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.

Kaaihn wrote:Those Eldar masks I am to lazy to look up the name for right now, that let you attack into cover and go first? Mechanic broken by 5th, but the RAI is clear right in the book they are meant to keep the poncy space elf hitting first.

Ah now, this is something that annoys me. This "RaI" is the "But this is how it used to work" RaI. By this logic, Sisters of Battle should still be able to move 12" in their Rhinos, disembark from the Front, fire their Bolters once each at 12" and then assault a different unit, because this is how it used to work!

By sticking to the RaW, we avoid even the possibility of such things happening.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Those Eldar masks I am to lazy to look up the name for right now, that let you attack into cover and go first? Mechanic broken by 5th, but the RAI is clear right in the book they are meant to keep the poncy space elf hitting first.

Ah now, this is something that annoys me. This "RaI" is the "But this is how it used to work" RaI. By this logic, Sisters of Battle should still be able to move 12" in their Rhinos, disembark from the Front, fire their Bolters once each at 12" and then assault a different unit, because this is how it used to work!

By sticking to the RaW, we avoid even the possibility of such things happening.

I didn't play 4th edition, so I have no insight into the reference you are giving here. All I know is that when I started playing in 5th, and I read the rules for that mask, it was obvious to me that the point of it was for the Eldar to strike first when attacking into cover.

If you dig at the wording behind the mechanic you find that instead of a bonus to the defender its a penalty to the attacker, but that doesn't change the point of the mask, which is for the Eldar to strike first. That looks like clear RAI to me. If you dig at the mechanics of assault, you will see it never mentions charge. Even the latest codex written (Space Wolves) references charging though. Are you going to deny certain abilities work like you say the mask doesn't work because there is no rule for charging in 5th edition?

That doesn't mean I disagree with your statement though, that if you stick to RAW you avoid the possibility of disagreements over RAI. That is true, but the critical corollary to that statement to me would be that sticking to RAW means we are playing a game that is so ridiculously poorly written as to not be worth playing. Plus at that point we aren't playing it in the way it was intended in the first place, making RAW fundementalism seem doubly ridiculous (to me).

Kaaihn wrote:That doesn't mean I disagree with your statement though, that if you stick to RAW you avoid the possibility of disagreements over RAI. That is true, but the critical corollary to that statement to me would be that sticking to RAW means we are playing a game that is so ridiculously poorly written as to not be worth playing. Plus at that point we aren't playing it in the way it was intended in the first place, making RAW fundementalism seem doubly ridiculous (to me).

This is good sense that GW does not make.

wyomingfox wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:That doesn't mean I disagree with your statement though, that if you stick to RAW you avoid the possibility of disagreements over RAI. That is true, but the critical corollary to that statement to me would be that sticking to RAW means we are playing a game that is so ridiculously poorly written as to not be worth playing. Plus at that point we aren't playing it in the way it was intended in the first place, making RAW fundementalism seem doubly ridiculous (to me).

This is good sense that GW does not make.

The main issue I have of course is if they Intended for something to work in ABC way, why did they write the rule to work in XYZ way? Surely XYZ is the Intended functionality, because I doubt even GW could accidentally write a book.

Actually the main issue is that they don't write it ABC OR XYZ way. They write it ambiguously. Which is infuriating and creates arguments about rules.

Look, when I worked for GW I wrote quite a bit to Jervis and his replies pretty much reflect what I said. They don't write for RaW, straight from the horses mouth; multiple times he has said this.

That's my point: The codecies are not written like a law document. They are aware that the wording is imprecise, often incorrect, or extremely ambiguous. They don't care...if you ever go to a gamesday, talk to a games designer. Ask them how they do things. You'll find out the same things I found out.

Look at Dark Angels: they feel they don't need to "fix" them, because you can just take from the SM codex if you feel like it as long as your opponent agrees (see relevant DA faq). To them, the DA are already fixed.

If something is not made for RaW, how can you use RaW as a basis? I think the point of using RaW is to try to eliminate ambiguity, but unfortunately it still causes ambiguity.

That's why I use the BA rhino example. RaW says the doors are welded shut, but no one plays that way, do they? Why? Because the game breaks down stupidly if you apply RaW since the codex wasn't made for it.

Do you suggest that writers use written words to express their intent?

Pssh.

If they did that, what would we discuss here?

kirsanth wrote:Do you suggest that writers use written words to express their intent?

Pssh.

If they did that, what would we discuss here?

And why would we need English Professors? Buh-dum-ching!

I've complained to them often that they need to learn technical writing and clean up their language, but to them it's "good enough". They're so stubborn...How they stubbornly do things contributed to why I left the company.

scuddman wrote:Look, when I worked for GW I wrote quite a bit to Jervis and his replies pretty much reflect what I said.

And when I used to work for George Washington, he told me the 2nd amendment referred to the Arms of a Bear that you could hang in your house.

"I worked for GW" is hardly a convincing argument, especially with no proof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Do you suggest that writers use written words to express their intent?

I know, it's Heresy, but the Emperor will forgive me!

kirsanth wrote:Do you suggest that writers use written words to express their intent?

That is a novel idea...I wonder if anyone has ever brought that up to Jervis?

GW does a 90% draft and calls it good enough. That last 10% is a lot of work. Remember, they're a minatures company, not a gaming company.

The problem isn't even always RaI vs RaW. Sometimes, it's Rules as I Understand Them vs. Rules as You Understand Them (RIUT vs RYUT).

wyomingfox wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Do you suggest that writers use written words to express their intent?

That is a novel idea...I wonder if anyone has ever brought that up to Jervis?

Jervis is too busy thinking up ways to make Dark Angels even more bland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dietrich wrote:GW does a 90% draft and calls it good enough. That last 10% is a lot of work. Remember, they're a minatures company, not a gaming company.

No, that is no Excuse. They are a miniatures company, but without the game, they sell no Miniatures.

Lol, that's why I said go to Gamesday and ask them yourself. Or you could check some of my old posts where I talked about my time at GW and posted financial numbers.

But no, really, go to a gamesday and talk to a GW games designer. I wouldn't tell you to find out for yourself if I was lying. I"m actually okay with you disbelieving. Go ahead and ask them...

scuddman wrote:They don't write for RaW,

LOL Even though I believe you, it is the . . . irony (?) that made me laugh.

scuddman wrote: talk to a games designer. Ask them how they do things. You'll find out the same things I found out.

I game and work with game designers, and to a very real degree I am one myself.
So unless you mean GW game designers, it would be a waste of my time - I do this daily.
Most game designers do actually care about the rules of their games, in my experience. ymmv

dietrich wrote:The problem isn't even always RaI vs RaW. Sometimes, it's Rules as I Understand Them vs. Rules as You Understand Them (RIUT vs RYUT).

This is why it helps to know and (gasp!) debate the RAW. It helps one to understand where the disconnect occurs, more often than not. As well as giving a decent fall back when it is a RIUT vs RYUT situation.

scuddman wrote:Lol, that's why I said go to Gamesday and ask them yourself. Or you could check some of my old posts where I talked about my time at GW and posted financial numbers.

You mean Time at GW you cannot verify and numbers that a PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY by definition must make PUBLIC?

But no, really, go to a gamesday and talk to a GW games designer. I wouldn't tell you to find out for yourself if I was lying. I"m actually okay with you disbelieving. Go ahead and ask them...

Yeah, it's called bluffing.

It's not that they don't care, it's that they don't understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Go to a gamesworkshop store, any store, and ask the manager what commandment number 7 and 9 are.

7. Display an indepth knowledge of company product.

9. Ask questions which obtain the best information concerning customer needs.

You will get those as answers WORD FOR WORD.

Ask the manager if he's passed the Rage Test (properly spelled RAG for Red Amber Green, but pronounced rage).

I wouldn't know this much about stuff unless I worked for GW.

The numbers I posted in the past are internal numbers not released to the general public about how stores in the southern california region do.

kirsanth wrote:

scuddman wrote:They don't write for RaW,

LOL Even though I believe you, it is the . . . irony (?) that made me laugh.

scuddman wrote: talk to a games designer. Ask them how they do things. You'll find out the same things I found out.

I game and work with game designers, and to a very real degree I am one myself.
So unless you mean GW game designers, it would be a waste of my time - I do this daily.
Most game designers do actually care about the rules of their games, in my experience. ymmv

dietrich wrote:The problem isn't even always RaI vs RaW. Sometimes, it's Rules as I Understand Them vs. Rules as You Understand Them (RIUT vs RYUT).

This is why it helps to know and (gasp!) debate the RAW. It helps one to understand where the disconnect occurs, more often than not. As well as giving a decent fall back when it is a RIUT vs RYUT situation.

He did say to go to a games day and talk to a games designer, of course he is talking about GW game designers.

People can stick their fingers in their ears all they want and sing lalalalalalalalalala but it won't change the fact that it is public knowledge and individually verifiable that GW writes for RAI, not RAW. If you are playing by strict RAW, you are not playing the game the way the writers designed it to be played.

Yeah, it sucks that the designers Vision for the game is for it to be a loose framework for a hobby when we want a tightly written game that makes for as good a tournament medium as Magic the Gathering. They don't agree, and obviously the Vision they stick to has been successful enough so far they are not being forced to change it. I don't see that changing any time soon.

scuddman wrote:I wouldn't know this much about stuff unless I worked for GW.

Or, ya know, had a mate who did...

Gwar! wrote:

dietrich wrote:GW does a 90% draft and calls it good enough. That last 10% is a lot of work. Remember, they're a minatures company, not a gaming company.

No, that is no Excuse. They are a miniatures company, but without the game, they sell no Miniatures.

It's not an excuse. It's the reason (at least imho). They sell a lot of minis, so until they lose market share because of their shoddy rules, they have no motivation to fix them. They see painters, collectors, and casual hobbyists as a signficant share of their market. As a result, they focus on the minis so that they look pretty. The rules only appeal that 'small' share of their market - the competitive gamers.

Kaaihn wrote:People can stick their fingers in their ears all they want and sing lalalalalalalalalala but it won't change the fact that it is public knowledge and individually verifiable that GW writes for RAI, not RAW. If you are playing by strict RAW, you are not playing the game the way the writers designed it to be played.

Please can you give this "verification" because I have yet to see any actual verifiable sources.

Until then I am going to have to take what the Writers intended to write (as they would not have written them if they did not intend to write them) and use that as the bases for how I play.

Perhaps he means if they wanted us to use the rules they wrote, they would put out books with their rules in them telling us how to play their game with their miniatures.

kirsanth wrote:Perhaps he means if they wanted us to use the rules they wrote, they would put out books with their rules in them telling us how to play their game with their miniatures.

Books? With Rules? What is this 1976?

A friend wouldn't remember the commandments word for word...they have no reason to. The tests we took affected our pay, so I still have them memorized. And I gurantee the GW managers do too.

Edit: Why am I trying to argue this? People are gonna believe whatever they want to believe...silly me. Like I said, don't take my word for it. Go find out for yourself.

Lol, here's something only a manager or higher up would know about: In the US the internal computer network for GW uses citrix. This is where managers can download pdf's of paperwork (such as SDS, the daily accounting sheets, etc.) as well as access to practice exams for the RAG, blue, orange, white, and black. Go ask a GW manager if you can download a SDS off of citrix. He'll probably look at you funny then ask what store you work at.

scuddman wrote:A friend wouldn't remember the commandments word for word...they have no reason to.

I used to work in McDonalds. I have not worked there for nearly 2 years. I can tell you exactly how hot and for how long every single product needs to be cooked for, the correct way to assemble an order and what to do in case of a Terrorist Attack (yes we actually had guidelines for that). I have no reason to remember this, but I do.

Anyway, we have totally gone off topic. Anyone got any new SW codex feth ups?

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:People can stick their fingers in their ears all they want and sing lalalalalalalalalala but it won't change the fact that it is public knowledge and individually verifiable that GW writes for RAI, not RAW. If you are playing by strict RAW, you are not playing the game the way the writers designed it to be played.

Please can you give this "verification" because I have yet to see any actual verifiable sources.

Until then I am going to have to take what the Writers intended to write (as they would not have written them if they did not intend to write them) and use that as the bases for how I play.

Absolutely! Individually verifiable guaranteed by going to a GW event where a game designer is in attendance, and asking him these questions. Please record your conversation after you have it and post it, since if you are going to be deliberately obtuse in accepting what anyone says, we of course are obligated to apply the same standard to you

Your coming back in the future and saying "soandso at gamesday said the game is meant to be played RAW" won't have any credibility at this point.

Kaaihn wrote:Absolutely! Individually verifiable guaranteed by going to a GW event where a game designer is in attendance, and asking him these questions. Please record your conversation after you have it and post it, since if you are going to be deliberately obtuse in accepting what anyone says, we of course are obligated to apply the same standard to you

Your coming back in the future and saying "soandso at gamesday said the game is meant to be played RAW" won't have any credibility at this point.

You are the one asserting this claim, it is up to you to provide proof, or to provide compensation for me to attend this Gamesday and acquire the audiovisual material in question.

Page 25, says that with a mentor(WG or IC), Blood Claws can act with a little more common sense.

This should allow them to do many things that are not written in the rules but were intended.

Personally, I think that space marines do not function as obviously intended with only 1 W in their stat line. Much like Nob Bikers with their obviously incorrect entry in the Ork Codex. It seems that anyone who is familiar with the space marine fluff and history of costing less would agree.
As a result, we play RAI with all my Space Marines having 2W in their profiles (though Captains/Chapter Masters have 3 still, as that is obviously intended.)

My experiences of winning 90% of my games since we realized this error reinforces the fact that I am now playing marines 100% as intended, boosting my success as they can be used as intended. Obviously.

Edit: That second sentance should read "Much like Ork Warbiker Nobz..." sorry.

I think that it is intended for Space Wolves to never be lower than WS 7 and have 7 Wounds each.

See, RaI doesn't work too well