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.
This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.
The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.
When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.
I never said the second group had NO value. And I wasn't advocating for "talking down and running off" their opinions. Group B, in this thread and others, advocates both that Group A has no value AND that those people need to be constantly talked down and run off.
OK, so you aren't actually reading other people's replies at all then? Either that or Group B is a fictional group that doesn't represent any actual group on this board. That highlighted bit is absolutely not accurate at all. The value of knowing the RAW isn't in dispute by anyone. I think this is about the 12th time this has been pointed out to you. It's how that information is used that causes the problems between the two groups.
Lance845 wrote: However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.
I will admit, there are some strong and immediate reactions to certain posters because of their past actions. I also think there is a certain point at which their posting becomes less an item of RAW assistance and more an item of "Aha, I gotcha GW!" These posts, while they may be technically correct, are not helpful to new readers and do not, in my opinion, deserve the benefit of the doubt, based on the history of the poster in question.
So, while Group A has a number of individuals within it that can be helpful, it also has a number of individuals who seem to be helpful by accident. I don't think it's wrong for the large proportion of Group B (who also has some of such individuals) to react poorly when those individuals from Group A start their usual manure.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Agree. However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.
Im not saying that only BCB is in the wrong, both groups have stubborn members that want to win the multi-thread spanning argument of RAW vs RAI. I think the reason BCB's posts generate so much heat is because of they way he presents his opinion as an absolute. he ignores group B and refuses to see their value. this in turn triggers group b and thats when threads derail.
Honestly, i agree with the message he is trying to pass, i simply disagree with the presentation he gives .
This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.
The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.
When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.
I never said the second group had NO value. And I wasn't advocating for "talking down and running off" their opinions. Group B, in this thread and others, advocates both that Group A has no value AND that those people need to be constantly talked down and run off.
lets take the assault weapons as an example for a theoretical thread in YMDC:
Q: Hey guys, i'm unsure of how assault weapons function in-game, help?
A: according to the rules, you have to pick a unit (that didnt advance, fallback and isnt within 1" of an enemy model) to shoot. A model may fire its assault weapon even if it advanced. this means that you cannot pick the unit to shoot since it advanced.(Group A's answer).
However, it is wildly accepted that assault weapons can be fired after advancing and it is used in all tournaments and most casual games. I personally do allow assault weapons to shoot in the games i play in. (Group B answer).
now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
Agree. However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.
I also agree. While BCB can be obtuse he does bring up/point out the broken things that can potentially be an issue during game play.
Many YMDC threads are actually derailed by people reacting to BCB (as evidenced by the last 2 pages of this thread alone) and BCB's absolutism and whether his RAW is actually RAW. So, who's actually at fault - the actual troll or the ones feeding the troll - is quite debatable.
What it seems to me is that GW somewhat overly relies on their "most important rule" and expects the players to alter the rules as they seem fit. So in essence, altering the rule so that it works is actually a big part of the game. Therefore, it is fallacious to say we are "breaking the rules" by houseruling it (since the permission to alter the rule is explicitly permitted). The most important rule is part of the game, we're just not allowed to defer to it while we discuss the RAW in Dakka. The issue is that while there are many instances where both plays can agree to rule it otherwise, there are also MANY instances where only one side benefits.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/10 17:28:42
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
No one expects you to guess every possible house rule. That's a straw man.
They just expect you not to shoot down said house rules when they are presented.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Many YMDC threads are actually derailed by people reacting to BCB (as evidenced by the last 2 pages of this thread alone) and BCB's absolutism and whether his RAW is actually RAW. So, who's actually at fault - the actual troll or the ones feeding the troll - is quite debatable.
The entire point of RAW absolutism is to remove subjectivity. RAW is RAW, regardless of what peoples "interpretation" of it. When a rule says "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." there is no way to interpret that in more than a single way unless you start redefining the English language.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
This is exactly why your posts get so much heat, you provoke people based on their Opinion.
You don't have to guess every single house rules, keep being in Group A and giving the textbook RAW answer, just dont attack people that are in Group B.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
No one expects you to guess every possible house rule. That's a straw man.
They just expect you not to shoot down said house rules when they are presented.
If someone asks me "How many shots does a Heavy Bolter fire?" Do I say "Three" or do I say "The rules say three, but people might decide to house rule it as thirteen."
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
No one expects you to guess every possible house rule. That's a straw man.
They just expect you not to shoot down said house rules when they are presented.
If someone asks me "How many shots does a Heavy Bolter fire?" Do I say "Three" or do I say "The rules say three, but people might decide to house rule it as thirteen."
You say, "The Rules say three." Then, when someone else says, "We houserule it as thirteen," just stay silent about it.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.
The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.
When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.
I never said the second group had NO value. And I wasn't advocating for "talking down and running off" their opinions. Group B, in this thread and others, advocates both that Group A has no value AND that those people need to be constantly talked down and run off.
lets take the assault weapons as an example for a theoretical thread in YMDC:
Q: Hey guys, i'm unsure of how assault weapons function in-game, help?
A: according to the rules, you have to pick a unit (that didnt advance, fallback and isnt within 1" of an enemy model) to shoot. A model may fire its assault weapon even if it advanced. this means that you cannot pick the unit to shoot since it advanced.(Group A's answer).
However, it is wildly accepted that assault weapons can be fired after advancing and it is used in all tournaments and most casual games. I personally do allow assault weapons to shoot in the games i play in. (Group B answer).
now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
Agree. However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.
I also agree. While BCB can be obtuse he does bring up/point out the broken things that can potentially be an issue during game play.
Many YMDC threads are actually derailed by people reacting to BCB (as evidenced by the last 2 pages of this thread alone) and BCB's absolutism and whether his RAW is actually RAW. So, who's actually at fault - the actual troll or the ones feeding the troll - is quite debatable.
It's more like what is causing the real damage? The obtuse tactless whatever (all said with affection) or those who troll him?
What it seems to me is that GW somewhat overly relies on their "most important rule" and expects the players to alter the rules as they seem fit. So in essence, altering the rule so that it works is actually a big part of the game. Therefore, it is fallacious to say we are "breaking the rules" by houseruling it (since the permission to alter the rule is explicitly permitted). The most important rule is part of the game, we're just not allowed to defer to it while we discuss the RAW in Dakka. The issue is that while there are many instances where both plays can agree to rule it otherwise, there are also MANY instances where only one side benefits.
I would argue that the very moment it stops being raw and you start relying on that little "most important" tid bit you are not playing Matched play anymore. You have delved firmly into Open Play where anything goes. Specifically because that is what Open Play is for. And if thats the case... well.... what the hell good are those answers?
Case in point, I never answer YMDC threads with information about BtGo40k because it's just not relevant how the game I play fixes the issues. They are not asking about all the changes I make. They are asking about the game as presented by GW.
It's a bad terrible tangled mess of a game so there ends up HAVING to be some HIWPI. But that should be restrained and called on as little as possible so as to keep the rules cohesive.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
VladimirHerzog wrote: now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.
So now I have to somehow guess every single 40k players house rules for the group B answer? "Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
This is exactly why your posts get so much heat, you provoke people based on their Opinion.
You don't have to guess every single house rules, keep being in Group A and giving the textbook RAW answer, just dont attack people that are in Group B.
Fun fact, I don't attack people in group B because I got hit with the Modstick for doing so. I'm not allowed to express my opinions on House Rules anymore, so I don't. I simply state that the rules say what the rules say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Octopoid wrote: You say, "The Rules say three." Then, when someone else says, "We houserule it as thirteen," just stay silent about it.
Why should I stay silent about what, is in my opinion, faulty information? YMDC is not for house rules, that's for the Proposed Rules forum.
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 17:52:37
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
The friction really comes from certain people's hostility to finding actual functional solutions. Sometimes indeed the rules do not function as written or are written in ambiguous way. In such a situation, in order to play the game, one must look for contextual clues for the intended function. These may include looking at other somewhat similar rules, the structure of the game as a whole, GW battle reports and indeed even answers by the Facebook team. This is a process some people simply can't stand, sometimes even going so far than claiming that divining the intent is impossible. These are often the same people who seem to be incapable of grasping that a textual ambiguity is even a thing, and that a set sequence of words does not necessarily have one explicitly correct reading irrespective of the context. This is puzzling, considering that as a human beings in a modern world we need to deal with all sorts of written laws and instructions in our daily lives, and most of us somehow manage even though these texts are routinely ridden with the similar sort of inaccuracies and ambiguities.
Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.
If the rulebook itself gave no clue as to what the rules are for or how to resolve any misunderstandings and disagreements then both groups would be equally correct.
The rulebook makes it clear that the rules are a guide to playing the game.
The rulebook states that in case of ambiguity players should agree it among themselves as they see fit.
Group B are the ones actually following the instructions in the rules on how to interpret the rules.
Group A are selectively refusing to read those parts of the rulebook which contradict their whole approach and then are claiming to be the most faithful to the rulebook. That makes them wrong. Now so far as I'm concerned people can be as wrong as they like and it makes no difference but if they insist on being wrong on every discussion about rules at the expense of those discussions being productive and useful then they are a problem.
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Only if we're using YOUR logic, which is demonstrably fallacious. For example, the argument you have just made is called, appropriately, an "All-or-nothing" fallacy. There are many individuals who find that changing one thing does not, in fact, require them to change how many Wounds a Space Marine has, regardless of claims to the contrary, and this does not actually violate logic in any way, shape, or form.
EDIT: Fun fact - it can also fall under the Slippery Slope or False Dilemma fallacies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 17:58:58
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Only if we're using YOUR logic, which is demonstrably fallacious. For example, the argument you have just made is called, appropriately, an "All-or-nothing" fallacy. There are many individuals who find that changing one thing does not, in fact, require them to change how many Wounds a Space Marine has, regardless of claims to the contrary, and this does not actually violate logic in any way, shape, or form.
EDIT: Fun fact - it can also fall under the Slippery Slope or False Dilemma fallacies.
And as I have had to explain multiple times, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if applied fallaciously. This is not a fallacious application.
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 18:01:23
"Wildly accepted" is weasel words at best and outright wrong at worst.
I don't attack people in group B because I got hit with the Modstick for doing so. I'm not allowed to express my opinions on House Rules anymore, so I don't.
this abrasive way of wording your sentence can be considered an attack.
Why should I stay silent about what, is in my opinion, faulty information? YMDC is not for house rules, that's for the Proposed Rules forum.
except its not faulty information ,its an addition to what you bring, a lot of people bringing these solutions actually agree with you but realise that making assault nonfunctional makes for bad games.
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Only if we're using YOUR logic, which is demonstrably fallacious. For example, the argument you have just made is called, appropriately, an "All-or-nothing" fallacy. There are many individuals who find that changing one thing does not, in fact, require them to change how many Wounds a Space Marine has, regardless of claims to the contrary, and this does not actually violate logic in any way, shape, or form.
EDIT: Fun fact - it can also fall under the Slippery Slope or False Dilemma fallacies.
And as I have had to explain multiple times, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if applied fallaciously. This is not a fallacious application.
As you have explained incorrectly. Slippery Slope is always a fallacy. It MAY, on occasion, result in factually correct conclusions, but as an argument, it is always a fallacy. Also, that doesn't explain away the other two fallacies.
Because it is your opinion. And you present it as fact, that the only possible way to play the game is with no house rules, even going so far as to state that if you house rule one thing, you MUST (note: MUST) house rule everything.
You "must" only if you wish to remain logically consistent. If that isn't a problem for you then what does it matter what the rules say to begin with and why bother asking a rules question?
Only if we're using YOUR logic, which is demonstrably fallacious. For example, the argument you have just made is called, appropriately, an "All-or-nothing" fallacy. There are many individuals who find that changing one thing does not, in fact, require them to change how many Wounds a Space Marine has, regardless of claims to the contrary, and this does not actually violate logic in any way, shape, or form.
EDIT: Fun fact - it can also fall under the Slippery Slope or False Dilemma fallacies.
And as I have had to explain multiple times, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if applied fallaciously. This is not a fallacious application.
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
We decide as two individuals working together toward a common goal. We do this based on circumstantial evidence, context clues, and open, honest discussion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 18:02:31
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
VladimirHerzog wrote: this abrasive way of wording your sentence can be considered an attack.
If people think that is an attack of any sort, it's a problem with them, not me. Maybe I was just raised differently in an era before social media and snowflake mentality.
VladimirHerzog wrote: this abrasive way of wording your sentence can be considered an attack.
If people think that is an attack of any sort, it's a problem with them, not me. Maybe I was just raised differently in an era before social media and snowflake mentality.
Once again, "Everyone is out of step but me."
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
As you have explained incorrectly. Slippery Slope is always a fallacy. It MAY, on occasion, result in factually correct conclusions, but as an argument, it is always a fallacy. Also, that doesn't explain away the other two fallacies.
You should read the article you posted. From said article: ""slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. The strength of the argument depends on two factors. The first is the strength of each link in the causal chain; the argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The second is the number of links; the more links there are, the more likely it is that other factors could alter the consequences." Therefore, if we accept that Slippery Slope arguments can be non-fallacious, doing so requires strong evidence, which you have failed to provide.
Octopoid wrote: We decide as two individuals working together toward a common goal. We do this based on circumstantial evidence, context clues, and open, honest discussion.
That's literally "just because" wrapped in a veneer of "consensus equals truth."
Straw man. That's not literally "just because." Neither is it "consensus equals truth." It is "consensus equals a game we can play." "Truth," with a capital T, is not required, and sometimes not desirable, for a game where two people interact to reach a common goal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 18:08:05
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Except to a reasonable person, it does function. It doesn't function in the way you want it to, but it does function. Even from a "intention" viewpoint, GW literally tells you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
"I don't like that the speed limit is 50kph, therefore I shall ignore it and drive at 80kph."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 18:11:30
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Also the fact that official GW battle reports let assault weapons work is a pretty good indicator of the intent of the rule
Please, because I genuinely don't know, how do you decide when it's acceptable to ignore a rule and when it is not in a way that is logically consistent beyond "Because".
When it is obvious to a reasonable person* that the rule doesn't function properly if taken literally. Assault weapons are a perfect example. The rule was put there for a reason; if they wanted to it function like you think it does (or rather doesn't) then they wouldn't have put that rule in the book in the first place. From the context we can infer (in this case with nigh infallible accuracy) how it was intended to function.
(*We know that this is not you. However, 'reasonable person' standard is used even in legal context.)
Except to a reasonable person, it does function. It doesn't function in the way you want it to, but it does function.
"I don't like that the speed limit is 50kph, therefore I shall ignore it and drive at 80kph."
"Reasonable Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability."
While it may not be a standard that is employed (enough) in 40K, a reasonable person exercises AVERAGE care, skill, and judgement. Thus, if the average of all people on the road is 80KPH, that becomes the reasonable standard, law be damned.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
VladimirHerzog wrote: Also the fact that official GW battle reports let assault weapons work is a pretty good indicator of the intent of the rule
Actually, GW's official email instructs you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Battle Reports are not rules. Neither is the email, but for the intent crowd I assumed the official GW email holds more weight than battle reports.
BaconCatBug wrote: That's literally "just because" wrapped in a veneer of "consensus equals truth."
Which is how it is for a social activity. This game literally doesn't exist without the people playing it. And this is how the real world works too, and as a Brit, you should be acutely aware of it. The British system of government relies heavily on conventions, for example the monarch's powers are wildly different in RAW than RAI. Granted, right now the UK isn't perhaps the best possible example of a working system, but it seemed to do okay for centuries...
VladimirHerzog wrote: Also the fact that official GW battle reports let assault weapons work is a pretty good indicator of the intent of the rule
Actually, GW's official email instructs you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Battle Reports are not rules. Neither is the email, but for the intent crowd I assumed the official GW email holds more weight than battle reports.
and the rulebook has this rule as The most important rule
Spoiler:
In a game as detailed
and wide-ranging as
Warhammer 40,000, there
may be times when you
are not sure exactly how to
resolve a situation that has
come up during play. When
this happens, have a quick
chat with your opponent
and apply the solution that
makes the most sense to
both of you (or seems the
most fun!). If no single
solution presents itself, you
and your opponent should
roll off, and whoever rolls
highest gets to choose what
happens. Then you can get
on with the fighting!
so if we have a disagreement we just roll it off.
who are you to decide what source holds more value between battle reports and emails out of all things?
VladimirHerzog wrote: Also the fact that official GW battle reports let assault weapons work is a pretty good indicator of the intent of the rule
Actually, GW's official email instructs you to "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Battle Reports are not rules. Neither is the email, but for the intent crowd I assumed the official GW email holds more weight than battle reports.
Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
