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.

We all know that when a new edition of the rules comes out various older armies may face rules changes.

With no targetting priority the tau armory suddenly has some less than useful upgrades.

With the changed wording on assaults into cover the banshees no longer strike first.

Etc.



However, something has come up in another thread that is slightly different from this.

In previous editions the terms assault and charge were used interchangeably, and some other rules from the eraly times also used one or the other term. Tyranids leaping rules use charge, necrons gaze use charge.

Now in 5th edition GW has changed the BRB to only use the term assault, no longer intermixing charge.


The arguement is the raised: The rules have changed, technically the RAW no longer mentions charge in the BRB so the other rules mentioning charge have no effect.



However, its not a rules change in the BRB, its a terminology change. More precisely its a lack of teminology. The BRB no longer gives us a definition of charge that it once supplied. It doesnt give us a new definition, it just doesnt give us one at all.

Thats the point at which I had to stop and ask why. Why would the charge wording in other older rules no longer apply? There is no new wording that changes the rules, there is no new rule that changes any of the mechanics involved. There is simply now a lack of the previous information.

I would argue that lacking new rules/ information we should stop acting as if we have been hit with amnesia, we need to "remember" that in GWese charge = assault. It isnt a rules change at all it is simply a case of GW assuming that we all know what they mean.


We have the information, we know that GW thinks that charge = assault, its just in an older book. But this isnt a rules question, its a terminology question. So in this type of case, using an older source is the only appropriate course of action, since we are only using the older material as a source for language/ definitions.

Comments/ thoughts?

Sliggoth

Rules and Terminology Change between editions and make things stop working.

If you do not like it, do not play or cheat.

It would appear that various parties need to be reminded that we have always been at war with Eastasia and that there is only one way of interpreting the rules can be correct.

But what is being ignored is that for some of these rules, there is in fact no change that makes things stop working.

We can be lazy and lump all these things together, but if we were lazy and didnt like to quibble about differences what are we doing reading this section of the forums?


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:But what is being ignored is that for some of these rules, there is in fact no change that makes things stop working.

Yes, there is. The word used to describe the action changes. It does not matter the action is the same, the rules are different.

(also reposting)
I think it is generally played with the legacy in mind (see Ghazgull's Waaagh! for Fleet movement).

I am not certain that is correct, as this puts undue pressure on players that have not played the previous/alternate versions.

It also causes . . . issues when someone questions the "rule" being followed and one is forced to explain that it is a rule from a previous/alternate edition.

It's not broken by RAW in the first place. Charge is a synonym for assault, with the specific contextual definition of to attack by rushing violently against.

With the lack of an explicitly stated definition in the rule book, you would use what fits in standard language. In the contexts used, charge means assault. It's not rocket science.

If some RAW purist gives you grief over it, just don't play that person. Keep in mind that in 40K, RAW is a starting point; it isn't the end point. Not to be confused with YMDC, where for the purposes of discussion the RAW answer is typically the end point.

I know that's picking on your example rather than the overall question. The point it demonstrates is that most of the so called broken RAW aren't broken in the reality of game play. Many topics on rules forums don't have any true relevance in actual games.

Thats what Im getting at with this angle of thought. The word to describe the action is STILL BEING USED, albeit only in a codex or two rather than in the BRB. The BRB does not give the word a new meaning, it simply quits using the word (charge in this case).

So the BRB is being ammended by a codex, this means that general < specific, a concept we already agree upon. The only problem is that the codex does not supply a definition and the BRB no longer supplies a definiton. However, there is a known definiton, just not in the current BRB. The rule itself is still active in a codex however, and we have the exact, precise means to know the meaning of the rule.

So if we ignore the rule in the codex we are actually going against the RAW.

The only way to ignore the rule interpretation that charge = assault is to pretend that we dont know that GW equates the two terms. But we do know that in GWese the two terms have the same meaning, we played that way for years, and they have given us no information suggesting that they have changed their view.


We are not referring to an out of date set of rules for a rules question, we are referring to this old material in order to understand a definiton of a term which has no newer definition.


Sliggoth

Honestly you don't have to go to old material for this example. Lacking a formal definition from GW in current material, we just use the appropriate definition to the context the word appears in standard language. Remember, its Rules As Written. Written, as in written words. Language.

For 'charge', that appropriate definition is 'assault'. You really have to be coming from a point of intentional ignorance to language to argue for a different definition. Intentional ignorance to language being quite in vogue for the RAW purist interpretations, don't be surprised to see some folks answer that way.

Neither method is provably wrong in unquestionable black and white, but neither is provably right either. Listen to answers from people with a method you agree with, and play with people that use the same method and the game is quite fun. It's when you mix and match that the pointless arguments begin.

And just to digress a bit on the charge vs assault example in particular, I suspect that usage arose because of the split nature of GW as a company. In fantasy warhammer charge definitely the preferred term to talk about launching a cc attack, assault is more of a 40k flavor word. Which word is used in the 40k BRB probably depends on who at GW is writing a particular paragraph, and which word he uses may depend upon whether that person played a game of fantasy the night before or played a game of 40k.

GW runs very heavily towards sloppy writing, which is probably based upon sloppy thinking; IE their writers rely too much on general assumptions about what people will think rather than writing tight precise rule sets.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:GW runs very heavily towards sloppy writing, which is probably based upon sloppy thinking; IE their writers rely too much on general assumptions about what people will think rather than writing tight precise rule sets.

Pretty much. That's why I disagree completely with the view that the game is played from a RAW purist standpoint. The rules were simply not written to that standard. I play by the standard the rules and the game were actually designed for, and decline games with people that play by a different standard.

I'm not so convinced it's sloppy thinking though. From the statements the writers have given in interviews, the openness is done on purpose to promote an open concept where different interpretations and customization are encouraged. I think they could have accomplished that while having a tighter writing standard though, making far more of their customer base happier than they are now.

ETA posted in wrong thread.