Switch Theme:

What do we think RAW is?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Does the article snippet explain RAW well?
Yes
Mostly yes, but I disagree to a certain degree
Kind of yes, kind of no
Most of this is wrong, but it does have some valid points
No, this is absolutely wrong - this is not what RAW is
TL:DR, I don't care, I don't actually play the game

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 Crimson wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.


Let's not get hyperbolic. I'm sure BCB isn't the only one who cares.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.


Unironically accusing the world at large of "snowflake mentality" when you constantly cast yourself as a persecuted minority and decrying "social media" when you participate in ceaseless online discussion about a game that you have said yourself you haven't played in physical reality for about a decade is one of the reasons that reading the things you post is always one of the highlights of my day.

You want to know why the average person who plays 40k would use the You Make Da Call forum?

I'd imagine this is generally how it goes down:

Two human beings paint miniatures and congregate in a designated area where painted pieces of miniature scenery and large, flat tables allow games to be played. They place their physical pieces of plastic on the table and agree to use a document written by a neutral third party and random chance as a means to allow for one side to be declared winner and the other declared loser in a way that both agree to be "fair" and that avoids argument.

When a rule or sentence in the written document is worded in such a way that one of the humans might interpret it one way and the other differently, the pair decides together how to resolve the discrepancy between their interpretations so that play of the game can resume. After resolving the game, one or both of them decide that the opinions of a larger pool of humans could be helpful to see if their solutions would be considered "fair" to more humans. In the same way that using the neutral third party's written document helps to establish fairness and avoid emotional distress during the playing of the game, the opinions of the larger pool of humans is used as a replacement for a direct clarified answer from the neutral third party.

I
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Octopoid wrote:

Let's not get hyperbolic. I'm sure BCB isn't the only one who cares.

Perhaps. But on this specific issue (i.e. how the assault weapons function) I have literally never encountered anyone or heard of anyone (even on the internet) who would play it like he thinks it should be played.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?


As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Octopoid wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?


As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 18:27:40


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. 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."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

"Wildly accepted" is the basis for almost everything. "Provably true" is the basis for almost nothing.

It is "wildly accepted" that A + B = B + A, but it is not proven. Is all math wrong that bases itself on such a "wildly accepted" postulate?
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?


As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.


Well, you can disagree until your face turns blue. In the meantime, I'll be over here having my cake and also eating it.

Have fun!
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?

If everyone agrees with you, it does. But they won't.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Crimson wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?

If everyone agrees with you, it does. But they won't.
So everyone (that is, literally everyone) must agree in order for it to be convention.

I do not agree you can select a unit to fire after advancing, even if the unit has assault weapons.

Therefore, it is not convention that a unit may fire assault weapons after advancing. Q.E.D.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. 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."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?

If everyone agrees with you, it does. But they won't.
So everyone (that is, literally everyone) must agree in order for it to be convention.

I do not agree you can select a unit to fire after advancing, even if the unit has assault weapons.

Therefore, it is not convention that a unit may fire assault weapons after advancing. Q.E.D.


And this is why we don't want to use hyperbole.
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 BaconCatBug wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

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.
Again, this is not about whether the rule is written correctly/clearly/free of ambiguity or not, but rather your understanding/implication of what the term "RAW" entails. You say "RAW is RAW" when in fact you seem to imply "The written text is the written text". It's precisely because you like to interchange RAW and written text so freely that people call you "absolutist".

The most RAW can do is tell you whether there are multiple possible meanings. It doesn't tell you which meaning , if there are many, is the absolute meaning.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/10 18:36:42


 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




 Octopoid wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:

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.


And most lawyers would tell you that a 'reasonable person' is really just whatever a judge (or jury) happens to think at the time the question is put to them. It changes based on jury makeup, geography and even time of day. It's actually a really fungible standard. There's also a caveat that a 'reasonable person' would never violate a law, so any law breaking, no matter how common, is considered unreasonable as a rule.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 18:37:53


 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






So here we are explaining basic human interaction to BCB, and he's making strawmen out of it. We've reached peak Dakka...



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 BaconCatBug wrote:
So everyone (that is, literally everyone) must agree in order for it to be convention.

I do not agree you can select a unit to fire after advancing, even if the unit has assault weapons.

Therefore, it is not convention that a unit may fire assault weapons after advancing. Q.E.D.

Everyone, in this context, referred to everyone else. But you're right, it is enough that an overwhelming majority of people agree.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 skchsan wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

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.
Again, this is not about whether the rule is written correctly/clearly/free of ambiguity or not, but rather your understanding/implication of what the term "RAW" entails. You say "RAW is RAW" when in fact you seem to imply "The written text is the written text". It's precisely because you like to interchange RAW and written text so freely that people call you "absolutist".
But... RAW means Rules as Written. What are the Rules as Written, if not the Written words that describe the Rules?

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. 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."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:

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."

Great example. The law says the speed limit is 50mph. If someone goes 80mph are they breaking the law?

Not necessarily. If there were a fire or explosion or shooter, and you shot off away from the scene at 80mph, you likely didn't break the law.

In fact, to be convicted of a crime (at least in the US), a "jury of your peers" must determine guilt. This is, in part, because people agreeing with what the rules should be was seen over the rules as written was seen as a good thing.
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 BaconCatBug wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

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.
Again, this is not about whether the rule is written correctly/clearly/free of ambiguity or not, but rather your understanding/implication of what the term "RAW" entails. You say "RAW is RAW" when in fact you seem to imply "The written text is the written text". It's precisely because you like to interchange RAW and written text so freely that people call you "absolutist".
But... RAW means Rules as Written. What are the Rules as Written, if not the Written words that describe the Rules?
That's precisely what this post is about - to get at a point of understanding of what RAW is.

RAW is once removed interpretation of the text. It is not THE text.
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Grimtuff wrote:
So here we are explaining basic human interaction to BCB, and he's making strawmen out of it. We've reached peak Dakka...

Yep, pretty much.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But... RAW means Rules as Written. What are the Rules as Written, if not the Written words that describe the Rules?


That's exactly what this thread was trying to determine. It seems that a majority of people recognize that RAW is a goal to be aspired toward rather than an absolute measure to be adhered to unswervingly.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 BaconCatBug wrote:
Bharring wrote:
"Wildly accepted" is the basis for almost everything. "Provably true" is the basis for almost nothing.

It is "wildly accepted" that A + B = B + A, but it is not proven. Is all math wrong that bases itself on such a "wildly accepted" postulate?
Didn't Bertrand Russell go over that in Principia Mathematica? Or are you talking on a more metaphysical aspect / suggesting we're all Brains in a Jar so we can never prove anything?

He certainly wasn't the first to express the concept of building from postulates, or to accept that the base postulates were unproven (or unprovable).

I mean it in the mathematical sense; almost all work is based on "wildly accepted" postulates.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?

If everyone agrees with you, it does. But they won't.
So everyone (that is, literally everyone) must agree in order for it to be convention.

I do not agree you can select a unit to fire after advancing, even if the unit has assault weapons.

Therefore, it is not convention that a unit may fire assault weapons after advancing. Q.E.D.


Earlier in this discussion you said you took the Tau warlord trait Exemplar of the Montka on your commander, which reads

"Your warlord can advance and still shoot as if it had not Advanced this turn"

I assume you treat this as permission for just that model to advance and fire its weapons. However you choose to ignore the Viorla sept trait Strike Fast, which reads

"In addition, models with this tenet do not suffer the penalty to their hit rolls for advancing and firing assault weapons."

Literally everybody does not need to agree on how a rule works to establish convention. To use one of your favorite fallbacks, that word only has one meaning in English (at least in this context) "1.a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity."

You are inventing a new definition of the word "Convention" in an attempt to shut down discussion in a way you so frequently accuse your detractors of doing. In the case of 40k, "convention" typically means "how a rule is played by the majority of players within a particular play group" and most commonly the convention defaulted to is the one which allows the larger number of rules to be functional.

   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




Bharring wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match

That's what tournament FAQs are for. They take the place of the player discussion before the game.

GW aren't in the business of producing tournament rulesets. They've supported tournaments to varying degrees over the years because people keep wanting them, but it's just not the style of game that they are making. The closest they have ever come was 5th edition, which Alessio supposedly wrote with the intention of it being a tighter, more tournament-friendly ruleset, but the rest of the studio carried on with their beer-and-pretzels approach regardless.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a concise, tournament-ready 40K ruleset. But if the demands for such a thing over the last 30 years haven't been sufficient to persuade GW that this was worthwhile goal, it seems fairly safe to assume that it's unlikely to change - and given that the game has survived for 30 years in an industry where most games are lucky to last for 5, it's also hard to argue that their approach is wrong, at least for them. They're producing the game that they want to make, and by all reports it's still doing well. So wishing that it was a different kind of game entirely isn't going to get us anywhere.


Now see, here we have to disagree a bit again. I agree, that's what tournament FAQ's can be for. For tournaments to be circuits though (as they try to be), they need uniformity across tournaments as well. That best comes from rules.

Where we disagree is I think GW is trying to make a tournament-ready 40k. I don't think that's how the rules team thinks in the slightest, they seem to be really casual, but I believe it's what management wants. With the additions of streams and casting personalities, I also believe they want to try and get something similar to e-sports going on, but with 40k.

Evidence for this in all over 8th edition. We have regular updates for points, we're now getting designer commentary behind buffs/nerfs. The go to method of play is 'matched play', which implies, matchmaking. We even have tournament guidelines in the BRB, which they label "Organised Events" full well knowing, I believe, that most people will see that as 'tournaments' ("If you are using matched play for an organized event such as a tournament..."). It seems fairly obvious to me they're moving closer and closer to a tournament-friendly ruleset but it seems to be a top-down command rather than a natural development from the rules team themselves.


I think they're trying to do two things - have a rulesset that works for tournaments, *and* have a game that's simple enough to just pick up and play.

Some evidence of this is in what they choose to FAQ. The rules read literally still don't permit you to fire Assault weapons after advancing, and that hasn't been FAQed. This is probably because a technically-correct writing of the rule might be harder to digest when you're first reading the rules, while being functionally no different from the technically-incorrect but easily-understood rules have now.

A better writer might be able to serve both needs, but the current situation (for that rule) isn't a problem. I've never seen it ever impact a game - people are smart enough, and often don't even notice the "problem". It's really on a "thing" when discussing pedantry.


Honestly, I think the Assault ruling (or lack thereof) is more because they simply don't know it's there. The rules team was surprised at NOVA last year when they saw 0" charges happening and thus nerfed Fly in the charge phase, yet 0" charges were only made possible (and were I think indirectly referenced) because of their own FAQ ruling prior. Unlike many of us, they do not seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of their own verbiage nor do they seem to read the internet much (where 0" charges existing would have been fairly obvious).
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?


As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.

What is a house rule if not a convention agreed upon only within that house?

I'm seeing posts talk about what's most useful to someone looking for clarification on the rules; the generally agreed upon convention or some pedantic reading of RAW. Why would a player who's trying to figure out how to play the game against the average player care more about some constructionist theory about RAW, or how the average player plays?

Because I am very certain far more people play the Assault weapon rule in the way that allows it to fire than the way that does not.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Bharring wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?


As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.

What is a house rule if not a convention agreed upon only within that house?

I'm seeing posts talk about what's most useful to someone looking for clarification on the rules; the generally agreed upon convention or some pedantic reading of RAW. Why would a player who's trying to figure out how to play the game against the average player care more about some constructionist theory about RAW, or how the average player plays?

Because I am very certain far more people play the Assault weapon rule in the way that allows it to fire than the way that does not.


Maybe at this point Dakka Needs a post with the most common RaI for rules that pop up. Something players can be directed to when they need common rules so it does not need to be a battle for RaW vs Rai right off the gate. I think most players could understand if a rule was explained as not working, and here is the most common, or few most common ways to deal with it.
It would at least deal with some of the confusion if it could be done.
   
Made in ca
Stalwart Tribune






Apple fox wrote:


Maybe at this point Dakka Needs a post with the most common RaI for rules that pop up. Something players can be directed to when they need common rules so it does not need to be a battle for RaW vs Rai right off the gate. I think most players could understand if a rule was explained as not working, and here is the most common, or few most common ways to deal with it.
It would at least deal with some of the confusion if it could be done.


This is what most of us are arguing for, indirectly. As i said earlier, when someone has a rules question the best answer is giving them the actual ruling (BCB-level of RAW) and explaining how it is actually played in most games (using tournaments as a basis for the definition of "most" in this case).

The problem with this thread is that someone wants RAW RAWRARWAWRAWRAWRARAWR only to be a thing in a conversation that most other participants are mostly in accord.

As much as i love the drama, i'm pretty sure the question has been answered since many pages in and at this point we're just repeating over and over the same arguments (valid for both sides).
This thread should be locked.

Admech 4500
Drukhari 4000
1750
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




Apple fox wrote:
Bharring wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
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.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?


As has been explained before, convention as decided by the two (or more) people actually playing the game.
No, that is not convention. That is two people agreeing on a house rule. Which is fine, but I disagree with the notion that you can have your cake and eat it.

What is a house rule if not a convention agreed upon only within that house?

I'm seeing posts talk about what's most useful to someone looking for clarification on the rules; the generally agreed upon convention or some pedantic reading of RAW. Why would a player who's trying to figure out how to play the game against the average player care more about some constructionist theory about RAW, or how the average player plays?

Because I am very certain far more people play the Assault weapon rule in the way that allows it to fire than the way that does not.


Maybe at this point Dakka Needs a post with the most common RaI for rules that pop up. Something players can be directed to when they need common rules so it does not need to be a battle for RaW vs Rai right off the gate. I think most players could understand if a rule was explained as not working, and here is the most common, or few most common ways to deal with it.
It would at least deal with some of the confusion if it could be done.


This is already circumvented and made unecessary with YMDC's posting guide. It says an OP should say whether they want a RAW or RAI discussion (or both). It's Tenet #4:


4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.


Also, as far as YMDC is concerned, you also don't bring up The Most Important Rule:


7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.


I feel like the bigger problem, on Dakka at least, is people posting in YMDC with wildly different ideas as to what the sub is about than what that sub is supposed to be about.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 19:07:50


 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

Audustum wrote:


This is already done with YMDC's posting guide. It says an OP should say whether they want a RAW or RAI discussion (or both). It's Tenet #4:


4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.




Actually, it just says to state which one you are talking about, not necessarily that a post must be all one or all the other. Hence, in YMDC, HIWPI is perfectly acceptable in a RAW thread, as long as it is specified.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/10 19:09:35


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Wasn't every point of this addresses around page 3 or so? How long are we going to circle this? Is anyone even reading each others posts anymore?

Like Minis and sculpts? Check out our Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/themakerscult 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 MattKing wrote:
Wasn't every point of this addresses around page 3 or so? How long are we going to circle this? Is anyone even reading each others posts anymore?


I feel like several of us are having a nice conversation...
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




 Octopoid wrote:
Audustum wrote:


This is already done with YMDC's posting guide. It says an OP should say whether they want a RAW or RAI discussion (or both). It's Tenet #4:


4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.




Actually, it just says to state which one you are talking about, not necessarily that a post must be all one or all the other. Hence, in YMDC, HIWPI is perfectly acceptable in a RAW thread, as long as it is specified.


My post specifically was talking about an OP stating it, thus denoting the thread topic by virtue of it being from the OP. An OP following #4 would say if they have a RAW, RAI or whatever question.

I guess you could wander into a thread where the OP asked for a RAW answer and drop your two cents on RAI, but that's kind of on you at that point.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: