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.

Just want to make sure I'm reading the rule correctly...

I've read Gwar's awesome unofficial FAQ, but something just still doesn't seem right to me...

This assumes that there is only the Tyranid unit and an enemy unit on the board.

What I seem to be reading is:

So, If the Tyranid unit is forced to Lurk and:

There is an enemy unit in the Tyranid unit's line of sight BUT the enemy unit is out of range of the Tyranid's ranged weapons.... the Tyranid unit stands where it is.

The enemy unit is within range of the Tyranid's ranged weapons BUT the Tyranid does not have line of sight to the enemy unit... the Tyranid unit stands where it is.

This is how I am reading the current rule for Lurk.

Tsannik wrote:Just want to make sure I'm reading the rule correctly...

I've read Gwar's awesome unofficial FAQ, but something just still doesn't seem right to me...

This assumes that there is only the Tyranid unit and an enemy unit on the board.

What I seem to be reading is:

So, If the Tyranid unit is forced to Lurk and:

There is an enemy unit in the Tyranid unit's line of sight BUT the enemy unit is out of range of the Tyranid's ranged weapons.... the Tyranid unit stands where it is.

The enemy unit is within range of the Tyranid's ranged weapons BUT the Tyranid does not have line of sight to the enemy unit... the Tyranid unit stands where it is.

This is how I am reading the current rule for Lurk.

Yes, that is correct. The rule states "If there are no enemies in the unit's line of sight or within range of at least one of its ranged weapons, [...] it must instead run towards the nearest piece of area terrain".

So, if there are no units in range but there is one in LOS, it cannot run, it must attempt to fire, auto missing because it is out of range. If there are units in range but not in LOS, it has to attempt fire, but won't even get a chance to roll to hit because it cannot draw LoS.

Not to try to pick an argument, but couldn't it also be a correct reading of "in LOS or within range" to read it as a shortened form of "if there are no enemies in the unit's line of sight or there are no enemies within range of at least..." ?

It seems like the sentence could simply be setting up two criteria together in one sentence: if there are no enemies within LOS, you run; if there are no enemies within range, you run. The "or" could simply refer to the fact that if either of those situations occurs, the unit attempts to run toward area terrain.

I'm not even trying to put it as an argument of RAW vs. RAI (I believe those in the RAI camp would assert that the unit doesn't care if it has LOS to something 40" downfield if it only has 12" guns). Even within the RAW, it seems to me that this reading is also a valid way to read just the RAW, which would make the sentence essentially result in the Lurkers running unless they have both range or LOS, rather than one but not the other.

Just how I read the rule upon first glance, and it still seems that way to me on re-reading more carefully.

If it wanted both criteria to always be applied, it would have said "And". "Or" indicates that as long as one of the criteria is fulfilled, the unit must attempt to shoot at that the closest unit.

I see the intention of what sirisaacnuton is speaking of...

Which is why I wanted to clarify..

If the intention truly was what sirisaacnuton (and I) have thought it to be.... then the wording of the rule should have had both conditions as seperate statements.

As it is worded in a single statement, then both the way I started this thread and how Gwar reinforced it is probably how it should be played.

Sadly, with the exception of Robin Cruddace, no-one can know the "intention" of the rule, other than the fact that, had he not intended the rule to work as it does, he would have not written it the way it was written.

Sadly, with the exception of Robin Cruddace, no-one can know the "intention" of the rule, other than the fact that, had he not intended the rule to work as it does, he would have not written it the way it was written.

This is utter rubbish, sometimes intentions are easy to know and the claim that Cruddace or anyone at GW is a perfect rules writer is laughable.

Just like it is obvious that the Doom's Warp Field gives him a 3+ sv, that Death[leapers rules work for him that the Swarmlord count as a Hive Tyrant for all his rules. that you use the Large Blast Marker for terror from the deep.

Heck all the above are in your own FAQ!

It is obvious how this rule works their are 3 criteria if ANY 1 criteria is met the unit runs:

1) No enemy in LoS
2) No enemy in range
3) Unit has no ranged weapons

If you can't work out the intention from the sentence then maybe human interaction or reading are not your strong points and you should stay away from both.

Gwar! wrote: "If there are no enemies in the unit's line of sight or within range of at least one of its ranged weapons, [...] it must instead run towards the nearest piece of area terrain".

Gwar! wrote:If it wanted both criteria to always be applied, it would have said "And". "Or" indicates that as long as one of the criteria is fulfilled, the unit must attempt to shoot at that the closest unit.

I dunno, I don't have the full rule (just what you posted), but it looks more like:
"Or" indicates that as long as one of the criteria is fulfilled, the unit must run towards the nearest peices of area terrain.

Like, if the unit has no enemies in LOS, it satisfies the first part of the rule you posted, so must instead run.
Or, if the unit isn't within range of at least one of it's weapons, it satisfies the second part of the rules posted, so must instead run.

What I am missing that makes you think otherwise?

On the other side though, with a few exceptions of units with rangefinders like IQ guard or flash gits, if you measure range, you MUST fire at the target you measure to even if out of range. Seems like it being a premeasure complicates it a little.

Gwar! wrote:If it wanted both criteria to always be applied, it would have said "And". "Or" indicates that as long as one of the criteria is fulfilled, the unit must attempt to shoot at that the closest unit.

Except it doesn't say "if one or the other, then shoot" it says (according to your quote) "if one or the other, then run to terrain"

If it is out of range OR out of los, then run.

By your wording and the way you explained it above, I believe if either criteria is fulfilled, the unit must run.

I dunno, I don't have the full rule (just what you posted), but it looks more like:
"Or" indicates that as long as one of the criteria is fulfilled, the unit must run towards the nearest peices of area terrain.

Like, if the unit has no enemies in LOS, it satisfies the first part of the rule you posted, so must instead run.
Or, if the unit isn't within range of at least one of it's weapons, it satisfies the second part of the rules posted, so must instead run.

What I am missing that makes you think otherwise?

As there is no "no enemies" in the 2nd part of the "or" he's apply that "or" to the "there are no enemies..." clause rather than the "if.... then run" clause. It is techincally how the English works...

A bit like when GW asks you to subtract a -3 modifier to something technically means you add 3 but it is obvious what they mean and Gwar knows it.

Ah, nevermind. After reading the rule for myself I see GWAR's argument.

3 situations are possible for a lurking tyranid.

1) A unit is in range but out of LOS
2) A unit is in LOS but out of range
3) there are no units in range or LOS

The way the logic of the sentence goes, it is asking if you check if there is EITHER a unit in range OR in los. This is different from saying either condition because of the negative at the beginning.

The sentence structure is obvious with the codex in front of you.

The separate conditions are divided by commas, while linked conditions are not.

"If there are no enemies in the unit's line of sight or within range of at least one of its ranged weapons, or if the unit has no ranged weaponry"

So, if the unit has NO targets in either LOS or Range, then run. Additionally, if the unit has no ranged weapons, run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:

I dunno, I don't have the full rule (just what you posted), but it looks more like:
"Or" indicates that as long as one of the criteria is fulfilled, the unit must run towards the nearest peices of area terrain.

Like, if the unit has no enemies in LOS, it satisfies the first part of the rule you posted, so must instead run.
Or, if the unit isn't within range of at least one of it's weapons, it satisfies the second part of the rules posted, so must instead run.

What I am missing that makes you think otherwise?

As there is no "no enemies" in the 2nd part of the "or" he's apply that "or" to the "there are no enemies..." clause rather than the "if.... then run" clause. It is techincally how the English works...

A bit like when GW asks you to subtract a -3 modifier to something technically means you add 3 but it is obvious what they mean and Gwar knows it.

In this case, I think it actually means what it says. I believe the RAI is that you must shoot if you have either range or line of sight. The comma placement and wording is very deliberate, and I think fluffy. If the nid can see an enemy and is too mindless to gauge range, but only recognizes a threat, it will fire. Likewise, if it can feel the enemy encroaching through instinct, but can't see it, it may still go into defense mode, wildly firing.

I think it is fair to say GWAR can be nitpicky about wording, but I think the RAI is on his side in this instance. . .

Eight Ball wrote:What I am missing that makes you think otherwise?

Heh, woops, I made a mistake >.<

In the Shooting phase, the unit must fire at the nearest visible enemy. If there are no enemies in the unit's line of sight or within range of at least one of its ranged weapons, or if the unit has no ranged weaponry, it must instead run towards the nearest piece of area terrain.

Ok, so, I will admit, I messed up on what I was talking about (don't blame me, it's my B-Day, I'm hammered).

So, to start anew:
In the shooting phase, the unit must fire at the nearest visible enemy. If there are no enemies who are visible, then it must run towards area terrain. If there are enemies visible, it must fire at them. If they are found to be out of range, technically it cannot then run, but as Stated in my FAQ, they run towards the nearest area terrain anyway. If there are no enemies visible, but in "range", it runs towards the Terrain as the first part of the rule specifies it only must fire at visible enemies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:This is utter rubbish, sometimes intentions are easy to know and the claim that Cruddace or anyone at GW is a perfect rules writer is laughable.

Just like it is obvious that the Doom's Warp Field gives him a 3+ sv, that Death[leapers rules work for him that the Swarmlord count as a Hive Tyrant for all his rules. that you use the Large Blast Marker for terror from the deep.

Heck all the above are in your own FAQ!

-Golf Clap-

You do realise that most of my FAQ are Rules Changes, and that by the letter of the rules Deathleapers rules do not work and the DoM does not have a 3++ save? You, and many others, seem to have the mistaken idea that I actually play the game this way. I do not. I just make sure my opponent knows that it SHOULD work XYZ way when we play it ABC way.

You do realise that most of my FAQ are Rules Changes, and that by the letter of the rules Deathleapers rules do not work and the DoM does not have a 3++ save? You, and many others, seem to have the mistaken idea that I actually play the game this way. I do not. I just make sure my opponent knows that it SHOULD work XYZ way when we play it ABC way.

Why should it work that way? Just because that is technically how it is written? You seem again confused and under the misconception that Raw = The rules. It does not and never has. You list them as rules changes because they differ from RaW but in reality they should be rules clarifications. Doom gets his 3++ save this is the rules though it is what you'd think were the rules if you used a RAW interpretation.

I have no problem with people coming up with RAW and rules lawyering things I just get annoyed when they start to claim it is never possible to gauge RaI or that RAW is the rules and doing anything is else is "cheating" or playing by a house rule. It is not.

FlingitNow wrote:You seem again confused and under the misconception that Raw = The rules.

Oh I see, the Rules as Not Written are the Rules.

Gotcha, I'll remember next time to smash a brick into my opponents models next time I play, because, hey, nothing says I can't!

If I may ask, how do you play the game since you don't play by the rules as written in the rulebook?

Technically, if you're playing anything other than exactly as the rules state, you are breaking the rules.

That said, the rules are often stupid and often need to be modified or ignored.

Edit: Happy B-day (bidet?) Gwar!

Of course the rules as written(RAW) are not the rules, as written. They the written rules that should be interpreted other then what is written to understand the interpretation posted for the rules.

Oh wait. No. That is not correct. That would be an interpretation of the literal rules, as written.

RAW is "rules as written". Which is translated of the "rules as written". Thus the abreviation.

Of course taking simple linguistic determination is as valid as saying "hull" is used incorrectly in most every example in the rulebook. Yet this is verifiably true.

Yes, people understand the meaning of language. Oddly, the rules assume an assumption of the language too.

Sorry for the lack of literal linguistic verification. It just seems that the people who disagree that "Rules as Written" are the rules as written should understand what I am saying.

kirsanth wrote:Of course the rules as written(RAW) are not the rules, as written. They the written rules that should be interpreted other then what is written to understand the interpretation posted for the rules.

Oh wait. No. That is not correct. That would be an interpretation of the literal rules, as written.

RAW is "rules as written". Which is translated of the "rules as written". Thus the abreviation.

Of course taking simple linguistic determination is as valid as saying "hull" is used incorrectly in most every example in the rulebook. Yet this is verifiably true.

Yes, people understand the meaning of language. Oddly, the rules assume an assumption of the language too.

Sorry for the lack of literal linguistic verification. It just seems that the people who disagree that "Rules as Written" are the rules as written should understand what I am saying.

This is always a funny conversation that is also circular (RAW vs RAI). As the rules written are to establish intent of the author in how the game is supposed to be played. It is funny as RAW and RAI are supposed to be interchangeable in a perfect world with a perfect language and a perfect writer. There are probably billions of papers around the world from all the various lawyers, judges, and institutions which either try to establish or interpret the "intent" of the written law (rule for us).

Oh I see, the Rules as Not Written are the Rules.

Gotcha, I'll remember next time to smash a brick into my opponents models next time I play, because, hey, nothing says I can't!

If I may ask, how do you play the game since you don't play by the rules as written in the rulebook?

Do you play the rules as written in the rule book? I bet you don't heck you've even admitted it in this very theard.

The rules as written are not the rules. The rules are the rules designed and defined by GW. They wrote a rule book to teach us those rules. Why are so many people here so convinced that GW writes perfect ryules and that RAW = RAI (The Rules).

By definition RAI is the rules, to claim that RAW = RAI is laughable. Just read the rules and tell me that GW intended for the Dooms invulnerable save to not work for the Mawloc Terror from the deep to not do anything for Deathleaper rules to not work for the Swarmlord's psychic powers to either be unusable or infinite (in the case of Paroxysm) etc etc etc...

I can't beleive anyone thinks the above is RAI, yet you claim that RAW = RAI?

RAI are what the author wants to write. What they write is not necessarily the same thing. The rules as written are the rules. They are also often bad rules so no one with an ounce of sense plays them to the letter.

When you have players who can't agree or who have a vested interest (for example tournies) having RAW on your side helps. This is why arguments occur.

FlingitNow wrote:

Oh I see, the Rules as Not Written are the Rules.

Gotcha, I'll remember next time to smash a brick into my opponents models next time I play, because, hey, nothing says I can't!

If I may ask, how do you play the game since you don't play by the rules as written in the rulebook?

Do you play the rules as written in the rule book? I bet you don't heck you've even admitted it in this very theard.

The rules as written are not the rules. The rules are the rules designed and defined by GW. They wrote a rule book to teach us those rules. Why are so many people here so convinced that GW writes perfect ryules and that RAW = RAI (The Rules).

By definition RAI is the rules, to claim that RAW = RAI is laughable. Just read the rules and tell me that GW intended for the Dooms invulnerable save to not work for the Mawloc Terror from the deep to not do anything for Deathleaper rules to not work for the Swarmlord's psychic powers to either be unusable or infinite (in the case of Paroxysm) etc etc etc...

I can't beleive anyone thinks the above is RAI, yet you claim that RAW = RAI?

What the author intends is impossible to know with any certainty. All we've got is what he wrote. It's no good appealing to some Platonic ideal of the rules, when we're stuck living in the imperfect world, where all we can work with is the rules as written.

Do people play by pure RaW? Relatively few; in some instances, the game becomes unplayable if you try. But this forum distinguishes between RaW and "How you would play it" (see The Tenets). Knowing what the rules actually say is useful for many of us in determining how we would play it, or in dealing with people from outside our normal toy soldier playgroup; it also helps those of us who subscribe to the "least advantageous interpretation" school of playing with our toy soldiers.

So yes: per the actual rules, as delivered on stone tablets from Nottingham, The Doom is not a zoanthrope, the Swarmlord is not a Tyrant, and the Mawloc's arrival is heralded with no explosions. And there is value in knowing that; please refrain from disparaging people for conforming to the Tenets of the forums (the rules as written, if you will).

You all drain my soul.

RAI are what the author wants to write. What they write is not necessarily the same thing. The rules as written are the rules.

This is contradictory. In one sentence you say what they intend to write and what the write are different then you say they are the same?

When you have players who can't agree or who have a vested interest (for example tournies) having RAW on your side helps. This is why arguments occur.

Yes this is correct, RaW is a good tool for working out what the rules are or for deciding an argument if RaI is not clear. Sometimes RaI is not clear and RaW makes no sense (or does not cover the situation at all) so you have to make a ruling or roll a dice or end the game.

What the author intends is impossible to know with any certainty.

This is completely wrong RaI is often very easy to know with complete certainty. For instance that the Doom counts as a Zoanthrope for all his rules. It is not RaW but it is the rules and it is obvious for anyone reading the book to work that out.

All we've got is what he wrote. It's no good appealing to some Platonic ideal of the rules, when we're stuck living in the imperfect world, where all we can work with is the rules as written.

So do you play that Ramming is impossible? That when the Swarmlord uses Paroxysm it last for the rest of the game? That when it tells you to subract a -1 modifier you add 1? That Space Wolf scouts have some undefined "scout" special rule? That Yriel's spear is entirely useless?

I bet you don't.

Do people play by pure RaW? Relatively few

Actually you'll find it's none! The game is ridiculous if you play pure RaW, particularly the new Tyranid Codex.

But this forum distinguishes between RaW and "How you would play it" (see The Tenets). Knowing what the rules actually say is useful for many of us in determining how we would play it

This I agree with but it does not change that RaW does not equal the rules. By the very definition of RaW in YMDC RaW does not equal the rules. RaW is a tool for determining the rules from the rulebook(s). The great thing about RaW is the answer is consistent (in general) so everyone knows (or can work out) how the rules work under RaW. Guessing at RaI is subjective and whilst sometimes the answer is obvious often it is less so and requires either a judgement call or using RaW.

So yes: per the actual rules, as delivered on stone tablets from Nottingham, The Doom is not a zoanthrope, the Swarmlord is not a Tyrant, and the Mawloc's arrival is heralded with no explosions.

Wrong I bet if you ask the games developers what the rules are they'll tell you that the Doom is a Zoanthrope, the Swarmlord is a Tyrant etc and thuis that is the actual rules. What is written is different but that is clearly not their intent as they expect their rule books to be used by intelligent human beings not computers that will mindlessly apply RaW without any commonsense...

Just like Laws that Govern a country. They are a codified rule set yet the letter of the Law is irrelevant it is the spirit an dintention behind a law that matters. The actual wording does not change the intention and the intention is the rule. The language is just atool for describing and communicating ideas it does not change or supercede those ideas even if they are poorly communicated.

FlingitNow wrote:

RAI are what the author wants to write. What they write is not necessarily the same thing. The rules as written are the rules.

This is contradictory. In one sentence you say what they intend to write and what the write are different then you say they are the same?

Nah, it's not. The authors are, apparently, incapable of giving us a perfect draft of how they intend the rules to work. What they write (read: the rules) is an imperfect version of what they intended.

That said, if I didn't completely agree with your side of the argument, I would never get a game finished.

As for the wording of the law, don't forget our American friends are working off a constitution. How about the right to bear arms? Talk about a RAW argument!

Nah, it's not. The authors are, apparently, incapable of giving us a perfect draft of how they intend the rules to work. What they write (read: the rules) is an imperfect version of what they intended.

That said, if I didn't completely agree with your side of the argument, I would never get a game finished.

As for the wording of the law, don't forget our American friends are working off a constitution. How about the right to bear arms? Talk about a RAW argument!

But what they write isn't The Rules what they design is the rules and what they write is a tool to communicate those rules to use. The fact that they can't write well means that those rules are hugely imperfect, totally contradictory and just plain broken. So you have to interpret them best as you can if the answer isn't obvious RaW is a great tie breaker and RaW is what a lot of people choose to play even when the intention is fairly obvious. But no-one plays strict RaW because it's simply not a playable game.

On the Americans and their "law" it is not their fault that is how they work. Fortunately we live in a country where the spirit and intention behind the rule (law) is what matters rather than the dubious wording... Bless them.

In an attempt to get this back on topic, I'm going to parse out the logic in the relevant sentences. To make it easier to read, I'll use some shorthand. Here we go:

Let F=The unit must fire
L=some enemy exists in line of sight
R=some enemy exists in range
M=the unit must run (since I already used 'R')

(A) If (L), then (F).
(B) If (not (L or R)...) , then M.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, B only triggers under one circumstance: There are no enemies in LoS or range.


Now lets look at the four possibilities:

1) There's an enemy in range and line of sight (L and R).
2) There aren't enemies in range or LoS (not(L and R)).
3) There's an enemy in range but not LoS (not(L) and R).
4) There's an enemy in LoS but not range (L and not(R)).


How do the two sentences apply?

1) A says fire, B says nothing.
2) A says nothing, B says run.
3) A says nothing, B says nothing.
4) A says fire, B says nothing.


So:

If you have enemies in LoS and range, you have to shoot the nearest visible one.

If no enemies are in LoS or range, you have to run to the nearest area terrain.

If you have enemies in LoS but not range, you have to shoot the nearest visible one, even though it's out of range.

If you have enemies in range but not LoS, the Lurk rule doesn't tell you what to do in the shooting phase. I guess that means you can do what you want.


A note on how I think others got it wrong: I don't think they recognized that 'there are no enemies' applies to 'in the unit's line of site or within range,' not the two clauses separately. In other words, it means this:

not(L or R)

It doesn't mean:

not(L) or not(R)

which has different truth conditions.


Finally, from an RAI perpective, RAW might actually fit pretty well here. The obvious cases, (L and R) and not(L or R), certainly work fine. (L and not(R)) fits okay, since the designers might have wanted your gone-stupid creatures to waste their shooting.

The weirder one, where the rule says nothing, is a little harder to fit into RAI. However, keep in mind that Biovores and Hive Guard have Lurk. They don't need LoS (Hive Guard don't even have EYES), so why couldn't they still fire at targets in range and out of LoS?

Sorry about the long post. I need to break that habit. Hope it helps anyway.

Hesperus

Thanks for breaking it down but this was all covered. By the language of the sentence it means what you say but looking at RaI it appears pretty obvious they mean 3 conditions that any one of which being met means they run.

But yes by RaW you are correct. As has already been covered in this article.

FlingitNow wrote:but looking at RaI it appears

Looking at RaI is impossible.

Looking at RaI is impossible.

Why?

What, pray tell, are you looking at?