So I found this little snippet from google on explaining what RAW is during another post.
Spoiler:
Q: The term "rules as written" (or RAW) gets thrown about fairly often in RPG circles, especially around D&D. But what does it actually mean?
Is RAW an analysis technique? A playstyle? An entire parallel game system? What key aspects or attributes would allow one to recognize something as RAW or non-RAW?
A:Rules as written is first-and-foremost an approach to understanding the rules text of a system. As an interpretation of the text, it has the following goals:
Accessibility. A rules-as-written interpretation should be one that anyone reading the rules can come to, and so is based solely in the published rules, without injecting any external knowledge that may be unavailable. Examples of external knowledge that are eschewed include developer commentary (unless that commentary is given official rules-status, as in errata), historical precedence (unless that precedence is found within the rules), narrative concerns, balance concerns, or anyone’s idea of “common sense.”
Universality. A rules-as-written interpretation should be one that everyone who reads the rules text and rigorously applies the literal interpretation of that text (even up to or beyond any limits of absurdity) comes to. If the text is irreconcilably ambiguous, then the RAW interpretation would then be a list various possible interpretations based on different interpretations of any ambiguities.
Officiality. A rules-as-written interpretation should endeavor to incorporate the entirety of the “official rules,” as defined by the game’s publisher, with the exception of those tied explicitly to adjudication by any player or players (e.g. a Game Master).
Thus, the ideal RAW understanding of the rules is one which everyone reading the rules will come to, without needing to know anything outside the rules, and that this understanding is, say, “official-compatible.” This ideal is, of course, rarely achieved. Rules text is often ambiguous, some contextual understanding is simply required to understand any language (and English arguably more so than most), and the official rules may explicitly contradict some of the other goals (i.e. Rule 0, enshrining developer commentary as official, and so on).
The purpose of this exercise is not necessarily for play; while someone could blindly adopt RAW interpretations as the rules they will actually use for a game, and thus RAW could be called a “playstyle,” this is really a twisting of the term. For one thing, it tells us nothing about what the style of play will actually be like, which is the sort of thing that a “playstyle” would ordinarily indicate, and for another, in many cases it’s not actually possible (if for no other reason than that RAW is an ideal to pursue rather than a goal to achieve in many cases).
Rather, the purpose is to facilitate communication about the rules. Historically, rules-as-written approaches to understanding the rules became far more prominent with the rise of the Internet, and that is no coincidence. While RAW interpretations are prone to many, many flaws when it comes to actually playing the game, ideally RAW provides a foundational basis of the rules that everyone can at least agree on. This is important when you are talking with people with whom you have never played, and who bring entirely different assumptions, history, and preferences to the discussion, and there is no one with a DM’s authority to decide things between you. That’s when RAW becomes useful. Online, we can’t make any assumptions about how someone else’s DM will rule, so in a sense, RAW is intended as a way of minimizing assumptions that may not be true (and, when the rules are well-written, it serves this function well—but RAW tends to only get a lot of attention when the rules are not well-written and the RAW is surprising).
Compare this to actually sitting at a table, particularly with a stable group that has played together for a long time. Within individual groups, such a drive for “objective” understanding is unnecessary; the goal within a group is to play a fun game, not necessarily to come to some perfect understanding of the rules text. And when the rules as written offer results that are counterintuitive, imbalanced, or just nonfunctional, you have a DM there to adjudicate things.
The language of the rules, interpreted literally, also becomes a vehicle for changing the rules and communicating those changes—in short, RAW provides a way to understand what the rules are and a language for indicating what your houserules are as well. By using the language of RAW to change the rules of the game (particularly those places where the rules of the game are unsatisfactory as written), the goal is to add clarity to one’s game, and avoid miscommunication and the resulting social fallout that can come with it (arguments about what someone said and what that meant, disappointment or frustration when things don’t work as expected, etc.).
It's a polite enough definition. In my experience RAW serves two purposes:
1) Internet chest thumping to prove how clever you are, because you broke a game, while the other 99.5% of the population simply figured out the intent of the rule and played the game as intended. 2) Abusing poorly worded rules to your advantage, again ignoring the obvious intent of the rule (note the use of the word: obvious) in order to gain an advantage in a game of toy soldiers.
The people who enjoy RAW as a hobby are also why you have three paragraphs of legal and disclaimer scroll on the bottom of every TV commercial.
I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.
I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.
I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
So answer the question, if we're playing tennis, you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
You probably don't get this a lot. But I'm a big fan of how literal you take all the rules. It really helps highlight issues with the game and some of the writing. I, of course, ignore all your rulings and try to get as close to RAI as my opponent and I can get, but I still appreciate the effort you put into tracking the RAW issues.
And to answer the question, I think that's what RAW is. It's taking the written word literally, so you can determine if there are any glaring issues and then deciding if it seems reasonable enough to use RAW or if it needs to be houseruled to the likely intended purpose.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.
I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
So answer the question, if we're playing tennis, you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
A gross misrepresentation of most of your points. I accept the fault, because that is unambiguous and is part of a set of simple rules we have already agreed to follow. Your absurdist examples, however, disregard the presence of ambiguity in the rules, assuming there is only one possible interpretation of them (yours), and anyone who disagrees is "breaking the rules," as opposed to interpreting them differently than you do.
Also, tennis matches often have referees specifically to call things like faults. Similar to TOs. If you said a serve was a fault, and the ref disagreed, would you say that ref was house-ruling something?
The problem with BCB's interpretation is just that; it's HIS interpretation of what the rules say. Sometimes GW agrees, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the community backs him up, sometimes they don't. The problem is that no matter what, the person/GW disagreeing with BCB is ALWAYS wrong (in his eyes). So 1 out of 10 times he'll be right, based on GW and community. The other 9 times he's usually voted down (and to him, it's his way or the highway). So if you want awful rules-lawyering and want to be "That Guy"...listen to him. If you want to enjoy the game, read what he says, see if you agree, and move on. See how the rules are played in the area you're playing; that's the way you play. That goes for the big tournaments as well. If BCB says it's "rule A" and Adepticon says "rule B" and you're playing at Adepticon...you'd better be using their interpretation, or you're gonna have a bad time.
RAW is literally "rules as written"; whatever is on the page.
RAI is the interpretation (IE, EVERYTHING BCB writes) of those rules, regardless of what he'd have you believe.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Except the ball landing in the wrong area beign a fault is the intended result of the rule.
Not letting your opponent use assault weapons after advancing because "ITS NOT RAW!!!!!" is clearly not the intended result of the rule. Why would GW bother to write down this rule and make this class of weapon if it litterally had no purpose? this is the difference.
Youre the bad guy because you refuse to agree (or at least tolerate) how 99% of the playerbase uses rules.
Now im not saying that you dont have a point in that the rules shouldnt be broken like this, and i've used your posts to tell my opponents in real life how "technically this situation isnt legal, how bout that". but never have i applied the obviously not intended result of these broken rules, its more of a fun anecdote to share while smalltalking.
timetowaste85 wrote: The problem with BCB's interpretation is just that; it's HIS interpretation of what the rules say. Sometimes GW agrees, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the community backs him up, sometimes they don't. The problem is that no matter what, the person/GW disagreeing with BCB is ALWAYS wrong (in his eyes). So 1 out of 10 times he'll be right, based on GW and community. The other 9 times he's usually voted down (and to him, it's his way or the highway). So if you want awful rules-lawyering and want to be "That Guy"...listen to him. If you want to enjoy the game, read what he says, see if you agree, and move on. See how the rules are played in the area you're playing; that's the way you play. That goes for the big tournaments as well. If BCB says it's "rule A" and Adepticon says "rule B" and you're playing at Adepticon...you'd better be using their interpretation, or you're gonna have a bad time.
RAW is literally "rules as written"; whatever is on the page.
RAI is the interpretation (IE, EVERYTHING BCB writes) of those rules, regardless of what he'd have you believe.
My entire reasoning system precludes any interpretation or wishful thinking on my part. I parse the rules exactly as they are written.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Except the ball landing in the wrong area beign a fault is the intended result of the rule. Not letting your opponent use assault weapons after advancing because "ITS NOT RAW!!!!!" is clearly not the intended result of the rule. Why would GW bother to write down this rule and make this class of weapon if it litterally had no purpose? this is the difference.
Youre the bad guy because you refuse to agree (or at least tolerate) how 99% of the playerbase uses rules.
Now im not saying that you dont have a point in that the rules shouldnt be broken like this, and i've used your posts to tell my opponents in real life how "technically this situation isnt legal, how bout that". but never have i applied the obviously not intended result of these broken rules, its more of a fun anecdote to share while smalltalking.
If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all? Lack of errata is proof the rule is intended to be the way it is written.
skchsan wrote: At what point do you think RAW ceases to be RAW?
And how would you define the difference between [Rule text] with [RAW]?
Definitionally, RAW never ceases to be RAW. It is that it is, and that's all that it can be.
However, the INSTANT someone reads it, their internalization of the rules becomes RAI (Rules As Interpreted). I would go so far as to argue that even an author's reading of the text is an interpretation, and not a Holy Truth.
But then, I'm something of a philosopher, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: My entire reasoning system precludes any interpretation or wishful thinking on my part. I parse the rules exactly as they are written.
skchsan wrote: At what point do you think RAW ceases to be RAW?
And how would you define the difference between [Rule text] with [RAW]?
Definitionally, RAW never ceases to be RAW. It is that it is, and that's all that it can be.
However, the INSTANT someone reads it, their internalization of the rules becomes RAI (Rules As Interpreted). I would go so far as to argue that even an author's reading of the text is an interpretation, and not a Holy Truth.
But then, I'm something of a philosopher, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt.
So in a technical sense, can RAW ever be truly "modified"? or is it the texts of the rule (subject to the RAW) that gets modified? To say, is RAW simply the method in which we analyze a text or something tangible or intangible that can be modified through additions of erratas/revisions?
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
The edge of the battlefield thing is not a nitpick, it's a fundamental rule that GW should not have forgotten in the first place. The reason 8th edition needs more errata than actual rulebooks is because GW hire bad writers, plain and simple.
I find it hilarious that they decided "we don't need stinking USRs" and then immediately started using USRs and adding in more (FLY, Ignore Wounds, AIRCRAFT, etc).
skchsan wrote: So in a technical sense, can RAW ever be truly "modified"? or is it the texts of the rule that gets modified? To say, is RAW simply the method in which we analyze a text or something tangible or intangible that can be modified through additions of erratas/revisions?
RAW can be updated (FAQs do this) but technically as soon as anyone reads it, it becomes Rule as Interpreted since we are interpreting the RAW and applying it to our games
skchsan wrote: At what point do you think RAW ceases to be RAW?
And how would you define the difference between [Rule text] with [RAW]?
Definitionally, RAW never ceases to be RAW. It is that it is, and that's all that it can be.
However, the INSTANT someone reads it, their internalization of the rules becomes RAI (Rules As Interpreted). I would go so far as to argue that even an author's reading of the text is an interpretation, and not a Holy Truth.
But then, I'm something of a philosopher, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt.
So in a technical sense, can RAW ever be truly "modified"? or is it the texts of the rule (subject to the RAW) that gets modified? To say, is RAW simply the method in which we analyze a text or something tangible or intangible that can be modified through additions of erratas/revisions?
Hmmmm.... I would have to say, at first blush, that RAW is something intangible that we can only interact with through interpretations. Some interpretations may come closer to RAW than others (i.e. allowing Assault weapons to fire is closer than saying Space Marines have 60 wounds), but in the end, RAW is a pure ideal, wholly unattainable, and only something we strive for, rather than something we can ever have.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
no, because your intent is against the rest of the playerbase. No one would let you play with 500 wounds marines, but everyone would let you shoot assault weapons after advancing.
Also , stop bringing up the "crazily buffed stats for my marines " argument, it doesnt prove anything except that youre too stubborn to view other's opinions.
As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.
skchsan wrote: So in a technical sense, can RAW ever be truly "modified"? or is it the texts of the rule that gets modified? To say, is RAW simply the method in which we analyze a text or something tangible or intangible that can be modified through additions of erratas/revisions?
RAW can be updated (FAQs do this) but technically as soon as anyone reads it, it becomes Rule as Interpreted since we are interpreting the RAW and applying it to our games
Yeah it's the rules that get modified, which is then interpreted in a RAW sense, which then becomes RAI, no?
When can we use the term "RAW" in the physical sense as if we were to refer it to some sort of 'baseline interpretation of texts'?
As in, there's clear distinction between the actual physical body of text, and then there is the RAW. Despite, the two gets mingled so often that it's become a pseudo-synonym.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
no, because your intent is against the rest of the playerbase. No one would let you play with 500 wounds marines, but everyone would let you shoot assault weapons after advancing.
Also , stop bringing up the "crazily buffed stats for my marines " argument, it doesnt prove anything except that youre too stubborn to view other's opinions.
As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
Wrong. One "intent" cleaves to an area with ambiguity and evidence, if circumstantial, for one interpretation over another, whereas your false-equivalence has no ambiguity and no evidence to support it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
The rules may not be a democracy. The game we play using them very much is.
BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
BaconCatBug wrote: The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
Look, man. We clearly disagree on how we view the rules. But i'd rather go with the flow and paly the game rather than spend my time being pedantic about "ACKHUALLY the rules say..".
I agree with you on the fact that the rules are poorly writte, i disagree on the way you communicate this to other players. You dont have force your point of view down everyone's throat, not everything is a contest, you dont have to win every argument.
As many have said before, you should really step back and cut warhammer from your like since it clearly isnt enjoyable for you.
[...]
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Thus, the ideal RAW understanding of the rules is one which everyone reading the rules will come to, without needing to know anything outside the rules, and that this understanding is, say, “official-compatible.” This ideal is, of course, rarely achieved. Rules text is often ambiguous, some contextual understanding is simply required to understand any language (and English arguably more so than most), and the official rules may explicitly contradict some of the other goals (i.e. Rule 0, enshrining developer commentary as official, and so on).
If it's not difficult, then why is a valid RAW interpretation so rarely possible (across all tabletop games)?
Bharring wrote: If it's not difficult, then why is a valid RAW interpretation so rarely possible (across all tabletop games)?
Because Tabletop games are a niche market, they cannot afford (or claim to not be able to, GW is rolling in piles of money right now, that's what happens when you sell 50 pence of plastic for £100) to hire good writers.
Elbows wrote: BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
I have to say though BCB's often overly hunted over (often justified, but that's besides the point), but the points he bring up are real issues requiring further intervention via RAInterpreted in order for the said rule to work in a real game.
This further blurs the practical usage of RAW because RAW is never truly RAW, but once removed RAInterpreted.
Which goes back to the point - is it actually practical for us to call RAW as RAW? Or should it be called something else entirely?
Elbows wrote: BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
I have to say though BCB's often overly hunted over (often justified, but that's besides the point), but the points he bring up are real issues requiring further intervention via RAInterpreted in order for the said rule to work in a real game.
This further blurs the practical usage of RAW because RAW is never truly RAW, but once removed RAInterpreted.
Which goes back to the point - is it actually practical for us to call RAW as RAW? Or should it be called something else entirely?
I think it's USEFUL to be aware of the ideal we're reaching toward, and RAW is as good a term for that as anything, I suppose. It may not be terribly practical, though.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
Not at all.
You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each.
I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).
In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".
So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
Bharring wrote: Fun factoid: The MLB rulebook is 184 pages. These are rules for playing Baseball, not for running a league.
And MTG 's comprehensive rules is 232 pages long. Writing solid rules isnt an wasy task, and the more rules you add, the harder it is to havbe a solid ruleset.
BaconCatBug wrote: The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
Last time i checked Language is sort of a democracy in that the way words are interpreted change over time depending on how the majority of people use it.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
Not at all.
You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each. I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).
In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".
So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
So you're literally saying that you need to follow the rules because it's the only objective method? Glad you agree with me.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
Not at all.
You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each.
I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).
In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".
So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
So you're literally saying that you need to follow the rules because it's the only objective method? Glad you agree with me.
Well, the act of following a rule involves a certain degree of interpretation of the given text. At which time, is it truly RAW or is it actually RAI(interpreted)?
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
Not at all.
You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each.
I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).
In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".
So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
So you're literally saying that you need to follow the rules because it's the only objective method? Glad you agree with me.
That is some gold-medal-worthy, Olympic-level mental gymnastics.
Elbows wrote: BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
Elbows wrote: BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
I have to say though BCB's often overly hunted over (often justified, but that's besides the point), but the points he bring up are real issues requiring further intervention via RAInterpreted in order for the said rule to work in a real game.
This further blurs the practical usage of RAW because RAW is never truly RAW, but once removed RAInterpreted.
Which goes back to the point - is it actually practical for us to call RAW as RAW? Or should it be called something else entirely?
As a game designer myself, I can easily point fingers at GW. Their writing is quite poor and they lack a style book, and definitely don't invest in technical editing. However, even with cleaned up and technically proficient writing, no wargame will ever feature 100% correct rules...because a reader or consumer is always able to go one step deeper in the "well, what do they mean by..." zone.
This is akin to the old study where someone was able to make an obnoxiously lengthy document on how to assemble a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. This was done for entertainment value, but it highlighted how much we take for granted using simple instructions. Even with cleaned up rules writing, if GW wanted a 100% RAW correct document, the rulebook could be 3,400 pages. There becomes a finite point where any rules writer or instructional writer must surrender to the common sense of the consumer and go on faith that they are a functioning and literate adult capable of parsing out the general purpose of the statement.
If I say "take a slice of bread and put peanut butter on one side"...this is understandable to an average adult, right?
What I didn't say was:
1) Using your hands and fingers obtain the package of bread.
2) Grip the package of bread in one hand, careful not to crush the contents - apply only the pressure needed to hold the package securely without deforming the contents' physical shape and structure
3) Manipulate the twist-tie using two of your fingers until it becomes free from the bag and falls to the counter top
4) Manipulate the package so that the open end is upward and you can physically reach into the package using one of your hands.
5) Using the muscle control in your hand, and several fingers, carefully pick one slice of bread between your fingers, careful again not to crush it
6) Using an upward motion extract the single slice of bread from the package and place it carefully on a provided plate
etc.
It's a absurd example, and I would have missed 1,000 additional steps you could apply in that same time...but it highlights how crazy any instruction could become. As someone who playtests a ton of games, I've never seen a perfectly written game...ever. GW is at the lower end of the spectrum from the stuff I've read and playtested, but the intent is almost always clear and playing the game without hiccups is possible and reasonable.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
Not at all.
You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each.
I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).
In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".
So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
So you're literally saying that you need to follow the rules because it's the only objective method? Glad you agree with me.
No; the point is that, objectively, fancy RAW arguments without consensus are less valid than simplistic RAI assumptions with consensus.
BaconCatBug wrote: The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
Last time i checked Language is sort of a democracy in that the way words are interpreted change over time depending on how the majority of people use it.
Not at all:
US Constitution wrote:
The Congress shall have Power To [...]
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
[...]
Piracy now means IP violations. The Constitution gives Congress to define and punish people hijacking other boats, not the power to define and punish listening to music you didn't pay for.
It is a "sort of democracy" in that it means what those conversing in it agree, but the meaning of a conversation doesn't change after the fact when the words used change meaning.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.
I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
So answer the question, if we're playing tennis, you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
He's saying if you're playing football and discover and interpretation that you argue allows you to underinflate the football.
RAW is an interpretation. It may or may not be correct. When RAW conflicts with RAI then troubles begin.
Having said that, I agree rules can be made less difficult, with effort. But that costs money and may cost enjoyment.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Except the ball landing in the wrong area beign a fault is the intended result of the rule.
Not letting your opponent use assault weapons after advancing because "ITS NOT RAW!!!!!" is clearly not the intended result of the rule. Why would GW bother to write down this rule and make this class of weapon if it litterally had no purpose? this is the difference.
Youre the bad guy because you refuse to agree (or at least tolerate) how 99% of the playerbase uses rules.
Now im not saying that you dont have a point in that the rules shouldnt be broken like this, and i've used your posts to tell my opponents in real life how "technically this situation isnt legal, how bout that". but never have i applied the obviously not intended result of these broken rules, its more of a fun anecdote to share while smalltalking.
Lets not make this personal with someone "being the bad guy."
Frazzled wrote: He's saying if you're playing football and discover and interpretation that you argue allows you to underinflate the football.
RAW is an interpretation. It may or may not be correct. When RAW conflicts with RAI then troubles begin.
Having said that, I agree rules can be made less difficult, with effort. But that costs money and may cost enjoyment.
I never understood the anger about that. The rules allowed them to do so. I assume if the NFL doesn't want them doing that, they changed the rule?
Deflating/underinflating the ball make it significantly easier to catch. So, no, you're not allowed to deflate your ball. This is actually a major violation of rules and you're fined/suspended.
But unlike the current discussion, regulation has a clear cut regulations, must be inflated to certain PSI, then manually checked by the ref prior to the start of the game.
On the other hand if the regulations have read, "the ball must be inflated to a reasonable amount", one can argue, "well, exactly how much is "reasonable amount?""
In this case, can we clearly define the given ruleset, the RAW of the said ruleset, and the allowable degree in which one can RAI?
Oh, this is some seriously arrogant horse manure. EVERYONE'S reading is an interpretation, even yours, .
Of course it is. This is the entire basis of the legal profession. The only time a law or administrative rule is settled, is when it has been adjudicated to the highest ruling body available. ASGW does not have ruling bodies for interpretation outside of FAQs, questions remain questions and completely matters of interpretation. Indeed, one could argue that there is no such thing as RAW, only RAI (rules as interpreted).
As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
That is an incorrect statement. The game is a voluntary association. If a rule interpretation is not supported by the player base, the player base won't play it. If you go against that support, you will discover the democracy inherent in the system when you find no one will play against you.
As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
That is an incorrect statement. The game is a voluntary association. If a rule interpretation is not supported by the player base, the player base won't play it. If you go against that support, you will discover the democracy inherent in the system when you find no one will play against you.
When dealing with RAW in contracts, in the real world, intent means nothing. If you put something in writing then that is how the contract is interpreted. If there are contradictions and/or ambiguities then they are interpreted in favor of the person who did not write the contract.
Do I expect GW, or any game manufacturer, to use lawyer level proof readers and editors? No. But that doesn't mean that the mind set of the reader shouldn't be set at that level. When someone says, "it's obvious that..." and another person says that it's something different then it's not obvious. Some of the things that BCB points out could easily be fixed by GW just adding or changing a few words.
Technically BCB is correct in that since GW has posted numerous FAQs and Errata if GW is silent on something then they meant what they wrote. Thus if you are insisting on RAW games then you should be aware of his signature and talk out the resolutions to the game (at that point you may or may not be playing the game RAW but you will be playing some version of 40K).
Did some cleaning, warnings have been issued, I would like to remind all participants of the great state of Dakka Dakka that Rule #1, to be polite, is not optional.
Any further reports will be dealt with accordingly.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: When dealing with RAW in contracts, in the real world, intent means nothing. If you put something in writing then that is how the contract is interpreted. If there are contradictions and/or ambiguities then they are interpreted in favor of the person who did not write the contract.
This is not entirely true. In some cases judges rule against the wording of contracts. For instance, in terms of service it has at times been ruled that a clause was unreasonable, given the context of a long terms of service for a relatively mundane product. Although the language is clear and it is undisputed that the contract was agreed to.
This is because judges are given scope to look at context and common sense to interpret the law.
The same should be done with the rules of a game, more so as it is written less rigorously. Context and common sense are often more important than what is actually written.
BaconCatBug wrote: Lack of errata is proof the rule is intended to be the way it is written.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If I intend to spray a model green, and accidentally grab the blue spray, the fact that the model winds up blue is an accident. It's intended to be green.
If I leave it sitting on the bench for three and a half years before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I spray a whole bunch of other models before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I fix another model that I similarly sprayed incorrectly, and don't fix this one, it's still intended to be green.
If I never get around to fixing it, and archaeologists find it in my dark and dusty workroom in a thousand years time, it's still intended to be green.
BaconCatBug wrote: Lack of errata is proof the rule is intended to be the way it is written.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If I intend to spray a model green, and accidentally grab the blue spray, the fact that the model winds up blue is an accident. It's intended to be green.
If I leave it sitting on the bench for three and a half years before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I spray a whole bunch of other models before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I fix another model that I similarly sprayed incorrectly, and don't fix this one, it's still intended to be green.
If I never get around to fixing it, and archaeologists find it in my dark and dusty workroom in a thousand years time, it's still intended to be green.
The rules are no different.
Great comparison. Its clearly intended for assault to be able to shoot after advancing (i keep using this example since its the most egregious one). The fact that these rules havnt been errata'd probably stem from the fact that either no one has told GW (after all, the fact that it doesnt work in the RAW is a weird wording) or that GW thinks that one guys arguing for it doesnt warrant being put in a FAQ since the intent is obvious.
Lets not forget the "i cant believe you guys were arguing about this" message that GW put in the latest FAQ
BaconCatBug wrote: Lack of errata is proof the rule is intended to be the way it is written.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If I intend to spray a model green, and accidentally grab the blue spray, the fact that the model winds up blue is an accident. It's intended to be green. If I leave it sitting on the bench for three and a half years before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green. If I spray a whole bunch of other models before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green. If I fix another model that I similarly sprayed incorrectly, and don't fix this one, it's still intended to be green. If I never get around to fixing it, and archaeologists find it in my dark and dusty workroom in a thousand years time, it's still intended to be green.
The rules are no different.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If you intend it for be green and don't change it, how am I supposed to know what your intent is, especially if you've already changed your models colour in the past?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: Yes, it has become very clear from the tone of errata that GW expect common sense to be applied to the rules.
And who gets to decide what is and isn't common sense?
BaconCatBug wrote: Lack of errata is proof the rule is intended to be the way it is written.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If I intend to spray a model green, and accidentally grab the blue spray, the fact that the model winds up blue is an accident. It's intended to be green.
If I leave it sitting on the bench for three and a half years before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I spray a whole bunch of other models before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I fix another model that I similarly sprayed incorrectly, and don't fix this one, it's still intended to be green.
If I never get around to fixing it, and archaeologists find it in my dark and dusty workroom in a thousand years time, it's still intended to be green.
The rules are no different.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If you intend it for be green and don't change it, how am I supposed to know what your intent is, especially if you've already changed your models colour in the past?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: Yes, it has become very clear from the tone of errata that GW expect common sense to be applied to the rules.
And who gets to decide what is and isn't common sense?
Spoiler:
No you
at this point its almost obvious that you are trolling with your childlike responses.
If the majority of the playerbase agrees on something then its quite obvious that this should be treated as the intended way to play. its called Common sense for a reason.
I am interested in starting a related topic later this evening. I wonder if Dakka could create a process for determining the raw. How to prioritize information, what information is valid, that sort of thing.
Defining how we arrive at a RAW interpretation could help to eliminate some of the heat we generate.
I think the main problem here is the differing opinions on what RAW means.
It seems like a common occurrence where people freely interchange RAW to mean 1. THE actual, literal text and 2. literal interpretation of the text.
According to the poll I think most of us here agree that RAW is nonetheless a form of an interpretation made within a certain boundaries/rules of its own.
If you intend it for be green and don't change it, how am I supposed to know what your intent is, especially if you've already changed your models colour in the past?
That would depend on the situation. But ultimately, unless I actually tell you my intention was for it to be green, you're not going to know. You can be fairly sure if there are indications that it would be likely, like, say, if it's a Dark Angels tactical squad model, and the other 9 models are green...)
Which, again, is exactly the same for rules.
The problem you keep running into is that you expect there to be a 'correct way to play' written in stone, and that's just not how the game actually works. You're absolutely correct that we generally can't say with 100% certainty what the writer intended. What we can do, as players, is look at the fact that the rules as written lead somewhere absurd and decide for ourselves what we think was intended, and decide from there how to actually play it based on what makes sense to us and our opponents.
Because, ultimately, the rules are a 'democracy'. We play the game with other people, and so we have to agree with them how to play. And that quite often results in not playing strictly by the written rules, for various reasons.
If you intend it for be green and don't change it, how am I supposed to know what your intent is, especially if you've already changed your models colour in the past?
That would depend on the situation. But ultimately, unless I actually tell you my intention was for it to be green, you're not going to know. You can be fairly sure if there are indications that it would be likely, like, say, if it's a Dark Angels tactical squad model, and the other 9 models are green...)
Which, again, is exactly the same for rules.
The problem you keep running into is that you expect there to be a 'correct way to play' written in stone, and that's just not how the game actually works. You're absolutely correct that we generally can't say with 100% certainty what the writer intended. What we can do, as players, is look at the fact that the rules as written lead somewhere absurd and decide for ourselves what we think was intended, and decide from there how to actually play it based on what makes sense to us and our opponents.
Because, ultimately, the rules are a 'democracy'. We play the game with other people, and so we have to agree with them how to play. And that quite often results in not playing strictly by the written rules, for various reasons.
And that is where I disagree. If you want to make up house rules, fair enough, but don't try and claim that your house rules are what the authors "intended". A game that cannot be played without ignoring the rules is a poorly written game, and by any metric (reasonable or otherwise), 40k 8th edition is a poorly written game.
It's either ok to ignore all the rules, or none of them. There is no middle ground that can remain logically consistent.
If you intend it for be green and don't change it, how am I supposed to know what your intent is, especially if you've already changed your models colour in the past?
This is the problem with a lack of adjudicable authority. We don't know.
The problem arises when a large consensus develops on what something means. Others who don't interpret it that way, conflict, and thus we get the social downside of TFG or "rules lawyer" applied. Sure, they are, but that doesn't mean they are wrong or have a reasonable claim to make. After all, there are rarely "gamer's notes" on what the intent was when written.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: GW does not "fix" the assault rules because they work just right and fixing them would make right internet slugboys like BCB
Again, we are discussing philosophy here and mod warning shave already occurred. Lets ixnay on the personal comments eh?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: When dealing with RAW in contracts, in the real world, intent means nothing. If you put something in writing then that is how the contract is interpreted. If there are contradictions and/or ambiguities then they are interpreted in favor of the person who did not write the contract.
Not true. Intentions matter, the words do not. Signing the contract shows *intent* to be bound by the terms.
The intent of the actors in a case can't really be known. The courts use a "reasonable person" standard - what would a reasonable person considering the events and documents believe the intent to be.
It's hard to argue that you didn't intend to be bound by the terms of a contract that you signed. Very hard. The terms carry much more weight than your claim of your intent. But it's still the court's understanding of the intent (of both parties) that matters, not the wording.
Do I expect GW, or any game manufacturer, to use lawyer level proof readers and editors? No. But that doesn't mean that the mind set of the reader shouldn't be set at that level. When someone says, "it's obvious that..." and another person says that it's something different then it's not obvious. Some of the things that BCB points out could easily be fixed by GW just adding or changing a few words.
What are lawyers if not experts in haggling and finagling a complex rulesset?
Technically BCB is correct in that since GW has posted numerous FAQs and Errata if GW is silent on something then they meant what they wrote. Thus if you are insisting on RAW games then you should be aware of his signature and talk out the resolutions to the game (at that point you may or may not be playing the game RAW but you will be playing some version of 40K).
This is great evidence that, by Voice of God, Guardsmen are intended to be 4ppm. It's not so great to show that GW intended Assault weapons to be unable to firing after Advancing.
If anything, the tone and nature of their FAQs support RAI-heavy interpretations.
If you intend it for be green and don't change it, how am I supposed to know what your intent is, especially if you've already changed your models colour in the past?
That would depend on the situation. But ultimately, unless I actually tell you my intention was for it to be green, you're not going to know. You can be fairly sure if there are indications that it would be likely, like, say, if it's a Dark Angels tactical squad model, and the other 9 models are green...)
Which, again, is exactly the same for rules.
The problem you keep running into is that you expect there to be a 'correct way to play' written in stone, and that's just not how the game actually works. You're absolutely correct that we generally can't say with 100% certainty what the writer intended. What we can do, as players, is look at the fact that the rules as written lead somewhere absurd and decide for ourselves what we think was intended, and decide from there how to actually play it based on what makes sense to us and our opponents.
Because, ultimately, the rules are a 'democracy'. We play the game with other people, and so we have to agree with them how to play. And that quite often results in not playing strictly by the written rules, for various reasons.
And that is where I disagree. If you want to make up house rules, fair enough, but don't try and claim that your house rules are what the authors "intended". A game that cannot be played without ignoring the rules is a poorly written game, and by any metric (reasonable or otherwise), 40k 8th edition is a poorly written game.
It's either ok to ignore all the rules, or none of them. There is no middle ground that can remain logically consistent.
The practical difficulty with this is twofold:
1. Most interpretations are not "this doesn't work, lets do this." They are realistic interpretations of what the rule means., Players are not ignoring rules, but using the rules as they believe the rule is correct.
2. Sometimes #1 is wrong, and you really do have to play a rule in a certain manner to make the game playable.
Stux wrote: Yes, it has become very clear from the tone of errata that GW expect common sense to be applied to the rules.
And who gets to decide what is and isn't common sense?
The people playing the game at that time.
I know you want some absolute baseline, and see that in RAW. But you don't have it. There countless instances of the RAW being inconsistent and still requiring a common sense judgement to actually play the game. You collect such inconsistencies. This kind of collaboration is a necessity of the game, not something to be afraid of.
I agree with the article for the most part. I have to say though: The title of this post should have been: Let's poke BCB with a stick and see what happens. This whole thing just feels like an excuse to continue an argument from several locked threads.
BaconCatBug wrote: And that is where I disagree. If you want to make up house rules, fair enough, but don't try and claim that your house rules are what the authors "intended".
OK, I won't do that in any game I play against you.
For the rest of the time, from 25 years of playing this game, it's been my experience that most players are happy to entertain the idea that the rules don't always say what they were supposed to say.
A game that cannot be played without ignoring the rules is a poorly written game, and by any metric (reasonable or otherwise), 40k 8th edition is a poorly written game.
Sure. So you don't play the game, and the game is poor. Remind us again why you're even here?
At the end of the day, sure, it would be great if the rules were written to be air-tight (preferably without also being 17 volumes)... but that's not what we have. The very fact that the rules are written rather loosely is what requires us to apply our own interpretation and go with what we think the writer intended where the written rule makes sense.
Your hardline RAW stance would make a lot more sense if 40K was the game you want it to be. It's not.
MattKing wrote: I agree with the article for the most part. I have to say though: The title of this post should have been: Let's poke BCB with a stick and see what happens. This whole thing just feels like an excuse to continue an argument from several locked threads.
No the thread absolutely is not meant to be a continuation of a locked thread nor is it anti-BCB parade.
Its meant to address the fundamental disagreement that pervades and infests the posts at YMDC because this is an issue at a philosophical level. What IS RAW? And is there a common ground where we can agree upon without every post BCB is involved (sorry mate) turning into a slugfest of the absolutes and relatives?
The truth of the matter is RAW =! actual written text. RAW is nevertheless an interpretation that is literal to a fault - it is biasedly non-partisan. It serves as a basis for a rules debate, and while it CAN be sometimes absolute (as in there is only 1 possible interpretation), but more often than not there are multiple valid interpretation of a given text.
To argue that RAW is absolute law is absurd as is claiming RAI is RAW.
MattKing wrote: I agree with the article for the most part. I have to say though: The title of this post should have been: Let's poke BCB with a stick and see what happens. This whole thing just feels like an excuse to continue an argument from several locked threads.
No the thread absolutely is not meant to be a continuation of a locked thread nor is it anti-BCB parade.
Its meant to address the fundamental disagreement that pervades and infests the posts at YMDC because this is an issue at a philosophical level. What IS RAW? And is there a common ground where we can agree upon without every post BCB is involved (sorry mate) turning into a slugfest of the absolutes and relatives?
The truth of the matter is RAW =! actual written text. RAW is nevertheless an interpretation that is literal to a fault - it is biasedly non-partisan. It serves as a basis for a rules debate, and while it CAN be sometimes absolute (as in there is only 1 possible interpretation), but more often than not there are multiple valid interpretation of a given text.
The 40k rules writing has sucked since I have started I remeber SM had a bunch of fun feth up's in 7th like catparaci terminator armor on a motorcyle captains and Shrike being a broken mess. Sure it is easy to tell how the rules were meant to work their but the rules were pretty clearly saying something else. 8th due to having way less rules has less interactions like these but still has alot more then other big company's rules books like pathfinder witch is annoying when they are charging an arm and a leg for them.
BaconCatBug wrote: And who gets to decide what is and isn't common sense?
This is why we require a consensus to actually play the game.
That is nice. We have two version of the same saying here, one says that when there are two people there are three opinions , and another is where you have two people you have 3 politicial parties. Consensus is somehing unachivable in practical sense. At best you can force people to play the game a certain way, which mean forcing a specific type of interpretation. Plus there are always going to be regional differences. In british and kin law and rules systems, everything that is not forbiden is okey. In eastern europe the closer you get to Russia the only thing that is not forbiden is the thing law says it is not. This makes people approech any rule or a rule query in a different way. Then there is stuff like what is the source of rules and law. In the west it seems possible for a rule or law to be created by people for themselfs . Here rules and laws are things that come from the outside. Meaning that changing the rules on a game to game basis is very hard to impossible.
At the end of the day, sure, it would be great if the rules were written to be air-tight (preferably without also being 17 volumes)... but that's not what we have. The very fact that the rules are written rather loosely is what requires us to apply our own interpretation and go with what we think the writer intended where the written rule makes sense.
And we are back to cultural differences then. Because I am guessing in some places people, when faced with a problem in a game, change the rule in a such a way that it makes fun for both people. Now for me this is hard to imagine, because the natural instinct here is to screw the other person over, as it is not just worth to deal with the other person idea of fun, considering how long people play the game and how much it costs. For example in my situation, the people at my school that made me join w40k mostly are no longer playing , or play other games by now. All the time they did play, someone else fun was never a concern. IMO they got a lot more out of their game time, then someone here who would try making games fun, what ever that means, for everyone.
Stux wrote:Yes, it has become very clear from the tone of errata that GW expect common sense to be applied to the rules.
wait, common sense, what is this sense and why is it so common?
rather uncommon.
BCB is a rules lawyer, you can hire them to make all of your RAW/RAI decisions for you.
They may not be the correct ones or even ones that you wanted, but you'll get something all right.
The problem though is when common sense for certain areas are direct opposits. For example what are the advice to someone who plays an unfun, be it too good or too bad, army in the US? Wait and see, buy in to something new, start playing a new game, try out ally to change things up.
Now imagine a place where switching armies is too costly. Then all the advice drop to L2P level and aren't very helpful. Same works the other way around as someone pointed out to me here. When an avarge army has a higher cost then an avarge monthly salary in your area, the idea what is playable, played and what is a casual meta are very different. yet both places would be running under same set of rules. And if those rules are ambiguous, or require type of interactions that are common only to one area, then someone is going to be unhappy.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you want to make up house rules, fair enough, but don't try and claim that your house rules are what the authors "intended".
...
It's either ok to ignore all the rules, or none of them. There is no middle ground that can remain logically consistent.
Of course you should play RAI when there's an obvious textual mistake in RAW. Show me one gaming club, GW store or tournament that plays your RAW interpretation of the assault weapons rule. This is literally only an argument that exists on the internet and not IRL.
BaconCatBug wrote: And who gets to decide what is and isn't common sense?
This is why we require a consensus to actually play the game.
That is nice. We have two version of the same saying here, one says that when there are two people there are three opinions , and another is where you have two people you have 3 politicial parties. Consensus is somehing unachivable in practical sense. At best you can force people to play the game a certain way, which mean forcing a specific type of interpretation. Plus there are always going to be regional differences. In british and kin law and rules systems, everything that is not forbiden is okey. In eastern europe the closer you get to Russia the only thing that is not forbiden is the thing law says it is not. This makes people approech any rule or a rule query in a different way. Then there is stuff like what is the source of rules and law. In the west it seems possible for a rule or law to be created by people for themselfs . Here rules and laws are things that come from the outside. Meaning that changing the rules on a game to game basis is very hard to impossible.
At the end of the day, sure, it would be great if the rules were written to be air-tight (preferably without also being 17 volumes)... but that's not what we have. The very fact that the rules are written rather loosely is what requires us to apply our own interpretation and go with what we think the writer intended where the written rule makes sense.
And we are back to cultural differences then. Because I am guessing in some places people, when faced with a problem in a game, change the rule in a such a way that it makes fun for both people. Now for me this is hard to imagine, because the natural instinct here is to screw the other person over, as it is not just worth to deal with the other person idea of fun, considering how long people play the game and how much it costs. For example in my situation, the people at my school that made me join w40k mostly are no longer playing , or play other games by now. All the time they did play, someone else fun was never a concern. IMO they got a lot more out of their game time, then someone here who would try making games fun, what ever that means, for everyone.
Stux wrote:Yes, it has become very clear from the tone of errata that GW expect common sense to be applied to the rules.
wait, common sense, what is this sense and why is it so common?
rather uncommon.
BCB is a rules lawyer, you can hire them to make all of your RAW/RAI decisions for you.
They may not be the correct ones or even ones that you wanted, but you'll get something all right.
The problem though is when common sense for certain areas are direct opposits. For example what are the advice to someone who plays an unfun, be it too good or too bad, army in the US? Wait and see, buy in to something new, start playing a new game, try out ally to change things up.
Now imagine a place where switching armies is too costly. Then all the advice drop to L2P level and aren't very helpful. Same works the other way around as someone pointed out to me here. When an avarge army has a higher cost then an avarge monthly salary in your area, the idea what is playable, played and what is a casual meta are very different. yet both places would be running under same set of rules. And if those rules are ambiguous, or require type of interactions that are common only to one area, then someone is going to be unhappy.
Hey 14 year old polish kid. Your English language skills in both structure and forming an argument has come on leaps.and bounds.
I can safely reassure you all that Raw and Rai doesn't exist At least, not with in the usual sense.
It's an old and boring semiotic topic, but to summarize it, a "proper" Raw may exist only in specific symbolic language whose terms are completely and internally defined (for example: formal logic, math, a programming language).
Any natural language (English or any other) relies on a "circular" definition, where any words is explained by words whose are explained by other words and so on (like in a vocabulary).
So, in a formalized language any interpretation of symbols is based on Raw, and only Raw is possible.
In any natural language Rai, and only Rai, is possible.
This, for example, explain why laws are written the way they are. Or why it is so difficult for a computer to interact with natural language.
A fun consequence (since we are communicating by a natural language) is that the proper semiotic definition of Raw and Rai are free to be interpreted by anyone, hence we can explain why the term Raw is improperly used in those discussions
Finally, about the idea that there should be a "consensus" or those interpretation differences otherwise will be impossible to communicate at all...
You have to consider that language is an emergent structure. As a temperature is an average of movement, and does not change if a few molecule move in a direction or another, so a language doesn't stop working if here and there some interpretation or use differs.
It's pretty all semiotic 101, really.
P.S: want to have a "pure" Raw Warhammer (or any other game?) It's pretty easy: translate all the rules into a symbolical systems, one where you have preemptively defined any symbol you will ever use. With the USR they where on the only right path (probably without knowing it).
P.P.S: I also don't think authorial stance is needed for interpretation, since the semiotic space is oriented towards the reader and not the writer. But I don't think we should go down the rabbit hole of a pure semiotic discussion
Galas wrote: GW does not "fix" the assault rules because they work just right and fixing them would make right internet slugboys like BCB
I really feel that they do not put in their FAQ because it is not frequently asked. I have never met a player over a game who had the slightest problem with this so-called rule conundrum. I mean really, has anyone ever had a problem with this coming up in an actual game?
This brings me to my main point of contention with a certain attitude to RAW - which is that it gets very artificial and very detached from the actual playing of the game.
After the latest FAQ I was discussing something on another forum and someone was quite forcefully putting the point forward that the FAQ game me clear permission to use a special rule but it did not give me permission to declare the use of my special rule - so I could not actually use it because that would require me to declare it. When someone argues something like that they have gone deep down the rabbit hole of RAW into uselessness.
The context of the rules is to be used as a guide to playing a game, whenever any analysis of the rules loses sight of that context it rapidly drops in usefulness and quite possibly becomes actually harmful to the process of understanding how to play the game. Ultra-literal RAW is about textual analysis not about analysing how the game is played, this is a fundamentally flawed approach.
Stux wrote: Yes, it has become very clear from the tone of errata that GW expect common sense to be applied to the rules.
And who gets to decide what is and isn't common sense?
The people who actually play the game. I've been playing wargames for over 20 years, with varying levels of quality in the rules writing, and one thing that I'm struck by is that in the real world I've never come across a situation where a game has just ground to a halt because of a rules argument. There have been discussions, and these have sometimes been over non-ambiguous rules that are nevertheless not being played strictly RAW because it simply doesn't make sense to do so. What's particularly striking is that the rules that tend to cause the most debate aren't ones like the current assault weapon rules which are technically not ambiguous but are also universally not played as written. The rules that cause debates are ones that are genuinely ambiguous, with multiple interpretations possible. Even in those cases the game continues to function because it's ultimately a democracy between the players and in situations like tournaments TOs exist to make final rulings where needed.
I don't think we can have a complete definition of RAW in the way the OP is asking for, certainly not as it pertains to GW games. We might be able to form some philosophical ur-RAW definition but in order for it to have any practical application the game in question would have to also subscribe to that definition, or a close approximation. The current 40k rules are simply not written in such a formalised and structured way to allow us to apply a strict definition of what is and isn't RAW. The thread in YMDC about whether reminder text is RAW is a perfect example. GW don't properly define which parts of a given text are rules and which parts aren't because they have no formal definition in place.
In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question. Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.
Even before BCB joined dakka, there were plenty of RAW-purist, but the arguments usually revolved around ambiguous rules (often from different editions) providing multiple possible ways to play them, with RAW being used as a tool to find the correct way to play it (or to argue for the more/less powerful interpretation). No one argued that the game didn't actually work (except G.W.A.R. who might even be the same person as BCB). For example, in 5th edition no one argued that Tyrant Guard or similar models couldn't shoot outside of silly anecdotes. BCB would have told everyone on every thread that their were actually not following the rules because their models didn't have any eyes (insert picture with googly eyed Tyranids here).
If there is objectively only one way to interpret a rule, that interpretation is RAW. BCB's way to "parse" rules is just another interpretation, no matter what he says.
In general I don't mind BCB's adding his view on what RAW is. I do mind him intentionally confusing players seeking help with rules, lying about what RAW is despite his argument being disproven in earlier threats, making dishonest arguments just to be right and in general throwing false analogies, straw men and other logical fallacies at anyone disagreeing with him, rather than actually arguing the points those people make.
Writing nontrivial rulessets perfectly is virtually impossible.
Magic the Gathering has a rules set without any holes or ambiguity in it and has been that way for over a decade. Its complexity is pretty similar to that of Warhammer 40k.
Its sorta sad that Raw vs Rai Comes up so often :(
From my own view i always try and play games As close to Written as i can understand them.
I think over the years, it has just been shown that GW is as a whole really just not very good at organizing a good ruleset.
Its often confusing even without the Raw vs Rai debates, and there simplificaition of the system i think has made the system more complicated.
And i often wonder if there Raw vs Rai debate comes up more due to just poor written rules outside of what specific rules say.
BaconCatBug wrote: The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do. You know this as well as I do.
Does the main rulebook specifically state this is a permissive ruleset? I'm genuinely asking, I don't have my book with me today.
There recently was a post by yakface about this on YMDC. Is basically boils down that every rule set for any tabletop game is permissive by definition, because you cannot define a game with a restrictive ruleset.
I do mind him intentionally confusing players seeking help with rules, lying about what RAW is despite his argument being disproven in earlier threats, making dishonest arguments just to be right and in general throwing false analogies, straw men and other logical fallacies at anyone disagreeing with him, rather than actually arguing the points those people make.
This is my biggest problem with many of the threads on YMDC in general. I've had two fairly new players in my area tell me in the last month or so that they've been confused by that forum and found it unhelpful and I can understand why. To me YMDC should primarily be a resource to help players answer rules questions, but many threads turn into endless arguments over minutiae or points of principle that simply aren't important, or they're just downright confusing. It often fails to help people actually looking for help. RAW is important, but often as a starting point, not the end point of a discussion.
That's also why I argued earlier that some over-arching definition of RAW isn't what we should be aiming for. Given how GW write their rules I don't think it's possible to provide a workable definition for GW games anyway. We shouldn't be trying to define terms so we can indulge in some kind of formalised logic discussion detached from the reality of playing the game in YMDC, as that isn't what that forum should be for, despite how many recent threads have turned out.
Karol wrote: And we are back to cultural differences then. Because I am guessing in some places people, when faced with a problem in a game, change the rule in a such a way that it makes fun for both people. Now for me this is hard to imagine, because the natural instinct here is to screw the other person over, as it is not just worth to deal with the other person idea of fun, considering how long people play the game and how much it costs. For example in my situation, the people at my school that made me join w40k mostly are no longer playing , or play other games by now. All the time they did play, someone else fun was never a concern. IMO they got a lot more out of their game time, then someone here who would try making games fun, what ever that means, for everyone.
Yeah, this sort of paragraph is why people say you play in a toxic meta - possibly the post toxic I've ever heard about, outside the ITC.
@Dai - Good point, but maybe spoiler some of such a long post?
And we are back to cultural differences then. Because I am guessing in some places people, when faced with a problem in a game, change the rule in a such a way that it makes fun for both people. Now for me this is hard to imagine, because the natural instinct here is to screw the other person over, as it is not just worth to deal with the other person idea of fun, considering how long people play the game and how much it costs. For example in my situation, the people at my school that made me join w40k mostly are no longer playing , or play other games by now. All the time they did play, someone else fun was never a concern. IMO they got a lot more out of their game time, then someone here who would try making games fun, what ever that means, for everyone.
Why would you want to play a game of little dolls and aquarium terrain and not want everyone to have fun? Why would you want to prioritise screwing over the other person? Why even play a game against another person if it's not a mutual experience?
Jidmah wrote: In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question.
Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.
Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.
Yeah, my advice to someone playing in a meta like the one Karol describes is always only ever going to be "don't."
Life is too short, and filled with too many possible sources of joy that cost absolutely zero dollars (or whatever they use...Polandbux? Pollars?)
Ultimately, if you haven't made a financial screw-up that has cost you more than 300$ by the time you're 18 you've led an incredibly lucky life. Gotten into a car accident, made a stupid investment, gotten scammed, gotten sucked into a stupid video game...it happens, man.
What we keep trying to tell you is that even if you took that 300$ and purchased the most perfect wonderful competitive army you could buy with 300$, you'd still be miserable. You'd probably also still be blaming GW for your misery.
You know what's free? art. plenty of sports. People of the type that you are attracted to. Many video games.
You know what's not free? The many, many, many, many, many hours you seem to fruitlessly waste making the exact same post you always make on every thread on this internet forum complaining about how your collection of randomly assorted grey knight models has to play against competitive imperial soup castellan lists and you can't seem to win because gosh darn it GW just won't fix the game!
What we keep trying to tell you is that even if you took that 300$ and purchased the most perfect wonderful competitive army you could buy with 300$, you'd still be miserable. You'd probably also still be blaming GW for your misery.
You know what's free? art. plenty of sports. People of the type that you are attracted to. Many video games.
You know what's not free? The many, many, many, many, many hours you seem to fruitlessly waste making the exact same post you always make on every thread on this internet forum complaining about how your collection of randomly assorted grey knight models has to play against competitive imperial soup castellan lists and you can't seem to win because gosh darn it GW just won't fix the game!
I think you are right it probably would have been better, if I bought something else. I have a sister that is my own age, we get the same money for confirmation . I bought GK, she bought a tablet. Not some uber machine of doom, but good enough for it to work 2 years later. She had fun with it every day. I think she did a better thing with her money, but then again she always was smarter then me.
I do sports. Am in a sports school. I have enough physical stuff every day. But me personally is not the important thing to judge differences. It is just that when a game exist that, and I think GW plans it that way, expects you to update it every 4-6 months, unless you really hit a jack pot when starting and picked the perfect stuff, it is way different to spend those proverbial 300$, when your hobby yearly budget is 1000$ and a 100$. spread it among a lot of people, and one countries meta, or what ever we call local communities, are going to be different.
For example, I have never someone like that, but I can imagine that if someone has enough spare cash and the will, to change an army every 4-5 months, then buying in to something considered bad is less of a problem. Sure it may be really bad, but the common sense in such a situation is going to tell you that, well armies sometimes are bad, in a few months you will get a new one, and maybe some parts of the bad one arent that bad.
It is totaly different when you have a place where most people are in the situation of probably playing for 1-2 years, and then quiting if your army gets hit real hard, because wait for money for a new army maybe 3-4 years long. The common sense is going to tell you that, you should rather get a good army, then bad one, because when the times comes to have fun no one is going to be waiting, because all of you play for 1-2 years.
Yeah, this sort of paragraph is why people say you play in a toxic meta - possibly the post toxic I've ever heard about, outside the ITC.
@Dai - Good point, but maybe spoiler some of such a long post?
you know that is kind of a national trait here. It is just that if the cost is more or less the same, but you make 4xtimes less money it makes people act different. And hobbies are probably the least affected by it, because people do have to play against someone. See it is even in the way we think, we play against someone not with someone.
No is going, well almost no one, to spend 600$ on an army which just does not work. Unless they are way above the avarge in income or have decades of expiriance and just don't need to buy in to much to start a new army. It has less to do with toxicity, and more with the fact that people don't have money to waste.
that is why the common sense argument is hard to pull in places where the view on the game or even how rules are strucutured is different. The fact that GW words two rules the exact same way, and then makes them work in a different way, does help either. Because a RAW"purist" may just point at them and say this is Platos chicken, and there kind of a isn't any argument to counter it other then, GW makes mistakes.
Jidmah wrote: In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question.
Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.
Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.
No, everyone know's you're technically correct (the best kind right?), but they also know that it's an obvious wording oversight and not intended. That's why at every GW store, gaming club and tournament the rule is played as intended (i.e correctly).
Jidmah wrote: In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question. Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.
Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.
No, everyone know's you're technically correct (the best kind right?), but they also know that it's an obvious wording oversight and not intended. That's why at every GW store, gaming club and tournament the rule is played as intended (i.e correctly).
Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.
Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.
BaconCatBug wrote: Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.
they didnt change it because youre probably the only person advocating that this rule is non-functional, the intent is so damn clear on this that they dont feel/know that they have to clarify it.
Do you actually play the game? Im legitimatly curious because no one that actually plays the game would stop their opponent from shooting with assault.
What we keep trying to tell you is that even if you took that 300$ and purchased the most perfect wonderful competitive army you could buy with 300$, you'd still be miserable. You'd probably also still be blaming GW for your misery.
You know what's free? art. plenty of sports. People of the type that you are attracted to. Many video games.
You know what's not free? The many, many, many, many, many hours you seem to fruitlessly waste making the exact same post you always make on every thread on this internet forum complaining about how your collection of randomly assorted grey knight models has to play against competitive imperial soup castellan lists and you can't seem to win because gosh darn it GW just won't fix the game!
I think you are right it probably would have been better, if I bought something else. I have a sister that is my own age, we get the same money for confirmation . I bought GK, she bought a tablet. Not some uber machine of doom, but good enough for it to work 2 years later. She had fun with it every day. I think she did a better thing with her money, but then again she always was smarter then me.
I do sports. Am in a sports school. I have enough physical stuff every day. But me personally is not the important thing to judge differences. It is just that when a game exist that, and I think GW plans it that way, expects you to update it every 4-6 months, unless you really hit a jack pot when starting and picked the perfect stuff, it is way different to spend those proverbial 300$, when your hobby yearly budget is 1000$ and a 100$. spread it among a lot of people, and one countries meta, or what ever we call local communities, are going to be different.
For example, I have never someone like that, but I can imagine that if someone has enough spare cash and the will, to change an army every 4-5 months, then buying in to something considered bad is less of a problem. Sure it may be really bad, but the common sense in such a situation is going to tell you that, well armies sometimes are bad, in a few months you will get a new one, and maybe some parts of the bad one arent that bad.
It is totaly different when you have a place where most people are in the situation of probably playing for 1-2 years, and then quiting if your army gets hit real hard, because wait for money for a new army maybe 3-4 years long. The common sense is going to tell you that, you should rather get a good army, then bad one, because when the times comes to have fun no one is going to be waiting, because all of you play for 1-2 years.
Yeah, this sort of paragraph is why people say you play in a toxic meta - possibly the post toxic I've ever heard about, outside the ITC.
@Dai - Good point, but maybe spoiler some of such a long post?
you know that is kind of a national trait here. It is just that if the cost is more or less the same, but you make 4xtimes less money it makes people act different. And hobbies are probably the least affected by it, because people do have to play against someone. See it is even in the way we think, we play against someone not with someone.
No is going, well almost no one, to spend 600$ on an army which just does not work. Unless they are way above the avarge in income or have decades of expiriance and just don't need to buy in to much to start a new army. It has less to do with toxicity, and more with the fact that people don't have money to waste.
that is why the common sense argument is hard to pull in places where the view on the game or even how rules are strucutured is different. The fact that GW words two rules the exact same way, and then makes them work in a different way, does help either. Because a RAW"purist" may just point at them and say this is Platos chicken, and there kind of a isn't any argument to counter it other then, GW makes mistakes.
No, actually the opposite of what you put forth here is true.
Quite a lot of the people where I play spend very little money on games workshop, and I would not be surprised if some of them do have hobby budgets of 150-200$/year. Nearly everyone is playing with an existing collection, because Games Workshop has been around for 20+ years, and as such, it is in the shared interest of everyone to make sure that your army has the maximum playability over time, and that the maximum number of units are playable.
We do have people who come in, and buy up competitive lists to play in tournaments, but because naturally the more competitive your list is, the shorter the amount of time your list's competitiveness lasts, they tend to leave the hobby sooner than the people who just own their collection, have owned it for a long time, and play with the models they have without constantly chasing the drug high of having a tournament list.
The guys who in 7th edition were playing 45x scatter bikes and 2x wraithknights are gone now, they quit when their stuff became bottom of the meta rather than top.
The guys who in early 8th edition were playing guilliman+6 stormravens are gone now, they quit when their stuff became bottom of the meta rather than top.
The guys who since 7th edition played the same non-powergamed, varied collection of ork models or space marine models or guard models and never had a list anywhere near as competitive as the tournament players are still around, because their lists have not fluctuated wildly in power level to make them feel like they're being forced out of the game.
If your hobby group shares the mutual goal of "we want to enjoy this game as much as possible while having to spend the least amount of money possible" the worst thing you can do, collectively, is have lists that spam many copies of the same unit, or have lists that perfectly emulate the top-tier tournament meta. Because those lists simultaneously make the highest number of units unplayable and also are the most prone to extreme point changes when FAQs/new editions/new codexes appear. Any time you get the "casual vs competitive" crowd riled up, the argument of the competitive crowd is essentially "The best way to maximize the chance of a balanced game is to have two players agree upon a ruleset and make lists that are as competitive as possible within that ruleset."
And they're right.....as long as both those players are continuously spending whatever money is required to GET those incredibly competitive rules. the CHEAPEST way to maximize your chance at a balanced game is to have all players collecting the widest possible variety of models even if the units themselves are not the most viable choices for their given role, because that will reduce the fluctuation from rules changes.
What that requires though is for players to resist the urge to buy only the most competitive choices, which is where you run into problems. In the moment it's often very easy to have someone go onto ebay and buy up a 30-man battalion of Storm Bolter/Storm Shield Deathwatch Veterans and they'll perform very good for several months. But their whole army is then equipped with the same thing, and if anything happens to Deathwatch Veterans, Storm Shields, or Storm Bolters, the effect of that rules change will be multiplied by 30x when it comes to impacting their list.
I know a guy just this past FAQ who had every model in his army affected by the changes in some way - he lost SIA on all his deathwatch, his castellan got nerfed and went up 100pts, and he lost the ability to give himself Veteran Intercessors because he made an argument over the rules in the vigilus book that was based on wanting his army to be more powerful, and now only Codex Space Marines can use that detachment. It's probably gonna cost him about 250$ to sell all his minis and buy up a new competitive 2k list, which is exactly what he's doing.
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.
Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.
Except that they are the same thing, they are both breaking the rules. The "likely" RaI is what the rules say, because it's already been proven that GW will change rules they made mistakes with, thus lack of errata is proof of intent.
Jidmah wrote: In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question. Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.
Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.
No, everyone know's you're technically correct (the best kind right?), but they also know that it's an obvious wording oversight and not intended. That's why at every GW store, gaming club and tournament the rule is played as intended (i.e correctly).
Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.
The only conclusion is that you are interpreting the rules wrong. Full stop.
BaconCatBug wrote: Except that they are the same thing, they are both breaking the rules.
Playing by an interpretation of the rules that you and your opponent have agreed on is not 'breaking the rules'.
The "likely" RaI is what the rules say, because it's already been proven that GW will change rules they made mistakes with, thus lack of errata is proof of intent.
Do you really need the inherent fallacy of this argument to be pointed out to you again?
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.
...Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.
I'm afraid this is the main issue when determining who's "right" in a rules argument. Most of the time when two opponents agree upon a RAI, there's usually one side that's "losing" and one side "winning". We are "choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI which ends up suiting one side".
In many cases of poor wording that leads to a global effect (i.e. advance and shoot), players will agree that EVERYONE can advance and shoot with the associated penalty, but when poorly written rule favors one side, (i.e. landing pad) where do we draw the line? Of course, the landing pad example is a bad example because the typical RAI ruling merely bring the unit's status from "utterly unplayable" to "playable". But despite our best efforts to arrive at a "fair" solution, there's always a bias on who the ruling favors more, even if in the slightest.
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.
Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.
Except that they are the same thing, they are both breaking the rules. The "likely" RaI is what the rules say, because it's already been proven that GW will change rules they made mistakes with, thus lack of errata is proof of intent.
They aren't the same thing at all. It's their difference that matters.
They are both variations on the rules, but the purposes and directions of the two are nothing alike.
The purpose of the first is fairness and fun. The direction is undirected with a bias towards general balance.
The purpose of the second is winning and glory. The direction is to skew the match with a heavy bias in the proponent's favor.
Now, there's no explicit way to provably determine which of the two any given rule is, but that doesn't mean they're the same.
However, we clearly can tell the difference in some cases. 500w Marines are clearly the second. Assault weapons can be fired after avancing is clearly the first. The vast majority of players can recognize that immediately. Thus, it is provable that it's not impossible to discern between the two. There's typically mountains of implicit evidence of which of the two any given rule is.
Now, as for your "GW changed some things, therefore if they didn't change it, the correct reading is RAW". A few mistakes here:
1. Failure rates are frequencies, not binary presences. So, if fixes are made in a large body of potential mistakes, this actually implies there are *more* mistakes. It *refutes* the theory that the body is perfect.
2. Not all mistakes/ambiguities are equal. Some are more obvious than others. Some lead to bigger contentions. So releasing corrections/updates to some issues could also be taken as only those corrections/updates were needed, because the other cases are "obvious enough" without corrections. Put another way, "GW didn't errata that because it's too obvious what to do" is at least as valid as "GW didn't errata that, and in doing so implicitly errata'd it to mean the less-obvious more-technical reading of the material".
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
insaniak wrote: Do you really need the inherent fallacy of this argument to be pointed out to you again?
It's not a fallacy.
Lets use an analogy. I bake cakes. Every day I bake a pink cake. Whenever I accidently bake a red cake, I change it for a pink cake as soon as it has been pointed out to me that it is not pink.
One day I make a red cake. I keep the cake there despite it being pointed out to me that it is pink, and I do not change it.
Do you insist the red cake is intended to be pink?
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
No he's simply taking an extremist's point of view on how RAW should be enforced. He's just an ass about it when he fights for it, but he's not 100% wrong - he is technically right.
Can his choice of words be improved? I think so. Instead of saying "you're all rule breakers" he can instead say "you all alter the rules to suit your cases, so by doing so, you're actually playing a version of 40k based on the rules, but not completely by the rules". But that's not up to us - he's in full liberty to choose his words to make his statement carry the nuances & connotations he wants them to carry, just as much we are in full liberty of pick at him for doing so. I mean, the only thing he's breaking is the rule #1 but I'm sure he knows that but still does it anyways.
Cakes aren’t in the rules so it’s irrelevant what cakes you’ve baked.
Your record is stuck. It’s super tiring. RAW demonstrably isn’t always RAI. Rules that aren’t changed in no way prove your odd collection of nonsense in your signature correct. We’ve been over this in how many threads now but still you trot all these fallacies out???
Baffling.
Oh, and look, another thread is all about BCB and hisbfallacies again. How many threads need to get locked for this reason? No matter how many times a moderator asks him not to post these things whoops, here we go again...
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.
Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
No he's simply taking an extremist's point of view on how RAW should be enforced. He's just an ass about it when he fights for it, but he's not 100% wrong - he is technically right.
Can his choice of words be improved? I think so. Instead of saying "you're all rule breakers" he can instead say "you all alter the rules to suit your cases, so by doing so, you're actually playing a version of 40k based on the rules, but not completely by the rules". But that's not up to us - he's in full liberty to choose his words to make his statement carry the nuances & connotations he wants them to carry, just as much we are in full liberty of pick at him for doing so. I mean, the only thing he's breaking is the rule #1 but I'm sure he knows that but still does it anyways.
Thing is, he’s actually often wrong but adds “RAW” anyway like it’s a stamp of veracity.
And his fallacies are never correct.
Yes, sometimes his myopic readings follow the letter of the rules ad absurdum, but what use is that in understanding how to play the game? Understand the oddities then move on and play using common sense solutions. Don’t bleat “GW IS INCOMPETENT I CANNOT PLAY” or berate others for using sensible rules patches. That’s bonkers. Yet here we are.
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.
Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.
But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule (the written text) to try to understand it's effects.
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.
Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.
But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule to try to understand it's effects.
No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.
Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.
Sometimes. You’re often also wrong yet claim you’re never wrong.
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.
Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.
But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule to try to understand it's effects.
No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.
Absolutism and a binary approach is your preference. Not the only way. Don’t pretend it’s the only solution.
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.
Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.
But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule to try to understand it's effects.
No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.
Eh... no? Its a game not a mathematical or compuer based system. We don't need to remain logically consistent, not even like theres only one kind of logic in this context. Theres no mathematicall logic to apply here.
Galas wrote: BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.
And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?
At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.
Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.
But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule to try to understand it's effects.
No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.
Which I believe is the fundamental disagreement you and the interwebz has.
RAW is nonetheless an interpretation of the written text - it's not the actual body of text we encompass as "rules".
We have [RULES], and then we have the [RULES AS WRITTEN].
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.
Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.
Except that they are the same thing.
No, they're not. This is provable by the sheer number of people who aren't you that can discern the difference. Your constant invocation of logical fallacies is also becoming extremely tiresome.
I really don't know what you get out of these absurd arguments anyway. You've already admitted you don't actually play the game face-to-face so clearly your understanding of how the game functions (note, this is different from what the rules say) is pretty much non-existent anyway. That makes your pronouncements on the practical applications of the rules equally flawed.
BaconCatBug wrote: Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.
they didnt change it because youre probably the only person advocating that this rule is non-functional, the intent is so damn clear on this that they dont feel/know that they have to clarify it.
Do you actually play the game? Im legitimatly curious because no one that actually plays the game would stop their opponent from shooting with assault.
It’s been said multiple times in the thread that he’s claimed before that he doesn’t play at all. Just tells everyone that they’re playing wrong because they aren’t playing the way he claims is “right”. At this point, the best thing we can all do is put him on ignore. Eventually he’ll get bored of nobody responding to him and he’ll move on to torture another site. Online personalities like this one FEED on attention. Take it away, and they find “food” elsewhere. With that said...ignore button engaged!
Jidmah wrote: In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question.
Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.
Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.
No, everyone know's you're technically correct (the best kind right?), but they also know that it's an obvious wording oversight and not intended. That's why at every GW store, gaming club and tournament the rule is played as intended (i.e correctly).
Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.
If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?
If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. You carry on being technically correct on the internet and I'll carry on playing 40kIRL
This is my biggest problem with many of the threads on YMDC in general. I've had two fairly new players in my area tell me in the last month or so that they've been confused by that forum and found it unhelpful and I can understand why. To me YMDC should primarily be a resource to help players answer rules questions, but many threads turn into endless arguments over minutiae or points of principle that simply aren't important, or they're just downright confusing. It often fails to help people actually looking for help. RAW is important, but often as a starting point, not the end point of a discussion.
This has been my observation on YMDC as well. Thanks to certain individuals treating it as a medium for their persona RAW-deathmatch-e-sport, it does not function as an useful resource to the people who actually want to play the game.
This is my biggest problem with many of the threads on YMDC in general. I've had two fairly new players in my area tell me in the last month or so that they've been confused by that forum and found it unhelpful and I can understand why. To me YMDC should primarily be a resource to help players answer rules questions, but many threads turn into endless arguments over minutiae or points of principle that simply aren't important, or they're just downright confusing. It often fails to help people actually looking for help. RAW is important, but often as a starting point, not the end point of a discussion.
This has been my observation on YMDC as well. Thanks to certain individuals treating it as a medium for their persona RAW-deathmatch-e-sport, it does not function as an useful resource to the people who actually want to play the game.
I second this, too many posts devolve into "Everyone plays it wrong except for me because i am a crusader for the RAW" and end up being useless. Honestly when most times a certain person posts and the whole thread gets hijacked, maybe that person should stop posting (willingly or not)
This is my biggest problem with many of the threads on YMDC in general. I've had two fairly new players in my area tell me in the last month or so that they've been confused by that forum and found it unhelpful and I can understand why. To me YMDC should primarily be a resource to help players answer rules questions, but many threads turn into endless arguments over minutiae or points of principle that simply aren't important, or they're just downright confusing. It often fails to help people actually looking for help. RAW is important, but often as a starting point, not the end point of a discussion.
This has been my observation on YMDC as well. Thanks to certain individuals treating it as a medium for their persona RAW-deathmatch-e-sport, it does not function as an useful resource to the people who actually want to play the game.
I second this, too many posts devolve into "Everyone plays it wrong except for me because i am a crusader for the RAW" and end up being useless. Honestly when most times a certain person posts and the whole thread gets hijacked, maybe that person should stop posting (willingly or not)
Agreed. Far too often a rules question devolve into "What is RAW, and who is right" rather than who's interpretation of RAW (so twice extrapolated: Rule text -> RAW -> RAI of the RAW) is right. The latter is undoubtedly a valid discussion, the former is not. Maybe we do need a sticky on the generally accepted concept of RAW in YMDC to defer to in cases of these useless arguments.
Seconded. The utility of the YMDC forum has gone downhill rapidly. It seems mod warnings and mini site holidays aren’t doing any good. What’s to be done?
insaniak wrote: Do you really need the inherent fallacy of this argument to be pointed out to you again?
It's not a fallacy.
Lets use an analogy. I bake cakes. Every day I bake a pink cake. Whenever I accidently bake a red cake, I change it for a pink cake as soon as it has been pointed out to me that it is not pink.
One day I make a red cake. I keep the cake there despite it being pointed out to me that it is pink, and I do not change it.
Do you insist the red cake is intended to be pink?
The argument being, because they've directly addressed every other instance where RAW isn't RAI, any given instance brought up the RAW must be RAI?
You're assuming they've addressed every instance.
Which is more likely -
Scenario A:
-A nontrivial rulesset is released
-Various mistakes are found
-A single set of corrections are issued that resolves all mistakes in the entire rulesset
-The rulesset is now perfect
Scenario B:
-A nontrivial rulesset is released
-Various mistakes are found
-A single set of corrections are issues that resolves many mistakes
-There are other mistakes in the rulessets
Scenario A is a pipedream. It won't happen.
Look at even the most professional nontrivial rulessets out there. They continually receive new fixes and clarifications. Most are never perfect in their entire lifecycle. What really happens is:
Scenario C:
1. A nontrivial rulesset is released
2. Various mistakes are found
3. Updates are released that fix some of the mistakes
4. GOTO (2)
On an entirely different track, there's a bigger problem with your argument - GW has released more than one set of FAQs. Your argument is that, once GW has released a fix, it can safely be assumed that everything is fixed. If that were the case, there would be no need for another fix ever again. As GW has released multiple fixes over time, it's impossible for this to be true. You could argue "But this latest one is really the One True Fix!" - but what makes this most recent FAQ so special?
JohnnyHell wrote: Seconded. The utility of the YMDC forum has gone downhill rapidly. It seems mod warnings and mini site holidays aren’t doing any good. What’s to be done?
I propose we split the board into two sections.
One where people get together to make an appropriate call when a game play (not theoretical) issue crops up.
The second could be called RLAW or RAWLAW or Tedious Layers Discussing Rules (TLDR). It could basically be a playground for people who enjoy this sort of thing, but don't want to get bogged down by all those miniatures or that gaming nonsense.
JohnnyHell wrote: Seconded. The utility of the YMDC forum has gone downhill rapidly. It seems mod warnings and mini site holidays aren’t doing any good. What’s to be done?
Writing nontrivial rulessets perfectly is virtually impossible.
This is nonsense.
The types of errors we are talking about in 40ks rules are logic errors. In programing they cause system crashes. How many of the top 50 video games have system crashes that end the game entirely?
Wanna know some of the top 50 board games of all time with no system crashes? fething pick any of the top 500.
Chess. Checkers. Sorry. Bingo. Backgamon. Go. Poker, any version. Etc...
Games rules writing to prevent logic errors is not THAT hard. It just takes time and care. The more complex the rules the more care needs to be taken and the more likely you need a professional. GW is just gak. Dont make bad excuses for them.
Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.
Therein lies the problem with worrying about the theoretical side of a physical game too literally. Everyone here seems to think that if a rule is ever unclear both players and the board simply vanish.
Crimson wrote: Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.
MattKing wrote: Therein lies the problem with worrying about the theoretical side of a physical game too literally. Everyone here seems to think that if a rule is ever unclear both players and the board simply vanish.
That's one of the strengths of the medium (or rather, weakness of video games) - on the tabletop, the logic is tight enough that any problem or screwup is usually easy enough for the players to handle.
Consider the old case where the rules dictated that, if you tied on the go-first roll, you rerolled. While also asserting that you never reroll a reroll. What then happened? In a computer game, you'd have a crash (or similar defect). In 40k, this wouldn't even be a blip. Both players just rerolled, and maybe commented on the luck.
Crimson wrote: Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.
Unlike most Dakka threads...
This is totally untrue as most reasonable solutions are presented within the first 10 posts
Crimson wrote: Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.
Unlike most Dakka threads...
This is totally untrue as most reasonable solutions are presented within the first 10 posts
Ah - I was thinking of the ultimate resolution, you know, locked after a further 25 pages of arguing over semantics
Crimson wrote: Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.
Well then you just are not paying very much attention. If the rules as RAW were converted from their 8 pages to code in a video game the pistols and assault weapons either a) would just not be usable or b) create a logic error and system crash.
Yes. Rai is obvious. Yes. We can ignore it and move on.
Doesnt change that the basic underlying statement is still true. 40ks rules writing is bad on a level that actually just breaks games and we shouldnt have to make assumptions and work arounds.
I like the philosophical discussion on the nature of raw and what it means in a practical way for us and discusions. I think its a dumb idea to try to break up a forum about rules questions into 2 forums about rules questions because some people dont like to be told what the rules actually say (and the consequences there of). Fact is ymdc wouldnt be going down hill if 40k didnt require almost 100 documents to play with over half of them being faqs and errata, sometimes contradicting other errata, because every single one of the initially released rules documents failed in their singular purpose on the first pass.
Right now, for the forseeable future, we can expect at minimum to recieve another 4 documents a year and maybe 6. 2 faqs, chapter approved, and ca faq/errata. With faqs/errata for the other 2 faq/erratas being a distinct possibility.
Ymdc is getting worse. So is the games quality. One is a direct result of the other.
Ymdc is getting worse. So is the games quality. One is a direct result of the other.
Absolutely not. The 8th edition is the clearest edition of the game thus far. The situations where the actual intent of the rule is unclear are far fewer than in previous iterations.
Ymdc is getting worse. So is the games quality. One is a direct result of the other.
Absolutely not. The 8th edition is the clearest edition of the game thus far. The situations where the actual intent of the rule is unclear are far fewer than in previous iterations.
Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined. Thats not clearer by a long shot. Its the opposite of clear.
Wtf is a new player supposed to do with his rule book and codex when the guy across the table from him starts quoting chapter approved, that thing that was said that one time on wathammer community and the faq errata that was released 4 months ago, AND the faq/errata for all 5 documents currently in play? Not a single shred of that is clear.
Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8t8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined. Thats not clearer by a long shot. Its the opposite of clear.
Wtf is a new player supposed to do with his rule book a codex when the guy across the table from him starts quoting chapter approved, that thing that was said that one time on wathammer community and the faq errata that was released for all 5 documents currently in play? Not a single shred of that is clear.
That is really a issue how the rule updates are organised (which is not ideal), not an issue with the rules themselves (which are mostly unambiguous enough.)
Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8t8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined. Thats not clearer by a long shot. Its the opposite of clear.
Wtf is a new player supposed to do with his rule book a codex when the guy across the table from him starts quoting chapter approved, that thing that was said that one time on wathammer community and the faq errata that was released for all 5 documents currently in play? Not a single shred of that is clear.
That is really a issue how the rule updates are organised (which is not ideal), not an issue with the rules themselves (which are mostly unambiguous enough.)
Again, disagree. More then half the "updates" are not updates. They are patches to fix ambiguities and or breaks. If even 80 of the 100 documents were just well written rules i might agree with you. But its closer to 60 "updates" to 40 "rules".
Crimson wrote: Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.
Well then you just are not paying very much attention. If the rules as RAW were converted from their 8 pages to code in a video game the pistols and assault weapons either a) would just not be usable or b) create a logic error and system crash.
You're missing the point. The game isn't a computer program so your points about how it would cease to function aren't relevant. The game is played between humans, which changes the requirements for how tight the rules need to be. Could they be better? Absolutely. Should we demand better from GW? Yes.
Have I ever had a game simply grind to a halt due to bad rules writing? No. Not once in over 20 years of playing.
Crimson wrote: Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.
Well then you just are not paying very much attention. If the rules as RAW were converted from their 8 pages to code in a video game the pistols and assault weapons either a) would just not be usable or b) create a logic error and system crash.
You're missing the point. The game isn't a computer program so your points about how it would cease to function aren't relevant. The game is played between humans, which changes the requirements for how tight the rules need to be. Could they be better? Absolutely. Should we demand better from GW? Yes.
Have I ever had a game simply grind to a halt due to bad rules writing? No. Not once in over 20 years of playing.
No. You are missing the point of any rules "litteralist". You and your friends are not me and my friends or the people down the road in the next store, or the people in the town. Or the next country. How YOU work around a game breaking flaw is just that. How YOU do it. And because the rules dont work you and any other group could be playing entirely different games because of your "interpretations, house rules, and fixes".
Here, when someone asks a rule question, the rules "literalist" is the middleground between every communities different interpretations. Play the game however the hell you want. We all do. We all HAVE to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the requirements for a quality game are EXACTLY as tight. You making due with a bad product says nothing about its requirments or quality.
Thing is, he’s actually often wrong but adds “RAW” anyway like it’s a stamp of veracity.
And his fallacies are never correct.
Yes, sometimes his myopic readings follow the letter of the rules ad absurdum, but what use is that in understanding how to play the game? Understand the oddities then move on and play using common sense solutions. Don’t bleat “GW IS INCOMPETENT I CANNOT PLAY” or berate others for using sensible rules patches. That’s bonkers. Yet here we are.
I think this is key to the whole issue. The rules are a guide to playing the game. It literally says that right at the start of the rules section, that is what the rules are and that is what they are for.
Treating them as sources for grammatical, logical and textual analysis is simply wrongheaded. That is not what they are for and that is not what you are supposed to do with them. If that is what you are doing with RAW then you have simply taken words out of context and are engaged in a serious error of approach.
Any discussion of rules that is not helpful as a guide to playing the game is at best useless and at worst outright confusing and counter-productive. A lot of what I see claimed as ultra-RAW falls into this category. Those who actually play the game, and frame answers to rules questions in a way reflecting an understanding of the reality of playing a tabletop game with another player, rarely fall into these illogical loops of fallacy.
Thing is, he’s actually often wrong but adds “RAW” anyway like it’s a stamp of veracity.
And his fallacies are never correct.
Yes, sometimes his myopic readings follow the letter of the rules ad absurdum, but what use is that in understanding how to play the game? Understand the oddities then move on and play using common sense solutions. Don’t bleat “GW IS INCOMPETENT I CANNOT PLAY” or berate others for using sensible rules patches. That’s bonkers. Yet here we are.
I think this is key to the whole issue. The rules are a guide to playing the game. It literally says that right at the start of the rules section, that is what the rules are and that is what they are for.
Treating them as sources for grammatical, logical and textual analysis is simply wrongheaded. That is not what they are for and that is not what you are supposed to do with them. If that is what you are doing with RAW then you have simply taken words out of context and are engaged in a serious error of approach.
Any discussion of rules that is not helpful as a guide to playing the game is at best useless and at worst outright confusing and counter-productive. A lot of what I see claimed as ultra-RAW falls into this category. Those who actually play the game, and frame answers to rules questions in a way reflecting an understanding of the reality of playing a tabletop game with another player, rarely fall into these illogical loops of fallacy.
I see where you're getting at but it's precisely these sorts of misguided notions of "Rule" and "Rules as Written" that causes our YMDC posts to spiral out of context.
Because of the inherent linguistic ambiguities in many languages, grammatical, logical and textual (note it does not say CONtextual) analysis (aka "RAW") is required in order to arrive at potential list of meanings. In a dialogue, we are, more often than not, readily able to arrive at the logical meaning of the spoken words through context cues (intonation, emphasis, gestural, etc) and pragmatics (natural flow of conversation); however this does not come as obvious when we analyze written texts. When there are multiple possible meanings for certain texts, it's important we look to contextual cues in order to arrive at the most logical interpretation of the texts. Note that at this point, the interpretation of the rules text is no longer a RAW interpretation but rather a RAI (intended or interpreted) because we have created a certain partisan bias in "picking out" the "right" interpretation.
We then arrive again at the misuse of the term RAW - many of the RAW-elitists tend to drive their argument with their insistence on RAW to mean THE ABSOLUTE meaning of the text when this is clearly isn't so (sometimes it is; more often than not, no). At the moment one has decided this is THE ABSOLUTE meaning, there has already been an input of bias in order to arrive at the conclusion that this is the "right" reading of the text. It's imperative to understand RAW =! actual written body of the rule.
Lance845 wrote: Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined.
Why, though? Because the game is worse than it used to be, or because GW is better than it used to be? Feel free to add other options, as I don't intend (pun heavily intended) to create a false dilemma.
I had the privilege (?) to sit on the 7th ed ITC FAQ committee near the end of 7th. I prefer Nu GW.
Lance845 wrote: Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined.
Why, though? Because the game is worse than it used to be, or because GW is better than it used to be? Feel free to add other options, as I don't intend (pun heavily intended) to create a false dilemma.
I had the privilege (?) to sit on the 7th ed ITC FAQ committee near the end of 7th. I prefer Nu GW.
Cheers!
Indeed. GW went through several editions with a philosophy of producing as few FAQ documents as they possible could, while the game was an absolute mess and issues routinely went unaddressed for years on end - in some cases through multiple iterations of codexes.
So no, the existence of more rules documents is not inherently a sign that the rules are worse.
BaconCatBug wrote: No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.
To paraphrase some American comedian whose name currently escapes me - Remember when we gave women the vote? And then we just couldn't stop ourselves, and before you knew it we'd also given the vote to horses, and dogs, and motorbikes, and trees?
Or maybe, just maybe, people in the real world are capable of not getting trapped on your slippery slope every time they make a decision. Choosing to interpret a rule in a way that random-guy-who-doesn't-actually-play-the-game-but-likes-to-argue-about-it-on-the-internet doesn't agree with doesn't immediately lock players into a spiral of chaos where the rules are in constant flux where the rulebook slowly dissolves into a puddle of incomprehensible goo. The vast majority of players are perfectly capable of making a distinction between 'this rule that because of the way it's written doesn't actually do anything' and 'this rule that works just fine'.
And yes, to head off that argument yet again - exactly where each player draws that line may be different, and require some discussion between the players. As much as that may horrify you, that's how the game actually works in the real world. The game is a collaboration between two players, not your personal dictatorship. Your constant harping on about your way being the only way to play the game, when you don't actually even play the game, is ridiculous and not in any way useful to the community of people who actually play the game.
The closest we have to a supreme court in 40K are individual TOs. The rules are what TOs say they are. They even trump GW, because its their event. Example: ITC using old wobbly model rules, even after GW's explanation.
Posters opinions on this site have no binding effect. We aren't judges invested with power from a central state.
Lance845 wrote: Disagree. There are currently more documents for 8th ed rules to reference then almost the last 2 editions combined.
Why, though? Because the game is worse than it used to be, or because GW is better than it used to be? Feel free to add other options, as I don't intend (pun heavily intended) to create a false dilemma.
I had the privilege (?) to sit on the 7th ed ITC FAQ committee near the end of 7th. I prefer Nu GW.
Cheers!
The better 3rd option is they produce a quality document the first time that doesnt require faq/errata. Or 4th learn from their early mistakes and get better at producing quality documents.
They are not doing either. They are just flooding the document space with a confusing mess. Every document released is as poorly worded with as many problems as the ones before it. Its not better than 7th. Its worse. Its a windfall of bad instead of a slight trickle.
BaconCatBug wrote: No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.
To paraphrase some American comedian whose name currently escapes me - Remember when we gave women the vote? And then we just couldn't stop ourselves, and before you knew it we'd also given the vote to horses, and dogs, and motorbikes, and trees?
Or maybe, just maybe, people in the real world are capable of not getting trapped on your slippery slope every time they make a decision. Choosing to interpret a rule in a way that random-guy-who-doesn't-actually-play-the-game-but-likes-to-argue-about-it-on-the-internet doesn't agree with doesn't immediately lock players into a spiral of chaos where the rules are in constant flux where the rulebook slowly dissolves into a puddle of incomprehensible goo. The vast majority of players are perfectly capable of making a distinction between 'this rule that because of the way it's written doesn't actually do anything' and 'this rule that works just fine'.
And yes, to head off that argument yet again - exactly where each player draws that line may be different, and require some discussion between the players. As much as that may horrify you, that's how the game actually works in the real world. The game is a collaboration between two players, not your personal dictatorship. Your constant harping on about your way being the only way to play the game, when you don't actually even play the game, is ridiculous and not in any way useful to the community of people who actually play the game.
This^ All of this. Drop the mic and lock the post, I think we're done here.
BaconCatBug wrote: No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.
To paraphrase some American comedian whose name currently escapes me - Remember when we gave women the vote? And then we just couldn't stop ourselves, and before you knew it we'd also given the vote to horses, and dogs, and motorbikes, and trees?
Or maybe, just maybe, people in the real world are capable of not getting trapped on your slippery slope every time they make a decision. Choosing to interpret a rule in a way that random-guy-who-doesn't-actually-play-the-game-but-likes-to-argue-about-it-on-the-internet doesn't agree with doesn't immediately lock players into a spiral of chaos where the rules are in constant flux where the rulebook slowly dissolves into a puddle of incomprehensible goo. The vast majority of players are perfectly capable of making a distinction between 'this rule that because of the way it's written doesn't actually do anything' and 'this rule that works just fine'.
And yes, to head off that argument yet again - exactly where each player draws that line may be different, and require some discussion between the players. As much as that may horrify you, that's how the game actually works in the real world. The game is a collaboration between two players, not your personal dictatorship. Your constant harping on about your way being the only way to play the game, when you don't actually even play the game, is ridiculous and not in any way useful to the community of people who actually play the game.
Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when applied fallaciously. It is not a fallacy to assume that if someone successfully argues to ignore rule A, they will also be able to successfully ignore rule B, on the basis that they already ignored rule A and if you disagree you must be a horrible TFG rules lawyer.
The types of errors we are talking about in 40ks rules are logic errors. In programing they cause system crashes. How many of the top 50 video games have system crashes that end the game entirely?
Just going to chime in, no, 40k rules would in no way impose system crashes. I can rattle off a plenty of ways you could code the 40k rules perfectly in line with how they're written, that would work as intended.
Let's take assault weapons, it's actually really simple, you have a 'can_shoot' property which checks a series of rules against the current state of the unit, given the standard rule of:
when move_type = 'advance' return false
and the assault special rule of
when move_type = 'advance' return true
The absolute worst case, if you applied no context, or use the mere fact that it's a context driven rule to replace the standard rule, it would be an order of execution problem resulting in mildly unexpected behavior. Which you would then fix because its' a very simple and obviously stated rule. In terms of business logic implementations from specifications 90% of BCB's raw problems are things I'd happily steamroller with even bothering to consult the person who generated that specification. The other 10% I might have to think a minute, maybe two of the things I've ever seen him bring up with cause me to go back to the person behind the spec, and they'd be clarifications.
And that's with my job on the line. In my off time I'd say roll off and who ever wins get their interpretation of what it should be.... which ironically is now offically in the book as a suggestion.
The types of errors we are talking about in 40ks rules are logic errors. In programing they cause system crashes. How many of the top 50 video games have system crashes that end the game entirely?
Just going to chime in, no, 40k rules would in no way impose system crashes. I can rattle off a plenty of ways you could code the 40k rules perfectly in line with how they're written, that would work as intended.
Let's take assault weapons, it's actually really simple, you have a 'can_shoot' property which checks a series of rules against the current state of the unit, given the standard rule of:
when move_type = 'advance' return false
and the assault special rule of
when move_type = 'advance' return true
The absolute worst case, if you applied no context, or use the mere fact that it's a context driven rule to replace the standard rule, it would be an order of execution problem resulting in mildly unexpected behavior. Which you would then fix because its' a very simple and obviously stated rule. In terms of business logic implementations from specifications 90% of BCB's raw problems are things I'd happily steamroller with even bothering to consult the person who generated that specification. The other 10% I might have to think a minute, maybe two of the things I've ever seen him bring up with cause me to go back to the person behind the spec, and they'd be clarifications.
And that's with my job on the line. In my off time I'd say roll off and who ever wins get their interpretation of what it should be.... which ironically is now offically in the book as a suggestion.
Thats not how the rules are written. The question is not can shoot. Its unit can be selected to shoot. Assault weapons do not grant permission for the unit to be selected. Only for the model to fire that specific gun. I mean, what you are saying is how it SHOULD be written. But is not in fact a programing translation of the rules doc we have.
Personally I don't mind RAW mishaps. Everyone makes mistakes, we're human. Every single rule or strategem or effect has the potential for dozens of rules interactions with every other unit, rule and stategem in the game, and when you're a small team of rules developers working on multiple deadlines trying to put out rulesets for multiple game systems at once, mistakes are bound to slip through.
What annoys me however, is how YMDC has become a circlejerk of "RAW it works this way, you're all wrong", "Citation needed", or "My Ultramarines have 500 wounds each, prove me wrong!". It goes against the idea of the subforum and probably puts new users off.
At this point I don't get what BCBs motives are. He claims to be a RAW-purist, but seems to never play the game and uses every opportunity to slate GW for their incompetence. If that's the case, why are you here? Why waste time in a forum for a game you don't play, established by a company you seem as incompetent for no reason besides "RAW is correct!"
Thats not how the rules are written. The question is not can shoot. Its unit can be selected to shoot. Assault weapons do not grant permission for the unit to be selected. Only for the model to fire that specific gun. I mean, what you are saying is how it SHOULD be written. But is not in fact a programing translation of the rules doc we have.
This is the kind of silly outcome you get when you take the words out of context. The correct context is to be a guide to playing a game played on a table between players.
In that context there is really no need for the artificial distinction you are drawing between selecting a unit and it shooting, the typical flow goes something like :
p1 "Ah, right I shoot at those boyz with these guys here then. Um, -1 to hit because they advanced"
p2 "So hitting on 5's then?"
p1 "Yeah, 10 shots hitting on 5's"
<rolls dice>
In that context of a conversation between two people both are fully informed what the dice roll is about and both fully understand why modifiers are being applied, the game is being played as intended. The words in the rules were interpreted within the intended context. That is how we actually play tabletop games and in that context the rules work fine as a guide for how to play the game, which is just what they are.
If you insist on trying to treat the rules as something they are not; a formal specification, pseudocode or some similar construct then you hit problems because you took them out of context. You are then hitting problems that no reasonably normal person actually playing the game ever hits. As people keep saying - the whole supposed issue around assault weapons does not exist in real gameplay. You are only seeing a problem because you are reading the text as if it were a category of written English - such as formal specification or pseudocode - which it is not and which the rulebook tells you it is not.
Valkyrie wrote: Personally I don't mind RAW mishaps. Everyone makes mistakes, we're human. Every single rule or strategem or effect has the potential for dozens of rules interactions with every other unit, rule and stategem in the game, and when you're a small team of rules developers working on multiple deadlines trying to put out rulesets for multiple game systems at once, mistakes are bound to slip through.
What annoys me however, is how YMDC has become a circlejerk of "RAW it works this way, you're all wrong", "Citation needed", or "My Ultramarines have 500 wounds each, prove me wrong!". It goes against the idea of the subforum and probably puts new users off.
At this point I don't get what BCBs motives are. He claims to be a RAW-purist, but seems to never play the game and uses every opportunity to slate GW for their incompetence. If that's the case, why are you here? Why waste time in a forum for a game you don't play, established by a company you seem as incompetent for no reason besides "RAW is correct!"
Wait, what? If YMDC threads are having this problem, that's because they're not adhering to the rules. The rules for the subforum say to specifiy if you're asking/arguing RAW or RAI. OP's should make it clear what they want.
BaconCatBug wrote: No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.
To paraphrase some American comedian whose name currently escapes me - Remember when we gave women the vote? And then we just couldn't stop ourselves, and before you knew it we'd also given the vote to horses, and dogs, and motorbikes, and trees?
Or maybe, just maybe, people in the real world are capable of not getting trapped on your slippery slope every time they make a decision. Choosing to interpret a rule in a way that random-guy-who-doesn't-actually-play-the-game-but-likes-to-argue-about-it-on-the-internet doesn't agree with doesn't immediately lock players into a spiral of chaos where the rules are in constant flux where the rulebook slowly dissolves into a puddle of incomprehensible goo. The vast majority of players are perfectly capable of making a distinction between 'this rule that because of the way it's written doesn't actually do anything' and 'this rule that works just fine'.
And yes, to head off that argument yet again - exactly where each player draws that line may be different, and require some discussion between the players. As much as that may horrify you, that's how the game actually works in the real world. The game is a collaboration between two players, not your personal dictatorship. Your constant harping on about your way being the only way to play the game, when you don't actually even play the game, is ridiculous and not in any way useful to the community of people who actually play the game.
This^ All of this. Drop the mic and lock the post, I think we're done here.
I think they're talking past each other to some extent, but that aside, Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match
Most of these problems would be solved if GW uses consistent writing across all of their media. As much as "just use common sense" seems like a good solution it really isn't. You have multiple people from multiple regions and multiple backgrounds interpreting what they see as common sense. "Author's intent is clear" is also a load of garbage since there is no real way to confirm that without the author verbally describing their intention. Look at the novel Fahrenheit 451, what is the author's intent? If you ask numerous "experts" the novel is about government censorship and control etc and it is obvious to anyone what the novel is about. If you ask Bradbury, you know the actual author, he firmly states that is not about censorship, but is instead about how television ruins any and all interest in literature. So no, even if it seems clear to you and you have a plurality on the opinion you chose then it does not mean that is what the author intended. MTG has very strict consistent writing and structure to help deal with this and 40k could really use it too. Things like "at the end of the movement phase" always come up since there isn't a dedicated END OF MOVEMENT PHASE that has a clear list of actions that can or can't be taken.
Audustum wrote: Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match
That's what tournament FAQs are for. They take the place of the player discussion before the game.
GW aren't in the business of producing tournament rulesets. They've supported tournaments to varying degrees over the years because people keep wanting them, but it's just not the style of game that they are making. The closest they have ever come was 5th edition, which Alessio supposedly wrote with the intention of it being a tighter, more tournament-friendly ruleset, but the rest of the studio carried on with their beer-and-pretzels approach regardless.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a concise, tournament-ready 40K ruleset. But if the demands for such a thing over the last 30 years haven't been sufficient to persuade GW that this was worthwhile goal, it seems fairly safe to assume that it's unlikely to change - and given that the game has survived for 30 years in an industry where most games are lucky to last for 5, it's also hard to argue that their approach is wrong, at least for them. They're producing the game that they want to make, and by all reports it's still doing well. So wishing that it was a different kind of game entirely isn't going to get us anywhere.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
no, because your intent is against the rest of the playerbase. No one would let you play with 500 wounds marines, but everyone would let you shoot assault weapons after advancing.
Also , stop bringing up the "crazily buffed stats for my marines " argument, it doesnt prove anything except that youre too stubborn to view other's opinions.
As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
You are my second favorite poster....... ( I am my first favorite poster. )
I think they're talking past each other to some extent, but that aside, Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match
Professional sports have different officials applying different interpretations of often-subjective rules every game, and they are not perfect, but sports manage to get by regardless. Courts around the world make life or death decisions, even though the rules are applied differently depending on the lawyers and judges involved, and their particular moods that day. Society still manages to get by. Why does a 40k tournament need something better?
Thats not how the rules are written. The question is not can shoot. Its unit can be selected to shoot. Assault weapons do not grant permission for the unit to be selected. Only for the model to fire that specific gun. I mean, what you are saying is how it SHOULD be written. But is not in fact a programing translation of the rules doc we have.
This is the kind of silly outcome you get when you take the words out of context. The correct context is to be a guide to playing a game played on a table between players.
In that context there is really no need for the artificial distinction you are drawing between selecting a unit and it shooting, the typical flow goes something like :
p1 "Ah, right I shoot at those boyz with these guys here then. Um, -1 to hit because they advanced"
p2 "So hitting on 5's then?"
p1 "Yeah, 10 shots hitting on 5's"
<rolls dice>
In that context of a conversation between two people both are fully informed what the dice roll is about and both fully understand why modifiers are being applied, the game is being played as intended. The words in the rules were interpreted within the intended context. That is how we actually play tabletop games and in that context the rules work fine as a guide for how to play the game, which is just what they are.
If you insist on trying to treat the rules as something they are not; a formal specification, pseudocode or some similar construct then you hit problems because you took them out of context. You are then hitting problems that no reasonably normal person actually playing the game ever hits. As people keep saying - the whole supposed issue around assault weapons does not exist in real gameplay. You are only seeing a problem because you are reading the text as if it were a category of written English - such as formal specification or pseudocode - which it is not and which the rulebook tells you it is not.
The rules are a formal specification because the rules lay out, in no unclear terms, an order of operation for the shooting phase. And step 1 is select a unit with the exception that units that advanced and units that are within 1" cannot be selected. Quote the place in the rules where you given permission to select a unit under those circumstances. Don't bother looking. It doesn't exist.
The argument originally made was that the top 50 video games all had bugs in their rules. I said, no. They don't. Not the logic error game breaking rules that 40k does. 40k is not just like everyone else. It is by a large margin the worst in all but the lowest leagues of rules writing. FATAL the horrible RPG is more complex, less fun, and just down right draconian in it's rules execution and yet somehow more actually functional than 40k. And that only requires 1 rules document.
Again, if you programed raw, the game would stop functioning right there.
You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Valkyrie wrote: Personally I don't mind RAW mishaps. Everyone makes mistakes, we're human. Every single rule or strategem or effect has the potential for dozens of rules interactions with every other unit, rule and stategem in the game, and when you're a small team of rules developers working on multiple deadlines trying to put out rulesets for multiple game systems at once, mistakes are bound to slip through.
This is a load of Bull. GW are not 5 guys working out of a garage. They are a multi-million dollar corporation with many sub companies under an umbrella. If there is a "small" team of developers it's because GW the company doesn't want to pay for the proper size team for the game they are creating. Again, stop giving GW excuses for their gak product.
You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.
Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!
If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.
The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.
You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.
Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!
If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.
The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.
The assault weapon thing is the easiest of the issues. It wasn't bought up because I am arguing that I play in a way where assault weapons cannot shoot after advancing. It was bought up to debunk the argument that 40k is like the "top 50 video games of all time" with fully functioning rules. It's not. And it's the easiest and simplest example to point to in the core 8 page document.
Lets not make this mountains out of molehills crap. If one sides argument is that they are not meant to be hard and fast rules they are meant to be guidelines for play then what they are saying is that the whole YMDC forum serves no purpose because the answer to every question is "It's all just guidelines! Do what you want!"
And if it's meant to be something more structured then that then they need to stop preaching that nonsense and start looking at the rules as they are. Figure out how you want to adjust them to be functional? Sure. But no answer coming from that space is universal by it's nature.
Equally claiming “I slavishly follow this non-functional thing because I refuse to see obvious intent” is but one way to play. It’s the wrong way, it’s not how anyone actually plays, but pretend that’s what you do if it makes you feel better.
Modifying a few rules is *not* the same as throwing out the rulebook. An absolute approach is meaningless and a silly riposte. You can absolutely follow the rules... in some cases the intent/spirit of them is screamingly obvious and fixes silly wording issues. It’s how most people understand the rules and play them. Honestly, there’s not more than a handful of internet dwellers who actually claim Assault weapons don’t work. It’s a non-problem unless someone is trying to appear superior online.
I never said that i do. I said thats what the rules are. Claiming otherwise is just blindly giving a pass for no good reason.
Its like 6th ed pyrovores blowing up the whole table. Never once got faq/errataed. Even when they did the whole sweep of them at the end of 7th. Obviously it was never meant to take out the whole table but that IS what the rule said.
Its a complete disservice to ignore the raw because you feel it should be X. The reality is it is raw and we are all just house ruling it away because why wouldnt we?
You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.
Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!
If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.
The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.
This is exactly should happen. Unfortunately with a specific mentality, it just doesnt work=system meltdown. But those people really dont play 40k. Or at least in any way with another person who may/not exist. I'm just glad I've never had the misfortune of playing(something tells me we wouldnt be playing)anyone even remotely like this.
It's kinda obvious who GW makes/markets 40k for. I'll give you a hint it's not those who take circular logic to the extremes so painfully showcased here.
You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.
Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!
If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.
The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.
This is exactly should happen. Unfortunately with a specific mentality, it just doesnt work=system meltdown. But those people really dont play 40k. Or at least in any way with another person who may/not exist. I'm just glad I've never had the misfortune of playing(something tells me we wouldnt be playing)anyone even remotely like this.
It's kinda obvious who GW makes/markets 40k for. I'll give you a hint it's not those who take circular logic to the extremes so painfully showcased here.
One of the issues i allways found was not the stupid mistakes like the assault weapons. That i think would be easy enough to fix for GW. Its when there is mistakes that could go ether way, and can lead to two people understanding the game differently.
It does not help with the game bloating up as well, WIth poor design on top of that for a lot of things. It all leads to confusion and i think a more spread out playerbase on what the game is trying to do.
The game gets a strong following, but i feel with a lot of player loss. I am at the point i think GW may be unhealthy for the hobby as a whole in a lot of cases. WIth players having little alternatives to move into without huge effort, and what i would say is a massive bleeding out of players as well.
You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.
Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!
If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.
The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.
This is exactly should happen. Unfortunately with a specific mentality, it just doesnt work=system meltdown. But those people really dont play 40k. Or at least in any way with another person who may/not exist. I'm just glad I've never had the misfortune of playing(something tells me we wouldnt be playing)anyone even remotely like this.
It's kinda obvious who GW makes/markets 40k for. I'll give you a hint it's not those who take circular logic to the extremes so painfully showcased here.
One of the issues i allways found was not the stupid mistakes like the assault weapons. That i think would be easy enough to fix for GW. Its when there is mistakes that could go ether way, and can lead to two people understanding the game differently.
It does not help with the game bloating up as well, WIth poor design on top of that for a lot of things. It all leads to confusion and i think a more spread out playerbase on what the game is trying to do.
The game gets a strong following, but i feel with a lot of player loss. I am at the point i think GW may be unhealthy for the hobby as a whole in a lot of cases. WIth players having little alternatives to move into without huge effort, and what i would say is a massive bleeding out of players as well.
that's why GW says roll for it, if it is something that cant be agreed upon, let fate/luck decide. After all it is a DICE game.
I would venture to say that with 8th ed they're actually trying to make the game fun for a larger group of people. Like any niche hobby, people will get into something and get out of something on whims far less important than rules or whatever. Personally ive seen someone get into a hobby $10k bam like it was nothing, be into it for 6 months then dump it all when they found the next thing. Some people just like to try new stuff, have the €£¥$ to do so & dont go halfass. others find that they actually dont like it.
I'm not gonna say GW is the best thing since sliced bread but they're far from toxic.
BaconCatBug wrote: No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.
To paraphrase some American comedian whose name currently escapes me - Remember when we gave women the vote? And then we just couldn't stop ourselves, and before you knew it we'd also given the vote to horses, and dogs, and motorbikes, and trees?
Or maybe, just maybe, people in the real world are capable of not getting trapped on your slippery slope every time they make a decision. Choosing to interpret a rule in a way that random-guy-who-doesn't-actually-play-the-game-but-likes-to-argue-about-it-on-the-internet doesn't agree with doesn't immediately lock players into a spiral of chaos where the rules are in constant flux where the rulebook slowly dissolves into a puddle of incomprehensible goo. The vast majority of players are perfectly capable of making a distinction between 'this rule that because of the way it's written doesn't actually do anything' and 'this rule that works just fine'.
And yes, to head off that argument yet again - exactly where each player draws that line may be different, and require some discussion between the players. As much as that may horrify you, that's how the game actually works in the real world. The game is a collaboration between two players, not your personal dictatorship. Your constant harping on about your way being the only way to play the game, when you don't actually even play the game, is ridiculous and not in any way useful to the community of people who actually play the game.
Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when applied fallaciously. It is not a fallacy to assume that if someone successfully argues to ignore rule A, they will also be able to successfully ignore rule B, on the basis that they already ignored rule A and if you disagree you must be a horrible TFG rules lawyer.
Tautology is tautologous. It is a fallacy if the context is different, which is what everyone here is trying to tell you. The assault weapon rule is a classic example of a rule that isn't written how it should be yet works in the real world because literally everyone I've ever met knows how it should work.
I think at this stage everyone arguing that the rules should be perfect (or much better than they are) is just screaming into the abyss. GW is the most successful tabletop wargames company in the world and 40k is the most successful wargame. Their style and quality of rules have been roughly the same for around 30 years. I'm not arguing they couldn't be a lot better than they are, but anyone expecting them to be 100% watertight and unambiguous is setting themselves up for disappointment. At this stage GW have clearly decided their approach is good enough, based on the evidence of their success. You know what? They're probably right. It doesn't matter if the rules wouldn't work when translated into computer code. That's an absurd requirement for a ruleset that explicitly requires two human beings in order to play. I'll also point out that this idea that the rules need to be perfectly (or near-perfectly) written so people from different areas/countries can play a game is simply not true in my experience. I think at this point I've played people from well over a dozen countries in various environments from tournaments to the most casual of games and not once have I had a game grind to a halt because of the way the rules were written. I've had minor disagreements, but often those have actually been because one of us read a perfectly clear rule incorrectly, rather than interpreting an ambiguous rule differently. I think the idea that you need some perfect ruleset to facilitate games between people who have never met and played together is just another internet myth, frankly. I've never experienced a rules problem so serious it actually affected the enjoyment of the game.
I wish the rules were better written than they are and I wish the game balance was better than it was. GW are showing some signs they're moving in that direction but anyone expecting something approaching perfection is going to be very disappointed and at this stage I think they only have themselves to blame for that disappointment. Understanding what the RAW says is important, if only so you understand where it doesn't quite work as it should. I've never seen anyone in a face-to-face game weaponise RAW to the extent people do on this forum. That's why I say the YMDC forum is rapidly degenerating into a barely useful resource. If it highlighted where RAW doesn't quite work then went on to deal with possible real-world solutions, that would be fine, but that's not how many threads go at the moment.
You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.
Dude, it literally says they are a guide for playing games. Right there in the rulebook at the very start of the rules section.
If you have somehow convinced yourself that they are something other than that then I'm afraid its because your reading comprehension skills could use a little work. At this point I think you are willfully ignoring the proper context for that whole chapter, a context which they give you in black and white.
You want to treat them as a vague guideline for 2 players sitting across a table making pew pew sounds? Cool. Thats you. But i paid for a book of rules. Not a guideline for how 5 year olds play with action figures.
Buy new Hyperbolene! You too can turn your niggling arguments about molehills into gigantic mountains with one quick spray!
If you bought the rulebook, you bought a book of rules. It might not be as polished as you expected, but, frankly, after 8 editions and 30 years of GW demonstrating just how they write rules, that could have been determined with a bare minimum of research before you made your purchase if it was going to be a big deal. It's still a very long way from just pushing action figures around the table, and the hyperbole really doesn't do anything to promote sensible discussion.
The simple fact is that for the vast majority of the player base, the assault weapon thing is every bit as non-critical an issue as when we went for multiple editions with models being unable to shoot if their weapons wanted to charge something in the assault phase. Despite the dodgy wording, players were able to figure out what was intended (in most cases without ever actually even realising that the RAW caused an issue), and played it accordingly. All of these 'game breaking' RAW issues are only actually issues on internet forums. In the real world, people either don't notice them to begin with, or they roll a die for it (or whatever other method they choose for resolving conflicts) and get on with the game.
This is exactly should happen. Unfortunately with a specific mentality, it just doesnt work=system meltdown. But those people really dont play 40k. Or at least in any way with another person who may/not exist. I'm just glad I've never had the misfortune of playing(something tells me we wouldnt be playing)anyone even remotely like this.
It's kinda obvious who GW makes/markets 40k for. I'll give you a hint it's not those who take circular logic to the extremes so painfully showcased here.
One of the issues i allways found was not the stupid mistakes like the assault weapons. That i think would be easy enough to fix for GW. Its when there is mistakes that could go ether way, and can lead to two people understanding the game differently.
It does not help with the game bloating up as well, WIth poor design on top of that for a lot of things. It all leads to confusion and i think a more spread out playerbase on what the game is trying to do.
The game gets a strong following, but i feel with a lot of player loss. I am at the point i think GW may be unhealthy for the hobby as a whole in a lot of cases. WIth players having little alternatives to move into without huge effort, and what i would say is a massive bleeding out of players as well.
that's why GW says roll for it, if it is something that cant be agreed upon, let fate/luck decide. After all it is a DICE game.
I would venture to say that with 8th ed they're actually trying to make the game fun for a larger group of people. Like any niche hobby, people will get into something and get out of something on whims far less important than rules or whatever. Personally ive seen someone get into a hobby $10k bam like it was nothing, be into it for 6 months then dump it all when they found the next thing. Some people just like to try new stuff, have the €£¥$ to do so & dont go halfass. others find that they actually dont like it.
I'm not gonna say GW is the best thing since sliced bread but they're far from toxic.
I would say the roll for it option never leaves a good moment. Particularly if you need to roll for it again latter.
If they are trying to make it more fun, I would say they are just making a worse game. They have bleed out players, the only real players for me entering would be though internet saying everyone plays it rather then telling players to ask there local groups. Or Kill team Kill team is about all that most players i know can even bare to play. We never had a big fantasy community, So Age of sigmar release is about all players looked into it and Went NOPE out fast Never looking back.
I would still say they just suck at making a game, and unhealthy for the hobby as a whole. Not entirely there own fault.
I would say the roll for it option never leaves a good moment. Particularly if you need to roll for it again latter.
I have to say, I've rarely had to do this. In 25 years, I could count on one hand the number of times that I've actually would up rolling off on a rules issue. What usually happens instead is both players say how they think it should go, and agree to go with whichever of them sounds more confident that they're correct...
And once I've run into a legitimate issue mid-game, if it's with a regular opponent we'll discuss how to deal with it for future games, and if it's a pickup game the issue goes on the list of things to discuss before the game in future if it's likely to crop up again.
They have bleed out players, the only real players for me entering would be though internet saying everyone plays it rather then telling players to ask there local groups.
Given that GW's profits over the last year or two have been through the roof, clearly they're getting players from somewhere. There have always been bleed out players. Most people who pick up the game don't last more than a couple of years before moving on to either different games or different hobbies.
that's why GW says roll for it, if it is something that cant be agreed upon, let fate/luck decide. After all it is a DICE game.
I would venture to say that with 8th ed they're actually trying to make the game fun for a larger group of people. Like any niche hobby, people will get into something and get out of something on whims far less important than rules or whatever. Personally ive seen someone get into a hobby $10k bam like it was nothing, be into it for 6 months then dump it all when they found the next thing. Some people just like to try new stuff, have the €£¥$ to do so & dont go halfass. others find that they actually dont like it.
I'm not gonna say GW is the best thing since sliced bread but they're far from toxic.
Only rolling for it is one of the most stupid and unliked rule in history. Sports had it, and no one liked it when a coin toss from a referee decided who was going up and who was losing. I am thankful that those rules are no longer used .
Crimson wrote: Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.
Only time I’ve ever broke the game was in 5th when some IG gets killed The Deceiver from inside their Chimera and the C’tan’s resulting explosion gave the vehicle Crew shaken.
Game ground to a halt as we worked out what happened to vehicles damaged in their own turn.
I would say the roll for it option never leaves a good moment. Particularly if you need to roll for it again latter.
I have to say, I've rarely had to do this. In 25 years, I could count on one hand the number of times that I've actually would up rolling off on a rules issue. What usually happens instead is both players say how they think it should go, and agree to go with whichever of them sounds more confident that they're correct...
And once I've run into a legitimate issue mid-game, if it's with a regular opponent we'll discuss how to deal with it for future games, and if it's a pickup game the issue goes on the list of things to discuss before the game in future if it's likely to crop up again.
They have bleed out players, the only real players for me entering would be though internet saying everyone plays it rather then telling players to ask there local groups.
Given that GW's profits over the last year or two have been through the roof, clearly they're getting players from somewhere. There have always been bleed out players. Most people who pick up the game don't last more than a couple of years before moving on to either different games or different hobbies.
Honestly i have only ever had to do it for GW, Ever. Every other system we have play has been clear when reading the rules or able to find a response to how it worked. And i would say they are probably making a lot when players can drop 500$ into a game like 40k and still not even have everything they need in some cases Whales can keep even super neche games going for years.
I also was specificaly saying 40k, as other games have got interest. Such a kill team, Which is the only regularly played GW game where i am now.
Still probably the bigist system, but i wonder if it can hold out without selling a new space marine every 2 months to keep those players buying constantly.
I also think the major issue is a combination of three things and not just the what raw says and issues with how GW writes there rules. which i stated at the start, Maybe not clear enough. And its why i think This Raw vs Rai is such a issue. They have some issues, Lots of issues in all area of the game that cause it to be of such low quality.
Ok, so, skipped a few pages of the thread to add my thoughts.
So, in most cases RAI is RAW. This meaning, that the way a rule is intended to be played, is the way it is written down. The problems arise when what is written can be interpreted in more than one way, not only by multiple people but by a single person just reading the rule to begin with.
True RAW is when there is only one way to interpret how a rule works. Now, this can be incredibly hard to achieve, especially when there are layers upon layers upon layers of interactions and special rules to consider, like in 40k. That said, when you take a step back and think on it logically, it is possible to achieve. It just takes time, logic and understanding.
The main issue we have, as a community in regards to the RAI v RAW debate on many things, is that in many cases RAI isn’t clear, or, the correct RAI isn’t clear in instances where more than 1 interpretation could be considered correct. This then leads down the GW prescribed path of resolution that inevitably gets to the point of “how is it written?”
RAI should be RAW. Unfortunately, GW is at fault in this regard due to their writing of rules and often their faq responses as well.
In most cases, BCB is -technically- correct and the vast majority of the player base is -technically- incorrect in the way something is interpreted, however, interpretation and enjoyment are a big part of the game at the casual level. The issue starts being an issue when we step from the casual game into a more serious game. Because there are then 2 different ways to play the game this then leads to conflict within the community because, even though both could be right (or wrong), the game breaks when you try to play the same rule in 2 different ways, should a member of each community end up playing each other. We then also have the issues of each community, at store/house/club level around the world has their own house rules in place. Topped by each major event having their own house rules in place, and then the ITC and ETC having their own house rules in place. All this does is further muddy the water on what is “correct” in any given situation. As such, we then have to revert back to the original wording of rules and start over again with our opponent – which isn’t then recorded somewhere afterwards so next game you could end up coming to a different conclusion based on another interpretation.
Put simply, the game from a rules point is a big mess at times, and it could be resolved with a bit of time and effort.
I agree with everything kdash just said. Though it comes to no real answer (mostly because I don't think there is one (thanks GW)), it sums up the current and continuing situation.
RAI should be RAW. When it's unclear what RAW is (with shocking frequency) it's up to individual players to come to a resolution that inevitably ends up lacking consistency if not from game to game then within play group to play group and so on.
HIWPI is the name of the game for 8th. And good luck navigating the mess of documents to figure out a basis for coming to an answer.
Let's be honest here: these problems only really exist in Warhammer due to the strange way GW insists on writing rules. Specifically I think this is just a 40k problem; I haven't seen much RAI vs RAW arguments in AOS.
I think the answer is it depends. Some rules, like the Assault weapon one, it's obviously clear what they mean, regardless of how it's actually written. I'd pose a question to BCB: Does he play it as written? What I mean is would he really argue that you can't fire an assault weapon after advancing, or is it just a good example of how poorly worded the rules are?
However, I notice the players tend to assume rules and that becomes canon and the way it's played, regardless of what it says. My go-to example of this is the Renegade Traits section of Vigilus Ablaze, as I have gotten flamed on other forums and social media for pointing this out when everyone else ignores it. The first sentence says your "Chaos Space Marine army" must be taken from a Renegade Chapter to be able to select either the Renegade Trait from the codex or from Vigilus. It then goes on to say if you select from Vigilus, the units in a detachment get the appropriate trait. Literally everyone I've talked to ignored that sentence and just goes to the second one that has the usual detachment wording. But RAW that first part says your whole army needs to be Renegades to even pick the trait, and nothing else in the game has this specific wording.
This is RAW but nobody plays it that way and I've been flamed and called an idiot for pointing out the first sentence gives permission to go to the second instead of just reading the second part like everybody else. Whether or not it's RAW, the players have chosen to treat the intent as something else (in this case, working like everything else in the game). GW didn't choose to address it in the FAQ, so I'm left playing it how everyone else does or risk being labelled TFG.
Sadly that's how it works in 40k. BCB might be technically correct in a lot of cases, but if people are going to ignore it and play by intent as they view it then yes, you are a rules-lawyering TFG to argue against the accepted way it's played. Is that right? No, it's not and GW should absolutely write clearer rules that aren't so ambiguous, but that's how a social game works. Correct or not, you don't go against the grain.
Kdash wrote: We then also have the issues of each community, at store/house/club level around the world has their own house rules in place.
Is that an issue, though? If my gaming group plays a rule one way, and your gaming group on the other side of the planet plays that same rule a different way... what impact does that have?
The only time it's potentially an issue is if someone plays in multiple venues that rule things differently. For the most part, that's just tournament players, and tournaments having their own house rules is hardly something unique to 40K, or gaming.
Kdash wrote: Ok, so, skipped a few pages of the thread to add my thoughts.
So, in most cases RAI is RAW. This meaning, that the way a rule is intended to be played, is the way it is written down. The problems arise when what is written can be interpreted in more than one way, not only by multiple people but by a single person just reading the rule to begin with.
True RAW is when there is only one way to interpret how a rule works. Now, this can be incredibly hard to achieve, especially when there are layers upon layers upon layers of interactions and special rules to consider, like in 40k. That said, when you take a step back and think on it logically, it is possible to achieve. It just takes time, logic and understanding.
The main issue we have, as a community in regards to the RAI v RAW debate on many things, is that in many cases RAI isn’t clear, or, the correct RAI isn’t clear in instances where more than 1 interpretation could be considered correct. This then leads down the GW prescribed path of resolution that inevitably gets to the point of “how is it written?”
RAI should be RAW. Unfortunately, GW is at fault in this regard due to their writing of rules and often their faq responses as well.
In most cases, BCB is -technically- correct and the vast majority of the player base is -technically- incorrect in the way something is interpreted, however, interpretation and enjoyment are a big part of the game at the casual level. The issue starts being an issue when we step from the casual game into a more serious game. Because there are then 2 different ways to play the game this then leads to conflict within the community because, even though both could be right (or wrong), the game breaks when you try to play the same rule in 2 different ways, should a member of each community end up playing each other. We then also have the issues of each community, at store/house/club level around the world has their own house rules in place. Topped by each major event having their own house rules in place, and then the ITC and ETC having their own house rules in place. All this does is further muddy the water on what is “correct” in any given situation. As such, we then have to revert back to the original wording of rules and start over again with our opponent – which isn’t then recorded somewhere afterwards so next game you could end up coming to a different conclusion based on another interpretation.
Put simply, the game from a rules point is a big mess at times, and it could be resolved with a bit of time and effort.
Well said.
I'm curious what the "GW didn't address it so clearly its not a real problem" people's viewpoint is on things like Tau Hammerheads which had their keywords fixed in the index, but returned back to the broken state in the codex. It still isn't fixed after multiple FAQs and Chapter Approved. Longstrike buffs Hammerhead Gunships which is not the keyword used, but the index version of longstrike buffs HAMMERHEAD units which is both the FW and Codex keyword. (but longstrike himself does not have the keyword in the codex version) Does longstrike buff everything? Everything but him? Nothing? If obliterators are a clear example of GW making sure the latest timestamp change is the correct one, does this mean its intentional? Longstrike clearly should buff other hammerheads, but I could see someone arguing that he doesn't buff himself on purpose since he is the ONLY one without the HAMMERHEAD keyword, but instead has his name. All versions also have both the TX7 (variant name goes here) HAMMERHEAD GUNSHIP keyword and HAMMERHEAD keyword except for longstrike.
I think the answer is it depends. Some rules, like the Assault weapon one, it's obviously clear what they mean, regardless of how it's actually written. I'd pose a question to BCB: Does he play it as written? What I mean is would he really argue that you can't fire an assault weapon after advancing, or is it just a good example of how poorly worded the rules are?
IIRC he's said that when he plays on tabletop simulator he doesnt allow his opponents to use assault weapons as intended. Many people say that he's also said that he doesnt actually play the game at all so IDK who to believe at that point.
How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter
Writing nontrivial rulessets perfectly is virtually impossible.
This is nonsense.
The types of errors we are talking about in 40ks rules are logic errors. In programing they cause system crashes. How many of the top 50 video games have system crashes that end the game entirely?
Wanna know some of the top 50 board games of all time with no system crashes? fething pick any of the top 500.
Chess. Checkers. Sorry. Bingo. Backgamon. Go. Poker, any version. Etc...
Games rules writing to prevent logic errors is not THAT hard. It just takes time and care. The more complex the rules the more care needs to be taken and the more likely you need a professional. GW is just gak. Dont make bad excuses for them.
Only because exception handling is worked into the game.
Take Chess for example:
-It has very real potential for an endless loop. So an exception handler was built into the game. End the game in a draw.
-It has a very real potential for arriving at game states for which there is no legal path forward. Again, the exception is handled by rules that cause a draw.
In the same way, 40k actually has had exception handling for most of it's history:
Catch (Exception ex) {
Opponent.Discuss(ex);
If (!ex.Resolved) {
ex.AcceptYourAnswer(Die.Roll(4+));
}
}
This handler solves most problems.
Also, one of the reasons you don't see as wild a problem with the rules in Chess or Checkers, is they're mechanically simpler games. Chess might have a lot more strategic depth, but not mechanical. Chess has ~10^50 possible board setups. That is a lot. But nowhere near 40k. There are only 64 individual positions, only 9 possible units, and only 18 members of each faction.
A super simple game would be something like 3 IG squads and 2 IGHQs vs 3 Tac squads and 2 SMHQs. That's 49 models on the board vs Chess's 36. And that's ignoring selecting armies, equipment, subfactions, missions, etc. And there are far more than 64 places any model can be.
Then we get to individual pieces. In Chess, the most complicated piece is the pawn. It can:
-Move forward 1 space
-Threaten kitty-corner-forward
-Capture a piece kitty-corner-forward
-Conditionally, move forward 2 spaces
-Conditionally, can take a piece in-passing when moving forward
-Conditionally, can transform into another piece
One of the most basic units in 40k is a Tac Marine. It can:
-Move up to 6" in any direction - including vertically
-Embark into something
-Disembark
-Can shoot a boltgun at a target 12-24" away
-Can shoot a boltgun twice at a target 1-12" away
-Can throw a Krak grenade at nearby enemies
-Can throw a Frag grenade at nearby enemies
-Can Overwatch with any of the above
-Can Charge
-Conditionally can pile in
-Conditionally can consolidate
-Can attack something in CC -Can roll an Armor Save when taking a wound
-Can deny deepstrike
-Can reroll morale
Not to mention, each of those actions themselves are much more complicated.
None of the games you mention have anywhere near as much technical complexity as 40k.
Lance845 wrote: How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter
It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.
That's what all of these theoretical arguments about whether the RAW works if converted to computer logic completely miss. It's an irrelevant question. We're not computers and the rules are always able to be interpreted by a human being. I don't think there's anyone who's read the rules who disagrees that, according to RAW, the rules don't actually allow you to fire an assault weapon after Advancing. But it's just not a point worth dwelling on when literally everyone I've ever played against plays that rule the same way, and it's not the literal RAW way.
Lance845 wrote: How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter
It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.
That's what all of these theoretical arguments about whether the RAW works if converted to computer logic completely miss. It's an irrelevant question. We're not computers and the rules are always able to be interpreted by a human being. I don't think there's anyone who's read the rules who disagrees that, according to RAW, the rules don't actually allow you to fire an assault weapon after Advancing. But it's just not a point worth dwelling on when literally everyone I've ever played against plays that rule the same way, and it's not the literal RAW way.
Except thats not how it gets bought up and the discusion is rarely the assault weapons. The vastbmajority of discusions are nowhere near as clear cut and it gets bought up to attack bcb when he points out new flaws in the latest faq/errata. Its disingenuous to attribute it to the one clear cut example i would agree anyone reasonable moves past and then ignore the context under which his or anyones frequency of play comes into question.
Wayniac wrote: Let's be honest here: these problems only really exist in Warhammer due to the strange way GW insists on writing rules. Specifically I think this is just a 40k problem; I haven't seen much RAI vs RAW arguments in AOS.
The AoS team at some point became aware that the way they word their rules, even slight variations of wording in otherwise functionally identical rules, affected the way players interpreted and played those rules. One of them discussed it on a Stormcast podcast when talking about their move towards consistent use of language in the rules and separating out flavour text from the actual rules.
The 40k team should be moving to emulate this, as it ought to make the rules clearer and cut down on inconsistencies. It should also make it easier for the designers to explain how things are meant to work without the community getting hung up on how exactly a rule applies against a myriad of slight variations. Ideally the rules would work exactly as written, but to take the earlier example of legislation, even the most prescriptive of documents can still be open to interpretation in respect of how they're actually supposed to be applied. However, GW should be writing a ruleset that is clear, consistent, concise and user-friendly.
In the end, the truth is there are 2 different discussions people are looking for here:
1) A technical ruleslawyery jaunt into pedantry
2) A wishy-washy subjective consensus-check
The people looking for #1 can't stand the arguments #2 people put forth with their fuzzy logic - fuzzy logic being a cardinal sin to technical discussion. So they throw out language like "ignoring the rules". So they don't get what they're looking for, because #2 people keep saying they're looking for the wrong thing.
The people looking for #2 can't stand the arguments #1 people put forth with their pedantry - as pedantry is a cardinal sin to consensus-building or getting along/going along. So they throw out language like "never even plays". So they don't get what they're looking for, because #1 people keep saying they're looking for the wrong thing.
Bottom line, BCB and Scotsman (I assume these two posters are OK with me using them as examples) are two intelligent people whom I respect and I could have very enjoyable conversations with. And both write some very insightful posts. But BCBs posts are downright detrimental to those looking for the "accepted" or consensus ruling/reading on a topic. And Scotsman's posts that are aimed at helping people find the "accepted" or consensus readings contradict those who are looking for some good technical pedantry fun.
Reasoning out which group is "right" won't get us anywhere. They're looking for two different things. And leaving things as is won't get us anywhere - we'll just keep having this thread over and over again, clog the forums, and chase away less-invested members of both groups.
To move beyond this, we either need to seperate the two sets of conversations, or we need to clarify - and come to a consensus on - which conversation we're having here.
And, from what I'm reading in these threads, it seems the consensus is that this forum and YMDC are mostly looked to for consensus building.
Lance845 wrote: How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter
It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.
That's what all of these theoretical arguments about whether the RAW works if converted to computer logic completely miss. It's an irrelevant question. We're not computers and the rules are always able to be interpreted by a human being. I don't think there's anyone who's read the rules who disagrees that, according to RAW, the rules don't actually allow you to fire an assault weapon after Advancing. But it's just not a point worth dwelling on when literally everyone I've ever played against plays that rule the same way, and it's not the literal RAW way.
Except thats not how it gets bought up and the discusion is rarely the assault weapons. The vastbmajority of discusions are nowhere near as clear cut and it gets bought up to attack bcb when he points out new flaws in the latest faq/errata. Its disingenuous to attribute it to the one clear cut example i would agree anyone reasonable moves past and then ignore the context under which his or anyones frequency of play comes into question.
Thats because every time someone tries to argue RAW. It always turns into this:
Ah yeah, so its okay by forum policy to attack forum posters about something irrelevant to the discusion because you dont like their stance? Good to know.
Bharring wrote: In the end, the truth is there are 2 different discussions people are looking for here:
1) A technical ruleslawyery jaunt into pedantry
2) A wishy-washy subjective consensus-check
I think people coming asking questions nearly always want
3) Guidance for playing the game
That they usually get an answer which is either (1) or (2) and then it devolves into a discussion between the proponents of those positions is the problem with YMDC.
(2) Is at least semi-relevant in any context of organised play as the current consensus is highly likely to be the ruling a TO will make. I am not sure that (1) is ever likely to be actually useful as an answer in any case where it differs from (2) - except as some sort of abstract point of principle and maybe a matter of intellectual interest to some. The answers of form (1) would be useful to someone putting together a list of questions to send to the GWFAQ email, I would be entirely supportive of raising them in the context of someone asking for that sort of information.
I was considering guidance for playing the game to be a subset of consensus-checking. I could see some variation, but posts for one typically also service the other.
Lance845 wrote: How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter
It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.
This.
It’s just annoying chest thumping and showing their own self superiority. He needs to get out and play the game irl and see how far he gets with these, because the answer will be not very far.
I’ve put this challenge to him before and he’s not bitten as frankly I doubt he even owns a single miniature but he needs to go to his local FLGS or GW and play the game from the edicts he has given and see how smoothly it goes against a real person. Answer? It won’t.
Almost as if wargames are a cooperative effort between you and your opponent...
Lance845 wrote: How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter
It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.
This.
It’s just annoying chest thumping and showing their own self superiority. He needs to get out and play the game irl and see how far he gets with these, because the answer will be not very far.
I’ve put this challenge to him before and he’s not bitten as frankly I doubt he even owns a single miniature but he needs to go to his local FLGS or GW and play the game from the edicts he has given and see how smoothly it goes against a real person. Answer? It won’t.
Almost as if wargames are a cooperative effort between you and your opponent...
Actually, it's because I live in the middle of nowhere and need to make a 4 hour round trip to get to my "local" GW/FLGS, but keep on being rude without any repercussions.
I play on Tabletop Simulator and so far have not had a single problem.
Prove what? That I live in the middle of nowhere? Nice dox attempt but I am a little more internet savvy than that (I remember a time when we weren't supposed to put our real info and/or dickpics on public facebook pages, although it would have been BBS or IRC back then). Prove that I've had good experiences in TTS? Come join the TTS server and chat with the people there, I'll PM you an invite.
BaconCatBug wrote: Actually, it's because I live in the middle of nowhere and need to make a 4 hour round trip to get to my "local" GW/FLGS, but keep on being rude without any repercussions.
BaconCatBug wrote: Actually, it's because I live in the middle of nowhere and need to make a 4 hour round trip to get to my "local" GW/FLGS, but keep on being rude without any repercussions.
Is that even physically possible in UK?
It is when you don't have a car. And in any case, I am British but not currently living on the island of Great Britain (woops there goes my dox, only 192 other countries left to check! ).
I think you all take way more offense to what is being said then you should.
What he, and i, and others, say is this is what the rules tell you to do. That is important. I get that you dont care much about it. But your care is less important then the fact that the company that produces the rules tells everyone that these are the rules.
Where any individual goes from there is only actually important to that individual. Others might like that and go along and thats fine. Nobody is going to arrest you for playing your way. But keep in mind that at that point you are not playing matched play. You are playing open. The version where you are told to do what you want.
Me personally? I play beyond the gates of 40k at every opportunity. AA has much better tactical depth and those rules just work. Does that disqualify me from rules discusions? Am i gunna catch gak from here on out for playing an entirely different rule set the vast majority of the time when ever i chime in a ymdc thread talking raw?
I dont care if its annoying. Be an adult. You're old enough to type and spell you should be old enough to not get pissy because someone is answering a rules question with what the rules say. The last time a thread was started in ymdc pointing out the new rule inconsistencies the first page of replies wasnt the op degrading everything. It was the non-rules lawyers, including some mods, taking personal jabs at the op because they dont like that he points out the letter of the law.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.
I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
So answer the question, if we're playing tennis, you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations.
Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.
You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.
sfshilo wrote: Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations. Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.
You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.
Do you know what a fault in tennis is? To ask again, if you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
Changing the rules is a good thing. I want the rules to change. I want them changed to not be stupid and non-functional.
For example, there is a rule in Tennis that states "If a ball hits the net post and goes in, it is in play." Now, by the logic presented by certain posters, that rule shouldn't exist, it should be obvious that the "intent" is for the ball to remain in play. What happened is that whoever decides the rules of the game saw this situation, decided "we need a rule for this", and added it.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.
I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
So answer the question, if we're playing tennis, you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations.
Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.
You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.
Stop making excusses for gw. Other games with equal or greater complexity manage to have more concise rules in less docments with nowhere near the amount of flaws in the rules.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.
I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
So answer the question, if we're playing tennis, you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations.
Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.
You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.
Stop making excusses for gw. Other games with equal or greater complexity manage to have more concise rules in less docments with nowhere near the amount of flaws in the rules.
Audustum wrote: Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match
That's what tournament FAQs are for. They take the place of the player discussion before the game.
GW aren't in the business of producing tournament rulesets. They've supported tournaments to varying degrees over the years because people keep wanting them, but it's just not the style of game that they are making. The closest they have ever come was 5th edition, which Alessio supposedly wrote with the intention of it being a tighter, more tournament-friendly ruleset, but the rest of the studio carried on with their beer-and-pretzels approach regardless.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a concise, tournament-ready 40K ruleset. But if the demands for such a thing over the last 30 years haven't been sufficient to persuade GW that this was worthwhile goal, it seems fairly safe to assume that it's unlikely to change - and given that the game has survived for 30 years in an industry where most games are lucky to last for 5, it's also hard to argue that their approach is wrong, at least for them. They're producing the game that they want to make, and by all reports it's still doing well. So wishing that it was a different kind of game entirely isn't going to get us anywhere.
Now see, here we have to disagree a bit again. I agree, that's what tournament FAQ's can be for. For tournaments to be circuits though (as they try to be), they need uniformity across tournaments as well. That best comes from rules.
Where we disagree is I think GW is trying to make a tournament-ready 40k. I don't think that's how the rules team thinks in the slightest, they seem to be really casual, but I believe it's what management wants. With the additions of streams and casting personalities, I also believe they want to try and get something similar to e-sports going on, but with 40k.
Evidence for this in all over 8th edition. We have regular updates for points, we're now getting designer commentary behind buffs/nerfs. The go to method of play is 'matched play', which implies, matchmaking. We even have tournament guidelines in the BRB, which they label "Organised Events" full well knowing, I believe, that most people will see that as 'tournaments' ("If you are using matched play for an organized event such as a tournament..."). It seems fairly obvious to me they're moving closer and closer to a tournament-friendly ruleset but it seems to be a top-down command rather than a natural development from the rules team themselves.
sfshilo wrote: Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations.
Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.
You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.
Do you know what a fault in tennis is? To ask again, if you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
Changing the rules is a good thing. I want the rules to change. I want them changed to not be stupid and non-functional.
For example, there is a rule in Tennis that states "If a ball hits the net post and goes in, it is in play." Now, by the logic presented by certain posters, that rule shouldn't exist, it should be obvious that the "intent" is for the ball to remain in play. What happened is that whoever decides the rules of the game saw this situation, decided "we need a rule for this", and added it.
The example is a bit off.
If you're playing Tennis, and you see the ball fall out-of-play, and your opponent disagrees, then you're disagreeing over the "facts", not the rules. Disagreements about what actually happened is different from disagreeing about what the rules are.
On the other hand, if you're talking about playing against someone who's arguing that the ball falling out of play is not a fault, that's like playing someone in 40k arguing that Marines have 500W each. It's a silly argument, and consensus understanding is to be dismissive of it.
Further, as an interesting point, some people like to just volley in Tennis. Maybe not even keep score. When just volleying in Tennis, a ball falling out-of-play isn't valid reason for not returning it - because you're not playing "a game of Tennis", you're just hitting the ball back and forth. And, if you agreed to just volley, and then decline to return so that you can point out that they faulted, that *is* being a donkey cave. You came to an agreement about what you were doing it, and you broke that agreement so you could feel superior by pointing out their return wasn't any good. The fact that there are ways of doing Tennis (such as a formal match) in which what you did is legal is wholly irrelevant.
Bharring wrote: If you're playing Tennis, and you see the ball fall out-of-play, and your opponent disagrees, then you're disagreeing over the "facts", not the rules. Disagreements about what actually happened is different from disagreeing about what the rules are.
And to bring it back around to 40k, the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.
Audustum wrote: Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match
That's what tournament FAQs are for. They take the place of the player discussion before the game.
GW aren't in the business of producing tournament rulesets. They've supported tournaments to varying degrees over the years because people keep wanting them, but it's just not the style of game that they are making. The closest they have ever come was 5th edition, which Alessio supposedly wrote with the intention of it being a tighter, more tournament-friendly ruleset, but the rest of the studio carried on with their beer-and-pretzels approach regardless.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a concise, tournament-ready 40K ruleset. But if the demands for such a thing over the last 30 years haven't been sufficient to persuade GW that this was worthwhile goal, it seems fairly safe to assume that it's unlikely to change - and given that the game has survived for 30 years in an industry where most games are lucky to last for 5, it's also hard to argue that their approach is wrong, at least for them. They're producing the game that they want to make, and by all reports it's still doing well. So wishing that it was a different kind of game entirely isn't going to get us anywhere.
Now see, here we have to disagree a bit again. I agree, that's what tournament FAQ's can be for. For tournaments to be circuits though (as they try to be), they need uniformity across tournaments as well. That best comes from rules.
Where we disagree is I think GW is trying to make a tournament-ready 40k. I don't think that's how the rules team thinks in the slightest, they seem to be really casual, but I believe it's what management wants. With the additions of streams and casting personalities, I also believe they want to try and get something similar to e-sports going on, but with 40k.
Evidence for this in all over 8th edition. We have regular updates for points, we're now getting designer commentary behind buffs/nerfs. The go to method of play is 'matched play', which implies, matchmaking. We even have tournament guidelines in the BRB, which they label "Organised Events" full well knowing, I believe, that most people will see that as 'tournaments' ("If you are using matched play for an organized event such as a tournament..."). It seems fairly obvious to me they're moving closer and closer to a tournament-friendly ruleset but it seems to be a top-down command rather than a natural development from the rules team themselves.
I think they're trying to do two things - have a rulesset that works for tournaments, *and* have a game that's simple enough to just pick up and play.
Some evidence of this is in what they choose to FAQ. The rules read literally still don't permit you to fire Assault weapons after advancing, and that hasn't been FAQed. This is probably because a technically-correct writing of the rule might be harder to digest when you're first reading the rules, while being functionally no different from the technically-incorrect but easily-understood rules have now.
A better writer might be able to serve both needs, but the current situation (for that rule) isn't a problem. I've never seen it ever impact a game - people are smart enough, and often don't even notice the "problem". It's really on a "thing" when discussing pedantry.
Any ffg living card games including arkham horror and sw.
Most rpgs in general with their ever growing expansions of player options and dm rules.
Any turn based tactical rpg or rts video game. Especially ones like say... Ff tactics or front mission where the options not just in what you bring to battle but how you customize their abilities and equipment can drastically change things.
And more....
Again, gw is in a league all its own for bad. Nobody has so much resources and does so poor a job.
Bharring wrote: If you're playing Tennis, and you see the ball fall out-of-play, and your opponent disagrees, then you're disagreeing over the "facts", not the rules. Disagreements about what actually happened is different from disagreeing about what the rules are.
And to bring it back around to 40k, the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period.
I've seen it done. Therefore, clearly it can.
That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so.
The objective, hard truth is that "it explicitly states so" isn't as important as you might believe.
Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.
The Most Important Rule wrote:
In a game as detailed
and wide-ranging as
Warhammer 40,000, there
may be times when you
are not sure exactly how to
resolve a situation that has
come up during play. When
this happens, have a quick
chat with your opponent
and apply the solution that
makes the most sense to
both of you (or seems the
most fun!). [...]
BaconCatBug wrote: the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.
EDIT: nevermind im dumb .
Spoiler:
Except it doesnt EXPLICITLY state that you cant fire after advancing.
This is derive information from the wording of two different rules.
if it was EXPLICITLY said, a rule would exist that said "you cannot fire assault weapons if the unit advanced"
BaconCatBug wrote: the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.
Except it doesnt EXPLICITELY state that you cant fire after advancing. This is derive information from the wording of two different rules. if it was EXPLICITELY said, a rule would exist that said "you cannot fire assault weapons if the unit advanced"
I'm sorry, but what part of "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." is not explicit? Do we have different definitions of the term explicit?
Also, you've conflated two ideas. You're claiming a unit cannot fire after advancing. This is not true. You cannot pick a unit to fire in step 1 of the shooting phase if it advanced. If it gets to shoot though some other method, models in such units can fire just fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I've seen it done. Therefore, clearly it can.
So by that logic I've seen Space Marines with 10 trillion wounds each, ergo it clearly is true. Also, at no point have I ever said a unit that advances may never be selected to shoot. Other rules can allow this. It's just the Assault weapon type does not do this.
MTG could be considered as complex. But games like Poker and Blackjack are mechanically *much* simpler.
Any ffg living card games including arkham horror and sw.
I'd agree FFG usually does a much better job of writing rules well. But the LCGs and Arkham Horror series tend to be much simpler than 40k.
Most rpgs in general with their ever growing expansions of player options and dm rules.
Quite the opposite in my experience. While D&D has tended to be better-written, it's also tended to be much more dependent on its exception handling - namely having the DM resolve it. But then, that's appropriate for an RPG.
Any turn based tactical rpg or rts video game.
Have you never played a tactical RPG or RTS that crashed? I've never played a game of 40k that actually crashed.
Especially ones like say... Ff tactics or front mission where the options not just in what you bring to battle but how you customize their abilities and equipment can drastically change things.
And more....
Further, games like this have a great deal more computational and referential capability. They run on much more reliable hardware than "people".
Again, gw is in a league all its own for bad. Nobody has so much resources and does so poor a job.
Games Workshop: 219 GBP revenue
Zenimax (company behind ElderScrolls / modern Fallout): $510 USD revenue
They're certainly in the same league.
I'd also say their games were notable for how buggy they were, just like 40k.
I'd *further* say their games were notable for how great they were - despite the bugs. Also like 40k.
BaconCatBug wrote: the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.
Except it doesnt EXPLICITELY state that you cant fire after advancing.
This is derive information from the wording of two different rules.
if it was EXPLICITELY said, a rule would exist that said "you cannot fire assault weapons if the unit advanced"
I'm sorry, but what part of "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." is not explicit? Do we have different definitions of the term explicit?
BaconCatBug wrote: the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.
Except it doesnt EXPLICITELY state that you cant fire after advancing. This is derive information from the wording of two different rules. if it was EXPLICITELY said, a rule would exist that said "you cannot fire assault weapons if the unit advanced"
I'm sorry, but what part of "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." is not explicit? Do we have different definitions of the term explicit?
Mistake on my part, youre right on this point.
Appreciated. I'd be rather annoyed if after all this time I had simply forgotten to read the rules. Would have been multiple ostrich class eggs on my face.
Bharring wrote: I've seen it done. Therefore, clearly it can.
So by that logic I've seen Space Marines with 10 trillion wounds each, ergo it clearly is true.
It certainly *can* be done. Go ahead, argue with your opponent that it should be done. He's likely to either pick up and leave, or appeal to a neutral/higher authority party.
On the other hand, you know what happens when someone argues they can fire Assault weapons after advancing? They do. Then the game moves on.
Lance845 wrote: I think you all take way more offense to what is being said then you should.
What he, and i, and others, say is this is what the rules tell you to do. That is important. I get that you dont care much about it. But your care is less important then the fact that the company that produces the rules tells everyone that these are the rules.
Where any individual goes from there is only actually important to that individual. Others might like that and go along and thats fine. Nobody is going to arrest you for playing your way. But keep in mind that at that point you are not playing matched play. You are playing open. The version where you are told to do what you want.
Me personally? I play beyond the gates of 40k at every opportunity. AA has much better tactical depth and those rules just work. Does that disqualify me from rules discusions? Am i gunna catch gak from here on out for playing an entirely different rule set the vast majority of the time when ever i chime in a ymdc thread talking raw?
I dont care if its annoying. Be an adult. You're old enough to type and spell you should be old enough to not get pissy because someone is answering a rules question with what the rules say. The last time a thread was started in ymdc pointing out the new rule inconsistencies the first page of replies wasnt the op degrading everything. It was the non-rules lawyers, including some mods, taking personal jabs at the op because they dont like that he points out the letter of the law.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but it's not the act of pointing out what the rules say that is the problem. I actually think knowing what RAW says is very important, even in cases where the RAW is clearly not supposed to be followed to the letter. People aren't getting annoyed because someone has the temerity to point out what RAW says, they're annoyed because too often people derail discussions and turn them into some sort of weird exercise in pedantry and a whole series of "well ackshually"s when the purpose of that forum should be to come to a conclusion about how the rules should be played in the real world. This may differ from what's written on the page. It may also be the case that no consensus is possible because the rule isn't written clearly enough to arrive at one, but unfortunately the internet doesn't allow for situations where one person can't declare themselves to be 100% correct so that never seems to come up as an actual resolution.
The Most Important Rule wrote:
In a game as detailed
and wide-ranging as
Warhammer 40,000, there
may be times when you
are not sure exactly how to
resolve a situation that has
come up during play. When
this happens, have a quick
chat with your opponent
and apply the solution that
makes the most sense to
both of you (or seems the
most fun!). [...]
^This. The rulebook clearly lays out how to resolve tricky situations and "perform a literalist textual analysis and debate it to the nth degree" is not what it says.
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. It says right there in the rulebook that the rules are a guide to playing the game, why fools insist that they are to be treated as something else is a mystery to me especially when those are the exact same people claiming to adhere to every word it says in the book.
sfshilo wrote: Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations.
Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.
You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.
Do you know what a fault in tennis is? To ask again, if you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
Changing the rules is a good thing. I want the rules to change. I want them changed to not be stupid and non-functional.
For example, there is a rule in Tennis that states "If a ball hits the net post and goes in, it is in play." Now, by the logic presented by certain posters, that rule shouldn't exist, it should be obvious that the "intent" is for the ball to remain in play. What happened is that whoever decides the rules of the game saw this situation, decided "we need a rule for this", and added it.
I also want the rules to change! Now, tell me how repeatedly badgering a bunch of anonymous strangers on the internet effects a change to the rules again?
Because, see, when there is a rule that doesn't make sense to me, or works in such a way to reduce the amount of fun my local group has with the game, what we generally do is come to a consensus, and agree to apply a modification or house rule that fixes the problem before Games Workshop even changes the rule. Amazingly, this has not yet resulted in any player imposing a tyranny of 500-wound space marines upon the group, because when consensus among fifty odd players is concerned, the changes we make to the rules as written tend to be the minimum required to get everyone to a functional game.
But, you clearly spend a lot more time and energy than me on this. How has your method worked out? Are the rules what you'd like them to be yet?
Lance845 wrote: I think you all take way more offense to what is being said then you should.
What he, and i, and others, say is this is what the rules tell you to do. That is important. I get that you dont care much about it. But your care is less important then the fact that the company that produces the rules tells everyone that these are the rules.
Where any individual goes from there is only actually important to that individual. Others might like that and go along and thats fine. Nobody is going to arrest you for playing your way. But keep in mind that at that point you are not playing matched play. You are playing open. The version where you are told to do what you want.
Me personally? I play beyond the gates of 40k at every opportunity. AA has much better tactical depth and those rules just work. Does that disqualify me from rules discusions? Am i gunna catch gak from here on out for playing an entirely different rule set the vast majority of the time when ever i chime in a ymdc thread talking raw?
I dont care if its annoying. Be an adult. You're old enough to type and spell you should be old enough to not get pissy because someone is answering a rules question with what the rules say. The last time a thread was started in ymdc pointing out the new rule inconsistencies the first page of replies wasnt the op degrading everything. It was the non-rules lawyers, including some mods, taking personal jabs at the op because they dont like that he points out the letter of the law.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but it's not the act of pointing out what the rules say that is the problem. I actually think knowing what RAW says is very important, even in cases where the RAW is clearly not supposed to be followed to the letter. People aren't getting annoyed because someone has the temerity to point out what RAW says, they're annoyed because too often people derail discussions and turn them into some sort of weird exercise in pedantry and a whole series of "well ackshually"s when the purpose of that forum should be to come to a conclusion about how the rules should be played in the real world. This may differ from what's written on the page. It may also be the case that no consensus is possible because the rule isn't written clearly enough to arrive at one, but unfortunately the internet doesn't allow for situations where one person can't declare themselves to be 100% correct so that never seems to come up as an actual resolution.
This is the best answer I've seen in this thread.
Lance,
I think you're arguing that the rules technically have problems. I'm arguing that the rules technically having problems doesn't prevent us from know what to do, or having fun. I'm not sure we actually disagree on things.
BaconCatBug wrote: the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.
Except it doesnt EXPLICITELY state that you cant fire after advancing.
This is derive information from the wording of two different rules.
if it was EXPLICITELY said, a rule would exist that said "you cannot fire assault weapons if the unit advanced"
I'm sorry, but what part of "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." is not explicit? Do we have different definitions of the term explicit?
Mistake on my part, youre right on this point.
Appreciated. I'd be rather annoyed if after all this time I had simply forgotten to read the rules. Would have been multiple ostrich class eggs on my face.
So we have an agreement that the rules are contradicting as they currently written. We simply have different opinions on how to resolve these cases while in-game. i chose (even if it is against the rules) to let assault weaponry work after advancing.
As an MTG player, i am used to making it a point to respect the ruleset of the game i am playing. 40k is the only exception to this since the rules arent crisp. I still believe that the devs intended for assault weaponry to work as most people use it.
As much as i keep complaining against you,i know that in the end you are technically saying truths (i cant argue that RAW assault doesnt work) but i think its the way you refuse to make a difference between RAW and how people would play it out that irks me.
The problem is, we have two groups of people talking past one another. One group is saying, "The rules are the way they are, and no amount of whining can change that!" The other group is saying, "I'm not going to let a contradictory ruleset get in the way of me and my opponent having a (hopefully fun) game!"
Both groups are correct.
Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.
In the end, it doesn't matter how BCB does (or doesn't) play the game. Or anyone else. The only thing that matters is how you and your opponent play the game. The concept of RAW can be useful to that interaction because it highlights the state of the Rules as they are at that instant. Feel free to ignore those rules if you and your opponent (and TO, if relevant) decide that you want to play it differently. Technically, those are "house rules." House rules are to be embraced, not scorned.
Octopoid wrote: The problem is, we have two groups of people talking past one another. One group is saying, "The rules are the way they are, and no amount of whining can change that!" The other group is saying, "I'm not going to let a contradictory ruleset get in the way of me and my opponent having a (hopefully fun) game!"
Both groups are correct.
Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.
In the end, it doesn't matter how BCB does (or doesn't) play the game. Or anyone else. The only thing that matters is how you and your opponent play the game. The concept of RAW can be useful to that interaction because it highlights the state of the Rules as they are at that instant. Feel free to ignore those rules if you and your opponent (and TO, if relevant) decide that you want to play it differently. Technically, those are "house rules." House rules are to be embraced, not scorned.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Which would be fine.
But.
In about...I'm gonna say....half an hour to an hour, you'll have a response to this perfectly reasonable post saying
"Well by that logic I get to have space marines with a bazillion trillion quamilblion wounds and if you say no you're the TFG and everyone will have to agree with me and everyone will have to clap! The only way to possibly play the game is my way, everything else makes the universe explode!"
Look, if this was the result of Group A saying one thing and Group B saying "ok, fair, it definitely says that, but it's just more practical to ignore that" and that was the end of the discussion and both parties went their separate ways, that'd be the end of the story. The constant re-interjection of Group A with moralistic condemnation of Group B's lack of Rule Following Purity is what keeps the gak a' stormin'.
When a group of kids decides to play superheroes, the kid who claims "I have ALL the powers!" is definitely an annoying little gak, but you also have to contend with the little kid that insists that everyone is only allowed to play soldiers, and when everyone else decides to play superheroes follows them around shrieking 'SUPERHEROES DONT EXIST YOU ARE ALL STUPIDHEADS" at the top of his lungs.
Octopoid wrote: The problem is, we have two groups of people talking past one another. One group is saying, "The rules are the way they are, and no amount of whining can change that!" The other group is saying, "I'm not going to let a contradictory ruleset get in the way of me and my opponent having a (hopefully fun) game!"
Both groups are correct.
Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.
In the end, it doesn't matter how BCB does (or doesn't) play the game. Or anyone else. The only thing that matters is how you and your opponent play the game. The concept of RAW can be useful to that interaction because it highlights the state of the Rules as they are at that instant. Feel free to ignore those rules if you and your opponent (and TO, if relevant) decide that you want to play it differently. Technically, those are "house rules." House rules are to be embraced, not scorned.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Which would be fine.
But.
In about...I'm gonna say....half an hour to an hour, you'll have a response to this perfectly reasonable post saying
"Well by that logic I get to have space marines with a bazillion trillion quamilblion wounds and if you say no you're the TFG and everyone will have to agree with me and everyone will have to clap! The only way to possibly play the game is my way, everything else makes the universe explode!"
Look, if this was the result of Group A saying one thing and Group B saying "ok, fair, it definitely says that, but it's just more practical to ignore that" and that was the end of the discussion and both parties went their separate ways, that'd be the end of the story. The constant re-interjection of Group A with moralistic condemnation of Group B's lack of Rule Following Purity is what keeps the gak a' stormin'.
When a group of kids decides to play superheroes, the kid who claims "I have ALL the powers!" is definitely an annoying little gak, but you also have to contend with the little kid that insists that everyone is only allowed to play soldiers, and when everyone else decides to play superheroes follows them around shrieking 'SUPERHEROES DONT EXIST YOU ARE ALL STUPIDHEADS" at the top of his lungs.
You're absolutely right. One Group, I won't say which, seems intent on spoiling the other Group's fun, at least insofar as they can do so by posting on an internet forum.
However, there's a solution to this!
If someone else's posts have, in your opinion, crossed the line from helpful into troublesome, you can, through a variety of methods, not read that person's posts! I advocate this solution.
Lance845 wrote: I think you all take way more offense to what is being said then you should.
What he, and i, and others, say is this is what the rules tell you to do. That is important. I get that you dont care much about it. But your care is less important then the fact that the company that produces the rules tells everyone that these are the rules.
Where any individual goes from there is only actually important to that individual. Others might like that and go along and thats fine. Nobody is going to arrest you for playing your way. But keep in mind that at that point you are not playing matched play. You are playing open. The version where you are told to do what you want.
Me personally? I play beyond the gates of 40k at every opportunity. AA has much better tactical depth and those rules just work. Does that disqualify me from rules discusions? Am i gunna catch gak from here on out for playing an entirely different rule set the vast majority of the time when ever i chime in a ymdc thread talking raw?
I dont care if its annoying. Be an adult. You're old enough to type and spell you should be old enough to not get pissy because someone is answering a rules question with what the rules say. The last time a thread was started in ymdc pointing out the new rule inconsistencies the first page of replies wasnt the op degrading everything. It was the non-rules lawyers, including some mods, taking personal jabs at the op because they dont like that he points out the letter of the law.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but it's not the act of pointing out what the rules say that is the problem. I actually think knowing what RAW says is very important, even in cases where the RAW is clearly not supposed to be followed to the letter. People aren't getting annoyed because someone has the temerity to point out what RAW says, they're annoyed because too often people derail discussions and turn them into some sort of weird exercise in pedantry and a whole series of "well ackshually"s when the purpose of that forum should be to come to a conclusion about how the rules should be played in the real world. This may differ from what's written on the page. It may also be the case that no consensus is possible because the rule isn't written clearly enough to arrive at one, but unfortunately the internet doesn't allow for situations where one person can't declare themselves to be 100% correct so that never seems to come up as an actual resolution.
The first 3 replies are people going way the feth into derailing to poke at the OP.
The 5th is someone saying, OP is right.
On page 2 it's locked by a mod because the OP "doesn't play the game" and apparently didn't want to move it to YMDC while discussion was going on.
You can say it's BCB who derails threads all you want. You may even have evidence to support times when he has. But it isn't ONLY BCB and it's no ONLY "rules lawyers". Stop painting it like it is.
Lance845 wrote: You can say it's BCB who derails threads all you want. You may even have evidence to support times when he has. But it isn't ONLY BCB and it's no ONLY "rules lawyers". Stop painting it like it is.
Person A has a long history of being disruptive and argumentative.
Person A creates a forum post with the potential (indeed, even a likelihood) of being disruptive and argumentative.
Person A gets shouted down for being disruptive and argumentative.
Person B says, "Not all Person As"
Octopoid wrote: The problem is, we have two groups of people talking past one another. One group is saying, "The rules are the way they are, and no amount of whining can change that!" The other group is saying, "I'm not going to let a contradictory ruleset get in the way of me and my opponent having a (hopefully fun) game!"
Both groups are correct.
Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.
In the end, it doesn't matter how BCB does (or doesn't) play the game. Or anyone else. The only thing that matters is how you and your opponent play the game. The concept of RAW can be useful to that interaction because it highlights the state of the Rules as they are at that instant. Feel free to ignore those rules if you and your opponent (and TO, if relevant) decide that you want to play it differently. Technically, those are "house rules." House rules are to be embraced, not scorned.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Which would be fine.
But.
In about...I'm gonna say....half an hour to an hour, you'll have a response to this perfectly reasonable post saying
"Well by that logic I get to have space marines with a bazillion trillion quamilblion wounds and if you say no you're the TFG and everyone will have to agree with me and everyone will have to clap! The only way to possibly play the game is my way, everything else makes the universe explode!"
Look, if this was the result of Group A saying one thing and Group B saying "ok, fair, it definitely says that, but it's just more practical to ignore that" and that was the end of the discussion and both parties went their separate ways, that'd be the end of the story. The constant re-interjection of Group A with moralistic condemnation of Group B's lack of Rule Following Purity is what keeps the gak a' stormin'.
This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.
Lance845 wrote: You can say it's BCB who derails threads all you want. You may even have evidence to support times when he has. But it isn't ONLY BCB and it's no ONLY "rules lawyers". Stop painting it like it is.
Person A has a long history of being disruptive and argumentative.
Person A creates a forum post with the potential (indeed, even a likelihood) of being disruptive and argumentative.
Person A gets shouted down for being disruptive and argumentative.
Person B says, "Not all Person As"
This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.
The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.
When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.
lets take the assault weapons as an example for a theoretical thread in YMDC:
Q: Hey guys, i'm unsure of how assault weapons function in-game, help?
A: according to the rules, you have to pick a unit (that didnt advance, fallback and isnt within 1" of an enemy model) to shoot. A model may fire its assault weapon even if it advanced. this means that you cannot pick the unit to shoot since it advanced.(Group A's answer).
However, it is wildly accepted that assault weapons can be fired after advancing and it is used in all tournaments and most casual games. I personally do allow assault weapons to shoot in the games i play in. (Group B answer).
now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
Lance845 wrote: I think you all take way more offense to what is being said then you should.
What he, and i, and others, say is this is what the rules tell you to do. That is important. I get that you dont care much about it. But your care is less important then the fact that the company that produces the rules tells everyone that these are the rules.
Where any individual goes from there is only actually important to that individual. Others might like that and go along and thats fine. Nobody is going to arrest you for playing your way. But keep in mind that at that point you are not playing matched play. You are playing open. The version where you are told to do what you want.
Me personally? I play beyond the gates of 40k at every opportunity. AA has much better tactical depth and those rules just work. Does that disqualify me from rules discusions? Am i gunna catch gak from here on out for playing an entirely different rule set the vast majority of the time when ever i chime in a ymdc thread talking raw?
I dont care if its annoying. Be an adult. You're old enough to type and spell you should be old enough to not get pissy because someone is answering a rules question with what the rules say. The last time a thread was started in ymdc pointing out the new rule inconsistencies the first page of replies wasnt the op degrading everything. It was the non-rules lawyers, including some mods, taking personal jabs at the op because they dont like that he points out the letter of the law.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but it's not the act of pointing out what the rules say that is the problem. I actually think knowing what RAW says is very important, even in cases where the RAW is clearly not supposed to be followed to the letter. People aren't getting annoyed because someone has the temerity to point out what RAW says, they're annoyed because too often people derail discussions and turn them into some sort of weird exercise in pedantry and a whole series of "well ackshually"s when the purpose of that forum should be to come to a conclusion about how the rules should be played in the real world. This may differ from what's written on the page. It may also be the case that no consensus is possible because the rule isn't written clearly enough to arrive at one, but unfortunately the internet doesn't allow for situations where one person can't declare themselves to be 100% correct so that never seems to come up as an actual resolution.
The first 3 replies are people going way the feth into derailing to poke at the OP.
The 5th is someone saying, OP is right.
On page 2 it's locked by a mod because the OP "doesn't play the game" and apparently didn't want to move it to YMDC while discussion was going on.
You can say it's BCB who derails threads all you want. You may even have evidence to support times when he has. But it isn't ONLY BCB and it's no ONLY "rules lawyers". Stop painting it like it is.
So, as the third reply to that post that you claim is "Derailing to poke at the OP"
can you break down for me what part of this post appears to be a "Derailment of the premise of the thread" in my response?
Spoiler:
Oh hey, I love gish gallops. It's so fun to come in guns a' blazin' with a bunch of references to arguments you probably had somewhere else, without linking those arguments, or backing up your assertions in any way. Just reference 'em and hope people take your word on it as an authority! After all, you just said a lot of things.
Seems like your first, second, and fourth examples here all rely on the game system not having "general rules are trumped by more specific rules/rulings" as a foundation of game design.
If a FAQ answer says, generally "treat overwatch like the shooting phase" and then another FAQ answer says "this ability does not work in Overwatch" that would appear to be an example of a specific exception being added to a general rule to preclude a particular abuse case of a new rule. Wouldn't it?
Your second point does indeed appear to be an example based on a mistaken reading of the Fireblade's rule, which specifically says the ability only works within half range of the weapon. Though I don't the examples given as hypotheticals in the FAQ are usually taken as Rule Gospel, at least not by your congregation?
Because it seems like rather than a derailment of the premise of the thread, it was a disagreement with the various points made in the OP, admittedly with an accusation that the OP had just got finished with a particular type of bad faith argument.
VladimirHerzog 775190 10443180 wrote:The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.
When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.
This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.
The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.
When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.
I never said the second group had NO value. And I wasn't advocating for "talking down and running off" their opinions. Group B, in this thread and others, advocates both that Group A has no value AND that those people need to be constantly talked down and run off.
lets take the assault weapons as an example for a theoretical thread in YMDC:
Q: Hey guys, i'm unsure of how assault weapons function in-game, help? A: according to the rules, you have to pick a unit (that didnt advance, fallback and isnt within 1" of an enemy model) to shoot. A model may fire its assault weapon even if it advanced. this means that you cannot pick the unit to shoot since it advanced.(Group A's answer). However, it is wildly accepted that assault weapons can be fired after advancing and it is used in all tournaments and most casual games. I personally do allow assault weapons to shoot in the games i play in. (Group B answer).
now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
Agree. However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.
This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.
The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.
When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.
I never said the second group had NO value. And I wasn't advocating for "talking down and running off" their opinions. Group B, in this thread and others, advocates both that Group A has no value AND that those people need to be constantly talked down and run off.
OK, so you aren't actually reading other people's replies at all then? Either that or Group B is a fictional group that doesn't represent any actual group on this board. That highlighted bit is absolutely not accurate at all. The value of knowing the RAW isn't in dispute by anyone. I think this is about the 12th time this has been pointed out to you. It's how that information is used that causes the problems between the two groups.
Lance845 wrote: However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.
I will admit, there are some strong and immediate reactions to certain posters because of their past actions. I also think there is a certain point at which their posting becomes less an item of RAW assistance and more an item of "Aha, I gotcha GW!" These posts, while they may be technically correct, are not helpful to new readers and do not, in my opinion, deserve the benefit of the doubt, based on the history of the poster in question.
So, while Group A has a number of individuals within it that can be helpful, it also has a number of individuals who seem to be helpful by accident. I don't think it's wrong for the large proportion of Group B (who also has some of such individuals) to react poorly when those individuals from Group A start their usual manure.
Agree. However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.
Im not saying that only BCB is in the wrong, both groups have stubborn members that want to win the multi-thread spanning argument of RAW vs RAI. I think the reason BCB's posts generate so much heat is because of they way he presents his opinion as an absolute. he ignores group B and refuses to see their value. this in turn triggers group b and thats when threads derail.
Honestly, i agree with the message he is trying to pass, i simply disagree with the presentation he gives .
This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.
The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.
When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.
I never said the second group had NO value. And I wasn't advocating for "talking down and running off" their opinions. Group B, in this thread and others, advocates both that Group A has no value AND that those people need to be constantly talked down and run off.
lets take the assault weapons as an example for a theoretical thread in YMDC:
Q: Hey guys, i'm unsure of how assault weapons function in-game, help?
A: according to the rules, you have to pick a unit (that didnt advance, fallback and isnt within 1" of an enemy model) to shoot. A model may fire its assault weapon even if it advanced. this means that you cannot pick the unit to shoot since it advanced.(Group A's answer).
However, it is wildly accepted that assault weapons can be fired after advancing and it is used in all tournaments and most casual games. I personally do allow assault weapons to shoot in the games i play in. (Group B answer).
now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
Agree. However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.
I also agree. While BCB can be obtuse he does bring up/point out the broken things that can potentially be an issue during game play.
Many YMDC threads are actually derailed by people reacting to BCB (as evidenced by the last 2 pages of this thread alone) and BCB's absolutism and whether his RAW is actually RAW. So, who's actually at fault - the actual troll or the ones feeding the troll - is quite debatable.
What it seems to me is that GW somewhat overly relies on their "most important rule" and expects the players to alter the rules as they seem fit. So in essence, altering the rule so that it works is actually a big part of the game. Therefore, it is fallacious to say we are "breaking the rules" by houseruling it (since the permission to alter the rule is explicitly permitted). The most important rule is part of the game, we're just not allowed to defer to it while we discuss the RAW in Dakka. The issue is that while there are many instances where both plays can agree to rule it otherwise, there are also MANY instances where only one side benefits.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
No one expects you to guess every possible house rule. That's a straw man.
They just expect you not to shoot down said house rules when they are presented.
Many YMDC threads are actually derailed by people reacting to BCB (as evidenced by the last 2 pages of this thread alone) and BCB's absolutism and whether his RAW is actually RAW. So, who's actually at fault - the actual troll or the ones feeding the troll - is quite debatable.
The entire point of RAW absolutism is to remove subjectivity. RAW is RAW, regardless of what peoples "interpretation" of it. When a rule says "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." there is no way to interpret that in more than a single way unless you start redefining the English language.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
This is exactly why your posts get so much heat, you provoke people based on their Opinion.
You don't have to guess every single house rules, keep being in Group A and giving the textbook RAW answer, just dont attack people that are in Group B.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
No one expects you to guess every possible house rule. That's a straw man.
They just expect you not to shoot down said house rules when they are presented.
If someone asks me "How many shots does a Heavy Bolter fire?" Do I say "Three" or do I say "The rules say three, but people might decide to house rule it as thirteen."
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
No one expects you to guess every possible house rule. That's a straw man.
They just expect you not to shoot down said house rules when they are presented.
If someone asks me "How many shots does a Heavy Bolter fire?" Do I say "Three" or do I say "The rules say three, but people might decide to house rule it as thirteen."
You say, "The Rules say three." Then, when someone else says, "We houserule it as thirteen," just stay silent about it.
This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.
The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.
When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.
I never said the second group had NO value. And I wasn't advocating for "talking down and running off" their opinions. Group B, in this thread and others, advocates both that Group A has no value AND that those people need to be constantly talked down and run off.
lets take the assault weapons as an example for a theoretical thread in YMDC:
Q: Hey guys, i'm unsure of how assault weapons function in-game, help?
A: according to the rules, you have to pick a unit (that didnt advance, fallback and isnt within 1" of an enemy model) to shoot. A model may fire its assault weapon even if it advanced. this means that you cannot pick the unit to shoot since it advanced.(Group A's answer).
However, it is wildly accepted that assault weapons can be fired after advancing and it is used in all tournaments and most casual games. I personally do allow assault weapons to shoot in the games i play in. (Group B answer).
now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
Agree. However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.
I also agree. While BCB can be obtuse he does bring up/point out the broken things that can potentially be an issue during game play.
Many YMDC threads are actually derailed by people reacting to BCB (as evidenced by the last 2 pages of this thread alone) and BCB's absolutism and whether his RAW is actually RAW. So, who's actually at fault - the actual troll or the ones feeding the troll - is quite debatable.
It's more like what is causing the real damage? The obtuse tactless whatever (all said with affection) or those who troll him?
What it seems to me is that GW somewhat overly relies on their "most important rule" and expects the players to alter the rules as they seem fit. So in essence, altering the rule so that it works is actually a big part of the game. Therefore, it is fallacious to say we are "breaking the rules" by houseruling it (since the permission to alter the rule is explicitly permitted). The most important rule is part of the game, we're just not allowed to defer to it while we discuss the RAW in Dakka. The issue is that while there are many instances where both plays can agree to rule it otherwise, there are also MANY instances where only one side benefits.
I would argue that the very moment it stops being raw and you start relying on that little "most important" tid bit you are not playing Matched play anymore. You have delved firmly into Open Play where anything goes. Specifically because that is what Open Play is for. And if thats the case... well.... what the hell good are those answers?
Case in point, I never answer YMDC threads with information about BtGo40k because it's just not relevant how the game I play fixes the issues. They are not asking about all the changes I make. They are asking about the game as presented by GW.
It's a bad terrible tangled mess of a game so there ends up HAVING to be some HIWPI. But that should be restrained and called on as little as possible so as to keep the rules cohesive.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
This is exactly why your posts get so much heat, you provoke people based on their Opinion.
You don't have to guess every single house rules, keep being in Group A and giving the textbook RAW answer, just dont attack people that are in Group B.
Fun fact, I don't attack people in group B because I got hit with the Modstick for doing so. I'm not allowed to express my opinions on House Rules anymore, so I don't. I simply state that the rules say what the rules say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Octopoid wrote: You say, "The Rules say three." Then, when someone else says, "We houserule it as thirteen," just stay silent about it.
Why should I stay silent about what, is in my opinion, faulty information? YMDC is not for house rules, that's for the Proposed Rules forum.
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
The friction really comes from certain people's hostility to finding actual functional solutions. Sometimes indeed the rules do not function as written or are written in ambiguous way. In such a situation, in order to play the game, one must look for contextual clues for the intended function. These may include looking at other somewhat similar rules, the structure of the game as a whole, GW battle reports and indeed even answers by the Facebook team. This is a process some people simply can't stand, sometimes even going so far than claiming that divining the intent is impossible. These are often the same people who seem to be incapable of grasping that a textual ambiguity is even a thing, and that a set sequence of words does not necessarily have one explicitly correct reading irrespective of the context. This is puzzling, considering that as a human beings in a modern world we need to deal with all sorts of written laws and instructions in our daily lives, and most of us somehow manage even though these texts are routinely ridden with the similar sort of inaccuracies and ambiguities.
Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.
If the rulebook itself gave no clue as to what the rules are for or how to resolve any misunderstandings and disagreements then both groups would be equally correct.
The rulebook makes it clear that the rules are a guide to playing the game.
The rulebook states that in case of ambiguity players should agree it among themselves as they see fit.
Group B are the ones actually following the instructions in the rules on how to interpret the rules.
Group A are selectively refusing to read those parts of the rulebook which contradict their whole approach and then are claiming to be the most faithful to the rulebook. That makes them wrong. Now so far as I'm concerned people can be as wrong as they like and it makes no difference but if they insist on being wrong on every discussion about rules at the expense of those discussions being productive and useful then they are a problem.
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Only if we're using YOUR logic, which is demonstrably fallacious. For example, the argument you have just made is called, appropriately, an "All-or-nothing" fallacy. There are many individuals who find that changing one thing does not, in fact, require them to change how many Wounds a Space Marine has, regardless of claims to the contrary, and this does not actually violate logic in any way, shape, or form.
EDIT: Fun fact - it can also fall under the Slippery Slope or False Dilemma fallacies.
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Only if we're using YOUR logic, which is demonstrably fallacious. For example, the argument you have just made is called, appropriately, an "All-or-nothing" fallacy. There are many individuals who find that changing one thing does not, in fact, require them to change how many Wounds a Space Marine has, regardless of claims to the contrary, and this does not actually violate logic in any way, shape, or form.
EDIT: Fun fact - it can also fall under the Slippery Slope or False Dilemma fallacies.
And as I have had to explain multiple times, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if applied fallaciously. This is not a fallacious application.
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
"Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
I don't attack people in group B because I got hit with the Modstick for doing so. I'm not allowed to express my opinions on House Rules anymore, so I don't.
this abrasive way of wording your sentence can be considered an attack.
Why should I stay silent about what, is in my opinion, faulty information? YMDC is not for house rules, that's for the Proposed Rules forum.
except its not faulty information ,its an addition to what you bring, a lot of people bringing these solutions actually agree with you but realise that making assault nonfunctional makes for bad games.
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Only if we're using YOUR logic, which is demonstrably fallacious. For example, the argument you have just made is called, appropriately, an "All-or-nothing" fallacy. There are many individuals who find that changing one thing does not, in fact, require them to change how many Wounds a Space Marine has, regardless of claims to the contrary, and this does not actually violate logic in any way, shape, or form.
EDIT: Fun fact - it can also fall under the Slippery Slope or False Dilemma fallacies.
And as I have had to explain multiple times, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if applied fallaciously. This is not a fallacious application.
As you have explained incorrectly. Slippery Slope is always a fallacy. It MAY, on occasion, result in factually correct conclusions, but as an argument, it is always a fallacy. Also, that doesn't explain away the other two fallacies.
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Only if we're using YOUR logic, which is demonstrably fallacious. For example, the argument you have just made is called, appropriately, an "All-or-nothing" fallacy. There are many individuals who find that changing one thing does not, in fact, require them to change how many Wounds a Space Marine has, regardless of claims to the contrary, and this does not actually violate logic in any way, shape, or form.
EDIT: Fun fact - it can also fall under the Slippery Slope or False Dilemma fallacies.
And as I have had to explain multiple times, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if applied fallaciously. This is not a fallacious application.
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
We decide as two individuals working together toward a common goal. We do this based on circumstantial evidence, context clues, and open, honest discussion.
VladimirHerzog wrote: this abrasive way of wording your sentence can be considered an attack.
If people think that is an attack of any sort, it's a problem with them, not me. Maybe I was just raised differently in an era before social media and snowflake mentality.
VladimirHerzog wrote: this abrasive way of wording your sentence can be considered an attack.
If people think that is an attack of any sort, it's a problem with them, not me. Maybe I was just raised differently in an era before social media and snowflake mentality.
As you have explained incorrectly. Slippery Slope is always a fallacy. It MAY, on occasion, result in factually correct conclusions, but as an argument, it is always a fallacy. Also, that doesn't explain away the other two fallacies.
You should read the article you posted. From said article: ""slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. The strength of the argument depends on two factors. The first is the strength of each link in the causal chain; the argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The second is the number of links; the more links there are, the more likely it is that other factors could alter the consequences." Therefore, if we accept that Slippery Slope arguments can be non-fallacious, doing so requires strong evidence, which you have failed to provide.
Octopoid wrote: We decide as two individuals working together toward a common goal. We do this based on circumstantial evidence, context clues, and open, honest discussion.
That's literally "just because" wrapped in a veneer of "consensus equals truth."
Straw man. That's not literally "just because." Neither is it "consensus equals truth." It is "consensus equals a game we can play." "Truth," with a capital T, is not required, and sometimes not desirable, for a game where two people interact to reach a common goal.
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Except to a reasonable person, it does function. It doesn't function in the way you want it to, but it does function. Even from a "intention" viewpoint, GW literally tells you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
"I don't like that the speed limit is 50kph, therefore I shall ignore it and drive at 80kph."
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Also the fact that official GW battle reports let assault weapons work is a pretty good indicator of the intent of the rule
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Except to a reasonable person, it does function. It doesn't function in the way you want it to, but it does function.
"I don't like that the speed limit is 50kph, therefore I shall ignore it and drive at 80kph."
"Reasonable Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability."
While it may not be a standard that is employed (enough) in 40K, a reasonable person exercises AVERAGE care, skill, and judgement. Thus, if the average of all people on the road is 80KPH, that becomes the reasonable standard, law be damned.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Also the fact that official GW battle reports let assault weapons work is a pretty good indicator of the intent of the rule
Actually, GW's official email instructs you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Battle Reports are not rules. Neither is the email, but for the intent crowd I assumed the official GW email holds more weight than battle reports.
BaconCatBug wrote: That's literally "just because" wrapped in a veneer of "consensus equals truth."
Which is how it is for a social activity. This game literally doesn't exist without the people playing it. And this is how the real world works too, and as a Brit, you should be acutely aware of it. The British system of government relies heavily on conventions, for example the monarch's powers are wildly different in RAW than RAI. Granted, right now the UK isn't perhaps the best possible example of a working system, but it seemed to do okay for centuries...
VladimirHerzog wrote: Also the fact that official GW battle reports let assault weapons work is a pretty good indicator of the intent of the rule
Actually, GW's official email instructs you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Battle Reports are not rules. Neither is the email, but for the intent crowd I assumed the official GW email holds more weight than battle reports.
and the rulebook has this rule as The most important rule
Spoiler:
In a game as detailed
and wide-ranging as
Warhammer 40,000, there
may be times when you
are not sure exactly how to
resolve a situation that has
come up during play. When
this happens, have a quick
chat with your opponent
and apply the solution that
makes the most sense to
both of you (or seems the
most fun!). If no single
solution presents itself, you
and your opponent should
roll off, and whoever rolls
highest gets to choose what
happens. Then you can get
on with the fighting!
so if we have a disagreement we just roll it off.
who are you to decide what source holds more value between battle reports and emails out of all things?
VladimirHerzog wrote: Also the fact that official GW battle reports let assault weapons work is a pretty good indicator of the intent of the rule
Actually, GW's official email instructs you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Battle Reports are not rules. Neither is the email, but for the intent crowd I assumed the official GW email holds more weight than battle reports.
Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Also the fact that official GW battle reports let assault weapons work is a pretty good indicator of the intent of the rule
Actually, GW's official email instructs you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Battle Reports are not rules. Neither is the email, but for the intent crowd I assumed the official GW email holds more weight than battle reports.
Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Let's not get hyperbolic. I'm sure BCB isn't the only one who cares.
VladimirHerzog wrote: this abrasive way of wording your sentence can be considered an attack.
If people think that is an attack of any sort, it's a problem with them, not me. Maybe I was just raised differently in an era before social media and snowflake mentality.
Unironically accusing the world at large of "snowflake mentality" when you constantly cast yourself as a persecuted minority and decrying "social media" when you participate in ceaseless online discussion about a game that you have said yourself you haven't played in physical reality for about a decade is one of the reasons that reading the things you post is always one of the highlights of my day.
You want to know why the average person who plays 40k would use the You Make Da Call forum?
I'd imagine this is generally how it goes down:
Two human beings paint miniatures and congregate in a designated area where painted pieces of miniature scenery and large, flat tables allow games to be played. They place their physical pieces of plastic on the table and agree to use a document written by a neutral third party and random chance as a means to allow for one side to be declared winner and the other declared loser in a way that both agree to be "fair" and that avoids argument.
When a rule or sentence in the written document is worded in such a way that one of the humans might interpret it one way and the other differently, the pair decides together how to resolve the discrepancy between their interpretations so that play of the game can resume. After resolving the game, one or both of them decide that the opinions of a larger pool of humans could be helpful to see if their solutions would be considered "fair" to more humans. In the same way that using the neutral third party's written document helps to establish fairness and avoid emotional distress during the playing of the game, the opinions of the larger pool of humans is used as a replacement for a direct clarified answer from the neutral third party.
Let's not get hyperbolic. I'm sure BCB isn't the only one who cares.
Perhaps. But on this specific issue (i.e. how the assault weapons function) I have literally never encountered anyone or heard of anyone (even on the internet) who would play it like he thinks it should be played.
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
"Wildly accepted" is the basis for almost everything. "Provably true" is the basis for almost nothing.
It is "wildly accepted" that A + B = B + A, but it is not proven. Is all math wrong that bases itself on such a "wildly accepted" postulate?
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.
Well, you can disagree until your face turns blue. In the meantime, I'll be over here having my cake and also eating it.
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
If everyone agrees with you, it does. But they won't.
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
If everyone agrees with you, it does. But they won't.
So everyone (that is, literally everyone) must agree in order for it to be convention.
I do not agree you can select a unit to fire after advancing, even if the unit has assault weapons.
Therefore, it is not convention that a unit may fire assault weapons after advancing. Q.E.D.
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
If everyone agrees with you, it does. But they won't.
So everyone (that is, literally everyone) must agree in order for it to be convention.
I do not agree you can select a unit to fire after advancing, even if the unit has assault weapons.
Therefore, it is not convention that a unit may fire assault weapons after advancing. Q.E.D.
Many YMDC threads are actually derailed by people reacting to BCB (as evidenced by the last 2 pages of this thread alone) and BCB's absolutism and whether his RAW is actually RAW. So, who's actually at fault - the actual troll or the ones feeding the troll - is quite debatable.
The entire point of RAW absolutism is to remove subjectivity. RAW is RAW, regardless of what peoples "interpretation" of it. When a rule says "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." there is no way to interpret that in more than a single way unless you start redefining the English language.
Again, this is not about whether the rule is written correctly/clearly/free of ambiguity or not, but rather your understanding/implication of what the term "RAW" entails. You say "RAW is RAW" when in fact you seem to imply "The written text is the written text". It's precisely because you like to interchange RAW and written text so freely that people call you "absolutist".
The most RAW can do is tell you whether there are multiple possible meanings. It doesn't tell you which meaning , if there are many, is the absolute meaning.
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Except to a reasonable person, it does function. It doesn't function in the way you want it to, but it does function.
"I don't like that the speed limit is 50kph, therefore I shall ignore it and drive at 80kph."
"Reasonable Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability."
While it may not be a standard that is employed (enough) in 40K, a reasonable person exercises AVERAGE care, skill, and judgement. Thus, if the average of all people on the road is 80KPH, that becomes the reasonable standard, law be damned.
And most lawyers would tell you that a 'reasonable person' is really just whatever a judge (or jury) happens to think at the time the question is put to them. It changes based on jury makeup, geography and even time of day. It's actually a really fungible standard. There's also a caveat that a 'reasonable person' would never violate a law, so any law breaking, no matter how common, is considered unreasonable as a rule.
Many YMDC threads are actually derailed by people reacting to BCB (as evidenced by the last 2 pages of this thread alone) and BCB's absolutism and whether his RAW is actually RAW. So, who's actually at fault - the actual troll or the ones feeding the troll - is quite debatable.
The entire point of RAW absolutism is to remove subjectivity. RAW is RAW, regardless of what peoples "interpretation" of it. When a rule says "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." there is no way to interpret that in more than a single way unless you start redefining the English language.
Again, this is not about whether the rule is written correctly/clearly/free of ambiguity or not, but rather your understanding/implication of what the term "RAW" entails. You say "RAW is RAW" when in fact you seem to imply "The written text is the written text". It's precisely because you like to interchange RAW and written text so freely that people call you "absolutist".
But... RAW means Rules as Written. What are the Rules as Written, if not the Written words that describe the Rules?
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Except to a reasonable person, it does function. It doesn't function in the way you want it to, but it does function. Even from a "intention" viewpoint, GW literally tells you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
"I don't like that the speed limit is 50kph, therefore I shall ignore it and drive at 80kph."
Great example. The law says the speed limit is 50mph. If someone goes 80mph are they breaking the law?
Not necessarily. If there were a fire or explosion or shooter, and you shot off away from the scene at 80mph, you likely didn't break the law.
In fact, to be convicted of a crime (at least in the US), a "jury of your peers" must determine guilt. This is, in part, because people agreeing with what the rules should be was seen over the rules as written was seen as a good thing.
Many YMDC threads are actually derailed by people reacting to BCB (as evidenced by the last 2 pages of this thread alone) and BCB's absolutism and whether his RAW is actually RAW. So, who's actually at fault - the actual troll or the ones feeding the troll - is quite debatable.
The entire point of RAW absolutism is to remove subjectivity. RAW is RAW, regardless of what peoples "interpretation" of it. When a rule says "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." there is no way to interpret that in more than a single way unless you start redefining the English language.
Again, this is not about whether the rule is written correctly/clearly/free of ambiguity or not, but rather your understanding/implication of what the term "RAW" entails. You say "RAW is RAW" when in fact you seem to imply "The written text is the written text". It's precisely because you like to interchange RAW and written text so freely that people call you "absolutist".
But... RAW means Rules as Written. What are the Rules as Written, if not the Written words that describe the Rules?
That's precisely what this post is about - to get at a point of understanding of what RAW is.
RAW is once removed interpretation of the text. It is not THE text.
BaconCatBug wrote: But... RAW means Rules as Written. What are the Rules as Written, if not the Written words that describe the Rules?
That's exactly what this thread was trying to determine. It seems that a majority of people recognize that RAW is a goal to be aspired toward rather than an absolute measure to be adhered to unswervingly.
Bharring wrote: "Wildly accepted" is the basis for almost everything. "Provably true" is the basis for almost nothing.
It is "wildly accepted" that A + B = B + A, but it is not proven. Is all math wrong that bases itself on such a "wildly accepted" postulate?
Didn't Bertrand Russell go over that in Principia Mathematica? Or are you talking on a more metaphysical aspect / suggesting we're all Brains in a Jar so we can never prove anything?
He certainly wasn't the first to express the concept of building from postulates, or to accept that the base postulates were unproven (or unprovable).
I mean it in the mathematical sense; almost all work is based on "wildly accepted" postulates.
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
If everyone agrees with you, it does. But they won't.
So everyone (that is, literally everyone) must agree in order for it to be convention.
I do not agree you can select a unit to fire after advancing, even if the unit has assault weapons.
Therefore, it is not convention that a unit may fire assault weapons after advancing. Q.E.D.
Earlier in this discussion you said you took the Tau warlord trait Exemplar of the Montka on your commander, which reads
"Your warlord can advance and still shoot as if it had not Advanced this turn"
I assume you treat this as permission for just that model to advance and fire its weapons. However you choose to ignore the Viorla sept trait Strike Fast, which reads
"In addition, models with this tenet do not suffer the penalty to their hit rolls for advancing and firing assault weapons."
Literally everybody does not need to agree on how a rule works to establish convention. To use one of your favorite fallbacks, that word only has one meaning in English (at least in this context) "1.a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity."
You are inventing a new definition of the word "Convention" in an attempt to shut down discussion in a way you so frequently accuse your detractors of doing. In the case of 40k, "convention" typically means "how a rule is played by the majority of players within a particular play group" and most commonly the convention defaulted to is the one which allows the larger number of rules to be functional.
Audustum wrote: Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match
That's what tournament FAQs are for. They take the place of the player discussion before the game.
GW aren't in the business of producing tournament rulesets. They've supported tournaments to varying degrees over the years because people keep wanting them, but it's just not the style of game that they are making. The closest they have ever come was 5th edition, which Alessio supposedly wrote with the intention of it being a tighter, more tournament-friendly ruleset, but the rest of the studio carried on with their beer-and-pretzels approach regardless.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a concise, tournament-ready 40K ruleset. But if the demands for such a thing over the last 30 years haven't been sufficient to persuade GW that this was worthwhile goal, it seems fairly safe to assume that it's unlikely to change - and given that the game has survived for 30 years in an industry where most games are lucky to last for 5, it's also hard to argue that their approach is wrong, at least for them. They're producing the game that they want to make, and by all reports it's still doing well. So wishing that it was a different kind of game entirely isn't going to get us anywhere.
Now see, here we have to disagree a bit again. I agree, that's what tournament FAQ's can be for. For tournaments to be circuits though (as they try to be), they need uniformity across tournaments as well. That best comes from rules.
Where we disagree is I think GW is trying to make a tournament-ready 40k. I don't think that's how the rules team thinks in the slightest, they seem to be really casual, but I believe it's what management wants. With the additions of streams and casting personalities, I also believe they want to try and get something similar to e-sports going on, but with 40k.
Evidence for this in all over 8th edition. We have regular updates for points, we're now getting designer commentary behind buffs/nerfs. The go to method of play is 'matched play', which implies, matchmaking. We even have tournament guidelines in the BRB, which they label "Organised Events" full well knowing, I believe, that most people will see that as 'tournaments' ("If you are using matched play for an organized event such as a tournament..."). It seems fairly obvious to me they're moving closer and closer to a tournament-friendly ruleset but it seems to be a top-down command rather than a natural development from the rules team themselves.
I think they're trying to do two things - have a rulesset that works for tournaments, *and* have a game that's simple enough to just pick up and play.
Some evidence of this is in what they choose to FAQ. The rules read literally still don't permit you to fire Assault weapons after advancing, and that hasn't been FAQed. This is probably because a technically-correct writing of the rule might be harder to digest when you're first reading the rules, while being functionally no different from the technically-incorrect but easily-understood rules have now.
A better writer might be able to serve both needs, but the current situation (for that rule) isn't a problem. I've never seen it ever impact a game - people are smart enough, and often don't even notice the "problem". It's really on a "thing" when discussing pedantry.
Honestly, I think the Assault ruling (or lack thereof) is more because they simply don't know it's there. The rules team was surprised at NOVA last year when they saw 0" charges happening and thus nerfed Fly in the charge phase, yet 0" charges were only made possible (and were I think indirectly referenced) because of their own FAQ ruling prior. Unlike many of us, they do not seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of their own verbiage nor do they seem to read the internet much (where 0" charges existing would have been fairly obvious).
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.
What is a house rule if not a convention agreed upon only within that house?
I'm seeing posts talk about what's most useful to someone looking for clarification on the rules; the generally agreed upon convention or some pedantic reading of RAW. Why would a player who's trying to figure out how to play the game against the average player care more about some constructionist theory about RAW, or how the average player plays?
Because I am very certain far more people play the Assault weapon rule in the way that allows it to fire than the way that does not.
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.
What is a house rule if not a convention agreed upon only within that house?
I'm seeing posts talk about what's most useful to someone looking for clarification on the rules; the generally agreed upon convention or some pedantic reading of RAW. Why would a player who's trying to figure out how to play the game against the average player care more about some constructionist theory about RAW, or how the average player plays?
Because I am very certain far more people play the Assault weapon rule in the way that allows it to fire than the way that does not.
Maybe at this point Dakka Needs a post with the most common RaI for rules that pop up. Something players can be directed to when they need common rules so it does not need to be a battle for RaW vs Rai right off the gate. I think most players could understand if a rule was explained as not working, and here is the most common, or few most common ways to deal with it.
It would at least deal with some of the confusion if it could be done.
Maybe at this point Dakka Needs a post with the most common RaI for rules that pop up. Something players can be directed to when they need common rules so it does not need to be a battle for RaW vs Rai right off the gate. I think most players could understand if a rule was explained as not working, and here is the most common, or few most common ways to deal with it.
It would at least deal with some of the confusion if it could be done.
This is what most of us are arguing for, indirectly. As i said earlier, when someone has a rules question the best answer is giving them the actual ruling (BCB-level of RAW) and explaining how it is actually played in most games (using tournaments as a basis for the definition of "most" in this case).
The problem with this thread is that someone wants RAW RAWRARWAWRAWRAWRARAWR only to be a thing in a conversation that most other participants are mostly in accord.
As much as i love the drama, i'm pretty sure the question has been answered since many pages in and at this point we're just repeating over and over the same arguments (valid for both sides).
This thread should be locked.
Crimson wrote: Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?
As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.
What is a house rule if not a convention agreed upon only within that house?
I'm seeing posts talk about what's most useful to someone looking for clarification on the rules; the generally agreed upon convention or some pedantic reading of RAW. Why would a player who's trying to figure out how to play the game against the average player care more about some constructionist theory about RAW, or how the average player plays?
Because I am very certain far more people play the Assault weapon rule in the way that allows it to fire than the way that does not.
Maybe at this point Dakka Needs a post with the most common RaI for rules that pop up. Something players can be directed to when they need common rules so it does not need to be a battle for RaW vs Rai right off the gate. I think most players could understand if a rule was explained as not working, and here is the most common, or few most common ways to deal with it.
It would at least deal with some of the confusion if it could be done.
This is already circumvented and made unecessary with YMDC's posting guide. It says an OP should say whether they want a RAW or RAI discussion (or both). It's Tenet #4:
4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.
Also, as far as YMDC is concerned, you also don't bring up The Most Important Rule:
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
I feel like the bigger problem, on Dakka at least, is people posting in YMDC with wildly different ideas as to what the sub is about than what that sub is supposed to be about.
This is already done with YMDC's posting guide. It says an OP should say whether they want a RAW or RAI discussion (or both). It's Tenet #4:
4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.
Actually, it just says to state which one you are talking about, not necessarily that a post must be all one or all the other. Hence, in YMDC, HIWPI is perfectly acceptable in a RAW thread, as long as it is specified.
MattKing wrote: Wasn't every point of this addresses around page 3 or so? How long are we going to circle this? Is anyone even reading each others posts anymore?
I feel like several of us are having a nice conversation...
This is already done with YMDC's posting guide. It says an OP should say whether they want a RAW or RAI discussion (or both). It's Tenet #4:
4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.
Actually, it just says to state which one you are talking about, not necessarily that a post must be all one or all the other. Hence, in YMDC, HIWPI is perfectly acceptable in a RAW thread, as long as it is specified.
My post specifically was talking about an OP stating it, thus denoting the thread topic by virtue of it being from the OP. An OP following #4 would say if they have a RAW, RAI or whatever question.
I guess you could wander into a thread where the OP asked for a RAW answer and drop your two cents on RAI, but that's kind of on you at that point.
