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 have two questions regarding House Khomentis:

1. Relic Daemonic Shrike. "At the start of the Shooting phase, select one enemy unit within 18" of a model with this Relic. Until the end of the turn, when resolving an attack made by a model with this Relic, improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1 for that attack."

At first I thought the relic improves armor penetration against the selected target and I suppose that's the intention. However the second sentence only mentions attacks by the bearer but doesn't specify if the improved AP is applied to all attacks or just attacks against the selected target. Is this just 9th edition wording or how does everyone else read it? This was not covered in Engine war FAQ.

2. Stratagem Encircling hounds. "Use this Stratagem during deployment. Select one HOUSE KHOMENTIS WAR DOGS unit from your army. You can set up this unit encircling the foe, instead of setting it up on the battlefield. If you do, at the end of one of your Movement phases you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield that is within 6" of a battlefield edge and more than 9" from any enemy models. The War Dogs Vehicle Squadron ability only takes effect when this unit is set up on the battlefield, not when it is set up encircling the foe. You can only use this Stratagem once per battle.

I don't understand the part about Vehicle squadron not taking effect. Does this mean I can deploy each War dog separately into different table edges for example or does it mean that the unit cannot split up and must move in coherency?

Myytti666 wrote:
I have two questions regarding House Khomentis:

1. Relic Daemonic Shrike. "At the start of the Shooting phase, select one enemy unit within 18" of a model with this Relic. Until the end of the turn, when resolving an attack made by a model with this Relic, improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1 for that attack."

At first I thought the relic improves armor penetration against the selected target and I suppose that's the intention. However the second sentence only mentions attacks by the bearer but doesn't specify if the improved AP is applied to all attacks or just attacks against the selected target. Is this just 9th edition wording or how does everyone else read it? This was not covered in Engine war FAQ.

The context tells us that they are talking about only the attacks that target the "one enemy unit within 18" of a model with this Relic."

2. Stratagem Encircling hounds. "Use this Stratagem during deployment. Select one HOUSE KHOMENTIS WAR DOGS unit from your army. You can set up this unit encircling the foe, instead of setting it up on the battlefield. If you do, at the end of one of your Movement phases you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield that is within 6" of a battlefield edge and more than 9" from any enemy models. The War Dogs Vehicle Squadron ability only takes effect when this unit is set up on the battlefield, not when it is set up encircling the foe. You can only use this Stratagem once per battle.

I don't understand the part about Vehicle squadron not taking effect. Does this mean I can deploy each War dog separately into different table edges for example or does it mean that the unit cannot split up and must move in coherency?

It means that the War Dogs Vehicle Squadron ability only takes effect when this unit is set up on the battlefield. If you keep the unit in reserve, the War Dogs Vehicle Squadron ability does not take effect.

You can not deploy each War dog separately, and even if you could, you could not move any of them because of the coherency rules.

1) It's only against the selected target. Re-read. RaW it's for all attacks. Nice catch!

2) The Vehicle Squadron splits the unit up only when they deploy, not when you deploy them "encircling". Therefore when you set the unit up on the battlefield they have to be set up near each other.

It means the Wardogs must be setup in coherency and then they become separate units.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The context tells us that they are talking about only the attacks that target the "one enemy unit within 18" of a model with this Relic."

Context tells us that that is almost definitely RAI.

But it is definitely not RAW.


If you are playing a friendly game, against a reasonable opponent, go with RAI.
If you are playing a WAAC game, against That Guy, go full RAW, and take your improved AP against any target, at any range, regardless of if you were even able to select an enemy unit within 18" (for instance, if there were none).
If you are playing an organized format, ask the organizer/ref/etc how you should play this terribly written rule.

Maethbalnane wrote:


But it is definitely not RAW.

If you ignore the context, then that is true...

But with the context, it is RAW. Without context, a given piece of text is meaningless.

"Until the end of the turn, when resolving an attack made by a model with this Relic, improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1 for that attack."

What more context is needed? I'll agree that RAI is not RAW, in this case, but the RAW isn't ambiguous.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Maethbalnane wrote:


But it is definitely not RAW.

If you ignore the context, then that is true...

But with the context, it is RAW. Without context, a given piece of text is meaningless.

Actually, the context is what makes it RAI. RAW is, as JNAProductions points out. not ambiguous. Without the earlier statement about selecting an enemy unit there would be no indication at all that it didn't apply to any attack the model with the Relic made. With the other sentence it can be inferred they meant to refer to attacks against the target unit you select. As it's an inference and not an explicit statement, however, it isn't RAW.

That said, since the inference is strong, most people will play it by RAI. Just don't try to claim it's RAW.

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Until the end of the turn, when resolving an attack made by a model with this Relic, improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1 for that attack."

What more context is needed? I'll agree that RAI is not RAW, in this case, but the RAW isn't ambiguous.

What does this mean then " "At the start of the Shooting phase, select one enemy unit within 18" of a model with this Relic."

What could that possibly mean?

 doctortom wrote:


Actually, the context is what makes it RAI.

False. context needs to be taken into account for the RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Until the end of the turn, when resolving an attack made by a model with this Relic, improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1 for that attack."

What more context is needed? I'll agree that RAI is not RAW, in this case, but the RAW isn't ambiguous.

What does this mean then " "At the start of the Shooting phase, select one enemy unit within 18" of a model with this Relic."

What could that possibly mean?

It means you select an enemy unit within 18". The rule then fails to say what to do with that selection. Just because you dislike a rule that is poorly written, it doesn't change the rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Until the end of the turn, when resolving an attack made by a model with this Relic, improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1 for that attack."

What more context is needed? I'll agree that RAI is not RAW, in this case, but the RAW isn't ambiguous.

What does this mean then " "At the start of the Shooting phase, select one enemy unit within 18" of a model with this Relic."

What could that possibly mean?

It means you select an enemy unit within 18". The rule then fails to say what to do with that selection. Just because you dislike a rule that is poorly written, it doesn't change the rule.

Who said I dislike the rule? (And that sentence is a part of a rule, it is not the whole rule.).

A partial rule that does nothing clearly is not meant to be that way, so we have to look at the context of the whole rule.

In doing so we see that selecting a unit, and then shooting at that unit is why you get to improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Who said I dislike the rule? (And that sentence is a part of a rule, it is not the whole rule.).

A partial rule that does nothing clearly is not meant to be that way, so we have to look at the context of the whole rule.

In doing so we see that selecting a unit, and then shooting at that unit is why you get to improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1.

They are not linked. They are separate sentences. The second sentence does not link or refer to the first sentence whatsoever.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Who said I dislike the rule? (And that sentence is a part of a rule, it is not the whole rule.).

A partial rule that does nothing clearly is not meant to be that way, so we have to look at the context of the whole rule.

In doing so we see that selecting a unit, and then shooting at that unit is why you get to improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1.

They are not linked. They are separate sentences. The second sentence does not link or refer to the first sentence whatsoever.

Except they are linked, they are all parts of a single Relic called Daemonic Shrike.

Context matters.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Until the end of the turn, when resolving an attack made by a model with this Relic, improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1 for that attack."

What more context is needed? I'll agree that RAI is not RAW, in this case, but the RAW isn't ambiguous.

What does this mean then " "At the start of the Shooting phase, select one enemy unit within 18" of a model with this Relic."

What could that possibly mean?

It means they forgot to reference that statement in the sentence that came after that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Actually, the context is what makes it RAI.

False. context needs to be taken into account for the RAW.

Again, it's an implication pointing out what RAI is. There would actually need to be a reference to "the selected enemy unit" in the sentence discussing resolving attacks in order for it to be RAW. Just because it's an obvious RAI doesn't automatically make it RAW, it just makes it a mistake by GW to not refer back to the statement. Clearly written RAW shouldn't need "context" . Usually there's an interpretation going on if you're relying on context, and people might interpret the context differently. So, your statement is what is false.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Who said I dislike the rule? (And that sentence is a part of a rule, it is not the whole rule.).

A partial rule that does nothing clearly is not meant to be that way, so we have to look at the context of the whole rule.

In doing so we see that selecting a unit, and then shooting at that unit is why you get to improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1.

They are not linked. They are separate sentences. The second sentence does not link or refer to the first sentence whatsoever.

Except they are linked, they are all parts of a single Relic called Daemonic Shrike.

Context matters.

Relics can do multiple, unconnected things.

I don't disagree with how you'd play it, Deathreaper.

But the RAW is clear, and not on your side of this debate.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Spoiler:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Who said I dislike the rule? (And that sentence is a part of a rule, it is not the whole rule.).

A partial rule that does nothing clearly is not meant to be that way, so we have to look at the context of the whole rule.

In doing so we see that selecting a unit, and then shooting at that unit is why you get to improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1.

They are not linked. They are separate sentences. The second sentence does not link or refer to the first sentence whatsoever.

Except they are linked, they are all parts of a single Relic called Daemonic Shrike.

Context matters.

Relics can do multiple, unconnected things.

Can they? (What relic does multiple unconnected things, because if it is a single relic they are connected to that relic and thus not unconnected).

You said "They are not linked." Clearly that is not the case because In this case the first sentence literally does nothing if you do not apply it to the other sentences. (This relic however does not do "multiple, unconnected things.")

Games do not intentionally waste ink on rules that do nothing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't disagree with how you'd play it, Deathreaper.

But the RAW is clear, and not on your side of this debate.

False. RAW is on my side of the debate because your side ignores the context. Do not ignore the context of the rule.

Except the Relic works without context. You're INTERPRETING the rule with the added context-which, again, I agree that's how I would play it.

But RAW, it doesn't work that way. Now, RAI is clear enough that I'd expect most TOs to rule with it, and most casual gamers probably won't even realize that RAW and RAI are mismatched. But ultimately, they are.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except the Relic works without context. You're INTERPRETING the rule with the added context-which, again, I agree that's how I would play it.

But RAW, it doesn't work that way. Now, RAI is clear enough that I'd expect most TOs to rule with it, and most casual gamers probably won't even realize that RAW and RAI are mismatched. But ultimately, they are.

I am not adding the context. The context is there.

And the relic does not work without the context, as the first sentence taken out of context, has no outcome and does nothing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except the Relic works without context. You're INTERPRETING the rule with the added context-which, again, I agree that's how I would play it.

But RAW, it doesn't work that way. Now, RAI is clear enough that I'd expect most TOs to rule with it, and most casual gamers probably won't even realize that RAW and RAI are mismatched. But ultimately, they are.

I am not adding the context. The context is there.

And the relic does not work without the context, as the first sentence taken out of context, has no outcome and does nothing.

The relic works just fine. It's clear as day what the relic does. You screeching about "context" doesn't change what the rule does (after expelling preconceived notions of how it's "meant" to work). You're free to house rule it however you want, but for those of us who don't use house rules, the RaW is clear.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except the Relic works without context. You're INTERPRETING the rule with the added context-which, again, I agree that's how I would play it.

But RAW, it doesn't work that way. Now, RAI is clear enough that I'd expect most TOs to rule with it, and most casual gamers probably won't even realize that RAW and RAI are mismatched. But ultimately, they are.

I am not adding the context. The context is there.

And the relic does not work without the context, as the first sentence taken out of context, has no outcome and does nothing.

Extraneous text does not make the rest of it irrelevant, or impossible to parse.

The Relic functions by RAW, just not the way you want it to.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Games do not intentionally waste ink on rules that do nothing.

If you are contemplating what a rule - or clause of a rule - is meant to do, having concluded that a strict literal interpretation leaves that rule - or clause - doing nothing, then you are contemplating Intention, and not the Written Rule.
You are contemplating RAI. And expressed as RAI, you will likely have near-unanimous agreement. Expressed as HYWPI, you will likely have near-unanimous agreement.
You currently have near-unanimous dissent. Opinions on this site tend not to have near-unanimous dissent for no reason. Contemplate that using the same logic you have applied to this rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Games do not intentionally waste ink on rules that do nothing.

Look up the MTG rule "Substance" that existed for a while.

Also can we consider that when people actually AGREE with me of all people, there might be something flawed in your argument?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Games do not intentionally waste ink on rules that do nothing.

Look up the MTG rule "Substance" that existed for a while.

Also can we consider that when people actually AGREE with me of all people, there might be something flawed in your argument?

Hey, I agree with you frequently on the RAW! You're a smart cookie.

I disagree with you on RAW always being RAI, but you're usually accurate on what the RAW is.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Extraneous text does not make the rest of it irrelevant, or impossible to parse.

I never said it did, but the first sentence clearly references the rest of the sentences. Context matters. We have to ask what the first sentence is referencing, it is implicitly referencing the rest of the sentences. it is not explicitly doing so, but it is implicitly doing so, and thus context matters.

The Relic functions by RAW, just not the way you want it to.

What do you mean? I do not care how it functions. I do not want it to function in any specific way.

If you ignore the context, then the Relic functions. For example, if you have a car that starts but has a flat tire, your car does not function. It would start, but you wouldnt be able to go very far. So if something about the item is broken, then it clrealy does not function properly, parts of it do, but not the whole thing.

Maethbalnane wrote:
You currently have near-unanimous dissent. Opinions on this site tend not to have near-unanimous dissent for no reason. Contemplate that using the same logic you have applied to this rule.

Yea, it is weird that everyone is ignoring the context of the rule. Do not do that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Games do not intentionally waste ink on rules that do nothing.

Look up the MTG rule "Substance" that existed for a while.

Also can we consider that when people actually AGREE with me of all people, there might be something flawed in your argument?

A single case is just an anommaly. for 99% of all other games out there, my statement is true.

P.S. Occasionaly something like the "Substance" rule (I am not familar what that is), will get into a game because of human error. My guess is that they took it out because they realized it did nothing and was penned in error. Remember that rules writers are human, and sometimes make mistakes.

And there is no flaw in my argument. Context matters.

 DeathReaper wrote:
A single case is just an anommaly. for 99% of all other games out there, my statement is true.

P.S. Occasionaly something like the "Substance" rule (I am not familar what that is), will get into a game because of human error. My guess is that they took it out because they realized it did nothing and was penned in error. Remember that rules writers are human, and sometimes make mistakes.

And there is no flaw in my argument. Context matters.

So you didn't even look into it. It was a rule explicitly made and intended to have no rules effect.

From the Comprehensive Rules (May 1, 2009—Alara Reborn)
502.49. Substance
502.49a Substance is a static ability with no effect.

All you do is post "The rules work the way I want because of context", and ignore the fact that the rule is actually functional and clear, you just dislike how the rule goes.

I could also argue that my Tactical Marines are meant to have 5 wounds. In the "context" of the rules, Space Marines are at least 5 times more durable than normal humans!

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Extraneous text does not make the rest of it irrelevant, or impossible to parse.

I never said it did, but the first sentence clearly references the rest of the sentences. Context matters. We have to ask what the first sentence is referencing, it is implicitly referencing the rest of the sentences. it is not explicitly doing so, but it is implicitly doing so, and thus context matters.

And the "implicitly" is you making an interpretation. As you say it is not explicitly referencing the other sentence. You actually have things backwared. The first sentence does not need to reference the other sentences that come afterward; the sentences after the first need to make a reference to the first sentence for it to be more than RAI.

 DeathReaper wrote:

The Relic functions by RAW, just not the way you want it to.

What do you mean? I do not care how it functions. I do not want it to function in any specific way.

That's rather disingenuous of you. You want it to function the way you are stating it, but are claiming that it is RAW when everyone is pointing out that what you are saying is only RAI. RAW, it still functions but, since the second sentence does not reference the first sentence,the bonus applies to anyone the model with the relic targets and not just the target selected according to the first sentence.Hence his statement that the Relic functions by RAW, just not the way you are describing. Everyone is agreeing that your interpretation is RAI. As we have demonstrated, however, it is not RAW. Clearly written RAW requires no context. If there is context required to interpret the RAW, then it's usual that there can be multple valid interpretations, and the RAW can't be discerned in those cases. If you're having to use context, you are looking at RAI, not RAW.

EDIT: But, we're just going to keep going around in circles, you insisting it's RAW and the rest of us convinced you can't recognize the difference between RAW and RAI, We know what the RAI is, so if you think there might be an issue with your opponent ask him if he agrees that it should be played by the RAI. It's probably something that would normally not come up, but is worth pointing out to GW so that they can fix it in a FAQ so that WAAC people don't try to exploit the difference between RAI and RAW. It seems GW has been emphasizing RAI more often in the last year or so (possibly as a reaction to them knowing how much they screw up the rules writing).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So you didn't even look into it. It was a rule explicitly made and intended to have no rules effect.

I never play that game, why would I look into it, it is just an anomaly. My statement is true for all but one edge case. The caveat with everything is, of course, except for mistakes and anomalies. (But those are such a low percentage they should not even be considered).

All you do is post "The rules work the way I want because of context", and ignore the fact that the rule is actually functional and clear, you just dislike how the rule goes.

This of course is false. All I do is post facts and correct parsings of the rules with all of the context thereof.

I never ignore rules that are actually functional and clear.

I do not care how the rule goes. Stop saying I do. Because that is false.

I could also argue that my Tactical Marines are meant to have 5 wounds. In the "context" of the rules, Space Marines are at least 5 times more durable than normal humans!

No you can not, because nothing about the context of the rules explicitly or implicitly give that many wounds to Tactical Marines. ("5 times more durable than normal humans" is not rules).

So stop with the straw man.

 doctortom wrote:

And the "implicitly" is you making an interpretation. As you say it is not explicitly referencing the other sentence. You actually have things backwared. The first sentence does not need to reference the other sentences that come afterward; the sentences after the first need to make a reference to the first sentence for it to be more than RAI.

Either could happen. they could have made the first reference the latter, or vice versa.

But things implicitly in the rules are not RAI, they are RAW.

The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

All you do is post "The rules work the way I want because of context", and ignore the fact that the rule is actually functional and clear, you just dislike how the rule goes.

This of course is false. All I do is post facts and correct parsings of the rules with all of the context thereof.

I never ignore rules that are actually functional and clear.

I do not care how the rule goes. Stop saying I do. Because that is false.

It may or may not be false. You are not, however, reading the rule objectively. If you did that, you would see that the second sentence does not need the first sentence in order for the rule to function. Making the (reasonable) interpretation that the second sentence only applies to the unit you selected using the guidelines of the first sentence is just that, an interpretation. That means it's gone from the realm of RAW to being RAI, or HIWPI. Again, it's a reasonable interpretation, but it's still an interpretation of what is intended, not what is objectively written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

And the "implicitly" is you making an interpretation. As you say it is not explicitly referencing the other sentence. You actually have things backwared. The first sentence does not need to reference the other sentences that come afterward; the sentences after the first need to make a reference to the first sentence for it to be more than RAI.

Either could happen. they could have made the first reference the latter, or vice versa.

But things implicitly in the rules are not RAI, they are RAW.

Rules state. Rules shouldn't imply. Rules that imply are rules that are open for interpretation, which means that you are guessing (reasonably or not) at RAI, not actually reading the RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do.

False again. A permissive ruleset means you can only do things that you are explicitly allowed to do. Things that the rules imply you can do is an interpretation, which is RAI, which means if there's any question at all check with your opponent to make sure he agrees with your interpretation. How do you know that they didn't accidentally lose a 3rd sentence for the stratagem that stated that if the relic destroys the unit selected iin the first sentence during that phase, that the player gains an extra victory point? Or something else that can challenge the interpretation. If the two sentences are not connected to each other, then by RAW they aren't connected. It would be RAI to assume they are connected, but that's just RAI.

\

 doctortom wrote:

Rules state. Rules shouldn't imply. Rules that imply are rules that are open for interpretation, which means that you are guessing (reasonably or not) at RAI, not actually reading the RAW.

False, implicit rules are still RAW.

And you clearly dont know what a permissive ruleset is.

Under "The rules don't say I can't!"
"The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate