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.

coredump wrote:I applaud your new found ability to look past the explicit writing, to see the obvious intent.

coredump wrote:'how you would play' has a place in the discussion and in the forum.

Yes, and that was my point. Thanks for clarifying it. However, the arguement for 'how you would play' has to have a reason behind it, and those reasons are usually RAI, which you yourself have acknowledged in the post rebuking GWAR. In this case, the intent of the rule "WoN" must be induced as we have no RAW definition for the term armements, at least not one that I am aware of.

This is no different from inducing that the "intent" of the "Scout" rule for SW Wolf Scounts was to refer to the "Scouts" USR. In the cases where intent is obvious, then use obvious intent. Otherwise we are stuck with a set of rules that no one can play with because the rules themselves are not technically excuted correctly.

Honestly, I don't see the point in hashing out the arguement further, you have already shown that RAW is not adequate in this case. You have already acknowledged that the "intent" of the rule is clear and obvious. Almost every poster has posited that everyone they play with interprets it the same way. I fear that any further digression would simply confuse new players.

It seems TFGs are spreading... there was a guy at our FLGS the oter week who complained about how movement works in WHFB, cant remember the exact situation i think it was about turning/wheeling.

As for your question i think, like the others, TFG was wrong. I've never played nids but it sounds similar to the necron rule which allows them to come alive again, which you can do as many times as you want. Damn annoying it is too!!

Eldar Own wrote:I've never played nids but it sounds similar to the necron rule which allows them to come alive again, which you can do as many times as you want. Damn annoying it is too!!

He has mentioned That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned! Burn the Witch!

Nobody mentioned Ste....

cygnnus wrote:

whocares wrote:Seriously, people?

This thread should have been like two posts long.

Just tell the guy that if he wants to make up his own rules then he should start saving his pennies to start up his own game company.

Welcome to the wonderful world of RAW!

Vale,

JohnS

This has nothing to do with RAW, and everything to do with people.

RAW often leaves us with two different interpretations. Really, it does. A good example in the tyranid codex is the venom cannon. Does it only glance closed topped vehicles and is capable of glancing or penetrating open topped vehicles, or does it ALWAYS penetrate open topped vehicles and function normally against closed topped vehicles? The way the rule is written, when read with an eye for grammar, can be interpreted either way. There is no RAW answer. That's when your common sense kicks in.

There seem to be two camps that make "RAW" intolerable. Those who argue to interpret the rules absolutely strictly with no eye for common sense because they are just very literal, difficult people; and those who interpret the rules absolutely strictly with no eye for common sense in the most absurd direction to show the literal people how difficult they are. Both camps are equally annoying, and RAW is not at fault for the arguments. And by RAW, I mean the idea that rules should be played...how they were written. GW is at fault in some part, as their rules could most certainly be written better.

whocares wrote:



This has nothing to do with RAW, and everything to do with people.

RAW often leaves us with two different interpretations. Really, it does. A good example in the tyranid codex is the venom cannon. Does it only glance closed topped vehicles and is capable of glancing or penetrating open topped vehicles, or does it ALWAYS penetrate open topped vehicles and function normally against closed topped vehicles? The way the rule is written, when read with an eye for grammar, can be interpreted either way. There is no RAW answer. That's when your common sense kicks in.

There seem to be two camps that make "RAW" intolerable. Those who argue to interpret the rules absolutely strictly with no eye for common sense because they are just very literal, difficult people; and those who interpret the rules absolutely strictly with no eye for common sense in the most absurd direction to show the literal people how difficult they are. Both camps are equally annoying, and RAW is not at fault for the arguments. And by RAW, I mean the idea that rules should be played...how they were written. GW is at fault in some part, as their rules could most certainly be written better.

Seriously? Not really wanting to keep this digression of the OP's question alive, but there's absolutely no way to separate out your "two camps" from the average RAW user without getting into their "intent". I tend to find that pretty funny...

I certainly understand that there are cases (say at a Tournament) where RAW (within reason) is certainly appropriate. But outside of that, I completely fail to understand why so many people think that somehow the goal should be to play the rules "as written" as if, somehow, doing so would get us to a gaming nirvana where everything is perfect. And I find it amusing to follow some of these RAW threads to see where they go.

But I also understand this is YMDC and here, at least, it's RAW uber alles.

Vale,

JohnS

cygnnus wrote:

whocares wrote:



This has nothing to do with RAW, and everything to do with people.

RAW often leaves us with two different interpretations. Really, it does. A good example in the tyranid codex is the venom cannon. Does it only glance closed topped vehicles and is capable of glancing or penetrating open topped vehicles, or does it ALWAYS penetrate open topped vehicles and function normally against closed topped vehicles? The way the rule is written, when read with an eye for grammar, can be interpreted either way. There is no RAW answer. That's when your common sense kicks in.

There seem to be two camps that make "RAW" intolerable. Those who argue to interpret the rules absolutely strictly with no eye for common sense because they are just very literal, difficult people; and those who interpret the rules absolutely strictly with no eye for common sense in the most absurd direction to show the literal people how difficult they are. Both camps are equally annoying, and RAW is not at fault for the arguments. And by RAW, I mean the idea that rules should be played...how they were written. GW is at fault in some part, as their rules could most certainly be written better.

Seriously? Not really wanting to keep this digression of the OP's question alive, but there's absolutely no way to separate out your "two camps" from the average RAW user without getting into their "intent". I tend to find that pretty funny...

The fact that they are only separated by intent, was the entire point. And since I was poking fun at them, I'm glad you find it funny.

cygnnus wrote:I certainly understand that there are cases (say at a Tournament) where RAW (within reason) is certainly appropriate. But outside of that, I completely fail to understand why so many people think that somehow the goal should be to play the rules "as written" as if, somehow, doing so would get us to a gaming nirvana where everything is perfect. And I find it amusing to follow some of these RAW threads to see where they go.

But I also understand this is YMDC and here, at least, it's RAW uber alles.

Vale,

JohnS

The point of playing the rules as they are written is consistency. The ability to bring your models into a place you've never been in before, and play a complete stranger without any arguments because you both agree to play the same rules set. House rules are fine, RAI is fine, but each person will have a different version. RAW is important in an environment that needs consistency, a tournament is a good example, the first time you play someone is another, and a third good example is when your friend decides that his space marine strike cruisers in orbit would probably just bombard the planet if he loses and he breaks out the ordnance template.