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.

Cane wrote:Grav chute insertion only applies for moving flat out.

And Valkyrie/Vendetta can do that. . . so what is your point?

kirsanth wrote:

Cane wrote:Grav chute insertion only applies for moving flat out.

And Valkyrie/Vendetta can do that. . . so what is your point?

Ah my mistake I somehow misread your post; I thought you wrote that those vehicles could ONLY disembark that way. Sorry!

Greetings,

I am somewhat intrigued and surprised by the number of people who have apparently deep issues with how people conduct themselves in YMDC and yet also loudly proclaim how they never go there anymore or read anything there. At that point, isn't their issue solved?

I, personally, find the debate of language and intent in the rules to be particularly fascinating and interesting. I certainly notice people getting upset or uptight about some things...but honestly no more or less then what I encounter in the fluff forum which has its own angry debaters who declare a desperate need for hard numbers or GTFO.

There are many people in this world to whom the whole concept of being exact is very important. ISTJ and INTJ personality types immediately spring to mind as do various OC type peoples of all stripes. To them understanding the exact information as written and interpreting it as such is *very* important (to be frank, I count myself firmly amongst this group - the rules *should* be written clearly and I enjoy the debate that comes from a poorly worded one, and frankly if GW doesn't feel a need to write them clearly I'm not sure why they feel the need to sell us the rules. If you're a miniatures company then maybe your suggested rules for your minis should be free downloadable PDFs, shouldn't they?)

The whole "shift" in the RAW vs. RAI to two types of rAW vs. each other is hardly a shift at all. People's personality types would dictate how important various levels of RAW are important to them, and except when their commentary turns to rudeness that breaks Dakka Rule #1 I really see no problem at all with letting them (us) debate till we're blue in the face about what the definition of "it" happens to be in a given sentence.

To sum up, I see the "bullying" in YMDC as no worse then the "bullying" intrinsic in the misanthropic labels hurled around in the very first post of this thread. To one side RAW is very important, to the starter of this thread it is not, and all of us fall on various points across the scale, and, in the final analysis, as long as we have fun and don't force people to play "our way" if they don't want to then what's the difference if I want to debate something for thirty-nine pages?

My thoughts,
Thor.

Modquisition on:

Private warnings have been made. Further trolling or flaming posts that violate Dakka Rule #1 will be treated harshly at this point.

Whatever it is, I just agree with Polonius.

RAW is RAW. They are the RULES AS WRITTEN. IT IS IN THE NAME. It is not complicated.

If it is not RAW it is not RAW. Ask yak, D6 it or play another game.

Postscript: THE RULES AS WRITTEN.

To put it another way:

Rules dispute:
1) Can you ask Jervis? (RAI) No?
2) Can you ask YMTC (or yak or ... Polonius, who knows everything). (RAW) No?
3) D6.

whitedragon wrote:

RxGhost wrote:I think the biggest problem with YMDC is that people are not arguing to further the understanding of the game or its rules: they're simply arguing to be right.

Hyperbole aside, they are the cancer that is killing 40K. That kind of mentality will only drive new players away or worse, teach them that it's okay to be jerks while they play, as long as they're right and the internet agrees with them.

You rang?

Captain, thank god you're here, I was so scared!

I think the Terminator Librarian Sweeping Advance thread was a good example of "RAW" breaking down.

Some people were of the mind that going by what's written necessitated using deductive reasoning, but with no inductive reasoning. Myself and others disagreed, on the grounds that those conditions are not in any way a natural part of reading.

Some of the time, it seems there's a race to grab the term "RAW" for whatever your interpretation is, on the grounds that it makes it incontestable (which is strange, since d6ing conflicts is part of the core rules).

As an aside, who won the Gwar vs Stelek in a fistfight poll?

The absurd position of the RAWer was most clearly illustrated by the scout turbo-boost FAQ. To 99% of players, but especially the RAW fundamentalists, a scout move could not be a turbo-boost because it had to be a "normal" move. As I said, there was RAI/RAW agreement on this but the RAWers, as always, were the most strident. Then the FAQ arrives and declares otherwise. Interestingly it was only the RAWers that suffered cognitive dissonance from this strange clarification because they constantly leave themselves open to such torment by thinking the rules are clearly written to begin with.

olympia wrote:The absurd position of the RAWer was most clearly illustrated by the scout turbo-boost FAQ. To 99% of players, but especially the RAW fundamentalists, a scout move could not be a turbo-boost because it had to be a "normal" move. As I said, there was RAI/RAW agreement on this but the RAWers, as always, were the most strident. Then the FAQ arrives and declares otherwise. Interestingly it was only the RAWers that suffered cognitive dissonance from this strange clarification because they constantly leave themselves open to such torment by thinking the rules are clearly written to begin with.

I can't speak for anyone else, but, to me, it was obvious that, as 'normal' has no definition in the BRB, nothing can be defined as 'abnormal' either, making the move legal. That has ALWAYS been my view...I think the problem was simply people not being RAW enough...

I have to say that YMDC nearly got me back out of the hobby. I refuse to even open the thread because the attitude of the Ultra RAW crowd is more like fundamentalist religion than law.

Lawyers are trained to compromise and discuss the intent behind any written rule. The RAW crowd reminds me far more of Priest who will defend thier Dogma to the death despite the fact that it often bears little or no resemblance to the creed it was based on origionally.

The fact that the people who actually wrote the rules they so vehemently defend constantly and stridently decry the very concept of RAW means nothing to them.

Personally, I think we just need to hurry up and have an asteroid strike on the planet. Let the next intelligent species have its shot.

We humans are too hopeless to live.

(See even thinking about YMDC depresses me)

I say, my good man, we don't hop enough to deserve life? Would you, sir, that the rabbits and kangaroos inherit the planet!?

RxGhost wrote:I say, my good man, we don't hop enough to deserve life? Would you, sir, that the rabbits and kangaroos inherit the planet!?

I was hoping for something more creative from evolution this time, like talking rocks, or Jellyfish People or maybe Hive Mind Cockroaches.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
As an aside, who won the Gwar vs Stelek in a fistfight poll?

Last I saw, Gwar! was in the lead. I was paying more attention to the Luna vs. Meangreenstompa, though.

bigtmac68 wrote:
The fact that the people who actually wrote the rules they so vehemently defend constantly and stridently decry the very concept of RAW means nothing to them.

An excellent point.

And an Excellent Avatar Good sir.

I prefer Chimay, but few things beat a good stout on a cold winters night.

bigtmac68 wrote:And an Excellent Avatar Good sir.

I prefer Chimay, but few things beat a good stout on a cold winters night.

I took that picture and then drank that actual pint. Only my liver can remember it now

olympia wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:
The fact that the people who actually wrote the rules they so vehemently defend constantly and stridently decry the very concept of RAW means nothing to them.

An excellent point.

If they had a problem with the rules, they would write them differently.

They are not inclined to insist that everyone follows them stingently because it is a hobby, and nothing more.
Playing with anyone that has any amount of competitiveness, or playing at a tourney basically requires that this point is just ignored.

I still think the words that make up the rules are the best way to figure what was "intended". If something else was intended, something else would have been written. English allows for a rather fine grain of nuance.

Asserting that what the writers actually wrote means nothing to them comes across as rather spiteful - as someone involved in technical writing.

Janthkin wrote:

Just as SFB sucks because it's wargaming for wanna-be accountants, hyper-RAW 40k would suck as wargaming for wanna-be lawyers.

Hey now - it's NOT the lawyers on the board who subscribe to the hyper-RAW school of thought. Leave us out of it; we're perfectly
content to let you disembark from your Valks, and have terminator armor on your terminators.

Perhaps the above FMP edit is better?
____

bigtmac68 wrote:I have to say that YMDC nearly got me back out of the hobby. I refuse to even open the thread because the attitude of the Ultra RAW crowd is more like fundamentalist religion than law.

(See even thinking about YMDC depresses me)

Good for you.

And welcome to the "ignores YMDC" club!

JohnHwangDD wrote:And welcome to the "ignores YMDC" club!

I'm very, very jealous.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And welcome to the "ignores YMDC" club!

The WH and russ discussion convinced me to join....

Iorek wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:And welcome to the "ignores YMDC" club!

I'm very, very jealous.

You could join, too...

Oh, wait, you're MOD.

So you're forced in.

You have my deepest sympathy.

@ Kirsanth,

Have you ever sat down and talked to Jervis over a beer down in baltimore? Im not saying this to be spiteful, its just the facts.

They dont feel that thier rules mean nothing, they feel that trying to be literalistic means nothing.

Again, your whole argument reminds me of a Religious Discussion. "This is what is Written, therefore this is what is Law." As if there is no room for interpretation when the people who wrote it over and over and over say there should be.

That is why they dont bother with FAQ's and the like. Because nothing they ever do would be sufficient to please the hyper RAW crowd.

If Jesus or Mohammed returned today and dared to speak against what others have done in thier own name they would be shouted down with no more concern than for any other heritc.

I am convinced that if the actual writer of the codex came on YMDC and said what his intent was he would be shouted down by the RAW crew with the same arrogance as anyone else.

I can hear it now.

" If you dont release it in an official FAQ then your words mean nothing, no one cares what you meant only what the words on paper say"

Asteroid.... yup, we need and Asteroid.

IIRC, this has already happened with Gav Thorpe, though not on Dakka. On TWF.

Mannahnin wrote:IIRC, this has already happened with Gav Thorpe, though not on Dakka. On TWF.

What's TWF (for the clueless)?

Mannahnin wrote:IIRC, this has already happened with Gav Thorpe, though not on Dakka. On TWF.

And people wonder why GW stopped paying attention to these kind of discussions.

I apologize if this seems like any sort of backseat modding:

I would suggest refraining from the religious analogies before this thread devolves into something grotesque, and terribly OT.

I tend to check out rules debate sections on other forums. Partly because I'm bored at work, but mainly because I like to see how certain situations break down, even if I might never see something like that in game. YMDC has to be one of the most heated forums I've seen. Heated discussion is all well and good, but it just suffers from a higher probability for the discussion to become a vicious slugfest.

The one thing that I find unfortunate is that, for some reason, people who view RAW are demonized to this extent. I've seen posts by Gwar!, and I've seen many a time where he's made reference to asking your opponent before hand or whatnot. It appears to me that though Gwar! and others may point out the sheer word of the law, it doesn't mean that they play it like that. The point is, when someone asks what the rules call for in a given situation, they will answer based on RAW. Which is a good way to answer. You can play the game however you want as long as you and your opponent agree on it, but it doesn't have any effect on how the rule is written, regardless of how silly or stupid you might think it is.

And before I go any further, I apologize to Gwar! if my interpretation of your posts is incorrect. I don't make a habit of trying to speak for others, thus my little disclaimer.

As far as "arguing just to be right" goes. That's the purpose of a debate, is it not? The point of a debate is to discuss and attempt to bring the other side in agreeing with your view. You want to be right in a debate. And for the whole "personal attacks" issue, that's the downside to having debates, sometimes people get too heated. But, it is incredibly unfair to blame this on just one side (the RAW crowd), because there is clear evidence that both sides have thrown mud. I remember seeing in a recent thread, someone arguing on the side of RAI told someone that they'd be going to hell for their stance on RAW. That sort of thing is not just innapropriate but also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I'm of the opinion that if someone asks me what a rule says, I'll tell them. I might play it different, something more in line with RAI or to make the game more enjoyable to my opponent and myself. But, what I play it as still has no effect on how the rule is written. Which is why, as I said, I will follow RAW in a rules debate, since that's what the debate is based on.

*steps off soapbox*

I make a living working with details. So do the writers of any game system.

I am not espousing that the writer's intent is irrelevant. What I am saying is that, as a person who has to write clearly - and be held accountable for the words that I write - intent is easily misconstrued, deliberately or not. Text can be misread, but careful reading covers most of that. Rereading and discourse generally covers the rest.

If the intent was other than what was written, someone and generally a few someones, have made mistakes. So if, to follow your example, the codex writer said, "I meant XXXX", I would indeed ask, "Then why did you write YYYY".

And the FAQs never being up to par is impossible for RAW/tourney crowd? I call shenanigans. See: MTG rules databases. Many games, at least as complex as this one manage to keep their issues textually verifiable.

As for the (ironic, given your assertions,) arrogance of the religious that you imply, I will just let you continue thinking that is "RAW crue" that it comes from.

First and foremost in my mind is this is Toy Soldiers here, folks. We are not discussing Bills before Congress, technical manuals describing the operation of an F-22, or anything nearly as earth shattering. It's rules for pushing around little plastic and metal toys.

Reading the rules is good. Being conversant and fluent in them is great. But to expect the same tightness of language and precision of definition in the rules for 40K and a document in which lives hang in the balance is unrealistic. I would not be surprised if GW staff for the most part view all this legalistic arguments of word parsing and sentence syntax parsing as silly. I certainly do.

When the rules are clear, they are clear. You can move the normal infantry model 6" in the movement phase. That's pretty clear. No need to dice that one off. But how do you deploy within 2" of an access point on a model with a 5" high flying stand? That's a little less clear. I'd expect a couple of reasonable people would come to some clear agreement... "The models deploy within 2 inches of the base" or "The models deploy within 2 inches of where the access point would be were it at ground level" seem like reasonable compromises for a model clearly meant to carry and deploy troops. To say "If you deploy troops from that model you are cheating" is inflammatory and just a bit mean.

I think certain people like to use that word "cheater" because they know it's sure to raise hackles. The dictionary says to "cheat" is:

1 a : to practice fraud or trickery b : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>

Notice that "dishonestly" clause. To call someone a cheater implies fraud, trickery, and dishonest intent. If someone is trying to reach an honest compromise with their game playing partner and they decide to play a rule of open interpretation in a certain way that does not make them a cheat no matter what you might try to prove by word parsing. If someone tries to gain an unfair advantage or otherwise hoodwink their opponent through violation of rules then the cheat moniker is called for but it's clearly not applicable in every interpretation of a questionable rule portion.

Thor665 wrote:Greetings,

I am somewhat intrigued and surprised by the number of people who have apparently deep issues with how people conduct themselves in YMDC and yet also loudly proclaim how they never go there anymore or read anything there. At that point, isn't their issue solved?

Not necessarily.
I'm one who keeps out of there now. I don't come here to ARGUE. I come here to interact with people who are enthusiastic about the same hobbies as I am.
Shoot, I don't even go in and READ the YMDC threads anymore, I get so ticked off at the way people treat each other.

That doesn't solve the problem, though... the problem isn't that I don't want to see it. The problem is that it shouldn't be done. I would LIKE to take part in that forum. So, the problem is, most definitely, not solved.


Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:As an aside, who won the Gwar vs Stelek in a fistfight poll?

You Tube.

I just think it's funny that everyone gets so worked up over RAW and RAI when the actual forum is called YMTC.