'stop the process at this point, complete action X, then continue the process once more.' The other thread no longer has me so sure on that matter because of one simple thing: There are many other rules that contain the word 'immediately' that also trigger off a unsaved wound. It wouldn't be so bad if that was just the case, but in these situations strange things start to happen if you begin to apply the results of an unsaved wound to a model which saved it's Feel No Pain. The leading contender, though not the only case, was good old Mr. Doom representing the ability for a 'vampire' based special rule to regenerate wounds even if the target model isn't wounded.

That isn't to say that the opposite isn't true either. If you take the conclusion that Feel No Pain removes all effects that trigger on an unsaved wound you end up with strange situations as well. The leading contender for the most ridiculous outcome in that thread was the case of the psyker whom suffered from a Perils of the Warp result. As the test would only trigger on an unsaved wound, and Feel No Pain would undo the unsaved wound part, then the results of the test could no longer be applied. This effectively meant the psyker would regain a wound point and could even be brought back after being removed from a casualty.

As both mentalities lead to unusual outcomes, I could only conclude each individual case has to be reviewed separately to see which outcome causes the most 'strangeness' until they supply a more concrete answer.

I disagree, the faq only sets the precedent for negation or mutually negating effects not timing. All effects are the unsaved wound is the sume of these effects applied at the same time the unsaved wound is applied. If the unsaved wound is negated, treated as saved, any effects that would be applied with the unsaved wound cannot be applied.

Yet there is nothing in the FAQ about that being the reasoning. When you look at the FAQ it states Force happens first that is it. Assuming that Force can negate FNP is the reason it goes first and therefor you should extend that logic to all SR's instead of the wording of the ability makes multiple assumptions. Assuming Force goes first due to the use of immediately only has one assumption. Occum's razor tells us that immediately is what this ruling has come down to.

@rigeld2: Force is not going back in time, by the time FNP is checked to make the roll to discount the wound it is ID. Wounds that are ID activate FNP but FNP itself denies you the ability to make the roll. You are not actually being denied the activation of FNP you are denied the ability to make the roll.

If we stop with the going back in time complicated view we can actually get a good look at how the rules interact. I can see all abilities with immediately activating, including Doom, and then the model fighting off the affects of the loss of a wound. Someone asked why you would allow that and it's simple there are affects and side-affects to almost everything. The wound is the affect and the SR's are side-affects, just because the affects are negated does not mean that side-affects are. I spray a unit with a flame thrower just because I don't burn a soldier does not mean his eq is not on fire. I also find it funny that people will argue that psychic powers stack because you have permission to activate them but SR's can't apply if the wound is discounted, even though they have permission to activate.

It's a clarification, there were some people who thought the "immediately" in Force doesn't make it activate immediately, the FAQ clarified for them that it does.

rigeld2 wrote:A you're triggering two events and only resolving one?
Why does Force have the ability to go back in time and stop FNP but FNP cannot possibly go back in time to stop, for example, ES?

FNP does not say to cast Timewalk.

Again, "Treat it as having been saved"

This does not mean go back in time, save the wound, and proceed again from there.

It says "Treat it.." as in now, the present tense. This is an action or change at the current point in time and the 'it' can only refer to the wound so you are going to 'treat the wound now...'
'...as having been saved' As if the wound was saved at some previous point.

So 'Treat the wound now as having been saved'
-Since 'Treat as' = 'is'
'The wound has been saved.'

That is of course the same thing you could say right after making an armor save. At that time you 'treat it as having been saved'. Does that mean that the wound was saved before you made the armor save roll? No.
Likewise the wound having been saved after a successful FNP roll does not mean it was saved prior to that roll.

Gravmyr wrote:
@rigeld2: Force is not going back in time, by the time FNP is checked to make the roll to discount the wound it is ID. Wounds that are ID activate FNP but FNP itself denies you the ability to make the roll. You are not actually being denied the activation of FNP you are denied the ability to make the roll.

Yet at the time FNP is triggered it is not an ID wound.
You're going to need to cite the bolded sentence - as far as I can tell you've made it up because it suits your viewpoint.
FNP checks when it makes the roll - which must be when you suffer the wound. Delaying the roll is literally breaking a rule - but you're aware of that and refuse to accept it.

I also find it funny that people will argue that psychic powers stack because you have permission to activate them but SR's can't apply if the wound is discounted, even though they have permission to activate.

It's almost like the two situations aren't similar at all and you're just trying to goad a response out of someone...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
FNP does not say to cast Timewalk.

But Force does? Perhaps you could cite that for me?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
FNP does not say to cast Timewalk.

But Force does? Perhaps you could cite that for me?

No, Force does not do that either.

I do not currently feel the 'why?' of the FWvsFNP FAQ can truly be determined at this point and therefore, as you had stated in the ESvsFNP thread, the two topics have little to do with each other. I was simply expressing my views on the mechanics of FNP and the issues I take with your opinions on it.

Looking back now, I may have expressed them a a bit to strongly. If that is the case I meant no offense. I had intended to summarize things fairly concisely and conclusively so as to avoid reiterating myself in the future but in doing so, fear I may have come across as a bit rude.

Force isn't what negates FnP, ID is. The faq just tells you to make the Force psychic test before FnP, as it has the potential to make all unsaved wounds ID. Essentially it's a clarification of tests/rolls happen before effects are tallied. Or rather any effect that may come into play due to chance must be tested before applying anything as not all effects have been determined.

Gee all this stuff sounds like order of operation stuff to me...

Anyways, faqs do sometimes change rules and the way we play. As far as i can remember youmakedacall tenets says they are raw, so the whole thread is moot!

It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

This is manifestly untrue. Note the Tyranid FAQ question with regards to Shadow in the Warp affecting units in transports. This was answered both yes and no in subsequent FAQ updates. One of them must have been a rules change. So FAQ's do occasionally change the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

Someone hasn't been reading the FAQs. Or is there a line in the rulebook about Flying Monstrous Creatures being able to choose to Skyfire that I'm missing?

Jangustus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

This is manifestly untrue. Note the Tyranid FAQ question with regards to Shadow in the Warp affecting units in transports. This was answered both yes and no in subsequent FAQ updates. One of them must have been a rules change. So FAQ's do occasionally change the rules.

Not true it is impossible for an FAQ to change the rules. When an FAQ changes all that means is the first FAQ was a mistake and the second is an errata to the first as they literally change the text of the FAQ (which is what errata do).

Chrysis wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

Someone hasn't been reading the FAQs. Or is there a line in the rulebook about Flying Monstrous Creatures being able to choose to Skyfire that I'm missing?

Well, according to GW that's how you should have been playing it the whole time.

Perhaps looking for other rules which may negate each other, or one negating another, looking how we currently handle those. Can't think of any off the top of my head. But there are more knowledgeable people here on different armies, surly FNP and Force are not the only ones.



In the SITW case one designer might have answered the question, and upon another seeing it decided the need to intervene. I don't believe all the designers truly understand the intent of every single rule written, especially if they did not write it.

@rigeld2: FNP: "Note that FNP rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict ID." pg 35. Notice how the SR itself does not tell you that it is not activated, it states that you cannot make the roll. By the definition of permissive rules you have to activate the SR to even get to that point in the SR. Think of it like a program you have to have met the activation criteria before you can even consider what it will do for the current process. If ID had it in it's rules that FNP could not activate then it would be too late as they both activate at the same time.
:activation
:check for ID
:make roll
:result

If it were the case that immediately didn't mean anything and you would have to do everything at the same time as soon as the unsaved wound is allocated then you still cannot stop everything from happening as it would all have happened at the same time and the discounting of the wound would happen at the same time as the results of every other SR.

Since you are asking for proof please quote a line stating that FNP stops all activation of other SR's or that it must go first. Now I'm asking for an actual quote not your reading of what a FAQ implies or a timewalking theory you would have to use to get it to work like that.

Gravmyr wrote:
If it were the case that immediately didn't mean anything and you would have to do everything at the same time as soon as the unsaved wound is allocated then you still cannot stop everything from happening as it would all have happened at the same time and the discounting of the wound would happen at the same time as the results of every other SR.

At best they happen at the same time. Exactly like, I dunno, Force and FNP. And yet you're asserting that Force can changes the past and FNP can't.

Since you are asking for proof please quote a line stating that FNP stops all activation of other SR's or that it must go first. Now I'm asking for an actual quote not your reading of what a FAQ implies or a timewalking theory you would have to use to get it to work like that.

That's cute - you're asking me to quote a rule but not allowing me to quote a rule. Pro debate style right there man.

If you can't tell the difference between a quote and an interpretation I finally understand why you are having an issue telling the difference between your time travel theory and other options.

Force is completed first per the FAQ. If you are doing them at the same time you are breaking rules. If you can't see that FNP is activated at the same time Force but Force is completed first, therefor keeping FNP from being able top roll per FNP, I'm not sure how anyone can discuss any part of this game with you. You are the only one asserting that anything is changing the past. Again, if you can't provide an actual line that states at least something you are paraphrasing, note that is different then interpreting, that says to go back in time or that it stops all other SR's from occurring then you are making up virtually every part of your stance. Can you at least show somewhere in the BRB where it states that anything that can stop other things have to go first?

Again, Force is a test to grant a USR it is not in direct competition with FnP. The psychic test is stated to be required to go first, not the application of its potential effect ID. FnP is a test also, it tests to treat the wound as saved so it to is a potential effect that needs to be resolved before its potential effect can be applied. They both need to be tested before resolving what effects take place, the FaQ illustrates that random chance effects need to be tested for before any effects apply.

Problem with that is its making a big statement about the rules, that was completely missed out of the rule book and contradicts the rules we already have, I would be reluctant to play it that way without other examples, or other possible examples.

A simple explanation is 'immediatly' means Force and FNP are not in fact triggered at the same time. We know timing of special rules affect the outcome.

Interesting, you've managed to decide that FNP and force happen before anything else based off a FAQ that does not include any mention of other SR's. How are you getting that they happen before other SR's without any mention of such?

Jangustus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

This is manifestly untrue. Note the Tyranid FAQ question with regards to Shadow in the Warp affecting units in transports. This was answered both yes and no in subsequent FAQ updates. One of them must have been a rules change. So FAQ's do occasionally change the rules.

This untruth has been pointed out to fling on a number of occasions, however they refuse to stop pretending it is true.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Jangustus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

This is manifestly untrue. Note the Tyranid FAQ question with regards to Shadow in the Warp affecting units in transports. This was answered both yes and no in subsequent FAQ updates. One of them must have been a rules change. So FAQ's do occasionally change the rules.

This untruth has been pointed out to fling on a number of occasions, however they refuse to stop pretending it is true.

So you claim you believe the rules are RaW yet that FaQs can change the rules despite that the RAW definition of an FAQ makes this impossible. Your laughable stance that GW didn't design the rules is backed up by your glaring hypocrisy on an issue like this...

Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

Yet they do.
Look at the Heldrake FAQ.
That's changing and inventing rules right there. It's not a clarification.

If I remember right, the argument for them not being rule changes stems from the fact the Frequently Asked Questions inform us that Errata is the correct way to correct mistakes in the rules. I sort of remember the side arguing that Frequently Asked Questions do not change rules referencing a sentence that out-right stated that Frequently Asked Question answers would not be rule changes. I might be blind, or just over-worked right now, but I do not see that in the latest versions uploaded to Game Workshop's website so maybe they even realized this sentence was a out right lie and cropped it. Or they might of been trying one of these logical arguments that Errata, stated as a way to correct errors in the rules, is therefore the only way to do so. A simple conclusion of 'because the other two do not state they change rules, they therefore do not change rules' that clearly goes against the evidence put forth.

Regardless of what they stated in the opening section though: The Frequently Asked Question answers have changed rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

Yet they do.
Look at the Heldrake FAQ.
That's changing and inventing rules right there. It's not a clarification.

And let's not forget the big one of shooting wounds only allowed to be allocated to models within range of at least one firing weapon.

So yeah it happens, a lot.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

Yet they do.
Look at the Heldrake FAQ.
That's changing and inventing rules right there. It's not a clarification.

It is a clarification because most people reading the rules were unable to determine how it was mounted and how to play it. They clarified that for us. The intention was for the Helldrake to have a 360° fire arc all along. Just because most people didn't realise that didn't make it a rules change. They obviously also thought it was clear that the turning circle of the neck was exactly the same as the base it is on.

FAQ can't change the rules because an FAQ is a frequently asked question that they answer. No rules can possibly be changed as they do not change the rule books. Errata do that.

Fling: Are Battlements Buildings?

If not, why does the rule book inform us in the very first section that Battlements are part of Multiple-Structured Buildings?
If so, why does the Frequently Asked Question tell us outright that they are not?

I would guess probably not I see the rules as very unclear on that subject due to some of the FAQs. Why?

Quite simply actually, Force in of itself is nothing more than a psychic power that grants ID. As such its effect is entirely dependant on a warp charge and a psychic test, which makes it a potential but not definite effect. Similarly FnP is dependant on a D6 roll for it's effect which also makes it a potential effect. The FaQ clarifies that until potential effects tests are rolled they are not in applicable. To determine the result we need all effects to be accounted for before any are applied, this leads to the simple solution of rolling these potential effects first then applying all of the effects in the results if possible.

Because GWs writing is sloppy at times. I'm not seeing a direct they are not in the FAQ just that they are separate from the building. What is your point?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Because GWs writing is sloppy at times. I'm not seeing a direct they are not in the FAQ just that they are separate from the building. What is your point?

Wait...what? That doesn't make much sense....

It was a response to this:

If not, why does the rule book inform us in the very first section that Battlements are part of Multiple-Structured Buildings?
If so, why does the Frequently Asked Question tell us outright that they are not?

Which still does not give a reason as to why you seem to think they happen before everything else. What part of the FAQ leads you to this decision when nothing in your argument is mentioned in the FAQ?

Gotcha, referencing a FaQ that changed a rule.

Again you have not backed up your thinking with a rule or a FAQ that states that FNP and Force happen before all other SR's.....

Well actually the rules tell me as the effect is still not definite. The FaQ clarifies that and that the Force test must be taken before the FnP test, because Forces potential effect can negate FnP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Simply its impossible to apply an effect that has yet to be determined. By extention the tests must happen before anything else.

What part of the answer in that FAQ gives you the reason for Force going first? Does it say Force has to activate first because you need to know before you can determine whether or not you can make a FNP roll? Or Does it say you make the Force roll first then make the determination of whether you can make FNP rolls? It's a subtle difference, the first says the determination is the reason it goes first while in the the second simply says it goes first then you know if you can make a FNP roll. Is it a simpler interpretation that they are saying that immediately changes the timing of completion?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

Yet they do.
Look at the Heldrake FAQ.
That's changing and inventing rules right there. It's not a clarification.

It is a clarification because most people reading the rules were unable to determine how it was mounted and how to play it. They clarified that for us. The intention was for the Helldrake to have a 360° fire arc all along. Just because most people didn't realise that didn't make it a rules change. They obviously also thought it was clear that the turning circle of the neck was exactly the same as the base it is on.

FAQ can't change the rules because an FAQ is a frequently asked question that they answer. No rules can possibly be changed as they do not change the rule books. Errata do that.

And the part about measuring from the Heldrake's base?
That part is in direct violation of the vehicle rules.
That's not clarification.
That's changing a rule.

This FaQs can change rules...

"Q: Do models in a multiple Toughness value unit who are involved in a Challenge still use the majority Toughness of their unit (Page 64)
A: No, they use their own Toughness value." 40k FaQ page 6-7

And the wound allocation. And Shadows in the Warp.

Seriously - claiming FAQs cannot change rules is simply incorrect and, in the face of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, either trolling or willingly ignorant.

FlingItNow, The one you need to look at is this one:

Q. What is the armour value of battlements? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save

While I agree with you it is very sloppy writing, it does outright state that Battlements are not buildings. Yet the very first section of the Battlement rules informs us they are bound by the Multiple-Structured Building rules. Within the section detailing Multiple-Structured Buildings, the rules do state out-right that each individual section are considered buildings in their own right, which would make Battlements bound by certain limitations set forth in the building rules. Thanks to the 'are not buildings' answer, it is now possible to say that a tank can embark into a Battlement where they where only limited to infantry prior, pure infantry by the building rules and Jump/Jet pack infantry by a specialized exception within the Battlement rules. This is a clear example of a Frequently Asked Question, poorly written as it is, being used to justify something which would prior be outright denied and there is no way to dispute it. The answer does clearly state that Battlements are not Buildings and this is a verdict coming down from Game Workshop we are dealing with here so it is hard to just wave away when it is pulled out as justification for an action.

That is just one that my faulty memory can drag up, because I love to scream "TANKS CAN CLIMB LADDERS" thanks to it. Many other examples exist throughout the Frequently Asked Questions where their 'clarification' has either been in direct violation of the basic rule book or created additional rules in order to bridge a gap. Given the fact that everyone whom down right despises how wide of a scope the Frequently Asked Questions are given, as every group I know treats the Frequently Asked Questions as a higher authority then the rule books, can point to at least one entry where they go against the very wording of the rule book I still can't fathom why you still state they are incapable of changing the rules.

The only way they don't change the rules is if you refuse to play with the Frequently Asked Questions influencing the game, and every group I know will point to them for rule disputes and take what they say over the rule books themselves....

While I agree with you it is very sloppy writing, it does outright state that Battlements are not buildings. Yet the very first section of the Battlement rules informs us they are bound by the Multiple-Structured Building rules.

I'm still not seeing your point. Clearly the rules do not mean that the battlements are buildings. Just an obvious example of the sloppiness of the rules writing. Battlements were therefore obviously never buildings despite that line in the rulebook. Just another example of GW not quite saying what they mean.

And the part about measuring from the Heldrake's base?
That part is in direct violation of the vehicle rules.
That's not clarification.
That's changing a rule.

But is never the less how the rules for the Helldrake always worked. Just because we weren't able to work that out doesn't mean it wasn't the rules.

Just like all the other examples when an FAQ rules against your interpretation it doesn't mean there was a rules change. Just means your interpretation was incorrect. Listing lots of FAQs that rule differently to your interpretation of the rules does not make an argument for FAQs changing rules.

I think Fling is back on "the rules written down, in the section called THE RULES, aren't actually the rule, "because"" , despite being told to stop that.

fling appears to believe that GW wrote some words just to trick us.

 FlingitNow wrote:

While I agree with you it is very sloppy writing, it does outright state that Battlements are not buildings. Yet the very first section of the Battlement rules informs us they are bound by the Multiple-Structured Building rules.

I'm still not seeing your point. Clearly the rules do not mean that the battlements are buildings. Just an obvious example of the sloppiness of the rules writing. Battlements were therefore obviously never buildings despite that line in the rulebook. Just another example of GW not quite saying what they mean.

And the part about measuring from the Heldrake's base?
That part is in direct violation of the vehicle rules.
That's not clarification.
That's changing a rule.

But is never the less how the rules for the Helldrake always worked. Just because we weren't able to work that out doesn't mean it wasn't the rules.

Just like all the other examples when an FAQ rules against your interpretation it doesn't mean there was a rules change. Just means your interpretation was incorrect. Listing lots of FAQs that rule differently to your interpretation of the rules does not make an argument for FAQs changing rules.

A Vehicle measuring from its base instead of its weapons mount is an undeniable rule change. There is no rule stating that the helldrake can do that unless you take the faq into account. So if they intended it to work that way ... but it didnt ... how does that make it not a rules change. Maybe someone could have figured out the head is a turret its still not allowance to not use the vehicle shooting rules. The helldrake obviously needed a rule change to work as intended.

If the rules they write say something other than they intended they get changed. Sometomes this happens through faq. Examples were posted enough here. This doesnt mean that its always easy to figure out when they actually change rules and when they are just clarifications. Just that they definitely have the potential to.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Just like all the other examples when an FAQ rules against your interpretation it doesn't mean there was a rules change. Just means your interpretation was incorrect. Listing lots of FAQs that rule differently to your interpretation of the rules does not make an argument for FAQs changing rules.

Except in the case I presented earlier. This is a rules change no matter how you slice it:

Warhammer 40k FAQ Pages 6-7 wrote:
Q: Do models in a multiple Toughness value unit who are involved in a Challenge still use the majority Toughness of their unit (Page 64)
A: No, they use their own Toughness value.

Proof that the FaQs can change rules...

That is not proof at all. All it means is that the FAQ clarified a rule of how to deal with challenges. A clarification that your interpretation of the rules before hand did not agree with.

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is not proof at all. All it means is that the FAQ clarified a rule of how to deal with challenges. A clarification that your interpretation of the rules before hand did not agree with.

There is literally nothing in the rules that even suggests that challenges should use their own toughness...

It was most definitely a change of the RAW.

Please - point to the rule that even implies a FMC gets Skyfire.
Anywhere in the BRB. Saying that FAQ didn't change a rule is ludicrous.

rigeld2 wrote:
Please - point to the rule that even implies a FMC gets Skyfire.
Anywhere in the BRB. Saying that FAQ didn't change a rule is ludicrous.

Remember - Fling has this bizarre notion that when they write a rulebook, with a section called "THE RULES", those arent the actual rules - the actual "rules" are what they intended us to read from their brains instead.
THus they can literally change frmo "the sky is blue" to "the sky is not blue", and it was just us "misinterpreting" "blue" when we should have known they meant "not blue".

Its a position Fling has been asked on a number of occasions to stop espousing here, as it is a very confusing one to anyone who, rightly, thinks they chose to write "THE RULES" and didnt randomly splurge words on the pages just to trick us.

The funny part is I have a couple of friends in the studio, and they agree that the often write something entirely opposite to what they later decide the rule shold be. THis idea that there is one single "rule" that they meant all along, that never changes, is ludicrous.

There is literally nothing in the rules that even suggests that challenges should use their own toughness...

It was most definitely a change of the RAW.

I agree it was a change in RaW but by definition it can not be a change in the rules. No amount of whining will change. FAQs do not and can not change the rules. They are not errata they are clarifications by definition. Anyone claiming that they change the rules simply does not know what an FAQ is.

FLing - found that Skyfire quote yet? Anything stating that FMCs get Skyfire?

Nope, thanks for conceding

Why would the skyfire have any baring on what an FAQ is? Did I know that FMCs where supposed to be able to choose to skyfire before the FAQ? No because the rulebook gave me no indication that they could. Was I surprised by the FAQ? Again no I figured it was most likely an oversight, but had no real evidence to support that until the FAQ.

So my interpretation was wrong as was everyone's who thought that FMCs couldn't choose to skyfire.

Until the written rule was changed by the FAQ, FMCs could not skyfire. It was not interpretation, it was fact.

Unless of course you beleive that, when they wrote the rules, they randomly splurged words on the page, and we were supposed to pretend otherwise?

No I believe they write the rules to communicate the rules to us. Just they do it imperfectly. Unless you believe they write rules perfectly so that their intentions are always 100% clear from the written text? You really believe that?

Claiming that RAW=The Rules but also that FAQs can change the rules is nonsense. You can't hold both opinions as they are incompatible. You claim the rules are only the most literal translation of the text well an FAQ is literally only an answer to a rules question. So by RAW an FAQ can not change the rules.

So which is it are RAW =/= The Rules or is it impossible for FAQs to change the rules. It is totally hypocritical to hold both beliefs.

Can we stop hijacking and get back to FNP vs Force?

Another false dichotomy by Fling

THe Shrine blurb is just wrong. Apparently everything else can be imperfect, apart from that statement. THAT is a hypocritical position to hold.

I believe that, when they write a book called a rulebook, with a section called THE RULES, that those are the rules they intended to write. You dont believe that.

One allows a common game to be played, the other requires muddy "RAI" style arguments before you can play. GUess which is preferable.

Edited by Manchu

Back on topic no rule change as it was an FAQ not an Errata.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Back on topic no rule change as it was an FAQ not an Errata.

You'll move back "on topic" so you can ignore the parts proving you wrong, as ever?

Classic.

I interact fantastically, playing this wonderful game of 40k and fantasy. I do believe that your idea of "RAI" being the rules is one not supportable or workable in real life, and results in issues actually playing the game - as you will play by what you think the rules writers meant along, and that conflicts with the rulebook rules (by defintiion - the actual rules) that the other person would expect to play with.

You're essentially always playing houserules, but with the arrogance of thinking youre playing by the actual rules.

Being an FAQ or Errata has no bearing on when something is a rules change, as has been proven.

It was a rules change, as otherwise you could potentially break the rules depending on how they resolved. This way you dont get to break the rules unintentionally, by imposing an order that doesnt otherwise exist.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Anyone claiming that they change the rules simply does not know what an FAQ is.

I think the problem is that whoever in GW writes the FAQs doesn't know what an FAQ is. They seem to think it is another eratta.

Yikes!

Rule #1 everyone, seriously.

You'll move back "on topic" so you can ignore the parts proving you wrong, as ever?

Classic.

Removed as it was impolite. I apologise if I caused anyone offense.

Now if you want to discuss this further please PM me and stick to the topic at hand.

Fling - reported. Please dont continue the personal attacks.

I was back on the topic at hand.

I even posted personal, first hand accounts of studio staff stating to me that they change what they think should happen - so your concept of one "true rule" to rule them all is strictly, utterly, false.

What they write in the section called THE RULES are the rules. The studio accepts this, 99% of the gaming public accept this, you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - reported. Please dont continue the personal attacks.

I was back on the topic at hand.

I even posted personal, first hand accounts of studio staff stating to me that they change what they think should happen - so your concept of one "true rule" to rule them all is strictly, utterly, false.

What they write in the section called THE RULES are the rules. The studio accepts this, 99% of the gaming public accept this, you?

It wasn't meant as a personal attack. Yet your posts frequently attack me.

I unlike you believe that GW designed the rules. Can we get back on topic please?

Then use the triangle of friendship. And you didn't think talking about how someone would find it difficult to get a game, based on your blatant mischaracteriisation alone, would be offensive?

I was already on topic. Retread the actual post that you selectively quoted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then use the triangle of friendship. And you didn't think talking about how someone would find it difficult to get a game, based on your blatant mischaracteriisation alone, would be offensive?

I was already on topic. Retread the actual post that you selectively quoted.

OK I'll put it as genuine question. You have told me that playing by RAW is the only way to have a common game and that discussing rules before a game is ludicrous. Thus when you inform your opponent that only the unhelmeted sergeant in his tactical squad can ever draw LOS how do your games go?

 FlingitNow wrote:

There is literally nothing in the rules that even suggests that challenges should use their own toughness...

It was most definitely a change of the RAW.

I agree it was a change in RaW but by definition it can not be a change in the rules. No amount of whining will change. FAQs do not and can not change the rules. They are not errata they are clarifications by definition. Anyone claiming that they change the rules simply does not know what an FAQ is.

Clearly the writers at GW do not know what FAQ stands for, as there are in fact rules changes in the FAQ's and not just the Errata section of the document.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

There is literally nothing in the rules that even suggests that challenges should use their own toughness...

It was most definitely a change of the RAW.

I agree it was a change in RaW but by definition it can not be a change in the rules. No amount of whining will change. FAQs do not and can not change the rules. They are not errata they are clarifications by definition. Anyone claiming that they change the rules simply does not know what an FAQ is.

Clearly the writers at GW do not know what FAQ stands for, as there are in fact rules changes in the FAQ's and not just the Errata section of the document.

But I thought your stance was that we had to follow what was written at all times? They wrote that the FAQs are FAQs so they must be FAQs and not errata.

Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

So we must ignore any and all FAQ's that change rules?
Because many do change rules, beyond any doubt.

So the Heldrake FAQ must be ignored, and you must never measure from the base. Correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

I think the problem here is semantics. Errata are changes to the rules, and FAQs are explanations of the rules. They are included in the same sheet so it is easy to mix them up.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

I think the problem here is semantics. Errata are changes to the rules, and FAQs are explanations of the rules. They are included in the same sheet so it is easy to mix them up.

But the FAQ's within the FAQ pages have most definitely been used to change rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

I think the problem here is semantics. Errata are changes to the rules, and FAQs are explanations of the rules. They are included in the same sheet so it is easy to mix them up.

But the FAQ's within the FAQ pages have most definitely been used to change rules.

Really, I view them as the same thing, because that's pretty much how they work.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

Do you remember the FaQ about Shadows in the warp?

It used to state that SitW did not effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

It now states that SitW does effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

Are these both a clarification of how the rule works? If so why are the contradictory?

One of them had to be a rules change. Surely you can see that right?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

Do you remember the FaQ about Shadows in the warp?

It used to state that SitW did not effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

It now states that SitW does effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

Are these both a clarification of how the rule works? If so why are the contradictory?

One of them had to be a rules change. Surely you can see that right?

The first one was a mistake in FAQ the change was an starts to the FAQ as they literally changed the body of the text of the FAQ.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

Do you remember the FaQ about Shadows in the warp?

It used to state that SitW did not effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

It now states that SitW does effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

Are these both a clarification of how the rule works? If so why are the contradictory?

One of them had to be a rules change. Surely you can see that right?

The first one was a mistake in FAQ the change was an starts to the FAQ as they literally changed the body of the text of the FAQ.

LOL Really? Citation needed.

The first one was a valid rule at the time.

One of them had to be a change in the rules.

Sorry, your refusal to acknowledge this makes your argument invalid.

So Fling, you claim the following FAQ is just a clarification of existing rules, not a change or new one:

C:CSM FAQ wrote:Q: How do I determine the Arc of Sight for a Heldrake’s ranged weapon? (p52)
A: Treat the Heldrake’s ranged weapon as a Turret Mounted Weapon, measuring all ranges from the edge of the Heldrake’s base nearest to the target unit

Since this is (apparently) just a clarification, please show how measuring from the base was part of the rules all along.
Please include page numbers of the rules you're using.

 grendel083 wrote:
So Fling, you claim the following FAQ is just a clarification of existing rules, not a change or new one:

C:CSM FAQ wrote:Q: How do I determine the Arc of Sight for a Heldrake’s ranged weapon? (p52)
A: Treat the Heldrake’s ranged weapon as a Turret Mounted Weapon, measuring all ranges from the edge of the Heldrake’s base nearest to the target unit

Since this is (apparently) just a clarification, please show how measuring from the base was part of the rules all along.
Please include page numbers of the rules you're using.

I would love to see these citations too. The same was already asked several times but was ignored so far ... i wonder why

Either that or show how these were a part of the rules all along.
Please include page numbers of the rules you're using.

40k FAQ wrote:Q: Can Flyers in Hover mode still choose to use the Skyfire special rule? (p81)
A: No.

40k FAQ wrote:Q: Flyers are entitled to choose whether or not to use the Skyfire special rule at the start of each Shooting phase. Can Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures also do this? (p49)
A: Yes

Since I seem to have lost my thread.....

Hover pg 81: "If a flyer is hovering, treat it exactly as a fast skimmer." Do fast skimmers have Skyfire? Can they use Skyfire?

There are clearly times when they have chosen to make grand assumptions on how thoroughly they cover things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the Heldrake does it have any barrels to trace LoS from? Without it you cannot shoot. The FAQ tells you that you don't need them. Does it change the rules or tell you how to deal with a model without them?

Gravmyr wrote:
Since I seem to have lost my thread.....

Hover pg 81: "If a flyer is hovering, treat it exactly as a fast skimmer." Do fast skimmers have Skyfire? Can they use Skyfire?

There are clearly times when they have chosen to make grand assumptions on how thoroughly they cover things.

Yes as "Flyers can choose whether or not to use the Skyfire special rule at the start of each Shooting phase."

They are still a flyer if they are in hover mode, check out page 411 It lists the Stormraven as Fl (Which means Flyer) H (Hover ) T (Transport)

Nothing takes the flyer classification away if you are in hover mode.

Also you would have to stay in hover mode for the rest of the game as only a flyer can pick between zooming and hover.

"A Flyer that has the Hover type can choose to Hover instead of Zooming" (81)

"Flyers can usually only make a special kind of move called Zoom." (80)

You could never zoom again if Flyer was removed from its type. (Good thing Flyer is never removed).

But this all goes to show that FAQ's can change rules.

The force Vs FNP was a change in the rules.

I disagree it was a change perse, at most it's an addition to the rules for clarification. Be it that potential effects must be tested for before accumulating the sum of all effects that will apply with the unsaved wound.

I think the point is, even where RAW does not line up with FAQs, for the vast vast majority we can see where they were coming from - most deal with oversights, missing information, illogical or inconsitant rulings. When they do change how some people play the rules, for the most part it will be towards how they intended people to be playing those rules.

Lots of things are written in the rule book. If we took all forms of interpretation of those away, removed any assumptions and human logic, followed it to the letter you end up with something unplayable. Assumptions, logic and interpretation are a needed factor in determining the rules.

 Nem wrote:
I think the point is, even where RAW does not line up with FAQs, for the vast vast majority we can see where they were coming from - most deal with oversights, missing information, illogical or inconsitant rulings. When they do change how some people play the rules, for the most part it will be towards how they intended people to be playing those rules.

Lots of things are written in the rule book. If we took all forms of interpretation of those away, removed any assumptions and human logic, followed it to the letter you end up with something unplayable. Assumptions, logic and interpretation are a needed factor in determining the rules.

QFT

As for rules that prove those FAQs were following RAW I can't provide an nor do I have to for my argument to hold. Flyers count as skimmers skimmers can't skyfire. It was all there before. FMC whilst swooping are intended to count as flyers hence the FAQ. The FAQs literally tells us what the RAI is, this may differ from the RAW. Your lists of FAQs that are different to RAW don't prove me wrong on FAQs changing the rules they just highlight that the position that RAW=The Rules is untenable.

If treat as is not the same as is, as I believe you have claimed in several threads now where it supported you, then lance weapons do and do not work against quantum shielding. It also means that at any time treat as is used it retains it's original status despite what it is treated as. FNP does not change the status of a wound.... I can keep going but the claim that treating a flyer as a fast skimmer does not remove it's ability to use skyfire negates a number of your arguments in other threads if you are basing it off of treats as does not change it's base state therefor it does not loose anything based off this.

In the end if you are using Skyfire you are not treating it as a fast skimmer now are you? Isn't that how you worded your argument of FNP negating all other activated SR's?

The only way you get to Force vs FNP being a rule change is if you ignore possible outcomes you don't like. Out of all the SR's that activate off of unsaved wounds how many use immediately?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Nem wrote:
I think the point is, even where RAW does not line up with FAQs, for the vast vast majority we can see where they were coming from - most deal with oversights, missing information, illogical or inconsitant rulings. When they do change how some people play the rules, for the most part it will be towards how they intended people to be playing those rules.

Lots of things are written in the rule book. If we took all forms of interpretation of those away, removed any assumptions and human logic, followed it to the letter you end up with something unplayable. Assumptions, logic and interpretation are a needed factor in determining the rules.

QFT

As for rules that prove those FAQs were following RAW I can't provide an nor do I have to for my argument to hold. Flyers count as skimmers skimmers can't skyfire. It was all there before. FMC whilst swooping are intended to count as flyers hence the FAQ. The FAQs literally tells us what the RAI is, this may differ from the RAW. Your lists of FAQs that are different to RAW don't prove me wrong on FAQs changing the rules they just highlight that the position that RAW=The Rules is untenable.

So there is no way for you to be wrong then? If you argue it is always what was intended they could add "on a 4+ the game continues! but on a 1 any Tyanid player wins the game regardless of the mission". And you would tell us they wanted that all along ?

I agree that FW vs FNP was clarified , over 50% of the people on Dakka voted that way, but I disagree FAQs can't change rules. Even if it is what GW wanted RAI all along the book they published didn't have that rule so they had to FAQ it as such.

Keep in mind FAQs often go against one another. FAQs use Fluff. Fully expect FNP to go 2nd against some abilities and nullify other abilities.

If you argue it is always what was intended they could add "on a 4+ the game continues! but on a 1 any Tyanid player wins the game regardless of the mission". And you would tell us they wanted that all along ?

Yes if they included an FAQ that said that, it would not be a rules change it would be an FAQ.

I agree that FW vs FNP was clarified , over 50% of the people on Dakka voted that way, but I disagree FAQs can't change rules. Even if it is what GW wanted RAI all along the book they published didn't have that rule so they had to FAQ it as such.

The rules are what GW designed them to be. Written language is just a tool to communicate ideas it can not generate them itself.

Keep in mind FAQs often go against one another. FAQs use Fluff. Fully expect FNP to go 2nd against some abilities and nullify other abilities.

True FAQs are not always consistent with RAW.

Yet many FAQ's do make changes, against the RAW.
So we either accept the rules changes these FAQ's are making, or we discount them entirely.

 grendel083 wrote:
Yet many FAQ's do make changes, against the RAW.
So we either accept the rules changes these FAQ's are making, or we discount them entirely.

Yes FAQs give answers that differ from RAW. So we are left with 3 options:

1) RAW =/= The Rules (or in other words the rules were designed by the GW design team not an inanimate object).
2) Discount the FAQs entirely
3) Ignore the RAW fact that FAQs can not change rules whilst stubbornly and hypocritically still claiming pure RAW is the rules except where you decide for them not to be (i.e. that FAQs can't change rules) and then complain when GW makes an obvious FAQ answer that upsets us because it is different from a silly RAW answer...

So are you going for option 2, or believing that FAQ's can change rules?

 grendel083 wrote:
So are you going for option 2, or believing that FAQ's can change rules?

I'm going for option 1 as I believe the GW design team designed the rules. Which apparently is a controversial belief in this forum.

Which option are you going for? Option 2 or RAW counts if and when you choose it to? Or the obvious answer of the rules are what the GW design team designed them to be?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So are you going for option 2, or believing that FAQ's can change rules?

I'm going for option 1 as I believe the GW design team designed the rules. Which apparently is a controversial belief in this forum.

Which option are you going for? Option 2 or RAW counts if and when you choose it to? Or the obvious answer of the rules are what the GW design team designed them to be?

Option 1 isn't really an answer.
Of course the design team makes the rules, who ever disputes that? And what does that have to do with rule changes in an FAQ?
Option 1 is dodging an answer.

I'll go with option 4. The one that makes the game playable.
FAQ's change rules. And they are as much a part of the rules as a codex or rulebook.

 grendel083 wrote:
Option 1 isn't really an answer.
Of course the design team makes the rules, who ever disputes that? And what does that have to do with rule changes in an FAQ?
Option 1 is dodging an answer.

Everyone that does not believe RAI = The Rules is saying they don't believe that the rules are what the GW design team designed and this the rules are not designed by the GW design team. Option 1 is not dodging an answer it is giving an answer based on axiomatic truths (FAQs can't change rules, the GW design team designed the rules).

I'll go with option 4. The one that makes the game playable.
FAQ's change rules. And they are as much a part of the rules as a codex or rulebook.

Option 1 also makes the game playable, indeed it is only one that does so. You are clearly going with option 3, do you not see that as hypocritical?

So the only way to truly play 40k by the rules is how you think the design team intended it to be played? How convenient for you.

While you are right in saying that FAQs are not supposed to change rules (as that's what the errata is for) it is clear that in certain cases the writers of the FAQs have ignored this and decided to put things that should be erratas into the FAQ section. Treating the blurb at the front of FAQs as The Rules while treating the actual rules written in the rulebook as a bunch of scribbles you can ignore when it's convenient for you is ridiculous and I feel sorry for people who have to deal with you in tournaments.

Fling - so you are claiming you know the RAI? Always?

Bonkers. Desist with your stance, which breaches the tenets, and get back on topic. At least you've stopped insulting the social skills of those who disagree with your unplayable stance on rules.

Personally I find the statement THE RULES is clear enough.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So the only way to truly play 40k by the rules is how you think the design team intended it to be played? How convenient for you.

You read the rulebook and try to interpret what they meant by the rules they have written. If your opponent disagrees with your interpretation you discuss it an come to a concensus or dice off (or defer to higher ruling like a TO). How is playing by RAW any different? The only thing with my way is that I'm not going to try to pull that your helmeted models can't shoot or assault. Or that FMCs don't have relentless or smash, but instead have the as yet undefined "relentless smash" rule. That you can't overwatch because "normal shooting attack" is not defined. Or any other RAW silliness and don't need to attempt to discuss them I just play those things how we all know they are meant to be played.

While you are right in saying that FAQs are not supposed to change rules (as that's what the errata is for) it is clear that in certain cases the writers of the FAQs have ignored this and decided to put things that should be erratas into the FAQ section. Treating the blurb at the front of FAQs as The Rules while treating the actual rules written in the rulebook as a bunch of scribbles you can ignore when it's convenient for you is ridiculous and I feel sorry for people who have to deal with you in tournaments.

Do you not see the inconsistency between on one hand saying it is impossible to understand anything beyond the literal but then claiming that FAQs aren't literal FAQs?

At the end of the day it is about aim. Claiming just because I want to play by the rules GW designed means that I can or will just ignore all the written text and pick and choose what I want from the rules is a ludicrous exaggeration. I aim to play the rules as they were designed and I understand that some of the rules are written in a sloppy and inaccurate way. If me and my opponent disagree on a rule my aim is to work out what the RAI is. Understanding the RAW is often an important step in this process. But blindly claiming RAW results in breaking the game. In honesty I'm fairly certain you all defer to RaI on some of the rules you play (like all the situations above) yet on the internet you take up the attitude RAW is the rules to argue semantics or scrape that extra advantage on anything you see as a RaI grey area (like Gravguns ignoring cover for vehicles for instance).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - so you are claiming you know the RAI? Always?

I have never made such a claim. My opinion on RaI is just that my opinion on it. You are free to disagree with it. This is something I have pointed out to you multiple times Nos.

Bonkers. Desist with your stance, which breaches the tenets, and get back on topic. At least you've stopped insulting the social skills of those who disagree with your unplayable stance on rules.

It doesn't breach the tenets. Why is my stance unplayable? So tell me how your games go when you tell your opponents that their helmeted models can't shoot or draw LoS to anything ever? I'm just wondering how that goes? Or when you inform your opponent that is FMC doesn't gave relentless or smash etc?

Personally I find the statement THE RULES is clear enough.

Personally I find the statement FAQ is clear enough as is the purpose of language and that the GW design team designed the rules...

I'm not suggesting we play by pure RAW, but I think playing by pure RAI is equally absurd. The way I play is RAW until there's an issue where pure RAW is ambiguous, an obvious oversight (Relentless Smash, anyone?), or breaks the game, then discuss these issues with my opponent and find a solution we both agree on. I may not always like the way a certain rule plays per RAW or think the rule should be played that way, but if it is perfectly functional as it is written I will play it that way.

 FlingitNow wrote:

If you argue it is always what was intended they could add "on a 4+ the game continues! but on a 1 any Tyanid player wins the game regardless of the mission". And you would tell us they wanted that all along ?

Yes if they included an FAQ that said that, it would not be a rules change it would be an FAQ.

An interesting if wrong standpoint. I like your gusto, you are using the wording of how FAQ's are explained on GW website to have a never wrong approach, even if it is absurd. The moment they "add" or "change" the wording of any rule in the BRB, they have changed the actual "RAW" rules. Regardless if it is to just "Clarify" something.

For instance when they in the BA "FAQ" actually list the new weapon profiles for Glaive Encarmine, the profile changed because they had to FAQ to work with 6th edition, however there is no denying it has changed compare to the codex.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm not suggesting we play by pure RAW, but I think playing by pure RAI is equally absurd. The way I play is RAW until there's an issue where pure RAW is ambiguous, an obvious oversight (Relentless Smash, anyone?), or breaks the game, then discuss these issues with my opponent and find a solution we both agree on. I may not always like the way a certain rule plays per RAW or think the rule should be played that way, but if it is perfectly functional as it is written I will play it that way.

It depends what you mean by pure RAI. I mean that whenever RAW gives a ludicrous, game breaking or clearly unintentional result I try to work out what they meant. I don't see what is absurd about that?

So for instance I would not entertain the notion that FMCs have "relentless smash" or that models without modelled eyes can't draw LOS. Likewise I see it no real difference to say it seems entirely unintentional that grav weapons bypass cover for vehicles or that successful vehicle invulnerable saves only discount wounds.

To be honest I would be very surprised if anyone on here that defends RAW fundamentalism would be so belligerent in an actual game. Just my stance doesn't change from internet to game as it doesn't need to in order for me to have a game against an actual person.

So you do not consider THE RULES to be the rules? Yet can claim rai?

Absurd position is absurd

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you do not consider THE RULES to be the rules? Yet can claim rai?

Absurd position is absurd

I consider "The Rules" to be the section of the rulebook where the GW design team try to communicate to us the rules of the game. That is literally what a rulebook is for.

But thanks for the personal attack.

My position is that the rulebook is a rulebook not a sentient being. That the rules were designed by the GW design team. You think this is absurd. You're entitled to your opinion.

Don't put words in my mouth. Straw man argument is straw man.

It wasn't a personal attack. You are treating the shrine wording as infallible, but ignoring the clear and unambiguous THE RULES and claiming they are not, actually, the rules. In fact, GW just splurged words without really knowing what they're writing.

I'll take the view that they intended to write THE RULES, not what you think they meant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth. Straw man argument is straw man.

It wasn't a personal attack. You are treating the shrine wording as infallible, but ignoring the clear and unambiguous THE RULES and claiming they are not, actually, the rules. In fact, GW just splurged words without really knowing what they're writing.

I'll take the view that they intended to write THE RULES, not what you think they meant.

You are treating all words as infallible except when YOU say they are not (like the shrine wording).

I'm treating no words as infallible. I'm treating the words as communication of ideas. I'm aware that that communication is not always perfect. I'm not putting any words in your mouth I haven't I've just taken what you've said here and previously on this topic. You are however trying to put words in my mouth words you know that I have not stated and have in fact stated the opposite.

I also take the view that they intended to write the rules so that we could play a game using them and so they themselves can remember them. I however do not believe that they always write perfectly what they meant as no one does.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I have not said they are infallible. I have, repeatedly, stated when the rules break down. You ignore this, and state I have no social skills when playing people, in a deliberate mischaracterisation. It gets tiresome .

I just simply treat THE RULES as the rules. As they tell you to , in, you know, the phrase. You are claiming that a THE RULES are not the actual rules, just whatever you decide at the time.

The studio disagrees witty you, the vast majority on here disagree with you, and your position, is at heart, an absurd one.

Now, stop with your OT illogic, please.

The FAQ WAS, like a number of FAQS, a change in the rules. This is indisputable truth.

I would dispute this FAQ was not a change in the rules, along with many other people. It's not so much a indisputable truth as much as it depends what you think the RAW is or was.

I do believe in most cases RAW is clear and absolute. This is not one of those cases.

I meant more it was a change in rules, same ssony other FAQS changed rules, and that FAQS can and do change rules

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, putting words in my mouth. I have not said they are infallible. I have, repeatedly, stated when the rules break down. You ignore this, and state I have no social skills when playing people, in a deliberate mischaracterisation. It gets tiresome .

You state that RAW = The Rules thus the written text is exactly what the rules are thus the entirety of the words are law. Then you choose when you want to make some of those words not the law. Like the wording on the shrine of knowledge. Unless you accept that the wording on the shrine of knowledge is to be interpreted as you say is the only way to interpret the rules. In which case as you know FAQs can not change the rules... So which is it? Are there ways to interpret text beyond the purely literal and come to a concensus or not?

I just simply treat THE RULES as the rules. As they tell you to , in, you know, the phrase. You are claiming that a THE RULES are not the actual rules, just whatever you decide at the time.

The underlined is as you know completely false and is a personal attack. I am claiming the rules are whatever the GW design team designed them to be.

The studio disagrees witty you, the vast majority on here disagree with you, and your position, is at heart, an absurd one.

You speak for the studio now? The Studio says that they didn't design the rules? The position that the GW design team designed the rules is an absurd one? The position that rules should be interpreted in this game in the same manner as any rule system ever written is interpreted is an absurd one? OK. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it however I do not believe it is as widely held as you believe it is. Hence the old RAW silliness thread, just because the attitude of RAW = The Rules has hounded people who want reasonable rules discussions beyond the RAW out of the forum does not make it the only way to interpret the rules.

Now, stop with your OT illogic, please.

We're discussing whether something is a rule change. I've stated the fact that thing is an FAQ means it can't possibly be a rules change. You've tried to attack that position.

The FAQ WAS, like a number of FAQS, a change in the rules. This is indisputable truth.

By indisputable truth you mean factual impossibility. What a strange thing to say.

 FlingitNow wrote:

There is literally nothing in the rules that even suggests that challenges should use their own toughness... It was most definitely a change of the RAW.

agree it was a change in RaW

So you do agree it was change in Rules As Written.

 FlingitNow wrote:
but by definition it can not be a change in the rules.

You're contradicting yourself. So you're now claiming that a change in a rule is not in fact a change in rules?

 FlingitNow wrote:
. FAQs do not and can not change the rules.

We have already shown you that they change rules. You yourself have agreed that they change rules. By definition, RAW is the rules. So anything that changes RAW changes rules and vice versa.
And if you try to argue that RAW ain't rules, I'd like you to define exactly what are rules and how are we supposed to know them if they are not written anywhere?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Anyone claiming that they change the rules simply does not know what an FAQ is.

No, we very well know what FAQ is. Assuming that GW follows its stated own convention about that FAQ's are not supposed to change rules in spite of all clear evidence to contrary is mindboggling to say at least. GW being GW, they still use FAQs to change rules (as has been proven multiple times) even though they're not supposed to do that.
So anyone claiming that GW FAQs don't change rules is just living in denial or has not actually ever properly read FAQ written by GW and compared it to what the actual rules say.

Luide all the answers to the questions in your post are already on this thread so let's not derail it by going over them again and again. If you need further clarification please pm me and I'll happily explain why the rules are not always equal to RAW (mainly due to GW being not perfect rules writers).

 FlingitNow] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, putting words in my mouth. I have not said they are infallible. I have, repeatedly, stated when the rules break down. You ignore this, and state I have no social skills when playing people, in a deliberate mischaracterisation. It gets tiresome .

You state that RAW = The Rules thus the written text is exactly what the rules are thus the entirety of the words are law. Then you choose when you want to make some of those words not the law. Like the wording on the shrine of knowledge. Unless you accept that the wording on the shrine of knowledge is to be interpreted as you say is the only way to interpret the rules. In which case as you know FAQs can not change the rules... So which is it? Are there ways to interpret text beyond the purely literal and come to a concensus or not?

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

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

FlingitNow wrote:

I just simply treat THE RULES as the rules. As they tell you to , in, you know, the phrase. You are claiming that a THE RULES are not the actual rules, just whatever you decide at the time.

The underlined is as you know completely false and is a personal attack. I am claiming the rules are whatever the GW design team designed them to be.

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

FlingitNow wrote:

The studio disagrees witty you, the vast majority on here disagree with you, and your position, is at heart, an absurd one.

You speak for the studio now?

No, I stated exactly what context that was in previously, do NOT put words in my mouth. Again. You seem incapable of doing otherwise.

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

FlingitNow wrote:The Studio says that they didn't design the rules?

I never said that

FlingitNow wrote:The position that the GW design team designed the rules is an absurd one?

I never said that. Youre good at this.

FlingitNow wrote:The position that rules should be interpreted in this game in the same manner as any rule system ever written is interpreted is an absurd one? OK. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it however I do not believe it is as widely held as you believe it is. Hence the old RAW silliness thread, just because the attitude of RAW = The Rules has hounded people who want reasonable rules discussions beyond the RAW out of the forum does not make it the only way to interpret the rules.

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

FlingitNow wrote:

Now, stop with your OT illogic, please.

We're discussing whether something is a rule change. I've stated the fact that thing is an FAQ means it can't possibly be a rules change. You've tried to attack that position.

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

Your position is debunked. Concede gracefully.

FlingitNow wrote:

The FAQ WAS, like a number of FAQS, a change in the rules. This is indisputable truth.

By indisputable truth you mean factual impossibility. What a strange thing to say.

Ha. Ha,

Your position remains untenable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never said that

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

I never said that. Youre good at this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your position is debunked. Concede gracefully.

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much healthier

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

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

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

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

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