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.

Good faith disagreement or total uncertainty. We're not into taking more than five minutes for a question. As we bounce between game systems that often occurs.

Whats ironical (TM) is that, with the exception of a Nid player who kept asking TO's how his own rules worked (WTF???) I've never had a rules dispute last longer than the same period of time.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Elassar-why do you believepeople wanting to D6 are trying to evade being wrong? We've done that many times. Often when we're not certain about a rule opr have differnt interpretations we'll d6 it for the game and search up what the rule really is later.

If your not sure about the rule then why roll the D6?

Either pull out your rulebook while he's doing something else or just do what seems most reasonable.

Or you're both sure about the rule and your views are different?

We aren't discussing what's in black and white as a finite rule listed, we are debating issue where there may be conflict in the written word or there can be several people in the same room, reading the same sentence and coming to different conclusions. There are those who combine what is written in several different areas and, in order to create a rule where there isn't one, call this the RAW.

I love YMDC. It makes for some of the best reading. I think there's been enough spoofs off of it that it should be renamed Total Drama Forum.

Frazzled wrote:ElEssar-why do you believepeople wanting to D6 are trying to evade being wrong? We've done that many times. Often when we're not certain about a rule opr have differnt interpretations we'll d6 it for the game and search up what the rule really is later.

Obviously it's not ALL the time, maybe not even most, but it DOES happen - I honestly believe if everyone played RAW as strictly as me, cheating would be impossible, except in list comp, dice, or simply when the opponent wasn't looking, but at least players couldn't be cheated by rules fixing. We can't fix the gaming community overnight, but I think this would be a good place to start.

Elessar wrote:
Obviously it's not ALL the time, maybe not even most, but it DOES happen - I honestly believe if everyone played RAW as strictly as me, cheating would be impossible, except in list comp, dice, or simply when the opponent wasn't looking, but at least players couldn't be cheated by rules fixing. We can't fix the gaming community overnight, but I think this would be a good place to start.

Your language suggests launching some form of crusade against 'rule fixing' and that the gaming community requires 'fixing', can you provide more detail on this?

Elessar wrote:

Frazzled wrote:ElEssar-why do you believepeople wanting to D6 are trying to evade being wrong? We've done that many times. Often when we're not certain about a rule opr have differnt interpretations we'll d6 it for the game and search up what the rule really is later.

Obviously it's not ALL the time, maybe not even most, but it DOES happen - I honestly believe if everyone played RAW as strictly as me, cheating would be impossible, except in list comp, dice, or simply when the opponent wasn't looking, but at least players couldn't be cheated by rules fixing. We can't fix the gaming community overnight, but I think this would be a good place to start.

And if people could just subsume their own desires for the collective good Communism would work perfectly.

Even if it were possible that all texts could eventually have one, provable, meaning (a view I strenuosly object to), in order to reach it both parties must be utterly objective. With no biases, no animosities, etc. And that's not going to happen. Even the smallest bias (like, wouldn't it be neat if Daemonhunters kept their Russes) can make it impossible to read a text any other way than the way that supports that bias.

Finally, I am increasingly pleased with my theory. Posts like this really get to the heart of the matter: that not playing RAW is cheating, and it must be eliminated. Fascinating stuff.

I realize that this is wandering a bit off-topic, but it's still a bit relevant. A few years ago, there was a larger contingent here on Dakka whose philosophy when it came to ambiguous rules was "Play the way that is least advantageous to you". It was a gentleman's rule, and I miss that.

Polonius wrote:

Elessar wrote:

Frazzled wrote:ElEssar-why do you believepeople wanting to D6 are trying to evade being wrong? We've done that many times. Often when we're not certain about a rule opr have differnt interpretations we'll d6 it for the game and search up what the rule really is later.

Obviously it's not ALL the time, maybe not even most, but it DOES happen - I honestly believe if everyone played RAW as strictly as me, cheating would be impossible, except in list comp, dice, or simply when the opponent wasn't looking, but at least players couldn't be cheated by rules fixing. We can't fix the gaming community overnight, but I think this would be a good place to start.

And if people could just subsume their own desires for the collective good Communism would work perfectly.

Even if it were possible that all texts could eventually have one, provable, meaning (a view I strenuosly object to), in order to reach it both parties must be utterly objective. With no biases, no animosities, etc. And that's not going to happen. Even the smallest bias (like, wouldn't it be neat if Daemonhunters kept their Russes) can make it impossible to read a text any other way than the way that supports that bias.

Finally, I am increasingly pleased with my theory. Posts like this really get to the heart of the matter: that not playing RAW is cheating, and it must be eliminated. Fascinating stuff.

Assuming thats the case, and where the real YM THE C (Iorek kissamyrear ) wars seem to flow in the various interpretations of what RAW is.

After going three rounds on the Siren vs Grey Knight debate, I've tapped out as far as YMDC is concerned. Hardly ever step foot in there.

As noted, the majority of threads in YMTC do come down to a simple answer. The same is true for tournament rules questions. Often one player simply forgets or overlooked a clearly-stated rule, or runs into a conflict related to codex/rules edition semi-incompatibility.

IME, the vast majority of rules questions which actually come up in play (90%+) can indeed be solved by quick reference to the appropriate rulebook or FAQ. Especially if you include the INAT FAQ. Then it’s closer to 95% or 98%.

There are some TFGs out there who attempt to press for a D6 when they know very well they’re wrong. Or when they suspect so. Or because they simply don’t want to take two minutes to peek in the rulebook. It’s an unfortunate reality, and I’m among the group of tournament players who prefers to not solve any rules dispute via a d6. Generally I reserve that only for those 51% vs 49% obscured vehicle situations, or where a charge seems JUST there or JUST out of range, depending on who’s looking at it, and the terrain makes it impossible to get the tape measure flat on the table without moving the models in question.

It's not that not playing RAW is cheating, but not playing RAW for a reason other than one that gives you no advantage, as Iorek said, is cheating. Unless you genuinely don't know you're wrong, then playing a rule wrong is cheating. If in doubt about the rule, then checking should be the first recourse, asking a judge the second, and final, recourse.

I would say most of YMDC threads are simply solved by another anagram:

RTFM.

Iorek wrote:I realize that this is wandering a bit off-topic, but it's still a bit relevant. A few years ago, there was a larger contingent here on Dakka whose philosophy when it came to ambiguous rules was "Play the way that is least advantageous to you". It was a gentleman's rule, and I miss that.

Amen brudda. But we don't see that any more.

Question: What happens when both players gain an advantage from one side of the argument? I.E. both should be playing the others interpretation to gain least advantage?

Oh wait, GW already told us how to handle that! Roll a D6.

Polonius wrote:Well, now I think I understand better. It's simply a psychological compulsion, a way of dealing with the world. I feel comfortable using common sense and negotiation to resolve a rules question, but a lot of people aren't, and so see RAW as a way of bringing order to chaos. Knowing that, I can understand where they're coming from. I know it's not being a jerk, or wanting to ruin anybody's good time, or getting advantage: it's just a way of viewing the world. And that helps me, and I think it will help the RAW hardliners when more people realize it.

It's my hope too. Most of the RAW hardliners conistenently play the rule the same regardless of which army/side it benefits. They typically have multiple armies and are affected both positively and negatively by a certain rule. It's sad that the RAI hardliners start with the attacks about only arguing for your advantage, etc.

What is hardline about open debate and seeking better understanding of root cause and process improvement?

WTF?

skyth wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, now I think I understand better. It's simply a psychological compulsion, a way of dealing with the world. I feel comfortable using common sense and negotiation to resolve a rules question, but a lot of people aren't, and so see RAW as a way of bringing order to chaos. Knowing that, I can understand where they're coming from. I know it's not being a jerk, or wanting to ruin anybody's good time, or getting advantage: it's just a way of viewing the world. And that helps me, and I think it will help the RAW hardliners when more people realize it.

It's my hope too. Most of the RAW hardliners conistenently play the rule the same regardless of which army/side it benefits. They typically have multiple armies and are affected both positively and negatively by a certain rule. It's sad that the RAI hardliners start with the attacks about only arguing for your advantage, etc.

Sigh. As an aside, when there is an attempt at civility and understanding, making a bit of a reckless overstatement about the other side is usually considered bad form. I don't think think RAI hardliners, if such a thing exists, start with personal attacks. I think they generally start with, you know, what the intended meaning of the rule is. They may sometimes end up in personal attacks, but your statement is pretty sweeping.

I've also seldom seen the attacks made on the basis of gaining advantage, at least not by more seasoned YMDC folk. I think there's been accusations of being TFG, but that's distinct. And like I've said before, it's hard to understate how freaking confused I was (and I can only assume others are), why anybody would argue RAW interpretations we see as correct but lousy. So yes, many people assumed that RAW folks were jerks or just jockeying for advantage. I'd like to see that stop.

I'd also like to see a little less paranoia and victimization from the RAW hardliners. Its safe to say that your viewpoint is a minority view, and so while I'm going to do what I can to get people to understand that view and work around it, it would help if they likewise understood that most of the community doesn't understand them, and that the reactions their getting are based more in confusion than malice.

I'd say my views are pretty simple to get. Especially when I have to state them every week as someone accuses me of something new.

Have to agree with what some have expressed here - I basically ignore the YMDC forum unless I have to go there for Mod Alerts.

Or if I have a specific question myself that needs answering.

Much like the OT Forum, it isn't a place I go for casual reading enjoyment.

I'm guessing if a lot of people who brand Dakka with a particular brush stayed away from that forum, they'd realize that we're a really good forum after all, Internet Stereotyping be damned!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:What is hardline about open debate and seeking better understanding of root cause and process improvement?

WTF?

Man, if you bring up Root Cause Analysis or Workflow Analysis here, I'll make sure you don't ever post to Dakka again. I read Dakka to get away from work!!

(Note: I would not actually do this.)

Elessar wrote:I'd say my views are pretty simple to get. Especially when I have to state them every week as someone accuses me of something new.

J'accuse! Lead pipe in the ballroom.

Ah, yeah, that one was me, actually...

Iorek wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:What is hardline about open debate and seeking better understanding of root cause and process improvement?
WTF?

Man, if you bring up Root Cause Analysis or Workflow Analysis here, I'll make sure you don't ever post to Dakka again. I read Dakka to get away from work!!
(Note: I would not actually do this.)

I loved the caveat posted afterwards...
(and if you tried, you'd regret it...)






(but not really)

Polonius wrote:I don't think think RAI hardliners, if such a thing exists,

This is kind of interesting to me. Do you feel RAW hardliners exist? And if you do why would you then suppose that RAI hardliners do not? Do you feel that RAW somehow by its very nature engenders an extreme to which there is no opposite? I sort of feel that many of the players who are strong in there defense of the d6 and who don't wish to even spend 5 minutes or so to look up a rule could very well stand as RAI hardliners and certainly appear to have a certain amount of disdain towards those who are more heavily entrenched in the RAW side.

Thor665 wrote:

Polonius wrote:I don't think think RAI hardliners, if such a thing exists,

This is kind of interesting to me. Do you feel RAW hardliners exist? And if you do why would you then suppose that RAI hardliners do not? Do you feel that RAW somehow by its very nature engenders an extreme to which there is no opposite? I sort of feel that many of the players who are strong in there defense of the d6 and who don't wish to even spend 5 minutes or so to look up a rule could very well stand as RAI hardliners and certainly appear to have a certain amount of disdain towards those who are more heavily entrenched in the RAW side.

I think it's possible to argue that you shoudl play entirely by RAW, and RAI should be totally ignored. The opposite isn't true.

I see your point though. Yeah, I think the d6 it folks might stand in for hardline RAI. LIke I said, I wasn't sure if such a thing existed, but I suppose they do.

Thor665 wrote:

Polonius wrote:I don't think think RAI hardliners, if such a thing exists,

This is kind of interesting to me. Do you feel RAW hardliners exist? And if you do why would you then suppose that RAI hardliners do not? Do you feel that RAW somehow by its very nature engenders an extreme to which there is no opposite? I sort of feel that many of the players who are strong in there defense of the d6 and who don't wish to even spend 5 minutes or so to look up a rule could very well stand as RAI hardliners and certainly appear to have a certain amount of disdain towards those who are more heavily entrenched in the RAW side.

RAW by its nature lends itself to the authoritarian personality, while RAI is more amenable to the happy-go-lucky kind of personality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, total adherence to RAW means playing exactly by the rules. Total adherence to RAI doesn't mean playing exactly against the rules, it means not worrying about the precise wording of the rules when they seem to conflict with common sense. The two positions are not opposites on the same spectrum.

I don't intend this as criticism of either position.

Iorek wrote:I realize that this is wandering a bit off-topic, but it's still a bit relevant. A few years ago, there was a larger contingent here on Dakka whose philosophy when it came to ambiguous rules was "Play the way that is least advantageous to you". It was a gentleman's rule, and I miss that.

If can see reasonableness behind the other persons arguments that is always my fall back position but be ready for the debate with books afterwards. No need to hold up a game or generate bad feeling.

In all honesty, if you take all of the codices and the rules for 40k together, between the changes in wording between authors and the changes in wording between editions, the quality and detail of the rules are about a 3 on the scale of 1=beer and pretzels, 5=Warmachine or Magic the Gathering, and a lot of the conflict is caused by getting groups of players who expect Warmachine-detail rules versus players who expect beer and pretzels-detail rules.

There are two good things which can come out of YMDC fights:
1. Sometimes it is fun to have a logical or illogical argument on the Internet.
2. It is nice to know what honest issues can arise.

But one of the things which cannot come out of YMDC argument is a meaningful consensus on how to play the game. It isn't possible to come to a meaningful consensus on a topic on the Internet because threads and voluntary polls are not valid means of assessing consensus. They aren't valid for the same reason that television viewer call in polls aren't valid--it's a self-selecting population.

The main problem with RAW in the instance of 40k is that the rules were not written for that level of strict interpretation. Its in the book at the very begining that the only real raw is that there is no raw.

You can go RAW with Flames of War, or Warmachine, or Third Riech, or .... I could go on all day. But Pure RAW in 40k would only work if the rules designers were expecting that to be the way people played.

As they say over and over again, that it is not , that they shake thier heads in sadness when they hear people playing that way, then it seems strange for so many to hold to such strict dogma.

bigtmac68 wrote:As they say over and over again, that it is not , that they shake thier heads in sadness when they hear people playing that way, then it seems strange for so many to hold to such strict dogma.

Does the position that the rule book should contain the rules and be a solution for rules questions really strike you and GW as so strange?

I would note that any game that is played in a competitive tourney environment is obligated to have a clear set of rules for people to reference.

Thor665 wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:As they say over and over again, that it is not , that they shake thier heads in sadness when they hear people playing that way, then it seems strange for so many to hold to such strict dogma.

Does the position that the rule book should contain the rules and be a solution for rules questions really strike you and GW as so strange?

I would note that any game that is played in a competitive tourney environment is obligated to have a clear set of rules for people to reference.

So you say that the rule book contains the rules in one sentence and then cite the fact that tourneys have to generate their own rules in another?

This seem flawed to you at all?

Thor665 wrote:
Does the position that the rule book should contain the rules and be a solution for rules questions really strike you and GW as so strange?

that's a sloppy restatement. The position that the rule book, interpreted literally with no thought given to playability, context, etc is the sole source of solutions for rules questions due to it's design is seen as strange by GW, and yes, by me.

When the authors of a text tell you not to dig too deep because they don't' think about it that much, yes, continuing to interpret it as writ seems a little strange.

I would note that any game that is played in a competitive tourney environment is obligated to have a clear set of rules for people to reference.

I would note that every person that sleeps with me is obligated to tell me up front when they have VD.

Both of those statements are true only when "obligated" means "really ought to" and not "actually is required to and in fact, does do so."