Black Horror vs BotWD

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.

**kirsanth**

My first post in this thread still stands.

Written laws (or "laws") are in fact written rules, which is the definition of the rules as written.

It takes insanity to claim that written rules are not written rules.

The fact that some things go outside of what is written does not make it a rule as written, in fact it is literally impossible for this to be true.

That is actually why there are written laws allowing laws to be interpreted.
Or to put it bluntly, your "sensible" countries are sane enough to have rules written to allow rules to be interpreted.

And laws to punish those claiming that the laws of the country do not apply to them because the offenders claim the intention was otherwise.

**FlingitNow**

It takes insanity to claim that written rules are not written rules

Just as it takes insanity to claim the rules to a game designed by the GW design team are not the rules the GW design team designed...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The difference being I have not made your claim you make the one Ive said...

**kirsanth**

I never stated that the rules as written by GW are not RAW - exactly the opposite, in reality.

Your statement was off-kilter reference to it though, you said that written laws are not rules as written.
(to whit:

FlingitNow wrote:
laws are the definition of RAW.

Not in any remotely sensible country and certainly not for law in the UK (you know where the rules for 40k are from).

)

The rules in discussion were related to laws, thus my quote, and your implication was that the body of written rules were not RAW in any sensible country.

If I misinterpreted, please explain.
Or are you waffling about the difference between rules and laws?

**Peasant**

DukeRustfield wrote:
I believe it was Socrates who didn't want written laws because then you could get around the "LETTER OF THE LAW." Which is basically what lawyers do.

California had a helmet law for motorcyclists. A biker got pulled over for not wearing a helmet. But he did have on a helmet, he was just wearing it on his knee instead of his head. He was found not guilty.

While some podunk judge might throw stuff out and make their own proclamations, laws are the definition of RAW. There are a ton of "clubs" in Hollywood where if you go in them they have off in the corner somewhere a place where you can buy cheese sticks or chicken fingers. And you're like, who on earth would buy this messy snack food at a hip club? No one. But by selling food they can call themselves restaurants under the law instead of night clubs and the licenses are much cheaper and less strict. That's pure RAW.

An inordinate amount of corporations are registered in Delaware as their primary place of business because they have very relaxed corporate requirements. Even though Delaware is a tiny state with hardly any population and the corporations in question don't actually do any business there. That's RAW.

Delaware acquired its status as a corporate haven in the early 20th century. Following the example of New Jersey, which enacted corporate-friendly laws at the end of the 19th century to attract businesses from New York, Delaware played the game of fiscal competition by adopting in 1899 a general incorporation act aimed at attracting more businesses. Before the rise of general incorporation acts, forming a corporation required a special act of the state legislature. General incorporation allowed anyone to form a corporation by simply raising money and filing articles of incorporation with the state government's secretary of state.

This post doesn't do much for your RAW argument.

What would you think the intent of that motorcycle law be?
The motorcyclist got off thanks to the RAW that was determined to be more important than the Intent.
The RAW makes the nightclub effectively into a restaurant.

Does this post mean that you prefer to play the RAW because it lets you get through a loophole when you find something undesirable? Which is fine, at least own it.

**Niteware**

FlingitNow wrote:
There is none, this is why any rule that damages without wounding will specifically say if you get a ward save or not.
Good examples are KB, Stuff into bag, Black horror, Purple sun and many others who specify how they interact with wards

Exactly and that permission applies just as much to BotWD as it does any other ward save that normally only has permission to work against wounds...

This is true. Except for every law passed in Westminster. Oh, and Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and Brussels. And by all the regulators. So, actually only for civil law. Which isn't written but is based exclusivelynon precedent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, nicely derailed Fling. OT, we still have A that protects against wounds and B which doesn't wound, meaning that A doesn't work on B.

**kirsanth**

It was not so much derailed as removed from reality once more.

**FlingitNow**

never stated that the rules as written by GW are not RAW - exactly the opposite, in reality.

No but you do say the rules design by GW are not the rules.

Your statement was off-kilter reference to it though, you said that written laws are not rules as written.

I think you should read the post you quoted I did not say that. In future please read what people say rather than assuming they're going to have said something.

The rules in discussion were related to laws, thus my quote, and your implication was that the body of written rules were not RAW in any sensible country.

No I didn't I said the Law was not RaW but RaI. The written body of the law is the written body of the law. But the law itself defines the spirit and intention of the law to be what matters (despite Nos and Nitewares handwaving about how it is applied).

Anyway, nicely derailed Fling. OT, we still have A that protects against wounds and B which doesn't wound, meaning that A doesn't work on B.

Yeah because I derailed the thread with the outrageous claim that the GW design team designed the rules

then repeated told people to pm me if they didn't understand that. Heck even the quote you posted was not about the subject you then brought up in your post.

Right guys can we leave the whole GW didn't design the rules argument at home and PM me if you want to discuss that.

So we know all saves are taken against wounds and BotWD is no different. So does no one get a ward against Black Horror?

**Niteware**

Again, you are talking ninsense Fling. You are replacing the possible "can be" with the definite "are" whuch is leading to your issue. All saves can be taken against wounds.
Some saves can be taken in other circumstances too. BoTWD is not one of those saves, since it specifically says it is for wounds.This puts it in the category with other limited wards, which only work in triggerred circumstances.
YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE HALF THE TRIGGER.

**Saldiven**

I'm going to point out that the analogy of a game's rules to actual laws is pretty falacious on the surface, and I apologize for getting sucked into that discussion at all.

You only need one example of how an analogy is inaccurate to invalidate the analogy in its entirety. If you violate a rule in a game, you do not face jail time or fines, and you don't need a lawyer to represent you to avoid those penalties, the way you do with a broken law.

Can we please get away from the discussion of laws? They really have no bearing on how a game's rules function.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/07/argument-by-ana.html

**FlingitNow**

Saldiven wrote:
I'm going to point out that the analogy of a game's rules to actual laws is pretty falacious on the surface, and I apologize for getting sucked into that discussion at all.

You only need one example of how an analogy is inaccurate to invalidate the analogy in its entirety. If you violate a rule in a game, you do not face jail time or fines, and you don't need a lawyer to represent you to avoid those penalties, the way you do with a broken law.

Can we please get away from the discussion of laws? They really have no bearing on how a game's rules function.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/07/argument-by-ana.html

However it is not an argument by analogy. One side says it is impossible to have a rule set based on RaI and if you do you get to do whatever you want. Then the fact that the ruleset we all live our lives by is based on RaI demonstrably illustrates how ludicrous a position it is hold and is thus relevant. Basically we can choose to believe the GW design team didn't design the rules and therefore have RaW as our rule set. Which is a bizarre belief to have or we can choose to assume the rules were designed by the GW design team and like pretty much every ruleset it is RaI that matters. To base a ruleset off RAW is moronic given how open to abuse such a system would be and how difficult it wwould be to write accurate rules for it and how impossible those rules would be to understand by anyone who doesn't have a law degree.

Its like talking to children on here at times with the pathological need for clarity and control of the rule system and a complete inability to understand anything beyond the literal.

**Manchu**

Rule Number 2 is Stay On Topic. This thread is beyond the pale.