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.

What, prey tell, are you looking at?

Common sense. I know that is dangerous. But sometimes its your only defense. There are situations where it is blatantly obvious what is intended. Bjorn should get a 5++ save DoM should get a 3++. and so on

Common sense cannot be looked at. Only observed, called upon, invoked, and blamed, but later when someone asks what the reason is "commons sense" is not something you can show as an example that was "looked at".

If the rules change or are clarified, saying "commons sense said it was right before" only means that the common folk who had something in common were affected.

People who disagree do not have "common sense". And invoking it does not help anything. It tends to be condescending and cause more issues than it solves, in my experience.

I can see Common Sense.

It is Pink and Invisible.

Common sense cannot be looked at. Only observed, called upon, invoked, and blamed, but later when someone asks what the reason is "commons sense" is not something you can show as an example that was "looked at".

If the rules change or are clarified, saying "commons sense said it was right before" only means that the common folk who had something in common were affected.

People who disagree do not have "common sense". And invoking it does not help anything. It tends to be condescending and cause more issues than it solves, in my experience.

So your arguement is that you are incapabble of commonsense hence you ignore it?

RaW is not a game and common sense can easy find RaI in many cases (Swarmlord Psychic powers, Dooms invulnerable save and psychic powers, Yriel's spear etc etc etc).

This is how the game is supposed to be played because the game is aimed at human beings. Humans unlike computers have the intelligence to work out what is meant by a rule even if it technically says something different.

If you are so totally incapable of understanding human interaction that you have to take everything literally when looking at the rules of 40k then I pity you. And to be honest working out the exact rules to a toy soldier game should be very low down on your worries list...

Argument?
No.

My statement is that common sense is not common.

The assumption that people reading text all make the same assumptions is invalid. The fact that people reading the same text read the same words is not.

The assumption that people reading text all make the same assumptions is invalid. The fact that people reading the same text read the same words is not.

What is your point here?

Are you claiming you play by strict RaW?

So your arguement is that you are incapabble of commonsense hence you ignore it?

RaW is not a game and common sense can easy find RaI in many cases (Swarmlord Psychic powers, Dooms invulnerable save and psychic powers, Yriel's spear etc etc etc).

This is how the game is supposed to be played because the game is aimed at human beings. Humans unlike computers has the inteliegnce to work out what is meant by a rule even if it technically says something different.

If you are so totally incapable of understand human interaction that you have to take everything literally when looking at the rules of 40k then I pity you. And to be honest working out the exact rules to a toy soldier game should be very low down on your worries list...

Great minds think alike, although I do spell incapable differently

Argument?
No.

My statement is that common sense is not common.

The assumption that people reading text all make the same assumptions is invalid. The fact that people reading the same text read the same words is not.

Well my point is that there comes a point for many situations where the intention is indubitable. Yes there will always be people who think otherwise. Mel Gibson's father is a case in point. But when a super majority believe one thing then its hard to argue against that

FlingitNow wrote:Are you claiming you play by strict RaW?

No, he is pointing out what the RaW is. How someone plays the game has no bearing on what the rules actually are.

But that delves into the notion that rules writers do not write rules, but rather write text for intentions of rules that only people that agree that the sense of which is common can understand or play by.

But that delves into the notion that rules writers do not write rules, but rather write text for intentions of rules that only people that agree that the sense of which is common can understand or play by.

This seems a pretty accurate description fo the process.

Great minds think alike, although I do spell incapable differently

By differently you mean correctly... You do however spell colour differently I'd imagine

No, he is pointing out what the RaW is. How someone plays the game has no bearing on what the rules actually are.

Neither does RaW...