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.

Does some-one want to address the difference between the shots fired by a psycannon and psycannon bolts (or whatever) that come out of the storm bolter on a vehicle.

Having read that many times in my well thumbed codex, why don't people see the problem with the same Bullet having two effects??

Doesn't one rule contradict the other?

That being the case the least advantageous would be to allow cover saves.

Stelek wrote:The Psycannon's ignore cover saves crowd doesn't realize the rules are written poorly

Which is irrelevant.

RAW means ruls as written. As written, '[o]nly armour saves may be taken against a psycannon'.

I don't play it that way, I think it's damned obvious that they intended people to take cover saves against it because it's not a flamer, the fact that they then go on to specify that Invul's cannot be taken is another give-away, but RAW is RAW is RAW is RAW, and rules as written state that 'only armour saves' can be used against those hits.

There's no way to argue against this.

I voted B, because A is stupid and obviously not what they intended, and this thread is about how you play it, rather than what it says, but please Stelek, don't try to claim that RAW doesn't support the 'armour only' argument.

BYE

fullheadofhair wrote:Does some-one want to address the difference between the shots fired by a psycannon and psycannon bolts (or whatever) that come out of the storm bolter on a vehicle.

Having read that many times in my well thumbed codex, why don't people see the problem with the same Bullet having two effects??

Doesn't one rule contradict the other?

That being the case the least advantageous would be to allow cover saves.

Good enough for me. I'm back to playing it the B way.

H.B.M.C. wrote:RAW means ruls as written. As written, '[o]nly armour saves may be taken against a psycannon'.

But that's not what's written.

What's written is 'Only armour saves may be taken against a psycannon. Invulnerable saves may not be taken.'... which is what opens up both possible interpretations under RAW.

You can take RAW, assuming that 'Only armour saves' trumps everything else and the second sentence is superfluous.
Or
You can take RAW, assuming that the two sentences are intended to be taken together, and as such simply mean that the psycannon allows armour saves but not invulnerable saves, and that cover saves are unaffected as they are not referenced by the rule at all.

Both are RAW.

I lean towards B because it's the RAW intepretation that doesn't rely on ignoring a part of the rules as irrelevant.


The fact that vehicle Psycannon bolts allow cover saves causes me to lean further in that direction from a RAI perspective as well.

Please insaniak, humour me:

Explain away where it says that 'only' armour saves can be taken. Armour saves are the 'only' types of save that can be taken.

Even though I think it's stupid, and know that's not what they meant, and that cover saves should be able to be taken by it, by RAW, please explain how you're going to get past the 'only' at the start of that sentence.

BYE

Beast wrote: From a RAW perspective, the Colonel is right, but I don't play that way because it creates too much crying and moaning...

Quoted for Truth.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Explain away where it says that 'only' armour saves can be taken. Armour saves are the 'only' types of save that can be taken.

It doesn't say that armour saves are the only type of saves that can be taken.
It says that only armour saves can be taken. Which is slightly different... especially when combined with the second sentence.

When you take that first sentence out of context, you are indeed left with only armour, and no other type of save, allowed to be taken. But that's not RAW, that's taking a sentence out of context and pretending it still means something.

When read as a whole, what that paragraph actually says is that armour saves may be taken while invulnerable saves may not.


Context is every bit as important as the actual words.

insaniak is quite correct. That is why what is called RAW, the practice of requiring each rule in the game to have a corresponding sentence in the rulebook, is poor reading comprehension.

Incidentally that's why it helps to provide a quick exegesis and analysis of the text in question so that when one poster suggests it states some rule and another poster disagrees they can refer to this analysis and resolve the disagreement by either correcting its flaws or retracting their disagreement.

It's not taking it out of context.

The line about Invul saves is mentioned as it needs to be specifically said, otherwise you would just assume that Invuls could be taken, as the rulebook says that Invuls can always be taken.

So we have a paragraph with two distinct meanings:

Only armour saves can be taken (rule). Invul can not be taken (clarification of not only this rule, but rules from the main book).

BYE

Nurglitch wrote:That is why what is called RAW, the practice of requiring each rule in the game to have a corresponding sentence in the rulebook, is poor reading comprehension.

As is your continued insistence that RAW is something that it isn't.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The line about Invul saves is mentioned as it needs to be specifically said,

If the first sentence actually means that armour saves are the only type of saves that may be taken, then no, it doesn't need to be said at all. An invulnerable save is, after all, a type of save.

So we have a paragraph with two distinct meanings:

The two sentences in the paragraph have to be read together. That's what paragraphs are for. The meaning of each sentence in the paragraph is affected by the context provided by the rest of the paragraph.

You can't simply rip sentences out and pretend that they exist in a vaccuum.

I'm not sure how valid it is to only look at the summary and not the wargear section, but if you look at the summary:

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/gaming/reference_sheets/assets/daemonhunter_refsheet.pdf

It's pretty clear that Incinerator is no invuln or cover, and psycannon is ignores invulnerable.

You have to take it with a grain of salt as I don't think many people play Assault Cannons as Heavy 3's in DH lists...

Just my 2 cents.

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak is quite correct. That is why what is called RAW, the practice of requiring each rule in the game to have a corresponding sentence in the rulebook, is poor reading comprehension.

Incidentally that's why it helps to provide a quick exegesis and analysis of the text in question so that when one poster suggests it states some rule and another poster disagrees they can refer to this analysis and resolve the disagreement by {thunk}zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

quoted for truth

insaniak, the thing is, "Invulnerable saves may not be taken" does not contradict or substantially modify "Only armour saves may be taken against a psycannon". If I say "Only chickens may cross this road. Ostriches may not cross this road", it seems fairly clear that if you are a peacock, you still may not cross the road.

Traskel wrote:I'm not sure how valid it is to only look at the summary and not the wargear section, but if you look at the summary:

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/gaming/reference_sheets/assets/daemonhunter_refsheet.pdf

It's pretty clear that Incinerator is no invuln or cover, and psycannon is ignores invulnerable.

You have to take it with a grain of salt as I don't think many people play Assault Cannons as Heavy 3's in DH lists...

Just my 2 cents.

Given that there is disagreement about what the wargear entry means, the summary is a fine way to clear things up. Good call.

As for the assault cannon being wrong, new rules for the assault cannon have been released; new rules for the psycannon have not. Thus the assault cannon entry has been overridden but the psycannon entry has not.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:If I say "Only chickens may cross this road. Ostriches may not cross this road", it seems fairly clear that if you are a peacock, you still may not cross the road.

Or that if you're a peacock, the rule doesn't apply to you in the first place. Your rule can simply be taken to mean that, out of Chickens and Ostriches, only chickens can cross the road.

If the statements were seperate it would be more definite... and the second statement would be redundant. Because they're linked by being included in the same paragraph, the full meaning of the paragraph relies on both.


I'm not saying that my way to read it is the 'correct' one. I'm simply saying that there are two ways to read it, and one of them relies on assuming that half of the information presented in a given paragraph is redundant, while the other assumes that the entire paragraph is relevant information... and the latter is the interpretation that I personally lean towards, as it seems the more sensible route to take.

insaniak wrote:As is your continued insistence that RAW is something that it isn't.

Please, inform me of what 'RAW' is, that I might stand corrected.

We've been over this before. RAW, as has been pointed out to you in the past, is simply the Rules as Written.

That doesn't mean taking a single sentence out of context. Nor does it mean ignoring diagrams, or other parts of the text.
It simply means reading the rules as they are written, rather than reading into them what you think the writer might have meant, whether or not that's what he actually said.

You'll find plenty of examples online of people claiming something is RAW when it isn't, based on a single, out-of-context statement... and that seems to have confused you into the belief that RAW is simply plucking out the written sentence that confirms a particular viewpoint, regardless of what the rest of the rules say.

Well, I do like to be reminded, just in case I've gotten carried away eating slow sandwiches that day. Speaking of reminders:

How exactly does one go about reading rules as they are written? It seems that in this thread there are many ways of reading the rules as they are written. You yourself seem to think that there are two ways the rules as written may be taken. Perhaps it is the slow sandwiches talking again, but it seems to me that such a method of reading the rules is stupid where it allows such ambiguity.

If this seems off-topic, consider that by showing me how reading the Rules as Written is to be done you might also show others and thus solve the disagreement here.

Nurglitch wrote:Well, I do like to be reminded, just in case I've gotten carried away eating slow sandwiches that day. Speaking of reminders:

How exactly does one go about reading rules as they are written? It seems that in this thread there are many ways of reading the rules as they are written. You yourself seem to think that there are two ways the rules as written may be taken. Perhaps it is the slow sandwiches talking again, but it seems to me that such a method of reading the rules is stupid where it allows such ambiguity.

If this seems off-topic, consider that by showing me how reading the Rules as Written is to be done you might also show others and thus solve the disagreement here.

No matter how you read the rules (ignoring RAI as that is mind reading) you cannot get past the point that in the same codex a psycannon bolt has two effects depending on whether or not it comes from a storm bolter or a cannon.

P1 psycannon bolts fired by a storm bolter allow cover saves
P2 psycannon bolts fired by a psycannon do not allow cover saves.

A strict RAW approach is very simple - for P2 "only armor saves" is well nigh impossible to argue with tho' with twisting the language a bit it is possible to infer (but only infer) otherwise.

Therefore, RAW-wise both premises are correct and you play it as such. Pretty simple and I feel you cannot really argue with that, except it is just dumb. The same ammunition should have the same effect. Therefore, adding in a bit of "taking the least advantageous position" psycannon bolts from a pyscannon allow cover saves.

fullheadofhair: What do you mean, "you cannot get past the point that in the same codex a psycannon bolt has two effects depending on whether or not it comes from a storm bolter or a cannon."? Do the labels 'P1' and 'P2' denote quotations from Codex: Daemonhunters? I don't own that book so I'm asking for clarification.

Likewise, how is it "well nigh impossible to argue with tho' with twisting the language a bit it is possible to infer (but only infer otherwise."?

I think I need another example because I don't see any particular methodology here.

Nurglitch wrote:How exactly does one go about reading rules as they are written?

Er... you read them...?

You yourself seem to think that there are two ways the rules as written may be taken.

And...?

When a rule is written in such a way as to create ambiguity, the result is a rule with multiple possible interpretations.

We then go away and determine for ourselves which of those interpretations we would prefer to use in game. Deciding it for yourself in this manner is the only sensible way of interpreting an unclear rule... you're certainly not going to get everyone on the internet to agree to your personal interpretation of 'the way it's supposed to be'... and trying to do so would be pointless anyway.

Perhaps it is the slow sandwiches talking again, but it seems to me that such a method of reading the rules is stupid where it allows such ambiguity.

If the rules are ambiguous, then reading them is going to result in ambiguity.

I'm honestly not sure what other result you would expect...

sigh...

Somebody please take away the 'slow sandwich' Nurglitch says he is eating and give him a glass of Dakka Cool-Aid instead...

Seriously though, t-C has an excellent point. Look up the definition of 'only' (which I provided earlier) and perhaps you will see that the second sentence of the rule provides (unnecessary IMHO) clarification for the first sentence as HBMC has mentioned. The second sentence, specifically disallowing Inv Saves, does not contradict the first's condition of 'only', in fact it reinforces it. that they didn't include a statement that cover saves are also not allowed is unfortunate, but doesn't in any way contradict the 'only' condition.

I applaud the codex writers for trying to cut off arguments before they happen (about Inv Saves) but it was just not enough apparently. If they wanted cover saves to be allowed they should NEVER have written that 'only' armor saves may be taken... rules writers...

Beast wrote:Look up the definition of 'only' (which I provided earlier) and perhaps you will see that the second sentence of the rule provides (unnecessary IMHO) clarification for the first sentence as HBMC has mentioned.

Already seen and noted.

The point is simply that it's not the only way that paragraph can be read.

Hence the discussion.

Traskel wrote:I'm not sure how valid it is to only look at the summary and not the wargear section, but if you look at the summary:

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/gaming/reference_sheets/assets/daemonhunter_refsheet.pdf

It's pretty clear that Incinerator is no invuln or cover, and psycannon is ignores invulnerable.

You have to take it with a grain of salt as I don't think many people play Assault Cannons as Heavy 3's in DH lists...

Just my 2 cents.

I've always played option B. At the beginning of this thread I thought there was real credibility for the argument that psycannons don't allow for cover saves. For my personal understanding, the reference sheet that Traskel posted clarified the matter in full. The psycannon only ignore invul-saves.

What does this reference sheet do for everyone else's understanding for the rule?

I understand your point as well insaniac. I just don't agree that the second sentence makes the first any less definitive. If anything it amplifies and supports the first sentence. The first sentence is a valid and clear rule in and of itself. The second sentence (although unnecessary) removes any discussion of Inv saves as the BGB defines them (in that they may always be taken). When a rule is definitive like this, it can stand on its own. Any amplifying clauses or sentences may be helpful (as with the Inv save discussion) but are ultimately just gravy...

t-C's chicken analogy remains relevant. And no, saying a peacock is allowed to cross the road because it is neither a chicken nor Ostrich violates the rule that 'only' chickens may cross the road. Using 'only' as it is defined in the dictionary is exclusive of all other things... Even taking both sentences together (and not separately), the RAW must and does exclude cover saves being taken.

It is stupid and probably not the way they wanted it to be, I grant you that. Their poor use of the English language has caused the RAW to say things they probably didn't want. But RAW is RAW as so many have said... There are several types of saves in the game as we all know. Saying that 'only' one type (armor) may be taken is a valid rule as they wrote it. Further amplifying that to say Inv saves may not be taken (when normally they would be able to be taken) is a clarification of the rule in the first sentence. The first sentence still prohibits all other types of saves, and the second sentence has nothing to do with cover saves at all. Saying that the rule does allow cover saves by implication is writing an exception into the rule that just isn't there.

Yak's poll shows that the majority of players (including me) play counter to what RAW says. That's fine, but it doesn't change what the RAW actually is.

insaniak wrote:When a rule is written in such a way as to create ambiguity, the result is a rule with multiple possible interpretations.

So please show us how the rule is described ambiguously then. Show us how this 'reading' you speak of admits ambiguity when combined with the text in question.

insaniak wrote:We then go away and determine for ourselves which of those interpretations we would prefer to use in game. Deciding it for yourself in this manner is the only sensible way of interpreting an unclear rule... you're certainly not going to get everyone on the internet to agree to your personal interpretation of 'the way it's supposed to be'... and trying to do so would be pointless anyway.

I'm not interested in having a personal interpretation, since, after all, it may be wrong. I'm interested in checking to make sure that I either have the right interpretation, or that I have all of the possible interpretations.

insaniak wrote:If the rules are ambiguous, then reading them is going to result in ambiguity.

I'm honestly not sure what other result you would expect...

I would expect that the rules would not be ambiguous. Since you have yet to demonstrate that the rules are truly ambiguous, or how your RAW reading works, it seems premature to declare that the text of the rules is truly ambiguous.

So again, show me how this RAW thing you speak of ways that I may apply it and know that I apply it rightly.

In 40k parlance, an 'Armour save' refers to the game mechanic known as 'Making saves'. Making saves is a very distinctive feature in GW games, made after the To-Hit and To-Wound rolls.

As far as 'Making saves' is concerned, this refers to three different things: Armour saves, Invulnerable saves and Cover saves.

When a shooting weapon says, "Only armour saves may be taken ..." that means just that. By the RAW, only Armour saves.

The problem with GW RAI is that GW is GW. They don't necessarily care about their rules being clear, they like to make everything sound fancy. So when a BRAND NEW WEAPON comes out, with a BRAND NEW MINI RANGE, including BRAND NEW AWESOME TERMINATORS that cost SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS A BOX, and don't even come with proper weapon options, and it can OMFG IGNORE INVULNERABLE SAVES, AND it can be included in 60% of all 40k armies, it's quite possible the writer got a little carried away, he could have even been told to play up the invulnerable save thing.

That doesn't mean there aren't other ways to play the game. Call it RAW vs RAI vs WTFYWTD (WhateverTF You Want To Do). And personally the psycannon bolts thing is a VERY strong argument RAI for a tournament organizer to decide.

But RAW is RAW. They are the Rules as Written. It's in the name.

I think the problem we're having here, Nurglitch, is you want to redefine what RAW means. You can't. It's RAW. That's how it is. But you can invent your own term if you want, or else you can even feel free to go ahead and borrow mine.

It just it seems to me that if RAW was simply a matter of the rules as written, then there would be no disagreements except quibbles from illiterate idiots. Seeing as there are no illiterate idiots here, and yet there are still disagreements the next obvious answer would be that GW does not write its rules clearly and well. But all of the arguments I see brought up in this forum seem to show that the problem is not with GW's written material, and not with the natural grace and intelligence of the people arguing. The problem seems to be that people are misapplying their natural grace and intelligence to understanding what rules the text states. Since that misapplication is not their fault (and avoiding any implication that they might simply be stupid or evil), clearly the fault lies with the method. The preferred method on this forum is called RAW, yet no one seems to be able to show how it works. Playing the game isn't the same as reading the rules. After all the game can be played any way you want (although after a certain number of changes it can't rightly be called Warhammer 40k anymore), but the rules mean only one thing. Hence my request to insaniak to share with me the secret of RAW so that I may apply it without worry that my natural deficit of grace and intelligence will cause me to misread the rules.

Nurglitch wrote:So please show us how the rule is described ambiguously then. Show us how this 'reading' you speak of admits ambiguity when combined with the text in question.

Or, and it's a crazy idea, I admit, you could go back and read the thread.

I'm not interested in having a personal interpretation, since, after all, it may be wrong. I'm interested in checking to make sure that I either have the right interpretation, or that I have all of the possible interpretations.

So... once you have 'all of the possible interpretations' what do you do with them?

You're going to have to pick one in order to play the game.

I would expect that the rules would not be ambiguous.

Then you're going to be continually disappointed.

In an ideal world, yes, the rules would not be ambiguous.
In GW's little universe, sloppy writing abounds.

Nurglitch wrote:fullheadofhair: What do you mean, "you cannot get past the point that in the same codex a psycannon bolt has two effects depending on whether or not it comes from a storm bolter or a cannon."? Do the labels 'P1' and 'P2' denote quotations from Codex: Daemonhunters? I don't own that book so I'm asking for clarification.

Likewise, how is it "well nigh impossible to argue with tho' with twisting the language a bit it is possible to infer (but only infer otherwise."?

I think I need another example because I don't see any particular methodology here.

If you read the thread and the codex: a psycannon bolt (a pice of ammunition) has two different effects from two different weapons.
Premise 1: blah blah blah fired from a stormbolter allows cover saves
Premis 2: blah blah blah fired from a psycannon doesn't allow cover saves.

A simple RAW ignoring any possible intent of the writer will conclude: pyscannon bolts fired from a vehicle stormbolter allow cover saves but psycannon bolts fired by psycannon ignore cover saves. My "methodolgy" is to look at RAW - read the rule, make sure my language interpretion is reasonable. Then I check the rules in codex that interact with this rule and check for inconsistancy. I believe that the ammunition should have the same effect. Therefore, I believe there is an inconsistancy. Where there is an inconsistancy I chose the least advantageous position.

My conclusion becomes: Due to poor rule writing, I am deciding that I will allow people to take a cover save against shots from a psycannon.

The comment about "twisting" is that any methodolgy you use relies totally on interepating the language, and even in what might be a very obvious situation meaning can be stretched.

Also, if you don't have the codex and don't go and read it before posting what the heck are you doing posting in the thread. This is not a flame but my honest to god opinion of your posting, but sometimes in these discussions you can be the most obtuse and argumentative person I have come across who's actual opinion is often somewhat difficult to actually pin down. Sometimes I really do wonder whether or not you are deliberating clouding the issues.