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.

The rules of the game are RAW, there is no difference.

Wrong the rules of the game are those laid down by gamesworkshop, strict RaW is about hypothetical rules based on symantecs. The rules in the rule book are clear even if they don't specifically state it strong enough for a RaW definition. Stop trying to claim RaW is the rules they are not. The rules are those defined by games workshop and require commonsense to be applied in order that they be used. Like for instance the common assumption in RaW arguments that a specific rule trumps a general rule yet this is never stated any where in any rule book. It is something you have to come up with in order to get anywhere with the rules, it is a bit of common sense...

The rules and RaW are 2 totally seperate things, if there is something in the rules that is clearly and obviously implied it is a rule where as by RaW it would not be.

No. You are the one making an assumption, and assuming that the disembarking rules are somehow in affect when the book doesn't say that they are anywhere.

You are assuming they are not because it doesn't specifically state that they are. It is still an assumption, like we assume that the night fighting rules aren't in effect for Spearhead or Pitchesd Battle as it doesn't specifically state that they are.

As I covered before, no. Placing is mentioned in the impassable terrain description, you cannot stack models as you appear to be implying.

I wasn't implying that at all in that section. Someone else had said that you can place the models entirely freely in the footprint because the rules say where the vehicle was. I was in the earlier part illustrating that other rules are still assumed to be in place. Like you have mentioned with stacking models. Their arguiment was imply that you throw the rest of the rule book out and look at just those 2 sentences when dealing with the situation.

Stop trying to build a straw man argument about how undefined 'die rolling' is in the ruleset.

Stop trying to build a straw man argument about how the disembarking rules are not always assumed to be in effect when models are going from embarked to disembarked

The Green Git wrote:

maxinstuff wrote:Besides the fact that the rules are quite clear on that - there is the problem of some units not fitting in the footprint of their transport. That is the only thing not covered by the rule as written IMO.

That's the only real question in my mind. Past precedent has been to count models that cannot fit in there as destroyed, but that's not spelled out in this edition of the rules. It's just a compromise I would use to keep the game moving.

I agree - counting models that don't fit as destroyed is a good compromise. I prefer this to arbitrarily using disembarking rules. Ideally though - vehicles should really be in the same scale as the other models and this will be a non-issue

Think about it - the vehicles footprint is surrounded by enemies in direct contact with it. After you remove an inch all the way around you have virtually no room left - it makes no sense at all in the context of the RAW.

Fling It, this acronym, RAW, Rules As Written, I do not think it means what you think it means...

What other rules can there be, other than the rules as written? Anything else is either your house rule -- which is absolutely fine, as long as you are clear to identify it as such -- or it's your guess as to the Rules As Intended. We can all take our own guesses at what rules were intended by GW, though, as we have been doing throughout this thread. Your guesses don't magically become more plausible than everyone else's guesses just because you claim that your guesses are the "real rules", but are somehow not the Rules As Written.

Ok, two points directed @FlingitNow but the rest applies to all of us:
I think we all (at least I) agree that common sense have to be used to apply the rules properly. Be that the rules as written, intended, or house rules. You do not have to repeat that point unless someone specifically argues about that.

The point about placing models on top of models have also been addressed with the rules that apply. In case you can show why the noted rules do not apply, please accept that point as solved.

Please read the post about how YMDC works http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page in order to avoid repeating the same points without bringing new valid (as described in that post) argument. This thread is not about what RAW means but about what happens after the vehicle explodes by RAW (as expressed in the cited thread). Please let's treat the topic at hand. In case anyone is interested, we can open another topic with this same question but in a How You Would Play It point of view.

I stopped posting because I have no more arguments, but i still follow the thread because i want to see if someone can give valid arguments that can make me chance my point of view. Until I can say something new I won't post again here. I assume that everyone following the thread have read the arguments and counter arguments so far, so let's stop repeating ourselves to avoid polluting the discussion. Even if someone repeats a point refuted before without anything new, let's avoid the temptation to do the same.

I am in complete agreement with Don Mondo and thanks to Ragnar for providing us with the rule we needed to end this dispute. It's obvious that the squad counts as disembarking.

I'm out of here.

G

So I am understanding, with little time to read, where the issue occurs.

The issue occurs in assuming that all rules are set aside with the idea that everything is explained in the explodes rules - only . . . for example but not exclusively:

- how to deal with models in base contact

- how to deal with models in terrain

- why to ignore restrictions such as the "1 inch rule" which, although written in movement, are not worded to be limited as such

- how to deal with models that cannot be placed following the "Wrecked - Explodes" results

- how to deal with movement

There is nothing explaining why certain rules/guidelines/ideals are ignored overwritten so it seems an apples vs oranges "more specific" issue without either side being able to post/find/have rules saying YES I CAN -- which is what the system requires.

Simple answer seems to be -- discuss this with your opponent. I have yet to find _ANYONE_ who would say it is possible to place models in base/on top of/within an inch of enemies without using assaults.

Perhaps that is me, and I know I need to read more -- which I shall once the time is available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I assume parts of this are wrong and parts are misinterpreted, but time is what it is, and I have less of it currently.

I think this is a really interesting read for technical reasons. Many of the examples/reasons are true despite the rules obviously meaning otherwise...

kirsanth wrote:
- why to ignore restrictions such as the "1 inch rule" which, although written in movement, are not worded to be limited as such

...

There is nothing explaining why certain rules/guidelines/ideals are ignored overwritten so it seems an apples vs oranges "more specific" issue without either side being able to post/find/have rules saying YES I CAN -- which is what the system requires.

That is not how the rules work, or what the RAW says. The movement rule specifically applies only to movement, and the placement is not defined as movement. Go read the rule:
'A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy
model during the Movement and Shooting phases –
this is only possible in an assault during the Assault
phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not
move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting.'

I cannot understand why people keep insisting it should be applied, as though there is a general 1" rule that applies to all units at all times and has to be overridden. The opposite is true, the 1" rule must be specifically invoked through the movement rules (or the disembarking rules).

There is no general 1" restriction regarding placing units for the rule to override. Placing units has no such restriction.

Hey everyone, I would like to say that I currently do not play 40k, (thinking of getting back to the hobby and i have taken interest in reading 40k threads), that being said I have been reading this thread and would like to throw in my thoughts from an outsiders point of view who really doesn't know the rules. I would think that the 1" rule would not apply in this case because the unit did not disembark, they are simply disembarked or no longer in the transport. (the transport blew up around them,throwing the debris... ) they have not moved and remain in the same place that they were currently occupying.

I reread the exploding vehicles rule last night in my Little Grey Book, the one which comes with AoBR.

It doesn't actually say put the ex-passengers within the outline of the ex-vehicle. It says put the surviving ex-passengers "where the vehicle was" after having place a crater, debris field or some other such indication mark.

This gives us a reasonable compromise as follows:

Place the surviving models inside or within two inches of the vehicle's notional outline, and not within 1 inch of an enemy model.

Combined with the likely losses from an explosion this should allow a lot of the models to be placed however a clever enemy would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the survivors by the one inch rule.

I don't claim this is RaW.

Killkrazy is bang on, on how the rules should be played. And also right that it is not true under RaW.

Fling It, this acronym, RAW, Rules As Written, I do not think it means what you think it means...

What other rules can there be, other than the rules as written? Anything else is either your house rule -- which is absolutely fine, as long as you are clear to identify it as such -- or it's your guess as to the Rules As Intended.

That is not how the rules work, or what the RAW says.

RaW is not the rules stop trying to pass them off as such. The rules of the game are the rules as designed by games workshop and then written down in the rulebook. RaW is not about the rules it is about defining the rules baswed purely on the written text not on the actual rules. To understand the rules you have to read the text and then apply common sense (which is subjective). If common sense is not obvious then you take your best guess at RaI, use RaW or come up with a house rule, in any case they may be the same as the actual rules but may well not be. Or look at the FAQs or e-mail into Gamesworkshop to get a response.

This belief that RaW is some how the same as the rules (even though using pure RaW you get a totally unplayable game, where people can choose what result to roll on each dice) is what leads people to claim the FAQs are rule changes when they aren't. They are definitions of the rules that weren't made clear at first attempt when applying RaW you got the wrong answer (just as you can get the wrong answer by trying to apply RaI or a house rule).

FlingitNow wrote:
RaW is not the rules stop trying to pass them off as such. The rules of the game are the rules as designed by games workshop and then written down in the rulebook. RaW is not about the rules it is about defining the rules baswed purely on the written text not on the actual rules. To understand the rules you have to read the text and then apply common sense (which is subjective). If common sense is not obvious then you take your best guess at RaI, use RaW or come up with a house rule, in any case they may be the same as the actual rules but may well not be. Or look at the FAQs or e-mail into Gamesworkshop to get a response.

Actually, you're completely wrong. The rules are the written text, and everything else is conjecture. Anytime you want to circumvent or ignore the rules as they are written down in favour of something that you think makes 'more sense' you're breaking the rules. Perhaps with the best fo intentions, but that's what you're doing all the same. If you want to get all emo about the spirit of the rules feel free, but YMDC isn't the place for it. YMDC is specifically about the text and what the text actually says, not what you think the designers at GW thought it should say, or what they intended it to say.

YMDC = RAW, no exceptions.

The rules are the written text, and everything else is conjecture. Anytime you want to circumvent or ignore the rules as they are written down in favour of something that you think makes 'more sense' you're breaking the rules.

Sorry you are wrong here, the rules are the rules designed by Gamesworkshop, the written text is their best attempt at communicating those to us. Like in society you have laws but due to wording those laws could be miss-used hence why the spirit and intention behind the law is more important than the written text of the law. Hence why in court you can only be ruled against if you have broken the spirit and intention behind the law rather than the written text. If this was a legal battle and you tried to make the RaW arguement you'd be laughed out of court.

The strict text is not the rules hence the FAQs are NEVER rules changes they are clarifications on rules that already exist but are not explicitely defined or correctly explained in the rule book.

YMDC = RAW, no exceptions.

That may well be the case but YMDC isn't the definition of the rules what we say or agree to on here has no impact on the rules of the game.

I disagree that RaW should be the only interpretation here. If I come here, I want to know how the rule will actually be played so I know what to expect. I can read the book myself if I want to know purely RaW.

However, I also disagree that the 1" rule is the "obvious" way of playing it. There have been a number of posts agreeing they play it as anywhere in the crater - more than those that are claiming there is a 1" rule. In my opinion, that area was already claimed to be my "space" on the table, and when you assaulted me, you came through the 1" margin. The rules support my claim as I can "place the models where the vehicle used to be".

You're assuming that the end result of most people's reading is the same as the Raw. That's awfully charitable of you. YMDC is helpful precisely because it forces up to examine the RaW in very close detail. That's mostly not how people read the rulebook.

RaW isn't anything close to how something is going to be played either. In a lot of cases people will make rational compromises about things, which is fine, and very much in the spirit of the game. Knowing the RaW is essential to making informed decisions in those cases though.

Anyway, enough about RaW, this isnøt really the place, as interesting a topic as it might be.

I disagree that RaW should be the only interpretation here. If I come here, I want to know how the rule will actually be played so I know what to expect. I can read the book myself if I want to know purely RaW.

However, I also disagree that the 1" rule is the "obvious" way of playing it. There have been a number of posts agreeing they play it as anywhere in the crater - more than those that are claiming there is a 1" rule. In my opinion, that area was already claimed to be my "space" on the table, and when you assaulted me, you came through the 1" margin. The rules support my claim as I can "place the models where the vehicle used to be".

That is fair enough but poeple play wrong rules all the time. Quite a common one is that once destroying a unit with shooting you can then assault a different unit (which is of course wrong RaI and RaW).

I'd argue you do probably have RaW on your side but that it is not near specific enough to draw a full RaW conclusion. I don't think it is a stretch of logic to define anything that takes you from being embarked to disembarked as disembarking, whether done actively (i.e. jumping out of the vehicle) or passively (having the vehicle blown away from under you). If you accept that then the 1" rule has to be in effect. Although not explicit I'd tend to claim the 2" around where the hull was should be in effect too, the rules do not specify what is meant "by where the vehicle used to be". Foot print is probably the most direct translation though the vehicle was also "on the game board" and also "in the room" not to mention "on planet earth" you could argue that you can place the models where ever the hell you want if you want to be pedantic about it...

Kilkrazy wrote:I reread the exploding vehicles rule last night in my Little Grey Book, the one which comes with AoBR.

It doesn't actually say put the ex-passengers within the outline of the ex-vehicle. It says put the surviving ex-passengers "where the vehicle was" after having place a crater, debris field or some other such indication mark.

This gives us a reasonable compromise as follows:

Place the surviving models inside or within two inches of the vehicle's notional outline, and not within 1 inch of an enemy model.

Combined with the likely losses from an explosion this should allow a lot of the models to be placed however a clever enemy would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the survivors by the one inch rule.
I don't claim this is RaW.

In my opinion assuming that a clever army would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the suvivors by the one inch rule is not a valid justification for using the one inch rule. if you are allowed to assume that then one could assume that any one with in the blast radius would be dodging the flying debis allowing surviving models that were in the exploding unit to make an attack on the distracted units.(as you can see this would lead to endless scenerios of creative storytelling) My understanding of the 1" rule is that it is there to prevent models from moving through enemy unit lines to attack more preferred target, because if you moved that close to a CC unit they are not going to just let you walk by because you are not out of the movement phase yet. That being said, it seems that the 1" rule only applies when you are tring to move from point A to point B without going into assult. I have not seen any rule stating that models are not allowed to be within 1" of enemy units. they are allowed. they just cannot move there without assulting.

In my opinion assuming that a clever army would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the suvivors by the one inch rule is not a valid justification for using the one inch rule.

But if they get a wrecked result by surounding the vehicle the 1" rule means the entire squad is wiped out... This is explicitely stated in the rules, so I don't understand hwo that can be a justification for saying none should die in the vehicle explodes result...

The 1" inch is there for many reasons one is the one you have stated. It also specifically states the 1" rule exists to make it clear which models are and are not in assault...

FlingitNow wrote:

In my opinion assuming that a clever army would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the suvivors by the one inch rule is not a valid justification for using the one inch rule.

But if they get a wrecked result by surounding the vehicle the 1" rule means the entire squad is wiped out... This is explicitely stated in the rules, so I don't understand hwo that can be a justification for saying none should die in the vehicle explodes result...

The 1" inch is there for many reasons one is the one you have stated. It also specifically states the 1" rule exists to make it clear which models are and are not in assault...

so it is explicitly stated that on a wrecked result with the vehicle being surrounded the entire squad is wiped out, and it is explicitly stated that in a deepstrike mishap the model that is too close to the enemy is destroyed. but it makes no mention on the explodes result that the units are destroyed. Instead it explicitly states that the models may be placed within the footprint of the destroyed model.

I advise using the 1 inch rule because from my reading it is unclear whether it really should apply in this case or not.

For example, there is a rule that passengers disembarking from a vehicle must not get out within 1 inch of an enemy.

The explosion rule says place the "disembarked passengers" where the vehicle was.

However the disembarkation rule says your passengers have to climb out of the access hatches.

Someone earlier made the point that there aren't any access hatches because there isn't any vehicle anymore. Also, you can't climb out of the vehicle and be inside the area where it was.

Consequently the two rules do not logically cross-refer and this gives a reasonable argument that the 1 inch rule does not apply in this situation. That brings in some other issues.

All in all the RaW is unclear, so we should look for a reasonable interpretation which preserves as much of the RaW as we can understand and seems applicable, and gives a simple playable result.

you would have to be thee inches deep around the vehicle to kill the disembarking unit. as the emergency disembark rules says you can place them two inches from the vehicles hull.and since a wreck becomes terrain that includes on top of the wreck

Kilkrazy wrote:
All in all the RaW is unclear

It really, really, isn't.
Noone has presented a valid raw argument that would apply any 1" rule in the book to the explodes result text. Go read all of the 1" rules you can find, none of them apply to the explodes text.

You yourself gave a nice summary of the conditions that must be met for a satisfactory RAW argument, and they have not been met.

The best argument for 1" is a nonspecific inference from a later rule that refers to 'disembarked passengers' from a general class of vehicle results. It does not state that the passengers must have used disembarking, that explodes uses disembarking, that placing models counts as movement, or even that explodes models must be 'disembarked' (it just allows you to perform an action on passengers that are now disembarked, it doesn't actually state that all passengers from the results are 'disembarked'). There is nothing there that changes how the explodes result is performed to require a 1" separation.

Even if you somehow took the implication completely on faith (because it makes more sense, and it prevents problems, my opponents claim), attempting to use the disembarking rule for explodes instantly breaks the game. The majority of the steps and caveats are unperformable, and are not specifically ovveridden anywhere in explodes. The rule even leads to the exact same game hang if you manage to progess far enough somehow, as it does not specify what happens to unplacable models if an emergency disembark is blocked like wrecked does.

No correct RAW argument has been presented for the 1" rule applying. The 1" argument simply is not valid by RAW.

I don't care about RaW.

I want an easy to apply solution which gets 90% of players carrying on with the game as smoothly as possible.

FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry you are wrong here, the rules are the rules designed by Gamesworkshop, the written text is their best attempt at communicating those to us. Like in society you have laws but due to wording those laws could be miss-used hence why the spirit and intention behind the law is more important than the written text of the law. Hence why in court you can only be ruled against if you have broken the spirit and intention behind the law rather than the written text. If this was a legal battle and you tried to make the RaW arguement you'd be laughed out of court.

The strict text is not the rules hence the FAQs are NEVER rules changes they are clarifications on rules that already exist but are not explicitely defined or correctly explained in the rule book.

YMDC = RAW, no exceptions.

That may well be the case but YMDC isn't the definition of the rules what we say or agree to on here has no impact on the rules of the game.

I think this is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've read on Dakka in a long while. What is this, some sort of bizarre Plato's golden mean of rules argument? The real rules are just floating around in the eather waiting for you to grasp them in a flash of satori? Get a grip son. The rules are what's in the book, nothing more and nothing less. What GW might have meant is a meaningless and trite place to interpret the rules from. GW's goal was not to produce rules in some kind of abstract sense (like you suggest) but to produce a book of rules. A book that tells us how to play the game. Once it's down in black and white it's out of GWs hands.

Your spirit and intent argument is so obviously self serving it makes me laugh too. I suppose it's your interpretation we should be looking too eh? Give me a break. Since the blindingly obvious seems to have escaped you I'll be plain - RaI cannot be the primary interpretive tool for the rules because there's no standard of proof an only a tenuous connection to text. RaI can be a very useful tool to use when the RaW falls short, but to put it first in line is to put the cart before the horse. I'm not even sure you have a cart. but that's an argument for anither day.

This nonsense doesn't belong anywhere near YMDC.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't care about RaW.

I want an easy to apply solution which gets 90% of players carrying on with the game as smoothly as possible.

Then you need to completely rewrite the relevant rules.
You need to specify that it counts as disembarking (or some strange form of movement, I suppose), and then write an entire paragraph about how to perform this strange disembark, then write in additional rules for how to resolve the edge cases like unplaceable models.

Or

Write a caveat into the current rule for how to resolve unplaceable models (probably simply destroyed).

I'll happily discuss possible RAP house rule or FAQ solutions to the problems with the RAW.
Just don't state that both sides have a valid RAW argument, or that the RAW is unclear.

That's what I would do if I was the INAT FAQ Committee.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't care about RaW.

I want an easy to apply solution which gets 90% of players carrying on with the game as smoothly as possible.

Then you need to completely rewrite the relevant rules.
You need to specify that it counts as disembarking (or some strange form of movement, I suppose), and then write an entire paragraph about how to perform this strange disembark, then write in additional rules for how to resolve the edge cases like unplaceable models.

You don't! All the have to assume is that the disembarking rules laid out before hand count with the adjustments mentioned under the exploded result.

Hence instead of placing models within 2" of the hull or exits points you place them under the footprint of the hull. Instead of rolling for pinning before replacing the vehicle with a wreck you roll for pinning as soon as you have placed the disembarked passengers. It requires only 2 words to be added to the paragraph to make this cast iron as I illustrated earlier in this very thread. Or it requires you to assume that going from embarked to disembarked is disembarking... As opposed to assuming it doesn't mean that.

So Killkrazy if you want the workable solution use the one you first posted, giving the 2" grace seems sensible and consistent and destroying models not placeable again follows the games rules and patterns. This seems the most obvious solution and is quite clearly what the rules intent to happen.

I think this is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've read on Dakka in a long while. What is this, some sort of bizarre Plato's golden mean of rules argument? The real rules are just floating around in the eather waiting for you to grasp them in a flash of satori? Get a grip son. The rules are what's in the book, nothing more and nothing less. What GW might have meant is a meaningless and trite place to interpret the rules from. GW's goal was not to produce rules in some kind of abstract sense (like you suggest) but to produce a book of rules. A book that tells us how to play the game. Once it's down in black and white it's out of GWs hands.

Your spirit and intent argument is so obviously self serving it makes me laugh too. I suppose it's your interpretation we should be looking too eh? Give me a break. Since the blindingly obvious seems to have escaped you I'll be plain - RaI cannot be the primary interpretive tool for the rules because there's no standard of proof an only a tenuous connection to text. RaI can be a very useful tool to use when the RaW falls short, but to put it first in line is to put the cart before the horse. I'm not even sure you have a cart. but that's an argument for anither day.

This nonsense doesn't belong anywhere near YMDC.

I never said that my interpretation has to be the correct one. RaW doesn't work at all it breaks down at the first hurdle of dice rolling. I presume to you Space Marines with Fleet can get out of a Rhino fleet and then assault? I supposed the stuff in the Eldar Codex that has incorrect page references means that they have no special rules now as none are on the page(s) referenced?

The rulebook is a tool to teach us the rules of the game it is not the definition of the rules. Those are defined by GW and to claim they are out of GWs hands is pretty ludicrous. You see, to use the rulebook you need to have commonsense and apply it to the rules as written to get the actual rules. Some situations are still not covered even by the final rules as the writer would not have thought of every thing. You seem to lack the basic understand of the point of language, it exists purely to communicate ideas. However it is not perfect and miscommunication can occur that doesn't change the original idea and that doesn't trump the original idea even after it is written down. The reason I brought up the spirit and intent is because the most basic rule structure under which society runs is the legal system. The "spirit and intent" of the law is the legal definition of how those laws should be used in the country in which these rules were written.

The fact that is how the rules are suppose to be useed is illustrated by the many FAQs that strict adherents of RaW claim are rule changes. If they are rule changes why are they listed as FAQ results rather than published as rules changes? The reason is, is that they are not rule changes they are clarifications of rules written imperfectly hence your claim that GW have no control after the printing process is both wrong and out right ridiculous.

Kharnflakes wrote:you would have to be thee inches deep around the vehicle to kill the disembarking unit. as the emergency disembark rules says you can place them two inches from the vehicles hull.and since a wreck becomes terrain that includes on top of the wreck

Not really. When a vehicle is wrecked the passengers are deployed then it becomes terrain.

FlingitNow wrote:
I never said that my interpretation has to be the correct one. RaW doesn't work at all it breaks down at the first hurdle of dice rolling. I presume to you Space Marines with Fleet can get out of a Rhino fleet and then assault? I supposed the stuff in the Eldar Codex that has incorrect page references means that they have no special rules now as none are on the page(s) referenced?

There's a huge and obvious difference between a simple editing mistake and a rule that doesn't work like you think it should. You want the second option to be the case. It's not. We're not talking about an editing mistake here.

FlingitNow wrote:
The rulebook is a tool to teach us the rules of the game it is not the definition of the rules. Those are defined by GW and to claim they are out of GWs hands is pretty ludicrous. You see, to use the rulebook you need to have commonsense and apply it to the rules as written to get the actual rules. Some situations are still not covered even by the final rules as the writer would not have thought of every thing. You seem to lack the basic understand of the point of language, it exists purely to communicate ideas. However it is not perfect and miscommunication can occur that doesn't change the original idea and that doesn't trump the original idea even after it is written down. The reason I brought up the spirit and intent is because the most basic rule structure under which society runs is the legal system. The "spirit and intent" of the law is the legal definition of how those laws should be used in the country in which these rules were written.

No, what's ludicrous is your lack of comprehension here. The rules are defined by GW in the rule book. If they feel that something is unclear then they can and should issue an FAQ, but those are just extensions of the rulebook. In any case that's not covered by a FAQ the BGB and codexes are the only guide to the game available gamers. There's no mystical place where real rules happen and are simply indexed by the BGB. The book is the rules, and your opinion of what the writer might have wanted to say is about as meaningful as a fart on the breeze. It's what the writer did say that matters.

FlingitNow wrote:
The fact that is how the rules are suppose to be useed is illustrated by the many FAQs that strict adherents of RaW claim are rule changes. If they are rule changes why are they listed as FAQ results rather than published as rules changes? The reason is, is that they are not rule changes they are clarifications of rules written imperfectly hence your claim that GW have no control after the printing process is both wrong and out right ridiculous.

Some of them are rules changes. The fact that GW has second thoughts about the way something in the rules actually works is just a sign of (very occasional) common sense. You're just making up definitions here to btw, since there's actually no useful distinction between a rule change and a rule clarification. Your argument here doesn't even make any sense. If you want to continue to mistakle your opinion of RaI for actual rules you go right ahead, but I'll continue to excoriate you for it, as is right and proper with any notion so bizarre.

Your grasp of rhetoric is weak, and your grasp of what the very idea of 'rules' means is even weaker.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Kharnflakes wrote:you would have to be thee inches deep around the vehicle to kill the disembarking unit. as the emergency disembark rules says you can place them two inches from the vehicles hull.and since a wreck becomes terrain that includes on top of the wreck

Not really. When a vehicle is wrecked the passengers are deployed then it becomes terrain.

This is true in fact you also roll for pinning before the vehicle becomes terrain (technically). Also the 1" rule is in effect so you don't have to suround it by 3" just over 1" is fine. the back of their base has to be within 2" of the hull and more than 1" from you. Say you have it surounded to 1.1" the nearest they could deploy would be 2.1" of the Hull hence illegal...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

There's a huge and obvious difference between a simple editing mistake and a rule that doesn't work like you think it should. You want the second option to be the case. It's not. We're not talking about an editing mistake here.

It would require 2 words to be added to make my interpretation cast iron that is an editing mistake or a misjudgement by GW of how much commonsense we have...

In any case that's not covered by a FAQ the BGB and codexes are the only guide to the game available gamers.

Wrong you can email them for rules clarifications. the answers do not always strictly adhere to RaW, so what does that mean? These are now rule changes as well?

The book is the rules, and your opinion of what the writer might have wanted to say is about as meaningful as a fart on the breeze.

Whilst you are correct my oppinion of what the writer meant is meaningless. However what the writer meant is the rules even if he's explained them badly.

since there's actually no useful distinction between a rule change and a rule clarification.

There is a huge difference between a rule clarification and a rule change. One requires a rule to change (clue is in the title) the other clarifies a rule that is misunderstood but does not change the rule, thought it may require the wording of the rule to be changed.

If you want to continue to mistakle your opinion of RaI for actual rules you go right ahead, but I'll continue to excoriate you for it, as is right and proper with any notion so bizarre.

I've never said my oppinion of RaI ar the rules. However RaI is by definition the rules however defining RaI with only the rulebook is more difficult than defining RaW. My oppinion of RaI is irrelevant, but your claim that RaW some how trumps RaI is ludicrous in the extreme and as I said the rules system breaks down very quickly if you tryu to slavishly stick to this. Heck TMIR is right there to help you understand the rulebook is not infallible nor the last word.

Another silly question:
How would a model suffer damage and be forced to 'disembark'?

If this is ironclad, then page 79 would only need to say "or be forced" rather than "and/or be forced to".

In addition to the other points in my previous post. Other than the simple one that was, I mean.