Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Having read the new Apocalypse book fairly carefully and the Standard Bearer from the latest White Dwarf magazine (all about Apocalypse) Games Workshop is moving away from a RAW stand point.

The standard bearer article quite clearly articulated that we should be playing "in the spirit of the game" rather than with the rules as explicitly stated.  There were also paragraphs dedicated to playing in a friendly / communial manner.

Apocalypse also is very heavy on playing "in the spirit" of the game.  Throwing out the Force Org chart and encouraging players to play with scratch built models (super heavies, etc) as well as coming up with your own data sheets .  The data sheets also show a very strong emphasis on playing by the "fluff".  The "spirit of the rules" mindset is also evident with the heavy focus on narrative games.

So the "spirit of the rules" is the new RAW.

A very interesting shift in GW policy.

I must say .... it's about time too.

Jervis said a few months back in another WD that RAW was how you were supposed to do things. He's the John Kerry of GW.

Apocalypse isn't written for competitive tournament play, though. No one's going
to show up at a tournament with three Falcons and say, "Hey guess what I get? It's
in the spirit of the rules!"

The campaign/background stuff is one thing, the tournament stuff is another.

GW is a very ubiquitous game hense RAW. No matter where you live, chances are good you can find someone who has an interest in GW games, whether you have a LGS or a local GW store or not. RAW allows everyone to have one common ruleset from which to draw upon.

Now, for local games between buddies who know each other, things are different. And this is where 'the spirit of the game' and house rules (house guidelines?) come into play.

Stuff in the Apocalypse rules does not apply to the core rules.

In fact since GW refuse to make official rules pronouncements of any kind, they can talk about the "spirit of the game" all they like and we can all ignore it.

I'm totally in favour of a friendly and communal spirit. There's no point playing games if they always turn into vicious back-biting sessions. The easiest way to achieve that would be clear, unambiguous rules, not a bunch of vague advice to play by fluff, etc.

As for the idea of rolling a D6 to resolve arguments, isn't the entire sodding game supposed to be about rolling D6s?

Agreed. I like good games where you come to the table with mature mind set to have fun, but better rules would make having to play by "the spirit of the rules" unnecessary.

I'm normally in favor of "RAW", as it's almost anything you have to logically go on.

However RAW now lets you put Chaos Bikers in a Land Raider, RAW lets Sorcerer's/Lords with "Wings" modeled on them instead of "Jump Packs" start on the table in Escalation.

RAW enables the kind of crap where I have to routinely say to some people "If you ever tried that against me I'd beat you over the head with the BGB until you stopped".

As a side note, this is why I won't start BFG, can't really beat some people over the head with a couple of printed out pages....

You have to admit though, the image of bikers ramping out of a land raider is both ridiculous and awesome, and could only be made better if they were playing guitars at the same time.

If RAW made more sense, we wouldn't need to "interpret" the rules so much.
But hey I'm an easy going club gamer about these things. It's wholesale army neglect that bugs me about GW more than all the RAW RAI stuff.

"Why do you have those guys with guitars standing on top of the Land Raider?"
"Just watch."

The ramp drops, engines rev, the guitarists riff...

>>However RAW now lets you put Chaos Bikers in a Land Raider, RAW lets Sorcerer's/Lords with "Wings" modeled on them instead of "Jump Packs" start on the table in Escalation.

That's not a problem with RAW, it's a problem with badly written RAW, which is the fundamental problem with 40K.

How do you read that you can put bikers in a Land Raider? Page 62 of the main rulebook clearly states that only infantry may ever get in a transport, and Chaos Bikers are clearly defined as type 'Biker' not type 'Infantry'.

Eggzactly.

As for the larger point, Tacobake and Kilkrazy have already said it- RAW (and stuff like Yak's surveys) is the fairest practical way to work out rules disputes, and is the best basis on which to rule for games between players who aren't best buddies. You can always work out a fun accomodation with a close friend, but with anyone else, you need some sort of objective standard from which to work. This board has always supported (though not exclusively) competitive play, such as in leagues and tournaments, in which consistent and objective rulings are most important.

The Rules as Written have been the basis of rules discussions on this board for at least eight years; certainly predating Jervis' johnny-come-lately article mentioning the term. Apocalypse, being as it is concerned with an entirely different type of play, and a Standard Bearer article related to this style of play, has no bearing whatsoever.

BTW, this year Jervis has been very clear that GW is trying to reach out to and support multiple different styles of play. Competitive play through (theoretically) clearer codices and updated FAQs, gonzo all-for-fun screw-competitition-and-balance play with Apocalypse, casual and younger/less experienced gamers via clearer codices with simpler options and more diagrams. This article is clearly in relation to one of said segments.

Bikers with guitars coming out of a land raider? I now feel an overwhelming need to model a 40k version of Rob Halford.

Returning to an old, old theme, it should be possible to write rules that are clear, unambiguous, and in clear English not legalese.

(I have come to the conclusion that legalese, although capable of a more precise expression of meaning, is counterproductive because the density of prose turns a lot of readers off.)

(This is true of BAD legalese. Somewhere out there is some ancient book of contract templates, full of archaic and eldritch terms, which everyone perpetuates. Meanwhile, in law school, students are instructed on making contracts say what they want them to say, clearly and unambiguously. Unfortunately, as you don't need to be a lawyer to write up a contract, the dust-shrouded tome of Ye Olde Contracts prevails.)

On topic - RAW lets me walk into a gaming store whence I have ne'er before attended, with a reasonable expectation that yonder teenager with acne-spotted visage wilt undertake to play the same game as I.

GW should hire some of the former Avalon Hill rules writers. I can't think of a single rules argument I ever had playing Advanced Squad Leader. Or Panzer Blitz.

Posted By Redbeard on 10/18/2007 7:01 AM
How do you read that you can put bikers in a Land Raider? Page 62 of the main rulebook clearly states that only infantry may ever get in a transport, and Chaos Bikers are clearly defined as type 'Biker' not type 'Infantry'.

Here's the magic of RAW for you:

Pg. 62 in BGB: "Only infantry may embark in transports unless the transporting vehicle's rule specify otherwise."


Pg. 44 & 101 in Chaos Codex: Land Raider Transport Capacity:

Ten Models
Models in Terminator Armor count as two models
Obliterators and Summoned Daemons even though they are Infantry, cannot be transported.

It's dumb, it's stupid, but it's RAW. 

Likewise the whole Wings/Jump Pack issue.  Read the entries, if you model wings on your guy, he starts on the table.  I've already had people say that they could start jump pack Lash Sorcerers on the table as long as they had Wings instead of the jump pack modeled.

Also by RAW, Monoliths can teleport enemy Necron units, and thus destroy them automatically since they can't disembark from the Monolith as it comes within 1" of an enemy model.

Stupid things like that exist via RAW, because GW is not Privateer Press, they don't write things consistently in their books or with serious thought to cover all the angles of use.  This wouldn't be so bad if they FAQ'd quickly and frequently, but they don't, so we're stuck.

To be fair, PP makes mistakes. They just rectify the situation in a timely manner.

RAW is okay but it breaks down. Often rules lawyers will use RAW to exploit loopholes and cheat as much as possible... I mean as much as they can get away with. Being a good sport and not doing whatever possible should always be highly commended. Whiners also suck the root.

- G

In jest:

If a vehicle is a model, the Chaos Landraider RAW actually allows it to carry 10 Landraiders, each of which could carry 10 more, and so on ad infinitum.

You could argue by fluff this is a perfect example of chaotic space warping powers in action.

I think that is a good example of the problems of rule lawyership and of fluffiness.

It is!

- G

Posted By Kilkrazy on 10/18/2007 11:41 AM
In jest:

If a vehicle is a model, the Chaos Landraider RAW actually allows it to carry 10 Landraiders, each of which could carry 10 more, and so on ad infinitum.

You could argue by fluff this is a perfect example of chaotic space warping powers in action.

I think that is a good example of the problems of rule lawyership and of fluffiness.

Sounds like a special Chaos Land Raider Apocalypse strategem to me!

More like total bullocks really.

- G

It's like old D&D - here's my bag of neverending Land Raiders! What's funny is that a terminator takes up two spots, but a land raider only one!

Horadric Land Raider of Tzeentch: 100 points + models*

*In other words, infinite points.

Posted By stonefox on 10/17/2007 10:27 PM
Jervis said a few months back in another WD that RAW was how you were supposed to do things.

For anyone who's curious, White Dwarf 320, pg. 70, straight from the Jervis' mouth:

"The first thing you need to do is to go back to the rules and attempt to apply them exactly as they are written, the "rules as written" or RAW principle.  Some people don't like it RAW - the principle can sometimes lead to situations in which troops act in a way that doesn't seem quite right.  Nonetheless, if RAW gives a clear and unambiguous solution to a rules question, you must use it."

I personally think RAW is the only way anyone should play, especially if one is in a tournament.  Unfortunately, GW tends to write rules so badly that frequently RAW doesn't provide a "clear and unambiguous solution," which sort of makes everything go to hell.  Then you're stuck trying to decipher what the designer intent was, despite the designer intent apparently being to play RAW.

Posted By Bookwrack on 10/18/2007 5:44 AM
"Why do you have those guys with guitars standing on top of the Land Raider?"
"Just watch."

The ramp drops, engines rev, the guitarists riff...

That would be one of the greatest modeling projects ever.  Model a Chaos Land Raider with old-style noise marines in place of all the weapons ..

If the RAW make troops behave in a way that seems completely wrong (e.g. a Landraider carrying 10 Landraiders) then common sense and sportsmanship should prevail.

Unfortunately most of the problems with RAW vs intent are less clearcut.

There are also some examples where the FAQ specifically contradicts the RAW, and intent does not give a clue.

'Armageddon sick of this "Raw" argument.

40k and associated codicies, Use RAW.

Apocalypse, use "RAI".

Chances are, we will NEVER see an Apocalypse Tourney, as it is just too wishy-washy.

Just in my opinion anyway,.....

Apoc is much more of a knockabout, "bring and battle" game than the core rules.

The Apoc rules are basically an official codification of the kind of big games people have been doing by themselves for years. People relied on their sportsmanship and common sense to work around the lack of official rules.

Now that GW have co-opted the idea, they tell us not to rely on the official rules. Instead we should use sportsmanship and common sense.

It's ironic.