Switch Theme:

Tenets of You Make Da Call  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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
Fireknife Shas'el





Reedsburg, WI

Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.


*a further note should be created that rules can be ambigious leading to no clear answer being available from a strict RAW interpretation. ie SW Wolf Scouts having the "scout" rule.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.


*a further note should be reflected that in cases were RAW is ambigious and lacking clear definition, reasonable intent can sometimes be induced in explaining a HYWPI, previously known as a RAI arguement.

Again, it can be reasonably induced that the "scout" rule mentioned in the SW codex for SW Scouts referes to the"Scouts" USR in the BRB.

What I have been increasingly seeing in YMDC is a preponderance of situations where the RAW is unclear or meaningless. This almost always leads to both sides claiming that they have a RAW arguement, when both sides are rather inducing from intent or interpretation (in otherwards, a RAI arguement). I believe this is largely because the current YMDC elites have made a misinformed decision that RAI has no place in discussing legal arguements, something that would be laughable in any other area of law. Therefore, to make thier stance sound more official, they incorrectly label it as a RAW stance...which again, can often be impossible because the strict RAW has no clear meaning or no-meaning at all.

I think that a more informed discussion would reconize that there are both good and bad RAI arguements, just as thier are both good and bad RAW arguements. And that at times, a RAI arguement will be superior to a RAW arguement.

Moreover, I think alot of headway would be made by acknowledging that RAW arguements only work when the rule are written clearly and concisely. By acknowledging cases where RAW arguements cannot be used we can then focus instead on best intent, which would be much more constructive.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/11/21 20:35:44


Wyomingfox's Space Wolves Paint Blog A journey across decades.
Splinter Fleet Stygian Paint Blogg Home of the Albino Bugs. 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







Here is one that I feel should be added.

"When asking any question, please make it clear what codexes you are referring to and if possible page numbers from said codex."

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Friendly Peat Beast






The Great Marsh

I personally think this is the most intimidating part of the forumto post in... especially if you don't know how it works exactly. This post helps me see a little bit more of how it works... so thanks for putting it up!
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





Reedsburg, WI

Gwar! wrote:Here is one that I feel should be added.

"When asking any question, please make it clear what codexes you are referring to and if possible page numbers from said codex."


I will second that.

Wyomingfox's Space Wolves Paint Blog A journey across decades.
Splinter Fleet Stygian Paint Blogg Home of the Albino Bugs. 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







Ok, after seeing this lovely Calgar thread devolve into (good natured this time) total catastrphy after 2 posts

Here is another idea. A Stiky of "PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE ASKING YOUR QUESTION" with links to the multiple previous threads on such issues as:
Calgar + Bonus Attack
WBB vs Sweeping Advance
Deff Rolla and Ramming

and etc etc and so forth

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw





Buzzard's Knob

Gwar! wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:It is not. The purpose of YMDC is to find out how you make the call in a real game situation....
Which for 99.999999% of players is by, as odd as this sounds, following the rules.


That is not my experience. I have yet to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 where it was not necessary to come to an agreement about one rule or another other than the literal wording in order to get on with the game. I consider all of the rules to be merely suggestions.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut






UK

Could we get an addition that asks people to check their codices and the rulebook + the index before posting please?

It seems like something someone would do anyway, but there have been quite a few threads that are essentially asking for rules as if YMDC was an online rulebook, and there currently isn't anything disallowing this practice in the forum rules (i'm also pretty sure that straight out handing out rules is in the same vein as posting individual point costs, and outright defeats the purpose of even having a rulebook/codex in the first place).

I'm not trying to stop people asking questions, but when people are asking about things that are plainly stated in resources they should have to hand, it just feels like they quickly leafed through a few pages and gave up, or even just wanted free rules.

Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.

Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.

My deviantART Profile - Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Madness

"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation 
   
Made in gb
Hornless Runt



London

don_mondo wrote: The GW FAQs, while not "official", are generally considered as valid support for rules in discussions.


Ummmmm, the GW FAQ's are offical guys
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

WraithGaz wrote:
don_mondo wrote: The GW FAQs, while not "official", are generally considered as valid support for rules in discussions.


Ummmmm, the GW FAQ's are offical guys


Games Workshop wrote:The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.


As such, you're wrong.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

Lorek wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.


While the FAQ's are "GW Studio House Rules" most (if not all) tournaments treat them as official rulings. Additionally, per the quote, for the basis of rules discussions (which is what YMDC is about) are official (as Don_Mondo pointed out).

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






There has been in increase of people in YMTC claiming the Digital Codexs are not RAW for resolving rules because they have agendas where nothing but PHYSICAL and FAQ count.

A tenent of YMTC should be that Digidexs are valid and supported rules and an argument based upon 'I don't acknowledge the Digidex' or 'digidex are invalid until it is in the FAQ' aren't valid.

If people have a problem with how GW distributes the rules, take it up in the GW forum... we have enough people who can confirmt he digidex contents to make valid rulings in YMTC.

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





nkelsch wrote:
There has been in increase of people in YMTC claiming the Digital Codexs are not RAW for resolving rules because they have agendas where nothing but PHYSICAL and FAQ count.

That's not true.

A tenent of YMTC should be that Digidexs are valid and supported rules and an argument based upon 'I don't acknowledge the Digidex' or 'digidex are invalid until it is in the FAQ' aren't valid.

If people have a problem with how GW distributes the rules, take it up in the GW forum... we have enough people who can confirmt he digidex contents to make valid rulings in YMTC.

I don't really agree nor disagree with this.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp






Dimmamar

If someone is violating these tenants, is there a place to report them?

40k Resources

LVO 2017 - Best GK Player

The Grimdark Future 8500 1000 1500 3500

"[We have] an inheritance which is beyond the reach of change and decay." 1 Peter 1.4 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Elric Greywolf wrote:
If someone is violating these tenants, is there a place to report them?


There's a small triangle with an exclamation mark (jokingly referred to as the "Triangle of Friendship") in the top-right corner of each post on the Forum. Click that if you want to report a post.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Pre Heresy Black Templar Librarian






North of Chicago, IL USA

Does anyone have the GW email address for sending FAQs? I can no longer find it on the GW website. If so, can we add it to the original post in this thread?

Forgeworld Download Page <-- Here there be cool stuff! DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

gamefaqs@gwplc.com

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures on Facebook!
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
Want to know your rumor monger's history? Check out the Ongoing Rumor Accuracy Tracking thread

"For this thread to have some utility and remain useful, please refrain from spamming it with 'jokes'." - Alpharius
"Irrational negativity is the engine that drives the forums" - BrassScorpion
"It's too early to be crying about this. Maybe next month all your tears will be valid." - Redbeard

200+ Successful Trades on Dakka.
My trade list: http://mindtaker.org/trade.html 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 kronk wrote:
Does anyone have the GW email address for sending FAQs? I can no longer find it on the GW website. If so, can we add it to the original post in this thread?

It changes fairly constantly, and isn't particularly useful, so I'm not sure that there's anything to be gained by doing so...

   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

I don't know that it isn't useful. As far as we know it is the only avenue for directly influencing the FAQs.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures on Facebook!
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
Want to know your rumor monger's history? Check out the Ongoing Rumor Accuracy Tracking thread

"For this thread to have some utility and remain useful, please refrain from spamming it with 'jokes'." - Alpharius
"Irrational negativity is the engine that drives the forums" - BrassScorpion
"It's too early to be crying about this. Maybe next month all your tears will be valid." - Redbeard

200+ Successful Trades on Dakka.
My trade list: http://mindtaker.org/trade.html 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

Think we can make a post in YMDC have a marker that denotes it as a RAW discussion or a RAI discussion? Similar to the fields in the Swap Shop where you enter your Country. It doesn't even have to be that complex - just a tenet that you need to include [RAW] or [RAI] or even [HYWPI] in your topic, so that the posters know what you're interested in.

This would save people 15 pages of arguing about what the rules would say when the OP is simply looking for a HYWPI. Of course, the OP could put that in their post, but it would make it much easier for those that only want to discuss the RAI to avoid the RAW crowd as they can simply ignore those threads if they wish. And vice versa.

Just a thought.

WH40K
Weeping Legion 2000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

26 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

A few words on tournament FAQs and on keeping "RAW" in perspective:

 yakface wrote:
Yep, a huge mistake is to take the Adepticon FAQ, or any fan-made FAQ such as the INAT, and try to apply any status of legitimacy to the rulings made in it. Ultimately with fan-made FAQs it is just one or more gamers getting together to just 'make a call' on nebulous situations.

With that said, there is also another incorrect assertion being made in this thread (and otherwise often cited) and that is the notion that there is one 'correct' RAW interpretation of the rules and any deviation from this is just 'house rules'. There are surely such things as house rules (where people willingly choose to change the rules for their games), but that should *not* be confused with a nebulous situation being answered in a way that you don't personally agree with.

The myth of 'RAW' stems from the fact that some people incorrectly believe that language is like mathematics and there is one true way to interpret it. When in reality, language by its very nature has multiple interpretations and meanings that can be studied and argued over. Words often have multiple meanings...sometimes these words are defined within the framework of the game, but even then there can be situations where it is unclear whether the author is using that word in context of its game-defined meaning or one of its other 'real world' definitions. Similarly, the meaning of a sentence or paragraph can change dramatically based on simple grammatical changes, its placement in a paragraph, the paragraph's placement within the page, etc. All those meanings only exist in so much as any group of people can agree to see them that way, and that includes the author of the writing themselves.

For example, a tiny proportion of gamers can read a passage and say: 'this is the RIGHT way to play based on what this passage says', but if 95% of other gamers don't read that passage the same way it doesn't matter how correct that 5% says their reading is or how much they stamp their feet on the floor, they generally aren't going to get to play like that. And the same principles apply to the authors of the text as well. Often we argue about the grammatical intricacies of a sentence acting as though the author is a robot who understands the golden rules of grammar perfectly and never makes mistakes. But again the reality is that authors are people to, who have different levels of understanding about grammar just like we all do, and of course sometimes they just make mistakes.

This is likely evidenced by the amount of FAQ answers by GW (not 'errata' or 'amendments') that seem to go against what many people perceive to be the RAW. Clearly to the author of the text (or at least to the author of the FAQ) the RAW do not seem to match the RAW that many of us interpret the text to be. The one, stone-cold truth is that nobody plays by the 'RAW' because there is no such thing as the 'RAW'...only the rules that people happen to interpret the same. The more clear and simple rules are, the more likely they are to be interpreted the same by different people. The more complex and confusing they are, the more likely they are to be interpreted differently by different people.

The Deathwing Assault situation is not a case where the people writing the Adepticon FAQ decided to say: 'how can we create a house rule?' It IS a nebulous situation that has been submitted to be answered because it is nebulous. If you were to take a poll asking people how they think it should be played (if one hasn't already been created), I'm sure you would find a fairly big divide because it is nebulous.

Even if you happen to think the RAW on a particular issue are crystal clear, if there is any kind of sizable divide on players reading the rules on how it is supposed to be played (I'd personally say that if at least 20-25% of players interpret a rule differently then its probably not that clear), then you can rest assured that the 'RAW' are *not* clear in this case, in that they don't provide a clear definitive way to play that everyone can agree on.

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

Small update in the Tenets to update the FAQ URL to their new home on the Black Library site.

   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Norwich

Add rules as intended to the list of discussions, rai is sometimes more clear than raw but people ignore it in favour of bending the rules.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

Could you/we/us/YMDC add or have the rule of " The Preponderance of Evidence". It's probably really relevant to when people are discussing actual rules and RAW which would pretty much lead to better debate. It's actually better than Rules as Intended because you are not supposing intention but instead saying " The weight and tone of the document throughout the text leads me to believe that when comparing both outcomes, this outcome is the one that is most desirable".

Also, "The Mythical Reasonable Person Standard"

It's a interesting set of rules that is used in judgement of cases. It's also a really good way to approach a written document. I don't really like introducing legal terms into internet discussions about plastic space marines, but those are really really good to have.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/10 20:24:47


If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

I would object.
We already have too many instances of people using "Count As Rules" as Rule Supported evidence that "X must be Y." This ignores the very reason why Count As Rules exist in the first place; in order to give X access to Y's Rules because the are not Y and therefore do not have access by default. The concept of Preponderance of Evidence, from the way you have posted it here and not the definition which puts the burden of proof on a set party, would allow people to simply state 'well, it makes them sound as if they are Y so they must therefore be Y by Rule as Written' and that is very dangerous. Not all "Count As Rules" are designed to give unlimited access to Y, many times they are limited to specific Phases or other situations, but simply being able to state 'the weight and tone makes it Y' would somehow make it Y....

Oh yes, there already is something more akin to the Preponderance of Evidence as per the legal definition in action on this site:
Post a statement, be prepared to back it up with Rule Support.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/11 17:52:26


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Those tenets look an awful lot like they were taken from it.

 
   
Made in be
Fresh-Faced New User




Hello,

I've read quite a few, and then recently been part of two rules discussions so far on dakka and I feel there's a few problems with the way rules are discussed in this YMDC forum.

1. Lack of structure:
While some questions are quickly answered, some are more complex and require a proper debate to resolve. We need enforceable rules for those debates, it should be a requirement that any intervention includes a) one or more quotes from the BRB, b) the exact meaning of those quotes as per the dictionary, and in case that is meaningless, a suggested interpretation and c) the conclusion. Right now there is way too much passion, people calling others names, people reiterating unsupported points, and so much stuff that just sits between us and a proper analysis of the rules. If we want this forum to deliver value - and I would love it to - we need it to be a good place for people who enjoy researching rules.

2. Lack of English: Despite tenet #6 being a useful reminder, some forum posters insist on totally ignoring the actual meaning of words in their hypothesis and conclusions, thereby corrupting the word of the rules. Right now we have people arguing that "a unit gaining the benefit of a blessing" is the same thing as "models from a unit gaining some benefit from a blessing", as well as other people arguing that "being able to reach" is the same thing as "being able to place a model in base contact within maximum charge distance". If we're going to try and uncover RAW, the first step is to identify what's written, not change it.

3. Lack of Evidence and Accuracy: Some posters post without having a point. They do not hesitate one second to reiterate a point that has been proven wrong several times. They do not hesitate one second to give an answer based on absolutely nothing, when the BRB is right there to be quoted. Oftentimes, the first answers to a rules question are unsupported and quite useless to the OP.



What I would suggest:

Rule #1: The source of all RAW is the BRB. If you want to contribute to a rules debate or rules question thread, you need a quote from the BRB.
Rule #2: RAW = What is written = words in the BRB. If you have a doubt about the meaning of a word or a sentence, don't hesitate to consult a dictionary. If you witness a participant in the debate misunderstanding a word, check the definition and if applicable, bring it to the discussion courteously.
Rule #3: If your point has been proven wrong and you do not have any new evidence, posting it again is spam. Spam is wrong.
Rule #4: If there exists no consensus in a rules question thread, the thread should be left alone and a debate thread created for the issue at hand if none exists already.

Debate threads can be necro-ed as long as there is actually new material being posted. Debate threads will not be closed but they obey strict rules debate rules and nothing else than logic is allowed. Words like "troll", "rules lawyer", "TFG" and other insults or disrespect of rules #1 to #3 result in immediate bans.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/03/25 09:16:58


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: