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.

I've noticed when people are discussing the literal rules as written (RAW) often when a rule doesn't present a clear course of action or refers to terminology from a previous edition of the game that is no longer relevant, often the term is brandied about that the RAW in this particular case 'does nothing' or 'does not work'.

I know that I myself have even used this type of terminology before, usually when trying to make a point.


But I've been thinking about it and I believe this is a fundamentally incorrect statement to be making, and when it comes to discussing rules in a forum like YMDC, it could be particularly helpful to change the way situations like these are described.


In what situations are rules often described by some as 'doing nothing' or 'not working' by the 'RAW'? Two prime examples are:


1) When a rule uses very vague terminology to the point where players cannot determine conclusively how to interpret the rule. A good recent example of this would be the Blood Angel Librarian Dreadnought which counts as having a Ld10 for "all psychic purposes". Considering the multitude of strange Ld based occurrences in the game, this terminology is vague enough that given any particular question players as a whole cannot know conclusively whether or not that situation counts for 'psychic purposes' or not. Because of that fact, sometimes this rule (and similar situations) are described as 'doing nothing' or that they 'do not work'.


2) When a rule refers to terminology that no longer exists in the game (i.e. terminology exclusive to previous editions of the game). A good example of this would be the Tau Target Lock (non-vehicle version). This rule refers to the unit taking a 'Target Priority Test' which is a test that only existed in the 4th edition of Warhammer 40K. Many players have simply overlooked this reference and continue to use the portion of the rule that make sense in the current edition of the rules, again it is sometimes said that this rule as written 'does not work' or 'does nothing' because as written we cannot follow the full rule (as there is no such thing as a 'Target Priority Test' anymore).



Fundamentally I think it is very important to understand that in both these cases the rules do not present a clear conclusive way to play. Depending on the vagueness of the wording of a particular situation a variable number of players will often claim that there is one 'clear' way to play these issues (typically citing 'common sense' as the guide). But the fact remains that these are rules that do not present a clear, conclusive way to play.

With that said, the whole point of this little tirade is: Even though these rules are most certainly inconclusive and unclear saying that by the RAW these rules 'do nothing' or 'do not work' is incorrect.

The reason I say this is because of the fundamental nature of what rules are. Rules are guidelines created for a game with the express purpose of telling people how to play the game. Therefore, the expectation of anyone playing a game and reading rules for that game is that every rule has some reason for existing. A player shouldn't be expected to know that terminology from a 4th edition of a game no longer exists in 5th edition. The fact is, when they read that a unit has to take a 'Target Priority Test' they expect that there are rules for 'Target Priority Tests' somewhere in their rulebook or codex.

To say that if a rule no longer exists in the current edition of the game means that any other rules which refer back to it 'do nothing' is just plain wrong because the expectation of all rules is that they tell the players to do something. If a rule fails to do that (because it no longer exists) then it isn't the case that the RAW 'do nothing' or 'do not work' but rather that the RAW are unclear and inconclusive.

A 'real world' example of this would be if you were reading the rules for Tennis, for example and the rulebook said that if your serve hits the net but then lands in-bounds this is considered a 'let'. You then flip through the rulebook but find that (for whatever reason) the definition of what a 'let' means to the game cannot be found. If this happened players would not simply say that 'lets' just 'don't work' and ignore the rule, because they have an expectation that the rule means something, so they would continue to search the book looking for the rule and if they couldn't find it in there they would likely consult a more experienced player or a Tennis judge (if they could find them). Now obviously this example isn't truly analogous because the rules for a 'let' are well defined in the world, but the point I'm trying to make is that rules by their very definition are supposed to have meaning, so to have a reference to a rule and say that the 'rules as written' do not work implies that the rules 'clearly' indicate that the situation behaves a certain way, when the truth is actually the opposite (that the RAW in this case are unclear).


Once you can accept that a rule is unclear and inconclusive then you have to personally take other factors into consideration, such as how you think the rule is supposed to work based on your own opinions, or how you've seen other players handle the situation or even how you've seen it played in White Dwarf Battle Reports, etc, etc. But it is vitally important to remember that whatever conclusion you come to in these situations it is ultimately your opinion on how to play an unclear and inconclusive rule. Which means when you go to play someone else, you'll need to check with their opinion on how to play the same unclear/inconclusive rule and together you'll have to decide how you want to play. Because no matter what either of you may think, the rules do not clearly tell you how to play that particular situation.

But I believe continuing to say that the rules in these situations 'do not work' or 'do nothing' is both misleading and does a disservice to players asking a question about the unclear situation. I say this because again it tends to make it sound that the rules are 'clear' in these cases that the rules 'do not work' which is fundamentally something that makes no sense. I think continuing to refer to these situations this way can help to teach players to march into their gaming store demanding that, for example, Tau Target Locks "Do not work because Target Priority Tests aren't part of the game anymore."

When in fact players should be approaching this situation by walking into their gaming store and instead saying things like, "I know the Tau Target Lock refers to 'Target Priority Tests' but since those don't exist in the game anymore how do you think it should be played?"

Now this isn't to say that there aren't some rules which simply do nothing. GW has certainly FAQ'd as much for several such rules from previous codices, and players coming to the table to discuss an unclear rule could certainly come to the conclusion that a rule simply has no effect in the current edition of the game. But the point is, players should be coming to the table understanding that rules by their very nature are supposed to have a function and to ever say that the RAW 'clearly' show that a rule 'does not work' (and honestly believe that this statement is the end of the discussion) is a fundamentally flawed concept, that I think needs to go the way of the dodo.


So I personally will be trying to never use those terms again and instead I will be attempting to stick with more truthful terms such as the RAW are 'unclear', 'vague' or 'inconclusive' in this situation, and I welcome anyone and everyone to join me. And of course don't forget to post a snarky reply to me when you see me slip-up and post that the rules as written 'don't work'.


Agree? Disagree? Am I full of crap?

First off: that was the longest post I've read with no spelling or grammatical mistakes which caught my eye at once. I'm glad to know the guy who runs the place can use his language properly.
As to your question, I wholeheartedly agree. Sometimes we're all a little harsh in our judgment of the rules and the way others choose to play them that we generalize and classify them by extremes. It sounds like a good idea to take more care in the language we use, as it can confuse players newer to the game as well as veterans on our actual viewpoints.

There is a difference between a rule that does nothing and a rule that no longer works or is too vauge to work.

An correct example of a rule that does nothing is the Warp Field rule that the Doom of Malan'tai has.

The Doom of the Malan'tai's Warp Field only doesn't work on a super-strict RAW reading, and even then it's pretty clear the DoM is a Zoanthrorpe. A better rule that does nothing would be Canis Wolfbrone's "Rending" rule.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:The Doom of the Malan'tai's Warp Field only doesn't work on a super-strict RAW reading, and even then it's pretty clear the DoM is a Zoanthrorpe. A better rule that does nothing would be Canis Wolfbrone's "Rending" rule.

Ah yes, there are a few example of that in the Blood Angels codex too, Corbulo and Seth IIRC.

I meant more along the lines of Canis not being able to use the Rending special rule (yes, I know it's a weapon type and not a USR, but I don't think Yakface wants a discussion with that level of RAW) that he gets from his Thunderwolf, as Canis only has special weapons and the Thunderwolf's Rending only works with mundane weapons.

It is important yes, more so in an environment as pedantic as YMDC.
And it's true - if people really wanted the rule to work they could go out source the knowledge to be able to apply it in their game.

It would be far better and more proper for one to say things along the lines of "The mechanics for this rules are in an earlier edition of the game and were not carried over - most people now ignore that bit as the rest of the rule still works without it."
or
"RAW it doesn't perform any actions in game terms because the elements that are referred to aren't printed in the codex/brb. Many people take the interpretation that...."

But it's in many ways the same battle as trying to stop the children from saying "he got it" "Aw you gotta go" "I got the bus" it's not a real word it's just people being lax and not using the proper language, caught, have to, took... not hard to do but hard to train and maintain.

ChrisCP wrote:It is important yes, more so in an environment as pedantic as YMDC.
And it's true - if people really wanted the rule to work they could go out source the knowledge to be able to apply it in their game.

It would be far better and more proper for one to say things along the lines of "The mechanics for this rules are in an earlier edition of the game and were not carried over - most people now ignore that bit as the rest of the rule still works without it."
or
"RAW it doesn't perform any actions in game terms because the elements that are referred to aren't printed in the codex/brb. Many people take the interpretation that...."

But it's in many ways the same battle as trying to stop the children from saying "he got it" "Aw you gotta go" "I got the bus" it's not a real word it's just people being lax and not using the proper language, caught, have to, took... not hard to do but hard to train and maintain.

How is it any different than just saying "No it doesn't work."

That sort of Sugar Coating is really annoying. Call a Spade a Spade. If a rule doesn't work, then a rule doesn't work, and you should say so.

too long op. The point was not clear enough and therefore does nothing. RAW.

Gwar! wrote:How is it any different than just saying "No it doesn't work."

That sort of Sugar Coating is really annoying. Call a Spade a Spade. If a rule doesn't work, then a rule doesn't work, and you should say so.

I really believe that this is not the case of merely sugar-coating the wording. I think the core idea that one pushes when they say that the rules 'don't work' is fundamentally different from what the truth is. The reason I say this is (to reiterate what I posted above) is that fundamentally the whole basis is that a "rule" tells a player what to do, so the expectation of anyone reading the rules is that any rule is going to have some sort of meaning.

So to use your example of the Warp Field on the Doom of Malan'tai, a player who reads the codex is going to expect (rightfully so) that if the Doom has the Warp Field ability that this ability is going to have some sort of meaning in the game. Again, this is the core expectation of any rule in any game.

Now, if that player reads the rule very closely, then they're going to become confused because their expectation (the rule does something) isn't going to be met (the rule as written doesn't seem to have any effect on the Doom of Malan'tai if you don't consider it a Zoanthrope).

But this doesn't mean you as a player should walk into a store expecting that other players are going to simply ignore this rule because it doesn't make sense as written. Again, this is the attitude that I think is being incorrectly pushed when we use terse terminology.

Just as I mentioned before, if you want to play Tennis and you find that one of the rules doesn't seem to make literal sense as written, given that the expectation of any rule is that it has some meaning, your only course of action would be to talk to your opponent and ask "what do you think they mean by this rule?"

At the end of the day you may both agree that since you can't come to a clear interpretation the best course of action is to try to play the game without using that rule at all, but that is a decision that needs to be agreed upon.

And the same is true with any game any where any time.

Rules by their very definition must have some purpose, so if a rule doesn't appear to have a purpose then you need to be discussing this incongruity with your opponent and not simply assuming that because something isn't clear it just doesn't have any effect on the game.


And again, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. I've used this terminology many times in the past but recently while thinking about the subject it occurred to me that I was treating 40K different than any other game in existence. In any other game if I encountered a rule that didn't seem to make sense or have a purpose my first thought would be 'I need to bring this up with my fellow players and ask them how they think we should proceed' instead of with 40K where I had been thinking (and many continue to do so) 'if this rule doesn't make sense then it should essentially be ignored'.

This discrepancy is what I'm pointing out and I do believe that it is necessary to change the basic way we approach 'broken' rules in 40k because it isn't correct and doesn't send the right message.

And that is where you and I differ in methodology. When I see a rule that does not work, Rules as Written, I do fully expect people to Ignore it, or to play it as doing nothing, because that is what the rule does (or doesn't in this case).

If someone DOES mention it, then I will discuss it, but as I have pointed out, I do not play ALL RAW ALL THE TIEM HURRRRRR the majority of the time, but If I were to have an opponent who wanted to play by the book, I would not have the nerve to refuse.

To add to what I feel Yak is saying.

It's about new players coming to the game/forum it's when they see our slack explanations of 'it just doesn't work' and this is the knowledge or learning they leave with. It's not healthy to have 'all these new players' running around uneducated about where something doesn't work or isn't played that way.

We as the Rules Lawyers actually have a responsibility to teach people why the game 'doesn't work' and in time it will allow people to understand how rules work - something that's missing from many peoples understanding - similar to how many people no longer understand how laws work.

And no rule ever 'does nothing' it will always impose a limitation or control over something, the subject of the rule may be absent but this having no effect is quite different from 'doesn't work' it's like if one had rule in a dart game that if one hit a stump one loses a toe - now in the context of a dart game one might think this rule is silly, when is anyone ever going to hit a stump? They things belong on a cricket field. But when a drunk brings one into the bar...

So back to a good old target priority test - what about if in 6th they bring in a new thing called a 'Target priority test' which doesn't actually do any of the things the 4th edition one did, what if it does something radically different?

Now due to the capitalisation of this new rule an experienced player will readily identify that this isn't a 'Target Priority Test' it's a new different rule - but a new player wouldn't have that background to draw upon they look at their Tau 'dex look a the rule book and bam because the target is now high priority all unit which ran in the shooting phase may now assault it. Their rule which 'did nothing' for two editions now from their perspective does something, it might not make any sense might have zero applications for the army but it does something. To throw "No it doesn't work." at them will not give the background they need to have an understanding - to be able to apply the same logic or thought process to another situation in future.

Gwar! wrote:And that is where you and I differ in methodology. When I see a rule that does not work, Rules as Written, I do fully expect people to Ignore it, or to play it as doing nothing, because that is what the rule does (or doesn't in this case).

If someone DOES mention it, then I will discuss it, but as I have pointed out, I do not play ALL RAW ALL THE TIEM HURRRRRR the majority of the time, but If I were to have an opponent who wanted to play by the book, I would not have the nerve to refuse.

What do you suppose we gain by you playing the "Devil's Advocate" in regards to RAW issues?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:What do you suppose we gain by you playing the "Devil's Advocate" in regards to RAW issues?

We can all say to ourselves, "Thank goodness nobody would ever try to actually play by Gwar's rules interpretations. The 40k rules we all play by work awesome in comparison to what Gwar thinks!", putting 40k's rules in a positive light.

Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Pretty much this.

I argue RaW because it is the only thing that is constant. Houserules are fine and all, but they are just that, House Rules.

How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

Because you do not know no-one will play that way, and that is actually the correct way to play.

If you don't like it, feel free to make up a house rule!

Inat is another example of house rules for instance.

Interpretations of RAW or outright adjustments to suggest the correct logic/application in the circumstances.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

By definition it IS consistent if it is what the rule actually *says* - even if noone plays that way it is the consistent basis for the rule that you then *knowingly houserule* to something different.

The danger in your position is you advocate not knowing what the rules tell you when you "feel" the rule is silly or some other arbitrary standard. Thsi creates inconsistent implementations which are unconscious houserules, or the "but we always play X this way!" syndrome.

Reminding people what the rules ARE is as important as saying HOW you play.

Its a pity no-one at GW wrote 'all rules are intended to mean something' in the 40k rulebook, then Gwar! would have to accept yakface's argument

Joking aside, I think the point that yakface is making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that for players who do not have Gwar!'s encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules its not helpful to simply be pedantic when people ask a question.

To take the Doom of Malan'tai question as an example. A player, particularly one who is new to the game asks about Warp Field and is told 'RAW, it doesn't work because Doom is not a Zoanthrope'. Now, Doom may well be a Zoanthrope (indeed, most people would agree this was the author's intent), but that pertinent fact has not been written down anywhere by the author.

What people need is a full explanation so that they can make an informed choice as to how they play - not just what RAW states (although this should always be included) but also the common interpretation of the rule, or how it is played in tournaments, etc.

Gwar! wrote:And that is where you and I differ in methodology. When I see a rule that does not work, Rules as Written, I do fully expect people to Ignore it, or to play it as doing nothing, because that is what the rule does (or doesn't in this case).

If someone DOES mention it, then I will discuss it, but as I have pointed out, I do not play ALL RAW ALL THE TIEM HURRRRRR the majority of the time, but If I were to have an opponent who wanted to play by the book, I would not have the nerve to refuse.

But my whole point is that there is no such thing as a rule that "does not work". That statement is an assessment based on a rule that isn't clear. Another assessment would be that I would like to come up with a different solution with my opponent is just as valid an assessment as saying that the rule 'doesn't work' and that is my whole point.

Again the whole concept of the 'RAW' is that the rules (which are a set of guidelines telling you how to play the game) present a clear path of how to play the game. In any situation where the rules don't make sense or are unclear then there is no such thing as a clear rule.

Everyone who plays a game has to accept that if the rules are unclear that discussing the unclear situation and coming to a working solution between all players is the only way to actually proceed playing the game. Throwing your arms up in the air and trying to declare that the 'RAW' dictate that a rule which isn't clear has absolutely no effect on the game is just as detrimental to trying to play a game as claiming that YOU know what the designer's intent is and therefore your opinion on how to play an unclear situation is the one correct way. Both are destructive attitudes that will not actually help to get your game played without the assistance of a third party mediator.


Just as an example, yes, there are some unclear rules that are easier to simply dismiss and say they 'don't work' and try to move on and play the game, but there are others that have no easily dismissible solution yet both are equally as unclear.

For example, as has been pointed out in other threads the rules for assaulting vehicles in CC only tell you what is needed to hit based on how far the vehicle moved in its previous movement phase. In a mission where models can Assault a vehicle on the first player turn the rules are completely unclear on what should happen.

The answer to what happens in this situation isn't that the 'rules are broken' and therefore models can't hit a vehicle in an assault on the first player turn, but rather again, that the rules are unclear in this situation and you will have to work out with your opponent on how to proceed.

But these two answers are very different. The 'rules are broken and do not work' answer in many situations is used to basically say 'this rule is unclear and therefore you don't get to do something'. This stance is a very defensive attitude which basically says "I'm right and you're wrong and that's how it is going to be", when the reality is the rule that is unclear is something that needs to be discussed between opponents to have a conclusion reached. That conclusion may end up being that the rule has no effect in the game, but that is something that needs to be agreed upon between players not declared by one player and then hammered onto their opponent.


Its like if you were playing a game of Monopoly and one player breaks open the rulebook and says that the term 'tokens' is never fully defined in the rulebook and therefore all references to a player's 'token' in the rulebook are meaningless and by the 'RAW' the game cannot be played.

To propagate this type of attitude is inaccurate and gains nothing. In that case the truth is that even if 'tokens' is not properly defined in the rulebook it would fall to the players to involved to agree upon what is meant by the term 'tokens' in this case and then apply that to their game.


So getting back to 40K, when a rule like the Warp Field on the Doom of Malan'tai is encountered. It is not accurate to say that the RAW indicate that the Warp Field does not work for the Doom of Malan'tai. If the Warp Field rules said "The Doom of Malan'tai's Warp Field has no effect", then that would be an example of the RAW clearly stating that a Warp Field has no effect for the Doom of Malan'tai.

As it stands now the rule is unclear, because the Doom of Malan'tai has a Warp Field, yet the Warp Field appears to have no effect which doesn't make sense which is why players will constantly ask this question and argue that the Warp Field save should apply to the Doom of Malan'tai.

This is not to say that the rules indicate that the Doom of Malan'tai should get the 3+ invulnerable save from Warp Field, just that acknowledging that a rule is unclear and needs to be discussed between players is the correct answer to the question.

Or at least that's my take on it.

In a way, this is giving us a minimal definition of what we can call (to draft in a term most of us are familiar with) RAI.

If there is a rule that as strict RAW "does nothing" or "is broken" then we can say that the author meant for this rule to do SOMETHING, so it gives us an indication of what the rules as intented actually are.

So the author gave a warp field to a MC that he didnt define as a zoanthrope...this gives us the RAI that he meant for the MC to be a zoanthrope.

So the author gave this dreadnought an invulnerable save (even going so far as to then say the dread can take invuln saves againt pen and glancing hits)...this gives us the RAI that the author meant for the saves to actually do something....



There are cases where because of rules changes a rule actually does now do nothing. By examining the context of the game, by considering rules that have been replaced since they were in 4th (or even 3rd or earlier) we can understand that at one time the rule meant x. But now the rule actually DOES mean nothing.

But then there are rules that dont work by RAW from the moment that they are introduced. These rules dont work by RAW, but they do give us an excellent idea as to what the RAI is in this case. These rules werent put in just to fill up space in the book, they were meant to work in some fashion. These rules really should be distinguished from the rules that are broken because of changes in the core rules over the years.


Sliggoth




There are also the rules that simply are open to more than one valid interpretation. These rules arent broken and shouldnt be so designated. They may be muddy, unclear, sloppy, poorly written GW trash; but they arent broken. And sometimes they just are truly unclear and have strong vocal camps on both sides (the deff rolla affecting vehicles rule comes to mind).

what about when GW themselves have said arule / item does nothing, and it should be ignored? do you make up a rule so it "works"? eg Thornback - by GW admission this is useless, 100% so.

The rules are not robust enough to stand up the levels of scrutiny and competitiveness they are put under by power-gamers, tournaments and 'win-at-all-cost'ers. The 'obvious' mistakes and the fact that some rule books were designed for previous generations means there will always be confusion and variation of opinion between players.

I disagree, however, that it is important to chase RAW with ruthless logic. It is in no one's interest to lawyer a point by using author precedent, wording, and three or four different page references from rulebook and codexs. There's a 14 (and growing) page thread of why this is just silly. If it is an issue and it matters (for example in a tournament) there should be a ruling by the organiser. In most situations, however, it doesn't matter. Discuss it with your opponent beforehand. Talk about it if it comes up in the game. Role a dice if you can't decide. If your opponent is getting upset about your ruling, try to think about it from his point of view. I can't stress enough just how unimportant individual rulings of this nature are.

Whenever I read a thread along the lines of, "I told an opponent a rule worked like this and after a load of shouting, he packed up and left. Was I right?", it makes me think, "obviously not. You had to stop playing the game. Who cares about RAW?".


In conclusion, RAW is amongst the least important thing about playing this game.

Whenever I ask or answer a rules question I rely on how the rule is played at official GW events like the old GTs or 'Ard Boys. This works fine for older rule books that have been round for more than 6 months as they have been played in at least one tournament. However, this does not work for new books. i apply this to all rules questions, not just the ones that don't seem to work any more. This gives the person asking the question an understanding as to how the rule would be played when they are not at their local store. The INIT FAQ, right or wrong, does the same thing. It lets people know up front how a rule will be played for that tournament.

I hope I left a few misspelled words and grammer errors in my post so those of you who like to discount opinions based on that sort of things can move on and ignore me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:what about when GW themselves have said arule / item does nothing, and it should be ignored? do you make up a rule so it "works"? eg Thornback - by GW admission this is useless, 100% so.

Absolutely positively not. I never once implied that players should feel compelled to 'make up' a rule. Anytime there is an unclear rule the players may end up deciding that the best way to approach the situation is to (if possible) ignore the rule that doesn't seem to make sense.

As you point out GW has ruled in many places in their FAQs to simply ignore rules that no longer make any sense due to a change in edition terminology. In a perfect world they would address every instance of this in their FAQs, but we all know that's never going to happen.

All I've been trying to say is that when the rules are unclear (and this includes rules that seemingly have no purpose) then the default answer to that situation is you should be prepared to discuss with your opponent how you two are going to play that particular ambiguity not to simply declare that the rules just 'don't work' and are therefore automatically ignored.

Agreed.

The game breaks unless you are prepared to compromise with the rules and discuss them with your opponent. If you can agree on house rules to keep an army fluffy or to keep out of date rules interesting then why not?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Sorry, no. A rule that GW uses in their events is The Rules. If you choose to interpret the rules strictly and ignorantly, you can do so. Just know that it is you that is making the house rules, don't try to undercut others for playing the rules the way GW says to. Basically, you are either projecting or trolling if you in all honestly think that 99.9% of the 40k population is playing by house rules.

You of all people should not sling the "troll" name around.

So when GW use a rule in their event, and in the next event changes it to something else, which one is "The rule"?

Which is the point - hte ONLY consistent ruleset is What is Written, as you are told in the tenets of this forum btw.

Nice try though. I take it you never played 4th ed, where 99% of the population, including those at GTs, played "levels" incorrectly? Your argumetn is trivial to find flaws in. What a surprise.

Edit: just noticed you made up something out of whole cloth - I never put a figure on how many players use houserules. You did. You lied about / "misrepresented" something i said. Double surprise.