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.

Davicus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:I agreed on the RaW and in this case it is one of those incidences where most people will look at the RaW and decide it doesn't make sense so agree to play it slightly differently

Do you have a citation for this claim of "most people"?

He have one from me :-)

Me too.

It is Bias because one option implies you are unsportsmanlike for playing by the rules.

Why not a simple:
I play by the Rules.
I don't play by the Rules.

We you claim in this very thread unless you are the author it is impossible to know the rules. I don't know the rules for this situation. I know the RaW and I've list 3 possible contradictory rules but I don't know which of the 4 options is the rules (or even a 5th as yet unmentioned one). For me Options 3 and 4 make the most sense and I tend to play option 4 and I'm pretty certain option 1 isn't the rules but I don't know.

Besides all that are you trying to claim your poll answers aren't bias?!?!?

I'll put the poll up now to see what the Dakka YMDC community thinks as no one seems to have raised serious concerns over the wording of the poll (though I'd like to hear from nosferatu as someone from the RaW camp that actually makes sense and uses logical reasoning).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and thanks for the citation guys

This is a little out of control. Can we get flaming each other moved somewhere besides a forum discussion on rules? The OP's question was already answered in like the first 2-3 responses.

FlingItNow: You must understand the RAW "purists" do not understand that they are applying a doctrine of interpretation- namely strict literalism. It is not the only doctrine of intrepretation, nor even necessarilly the best one. For example, some would hold that consistency is a superior doctrine to dogmatic literalism and that unclear or absurd results can be avoided by reading in a light towards consistency. Others might view that a doctrine of objective or even hypothetical intent is superior (although this is often difficult due to a lack of contemporaneous secondary materials).

The practical problem with the so called RAW approach is that it seems inconsitent with the views of the games publishers and developers who seem much looser on such things. Indeed, RAWers can only explain FAQs that disagree with them as "wrong" because the RAW crowd fails to comprehend that their whole frame of reference may be flawed- they are making a false assumption as to the very nature of the rules and the game creators.

jmurph

I whole heartedly agree and I've try to explain that to them (though not as elloquently) and do at times feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall.

As I've tried to explain RaW is an intretation of the rules. It strengths are that everyone can consistently come to the same answer using RaW. The weakness is that those answers are somethimes ludicrous and often hugely inconsistent.

Gwar! wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:2) Turboboosting bikes CAN get a cover save from scout moves, as they gain a cover save for turboboositng in the opponents next shooting phase. SO even if you are going first they still get a cover save on the opponents first turn....

100% Correct. In fact, if the player with the Scouting Bikes is going first, the Bikes can even Turbo Boost in the Scout move, then move, shoot and assault as normal in their 1st turn and still keep the cover save.

Just to be nit-picky if they DO assault, they will not get a cover save, as you cannot 'shoot' at models locked in combat.

CARRY ON!!!

The rulebook didn't allow turboboosters to be used during the scout move. Turboboosters could only be used during a movement phase, and while a scout move acted like the movement phase, it wasn't the movement phase. So the intention of the author there is clear, as well as the rules.

This was changed in the FAQ (it even says 'they now can'). It's probably a matter of whoever changed the rule didn't think of this outcome.

That said, saying that "lots of players and tournaments will say it's not allowed" is irrelevant. Lots of players and tournaments change the rules drastically, up to banning entire armies they don't like. I could say that "my local tournament and players have banned the movement phase entirely, sucks to be CC" but that's absolutely irrelevant to any discussion about the actual rules.

You can never know the intention of the rules to a degree accurate enough to play a game by. If the author outright comes and tells you what their intention is, that's called an FAQ. FAQs are RaW. Playing by RaI is another name for playing by houserules.

He have one from me :-)

And me

Rube do you play all these rules then? As they are al RaW:


Bjorn's invulnerable save is useless.

Monolith's gain a shot for every weapon destroyed result suffered.

Prince Yriel's spear does nothing.

Spore mines are not removed when they explode.

The Swarmlord's Paroxysm last forever.

I can place a dice on the table with the "6" on the side and roll it up so the 6 is on top as a legal dice roll?

I'd argue that it is impossible to know RaW with anymore certainty that RaI at times. Like Bjorn's save i know what the intention is 99.99999% Just like I can only be 99.99999% sure that any RaW I see is not an hallucination and what is actually written is something differently entirely.

Do you use all the above rules yes or no?

FlingitNow wrote:Do you use all the above rules yes or no?

No, I play by houserules (specifically the houserule 'if you suggest something stupid, you get hit in the head with the rulebook'). Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

Why are you calling RaI the house rules though? Surely the rules are what Games Workshop designed? Do you not believe GW designed the rules for Warhammer 40k?

How is the scout move not a movement phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"...Scouts may make a normal move. This is done exactly as in their Movement phase..."

In this scenario the Rules as Written are clear. Even if the Intention was for things to work differently, the fact that the RaW is crystal clear means that it should be followed. Otherwise, if you decide that the RaW is incorrect and use a contradictory ruling, you are no longer playing by the rules that G-W published.

This is not a scenario where the RaW is unclear, or contradicts itself. It may be difficult to grasp from a fluff perspective or even a mechanics one, but the fact remains the same. The RaW is clear and should be followed.

Fabu00 wrote:How is the scout move not a movement phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"...Scouts may make a normal move. This is done exactly as in their Movement phase..."

Phases do not start until the game starts... the scout move specifically states 'Before the game starts'.... so it isn't a PHASE.

*** I threw this out of the top of my head to the keyboard *** correct me if I am wrong about 'specifically states'

Alamoth so do you play by all the rules I've list above as they are also all clear by RaW?

I'd argue you are playing by the rules GW publish as they designed the game playing RaI is playing their game. The written rules are just that a set of rules which have be written down the writing does not change the rules.

Just like in a legal battle the letter of the law is irrelevant but the spirit and intention behind the law is what matters. When the letter is clearly not corrcet you should ignore it.

FlingitNow wrote:Alamoth so do you play by all the rules I've list above as they are also all clear by RaW?

I'd argue you are playing by the rules GW publish as they designed the game playing RaI is playing their game. The written rules are just that a set of rules which have be written down the writing does not change the rules.

Just like in a legal battle the letter of the law is irrelevant but the spirit and intention behind the law is what matters. When the letter is clearly not corrcet you should ignore it.

Please stop trying to call this out. That ISN'T what the OP's question is and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. No one here cares how he decides to play it with his friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clarification: Please stick to the OP's original question.

FlingitNow wrote:Alamoth so do you play by all the rules I've list above as they are also all clear by RaW?

You keep reiterating this point. It seems like your intention (which you are fine with other people reading into what an author is writing) is to say "You'd be stupid if you play like this, are you stupid?" Regardless of how Alamoth or anyone plays the game, it doesn't necessarily make any difference at all to RaW. They are different questions and should be handled as such.

FlingitNow wrote:When the letter is clearly not correct you should ignore it.

Clearly by what standards? I think clear is very different for you than other people. And if we had everyone ignoring laws that they felt are clearly not correct, we'd have a big problem on our hands. There's a stop sign by my house that I clearly think was a mistake to put there, so I'll just ignore it.

FlingitNow wrote:

Just like in a legal battle the letter of the law is irrelevant but the spirit and intention behind the law is what matters. When the letter is clearly not corrcet you should ignore it.

No. Wrong. Absolutely false.

Haven't you ever heard of getting off on a technicality? The letter of the law is EXTREMELY important; in fact, it is the ONLY important thing in court. Intentions and spirit may determine which particular crime you are charged with; for instance, manslaughter vs. murder. But once you're in the courtroom, the letter of the law is ALL that matters. If you're trying to support a position, it helps to use truthful examples.

FlingitNow, I see where you're coming from, but your position is easily manipulated by unscrupulous players, as well as being inappropriate for a rules discussion. If you want to talk about how you would play it, fine. However, if someone asks a RULES question, you really need to discriminate between what the rules actually say, and how you would play it.

In this case, the rules are clear. Bikers get the save, Skimmers do not. Those are the rules. That's it.

Now, do I play it that way? Nope. I give them both the save. Is that playing "by the rules"? Also no. I play by a house rule, for no particular reason other than that I like my way better.

However, that is IRRELEVANT to a discussion about the rules; much like your convoluted stance about RAI is.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Haven't you ever heard of getting off on a technicality? The letter of the law is EXTREMELY important; in fact, it is the ONLY important thing in court

Not in a british court by that I mean not in the courts of the country of origin of the rules set we are discussing...

Lucidicide wrote:

You keep reiterating this point. It seems like your intention (which you are fine with other people reading into what an author is writing) is to say "You'd be stupid if you play like this, are you stupid?" Regardless of how Alamoth or anyone plays the game, it doesn't necessarily make any difference at all to RaW. They are different questions and should be handled as such.

The reason I reiterate it is because people are claiming they play pure RaW and thus in this instance everyone should also follow the RaW. Where as I doubt anyone follows those rules I posted there is a whole thread dedicated to the "fun" parts of raW but everyone ignores that.

So people that blandly claim they always play by RaW are indeed stating they use those rules which we can all see are ridiculous. they are using commonsense to interpret the rules rather than just the RaW in those and in other circumstances and yet are refusing to do so here. Which is why I ask the question to define where they draw the line as they appear to not be realising that they are drawing a line at all.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Now, do I play it that way? Nope. I give them both the save. Is that playing "by the rules"?

So you claim you know "the rules"? You claim the intention (or RaI) is for the biker to get the cover save in the opponents first turn even if the bike is at that point stationary?

You seem under the common misconception that RaW=The Rules, it is doesn't by definition. Just look at almost any FAQ to clarify this further (by list things that change the RaW as clarifications they are telling the rules have not change but the RaW has).

Read jmurph's post for better understanding of what RaW is (a tool for interpretuing the rules from the written text).

FlingitNow wrote:
Just like in a legal battle the letter of the law is irrelevant but the spirit and intention behind the law is what matters. When the letter is clearly not corrcet you should ignore it.

Just to be clear, at that point you no longer have Rule of Law, but rather Rule of Men.

It is also not quite correct, as technicalities and loop holes operate to exploit exactly those poorly written laws, at least in the US. The US Constitution's Commerce Clause is exactly such an example, as pretty much every federal regulatory law has defined most every possible human action as affecting interstate commerce, despite quite obviously being way outside the intent.


However I do agree with your original point. Among my group and friends we generally talk about known issues before the game when the rules are unclear or awkward, then use strict RAW if an unexpected situation comes up in game. Afterwards that unknown issue becomes known and we figure from there.

Gwar! wrote:]So you are saying that following the rules makes you unintelligent? That could be construed as a Personal Attack...

..Hmm.... it's not.

FlingitNow wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Now, do I play it that way? Nope. I give them both the save. Is that playing "by the rules"?

So you claim you know "the rules"? You claim the intention (or RaI) is for the biker to get the cover save in the opponents first turn even if the bike is at that point stationary?

You seem under the common misconception that RaW=The Rules, it is doesn't by definition. Just look at almost any FAQ to clarify this further (by list things that change the RaW as clarifications they are telling the rules have not change but the RaW has).

Read jmurph's post for better understanding of what RaW is (a tool for interpretuing the rules from the written text).

Perhaps you need a refresher course in Dakka acronyms.

RAW stands for "rules as written". This means the words on the page. That's all. That's the rules. Nothing else can BE the rules, in fact.

A question; how can something be "the rules", if it isn't written in the rules? RAW are the rules. That's all. If you are under the impression that the RAI (rules as intended, a frankly arrogant concept presupposing that 1. The authors screwed up and 2. You know what they MEANT to say better than they do) are "the rules", you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

Why? Because you cannot know what the authors intended.

Take the case we're all debating. The rules indicate that Bikes get the save, and Skimmers don't. You claim that what the author MEANT to write was that BOTH get the save.

Well, what if I claim that the author meant to write that NEITHER get the save? Both of us have exactly as much textual support, ie none. My position is just as valid as yours.

But this is a true-false problem. We're arguing about rules here. Either it's "the rules", or it isn't. That being so, there is only one condition in which it is possible have two contradictory and equally valid answers; both are false.

That being so, we MUST default back to what's written on the page. And what's written on the page is that Bikes get the save, and Skimmers don't. Those are the rules, as they have been written down by the game designers; the RAW.

If you want to make a house rule about it, fine. But it IS a house rule. If a tournament wants to judge it differently, fine; but that's a rules-change. It's not a clarification or anything else, it's a rules CHANGE, and it needs to be acknowledged as such.

As to your point about FAQs; FAQs, where they contradict the RAW, are exactly and precisely "rules changes". The possibility of them being mis-labeled as clarifications does not change what they are.

FlingitNow wrote:Why are you calling RaI the house rules though?

You can't play a game based on what each player thinks the author intended, because you don't know to any certain degree what the author intended (outside of what the author explicitly wrote, which would be RaW). Each player will have a different interpretation of intent, which means each player is playing by their own rules. Which means you either play by RaW, with all that brings, or you decide on a houserule. It's impossible to play by RaI as players generally don't agree on what is intended, as this thread demonstrates.

To give a practical example - wound allocation. RaW states that same models in squads share wounds. Was it intended that this rule be abused by players purposefully giving every member of a squad seperate wargear so that they wouldn't share wounds, such as with Nob Bikers? No, it probably wasn't intended. As an advocate of RaI, are you saying this strategy is now illegal?

FlingitNow wrote:Surely the rules are what Games Workshop designed? Do you not believe GW designed the rules for Warhammer 40k?

Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy.

Berzerker: The rules are codified in language. In case you missed it, language is a code and is subject to interpretation. Some things are clear, some less so. Unless dealing with completely unambiguous language (which is extremely rare in anything except very specialized writings, say, mathematics), meaning cannot be deduced without interpretation. Often this requires inferences as well as deductions. It frequently also requires assumptions. RAW is merely an abbreviated way of referring to an interpretation style that encourages strict literalism and disapproves of methods such as attempting to determine objective or subjective intent.

What I believe FlingItNow is repeatedly trying to illustrate is that an overly literal rules interpretation breaks down in several areas of the game and is flawed if the exclusive method of interpretation. Further, GW does not seem to share such an approach as demonstrated by the FAQs they release. Literalists try to label these as “rules changes” and ignoring them is violating their own tenants- that the word of the creators is infallible and must be used to the strictest letter!

Whether the current question is an example of where literalism breaks down into absurdity is debatable, but I think it very helpful to understand there is no one divine way of ascertaining THE TRUTH in this context. There are merely various analytical methodologies that come to differing results. I find it amusing that there are some who try to apply such strict literalism to a hobby game written by lax amateurs more interested in pushing toy soldiers around (and selling said soldiers) than in any sort of airtight rules set.

Such dogmatic literalism doesn’t even work so well in fields such as the law, where much more educated people spend a lot more time trying to address vastly more important issues! Contrary to the technicality example (which is largely a myth- if a criminal gets off, 99.9% of the time it’s because the prosecution screwed up), the law is subject to great interpretation by judges based on individual situations on different judges, juries, etc. can often come to wildly different conclusions based on similar facts and the same law.

jmurph wrote:What I believe FlingItNow is repeatedly trying to illustrate is that an overly literal rules interpretation breaks down in several areas of the game and is flawed if the exclusive method of interpretation. Further, GW does not seem to share such an approach as demonstrated by the FAQs they release. Literalists try to label these as “rules changes” and ignoring them is violating their own tenants- that the word of the creators is infallible and must be used to the strictest letter!

When the creators say "these FAQ's are worthless house rules" (Paraphrased of course) how are we "violating our own tenants"?

I think FlingitNow should be crowned as the dakka king of RAI. I agree with you by the way so keep up the good fight!

Harkainos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:2) Turboboosting bikes CAN get a cover save from scout moves, as they gain a cover save for turboboositng in the opponents next shooting phase. SO even if you are going first they still get a cover save on the opponents first turn....

100% Correct. In fact, if the player with the Scouting Bikes is going first, the Bikes can even Turbo Boost in the Scout move, then move, shoot and assault as normal in their 1st turn and still keep the cover save.

Just to be nit-picky if they DO assault, they will not get a cover save, as you cannot 'shoot' at models locked in combat.

CARRY ON!!!

Just to be clear... He didn't think he'd have to spell out the whole, 'and they win combat/hit and run etc so are no longer in combat at the start of the next players turn'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rube wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Why are you calling RaI the house rules though?

To give a practical example - wound allocation. RaW states that same models in squads share wounds. Was it intended that this rule be abused by players purposefully giving every member of a squad seperate wargear so that they wouldn't share wounds, such as with Nob Bikers? No, it probably wasn't intended. As an advocate of RaI, are you saying this strategy is now illegal?

Actually for once everyone can be fairly certain that this was intended as they specifically reference "Nobz" when preparing to deal with the examples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and you're all daft. It comes down to the old 'even if they did they wouldn't be able to take it as they are not (shock-horror) OBSCURED!

"A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat
out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured
(cover save of 4+) when fired at."

"In the following enemy Shooting phase, the
bike benefits from a cover save of 3+ to represent the difficulty of hitting such fast-moving targets."

So if they did get the 3+ cover for turbo boosting - despite not being bikes - they wouldn't be able to use it as they are vehicles and are not obscured.


Unless it really is too early in the moring for me..... ^_^

ChrisCP wrote:So if they did get the 3+ cover for turbo boosting - despite not being bikes - they wouldn't be able to use it as they are vehicles and are not obscured.

Wait, are you saying it is a problem that bikers can only use a cover save against wounds? What else would they possibly need the save against?

No, that if Skimmers benifited from this 3+ save because of some RaI line of thought they wouldn't be able to use it (They take hits not wounds, hint hint) as they aren't obscured.

It is also not quite correct, as technicalities and loop holes operate to exploit exactly those poorly written laws, at least in the US.

As pointed out this is not nearly as true inthe US as films would have you beleive and in the UK as already pointed out this is not the case. The UK Laws are based on the meaning an intent behind the law not the letter. Essentially the Law could say "today is Tuesday" but it was designed to meaning murder was a hanging offence and it would still meaning murder was a hanging offence even though it doesn't meantion muder or hanging. Granted they wouldn't never actually write it that way.

This is how the legal system works in the country of origin for the rule set we are discussing.

Likewise people trying to claim RAW = The rules and claiming this is a tenet of YMDC, neither of which holds up. YMDC calls FAQs as legal rules yet they change RaW with clarifications that don't change the rules hence by YMDCs definition of RaW it can not possibly be the rules.

The rules by definition are the rules designed by GW. I really don't see who designed the game if not GW. This is where the RaW worshippers break down, they completely misunderstand the purpose of language. Language does not form or create ideas. The rules are a set of ideas greated by GW that form a game we can play with their plastic crack. Language is the tool to communication those ideas. It is not a perfect tool and its miss use further dampens this. GW are far from perfect rules writers yet what they write down does not change the rules, it might lead to us miss interpreting those rules. It might mean what's stated is entirely different from what is intended, but what is stated still does not change the intention, the idea and therefore the rule.

Also the RaW purists will claimly loadly to the gods on here that they follow RaW and always dop and claim that trying to derive RaI any other way is inconsistent. Yet there is a list of rules above that are all true using pure RaW that none of them actually play or would ever consider using. So they are using commonsense at times and are either drawing a line without realising it or simply lying about it here in worship of the literalist god (I'd imagine in most cases the former).

Their final arguement is that RaW is certain and no other method will get you certain results. Well we've seen arguments on here over the RaW of enough rules to know RaW is not something that can always give a consistent result (*cough*deffrollas*cough*, *cough*Calgar's powerfists*cough* etc etc etc ). They claim you can never be certain of intent unless you ask the writer or are the writer. But often you can just as certain as you are of the RaW because we can never be 100% on anything. The writer could be lying to us about his intent, the writer could have miss remembered his intent, he could unknowingly have multi-personality disorder and think he wrote it for one purpose but in fact it was a different personality writing it for another. We can't be sure of the RaW because we could just be hallucinating. These you can never be sure argue are always vicous circles that mean we never know anything. But again they draw the line without realising it. For me it is just as easy to assume that we are not all hallucinating as to what is in the text as it is for me to assume if the writer gave a model an invulnerable save that the model could use it.

RaW is a method for interpreting the rules from the written text. That is all it is, just like using commonsense is a method. Looking for objective and or subjective intent are again methods.