I want to get peoples opinions on this, because, this is clearly a point of great debate.
There are several points in the FAQs that reminder or example text or example texts references something incorrectly whilst attempting to answer an unrelated question.
for example
Q: With regards the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability, what
exactly is meant by ‘may fire an extra shot’?
A: It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
from the data sheet the pulse rifle only makes one hit roll when it is not half range due to being Rapid Fire 1 and the ability in question popping only at half range. Should this be considered an intentional change to RAW ?
another example.
Q: Can a unit that Advances or Falls Back embark within a transport? What about if the transport has moved before – can a unit still embark inside?
A: Yes, yes and yes (remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the same turn).
the reminder text here is telling us to remember (and therefor) refer back to a rule that does not exist. (yet a similar one from the BRB does with a vastly different effect on gameplay).
both of these FAQs are attempting to provide guidelines on questions, yet in their reminder/example text they are referring incorrectly to other things unrelated to what the question is trying to address.
What do people think, should we treat example and reminder text as official modifications to RAW or should we treat them as non-rule binding extra text. In almost every other major game I have played, (i am a big board game fanatic and in my LGS/play groups am usually the rule guru [i have a small obsession with rule documentation and tend to try and learn every games rules in excruciating detail]) ranging from Epic games like twilight imperium and Mega Civilzation, mid games like FFs GOT and Scythe, RPGs like DnD, WoD and Kult, card games like MTG and VTES and even small games like unstable unicorns, In all of these other games reminder and example texts usually appear as italics and are expected to be ignored for RAW and official rulings when conflicting with other rules text. I think there is a precedence from other games and game design philosophy to do the same here as well.
I would disagree,
this is literally a rules question,
its a bit meta yes, because its a rules question on determining the rules, but a rules question none the less.
If GW is going to continue to use FAQs instead of errata to fix their rules, the only way the game can function is if we take FAQs as outranking what the rules say, even if the FAQ is incorrect ruleswise. Otherwise I can use Codex: Daemons stratagems on Mortarian and Magnus with impunity.
If GW is going to continue to use FAQs instead of errata to fix their rules, the only way the game can function is if we take FAQs as outranking what the rules say, even if the FAQ is incorrect ruleswise. Otherwise I can use Codex: Daemons stratagems on Mortarian and Magnus with impunity.
This isn't a question of whether or not we should take the FAQs as outranking what the rules say. We should definitely take them as they should. This is a question about whether or not reminder/example text is the designers giving us official rules or are they unrelated/binding to RAW.
The FAQ presents Question, then Answer.
The answer should be considered to override the rule. The reminder/example text is not a part of the answer, it is included to help us understand the answer better. However, reminder/example text is not expanding on the question at hand... it is not the answer but it is "extra."
I completely agree that any answer in the FAQ should override and outrank older rules. However, I am hesitant to think that incorrectly referenced "help" text is intended to be and should be considered binding RAW. Most other games make this clear by the use of italics but even ones that don't, I have never played another game that took that approach that "help" text in FAQs and other sources override rules and there is nowhere in any GW materials that suggest that they intend the FAQ example/reminder text ("help" text) to be included as binding RAW. What is made clear, is that the answers to the questions should be binding RAW, but no where does it say that we should also do that with the extras ("help" text).
If GW is going to continue to use FAQs instead of errata to fix their rules, the only way the game can function is if we take FAQs as outranking what the rules say, even if the FAQ is incorrect ruleswise. Otherwise I can use Codex: Daemons stratagems on Mortarian and Magnus with impunity.
This isn't a question of whether or not we should take the FAQs as outranking what the rules say. We should definitely take them as they should. This is a question about whether or not reminder/example text is the designers giving us official rules or are they unrelated/binding to RAW. The FAQ presents Question, then Answer. The answer should be considered to override the rule. The reminder/example text is not a part of the answer, it is included to help us understand the answer better. However, reminder/example text is not expanding on the question at hand... it is not the answer but it is "extra."
I completely agree that any answer in the FAQ should override and outrank older rules. However, I am hesitant to think that incorrectly referenced "help" text is intended to be and should be considered binding RAW. Most other games make this clear by the use of italics but even ones that don't, I have never played another game that took that approach that "help" text in FAQs and other sources override rules and there is nowhere in any GW materials that suggest that they intend the FAQ example/reminder text ("help" text) to be included as binding RAW. What is made clear, is that the answers to the questions should be binding RAW, but not the extras.
The FAQ literally instructs you to make two shots at max range, therefore you do, rules be damned. If people dislike it they can complain to GW (for all the good that will do) or make up house rules.
The FAQ literally instructs you to make two shots at max range, therefore you do, rules be damned.
Where does it instruct me to do that ?
I see a question about how the Cadre Fireblade's Volly Fire ability works.
Then the FAQ instructs me on how it works. (I accept this answer as RAW)
and then I see example text.
Example text that refers to something incorrectly, or maybe it is referring to something out of context, or maybe something else,,,
It is a bit ridiculous to interpret this extra "help" text as a way to override raw when whether or not the ability gives you an extra attack at max range isn't even addressed or changed in the question ? and if we take it as that, does that imply that RAW is saying all weapons that Cadre Fireblade's Volly Fire effects get an extra shot at max range ? or only the pulse rifle ? or perhaps in the context of this example text the unit had some other buff giving it an extra attack that we don't know about ? [rhetorical questions]
The point is, the FAQs propose Questions,
Then they propose Answers.
The answers are what we are concerned about for overriding RAW not GWs attempts at explaining the answer (failed, contradictory, correct, or otherwise).
Those explanations are "extra" to even what rules the designers are trying to overwrite.
Type40 wrote: The FAQ presents Question, then Answer.
The answer should be considered to override the rule. The reminder/example text is not a part of the answer, it is included to help us understand the answer better.
Not quite correct.
The reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.
Q: Certain abilities and Stratagems are used ‘before the battle’. When specifically is this?
A: The game begins when players start the Deployment step of a mission – all abilities and Stratagems that are used ‘before the battle’ must be used before then.
Remember that if both players have ‘before the battle’ abilities they wish to use, and the rules themselves do not explicitly say in which order they should be resolved, the players should roll off – the winner decides in what order they are resolved.
in this example the rules do not give direction on how to resolve the situation where both players have ‘before the battle’ abilities they wish to use, they answer that as well as the original question.
One of the many quirks of trying to resolve the RAW.
All rules to a game are by common consent. If two people can't agree on the rules of the game, the game hangs in an unresolvable state.
FAQ / Erratta are GW's way of modifying previous incarnations of rules, ideally making instances of disagreement fewer.
RAW arguments ignore anyone's concept of RAI, as the "Intention" is unknowable. Sometimes that intention is spelled out in the FAQ's, sometimes not.
Which brings us to the possibility that changing the rule to effectively +1 shot regardless of range was intentional, as the explanation says that's what you now do.
The argument against presupposes that this was UNintentional. However, RAW, we can't argue the intentionality of it. The new RAW is clear. The rule now allows +1 shot, regardless of range.
On the other hand, assuming all RAW are also RAI leads to many, MANY unplayable game states. As BCB has pointed out in a few threads, we have quite a few conflicting FAQs and rule sources. If we say "GW intended all of this" then we can't say which one takes precedence over the other. There's a point at which we, the players, have to use common sense when interpreting what GW puts out. We have to come to logical conclusions, instead of taking everything at face value. For example, the Pulse Rifle example. Is it more likely that GW made a mistake on writing their example? Or is it more likely that they didn't make a mistake there, but they forgot to update the Tau Codex entry for Volley Fire to include that it works outside of half range? In either case, you have to make a concession in regards to RAW.
I find any instance in an FAQ where they say "remember X" and my response is "what the heck are they talking about" to be an error in the FAQ and not a change to the rules.
In most cases, you easily see the reminder text to show by example how to apply the rule being referenced. In other cases, directly contradicts the rules in question and often their answer also. I see no reason to view such an contradiction as a change in the rule since no-one who doesn't reference that FAQ answer will ever get to the same result.
In order to be a change to the rules it would have to actually say it overrides what the current rules say, rather than obliquely refer to something in an example, IMO. Does anyone have the rules text for the Cadre Fireblade? I'm sure it specifically mentions half range in the rule itself, and that hasn't been explicitly changed so at best we're left with a situation where the reminder text references something that doesn't exist, leaving us without a clear way to proceed if we just follow RAW.
In these situations, where a reminder conflicts with the referenced rule, I'd go with the referenced rule as correct and not assume a reminder overrides a written rule.
What would be even better is if GW went back through the FAQs to correct these kind of mistakes a week or so after they were released. There were a lot of updates in this round of FAQs and it's quite likely they'll throw up a few unforeseen problems. That's fine as long as you have a plan in place to deal with those problems. What's not fine is publishing a bunch of FAQs, having various errors noted, then doing nothing.
I view the FAQ answers as RAW, but the examples as RAI.
Often a RAW argument centres around the fact that intent is impossible to know, I see the examples as the rules writers’ attempt to demonstrate RAI. Now this doesn’t mean that they necessarily do this well. Part of the problem is the way they use FAQ and errata. Errata should be there to correct mistakes such as typographical errors such as punctuation, spelling and grammar. FAQs should be there to clarify rules interactions and interpretation when there is ambiguity and/or confusion.
When it comes to actually changing rules, then they should label it not as FAQ or errata, but as a replacement or new rule, noting specifically which rule it replaces.
Regarding the specific example in the OP, I don’t think it changes the rule that volley fire applies only at half range. The FAQ answer which is RAW states that when applying the volley fire ability, then you fire one more shot at a given range than you otherwise would.
This is followed by an example to demonstrate RAI - when applying volley fire to a rapid fire 1 weapon at half range, fire 3 shots. If applying volley fire to a rapid fire 1 weapon at more than half range, fire 2 shots. It doesn’t say that volley fire applies at more than half range, but it does allow for the possibility of a special rule/exception that allows you to use volley fire outside if half range. This could be from a special ability, a stratagem or any other special circumstance. The fact that no such circumstance currently exists is irrelevant. It simply means that if a new stratagem is introduced at a later date that allows a unit to apply the volley fire rule when outside of half range, that this eventuality is covered by the example.
Now, I’m not saying that this is good rule writing, or that it is clear, but that’s how I’d interpret and apply this specific example.
Type40 wrote:
The FAQ presents Question, then Answer.
The answer should be considered to override the rule. The reminder/example text is not a part of the answer, it is included to help us understand the answer better.
Not quite correct.
The reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.
Q: Certain abilities and Stratagems are used ‘before the battle’. When specifically is this?
A: The game begins when players start the Deployment step of a mission – all abilities and Stratagems that are used ‘before the battle’ must be used before then.
Remember that if both players have ‘before the battle’ abilities they wish to use, and the rules themselves do not explicitly say in which order they should be resolved, the players should roll off – the winner decides in what order they are resolved.
in this example the rules do not give direction on how to resolve the situation where both players have ‘before the battle’ abilities they wish to use, they answer that as well as the original question.
Actually it is exactly correct,
In this case the reminder text just happens to be referring to another rule correctly.
While playing Warhammer 40,000,you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time–normally‘at the start of the Movement phase ’or‘ before the battle begins’.When this happens during the game,the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a battle round,the players roll off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved.
pg 178 BRB
The reminder text here is being used to help us understand the FAQ Answer. It is not adding to the answer, it is not attempting to change something unrelated, and it is not a part of what the designers are trying to address. It simply refers correctly to another rule in existence. You can ignore the reminder text completely and it would still be true.
Again, in game design, and in every other game I have ever played, you do NOT use reminder/example text from an FAQ or otherwise as a method for overwriting RAW. Based on that precedence and the fact that GW nowhere tells us to do this... why would we do this ?
these types of changes don't even follow their format.
FAQ Format =
1. Question : --------
2. Answer: overwrites raw 3. (reminder/example text)reminder/example text
or
ERRATA
1. Page : ------
2. Change to text: overwrites raw 3. (reminder/example text)reminder/example text
The only thing clear here is that GW wants you to use the step 2 of their format to overwrite RAW. Why would they expect anything else. And if they do, where does it say that they are breaking there own format to introduce new/changes to rules. I don't know a single educated game designer who would break there own format for rules writing intentionally. FAQs arn't a new format that GW just came up with and its not like its a very hard format to follow.
So, without a clear pointer from GW saying, "btw all, we change the rules, out of format, in our "help" text, and you should check there for existing changes and changes in the future" I don't think its even logical to think that those instances are anything more then mistakes, or poorly written examples. This is why most other games put the "help" text in italics. in game design, this is common to signify that something is not rules text but rather an explanation or reference.
What is RAW clearly are the answers. but I am not going to go past the answers to the text trying to explain the answer to me and be like ,,, hmmm this explination is telling me to remember something that doesn't exists... I am going do some inception now and pretend it does ok now it is RAW. I am also not going to hmmm ..... this explination is is explaining something to me that is impossible as they describe based on the rest of the rules, and not related to the question it is explaining.... guess I got to play it that way with out any way of parsing out why, how or if it should happen.
Rules are rules. Explanations and reminders are not. I once tried to explain the concept of evolution to someone with toothpicks,,,, did I expect them to think that little tiny pieces of wood procreate, mutate, and naturally select ? [rhetorical question]
The yes votes are winning because the reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.
They are literally a part of the FaQ document, and are official rules.
Yes they are part of the FaQ document, but where does anything say that the reminder/example text is a proposition or assertions of a rule ?
Again, referring to other games and game design philosophy we can see it is not and until GW decides to specifically say they aren't using conventional standards I don't see any logical reason to believe that they are proposing new rules in this way.
again, the faq proposes new rules in the format of Question then Answer, and errata. That is the obvious format for proposition or assertions of rules and rule changes. Examples and Reminders are not the designers trying to introducing new rules. it baffles me that people could possibly think otherwise. These designers might do some silly things, but they are smart enough to introduce rules in their official formatting.
The entirety of an FAQ entry should be considered, and it should be correctly worded. But if the FAQ example is obviously BS you don't take it as gospel. Same with the rules itself.
if we really want get THAT syntax specific with the FAQs and have every word including the reminder/example text count as RAW then the following logic apply.
if an faqs reminder/example text is to considered a new rule then we can call that piece of text Rule B,
RuleB states :
"rembember rule A "
Me : Great, rule B is : try and recall rule A ,,,,
so, I will follow the rules and attempt to recall rule A but when I can't recall rule A because rule A doesn't exist, i will officially have finished my duties of following this "new rule" proposed by the FAQ reminder text by simply trying to remember it. Then I will continue the game as though Rule A didnt exist and I will use rule B to try and recall rule A and fail at that, when ever appropriate.
and with the example texts, we have no way of knowing what other conditions(effects and abilities) applied to the models their examples, so I can only assume the that the conditions I should use are the ones in the game I am playing as outlined in all of the other official rulings (like data sheets, the BrB, and direct rule statements[like the answers or errata] in the FaQs)
but that's only if we really want to look at it from this "every word including example/reminder text counts as RAW" perspective.
GW rules are not tight enough to apply any rigorous logic to consistently. Context and common sense are key, take every rule and FAQ on its own merits and reach a reasonable conclusion.
If you can't, discuss with the opponent. If you disagree, roll off.
Having thought about it, I've come to conclusion that most of this contention seems to be because we have this view that FAQs are rules. And, technically, they aren't. They're clarification, and possibly an explanation of RAI, but they aren't actually rules. Unlike Errata, they don't officially change the wording of a rule, either by adding, replacing, or removing text. So, if the wording of an FAQ contradicts a passage in the rulebook, codex, or an Errata, and you want to go "by RAW", then you have to ignore the contradictory FAQ. Doesn't mean you have to ignore them all. Just that the actual rules and errata trump the FAQs when it comes to RAW. Because, again, FAQs aren't actually rules.
FAQs don't over-ride the rules - they are clarifications of the rules. An expanded explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.
Where they get it wrong and the FAQ winds up directly contradicting rules text from elsewhere, it's up to the players to determine how to deal with that, just as it would be if the conflicting pieces of text were both in the rulebook to begin with.
The yes votes are winning because the reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.
They are literally a part of the FaQ document, and are official rules.
Yes they are part of the FaQ document, but where does anything say that the reminder/example text is a proposition or assertions of a rule ?
Right here:
WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.4 Page 1, left column, 1st graph 2nd-4th sentences FAQ wrote:These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta. Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.
(Emphasis mine).
Where it literally says "These documents collect amendments to the rules" the reminder/example text is a part of "These documents" and as such are "amendments to the rules".
insaniak wrote: FAQs don't over-ride the rules - they are clarifications of the rules. An expanded explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.
Where they get it wrong and the FAQ winds up directly contradicting rules text from elsewhere, it's up to the players to determine how to deal with that, just as it would be if the conflicting pieces of text were both in the rulebook to begin with.
A properly written ruleset doesn't need to rely on players determining "how to deal with that".
insaniak wrote: FAQs don't over-ride the rules - they are clarifications of the rules. An expanded explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.
Where they get it wrong and the FAQ winds up directly contradicting rules text from elsewhere, it's up to the players to determine how to deal with that, just as it would be if the conflicting pieces of text were both in the rulebook to begin with.
A properly written ruleset doesn't need to rely on players determining "how to deal with that".
The yes votes are winning because the reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.
They are literally a part of the FaQ document, and are official rules.
Yes they are part of the FaQ document, but where does anything say that the reminder/example text is a proposition or assertions of a rule ?
Right here:
WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.4 Page 1, left column, 1st graph 2nd-4th sentences FAQ wrote:These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions.
As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta.
Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.
(Emphasis mine).
Where it literally says "These documents collect amendments to the rules" the reminder/example text is a part of "These documents" and as such are "amendments to the rules".
lol way to ignore half the sentence
WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.4 Page 1, left column, 1st graph 2nd-4th sentences FAQ wrote:These documents collect amendments to the rulesandpresent our responses to players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta.
Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.
(Emphasis mine and yours).
If you have a box of apples AND oranges , everything in the box isn't just apples.
BaconCatBug wrote: A properly written ruleset doesn't need to rely on players determining "how to deal with that".
Which doesn't change the answer.
The question asked was about the role of FAQs, not the proficiency of the writers.
The simple fact is that 40k has always had rules interactions and issues that were left up to the players to resolve as they saw fit. After 30 years of this, it seems fairly clear that this is not going to change. If you don't find that to be acceptable, you always have the option of not playing the game.
The yes votes are winning because the reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.
They are literally a part of the FaQ document, and are official rules.
Yes they are part of the FaQ document, but where does anything say that the reminder/example text is a proposition or assertions of a rule ?
Right here:
WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.4 Page 1, left column, 1st graph 2nd-4th sentences FAQ wrote:These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions.
As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta.
Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.
(Emphasis mine).
Where it literally says "These documents collect amendments to the rules" the reminder/example text is a part of "These documents" and as such are "amendments to the rules".
lol way to ignore half the sentence
WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.4 Page 1, left column, 1st graph 2nd-4th sentences FAQ wrote:These documents collect amendments to the rulesandpresent our responses to players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta.
Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.
(Emphasis mine and yours).
If you have a box of apples AND oranges , everything in the box isn't just apples.
I did not ignore anything...
The FAQ's are rules. therefore the reminder/example text are rules.
The yes votes are winning because the reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.
They are literally a part of the FaQ document, and are official rules.
Yes they are part of the FaQ document, but where does anything say that the reminder/example text is a proposition or assertions of a rule ?
Right here:
WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.4 Page 1, left column, 1st graph 2nd-4th sentences FAQ wrote:These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions.
As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta.
Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.
(Emphasis mine).
Where it literally says "These documents collect amendments to the rules" the reminder/example text is a part of "These documents" and as such are "amendments to the rules".
lol way to ignore half the sentence
WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.4 Page 1, left column, 1st graph 2nd-4th sentences FAQ wrote:These documents collect amendments to the rulesandpresent our responses to players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta.
Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.
(Emphasis mine and yours).
If you have a box of apples AND oranges , everything in the box isn't just apples.
I did not ignore anything...
The FAQ's are rules. therefore the reminder/example text are rules.
Again,
if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges, does this imply that every object in my box is both an apple and an orange at the same time. Or does this imply that I have box that has apples in it, as well as oranges.
"These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions."
Are you trying to tell me this "AND" doesn't mean they have a variety of both?
are you saying the intention of the statement is to mean :
"These documents collect amendments to the rules with use of our responses to players' frequently asked questions." ?
seriously,,, talk about people not taking things as Rules As Written. Its literally what it says and you are willfully ignoring the other half of the sentence and interpreting this rule in a RAI way whilst claiming RAW.
Nowhere in your quoted message does it say FAQs are rules. In fact, the only thing is says about FAQs is that they are "responses". Errata are amendments to the rules, as they literally amend the rules ("replace this with this", "add this", "remove this", etc). FAQs are, as many people have stated, responses designed to clarify the intent of a rule. In others words, FAQs are RAI. If you use them as such (and you should in 99% of cases), then good on ya. But don't make a false equivalency between FAQs and the rules and claim RAW.
The FAQ's are rules. therefore the reminder/example text are rules.
Again,
if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges, does this imply that every object in my box is both an apple and an orange at the same time. Or does this imply that I have box that has apples in it, as well as oranges.
"These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." Are you trying to tell me this "AND" doesn't mean they have a variety of both? are you saying the intention of the statement is to mean : "These documents collect amendments to the rules with use of our responses to players' frequently asked questions." ?
seriously,,, talk about people not taking things as Rules As Written. Its literally what it says and you are willfully ignoring the other half of the sentence and interpreting this rule in a RAI way whilst claiming RAW.
I am not ignoring anything, you are.
The FAQ's are rules, "These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." are both a part of the FAQ document and as such are both still rules.
To use your analogy: if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges (and nothing else inside), and I say all the apples AND oranges in this box are fruit, then everything in the box is fruit.
Get it?
flandarz wrote: Nowhere in your quoted message does it say FAQs are rules. In fact, the only thing is says about FAQs is that they are "responses".
Incorrect. "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." show that everything in the document is rules.
flandarz wrote: Errata are amendments to the rules, as they literally amend the rules ("replace this with this", "add this", "remove this", etc). FAQs are, as many people have stated, responses designed to clarify the intent of a rule. In others words, FAQs are RAI. If you use them as such (and you should in 99% of cases), then good on ya. But don't make a false equivalency between FAQs and the rules and claim RAW.
Errata are amendments to the rules
FAQ's are as well. GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time. This is well known, and something GW has done for a long time.
You're making false equivalencies here. The statement "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." does not say "and all of these are rules." To build on the "apples and oranges" example, the statement is "this box contains apples and oranges" not "this box contains apples and oranges, both of which are fruit". You're adding things to the statement to support your argument, without these things being there.
And I'd like a citation of an FAQ changing rules text. You can't amend rules without changing the rulebook. What "is well known" is not necessarily RAW. I'm not arguing whether or not the FAQs present the rules as GW intends them to be played. I'm saying that until the rulebook is amended, a FAQ does not represent RAW.
The FAQ's are rules. therefore the reminder/example text are rules.
Again,
if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges, does this imply that every object in my box is both an apple and an orange at the same time. Or does this imply that I have box that has apples in it, as well as oranges.
"These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions."
Are you trying to tell me this "AND" doesn't mean they have a variety of both?
are you saying the intention of the statement is to mean :
"These documents collect amendments to the rules with use of our responses to players' frequently asked questions." ?
seriously,,, talk about people not taking things as Rules As Written. Its literally what it says and you are willfully ignoring the other half of the sentence and interpreting this rule in a RAI way whilst claiming RAW.
I am not ignoring anything, you are.
The FAQ's are rules, "These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." are both a part of the FAQ document and as such are both still rules.
To use your analogy: if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges (and nothing else inside), and I say all the apples AND oranges in this box are fruit, then everything in the box is fruit.
Get it?
flandarz wrote: Nowhere in your quoted message does it say FAQs are rules. In fact, the only thing is says about FAQs is that they are "responses".
Incorrect. "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." show that everything in the document is rules.
flandarz wrote: Errata are amendments to the rules, as they literally amend the rules ("replace this with this", "add this", "remove this", etc). FAQs are, as many people have stated, responses designed to clarify the intent of a rule. In others words, FAQs are RAI. If you use them as such (and you should in 99% of cases), then good on ya. But don't make a false equivalency between FAQs and the rules and claim RAW.
Errata are amendments to the rules
FAQ's are as well. GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time. This is well known, and something GW has done for a long time.
wow, you really are deconstructing that sentence to make it mean what ever you want.
To use your analogy: if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges (and nothing else inside), and I say all the apples AND oranges in this box are fruit, then everything in the box is fruit.
Does it say that ?
It doesn't say "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions and errata {aka the amendments to the rules}."
it doesn't say "these documents collect amendments to the rules in the format of responses to players frequently asked questions and errata."
it doesn't say "all of these documents are frequently asked questions and errata/amendments to the rules" = "all the apples AND oranges in this box are fruit"
It DOES SAY
"These documents" (what we are referring to(AKA the fruit)) "collect" (verb, used to say what the document is doing with something or what it is) "amendments to the rules" [the object in the document (aka the apples)] " and " [a word used to insinuate a listing ] "present" (second verb about what the document is doing with something or what it is) "our responses to players’ frequently asked questions [a second object being added to the document (aka the oranges)]"
this syntax reads as follows. These fruit are a collection of apples and a collection of oranges. = Object ... verb .... noun ... and ... verb ..... noun = the sentence we are discussing.
This is line for line syntax, if you don't like that and don't want to look at it that way then its not RAW, instead you are doing an interpretation of RAI .
try it for your self, just replace the nouns and verbs it becomes obvious. You can use any noun ,, I tried it with farm animals and a barn,,, gave the same results.
you can't just look at something, claim it says something it doesn't and then then try and tell us its everyone else who is not following it the way it was written.
flandarz wrote: You're making false equivalencies here. The statement "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." does not say "and all of these are rules."
That is exactly what it means...
To build on the "apples and oranges" example, the statement is "this box contains apples and oranges" not "this box contains apples and oranges, both of which are fruit". You're adding things to the statement to support your argument, without these things being there.
Incorrect.
The FAQ's are rules. everything in the FAQ's are rules. Straight from GW.
And I'd like a citation of an FAQ changing rules text. You can't amend rules without changing the rulebook. What "is well known" is not necessarily RAW. I'm not arguing whether or not the FAQs present the rules as GW intends them to be played. I'm saying that until the rulebook is amended, a FAQ does not represent RAW.
FAQ's change rules all the time, but sure Ill provide some examples.
Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.
Q: What happens if a unit that has become split up during battle cannot re-establish unit coherency the next time it moves?
A: In this case the unit cannot move.
Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0 Command Points?
A: No. Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0 Command Points.
Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?
A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic.
None of those are rule changes. Those are all rule clarifications. All of those FAQs cleared up ambiguity in existing rules. They did not add new rules, change existing rules, or remove rules. Try again, please, because right now all you're doing is proving that FAQs are rule clarifications and not rules in and of themselves.
Some people just wont understand this. he presented a bunch of rules clarifications and called them rules changes.
he ignored the fact that his interpretation of that sentence was completely off of what it said.
and now he is justifying his stance by saying
Your point against my point is wrong because I will repeat my point again XD.
Argument "The FAQ's are rules. everything in the FAQ's are rules."
"see I have this evidence that says so"
Counter point "you are reading that evidence wrong thats not what that says "
"here is what it actually says, and why, also here is how you are adding to it to make your point sound correct"
Argument response "Incorrect.
The FAQ's are rules. everything in the FAQ's are rules. Straight from GW"
You can't show or explain anything to someone dedicated to maintaining their point of view with circular logic.
In a proper debate, you aren’t trying to convince your opponent.
You try to convince the audience. Belief matters more than truth, and perception holds greater influence than fact.
But in this case, the FAQ’s are rules that are written by GW. They are written rules. Therefore, one can assert their validity in a Rules As Written debate.
It ain't even like I'm disagreeing that FAQs are important. They're ways to see how GW intends for the rules to me interpreted, and are vital in understanding rules that are vague. They are literally RAI, which is a real good thing. I'll take RAI over RAW any day. But claiming they're RAW is just... wrong. And claiming that, when they make a mistake, it takes precedent over the rules is even worse.
False.
They are changes. Before this FAQ:
"Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1."
You could modify a die roll lower than one.
Therefore it is a rules change, not a clarification, as it literally changed the rule.
Ok. If that's true, let's see the previous rule that said "modifiers can reduce a dice roll to less than 1". I would honestly love to see it. Then, your claim that it changed an existing rule would be 100% factual. If you cannot provide the previous rule, then it was a clarification to the rule which stated the "intent" of the "rule" was that rolls could not go below 1.
flandarz wrote: Ok. If that's true, let's see the previous rule that said "modifiers can reduce a dice roll to less than 1". I would honestly love to see it. Then, your claim that it changed an existing rule would be 100% factual. If you cannot provide the previous rule, then it was a clarification to the rule which stated the "intent" of the "rule" was that rolls could not go below 1.
The base rules allowed for it.
The allow for negative modifiers and did not restrict it to anything.
Therefore the fact that the base rules allowed for negative modifiers to stack, allowed for results lower than 1. The FaQ changed that and limited it to 1 as the lowest.
So, rather than changing a rule, they clarified it, yes? The rule didn't allow or disallow for modifiers to lower a dice roll below 1. It was vague, and so GW released an FAQ to state the intent that a dice roll could not be lowered below 1. Again, this isn't RAW. It *is* RAI, and I agree that going by RAI is better than going by RAW. Just saying that you shouldn't conflate the two, if you're making an argument about RAW vs RAI.
flandarz wrote: So, rather than changing a rule, they clarified it, yes? The rule didn't allow or disallow for modifiers to lower a dice roll below 1. It was vague, and so GW released an FAQ to state the intent that a dice roll could not be lowered below 1. Again, this isn't RAW. It *is* RAI, and I agree that going by RAI is better than going by RAW. Just saying that you shouldn't conflate the two, if you're making an argument about RAW vs RAI.
No, they changed it. it worked one way, and now it works differently. that is a change.
This is another change:
Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength? A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic.
But in this case, the FAQ’s are rules that are written by GW. They are written rules. Therefore, one can assert their validity in a Rules As Written debate.
This is really quite a stance of RAI in itself.
FAQs themselves and their reminder/example text aren't stated be anything more then clarifications. Until GW officially makes a statement about how they have decided to use FAQs and reminder/example text within as way to introduce new rules. There is no precedence in the game design comunity and within the context of other games for them to approach it that way.
I think it is clear that FAQ answers provide us with good insight on how the game is intended to be played and thus can be regarded quite highly in terms of RAW. However trying to say that mistakes made in reminder/example text automatically inserts new RAW rules into the game is a bit ridiculous, especially when these "new rules" arn;t even related to the question at hand. I have never seen a game that encourages their players to operate in this way, and I still havn't seen where in this game it tells us to take such approach.
Errata = RAW Question + Answer = a RAW method to replace what designers thought we would have inferred ourselves from RAI. . no introduction of new rules, rather an introduction to how we are playing existing rules wrong.
Reminder/example text = text included to help explain the answer of the FAQ . No introduction to rules or methods, rather reminders of important existing or similar rules and examples to illustrate the answer of the particular question
This is the format GW is expecting us to use as a rules document. Why are so many people convinced that it would work this way ? this isn't knew to game design, or any other game that uses errata and FaQs .
I tell you "get a plate if you will make food and we have bread meat and cheese." then
If you ask me "how do you make a sandwich" FAQ and I say "you use two pieces of bread and put meat and cheese in the middle"
"for example, you take two pieces of bread and some meat and cheese in the middle" "Remember to get a plate"
this would be a decent piece of FAQ
However if we get something like this instead
I tell you "get a plate if you will make food and we have bread meat and cheese." then
If you ask me "how do you make a sandwich" FAQ and I say "you use two pieces of bread and put meat and cheese in the middle"
"for example, you take two pieces of lettuce and some meat and sauce in the middle" "Remember to get a bowl"
I may have gotten my reminder text and example text wrong. but the RAW method, the Answer, I was trying to convey is not wrong. I don't expect you to use a bowl or lettuce and sauce for the sandwich, those ingredients dont exists niether does the bowl.
I don't expect you to change my rules because i gave you a hypothetical example that differs from the full instructions ... i may be a gakky teacher but that doesn't mean I expect you to just take my incorrect extra information as true and a rule.
Anyways, the point is, until GW actually says they are doing things out of conventional standards, and unlike any other game I have ever seen, I think it is pretty resonable to assume the FAQs work like any other games FAQ where what maters for rules changes are the actual Errata's and the actual answers to the questions. Not random magical new rules born from within reminder/example text that was trying to be used to explain the answer it is attached to.
Alas, no statement like that exists. I don't even think I have seen someone present something that shows the FAQs are to be considered new rules themselves. (i think to some extent the FAQs are,,, they are like new RAW methods for existing rules) I have seen things that say it is Official rules clarifications yes, but not new rules. How did everyone get to this point of believing this ? Its so strange because I have never seen a community react like this in in this kind of situation. . . except for MTG about 15 years ago, they introduced an official rules errata that said example/reminder text was not to have an impact on game play. but even then, that was like a couple of TFGs and not what seems like a split with half of the entire community .
flandarz wrote: So, rather than changing a rule, they clarified it, yes? The rule didn't allow or disallow for modifiers to lower a dice roll below 1. It was vague, and so GW released an FAQ to state the intent that a dice roll could not be lowered below 1. Again, this isn't RAW. It *is* RAI, and I agree that going by RAI is better than going by RAW. Just saying that you shouldn't conflate the two, if you're making an argument about RAW vs RAI.
No, they changed it. it worked one way, and now it works differently. that is a change.
This is another change:
Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?
A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic.
100% change, not clarification.
I think what you are failing to realize here is that you are in fact showing clarifications. for it ti be a rules CHANGE and not a clarification. you need to show some rules text that existed before and then show an FAQ the specifically changed what it used to say in the text. Not something that just changes the way or specifies the way we previously inferred we should have done something.
Type40 wrote: I think what you are failing to realize here is that you are in fact showing clarifications.
No, those are changes. They worked differently prior to the FAQ and were changed in the FAQ. Thus a change.
for it ti be a rules CHANGE and not a clarification. you need to show some rules text that existed before and then show an FAQ the specifically changed what it used to say in the text. Not something that just changes the way or specifies the way we previously inferred we should have done something.
The change being that you can go below 1 before the FAQ, and after the FAQ you can not. Pretty drastic change.
This would be an example of a clarification:
Q: If a model flees from an Adeptus Astartes unit, can an Apothecary use its narthecium to return a model to the unit? A: No, the narthecium can only be used to return slain models to a unit.
Here is another one that changed rules, as different rules stack, but the FAQ says they do not:
Q: Are the +1 Strength boosts from the Blood Chalice and Red Grail abilities cumulative, for a total of +2 Strength? A: No. It’s only +1 Strength, even if the unit is within range of both these abilities.
Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.
After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.
This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.
greatbigtree wrote: Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.
After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.
This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.
Again, this is for the audience.
Yes, this is 100% correct.
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat.
Type40 & Flandarz, you can see this is an FAQ that changes rules right and not just a clarification?
Because gw is notorious for being feth ups (its a common known fact that they screw up all the time with everything they do) I would say ignore it. In the case of the first FAQ, its pretty clear the rules writer either didnt know about that specific rule only working at half range, or he simply forgot because he doesnt play/ do the rules for Tau.
greatbigtree wrote: Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.
After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.
This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.
Again, this is for the audience.
Yes, this is 100% correct.
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat.
Type40 & Flandarz, you can see this is an FAQ that changes rules right and not just a clarification?
The difference is that was the first time that question was asked so it was just a clarification. For something like the order of adding or multiplying strength due to weapons, you would GW would Errata it instead of FAQing it because GW have already said in multiple different FAQs that you apply the modifier to the strength characteristic first, and then the modifier from the model's weapon.
Since thia FAQ randomly changed it, and since Im sure we can all see how little the rules team (or any team for that matter) comminicates with each other, It just looks like the responder was using simple BEDMAS/ order of operations to determine how those rules work with each other.
So I guess RAW means the rules have changed, but intuition says the screwed up when writing . Its up to the players to decide weather they want to follow the wording of the rules, or the contradictory FAQs for the rules.
None of this should even be a problem, but GWs world-famous incompetence is here to stay. Forever
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, if its not in magenta, its not a rules change, which means FAQs that are contradictory are nothing but "wrong answers"
greatbigtree wrote: Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.
After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.
This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.
Again, this is for the audience.
Yes, this is 100% correct.
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat.
Type40 & Flandarz, you can see this is an FAQ that changes rules right and not just a clarification?
to be honest, its splitting hairs a bit,
But a rules change, changes existing rules text. (example A is now B)
A clarification adds information that did not previously exist to an piece of existing, and unchanged, rules text. without actually changing the text. (A + B means C)
Both can potentially change how we play the game and how we approach the mechanics of the game.
But they are different things.
However,
What's more important here is that
Reminder/Example text is neither of those things.
This text is informal text used to help explain the answer or errata. Its not a formal/intentional inclusion of RaW. it is a pedagogical tool (which GW often fails to use correctly by making mistakes).
The formatting is
Errata : follows their rules syntax and is formal
Question : a question
Answer to question : follows their rules syntax and is formal
Reminder/example text: does not follow their rules syntax and is informal.
the answer part and the errata is your new RaW method for dealing with something in game.
A new rule that is "introduced" in reminder text is clearly not supposed to be there. It is a failed attempt at an explanation.
A new rule should follow RaW and informal reminder/example text being used for pedagogical/explanatory purposes does not format into a succinct rule.
GW knows its own format, GW isn't THAAATTT stupid that they would introduce rules informally outside of this format. Do they make mistakes in their examples/refrences ? yes, but do i think they are intentionally breaking their clearly defined format to introduce something new to us? Absolutely not.
Again FAQs arn't new the the gaming industry and again this type of formatting isn't that complicated. I believe they understand how they intended to present information to us and errata and FaQ follow a formatting. Why would they break their own formatting ? and with informal text that doesn't follow their own rules syntax to boot ? GW has a clear way of presenting new information to us. Erratta, and question + answer. Informally written explanation text attached to that is not somewhere to introduce new rules. They have errata, and question+answer to do that. They have given us thier format, and it is illogical for us to assume they would present mechanics and new rules in any other way. informal text added to that format is not intentional RaW as its not part of their formatting for presenting new RAW. I have seen a lot of games in my day, and I have never seen one where informally written reminder/example text are considered RaW or an intentional change to the rules, whether correct, incorrect, contradictory or something else. If GW is going against conventional industry standards, or even their own defined formating AKA an FAQ , then I'd like to see where they are saying they are doing this or where they say we should assume that informal explanations within their format are an appropriate place to find new mechanics and rules. It is completely unreasonable to think GW would be intentionally add new mechanics and rules embeded into an unrelated question using informal text. So it becomes clear, that when they have done this, it is a refrences mistake, not some attempt at presenting a new rule in a completely convoluted informal way. Especially when they have a format already in place to clarify or add information formally, why would we assume they are intentionally doing it otherwise ?
BTW many games have gone as far as specifically ruling that example/reminder text is not RAW. There is precedence for GW to release an official stance on this... maybe they will, but until then, the only logical approach is to go by what we have seen in the past by other games in the industry and to follow GWs own presented formatting. Not to assume an informal explanation tacked on to their formatting is considered anything more then a failed attempt at an explanation.
Change implies that the text of the original rule is different, while a clarification changes the interpretation of the ruling by giving a statement by the rule maker.
A lot of these are just clarifications by the rules team to stop people literally trying to cheat the system by explaining loopholes in the rules (case is point, the - modifiers not making plasma explode)
an FAQ is only there to clarify, because it is a Frequently asked question, a.k.a someone asking the person who made the rules how i should play this rule.
it is not an Errata, which is actually changing the rule itself.
There is a reason these are called Errata's and FAQ's. Not Errata's.
Of course some things do slip through because we are all human after all. Can't fault them, but if you can see that something that is clarifying a rule is referring to something that doesn't exist, then you should know to ignore that part because human error is really common
GW doesn't care about your definitions of what an errata is and what an FAQ answer is.
They've consistently mixed the two things up. If I can modify a tohit to 7 or to 0, "clarifying" that you can't go below 1 as a result is clearly changing the rules by which the game is played, even if it doesn't change the written rules in the book. If they'd simply clarified that results still remain on the 1-6 range of the dice you could argue that that was the intent all along, but only putting a limit to one end? That's cleary something you couldn't derive from the written core rules. Why would 7+ then still be allowed?
nekooni wrote: GW doesn't care about your definitions of what an errata is and what an FAQ answer is.
They've consistently mixed the two things up. If I can modify a tohit to 7 or to 0, "clarifying" that you can't go below 1 as a result is clearly changing the rules by which the game is played, even if it doesn't change the written rules in the book. If they'd simply clarified that results still remain on the 1-6 range of the dice you could argue that that was the intent all along, but only putting a limit to one end? That's cleary something you couldn't derive from the written core rules. Why would 7+ then still be allowed?
Again, this irelevant, to understanding that GW is not intentionally embeding new mechanics, methods, rules, or unrelated clarifications (or what ever you want to call it) into informal out of synxtax reminder/example text that is tacked on to a formal answer to something unrelated. Especially when considering the "changes " we are talking about are not directly related to or directly answering the presented questions. Rather these "changes" come in the form of informal explinatory writing. This out of their own formating, it is ilogical to think this is what the designers are doing (or trying to do).
Again, this irelevant, to understanding that GW is not intentionally embeding new mechanics, methods, rules, or unrelated clarifications (or what ever you want to call it) into informal out of synxtax reminder/example text that is tacked on to a formal answer to something unrelated. Especially when considering the "changes " we are talking about are unrelated to the presented questions. This out of their own formating, it is ilogical to think this is what the designers are doing (or trying to do).
Absolutely. I'm just saying that you can't claim FAQ answers DON'T change the rules just because they're not marked as errata.
In some cases they do, mostly when it's about what was asked - such as the tohit thing. In other cases they don't, such as providing an example where a gun gets an extra shot out of nowhere.
One is an intentional rule change, the other isn't. Which is why I voted for option 3 on the poll.
123ply wrote: The difference is that was the first time that question was asked so it was just a clarification.
No, it is not a clarification, because the rules allows for things to get modified below 1, it was most definitely a change since there is nothing in the rules that sets the minimum number to 1, nothing even hints at it. So 100% a change and 100% not a clarification.
For something like the order of adding or multiplying strength due to weapons, you would GW would Errata it instead of FAQing it because GW have already said in multiple different FAQs that you apply the modifier to the strength characteristic first, and then the modifier from the model's weapon.
Yea, but in the base rules they say to multiply then add, in the FAQ's they say add then multiply. so that is 100% a rules change.
More proof that GW use FAQ to change rules.
Since thia FAQ randomly changed it, and since Im sure we can all see how little the rules team (or any team for that matter) comminicates with each other, It just looks like the responder was using simple BEDMAS/ order of operations to determine how those rules work with each other.
So I guess RAW means the rules have changed, but intuition says the screwed up when writing . Its up to the players to decide weather they want to follow the wording of the rules, or the contradictory FAQs for the rules.
None of this should even be a problem, but GWs world-famous incompetence is here to stay. Forever
Also, if its not in magenta, its not a rules change, which means FAQs that are contradictory are nothing but "wrong answers"
Magenta is only for recent changes...
AKA the first time a FAQ or errata gets added they update the version and add the Magenta FAQ/Errata. So if an FAQ is in version 1.1 as a magenta addition, when Version 1.2 comes out it will no longer be magenta, but it will still be a rules change if it was when Version 1.1 dropped...
Honestly, for this part of the debate, it really is spliting hairs.
The question here is,
How do you define a rules change:
some people :
When a piece of written rules is explicitly changed.
other people :
When the way we play the game is changed.
Either way, it is inconsequential to whether or not reminder/example text is an intentional or deliberate effort to change how the game is played/is considered RaW. The question is whether or not poorly worded/mistaken/and unrelated informal out of syntax explanation text (intended to explain an answer or new errata not the formally presented question itself) is the designers making an effort to change how the game is played and to provide new RaW. Even though they have an established format to change the way we play the game and change the RaW outside of this type of convoluted embeded method. I personally don't see a reason why we would think the GW designers would do something as ilogical as breaking their own formating in this way ... and even if they somehow are... then i don't see a reason why we would take that seriously without an official statement for us to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, i think it is completely possible that some FaQs are rules changes and others are presented for clarity... it still does not say anywhere that ALL information provided in the errata/faqs are rules anywhere. this is an inference ..
"These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions."
again, like i said earlier, the word AND in the sentences shows that they have both rules admentmants AND answers to FaQs not that ALL FaQs are rules.
But again, inconsequential to this topic when it comes down to reminder/example text.
again, like i said earlier, the word AND in the sentences shows that they have both rules admentmants AND answers to FaQs not that ALL FaQs are rules.
They are amendments to rules through errata and clarification of rules through FAQ. Both parts are as much valid updates as each other, or they would have published them seperately. If it's in the FAQ/Errata, it's the latest ruling. It doesn't always make sense or is liked by those affected by it.
You have 3 choices though. Take the update, continue with the older version, or house rule it.
insaniak wrote: FAQs don't over-ride the rules - they are clarifications of the rules. An expanded explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.
Where they get it wrong and the FAQ winds up directly contradicting rules text from elsewhere, it's up to the players to determine how to deal with that, just as it would be if the conflicting pieces of text were both in the rulebook to begin with.
A properly written ruleset doesn't need to rely on players determining "how to deal with that".
We get it. You hate GW's technical writers.
This saw is old.
He's not wrong. GW's technical writing is very poor and has been for a long time. So long as the writing remains poor, people will keep pointing that fact out. If you want BCB to stop, complain to GW... not to BCB.
again, like i said earlier, the word AND in the sentences shows that they have both rules admentmants AND answers to FaQs not that ALL FaQs are rules.
They are amendments to rules through errata and clarification of rules through FAQ. Both parts are as much valid updates as each other, or they would have published them seperately. If it's in the FAQ/Errata, it's the latest ruling. It doesn't always make sense or is liked by those affected by it.
You have 3 choices though. Take the update, continue with the older version, or house rule it.
again, like i said earlier, the word AND in the sentences shows that they have both rules admentmants AND answers to FaQs not that ALL FaQs are rules.
But again, inconsequential to this topic when it comes down to reminder/example text.
this still doesn't address the fact that I am saying that's not the issue at hand XD. You focused in on a single part of ALL my posts and literally ignored the next line that said to disregard that in the context of this question ... This is exactly the attitude that is making people believe example/reminder text is RaW XD.
you see, where I wrote, that it is inconsequential to this topic.
We are really amongst comunity of people who just focus in on single pieces of text we want to see and ignore the rest... its quite funny that even in the context of this forum people don't understand how to read things in the larger context of a document (or set of rules)... hence this discussion all together.
The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".
GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.
That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.
I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.
We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.
Talizvar wrote: The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".
GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.
That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.
I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.
We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.
YES !
This !!!
It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.
This is just documentation standards... in the games industry and elsewhere . Until GW specifically tells us this is not the case, it baffels me that people jump the the conclusion of thinking it is !
Maybe it's because I sift through code documentation all day long for my career... but I think this should be fairly obvious... I have never seen any game in existence that would tell you take this type of text as literal rules. Doing that has no precedence without GW specifically saying otherwise. Stop reading a line and ignoring the context of the whole rules set. There is no reason GW would emplore a method of embeding new rules/play standards into the an informal explanation of an answer to a question regarding something different. That would be ridiculous , even for GW. It's much more logical to look at ilogical/incorrect/misquoted reminder/example text and regard it as a mistake in explaining something.
Stop adding extra rules and exceptions just because half of an informal sentence sounds kind of like it doesn't work the way established formal syntax correct rules documentation says it should.
Like I have mentioned before, if you really want to take this type of sentence as an insertion of RAW you'll end up having an existential crisis. Because if you take informal text as RAW, the rule you are subscribing to every time it says "remember, do X" is literally ,,,, "I need to stop and recall X" .... does that seem like rules syntax to you ? or some out of context example says you get 2 shots with a weapon that fires once.... If you play that as RAW then why arn't you mathing out some film noir bulletin bord trying to figure out how that little piece of RaW effects every other rule in the game. AKA if it takes a shot does that mean all rapid fire weapons shoot twice and full range, or does that mean the ability makes all weapons fire at full range, or maybe that means only pulse rifels fire an extra shot at full range... There is context to these sentences and because reminder/example text is not formal, its not in GWs standard rules syntax, it is clearly not intentional RAW.
Stop reading "the pulse rifel gets 2 shots" and caling that RAW when it is acompanied by an entire sentence that makes no sense in the context of RAW... I seriously can't believe this needs explaining.
Talizvar wrote: The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".
GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.
That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.
I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.
We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.
YES !
This !!!
It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.
This is just documentation standards... in the games industry and elsewhere . Until GW specifically tells us this is not the case, it baffels me that people jump the the conclusion of thinking it is !
Maybe it's because I sift through code documentation all day long for my career... but I think this should be fairly obvious... I have never seen any game in existence that would tell you take this type of text as literal rules. Doing that has no precedence without GW specifically saying otherwise. Stop reading a line and ignoring the context of the whole rules set. There is no reason GW would emplore a method of embeding new rules/play standards into the an informal explanation of an answer to a question regarding something different. That would be ridiculous , even for GW. It's much more logical to look at ilogical/incorrect/misquoted reminder/example text and regard it as a mistake in explaining something.
Stop adding extra rules and exceptions just because half of an informal sentence sounds kind of like it doesn't work the way established formal syntax correct rules documentation says it should.
Like I have mentioned before, if you really want to take this type of sentence as an insertion of RAW you'll end up having an existential crisis. Because if you take informal text as RAW, the rule you are subscribing to every time it says "remember, do X" is literally ,,,, "I need to stop and recall X" .... does that seem like rules syntax to you ? or some out of context example says you get 2 shots with a weapon that fires once.... If you play that as RAW then why arn't you mathing out some film noir bulletin bord trying to figure out how that little piece of RaW effects every other rule in the game. AKA if it takes a shot does that mean all rapid fire weapons shoot twice and full range, or does that mean the ability makes all weapons fire at full range, or maybe that means only pulse rifels fire an extra shot at full range... There is context to these sentences and because reminder/example text is not formal, its not in GWs standard rules syntax, it is clearly not intentional RAW.
Stop reading "the pulse rifel gets 2 shots" and caling that RAW when it is acompanied by an entire sentence that makes no sense in the context of RAW... I seriously can't believe this needs explaining.
But it's literally written as so, therefore it's RAW which stands for Rules As Written. FAQs & errata are officially sanctioned rule source.
You can't say something that's written in writing isn't something that's written in writing when it actually is written in writing. Your interpretation of the written text is up to you, but that doesn't change the binary condition of being written or not written because you disagree/have an issue with the clarity of it.
We're not disagreeing there's a clear disagreement/contradiction in the rule in question, but you seem adamant in applying common logic to interpret the RAW is the true RAW, which is clearly false.
skchsan wrote: Well, this post has escalated to another "prove me wrong" thread.
If you disagree, house rule it. If you think a rule was a typo, don't follow it. If you want to follow the rules to a dot, then play with it.
GW's poor QC and writing is nothing new.
Discuss with opponent before the game.
The burden of proof is not on the ones who do not believe it is on the ones who postulate something.
There is precedence in game design and the gaming industry to ignore the use of informal language and syntax like reminder/example text.
GW does not say you should include this type of language when determining RAW.
People are proposing that every word of the FAQ are rules ...
We arn't saying proove us wrong, we are saying we do not accept peoples proposition that this type of informal text is intended to be considered RAW.
So please, show us where, GW tells us that we should use informal examples/reminders as some kind of basis for rules ?
All people keep saying is that the FAQs are rules... no one is arguing that they are not. they are arguing that it is ilogical to infer use the informal explinations the come after the answer to a question or an errata as a basis for thinking that a new rule is being aplied. The language used in the reminder/example text is not even remotely syntax accurate to the rule set... If you really want to take these things as RAW, then look at the whole setnence at least and then have a good time trying to call your oponent on not stoping to have contemplation and "remember" something. Or read the whole sentence and try and figure out how an incorrect example as whole impacts the whole game ... Instead you are snipping a part out of informal text and calling it a new rule... this makes absolutley no sense.
skchsan wrote: Well, this post has escalated to another "prove me wrong" thread.
If you disagree, house rule it. If you think a rule was a typo, don't follow it. If you want to follow the rules to a dot, then play with it.
GW's poor QC and writing is nothing new.
Discuss with opponent before the game.
The burden of proof is not on the ones who do not believe it is on the ones who postulate something.
Yes, and you're suggesting what's written there isn't actually written there.
Type40 wrote: People are proposing that every word of the FAQ are rules ...
No, we're proposing that every word of the FAQs are RAW. We're not discussing the quality of the rule, but whether the rules are actually written out.
Type40 wrote: We arn't saying proove us wrong, we are saying we do not accept peoples proposition that this type of informal text is intended to be considered RAW.
Well, the rules are actually & literally written out.
Type40 wrote: All people keep saying is that the FAQs are rules... no one is arguing that they are not. they are arguing that it is ilogical to infer use the informal explinations the come after the answer to a question or an errata as a basis for thinking that a new rule is being aplied. The language used in the reminder/example text is not even remotely syntax accurate to the rule set...
Right, we're not saying the obvious contradiction to the core rules is not a contradiction. All we're telling you is it is up to you to interpret the contradiction. But at the end of the day, whether GW made a mistake or not, the rules are actually written out as so.
You need to understand when we discuss RAW in this forum, its literally literal, contradictory or not.
The arguments in this post can be summarized as:
1. (RAW ignores the standard RF rule) If you want to follow strictly to the letter of the rule, RF1 pulse rifles now shoot twice at full range because GW messed up.
2. (GW messed up and I'm having none of it) Well there's an obvious contradiction to what RF does in the game and the FAQ kinda has that messed up. Talk with your opponent/TO prior to game.
The former is a strict RAW stance and the latter is a perfectly viable HIWPI.
We're not telling you that you must play the game as written. When you ask for RAW, we give you the literal RAW. Stop getting so heated over your misunderstanding of our responses.
flandarz wrote: So, rather than changing a rule, they clarified it, yes? The rule didn't allow or disallow for modifiers to lower a dice roll below 1. It was vague, and so GW released an FAQ to state the intent that a dice roll could not be lowered below 1. Again, this isn't RAW. It *is* RAI, and I agree that going by RAI is better than going by RAW. Just saying that you shouldn't conflate the two, if you're making an argument about RAW vs RAI.
Your statement isn't correct. They allowed modifiers to be applied to raise and lower a dice roll. Previous to the FAQ there was no statement about limitations on how it affects the die roll. This means that the modifiers would be allowed to lower a dice roll before one or raise it above 6; it's not what you're trying to assert that it didn't either allow or disallow it.
Talizvar wrote: The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".
GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.
That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.
I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.
We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.
YES !
This !!!
It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.
This is just documentation standards... in the games industry and elsewhere . Until GW specifically tells us this is not the case, it baffels me that people jump the the conclusion of thinking it is !
Maybe it's because I sift through code documentation all day long for my career... but I think this should be fairly obvious... I have never seen any game in existence that would tell you take this type of text as literal rules. Doing that has no precedence without GW specifically saying otherwise. Stop reading a line and ignoring the context of the whole rules set. There is no reason GW would emplore a method of embeding new rules/play standards into the an informal explanation of an answer to a question regarding something different. That would be ridiculous , even for GW. It's much more logical to look at ilogical/incorrect/misquoted reminder/example text and regard it as a mistake in explaining something.
Stop adding extra rules and exceptions just because half of an informal sentence sounds kind of like it doesn't work the way established formal syntax correct rules documentation says it should.
Like I have mentioned before, if you really want to take this type of sentence as an insertion of RAW you'll end up having an existential crisis. Because if you take informal text as RAW, the rule you are subscribing to every time it says "remember, do X" is literally ,,,, "I need to stop and recall X" .... does that seem like rules syntax to you ? or some out of context example says you get 2 shots with a weapon that fires once.... If you play that as RAW then why arn't you mathing out some film noir bulletin bord trying to figure out how that little piece of RaW effects every other rule in the game. AKA if it takes a shot does that mean all rapid fire weapons shoot twice and full range, or does that mean the ability makes all weapons fire at full range, or maybe that means only pulse rifels fire an extra shot at full range... There is context to these sentences and because reminder/example text is not formal, its not in GWs standard rules syntax, it is clearly not intentional RAW.
Stop reading "the pulse rifel gets 2 shots" and caling that RAW when it is acompanied by an entire sentence that makes no sense in the context of RAW... I seriously can't believe this needs explaining.
But it's literally written as so, therefore it's RAW which stands for Rules As Written. FAQs & errata are officially sanctioned rule source.
You can't say something that's written in writing isn't something that's written in writing when it actually is written in writing. Your interpretation of the written text is up to you, but that doesn't change the binary condition of being written or not written because you disagree/have an issue with the clarity of it.
We're not disagreeing there's a clear disagreement/contradiction in the rule in question, but you seem adamant in applying common logic to interpret the RAW is the true RAW, which is clearly false.
Seriously then the next time you play a game and you don't
strap on your armour, load your bolter and get ready for war!
BRBpg 13
I am going to call over a TO because you arn't following RAW.
Informal text is not the same thing as RAW.
skchsan wrote: Well, this post has escalated to another "prove me wrong" thread.
If you disagree, house rule it. If you think a rule was a typo, don't follow it. If you want to follow the rules to a dot, then play with it.
GW's poor QC and writing is nothing new.
Discuss with opponent before the game.
The burden of proof is not on the ones who do not believe it is on the ones who postulate something.
Yes, and you're suggesting what's written there isn't actually written there.
Type40 wrote: People are proposing that every word of the FAQ are rules ...
No, we're proposing that every word of the FAQs are RAW. We're not discussing the quality of the rule, but whether the rules are actually written out.
Type40 wrote: We arn't saying proove us wrong, we are saying we do not accept peoples proposition that this type of informal text is intended to be considered RAW.
Well, the rules are actually & literally written out.
Type40 wrote: All people keep saying is that the FAQs are rules... no one is arguing that they are not. they are arguing that it is ilogical to infer use the informal explinations the come after the answer to a question or an errata as a basis for thinking that a new rule is being aplied. The language used in the reminder/example text is not even remotely syntax accurate to the rule set...
Right, we're not saying the obvious contradiction to the core rules is not a contradiction. All we're telling you is it is up to you to interpret the contradiction. But at the end of the day, whether GW made a mistake or not, the rules are actually written out as so.
You need to understand when we discuss RAW in this forum, its literally literal, contradictory or not.
The arguments in this post can be summarized as:
1. (RAW ignores the standard RF rule) If you want to follow strictly to the letter of the rule, RF1 pulse rifles now shoot twice at full range because GW messed up.
2. (GW messed up and I'm having none of it) Well there's an obvious contradiction to what RF does in the game and the FAQ kinda has that messed up. Talk with your opponent/TO prior to game.
The former is a strict RAW stance and the latter is a perfectly viable HIWPI.
We're not telling you that you must play the game as written. When you ask for RAW, we give you the literal RAW. Stop getting so heated over your misunderstanding of our responses.
What part of read the whole sentence do you not get... the literal reading of a reminder text is "REMEMBER ..... do X"
Are you telling me the literal rule is to stop and contemplate something or are you telling me to take that as RAI ?,
Informal text is not an attempt at inserting RAW, especially considering reminder/example text as RAW is out of format from how the introduce new rules and changes to mechancs as RAW by their own use of an FAQ and Errata format. Seriously, how do you not understand this.
Talizvar wrote: The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".
GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.
That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.
I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.
We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.
YES !
This !!!
It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.
This is just documentation standards... in the games industry and elsewhere . Until GW specifically tells us this is not the case, it baffels me that people jump the the conclusion of thinking it is !
Maybe it's because I sift through code documentation all day long for my career... but I think this should be fairly obvious... I have never seen any game in existence that would tell you take this type of text as literal rules. Doing that has no precedence without GW specifically saying otherwise. Stop reading a line and ignoring the context of the whole rules set. There is no reason GW would emplore a method of embeding new rules/play standards into the an informal explanation of an answer to a question regarding something different. That would be ridiculous , even for GW. It's much more logical to look at ilogical/incorrect/misquoted reminder/example text and regard it as a mistake in explaining something.
Stop adding extra rules and exceptions just because half of an informal sentence sounds kind of like it doesn't work the way established formal syntax correct rules documentation says it should.
Like I have mentioned before, if you really want to take this type of sentence as an insertion of RAW you'll end up having an existential crisis. Because if you take informal text as RAW, the rule you are subscribing to every time it says "remember, do X" is literally ,,,, "I need to stop and recall X" .... does that seem like rules syntax to you ? or some out of context example says you get 2 shots with a weapon that fires once.... If you play that as RAW then why arn't you mathing out some film noir bulletin bord trying to figure out how that little piece of RaW effects every other rule in the game. AKA if it takes a shot does that mean all rapid fire weapons shoot twice and full range, or does that mean the ability makes all weapons fire at full range, or maybe that means only pulse rifels fire an extra shot at full range... There is context to these sentences and because reminder/example text is not formal, its not in GWs standard rules syntax, it is clearly not intentional RAW.
Stop reading "the pulse rifel gets 2 shots" and caling that RAW when it is acompanied by an entire sentence that makes no sense in the context of RAW... I seriously can't believe this needs explaining.
But it's literally written as so, therefore it's RAW which stands for Rules As Written. FAQs & errata are officially sanctioned rule source.
You can't say something that's written in writing isn't something that's written in writing when it actually is written in writing. Your interpretation of the written text is up to you, but that doesn't change the binary condition of being written or not written because you disagree/have an issue with the clarity of it.
We're not disagreeing there's a clear disagreement/contradiction in the rule in question, but you seem adamant in applying common logic to interpret the RAW is the true RAW, which is clearly false.
Seriously then the next time you play a game and you don't
strap on your armour, load your bolter and get ready for war!
BRBpg 13
I am going to call over a TO because you arn't following RAW.
Informal text is not the same thing as RAW.
Yes, I'll make sure I'm well dressed (my interpretation of the RAW of what 'armor' refers to), bring my army case with models (my interpretation of the 'loaded up bolter') and get get set up to play a game of 40k (my interpretation of the 'getting ready for war').
I'm still not sure why you don't understand RAW is simply the binary condition of being written or not.
Because 40k utilizes permissive ruleset, if a rule literally isn't written out to grant you permission, you cannot assume the you are allowed to do so; "well the rulebook doesn't tell me I can't do this" is not a valid reasoning, whcih is why we discuss RAW - whether you were explicitly permitted to do so.
There's no issue of you interpreting the flavor texts as not being part of a rule, but you can't go so far as to say that it is not written so, aka RAW.
Guys, please learn how to hide what you're quoting in spoilers instead of giving us a quote the equivalent in length to War and Peace. Or, just truncate to the relevant parts of what you're quoting. The rest of the forum will appeciate that. Thanks.
Talizvar wrote: The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".
GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.
That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.
I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.
We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.
YES !
This !!!
It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.
This is just documentation standards... in the games industry and elsewhere . Until GW specifically tells us this is not the case, it baffels me that people jump the the conclusion of thinking it is !
Maybe it's because I sift through code documentation all day long for my career... but I think this should be fairly obvious... I have never seen any game in existence that would tell you take this type of text as literal rules. Doing that has no precedence without GW specifically saying otherwise. Stop reading a line and ignoring the context of the whole rules set. There is no reason GW would emplore a method of embeding new rules/play standards into the an informal explanation of an answer to a question regarding something different. That would be ridiculous , even for GW. It's much more logical to look at ilogical/incorrect/misquoted reminder/example text and regard it as a mistake in explaining something.
Stop adding extra rules and exceptions just because half of an informal sentence sounds kind of like it doesn't work the way established formal syntax correct rules documentation says it should.
Like I have mentioned before, if you really want to take this type of sentence as an insertion of RAW you'll end up having an existential crisis. Because if you take informal text as RAW, the rule you are subscribing to every time it says "remember, do X" is literally ,,,, "I need to stop and recall X" .... does that seem like rules syntax to you ? or some out of context example says you get 2 shots with a weapon that fires once.... If you play that as RAW then why arn't you mathing out some film noir bulletin bord trying to figure out how that little piece of RaW effects every other rule in the game. AKA if it takes a shot does that mean all rapid fire weapons shoot twice and full range, or does that mean the ability makes all weapons fire at full range, or maybe that means only pulse rifels fire an extra shot at full range... There is context to these sentences and because reminder/example text is not formal, its not in GWs standard rules syntax, it is clearly not intentional RAW.
Stop reading "the pulse rifel gets 2 shots" and caling that RAW when it is acompanied by an entire sentence that makes no sense in the context of RAW... I seriously can't believe this needs explaining.
But it's literally written as so, therefore it's RAW which stands for Rules As Written. FAQs & errata are officially sanctioned rule source.
You can't say something that's written in writing isn't something that's written in writing when it actually is written in writing. Your interpretation of the written text is up to you, but that doesn't change the binary condition of being written or not written because you disagree/have an issue with the clarity of it.
We're not disagreeing there's a clear disagreement/contradiction in the rule in question, but you seem adamant in applying common logic to interpret the RAW is the true RAW, which is clearly false.
Seriously then the next time you play a game and you don't
strap on your armour, load your bolter and get ready for war!
BRBpg 13
I am going to call over a TO because you arn't following RAW.
Informal text is not the same thing as RAW.
Yes, I'll make sure I'm well dressed (my interpretation of the RAW of what 'armor' refers to), bring my army case with models (my interpretation of the 'loaded up bolter') and get get set up to play a game of 40k (my interpretation of the 'getting ready for war').
I am at a loss for words,
Fine, you take your bible, pick the parts you like, whether intended to be rules or not, follow those parts word for word, ignore the other inconvient words that make the statemnts you chose non-sense in a rules context, and pretend you are somehow playing RAW.
I on the other hand will look at intentional rules a play the game as RAW and using the rules intended to be RAW.
If you really can't figure out the difference between formal syntax and informal explanation, I have no idea how to help you.
It doesn't mater how premissive the game is, when informal text, like reminder/example text is not an intentional placement of new rules / mechanics or RaW. Especially non-sense reminder/example text... what is it giving you permision to do exactly ? contemplate the existence of a rule ? or figure out the strange set of circumstances that made a pulse rifel shoot twice at max range ? seriously.
Are you seriously trying to tell me now, you will go so far as implying flavour text is RAW ?
I give up, there is no point in this conversation if you maintain a stance like that.
Peace out
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
doctortom wrote: Guys, please learn how to hide what you're quoting in spoilers instead of giving us a quote the equivalent in length to War and Peace. Or, just truncate to the relevant parts of what you're quoting. The rest of the forum will appeciate that. Thanks.
Well, yes, flavor text is still within the set [explicitly written down in the rulebook]. Deciding whether it pertains to the game play or not is up to your interpretation.
Is a paragraph in a novel not a paragraph in a novel because the author/editor didn't realize it was completely contradictory?
All I'm trying to do is help you understand what RAW discussion means in this forum going forward because you're getting unnecessarily heated over a discussion with strangers on a forum.
skchsan wrote: Well, yes, flavor text is still within the set [explicitly written down in the rulebook]. Deciding whether it pertains to the game play or not is up to your interpretation.
Is a paragraph in a novel not a paragraph in a novel because the author/editor didn't realize it was completely contradictory?
All I'm trying to do is help you understand what RAW discussion means in this forum going forward because you're getting unnecessarily heated over a discussion with strangers on a forum.
No. Flavor text is flavor text and rules are rules. It isn't WAW(writing as written)[As much as orks may have you believe... Mind the pun] it is RAW
I seriously can't believe this conversation has dissolved to this. Go watch some game design videos on youtube. Specifically look up the difference between the American style of board game design and the German style in relationship to applying game themes. Or just try and figure out what the word "rule" means... I am so incredibly baffled by the lack of formal reasoning and lack of logic in this thread. I have honestly just lost respect for a part of humanities basic ability to comprehend descriptive language... Flavor text is not intended RAW... In no way shape or form. Once you figure that out we can move on to the real conversation.
skchsan wrote: Well, yes, flavor text is still within the set [explicitly written down in the rulebook]. Deciding whether it pertains to the game play or not is up to your interpretation.
Is a paragraph in a novel not a paragraph in a novel because the author/editor didn't realize it was completely contradictory?
All I'm trying to do is help you understand what RAW discussion means in this forum going forward because you're getting unnecessarily heated over a discussion with strangers on a forum.
No. Flavor text is flavor text and rules are rules. It isn't WAW(writing as written)[As much as orks may have you believe... Mind the pun] it is RAW
I seriously can't believe this conversation has dissolved to this. Go watch some game design videos on youtube. Specifically look up the difference between the American style of board game design and the German style in relationship to applying game themes. Or just try and figure out what the word "rule" means... I am so incredibly baffled by the lack of formal reasoning and lack of logic in this thread. I have honestly just lost respect for a part of humanities basic ability to comprehend descriptive language... Flavor text is not intended RAW... In no way shape or form. Once you figure that out we can move on to the real conversation.
As previously explained, we discuss RAW because in a permissive ruleset, you need to be explicitly told so in order for you to do something. "The rule doesn't tell me I can't do this, so I can do this" is not a valid reasoning.
What you are discussing is your liberty of interpreting the contradictory nature of BRB, battleprimer, campaign books, FAQ's, etc (currently BRB/Battleprimer vs FAQ). This is strictly RAI and/or HIWPI, which I've noted as this becoming another one of your "prove me wrong" posts.
Why is this a RAI/HIWPI discussion? Because you're asking what to do with a written text when it blatantly contradicts a preexisting convention/rule.
The OP asks whether the so called "reminder/example text" is to be binding changes to the BRB. This is strictly an opinion thread which is why the second poster noted this isn't really YMDC appropriate.
What you're referring to as "WAW" is actually the "RAW" that gets discussed. It's important you understand this going forward in order to avoid these unnecessary arguments.
greatbigtree wrote:Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.
After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.
This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.
Again, this is for the audience.
DeathReaper wrote:
greatbigtree wrote: Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.
After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.
This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.
Again, this is for the audience.
Yes, this is 100% correct.
Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat.
Type40 & Flandarz, you can see this is an FAQ that changes rules right and not just a clarification?
Just a quick wrench to toss in here:
Necrons now have a FAQ that tells us that a -1 modifier does turn the result into 0.
Q: Can the Quantum Deflection Stratagem (-1 to the QS roll) allow a unit with the Quantum Shielding ability (ignore damage if die result is lower than damage) to ignore attacks with a Damage characteristic of 1?
A: Yes.
Necrons now have a FAQ that tells us that a -1 modifier does turn the result into 0.
Q: Can the Quantum Deflection Stratagem (-1 to the QS roll) allow a unit with the Quantum Shielding ability (ignore damage if die result is lower than damage) to ignore attacks with a Damage characteristic of 1? A: Yes.
And yet when I point out these contradictory FAQs, the mods lock the thread.
This makes me legitimately angry. How can they have people writing the rules this incompetent?
BaconCatBug wrote: And yet when I point out these contradictory FAQs, the mods lock the thread.
This makes me legitimately angry. How can they have people writing the rules this incompetent?
Yes, you're so persecuted. It has nothing to do with your abrasive manner, and everything to do with the fact that the mods irrationally dislike you.
People writing rules are still people. They make mistakes. There's probably multiple people writing rules. They miscommunicate. It happens, and it's not the end of the world, or even of a game. Work it out with your opponent, report it to the FAQ line, and move on.
Without access to the direct quotes, is this a case of general (can’t modify below 1) being overridden by specific (can be modified to 0 in this case)?
greatbigtree wrote: Without access to the direct quotes, is this a case of general (can’t modify below 1) being overridden by specific (can be modified to 0 in this case)?
Its not said in the 40k rules that specific overrides generic but thats how i always try to apply the rules since its the most natural way for me as a MTG player. If you start looking at the rules this way, the game rules make more sense and i wish a certain user would use this logic instead insulting the game they clearly hate.
greatbigtree wrote: Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.
I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.
It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.
greatbigtree wrote: Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.
I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.
It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.
its also the most elegant way to design game rules. instead of listing all the exceptions in the generic rule, you have separate rules that create exceptions. This makes the rules a lot cleaner and easier to remember (since you only need to remember the exceptions if they are releveant to your army)
BaconCatBug wrote: And yet when I point out these contradictory FAQs, the mods lock the thread.
This makes me legitimately angry. How can they have people writing the rules this incompetent?
Yes, you're so persecuted. It has nothing to do with your abrasive manner, and everything to do with the fact that the mods irrationally dislike you.
People writing rules are still people. They make mistakes. There's probably multiple people writing rules. They miscommunicate. It happens, and it's not the end of the world, or even of a game. Work it out with your opponent, report it to the FAQ line, and move on.
Exalted. Totally for the second paragraph of course.
greatbigtree wrote: Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.
I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.
It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.
its also the most elegant way to design game rules. instead of listing all the exceptions in the generic rule, you have separate rules that create exceptions. This makes the rules a lot cleaner and easier to remember (since you only need to remember the exceptions if they are releveant to your army)
And if you try to list things exhaustively, it either inevitably fails once you release your first expansion, or you end up in the cross-reference update hell.
Really all a person can complain about GW rules is that they haven’t joined in the trend of having the rulebook explicitly say which of the various writing conventions they’re using. Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux and 40k are each written to slightly different conventions. Like invulnerable saves saying you can always use them and then some rule prohibits both regular and invulnerable saves.
greatbigtree wrote: Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.
I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.
It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.
Yes, but in a previous edition we actually had basic and advanced rules where they specified that. Of course it wouldn't make any sense for general rules to override specific rules, so...
greatbigtree wrote: Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.
I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.
It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.
Yes, but in a previous edition we actually had basic and advanced rules where they specified that. Of course it wouldn't make any sense for general rules to override specific rules, so...
Agreed. It's an inferred rather than a stated rule. It's a rule because the game doesn't work if it's not.
It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.
Citation needed. Because the FAQ/Errata document is a part of the GW official rules.
...does that seem like rules syntax to you ?
well this is GW we are talking about so...
At least people realize that GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time.
Chalk this up to weird rules interactions, like so many others in 40k and move on. They will be along to change things again in a few months and it will start over.
It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.
Citation needed. Because the FAQ/Errata document is a part of the GW official rules.
...does that seem like rules syntax to you ?
well this is GW we are talking about so...
At least people realize that GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time.
Chalk this up to weird rules interactions, like so many others in 40k and move on. They will be along to change things again in a few months and it will start over.
DeathReaper wrote: Chalk this up to weird rules interactions, like so many others in 40k and move on. They will be along to change things again in a few months and it will start over.
It's done. Stop kindling a dying flame.
Seems like the discussion is still going on mate.
Bottom line is that GW use FAQ's to change rules, and the reminder/example text is literally a part of the FaQ document, which is official rules.
Right so flavor text is raw now and so is anything scribed anywhere... Except the fact that you need to cut out and rearrange full parts of this writing for it make sense as rule... Seriously... I can understand why someone might think informal reminder text is some kind of rule... But to claim flavor is a rule... Go learn what a rule is... Again a none rule is not Raw and that doesn't mater how permissive you claim the game is... Sorry to tell you that a blerb of informal writing not formulated as rule can't be take as raw with out changing what is actually written. Get a grip. I mentioned the WAW not Raw to show how rediculous it is to think flavor is Raw... It's not complicated. Stop picking out words from an informal sentence and claiming it was an intentional rule... And even RAWlol. This is a ridiculous way of approaching any game.
It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.
Citation needed. Because the FAQ/Errata document is a part of the GW official rules.
...does that seem like rules syntax to you ?
well this is GW we are talking about so...
At least people realize that GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time.
Chalk this up to weird rules interactions, like so many others in 40k and move on. They will be along to change things again in a few months and it will start over.
And flavor text is a part of the BRB... Which is official rules... But again people have now literally said that flavor text is RAW so I don't know why I am bothering with this.
To harken this back to a more... legal body of rules, there are two main bodies of law to my understanding:
-In common law bodies, answers to previous questions are laws (precedent)
-In non-common law bodies, answers to previous questions are not laws
Court cases in common law bodies (at least in the US) are always questions. In order to be a court case, there must be a disagreement about something. This disagreement must be between two parties (and actually matter). The court then hears the case and picks an answer.
(Note: Juries decide "facts", like "Did this happen?". Judges decide interpretations of law, like "What must now legally happen?". In this conversation, we're talking about questioning rules, not questioning events - so findings of law matter, not findings of fact.)
When it's the law itself that's disagreed upon, a judge provides an answer to the question ("Are non-slaver states required to return escaped slaves to slaver states" in Dread Scott, for instance).
The judge(s) make a decision, then publish that decision. That decision is now law.
In those cases, the answers to asked questions (frequently or otherwise) are, themselves, rules (laws).
The premise of this thread can be rewritten as:
"Is 40k a common-law rulesset"? If so, FAQs are binding (precedent). If not, FAQs are not binding.
Note that the UK is a Common Law country, like the US. And Common Law is a culture thing. So absent specification otherwise, a rulesset based in UK culture would most likely be Common Law-based.
Are there any FAQs that explicitly reference other FAQs?
skchsan wrote: Well, yes, flavor text is still within the set [explicitly written down in the rulebook]. Deciding whether it pertains to the game play or not is up to your interpretation.
Is a paragraph in a novel not a paragraph in a novel because the author/editor didn't realize it was completely contradictory?
All I'm trying to do is help you understand what RAW discussion means in this forum going forward because you're getting unnecessarily heated over a discussion with strangers on a forum.
No. Flavor text is flavor text and rules are rules. It isn't WAW(writing as written)[As much as orks may have you believe... Mind the pun] it is RAW
I seriously can't believe this conversation has dissolved to this. Go watch some game design videos on youtube. Specifically look up the difference between the American style of board game design and the German style in relationship to applying game themes. Or just try and figure out what the word "rule" means... I am so incredibly baffled by the lack of formal reasoning and lack of logic in this thread. I have honestly just lost respect for a part of humanities basic ability to comprehend descriptive language... Flavor text is not intended RAW... In no way shape or form. Once you figure that out we can move on to the real conversation.
As previously explained, we discuss RAW because in a permissive ruleset, you need to be explicitly told so in order for you to do something. "The rule doesn't tell me I can't do this, so I can do this" is not a valid reasoning.
What you are discussing is your liberty of interpreting the contradictory nature of BRB, battleprimer, campaign books, FAQ's, etc (currently BRB/Battleprimer vs FAQ). This is strictly RAI and/or HIWPI, which I've noted as this becoming another one of your "prove me wrong" posts.
Why is this a RAI/HIWPI discussion? Because you're asking what to do with a written text when it blatantly contradicts a preexisting convention/rule.
The OP asks whether the so called "reminder/example text" is to be binding changes to the BRB. This is strictly an opinion thread which is why the second poster noted this isn't really YMDC appropriate.
What you're referring to as "WAW" is actually the "RAW" that gets discussed. It's important you understand this going forward in order to avoid these unnecessary arguments.
You clearly do not understand what I am saying in my posts. Go back, try to understand it, and stop cut and pasting it to suit your needs like you do with non intentional "rules"
I don't care how you spin it, flavor isn't RAW and neither is a non-rules statement... Even if a non-rules statement shows up in an official rules document. It's not a complicated thing to grasp... Seriously though, if you think flavor writing equates to a rule... Then I dont even know where to start explaining this from
Type40 wrote: Right so flavor text is raw now and so is anything scribed anywhere...
Trying to claim things like the reminder that a transport can't have units both embark and disembark as flavor text seems to strain what people would refer to as "only" flavor text beyond all plausible boundaries for it.
Bharring wrote: To harken this back to a more... legal body of rules, there are two main bodies of law to my understanding:
-In common law bodies, answers to previous questions are laws (precedent)
-In non-common law bodies, answers to previous questions are not laws
Court cases in common law bodies (at least in the US) are always questions. In order to be a court case, there must be a disagreement about something. This disagreement must be between two parties (and actually matter). The court then hears the case and picks an answer.
(Note: Juries decide "facts", like "Did this happen?". Judges decide interpretations of law, like "What must now legally happen?". In this conversation, we're talking about questioning rules, not questioning events - so findings of law matter, not findings of fact.)
When it's the law itself that's disagreed upon, a judge provides an answer to the question ("Are non-slaver states required to return escaped slaves to slaver states" in Dread Scott, for instance).
The judge(s) make a decision, then publish that decision. That decision is now law.
In those cases, the answers to asked questions (frequently or otherwise) are, themselves, rules (laws).
The premise of this thread can be rewritten as:
"Is 40k a common-law rulesset"? If so, FAQs are binding (precedent). If not, FAQs are not binding.
Note that the UK is a Common Law country, like the US. And Common Law is a culture thing. So absent specification otherwise, a rulesset based in UK culture would most likely be Common Law-based.
Are there any FAQs that explicitly reference other FAQs?
This is completely unrelated.
No one is talking about whether or not the answer is raw. We are talking about whether not the informal text used to describe the answer is law. Especially when it postulates a new rule completely unrelated to the question.
For example:
Q:
Is murder legal?
A:no (if a person steals a spoon and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder)
The question is about if what is in brackets a law. Does the explication text count as law, especially if it references something that doesn't exists... Let's assume there are currently no questions or laws established about stealing... Does this answer make stealing illegal or is this example text used as informal explication that is poorly referenced due to not doing proper research... It's nonrule text and not some embedded convoluted attempt at tacking on new rules.
Type40 wrote: Right so flavor text is raw now and so is anything scribed anywhere...
Trying to claim things like the reminder that a transport can't have units both embark and disembark as flavor text seems to strain what people would refer to as "only" flavor text beyond all plausible boundaries for it.
Some one earlier in the thread literally told me "put on your armor, load your bolter and get ready for war" was raw... That is what I am referring too when I say flavor... I don't call non-rules statements and explanatory text as flavor but I also don't try and call a snipped out section of it raw.
"informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."
This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.
RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.
RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.
You are confusing RAI with RAW.
What is being contended is your claim that reminder texts/examples are not RAW. Clarification of a rule is RAW, it just doesn't modify the wordings of RAW.
skchsan wrote: "informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."
This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.
RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.
RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.
You are confusing RAI with RAW.
I disagree to an extent. I think taking RAW purely at face value is in itself a decision based on bias. This is due to there being many instance of clear inconsistencies in RAW. Any position you take, even that of following RAW to the letter, is to some degree arbitrary.
skchsan wrote: "informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."
This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.
RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.
RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.
You are confusing RAI with RAW.
I disagree to an extent. I think taking RAW purely at face value is in itself a decision based on bias. This is due to there being many instance of clear inconsistencies in RAW. Any position you take, even that of following RAW to the letter, is to some degree arbitrary.
That's pretty philosophical. But yes, when there are clear inconsistencies we defer to RAI as otherwise the game collapses.
skchsan wrote: "informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."
This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.
RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.
RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.
You are confusing RAI with RAW.
I disagree to an extent. I think taking RAW purely at face value is in itself a decision based on bias. This is due to there being many instance of clear inconsistencies in RAW. Any position you take, even that of following RAW to the letter, is to some degree arbitrary.
That's pretty philosophical. But yes, when there are clear inconsistencies we defer to RAI as otherwise the game collapses.
How many of these arguments could be avoided if we considered RAI to mean "Rules as Interpreted"?
It's not even just inconsistencies. We've seen many examples over the years of rules that could be read more than one way, with people refusing to accept that anything other than their chosen interpretation is RAW.
RAW often comes down simply to the interpretation on the reader, and claiming that your given interpretation is RAW doesn't mean that it is actually the way the rule is supposed to be read.
skchsan wrote: "informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."
This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.
RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.
RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.
You are confusing RAI with RAW.
What is being contended is your claim that reminder texts/examples are not RAW. Clarification of a rule is RAW, it just doesn't modify the wordings of RAW.
Actually what you are doing is taking informal text, then engaging in determining RAI and then claiming it is RAW. you are picking and choosing a part of written text to make it sound like a rule.
What is literally written is
Q: With regards the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability, what
exactly is meant by ‘may fire an extra shot’?
A: It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
What you are first doing is first cutting it down to only this, ignoring the context in which it was written
Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
then cutting it down to this
Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls
then cutting it down to this
a model with a pulse rifle make(s) two
hit rolls
RAW is not the last statement. Thats not even what is actually written there.
What is written is an explanation to an answer (the answer being what is RAW as it is an intended RULE not a piece of explanation text)
Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
Does this seem like some kind of rules presentation to you ? if you read it word for word as written? is this telling you they are proposing a new rule ? Is this the type of writing that conveys an intentional submission of a rule ?
or is this writing that is being used to explain the answer it is attached to ?
Q: With regards the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability, what
exactly is meant by ‘may fire an extra shot’?
A: It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
You can't just look at a few parts of a sentence, cut a bunch of words out so it makes sense as a rule and then go on claiming that this is now, not just a rule, but a Rule As Written (even though you have to cut a bunch of text out of what was written to make it a rule). It isn't even in the context of the the rule the game designers were actually trying to present to you, its not rules text, its explanation text which you are butchering just to be able to claim its a rule at all, let alone RAW.
A rule is a rule if it is intended to be a rule. GW has a way of presenting rules. A formal and established way to present rules. If they are postulating a new rule it will get its own Errata or FAQ. They are not presenting some poorly written example embedding into another question and expecting you to butcher it until it becomes a rule so you can claim that it is, just because its in a rules document ... thats not how RAW works.
RAW requires two things
For the text in a rules document to be presented as a RULE (hence, flavour text like "get your armor on" is not a rule).(which an established format for GW to present rules to us is in place)
For the text in the rules document to be unchanged from what is written.
To claim this is RAW, you achieve neither of those points.
Seriously stop cutting and pasting out of context informal non-rules text together and claiming its raw just because you are taking those words out of a rules document. A piece of example text or reminder text is not intended to be a rule, thats why its not written as a rule. So trying to take that piece of text and make it RAW results in at best nonsesne and at worst some kind of butchery until its not even what was written anymore.
I'd say where it's clear the FAQ writers have not read the codex, and the FAQ directly contradict the rule, no, it is not binding. An errata to change the wording of the rule is a binding rule change. An FAQ exists to clarify a frequently asked question regarding a rule. If the FAQ actually makes the issue more confused, then it should be considered non-binding. Or at least that's how I'll be playing it. Also how the feth this is even an issue amazes me. Whoever writes the FAQs should probably have the relevant book open when they're writing them. And maybe get a proof reader who knows the codex.
@type40 That's exactly what youre doing. You're telling us the part that begins with 'Note' should be more or less disregarded as if it's not there (claim that it is not a rule as written) because it doesn't conform to the norms of rules format.
I'm simply stating the definition of RAW takes the rule within its raw state.
RAI/HIWPI, I'd rule that no, it does not grant extra shot beyond RF range.
The RAW is stupid and I'd be "breaking the rule" but that doesn't make the RAw not RAW.
skchsan wrote: @type40 That's exactly what youre doing. You're telling us the part that begins with 'Note' should be more or less disregarded as if it's not there (claim that it is not a rule as written) because it doesn't conform to the norms of rules format.
I'm simply stating the definition of RAW takes the rule within its raw state.
No I AM NOT
I am telling you that AS WRITTEN all this is telling you to do is "MAKE A NOTE OF THIS"
If you really want to follow this as RAW then go ahead and make a little mental or physical note of this every time you shoot a pulse rifle with Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability. AS WRITTEN it does not say "pulse rifels are rapid fire 2 weapons" unless you cut the NOTE part out specifically(and a few other things) and then rearrange what is actually written there so it fits what you think is RAI. For all we know some random other ability is being used to give it an extra attack or something else, because this is an out of context explanation but either way it doesn't mater because it is NOT some kind of intentional attempt to embed a rule into some unrelated question. If it was some kind of new rule being presented it wouldn't even be there. It would have its own errata or question and be accompanied by its own explanation text (that may or may not be also just as poorly researched) and guess what! that explanation text wouldn't be a proposed Rule or RAW either, it would be a reference or explanation (either a correct one or not).
What you are doing is niether RAW or RAI. You are literally cutting pieces out of a bad explanation, rearranging it, and calling it RAW.
You know why its written like that? and not "pulse rifles are rapid fire 2 weapons/h Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability works on pulse rifles at full range" because it is NOT an attempt to propose a new rules statement. What it is, is a poorly written rules explanation/reference that happens to be in a rules document.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't see how you can justify even calling this A RULE let alone RAW.
and don't give me this, its written so its a RULE stuff,,, then take the whole sentence as written and make a mental/physical note whilst having no impact on the game then. Or you can even ignore the word "NOTE" try and figure out the context of the game in the which the example is being taken (like what other abilities happened in the particular game they are using as reference) [unfortunately for you that's impossible to know]. You don't get have this both ways, either you acknowledge it as RAW and use every word, in which case what is written is nonsense as a rule, or you don't.
You're actively making a decision to disregard this "reminder text/examples" because they're sometimes right, sometimes wrong.
There are many instances where the RAW was so poorly worded that it didn't have the intended effect, where FAQ cleared it out. So yes, maybe it doesnt MODIFY the RAW in the way you seemingly claim (because it doesn't according to you) but it sure made the rule work in the way we RAI'ed it.
So what about the informal blubs on the side of the rules? Are they not rules because they're informal?
For the Audience, RAI is anything that a poster pre-supposes knowledge of the intention of the rule or wording.
RAW is any argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer. For example, whether or not “reminder text” is considered valid presupposes knowledge of the intention of the writer.
RAW essentially assumes all words written are deliberate, whether or not this creates invalid game states or any manner of difficulties. In the case of the Tau getting an extra shot at long range, despite this being a departure from the original limitation in the rule book, when dissecting RAW we must assume all words are deliberate.
When working with RAW arguments, the most specific rulings take precedence. In cases where two rulings are equally specific (such as the Codex version of the Tau rule and the FAQ version of the rule) the most recent version of the rule takes precedence. This is arbitrary, but much like BEDMAS is an arbitrary manner of resolving equations, it is the expected and generally accepted manner.
So while a person may dislike and refuse to play the game in a way giving an additional shot at long range, the “rules” of dealing with RAW arguments do dictate that as this is an equally specific rule with a more recent version, thus the most recent version is the “correct” interpretation.
Although it conflicts with an earlier version, the earlier version is invalidated by the more recent version, which eliminates the conflict.
Any other interpretation ignores the “rules” of RAW arguments. Either through belief that this was an unintentional mistake, or belief that it “doesn’t count” because of reasons, all written rules, even reminder text, is fair game. To ignore them presumes knowledge of intent, that is unknowable in a RAW argument.
How I Would Play It is different. That is where RAI comes into play, and is unsurprisingly the area in which common sense and common agreement are important.
HIWPI is I would now allow a Tau player to take an extra shot at long range, post FAQ. I’m not a Tau player. Most armies now have some variation on cracking off an extra shot at long range, so whether intentional or not I’d let it happen.
skchsan wrote: You're actively making a decision to disregard this "reminder text/examples" because they're sometimes right, sometimes wrong.
There are many instances where the RAW was so poorly worded that it didn't have the intended effect, where FAQ cleared it out. So yes, maybe it doesnt MODIFY the RAW in the way you seemingly claim (because it doesn't according to you) but it sure made the rule work in the way we RAI'ed it.
So what about the informal blubs on the side of the rules? Are they not rules because they're informal?
the "blubs" in the BRB those are presented AS rules and in some cases examples. But the inclusion of examples is CLARIFICATION not a "rule." and it helps you understand the RAI. but they are absolutely NOT rules.
The reminder text that references actual rules or example text that doesn't reference wrong things are helpful yes, but inclusion or exclusion doesn't make the answer any less correct. Just easier to understand. The inclusion or exclusion of an example or reference doesn't make the actual rule's text any less or more correct. They are there to help you understand a rule. When a new rule is being presented, it will be presented to us. Ya it sucks that GW uses bad examples and examples of things that do not exist, but its no justification to think some poor example is a RULE and something can not be a RULE as written if it is not postulated as a rule.
If I was giving you instructions and said "I will give you a rule and you can ask a question about it, then I will give you an answer to THAT question so you may modify your rules". (kinda like a game we play)
"The rule is
Use your hand to pick up things "
and you asked
"Can I pick up a pink ball ? "
and I said "you, in fact, must pick up a pink ball. (note, using your hands is how we pick up things).
The rule is Use your hands to pick up things and you must pick up a pink ball.
I am attempting to clarify the rule with the later part of my answer.. The later is not a rule, it is a piece of clarification. The rules are what are presented as regulatory. The rules are also presented in the defined format. the clarification is what is presented to explain and make sure you got the rule correct. it is a reference to something else or an expansion on what is being directly addressed in the question.
Now if I am GW and I write my clarification wrong ....
Use your hand to pick up things
and you asked
"Can I have a pink ball ? "
and I said "you must pick up a pink ball. (note. using your feet is how we pick up things)
it still does not magically make the a statement of rules text... it is first off not regulatory statement due to the referencing word "note." which would be equivalent to "for example" or "remember," or "don't forget."
A new rule or change to a rule is not presented out of format unless it is directly answering the question, and therefor fitting of the formatting.
for example
Use your hand to pick up things
and you asked
"Can I pick up a pink ball with my feat ? "
and I said "you must pick up a pink ball and using your feet is how we pick up things now.
This simple change changes the entire formatting and changes the later text from clarity text to a new rule.
This is also why I keep stressing that you can't just look at a few lines and build it into what ever you want. You need to look at the whole question in the FAQs and read the example/reminder/explanation text as that. Doing it otherwise is not how syntax works, and GW knows enough that they aren't attempting to propose new rules in reminder text/explanation text. Thus they are formatting it as clarification text (which I think is quite obvious) and thus not a rule. They know enough that if they want to propose a new rule it will be errata or its own FAQ question. They know enough that they know how to write a piece of clarification v.s. extension to an answer of a question. What they do not know how to do is reference other work correctly.
Seriously, how many times can you point to a Q and A that references something incorrectly in example/reminder text and honestly tell me it is not being presented as some kind of clarification v.s. an intentional embedded rule within the answer of another question?
A rule is a rule, a piece of clarification, whether correct or not, is not a rule.
greatbigtree wrote: For the Audience, RAI is anything that a poster pre-supposes knowledge of the intention of the rule or wording. ... [see spoiler]
RAW is any argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer. For example, whether or not “reminder text” is considered valid presupposes knowledge of the intention of the writer.
Spoiler:
RAW essentially assumes all words written are deliberate, whether or not this creates invalid game states or any manner of difficulties. In the case of the Tau getting an extra shot at long range, despite this being a departure from the original limitation in the rule book, when dissecting RAW we must assume all words are deliberate.
When working with RAW arguments, the most specific rulings take precedence. In cases where two rulings are equally specific (such as the Codex version of the Tau rule and the FAQ version of the rule) the most recent version of the rule takes precedence. This is arbitrary, but much like BEDMAS is an arbitrary manner of resolving equations, it is the expected and generally accepted manner.
So while a person may dislike and refuse to play the game in a way giving an additional shot at long range, the “rules” of dealing with RAW arguments do dictate that as this is an equally specific rule with a more recent version, thus the most recent version is the “correct” interpretation.
Although it conflicts with an earlier version, the earlier version is invalidated by the more recent version, which eliminates the conflict.
Any other interpretation ignores the “rules” of RAW arguments. Either through belief that this was an unintentional mistake, or belief that it “doesn’t count” because of reasons, all written rules, even reminder text, is fair game. To ignore them presumes knowledge of intent, that is unknowable in a RAW argument.
How I Would Play It is different. That is where RAI comes into play, and is unsurprisingly the area in which common sense and common agreement are important.
HIWPI is I would now allow a Tau player to take an extra shot at long range, post FAQ. I’m not a Tau player. Most armies now have some variation on cracking off an extra shot at long range, so whether intentional or not I’d let it happen.
The problem with the Tau example is that if it is taken RAW (aka "argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer ... {that} assumes all words written are deliberate, whether or not this creates invalid game states or any manner of difficulties.") is that the text in question is not written as a rules statement but rather as clarification text and there for is nonsense when looking at it from a rules perspective. What is being debated is whether or not it even is a rule to be considered rules as written, then, even if it is, does it make any sense at all.
The piece of does not read
a pulse rifle gets one extra to hit roll at full range
(this would be what someone may decide is RAI)
What the text objectively actually reads
Q: With regards the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability, what
exactly is meant by ‘may fire an extra shot’?
A: It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
1. First of all, in the context of this entire question, it is clear that the writing in question is not rules text but it is rather clarification text that references something in the game that does not exist. [see spoiler]
Spoiler:
This is non-objectionable and unbiased, it is clearly a piece of text used to clarify the answer of a question. If you do not look at the text as a whole this becomes less obvious. If this text was not incorrect and did in fact say
Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make one
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
Then it would be clear that this was a reference for clarity and not anything else. The argument here is that if something is written as clarification text it is not considered a rule, whether correct, incorrect or anything else ?
2. The next argument is that this new "rule" is not established in correct formatting, thus supporting the earlier argument that it is poorly written clarification text rather then a proposition of a new rule. [see spoiler]
Spoiler:
In warhammer 40k we have an established format for designers to give us new rules. This comes either from a piece of errata or from of an FAQ.
When in the form of an errata, the concerned text is directly changed.
When in the form of an FAQ a question is presented and an answer given.
It is out of format to look at this as a whole and assume the designers are attempting to embed a new rule into the middle of an answer about a completely different issue. It is more reasonable to read it in the context of which it was written, clarity text, and then conclude that it was an incorrect reference or a reference to something with variables that are missing. (like maybe some extra ability not mentioned in this example). The argument is not that the words were not written deliberately, they were written deliberately in order to provide clarification for its above answer. What happened here was an incorrect reference to an example, incomplete set of circumstances for the example or perhaps a even a typo.
3.If we do decide that this is a rule and we look at it as a rule, due to the fact that it was written as clarification text, it is literal nonsense in RAW. [see spoiler]
Spoiler:
Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
As written what this is asking us to do, is to make a mental/physical note about a pulse rifle (in some hypothetical game) getting to make two hit rolls at max range. It is not written in a way that declares pulse rifles always get two hit rolls at max range. It also does not declare the profile of a pulse rifle to be changed. What is written, word for word, as a RULE is ,,, Make a physical/mental/other kind of note, that in some unknown context a pulse rifle would make two hit rolls when using the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire. Once the note is completed, then you have fulfilled the duties to the game and have no obligation to the text you have just noted. As this is what is objectively written.
Because this is nonsense, we can once again refer to the above, this is not rules text, but rather problematic clarification writing.
4. as a counter claim, if you do suppose this type of text is RAW and if you are to assume that this does say that pulse rifles get 2 shots. you are neither following RAI or RAW; [see spoiler]
Spoiler:
As the above demonstrates, the intention was to provide clarity text not a rule. As for not following RAW In order to make this text say that a pulse rifle gets two shots, one must first discard most of the FAQs entry changing it from
Q: With regards the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability, what
exactly is meant by ‘may fire an extra shot’?
A: It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
to this
It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
Thus first removing the overall context of the original question.
Next they must remove excess text unrelated to the rule they are trying to get at
like so :
Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range
Then they must remove the word Note as to not imply this rule wants you to simply just take a note
that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls
Next they must remove excess grammar, for it is just in the way of this new rule
a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) make two
hit rolls
Now they must add in some new grammar, so it is actually a sentence and of course add some clarification
a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) can make two
hit rolls at max range
After completing all of these steps, you have the rule that is being claimed as a rule that was written.
It is clear that in order to actually have this piece of text say that a pulse rifle makes two shots at max range you have to butcher the text quite a bit and change the wording severely... thus it is clearly not RAW. it would be instead inferring RAI , and as we discussed above, the fact that it is quite obvious intended to be clarity text shows that it isn't even that.
So please,
stop trying to claim that butchering up some text that is unintended to be a rule is in someway RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: No pre-suposed anything, this based on a direct reading of the text.
You do not need to pre-supose something is being used for clarity. The very fact that it is presented as an example shows that. That's what examples are for, clarity and not propositions of new rules..
there is a reason we do not assume flavour text to be RAW. Somethings written in rules documents arn't being presented as "rules." example/reminder text is just that, text presented for clarity, not rules propositions.
show me what precedence we are supposed to have from GW to assume that example/reminder text should be considered a proposition of a new rule and regarded as such. Show me what precedent we even have in game design to think that.
p.s. in general, within game design, example/reminder text is not considered to be a proposition of rules [not an assumption, in game design [specifically rules design] you have rule statements and clarity statements(i.e. example/reminder text)] also, keyword definition statements [i,e, defining FLYER, Charge, or combat (gw could do a better job at this))]. most other games make a clear distinction by use of italics for clarity statements and bold for keywords unfortunately GW does this only for keywords... but just because they don't clearly mark when a clarity statement starts doesn't mean its not there and doesn't mean you can pretend its somehow proposing a new rule to you. Other major games have gone out of their way to clarify this to their players and specifically clarify that clarity text is not RAW or expected to be(see MTG rule 207.2). With that precedence, show me where in this permissive game system it says you CAN read every word, even if it is out of context or format, as though the designers were presenting new rules to you, RAW or RAI. remember the keyword in both RAW and RAI is RULE. Shouldn't we be following the established standards given to us by GWs own formatting and game design in general before we are specifically given permission not to (because the game is permissive,... or is that just a term we like to throw around so we can ignore logic and reason ?) I am sorry the game designers arn't specifically trying to spell out how to tell the difference between something written for clarity and a proposed new rule,,, I don't think they expected they would need too.
greatbigtree wrote: For the Audience, RAI is anything that a poster pre-supposes knowledge of the intention of the rule or wording.
RAW is any argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer. For example, whether or not “reminder text” is considered valid presupposes knowledge of the intention of the writer.
RAW essentially assumes all words written are deliberate, whether or not this creates invalid game states or any manner of difficulties. In the case of the Tau getting an extra shot at long range, despite this being a departure from the original limitation in the rule book, when dissecting RAW we must assume all words are deliberate.
I'm sorry. No. What you are describing is what as been characterized as "naive literalism". It is the sort of stance that will cause game designers to ignore you and hope you some day get treatment.
According to what you've written out, you're not allowed to type the words "This is a permissive rules set. We know how those work, and in a permissive rules set you must resolve conflicts as follows..." Because that's all constructed out of knowledge concerning the text, how it is written, and how it has been designed.
Everything else in your post appears to be rules of thumb that are made up.
greatbigtree wrote: For the Audience, RAI is anything that a poster pre-supposes knowledge of the intention of the rule or wording.
RAW is any argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer. For example, whether or not “reminder text” is considered valid presupposes knowledge of the intention of the writer.
RAW essentially assumes all words written are deliberate, whether or not this creates invalid game states or any manner of difficulties. In the case of the Tau getting an extra shot at long range, despite this being a departure from the original limitation in the rule book, when dissecting RAW we must assume all words are deliberate.
I'm sorry. No. What you are describing is what as been characterized as "naive literalism". It is the sort of stance that will cause game designers to ignore you and hope you some day get treatment.
According to what you've written out, you're not allowed to type the words "This is a permissive rules set. We know how those work, and in a permissive rules set you must resolve conflicts as follows..." Because that's all constructed out of knowledge concerning the text, how it is written, and how it has been designed.
Everything else in your post appears to be rules of thumb that are made up.
This "naive literalism" you've coined is exactly what RAW is...
And yes, RAW arguments are (probably?) this naive literalism that you refer to. It is not common sense, nor is it necessarily sensible. It is abstract, and devoid of "sense". You must effectively forget everything you know about the outside world and focus only on what is written.
Which is why it is, in my experience, seldom strictly adhered to while people play. However, it is useful to determine how to resolve a dispute when both sides say, "But it makes sense to do it this way", due to the impartial nature and ignoring of what makes "sense" to either side.
Which is why there is no dismissing what one considers "explanation" text in a RAW argument. One does not get to say, "It doesn't specify the intention to change the rules so this doesn't count", because everything written is treated as accurate. If the "explanation" text describes a RF 1 gun as getting 2 shots at long range while under the effect of Volley Fire then no matter what the original rules say and "intention" of the writer to not invalidate something... it changes to become the new way of doing things.
Again, RAW arguments are abstract ideas. They do not care for the practical application of the rules that are determined, only that the meaning of the rules are accurately understood by those discussing. In order to do that, limitations are (arbitrarily) imposed on how to resolve the conflicts, much as BEDMAS is an arbitrary set of rules on how to resolve math problems. There is a "right" way to solve math problems and there is a "right" way to resolve RAW problems.
What I'm trying to describe to the Audience is that RAW isn't how you need to play a rule, nor how you think a rule should work, nor many things that in the "real world" would work. It is a system to settle disputes between two equally valid views on the "Intention" of a rule.
Ironically, when RAW arguments result in a stalemate where the content of the rules can be validly interpreted in multiple ways (mostly due to English not being the most well defined language) then RAI can often be used between two players to resolve how to proceed. "Just because you can argue RAW to a stalemate doesn't mean you should" sort of idea.
This isn't an attempt to tell people they're wrong when they play the game in a way that doesn't strictly adhere to RAW arguments. Frankly, the game will break down if you do that. It is just a process to resolve a situation when two people effectively say, "It works this way because I say so."
And yes, RAW arguments are (probably?) this naive literalism that you refer to. It is not common sense, nor is it necessarily sensible. It is abstract, and devoid of "sense". You must effectively forget everything you know about the outside world and focus only on what is written.
Which is why it is, in my experience, seldom strictly adhered to while people play. However, it is useful to determine how to resolve a dispute when both sides say, "But it makes sense to do it this way", due to the impartial nature and ignoring of what makes "sense" to either side.
Which is why there is no dismissing what one considers "explanation" text in a RAW argument. One does not get to say, "It doesn't specify the intention to change the rules so this doesn't count", because everything written is treated as accurate. If the "explanation" text describes a RF 1 gun as getting 2 shots at long range while under the effect of Volley Fire then no matter what the original rules say and "intention" of the writer to not invalidate something... it changes to become the new way of doing things.
Again, RAW arguments are abstract ideas. They do not care for the practical application of the rules that are determined, only that the meaning of the rules are accurately understood by those discussing. In order to do that, limitations are (arbitrarily) imposed on how to resolve the conflicts, much as BEDMAS is an arbitrary set of rules on how to resolve math problems. There is a "right" way to solve math problems and there is a "right" way to resolve RAW problems.
What I'm trying to describe to the Audience is that RAW isn't how you need to play a rule, nor how you think a rule should work, nor many things that in the "real world" would work. It is a system to settle disputes between two equally valid views on the "Intention" of a rule.
Ironically, when RAW arguments result in a stalemate where the content of the rules can be validly interpreted in multiple ways (mostly due to English not being the most well defined language) then RAI can often be used between two players to resolve how to proceed. "Just because you can argue RAW to a stalemate doesn't mean you should" sort of idea.
This isn't an attempt to tell people they're wrong when they play the game in a way that doesn't strictly adhere to RAW arguments. Frankly, the game will break down if you do that. It is just a process to resolve a situation when two people effectively say, "It works this way because I say so."
Whether or not it is a rule to begin with is the question I am debating. I am postulating that it is not. This is not a question of intent, its an objective question about language and on whether or not it follows grammatical syntax making it a rule. The answer is quite clearly NO.
Then we have a question of whether or not a rule being introduced follows format of rules presentation, again this not a subject thought of intent, this an objective look at how rules are presented to us in this game. The answer again, is quite clearly NO.
The keyword in RAW is RULE and this is clearly NOT presented as a RULE, grammatically or formatically .
How can something that wasn't written as a rule, be considered a rule ? RAW or otherwise ?
and again, fine, if you want to take it as word for word what is written then do that !
stop inferring what is intended by it and then do what this new rule literally tells you to do.
MAKE A NOTE of pulse riffles having to hit rolls at max range in some strange undefined context and move on with no actual game-state change. If you want to claim RAW then stop ignoring some words and re-arranging the sentence. you'll need to figure out a way to remove the word "note" and the missing variables of context (i.e. they didn't give us all the details of the example game presented). The sentence is not "pulse rifle get 2 to hit rolls with the cardre fireblade ability" so stop pretending that is what is written down as RAW... because that is not what is word for word written.
So unless you acknowledge this, as a RAW statement, is non-sense in terms of a rule (via what the actual words say and not what you think it is implying), or you are not playing RAW because by doing that you need to butcher the actual words into a sentence that does make it a rule. Again, you do not get to have it both ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This literally a question on whether or not you can string together the sentence to even be a rule. not a question of whether or not the rule make sense.
Like you keep saying "RAW does not care for the practical application of the rules that are determined"
So unfortunately, with out some heavy RAI the words as written do not say what you want them to say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
(mostly due to English not being the most well defined language)
Go look at some language style guides ... the English language is very well defined (albeit from multiple approaches)... then find me any style guide that makes that statement, in the context of its entire FaQ entry, a rule (The grammar is just not their to make it into what you seem to want it to be.). (p.s. their is such thing as grammatical context as well in syntax, this is why we do not get to ignore the fact that it is accompanied by an entire entry [i.e. Fred is going to the store. HE likes to run] grammar does not work if you do not have the context of which it was written because when we are parsing out statements we often have to check what was previously written to understand the piece of writing as a whole.)
Now I can go on for days about this,,, but really,,,, just read the entry,,, can you seriously tell me the you don't think this sounds like a statement for clarity, not some postulation of a new rule (sure sure, it doesn't mater what you think the intent is,, hence the syntax rules I am pointing out,, but seriously, flavor text is not rules and we know that, no one has to tell us that, its obvious by its grammatical and contextual syntax ... this is no different)
No, you're just simply refusing to accept the definition of RAW as used in these discussions (which greatbigtree explained well) and continuing your crusade to make people understand RAI is the RAW.
The main takeaway is that you're misusing the term "RAW".
To try a different track, the question posed in the thread title disqualifies an answer from impacting a RAW argument.
In order to determine if text is example / reminder text, one must assign "intention" to part of the rules. Whether that makes "sense" in a grammatical or paragraph construction way, it is still assigning intention to part of the written rule in order to discard or validate it. That goes against the RAW argument procedure and purpose. All available rules text is valid, and treated as deliberate.
The only qualifying element in whether or not words can be used in a RAW argument is whether or not the words are present in a rules document.
From there, ignoring all outside influence, one must determine how the words written translate to the game state. In particular, how does the description impact the game mechanics.
Now, playing by strict RAW is not a requirement. You don't get a medal for it. Nobody comes along in 5 years with a certificate of authenticity for doing so. One does not NEED to use the results of a RAW argument in their gaming. There is nothing BINDING about the results of a RAW argument.
Another point at which the question invalidates itself, regarding RAW purposes, is asking if part of the rules are "regarded". All parts of the rules are regarded, as a requirement for a RAW argument.
So a RAW argument is a *tool* for determining how to play, and is most useful when two opinions differ as to the Intent of a rule, and both have logical reasons for doing so. RAW then removes intent, and attempts to determine what is said as literally as possible. There are situations where this process can lead to equally valid interpretations of the written rule, which then requires the parties involved to then attempt to determine which is *most correct* based on all other evidence. One is not required to use a tool that is available, but sometimes it's handy.
If both players can't resolve this way, then the rules state to roll off with a d6... but I've only encountered this situation a couple of times in-game.
lol, you guys do the same thing with my posts as you do with the rules.
You focus in on one part and ignore it as whole then arrange it in a way that you want to see it.
By ignoring key points brought up, you are able to continue with this circular argument by choosing not to acknowledge what you do not like.
Seriously, do you think everything written in the BRB is a "rule"
"The only qualifying element in whether or not words can be used in a RAW argument is whether or not the words are present in a rules document.
"
do you honestly believe the flavor text is RAW ?
this has nothing to do with "intention" it has to do with what is and isn't a rule for us to even begin reading RAW from. And there ARE objective ways to do this. Which you choose to ignore because of your circular argument.
"you're just simply refusing to accept the definition of RAW as used in these discussions"
Read my posts,
what you have presented as a definition, over and over and over again is that "if its written in a rule document it is RAW" When no where, in logic, in the game, in game design, in other games, or even grammar is this true. And as 40k is a "permissive" game as you keep pointing out. Where does it give you permission to say "every word in a rules document is RAW"
Where are the game losses for not showing up with your armor on and your bolt gun loaded ?
Again this isn't about interpreting whether or not a rule is "intended" to be a certain way. It is about objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule in the first place. You can not apply RAW to a non-rule. just like you do not apply RAW to flavor text.
And second, you guys still havn't addressed the fact that if this was RAW you can't act on the rule when following it word for word due to it not being written in a way that presents a regulation, it is presented as non-sense from a rules perspective.
Bharring wrote: To harken this back to a more... legal body of rules, there are two main bodies of law to my understanding:
-In common law bodies, answers to previous questions are laws (precedent)
-In non-common law bodies, answers to previous questions are not laws
Court cases in common law bodies (at least in the US) are always questions. In order to be a court case, there must be a disagreement about something. This disagreement must be between two parties (and actually matter). The court then hears the case and picks an answer.
(Note: Juries decide "facts", like "Did this happen?". Judges decide interpretations of law, like "What must now legally happen?". In this conversation, we're talking about questioning rules, not questioning events - so findings of law matter, not findings of fact.)
When it's the law itself that's disagreed upon, a judge provides an answer to the question ("Are non-slaver states required to return escaped slaves to slaver states" in Dread Scott, for instance).
The judge(s) make a decision, then publish that decision. That decision is now law.
In those cases, the answers to asked questions (frequently or otherwise) are, themselves, rules (laws).
The premise of this thread can be rewritten as:
"Is 40k a common-law rulesset"? If so, FAQs are binding (precedent). If not, FAQs are not binding.
Note that the UK is a Common Law country, like the US. And Common Law is a culture thing. So absent specification otherwise, a rulesset based in UK culture would most likely be Common Law-based.
Are there any FAQs that explicitly reference other FAQs?
This is completely unrelated.
No one is talking about whether or not the answer is raw. We are talking about whether not the informal text used to describe the answer is law. Especially when it postulates a new rule completely unrelated to the question.
For example:
Q:
Is murder legal?
A:no (if a person steals a spoon and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder)
The question is about if what is in brackets a law. Does the explication text count as law, especially if it references something that doesn't exists... Let's assume there are currently no questions or laws established about stealing... Does this answer make stealing illegal or is this example text used as informal explication that is poorly referenced due to not doing proper research... It's nonrule text and not some embedded convoluted attempt at tacking on new rules.
In a common law rulesset, if the question were:
Q: Is murder legal?
And the Court's opinion were:
A: No. If a person steals a spool and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder.
Then "Is murder legal? No." is law. So is "If a person steals a spool and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder." Any proceedings subject to that opinion can now use that statement as law.
But two invalid arguments arise from this.
The first is that "The court didn't decide that murder was illegal in all cases - so if you steal a *fork*...". The argument is that the ruling is narrow. In the US system, at least, rulings are often noteworthy for how narrow or broad it is - which is to say, how widely it applies. For instance, in the 'State v Green', SCOTUS held very broadly that the 1st Amendment didn't mean actions aren't necessarily illegal just because you're celebrating your religion. By being broad, it means this ruling applies to any time a religious action breaks an otherwise-legal statute. Converesely, in the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS held very narrowly that, based on a pair of statutes, a closely-held private organization cannot be forced to do something in violation of their religion where the government has an easy way to accommodate their religion while accomplishing the goals of the legislation (note - the 1st Amendment was not part of this ruling).
In the Green case, cases that have very little to do with the original case or specific scenario are still affected by that finidng (although I think Smith would be more relevant). In the Hobby Lobby case, cases have to be almost identical to it for that finding to matter.
An example following an explicit ruling is not a narrowing of the ruling - it's showing some cases where it applies, not all. An explanation of a ruling will typically also not narrow the ruling, but in theory can.
The other invalid argument is severability. If the answer is "No. [additional text]", what happens when [additional text] is wrong? For example, consider "No. I think that that's a bad idea." What happens when the author later thinks it's a good idea? Absent further action, nothing. The ruling is still "No.". They may, in the future, produce a new ruling - "Yes. It's not a bad idea." - that would be a new rule.
Bharring wrote: To harken this back to a more... legal body of rules, there are two main bodies of law to my understanding:
-In common law bodies, answers to previous questions are laws (precedent)
-In non-common law bodies, answers to previous questions are not laws
Court cases in common law bodies (at least in the US) are always questions. In order to be a court case, there must be a disagreement about something. This disagreement must be between two parties (and actually matter). The court then hears the case and picks an answer.
(Note: Juries decide "facts", like "Did this happen?". Judges decide interpretations of law, like "What must now legally happen?". In this conversation, we're talking about questioning rules, not questioning events - so findings of law matter, not findings of fact.)
When it's the law itself that's disagreed upon, a judge provides an answer to the question ("Are non-slaver states required to return escaped slaves to slaver states" in Dread Scott, for instance).
The judge(s) make a decision, then publish that decision. That decision is now law.
In those cases, the answers to asked questions (frequently or otherwise) are, themselves, rules (laws).
The premise of this thread can be rewritten as:
"Is 40k a common-law rulesset"? If so, FAQs are binding (precedent). If not, FAQs are not binding.
Note that the UK is a Common Law country, like the US. And Common Law is a culture thing. So absent specification otherwise, a rulesset based in UK culture would most likely be Common Law-based.
Are there any FAQs that explicitly reference other FAQs?
This is completely unrelated.
No one is talking about whether or not the answer is raw. We are talking about whether not the informal text used to describe the answer is law. Especially when it postulates a new rule completely unrelated to the question.
For example:
Q:
Is murder legal?
A:no (if a person steals a spoon and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder)
The question is about if what is in brackets a law. Does the explication text count as law, especially if it references something that doesn't exists... Let's assume there are currently no questions or laws established about stealing... Does this answer make stealing illegal or is this example text used as informal explication that is poorly referenced due to not doing proper research... It's nonrule text and not some embedded convoluted attempt at tacking on new rules.
In a common law rulesset, if the question were:
Q: Is murder legal?
And the Court's opinion were:
A: No. If a person steals a spool and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder.
Then "Is murder legal? No." is law. So is "If a person steals a spool and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder." Any proceedings subject to that opinion can now use that statement as law.
But two invalid arguments arise from this.
The first is that "The court didn't decide that murder was illegal in all cases - so if you steal a *fork*...". The argument is that the ruling is narrow. In the US system, at least, rulings are often noteworthy for how narrow or broad it is - which is to say, how widely it applies. For instance, in the 'State v Green', SCOTUS held very broadly that the 1st Amendment didn't mean actions aren't necessarily legal just because you're celebrating your religion. By being broad, it means this ruling applies to any time a religious action breaks an otherwise-legal statute. Converesely, in the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS held very narrowly that, based on a pair of statutes, a closely-held private organization cannot be forced to do something in violation of their religion where the government has an easy way to accommodate their religion while accomplishing the goals of the legislation (note - the 1st Amendment was not part of this ruling).
In the Green case, cases that have very little to do with the original case or specific scenario are still affected by that finidng (although I think Smith would be more relevant). In the Hobby Lobby case, cases have to be almost identical to it for that finding to matter.
An example following an explicit ruling is not a narrowing of the ruling - it's showing some cases where it applies, not all. An explanation of a ruling will typically also not narrow the ruling, but in theory can.
The other invalid argument is severability. If the answer is "No. [additional text]", what happens when [additional text] is wrong? For example, consider "No. I think that that's a bad idea." What happens when the author later thinks it's a good idea? Absent further action, nothing. The ruling is still "No.". They may, in the future, produce a new ruling - "Yes. It's not a bad idea." - that would be a new rule.
Ok then we are now implying then that the Cadre fireblade ability ONLY applies to pulse rifles that shoot twice... (because of its narrow range defined within the explanation of the answer)
damn,,, with this logic you cant use the ability at all...
You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".
Yes, if the example text is contained in the rule document, it is terribly hard to hand-wave that stuff away.
Eventually however, people need to condense these things into concise bullet-points.
It is really interesting to take those clear little points and organize them (I do in Excel), it is like a new game system, the stuff just flows when you remove the "fluff".
You could say this thread is more an argument that if you have what appears to be a clear statement of the rule and then the loose language explanation changes things, which would you pick/decide to use?
Some may just lose patience and decide something on the spot or roll-off and move-on.
I like competitive play, part of the "fun" is to utterly play within the rules in clever ways and it really destroys that fun when some rules are so unclear/grey-zone you do not want to go near them if you can help it to avoid argument (some may pick them to GET arguments).
I find at the end of the day, if you are able to put your finger on a rule quickly you can typically move-on.
Leaning on long winded explanations will slow down the game and would not be sustainable.
I bet if GW had to write rules that had a direct impact on their income, they would be the clearest reading rules you have ever seen.
skchsan wrote: You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".
RAW =! gameplay rule
Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"
I am pretty sure RAW means RULE AS WRITTEN
but if you can show me a citation of where any official anything says it means "As per written" I will concede. (maybe we should change the acronym to APW?)
Its pretty clear that the word RULE encompasses RULES not flavor text and not explanations ,,, they are not rules.
I think you're conflating "Every subset of text in the rule is, itself, a rule" with "Every statement in the rule is, itself, a rule".
Lets fall back to a more formal laguange: Math.
Define (a, b) to be (5, 10).
We can say:
[a+b = 15] and [a-b = -5] and [b-a = 5].
Consider that the rule.
You can use that rule to say:
[a+b = 15] or
[a-b = -5] or
[b-a = 5] or even
[a-b = -(b-a)] if you're feeling fancy.
Or any other similar subset - where each equation is taken intact (or acted upon by a legal transformation).
But that rule doesn't say:
[b = 1]
Despite that being literal text within the rule.
Likewise, when reading the rule of
It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.
We can say:
[It means the player can make one more hit roll for each model.]
or
[Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two hit rolls unless the target is within half range]
or
[Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a Rapid Fire weapon) [...] unless the target is within half range, in which case it would make three hit rolls.]
or even
[pulse rifle is a Rapid Fire Weapon]
But we can't say [a model with a pulse rifle make(s) two hit rolls] unqualified. That's taking terms out of context.
It's the same reason we can't say [Note a Rapid Fire weapon would make three hit rolls] - it requires transformations (even as simple as just extracting what you want). You're just taking things out of context.
It's similar to saying stuff like the bible says "Give me all your money". Those words all exist in the Bible, certainly even in binding phrases, even in that order - but that's certainly not what it says.
this is more akin to [a=15 [because we have 15 apples]]
as the syntax changes from defining to explanation.
In the realm of math we have defining statements only. but here we have defining statements and explanation statements.
a=5
b=10
[a+b=15] //(NOTE, A represents 5 apples and B represents 10 oranges)
The question at hand represents the following problem
a=5
b=10
[b+c=20] //(NOTE, a + b represents 16 fruit)
does this extra note change the defining features of either the equation or the initial definitions of the variables ? or is it a poorly written piece of explanation.
I know if I ran the equation through my code it wouldn't care about the out of syntax explanation [well, it would care about it, but that's why explanations are written as // comments]. It would only care about what was hard defined as rules according to proper formatting and proper syntax. there rest are just comments used for explanation,,, and poorly I might add.
We arn't computers though and we are capable of recognizing explanations v.s. commands/rules without the need of special markers like "//". Even though this example actually starts with a obvious one for us to recognize ... i.e. the word "note"
p.s.
citation for this in the context of 40k or rules design
"Every subset of text in the rule is, itself, a rule" with "Every statement in the rule is, itself, a rule"
skchsan wrote: You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".
RAW =! gameplay rule
Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"
I am pretty sure RAW means RULE AS WRITTEN
Yeeeeessssss.
Type40 wrote: but if you can show me a citation of where any official anything says it means "As per written" I will concede. (maybe we should change the acronym to APW?)
There is no official rule source on how to interpret the rule. That's why we have these discussions to arrive at the most sensible reading of the RAW, which we refer to as the RAI. Even if there was an official rule on how to interpret the rule, that rule in itself would be liable for being open to multiple interpretation!
Type40 wrote: Its pretty clear that the word RULE encompasses RULES not flavor text and not explanations ,,, they are not rules.
And again, this is an opinion on the methodology of interpreting the rule. You are making a conscious decision that flavor texts and explanations are not rules because [REASONS].
You are claiming that the term "RAW" refers to the most sensible reading of the text as written, when in fact, it refers to the methodology of reading the rule at its face value, non-sensical or not!
skchsan wrote: You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".
RAW =! gameplay rule
Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"
I am pretty sure RAW means RULE AS WRITTEN
Yeeeeessssss.
Type40 wrote: but if you can show me a citation of where any official anything says it means "As per written" I will concede. (maybe we should change the acronym to APW?)
There is no official rule source on how to interpret the rule. That's why we have these discussions to arrive at the most sensible reading of the RAW, which we refer to as the RAI. Even if there was an official rule on how to interpret the rule, that rule in itself would be liable for being open to multiple interpretation!
Type40 wrote: Its pretty clear that the word RULE encompasses RULES not flavor text and not explanations ,,, they are not rules.
And again, this is an opinion on the methodology of interpreting the rule. You are making a conscious decision that flavor texts and explanations are not rules because [REASONS].
You are claiming that the term "RAW" refers to the most sensible reading of the text as written, when in fact, it refers to the methodology of reading the rule at its face value, non-sensical or not!
No I am claiming RAW means RULES AS WRITTEN
NOT words as written,
NOT text as written
NOT AS PER WRITTEN
Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"
But RULES as written .
Are you really unable to see the difference between flavor text and rules ? I can try and explain to you how syntax works all day long , but if you really can't figure this out for your self I do not know how to help you. The word RULE means something pretty specific... I am not sure how you think fluff, flavor and explanations are "rules" ...
How do you not get what your saying is ridiculous ?
go ahead and define the word RULE to me ?
p.s. for some reason, with out any form of logic, reasoning, or use of definition you are making the conscious decision to define the word rule as "all writing."
I don't care how sensibly you or I read the text. I care about reading the RULES the way they were written because RAW refers to RULES and not the entire text.
skchsan wrote: You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".
RAW =! gameplay rule
Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"
I am pretty sure RAW means RULE AS WRITTEN
Yeeeeessssss.
Type40 wrote: but if you can show me a citation of where any official anything says it means "As per written" I will concede. (maybe we should change the acronym to APW?)
There is no official rule source on how to interpret the rule. That's why we have these discussions to arrive at the most sensible reading of the RAW, which we refer to as the RAI. Even if there was an official rule on how to interpret the rule, that rule in itself would be liable for being open to multiple interpretation!
Type40 wrote: Its pretty clear that the word RULE encompasses RULES not flavor text and not explanations ,,, they are not rules.
And again, this is an opinion on the methodology of interpreting the rule. You are making a conscious decision that flavor texts and explanations are not rules because [REASONS].
You are claiming that the term "RAW" refers to the most sensible reading of the text as written, when in fact, it refers to the methodology of reading the rule at its face value, non-sensical or not!
No I am claiming RAW means RULES AS WRITTEN
NOT words as written,
NOT text as written
NOT AS PER WRITTEN
Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"
But RULES as written .
Are you really unable to see the difference between flavor text and rules ? I can try and explain to you how syntax works all day long , but if you really can't figure this out for your self I do not know how to help you. The word RULE means something pretty specific... I am not sure how you think fluff, flavor and explanations are "rules" ...
How do you not get what your saying is ridiculous ?
go ahead and define the word RULE to me ?
Ok, try thinking of the term RAW as a singular specific noun called [Rules as written]. I believe you're thinking of it as [Rules] that are [as written].
We are not trying to discount your understanding of what "rules" encompass. We're simply trying to help you understand the terminology used in these discussions because we've all been there where we mix up RAI and RAW and the discussion spirals out of control.
Ok, try thinking of the term RAW as a singular specific noun called [Rules as written]. I believe you're thinking of it as [Rules] that are [as written].
YES
YES I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT!!!
you are getting closer !!!!!!
Why would you think of RAW as some singular noun called [Rules as written][with its own personal definition], IT LITERALLY MEANS : Rules As Written !!!!!!
Show me what precedence ANYWHERE that provides a new definition for RAW as a singular noun, or that it isn't literally what the acronym stands for !!
If you can find me that citation , I concede.
Do you really think that RAW is some fancy proto-noun that has its own meaning ?
And who are you with the authority to postulate the definition for this ?
Do you have some citation that the entire game design / gaming community has never heard of ?
This is big news ! we need to get you on a plane to Essen and make sure your new term is coined and gets out to the public ! Its a revolution in gaming, we will never think of RAW the same way again ! Gone are the days of using it as an acronym, these are new days, these are the days where it means something completely different ! It now means "Everything written in a document."
You know this may get confusing for all the people who have been using this term for the past 45 years but we are coining it into a singular noun anyways,,, but I am sure if we are vigilant enough it will happen. (some of this is sarcasm)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dude, I am not new to the world of gaming, I have been playing RPGs, table top war games, board games, and TCGs for 20 years.
I have a clear understanding of the term RAW and RAI.
What is abundantly clear now is that you (and anyone who seems to agree with your proto-term of RAW) does not.
Ok, try thinking of the term RAW as a singular specific noun called [Rules as written]. I believe you're thinking of it as [Rules] that are [as written].
YES
YES I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT!!!
you are getting closer !!!!!!
Why would you think of RAW as some singular noun called [Rules as written], IT LITERALLY MEANS : Rules As Written !!!!!!
It's the convention we use in these forums when discussing the rule. I'm glad we're finally starting to get on the same page!
Type40 wrote: Show me what precedence ANYWHERE provides a new definition for RAW that isn't literally what the acronym stands for !!
If you can find me that citation , I concede.
Do you really think that RAW is some fancy proto-noun that has its own meaning ?
And who are you with the authority to postulate the definition for this ?
Do you have some citation that the entire game design / gaming community has never heard of ?
It isn't a new definition, it's a convention describing that certain methodology employed when discussing the rules; No I don't particularly find it a fancy proto-noun but it is a convenient short hand; I don't have an authority - I don't think anyone does, but it's a commonly used shorthand!; I'm sure many of us here understands what RAW is but its a convention so I'm not sure whether it's defined in a dictionary the way we use it in the forums.
Type40 wrote: This is big news ! we need to get you on a plane to Essen and make sure your new term is coined and gets out to the public ! Its a revolution in gaming, we will never think of RAW the same way again ! Gone are the days of using it as an acronym, these are new days, these are the days where it means something completely different ! It now means "Everything written in a document."
You know this may get confusing for all the people who have been using this term for the past 45 years but we are coining it into a singular noun anyways,,, but I am sure if we are vigilant enough it will happen. (some of this is sarcasm)
Ah, the sarcasm is well appreciated (totally sarcastic )
Do you now see that this entire discussion isn't actually about what a specific rule says, but in actuality the validity of the short hand we use in the forum? (Hence not really YMDC appropriate)
If this is how this entire forum sees the term RAW Then clearly this entire forum has no idea what the term actually means.
Unfortunately though, based on the results of the poll, this is divided. (and likely because so many people here use the term incorrectly)
So I'll re-ask my question only to the people who do understand the way the rest of the world uses the term RAW.
so we can actually have a rules discussion and determine a method for understanding what is and isn't presented as a rule.
My apologies for thinking a large community of people use a term properly.
and my apologies to for those who think this belongs in YMDC instead of a rules question because they can't fathom that their personalized term that no one else in any other game, forum or community uses might not be correct and thus making a question like this a relevant rules question.
Seriously, I had no idea this would be the conversation I would be having with people when posting this question. Debating on whether or not RAW refereed to rules v.s. all the words ever written lol.
no wonder this community can't agree on anything. Ridiculous.
Type40 wrote: If this is how this entire forum sees the term RAW Then clearly this entire forum has no idea what the term actually means.
Unfortunately though, based on the results of the poll, this is divided. (and likely because so many people here use the term incorrectly)
So I'll re-ask my question only to the people who do understand the way the rest of the world uses the term RAW.
so we can actually have a rules discussion and determine a method for understanding what is and isn't presented as a rule.
My apologies for thinking a large community of people use a term properly.
and my apologies to for those who think this belongs in YMDC instead of a rules question because they can't fathom that their personalized term that no one else in any other game, forum or community uses might not be correct and thus making a question like this a relevant rules question.
Seriously, I had no idea this would be the conversation I would be having with people when posting this question. Debating on whether or not RAW refereed to rules v.s. all the words ever written lol.
no wonder this community can't agree on anything. Ridiculous.
In this case, I think it may be important to ask an admin to pin a listing of terms to this forum. This way we can avoid the enevitable situation of someone coming to this forum who expects to get legit rules questions answered and getting told incorrect information.
If a long established term has been redifined here so that some forum members can make sure they get their own way, new members and outsiders should be aware of this before they think they have come to a place where people can answer questions correctly.
For a comunity that seems to claim they are so concerned with following the rules correctly and that seems intent on using citations to substantiate arguments. I find it strange that you guys would change the meaning of a term like Raw without regards for what the acronym actually stands for and without a citation or precedent to substantiate that change...
It's really too bad because many people do come here for advice, usually the top result of a 40k rules search on google. i feel bad that they won't get acurrate information.
Type40 wrote: In this case, I think it may be important to ask an admin to pin a listing of terms to this forum. This way we can avoid the enevitable situation of someone coming to this forum who expects to get legit rules questions answered and getting told incorrect information.
If a long established term has been redifined here so that some forum members can make sure they get their own way, new members and outsiders should be aware of this before they think they have come to a place where people can answer questions correctly.
For a comunity that seems to claim they are so concerned with following the rules correctly and that seems intent on using citations to substantiate arguments. I find it strange that you guys would change the meaning of a term like Raw without regards for what the acronym actually stands for and without a citation or precedent to substantiate that change...
It's really too bad because many people do come here for advice, usually the top result of a 40k rules search on google. i feel bad that they won't get acurrate information.
Unfortunately this isn't so because you're arguing for your views that 'reminder/example texts' explicitly included in a FAQ, an officially sanctioned rules source, should be excluded in the RAW reading of the text. As mentioned, this is an opinion and everyone else is entitled to their own. No one is right or wrong here and anyone can claim you're right or wrong because you're asking your opinion to be critiqued.
Type40 wrote: If this is how this entire forum sees the term RAW Then clearly this entire forum has no idea what the term actually means.
"It's not me, it's all of you."
Lol,
no thats not what I am saying
It is a defined term, which people are arguing is defined differently here and without any substantiation, citation or reasoning to why.
People are literally saying it doesn't stand for "Rules As Written" but rather it stands for "As per written" or "all text written"
People are literally saying that flavor and fluff are "Rules As Written."
I can post a citation even ?
DnD wiki
"Rules as written in the D&D game refers to the rules that WoTC publishes. In a wider sense it means the rules of the game being played. Rules as written is used to distinguish these from both house rules and what may have been intended that the rules were to be, such as a reference in a blurb to an ability that the class in question does not actually get or that is being used incorrectly. "
I can find many more,
can you provide a citation for your guys new interpretation of a proto-noun RAW in the context of 40k ?
Unfortunately this isn't so because you're arguing for your views that 'reminder/example texts' explicitly included in a FAQ, an officially sanctioned rules source, should be excluded in the RAW reading of the text. As mentioned, this is an opinion and everyone else is entitled to their own. No one is right or wrong here and anyone can claim you're right or wrong because you're asking your opinion to be critiqued.
This isn't even about my position on the thread topic any more ...
This is about the fact that you are trying to assert that RAW does not stand for "rules as written."
My position on the thread topic can only be debated with a person who actually uses the term RAW as ,,,, well what it is written as, rules as written. If people have decided it no longer means that ,,, well I can't take those people seriously.
Seriously, trying to take an attitude where you are saying flavor text is RAW is so far out of ball park, or trying to take the attitude that RAW does not stand for Rules As Written but its actually not an acronym but a noun that means something completely different ?
Are you seriously trying to say that we have an entire forum of people here who accept that RAW does not mean "rules as written" but it means something else ?
It's really not that hard to see that this is illogical, I can't be the only person on this forum who thinks flavor and fluff are not RAW.
I can't be the only one on this forum that understands RAW stands for the statement "Rules as Written"
I can't be the only one on this forum that does not think that RaW is somehow its own noun with its own definition that differs from the definition of the statement "Rules as written".
This isn't even me implying that people think this... All of this has been directly said to me ?
Look through the posts. Whether you think my stance on the subject of this thread is correct or not, are you really going to sit there and tell me that RAW is not an acronym for "rules as written" ? are you really going to try and hold the stance that it is its own proto-noun that means "All that is Written" or "As per Written" ?
Are you really going to tell me that flavor text and fluff are RAW.
Type40 wrote: Seriously, trying to take an attitude where you are saying flavor text is RAW is so far out of ball park, or trying to take the attitude that RAW does not stand for Rules As Written but its actually not an acronym but a noun that means something completely different ?
That false equivalence and strawmanning was on you where you brought up that "get ready for war" text. We merely entertained you with the idea that as far as RAW goes, all text is fair game.
Type40 wrote: It's really not that hard to see that this is illogical, I can't be the only person on this forum who thinks flavor and fluff are not RAW.
I can't be the only one on this forum that understands RAW stands for the statement "Rules as Written"
I can't be the only one on this forum that does not think that RaW is somehow its own noun with its own definition that differs from the definition of the statement "Rules as written".
You're the one that's limiting & defining what a "rule" is as per your definition of it's structure, format, and formality (which you go on to break).
Type40 wrote: This isn't even me implying that people think this... All of this has been directly said to me ?
Look through the posts. Whether you think my stance on the subject of this thread is correct or not, are you really going to sit there and tell me that RAW is not an acronym for "rules as written" ? are you really going to try and hold the stance that it is its own proto-noun that means "All that is Written" or "As per Written" ?
Are you really going to tell me that flavor text and fluff are RAW.
Again, strawmanning gets you nowhere, especially when you're the one that's imposing your definition of what a rule is. You don't get to decide that reminder/example text cannot be construed as RAW under the premises that it doesn't fit your criteria/definition of what a rule is because that's not RAW.
Type40 wrote: It's ridiculous... Your not even treating the term Raw as it is a rule as written.
You're currently treating the term "rules as written" as "the obvious interpretation of the written text that fits the criteria of what I define as rules".
Type40 wrote: Seriously, trying to take an attitude where you are saying flavor text is RAW is so far out of ball park, or trying to take the attitude that RAW does not stand for Rules As Written but its actually not an acronym but a noun that means something completely different ?
That false equivalence and strawmanning was on you where you brought up that "get ready for war" text. We merely entertained you with the idea that as far as RAW goes, all text is fair game.
Type40 wrote: It's really not that hard to see that this is illogical, I can't be the only person on this forum who thinks flavor and fluff are not RAW.
I can't be the only one on this forum that understands RAW stands for the statement "Rules as Written"
I can't be the only one on this forum that does not think that RaW is somehow its own noun with its own definition that differs from the definition of the statement "Rules as written".
You're the one that's limiting & defining what a "rule" is as per your definition of it's structure, format, and formality (which you go on to break).
Type40 wrote: This isn't even me implying that people think this... All of this has been directly said to me ?
Look through the posts. Whether you think my stance on the subject of this thread is correct or not, are you really going to sit there and tell me that RAW is not an acronym for "rules as written" ? are you really going to try and hold the stance that it is its own proto-noun that means "All that is Written" or "As per Written" ?
Are you really going to tell me that flavor text and fluff are RAW.
Again, strawmanning gets you nowhere, especially when you're the one that's imposing your definition of what a rule is. You don't get to decide that reminder/example text cannot be construed as RAW under the premises that it doesn't fit your criteria/definition of what a rule is because that's not RAW.
I would hardly call demonstrating where another part of a rules document does not present rules as strawmaning. Especially when my argument is literally "not all of a rules document is rules" . Learn what a strawman argument actually is.
What I can do, and what I am trying to do is have a conversation about how to determine the difference between a presented rule and a piece of explication text. I was halted due to the fact that some people are claiming all text is a rule... This is fundamentally untrue. So I demonstrated that by bringing up flavor text. But somehow people maintained their position to I fact include flavor text.
Some people can't fathom that Raw might only refer to what the designers present as rules. I presented my point to show the absurdity in that.
An absurd assertation warents an absurd counter point.
Don't lecture me on debate terminologies if you don't know what it actually means.
Type40 wrote: It's ridiculous... Your not even treating the term Raw as it is a rule as written.
You're currently treating the term "rules as written" as "the obvious interpretation of the written text that fits the criteria of what I define as rules".
No I am interpreting it as "Rules as written" as in what is objectively a rule, is in fact written. Can you not figure out there is a difference between a regulatory statement and an explintory one?
Go to your room v.s.
Rooms are a place with four walls.
It's not complicated stuff folks, your smarter then this.
The initial question was about explanation / reminder text... not fluff or flavour text.
Explanation / reminder text is part of the Rules as Written. The answer to the topic is that yes, these parts of the rules apply in a RAW discussion. No proto-noun. They are neither fluff, nor flavour.
In the Tau example, the extra shot is neither a case of fluff or flavour. It describes how to resolve the rule. It then gives an example that conflicts with the original rule. As the most recent version of a specific rule, it now updates the RAW.
One can ignore previous conflicting information ie: limiting the extra shot to short range.
This does not change the definition of “Rules as Written”. The argument you present is that example text does not qualify as a “Rule” to adhere to. That does not hold up in an argument regarding the RAW, because your argument requires the belief that that part of the more modern text be ignored in favour of the original text. You’ve presented reasons to do that, and they’re valid real-world reasons. But they hold no merit in a RAW discussion because it needs one to assume the change is unintentional.
I recognize that you’re creating valid real-world arguments to validate your perspective. But like BEDMAS in math, your beliefs and opinions on order of operations don’t matter. There is an accepted format to resolve the problem.
There is an accepted format (though uncoded, to the best of my knowledge) for resolving RAW arguments and your reasoning does not follow that. It does not mean your resolution is invalid, or that it is wrong. It just isn’t the method of resolving a RAW disagreement that is used here, or anywhere I’ve been.
It isn’t personal, though I expect it may feel like it. It likely seems “unfair”, that we assign an arbitrary means of determining the correct RAW resolution. It is the local custom, if that is balming in any way.
I hope this helps to explain the reason that the responses here have tended towards allowing, specifically, example and reminder text in RAW arguments.
But to understand the difference in a game like this, that uses complex language, we first need to understand format and syntax within the game. This isn't about how to see the intention of a rule.. It's how to see what is regulatory and what is explanatory. And it's not even that hard, we are smart people who should be able to figure that out in a single read through.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
greatbigtree wrote: The initial question was about explanation / reminder text... not fluff or flavour text.
Explanation / reminder text is part of the Rules as Written. The answer to the topic is that yes, these parts of the rules apply in a RAW discussion. No proto-noun. They are neither fluff, nor flavour.
In the Tau example, the extra shot is neither a case of fluff or flavour. It describes how to resolve the rule. It then gives an example that conflicts with the original rule. As the most recent version of a specific rule, it now updates the RAW.
One can ignore previous conflicting information ie: limiting the extra shot to short range.
This does not change the definition of “Rules as Written”. The argument you present is that example text does not qualify as a “Rule” to adhere to. That does not hold up in an argument regarding the RAW, because your argument requires the belief that that part of the more modern text be ignored in favour of the original text. You’ve presented reasons to do that, and they’re valid real-world reasons. But they hold no merit in a RAW discussion because it needs one to assume the change is unintentional.
I recognize that you’re creating valid real-world arguments to validate your perspective. But like BEDMAS in math, your beliefs and opinions on order of operations don’t matter. There is an accepted format to resolve the problem.
There is an accepted format (though uncoded, to the best of my knowledge) for resolving RAW arguments and your reasoning does not follow that. It does not mean your resolution is invalid, or that it is wrong. It just isn’t the method of resolving a RAW disagreement that is used here, or anywhere I’ve been.
It isn’t personal, though I expect it may feel like it. It likely seems “unfair”, that we assign an arbitrary means of determining the correct RAW resolution. It is the local custom, if that is balming in any way.
I hope this helps to explain the reason that the responses here have tended towards allowing, specifically, example and reminder text in RAW arguments.
You know what, it's fine, if I ever run into a tfg who wants the extra shot... I'll make them follow it word for word. They don't get to make the shot but they can definitely make a note of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW, thank you greatbigtree for bringing this discussion back on topic. It is ridiculous to be arguing about whether or not RAW actually means rules as written.
BTW, thank you greatbigtree for bringing this discussion back on topic. It is ridiculous to be arguing about whether or not RAW actually means rules as written.
You're the one who led the topic astray noting that it isn't even about the original topic anymore
After going through five pages of discussion and with due consideration, this thread has run its course and is now nothing more than a back and forth that is generating a lot of reports, due to some participants not being able to remain polite.
As always people, please keep in mind that Rule #1, to be polite, is not optional.
)