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.

I did not misinterpret a single thing that you said. I am implying that you think that 99.9% of people use house rules, because 99.9% of people would never play by a large amount of RaW interpretations that Gwar-esque people advocate.
Alas, you have misinterpreted what I said.

There is room for argument on a lot of GW rules. Some have definite grey areas, and I can see them being played differently in every group.

But things like "Doom of Malantai has no warp field" or "Runic terminator armor is not terminator armor" are just so ridiculous that it is hard to take you seriously. This is where the 99.9% comes in: I would estimate that only one person out of 1000 would actually consider one of those arguments to be honestly correct.

In conclusion, "hte" "ONLY" consistent ruleset is not What is Written, but what Everyone Except You And Gwar Plays By.

yakface wrote:But my whole point is that there is no such thing as a rule that "does not work". That statement is an assessment based on a rule that isn't clear. Another assessment would be that I would like to come up with a different solution with my opponent is just as valid an assessment as saying that the rule 'doesn't work' and that is my whole point.

One of the canons of Statutory Interpretation is to avoid absurdity - it can be taken as a given that the legislature did not intend an absurd result. It'd be nice if we could extend the same canon to 40k rules discussions - returning to the Doom and Warp Field, it would be absurd to give the Doom the Warp Field special rule, if it couldn't make use of it.

That said, I would still draw a distinction between scenarios such as this, and issues which arise from an edition change. If a rule no longer has an effect on the game, I think it's okay to say so - the old Tyranid biomorphs that increased unit size for calculating outnumbering in combat are excellent examples.

Janthkin wrote:returning to the Doom and Warp Field, it would be absurd to give the Doom the Warp Field special rule, if it couldn't make use of it.

Says you.

I for one do not think it absurd.

Odd, but not absurd.

Gwar! wrote:

Janthkin wrote:returning to the Doom and Warp Field, it would be absurd to give the Doom the Warp Field special rule, if it couldn't make use of it.

Says you.

I for one do not think it absurd.

Odd, but not absurd.

No, says the canon of statutory interpretation I was discussing: a law is presumed to be intended to have some effect, and it is absurd to interpret it in a manner which would prevent it from having any effect. Similarly, if we used any or all of the rules of interpretation as a starting point for rules discussions, then a rule should be presumed to be intended to have some effect; as such, it would be absurd for the Doom to be explicitly given a rule he couldn't benefit from.

Unsurprisingly, the legal system doesn't rely on RAW.

I agree (mostly) with yakface, pernickty bitching and overdramatic "does nothing!!" posturing is not very useful and gives the wrong impression to newbies (seriously, the fact that we can have actual arguments about Abaddon's/Calgar's weapon loadouts is just ridiculous) and a pinch of salt would go a long way to help all of this.

Did I see "Yakface" as the signoff for one of the Chapter approved rules corrections on the GW site recently?

Atre wrote:I agree (mostly) with yakface, pernickty bitching and overdramatic "does nothing!!" posturing is not very useful and gives the wrong impression to newbies (seriously, the fact that we can have actual arguments about Abaddon's/Calgar's weapon loadouts is just ridiculous) and a pinch of salt would go a long way to help all of this.

Did I see "Yakface" as the signoff for one of the Chapter approved rules corrections on the GW site recently?

GW got lazy and Yakface and co wrote some FAQs for them.

Now they don't even credit the people they take them off. -Grumble-

Janthkin wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Janthkin wrote:returning to the Doom and Warp Field, it would be absurd to give the Doom the Warp Field special rule, if it couldn't make use of it.

Says you.

I for one do not think it absurd.

Odd, but not absurd.

No, says the canon of statutory interpretation I was discussing: a law is presumed to be intended to have some effect, and it is absurd to interpret it in a manner which would prevent it from having any effect. Similarly, if we used any or all of the rules of interpretation as a starting point for rules discussions, then a rule should be presumed to be intended to have some effect; as such, it would be absurd for the Doom to be explicitly given a rule he couldn't benefit from.

Unsurprisingly, the legal system doesn't rely on RAW.

QFT.

Good idea, seems that outsourcing the corrections to the community might make those corrections come out faster - I'm not even *that* much of a rules buff and I know a huge quantity of stuff that GW has never clarified.

And if GW isn't even thanking its community then... [Insert personal attacks here]

EDIT: sp fix

Gwar! wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Pretty much this.

I argue RaW because it is the only thing that is constant. Houserules are fine and all, but they are just that, House Rules.

The whole point of this thread is that RaW isn't constant, it is full of holes and anomalies that players need to bridge in order to play the game.

You can call it "just House Rules" with a dismissive air, but the fact remains that when the "proper" rules aren't clear, players need to figure out a way to play a fun game. This happens more often than we would like.

When a so-called "House Rule" is accepted by 90% of players, it becomes the de facto rules.

I don't see the point of worshipping GW rules, they are a false idol.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Pretty much this.

I argue RaW because it is the only thing that is constant. Houserules are fine and all, but they are just that, House Rules.

The whole point of this thread is that RaW isn't constant, it is full of holes and anomalies that players need to bridge in order to play the game.

Yes.

You can call it "just House Rules" with a dismissive air, but the fact remains that when the "proper" rules aren't clear, players need to figure out a way to play a fun game. This happens more often than we would like.

Yes.

When a so-called "House Rule" is accepted by 90% of players, it becomes the de facto rules.

I don't see the point of worshipping GW rules, they are a false idol.

Yes. Unfortunately, none of the above matters when you are looking at it from the perspective of one trying to find a universal constant that can always be applied. The point is that House Rules are used in pretty much every game you play because of the holes GW digs in its merchandise, but it is important to understand the basics that every player must know, because otherwise you will have no ability to determine where your own rules start and where the opponent's begin. Assumptions are fine, but that decisive roll mid-game will turn into blood, sweat, and tears if you or your opponent does not have a firm grounding of what the RAW actually says.

Slight clarification please. Are you suggesting that we have to refer to earlier editions of the game for rule clarifications, and justifications?

I have never played this game before 5th edition and therefore have no context to any of that logic.

ph34r wrote:I did not misinterpret a single thing that you said. I am implying that you think that 99.9% of people use house rules, because 99.9% of people would never play by a large amount of RaW interpretations that Gwar-esque people advocate.
Alas, you have misinterpreted what I said.

There is room for argument on a lot of GW rules. Some have definite grey areas, and I can see them being played differently in every group.

But things like "Doom of Malantai has no warp field" or "Runic terminator armor is not terminator armor" are just so ridiculous that it is hard to take you seriously. This is where the 99.9% comes in: I would estimate that only one person out of 1000 would actually consider one of those arguments to be honestly correct.

In conclusion, "hte" "ONLY" consistent ruleset is not What is Written, but what Everyone Except You And Gwar Plays By.

I like RAW, i like it alots, when people start cooking up their own rules, or "interpretations" of rules it begins a break down of the game in my opinion, where does it stop? There are so many things you can "play by RAW" that are just absurd which of course is obviously a broken mechanic that people as players attempt to fix.. its honestly what i hate about this game, you either play by raw and exploit the out of the system to win and become TFG when your really just playing the rules your codex BRB give you... but then you have people who search out all different manner of FAQs and or attempt to make house rules (which is essentially what non GW FAQs are, no offense to you guys who write them because i know in alot of cases they do actually help smooth over issues people have and you put alot of effort into making them as well rounded and thought out as possible)



and of course, i'm a math/science major, i don't like grammarrrrzzzz


p.s. your doom can have its warp field as long as your not bustin dooods inside a transport. otherwise RAW meets RAW

Speaking of math and science, one of the things about rigorous argument is that you have to do your own compiling/de-compiling, in the sense that you have to take what the text of the rules say, and extract the content that they state about the rules of the game.

As you should all know, the same rules or code can be expressed in multiple ways, but not in all ways, and depending on context phrases can mean (express) many different things. There is a difference between what is said, and what is stated, insofar as rules are concerned.

Too many people forget that GW writes in colloquial English (for a certain value of "colloquial") rather than a formalized language developed for the purpose of coding the rules. Taking the rules as written as if they were computer code that you should implement like a program is the height of idiocy, which might explain why doing so is so popular in some quarters.

Similarly there's plenty of people that introduce spurious or extraneous information when they're extracting the information about the rules from the written text, often because they ignore important structural features of the text, or the handy diagrams provided to aid understanding. Often they say "That's how the rule was intended!" as if intention mattered when trying to get things to work.

That's why you get situations where a rule seems to lack any effect in the game, because its extension was lost with a change in the rules between editions. Or you get situations with 4th edition codexes where the rules didn't have an effect (or beneficial effect) until there was a change in the rules between editions!

This is actually more important when you're working stuff out with the people you're actually playing with rather than the wise persons of YMMV, because in the real world you have to come to an agreement not only about how the rule is properly read, but how it is to be implemented, so you need to not only extract the rules information from the text, but be able to compile it into the game.

The tl;dr version: Don't treat the rules as computer code or as a set of instructions, but as the expression of that code or set of instructions.

Nurglitch wrote:

Similarly there's plenty of people that introduce spurious or extraneous information when they're extracting the information about the rules from the written text, often because they ignore important structural features of the text, or the handy diagrams provided to aid understanding. Often they say "That's how the rule was intended!" as if intention mattered when trying to get things to work.

this specifically makes me hate playing 40k. this is where people need to be sent back to gradeschool and be taught how to properly read a text.

ph34r wrote:I did not misinterpret a single thing that you said. I am implying that you think that 99.9% of people use house rules, because 99.9% of people would never play by a large amount of RaW interpretations that Gwar-esque people advocate.

Wrong, you lied when you stated 99.9% of people do X, and stated that was what I said. It was in fact something you made up, commonly held to be a Bad thing(TM) when arguiing.

ph34r wrote:Alas, you have misinterpreted what I said.

No, you said that, what GW events decide are The Rules, are The Rules. Then I pointed out that what GW decided differes all the time - e.g. Deff Rollas at last years GW Ard Boyz. What about this then? They changed "the rules" so what are "the rules"?

I instead reject that *inconsistent* approach and go by this simple maxim - the Book of Rules (gee, what an odd name!) ARE The Rules. That's it. And the forum tenets agree with me, and not you.

Everything else is, by definition, a houserule. everything.

ph34r wrote:There is room for argument on a lot of GW rules. Some have definite grey areas, and I can see them being played differently in every group.

there are very very few rules that have any argument other than "i dont like this" as the basis for disagreement. See Shrike. The VAST majority of rules have a single interpretation that is supported by the language, and that is The Rules. Anything else is a houserule.

ph34r wrote:But things like "Doom of Malantai has no warp field" or "Runic terminator armor is not terminator armor" are just so ridiculous that it is hard to take you seriously.

And you are mixing up who is who. I personally dont take you seriously because you lie about what people state and dont back up your arguments with logic or rules, instead making up plausible sounding numbers to try to make your argument sound better. And you do this consistently, normally "contributing" nothing more than troll like comments attacking Gwar! or other people.

ph34r wrote:This is where the 99.9% comes in: I would estimate that only one person out of 1000 would actually consider one of those arguments to be honestly correct.

Then DONT attribute it to something I said - commonly called "lying" - otherwise you get called on it.

And again: this is not about "honestly correct", this is about Rules. You have the benefit of knowing these are recent rules, and are likely to do something - however what about Thornback? It is clearly meant to do *something*, just in this edition it doesnt - so do you make it work?

ph34r wrote:In conclusion, "hte" "ONLY" consistent ruleset is not What is Written, but what Everyone Except You And Gwar Plays By.

And again you confuse REALITY with FORUMS meant to discuss the *rules*. You have *no evidence* to say *how* I play games, and therefore this is a pernicious slur that I demand you retract. Also apparently everyone else doesnt use true LOS in 5th ed, as that is waht I play - odd that none of my opponents this last weekend actually mentioned this, idiots! /sarcasm

If you expect to ever be taken seriously dont attack the person, attack the argument. Although it is probably too late for most to take you seriuosly.

The *point* (or part of it!) is to determine What the Rules Say. Not what we would like them to say, but what the rules actually *are* . This helps determine Consistency by giving a basis to work from.

De facto rules are not consistent, hence knowing the De Jure IS important to know WHERE you have made a hosuerule. You have nothing to argue against THIS point, do you? Or else how do you handle unconscious houserules across many groups, when those groups inevitably meet?

GW is far more clear then it was back in Rogue Trade, second edition, third edition, I missed out on fourth edition, and all the supplements in between ( ie: Chapter Approved ). Yet some things I see argued in RAW like there is no such thing as a power sword so it does nothing just makes me want to take a baseball bat and clobber some one. Its really not hard to not have someone from GW hold your hand to say its a power weapon, especially after playing for over two decades as so. Then to see posts where RAW is implied that a model like Eldrad can't attack in hand to hand because he has three weapons and RAW doesn't cover how to handle this. In truth most people would simply say " state which you are using for this combat round and go".

No matter tho how you look at the rules or how you interpret them most people seem to have missed out at the begining of the rule book as the most important rule on top of page 2.

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
- the choice is entirely yours.

All this is not to say RAW is not important as the game is based on a set of rules but even GW admits to not being able to cover them all that may arise. In some cases you need to go with RAI which can be hard as the intent of the designer is only something they know but some times common sense and logic can quickly cover this rule. Other times we can look back to previous editions to get a better understanding of how possibly the rule was intended or maybe it was covered more clearly there. Any rules that you know ahead of time that may cause issue, I find these are easily taken care of with a quick discussion before the game with my oppponent. Most of us play to have a good time, socialize and push our figures across the table while doing so.

Perhaps I was too confusing or unclear for you to understand correctly. I will try to clarify everything that I have said so that you might not draw as much insult from it as you choose to.

My initial post saying "you" was addressing everyone that believes that using terminator armor rules for runic terminator armor is a house rule. First misinterpretation by you.

Deff rollas are a grey area that is heavily debated and played much less consistently, with even GW switching up their ruling. Therefore, they are not a clear rule, and up for debate.
Runic Terminator Armor is played 99.9% the same way, I might go so far as to say 100% of people play that in reality but someone will play it otherwise just to break that argument.

If the overwhelming majority of people see that a rule is meant to be played one way, there is no doubt in my mind that it is the correct way.

The Dictionary wrote:
house rule
 
–noun
a rule that is used in a game only in a specific place, as a particular casino, or only among a certain group of players.

So in this case, the "only among a certain group of players" would be you and Gwar (provided you actually play by those rules, I suspect you might not). This also potentially includes others, that I may have not read posts by or met. In real life I have met zero of these such people in my travels.

If a rule is played in a diverse way instead of a nearly unanimous way, then it is likely a grey area where arguments can be made for both sides.

Furthermore, I am not mixing up who is who. I am providing examples. If you don't like my examples, don't read them. Also, stop insulting things that you imagine in my posts, it makes you look quite foolish.

If a rule does nothing due to being invalidated, then it has no function. If a rule "does nothing" due to 1 person out of 1000 trying to argue that it should do nothing and that's the way the rules should work, that 1 person should be (and is) ignored by the community as a whole. And by ignored, I mean such rules interpretations are not used.

I refuse to retract anything that you took as a deep personal insult. I made no insults towards you, aside from in this post saying that you interpreting malice into my posts makes you look foolish.
I am making an educated guess based on the information available to me. If one makes strong and spirited arguments in support of one rules interpretation, I find it more likely than not that they follow those rules interpretations. If you don't actually play by the arguments that you are making, feel free to inform me of such and it will be duly noted, and I will no longer suggest that you play by such interpretations. I may have been unclear when I said that the consistent rules set was the one that you and gwar do not play: this does not apply to every rule and not every rule that you play by is disagreed upon by the vast majority of the population. To think such would be ridiculous.

We know what the rules say as we can mean them. Thanks to the definition of the word house rule, if the distinct smaller group of people are the only ones not playing by the house rule, then the "house rule" is by definition of the word not a house rule and in fact the real rules, with the specific case only interpretation being the house rule.

As I have said multiple times, some rules are less clear than other and should be treated as such. In the case of rules interpretations that only 1 or 2 internet personalities even advocate, with an unclear potentially zero amount of people actually playing by them in 40k, the fact that the potentially unused interpretation is a house rule is obvious and by the definition of the word correct.

Also I fear that we are veering too far off topic, so if we could try to wrap things up, we might avoid irking Yakface too much.

ph34r wrote:
My initial post saying "you" was addressing everyone that believes that using terminator armor rules for runic terminator armor is a house rule. First misinterpretation by you.

Deff rollas are a grey area that is heavily debated and played much less consistently, with even GW switching up their ruling. Therefore, they are not a clear rule, and up for debate.

The Dictionary wrote:
.

Play nice pHeAr~!

Firstly your failure to use the proper language 'one' or 'people' and using 'you' instead is a personal address - you're to blame in this situation because of a failure to use proper English.

GW did no such thing with the Rolla - They merely clarified the Ram - was indeed a type of tank-shock - for people who did not feel this was true and were not allowing DR to affect vehicles.

Thirdly - wow quoting The Dictionary he's a pretty smart guy, you know.

Nightwatch wrote:Yes. Unfortunately, none of the above matters when you are looking at it from the perspective of one trying to find a universal constant that can always be applied. The point is that House Rules are used in pretty much every game you play because of the holes GW digs in its merchandise, but it is important to understand the basics that every player must know, because otherwise you will have no ability to determine where your own rules start and where the opponent's begin. Assumptions are fine, but that decisive roll mid-game will turn into blood, sweat, and tears if you or your opponent does not have a firm grounding of what the RAW actually says.

So, in finding a universal constant that should always be applied, we should say a rule that never should be used is correct?

ChrisCP wrote:Firstly your failure to use the proper language 'one' or 'people' and using 'you' instead is a personal address - you're to blame in this situation because of a failure to use proper English.

GW did no such thing with the Rolla - They merely clarified the Ram - was indeed a type of tank-shock - for people who did not feel this was true and were not allowing DR to affect vehicles.

Thirdly - wow quoting The Dictionary he's a pretty smart guy, you know.

You may be used to address more than one person at once. It's a little known fact that I learned in elementary school. Here's a quote from the dictionary for you!

The Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:2: one; anyone; people in general

As for your second point, GW did such a thing with the rolla. In one round of Ard Boyz deffrolla ramming was disallowed, and in another it was allowed.

Thirdly, I enjoy quoting the dictionary to people, as it is generally harder to come up with an argument against the truth when a more or less indisputable source is presented.

Zero for three, ouch. Please feel free to bring up any other points that you have issues with. Also, please take the time to type my name correctly in the future, as the numbers are indeed an integral part

EDIT: Actually, please don't bring up any other issues that you have, as it just takes the thread further off topic

ph34r wrote:Perhaps I was too confusing or unclear for you to understand correctly. I will try to clarify everything that I have said so that you might not draw as much insult from it as you choose to.

Snide insults are still insults you know. Carry on though, you're quite amusing when youre in "defending your trolling" mode.

ph34r wrote:My initial post saying "you" was addressing everyone that believes that using terminator armor rules for runic terminator armor is a house rule. First misinterpretation by you.

Wrong, if this is true it was simply YOUR first misuse of the English language: you specifically addressed MY point, quoting ME, and then said "You" said X. None of these are correct if you "claim" you "meant" to be adressing a diffuse group of people. You're doing a good job of making yourself look increasingly foolish however.

It is not a misinterpretation when you state something VERY clearly and then attempt to dissemble and claim otherwise.

ph34r wrote:Deff rollas are a grey area that is heavily debated and played much less consistently, with even GW switching up their ruling. Therefore, they are not a clear rule, and up for debate.

Wrong, actually.

It is not heavily debated as it finally has a clear FAQ that confirms that, when the rulebook says a ram is a tank shock, they meant it. It was only "heavily up for debate" by people who attempted to ignore that rule and simply made stuff up to support their side.

Just because something is debated does not mean it is unclear, that is a false premise and again - what a surprise from you! - one that is easily shown to be false. Most rules are debated either from ignorance of the language, the rules or from bias - my "i dont want it to work that way" idea.

ph34r wrote:Runic Terminator Armor is played 99.9% the same way, I might go so far as to say 100% of people play that in reality but someone will play it otherwise just to break that argument.

Again with making up figures.

ph34r wrote:If the overwhelming majority of people see that a rule is meant to be played one way, there is no doubt in my mind that it is the correct way.

Except the majority of people *did* get 4th ed rules wrong as they were written - witness the invisible magic height 3 cylinder. And this wasnt the correct way, as the studio said when they released 5th ed.

Again de facto /= de jure, de jure is the *correct* way, de facto is the *accepted* way. There is a huge gulf between the two concepts.

The Dictionary wrote:
house rule

Clever person this "dictionary" - what was your source? OED? Webster? lol

ph34r wrote:So in this case, the "only among a certain group of players" would be you and Gwar (provided you actually play by those rules, I suspect you might not). This also potentially includes others, that I may have not read posts by or met. In real life I have met zero of these such people in my travels.

Agani with the easily disprovable premise: the definition you cited does not exclude the *same* houserule being played at multiple *independent* locations, does it?

By definition NOT playing the rules that are written down MUST be a "house rule".

ph34r wrote:Furthermore, I am not mixing up who is who. I am providing examples.

Nope, you were using the personal again, clearly addressed as if *I* said that. Stop misusing the English language to attempt to hide your own foolish attempts and ill thought out arguments.

ph34r wrote:If you don't like my examples, don't read them. Also, stop insulting things that you imagine in my posts, it makes you look quite foolish.

Nope, youre doing a fine job of making yourself look incredibly foolish, digging deeper with every post.

ph34r wrote:If a rule does nothing due to being invalidated, then it has no function.

How is the person to know it has been invalidated? In your version of things it is impossible to know this.

ph34r wrote:If a rule "does nothing" due to 1 person out of 1000 trying to argue that it should do nothing and that's the way the rules should work, that 1 person should be (and is) ignored by the community as a whole. And by ignored, I mean such rules interpretations are not used.

And here is when you, again, miss the point by a country mile.

The *point* is that when the rules STATE something, you should know what the rules STATE so you know if you agree with that rule and how it works according to the Book of Rules. If you dont agree with it, you can then play by a Houserule - but it is important to know the difference.

For example Chaos Terminators do NOT have relentless, terefore cannot fire combi bolters at 24" if they move. Very, VERY clear in the rules, and is not open to interpretation - not at all. 90% of people I have played against (i've used terminators at least 20 times in 5th, and can only recall 2 people who didnt houserule it, therefore my number is on the low side to err on caution. I'd suggest you do the same sometimes) play it that they can move and fire as if stationary - doesnt mean it is the actual rule, and for some it IS an unconscious rule and are surprised when I pointed it out - they simply assumed they worked as they used to, and as loyalists currently do.

And this is the problem that you are failing to understand, even in ph34r (mad skillz, well done) terms: unconcscious houserules cause arguments, or can do so. So why not eliminate them? Why are you so against determining a single, consistent basis of what the RULES actually say (as in, the ones that are in the Book of Rules, the handy document you want to ignore when it suits you and argue this is "consistent") and *then* determine if you want to houserule?

ph34r wrote:I refuse to retract anything that you took as a deep personal insult. I made no insults towards you, aside from in this post saying that you interpreting malice into my posts makes you look foolish.

You stated that I played the game in a certain fashion, and did so in derogatory terms. THat IS an insult, and one on which you have no basis to make that judgement. I didnt think you actually would retract, I just enjoy seeing you try to justify yourself and your insults.

ph34r wrote:I am making an educated guess based on the information available to me.

It is not an "educated guess" when you, repeatedly (as I've called you on this before) make the same error: you confuse real, in game with forum, out of game. Forum, out of game is *necessarily* different to in game, and for good reasons.

You either deliberately ignore this to "score points" with snide insults, or you cannot comprehend the difference. I would assume the former but I do wonder.

ph34r wrote:If one makes strong and spirited arguments in support of one rules interpretation, I find it more likely than not that they follow those rules interpretations. If you don't actually play by the arguments that you are making, feel free to inform me of such and it will be duly noted, and I will no longer suggest that you play by such interpretations.

Amazing, you make this claim yet have never actually followed through and "duly noted" it.

ph34r wrote: I may have been unclear when I said that the consistent rules set was the one that you and gwar do not play: this does not apply to every rule and not every rule that you play by is disagreed upon by the vast majority of the population. To think such would be ridiculous.

Just your misuse of the English language again then, who could have thought.

ph34r wrote:We know what the rules say as we can mean them. Thanks to the definition of the word house rule, if the distinct smaller group of people are the only ones not playing by the house rule, then the "house rule" is by definition of the word not a house rule and in fact the real rules, with the specific case only interpretation being the house rule.

INcorrect, see above. Your definition (with no backnig as to where it came from, well done for that!) does not preclude repeated independent decisions to use the same houserule. Nice try though, shame it was as fatally flawed as most arguments you have tried so far.

ph34r wrote:As I have said multiple times, some rules are less clear than other and should be treated as such. In the case of rules interpretations that only 1 or 2 internet personalities even advocate, with an unclear potentially zero amount of people actually playing by them in 40k, the fact that the potentially unused interpretation is a house rule is obvious and by the definition of the word correct.

And I've repeatedly stated the cause of most "debates" on rules.

You keep hanging on this definition, despite the flaws. Again, marks for some consistency at least.

ph34r wrote:Also I fear that we are veering too far off topic, so if we could try to wrap things up, we might avoid irking Yakface too much.

Nope, not off topic - this is the heart of the topic: that some rules DO NOT WORK. Period. Acknowledging they do not work, and providing a "but this is how people tend to houserule it" is perfectly valid.

I've tried my best to not insult you, but if you want to be insulted by my posts, whatever. I can't stop you.

I can use "you" in whatever context I mean. Sorry that you couldn't connect the dots to realize that the logical thing (referring to separate issues with the form of you that works in the situation).
Basically, you are assuming incorrectly to make it seem like there is an issue with my statement, when with the correct definition it works perfectly.

It is not heavily debated... any more. It used to be. For a long time, GW tournaments ruled that it could not be used.
What I said was all true: the conclusion was often unclear after the dust settled over the 30+ page threads. The population was quite divided.
Again you make poor assumptions that lead you to think that I am wrong, stop it, you are being ridiculous. It was heavily up for debate by the population of DakkaDakka and of the people I know in real life.

I am making up that figure based on what I have seen from posts concerning similar issues, and people that I have met in real life. I have never seen someone actually play with a rules interpretation such as that, and am unsure of if anyone that argues for it on the internet actually does.
Do you play with Runic Terminator Armor is not Terminator Armor? If you do it would at least prove that 100% of people is an incorrect figure, as I suspected.

4th edition LOS rules were a mess. There was no overwhelming conclusion. It is not an appropriate example of a rules issue like Runic Terminator Armor.

The Merriam Webster dictionary. I can find a different dictionary if you don't like Merriam Webster. I suspect you will be disappointed with what the result is.

Key word: only. The only is you and gwar and whatever imaginary people actually play by awful rules interpretations. You just keep setting yourself up to get shot down. Pick a few of my points that you think are bad, and pick what you think are the weakest ones, because refuting all your stupid false statements gets really dull.

I'm sorry you did not understand my post. The rest of the internet and the human race can understand me just find, but I'll remember to break out the crayons for you in the future.

The only thing that I'm doing with every post is wasting time refuting all your ridiculous text blocks of wrongness.

The person knows that it is invalidated due to a rule that the special rule references no longer existing, rather than an overly strict interpretation that breaks a brand new rule.

As stated earlier, house rule is what the dictionary defines it as, not what you want it to be.

The Chaos terminator example is indeed clear and cut and I have yet to meet a person who did not follow it the same way as the majority of your experiences.

If I ever run into a person that honest to goodness thinks that Doom should not have an invulnerable save, first off I will be shocked and awed, and second off I will revise my statistics.

I think that the way that a person chooses to play the rules is bad if they use interpretations along the lines of "Doom has no invlun". If you follow this, I think that your rules interpretations are bad. If I said otherwise I would be lying.

I have fairly consistently reminded you that I recognize the difference between people arguing one point online and playing the same way. What is the issue here?

Do you play by the rules interpretations that you argue or not? Simple question, no need for debate on this point.

To clarify, when I say "I may have been unclear" I am implying that you are purposefully being dense in order to have something to argue about.

I have backing for my definition, if you would read my posts. Please read the posts I make before replying to them, it makes discussion a lot more clear. Also, please see my previous point refuting you: House Rule is defined as a rule that applies only among a certain group. If many groups have the same "house rule" as you would call it, then it is not a house rule, as it is not only among a certain group, unless you consider "the vast majority of people, 'those who consider Runic Terminator Armor to be Terminator Armor' to be only a certain group, which would be stretching the meaning of House Rule to the point of it being meaningless.

Also, if you cut out the insults you could probably cut your post volume in half and save me some reading time. That would be great. Also please note that trolling is not what you think it is, to troll is to say something that you believe to be false in order to stir up emotions, while I am stating my opinion along with facts that you do not seem to like.

By definition NOT playing the rules that are written down MUST be a "house rule".

? why? Surely not playing by the rules as designed by GW is by definition a "house rule", don't see what translating their written text in the most literal way possible has to do with this.

Back to the main topic I disagree with the notion that any rule that doesn't give you a defined way of working using pure literalism is necessarily unclear. Whilst in many cases such a rule would be unclear in many other cases the rule would be entirely clear (e.g The target lock rules). Language can be understood beyond the literal and indeed the primary function of language in all cultures is that it is understood beyond the literal (i.e. I understand what chav actually means when he uses a double negative or when a northerner uses the French word for ice cream to mean glass ). The core "rules" we lives our life by are also understood and interpreted beyond the literal. Yet you have a "poorly" written rules set for a game of toy soldier and all of a sudden literalism is the only way to interprete the written text and anything else is "cheating", "house rules" or "not clear (enough for adults play a game of toy soldiers)".

When poeples future freedom (or in some countries literally their lives) are on the line we can use beyond reasonable doubt and interpret rules (laws) beyond the literal (i.e. with the spirit and intention of the law), yet for a dice game of toy soldiers this isn't robust enough? Seriously? How certain do you have to be becuase you're willing to rule out that we are not having a group halucination as to what is written yet you won't beleive when they say Shrike gives his the unit the ability to infiltrate that means he gives his unit the ability to infiltrate...

ph34r wrote:I've tried my best to not insult you, but if you want to be insulted by my posts, whatever. I can't stop you.

Snide insults are still insults, you do realise this dont you?

ph34r wrote:I can use "you" in whatever context I mean. Sorry that you couldn't connect the dots to realize that the logical thing (referring to separate issues with the form of you that works in the situation).

So when you use "you" in the context that makes it the personal form you can claim it wasnt, and that you "meant" it in the general?

well done!

ph34r wrote:Basically, you are assuming incorrectly to make it seem like there is an issue with my statement, when with the correct definition it works perfectly.

With "a" definition -and not assuming, interpreting your written statement and the context you presented it in to come to the only valid-in-english conclusion. Carry on continuing to look foolish though.

ph34r wrote:It is not heavily debated... any more. It used to be. For a long time, GW tournaments ruled that it could not be used.

Nope, youre thinking US centric again. Gw tournaments in UK did rule it could be used.

ph34r wrote:What I said was all true: the conclusion was often unclear after the dust settled over the 30+ page threads. The population was quite divided.
Again you make poor assumptions that lead you to think that I am wrong, stop it, you are being ridiculous. It was heavily up for debate by the population of DakkaDakka and of the people I know in real life.

And I've posted the reasons people found it unclear - basic mangling of language to misconstrue a sentence, with admitted bias from the no-ram crowd that they didnt want it to work.

ph34r wrote:I am making up that figure based on what I have seen from posts concerning similar issues, and people that I have met in real life. I have never seen someone actually play with a rules interpretation such as that, and am unsure of if anyone that argues for it on the internet actually does.
Do you play with Runic Terminator Armor is not Terminator Armor? If you do it would at least prove that 100% of people is an incorrect figure, as I suspected.

Made up figures are still made up figures.

ph34r wrote:4th edition LOS rules were a mess. There was no overwhelming conclusion. It is not an appropriate example of a rules issue like Runic Terminator Armor.

Actually they werent a mess, people misunderstood when Levels were used, and tended to take the "easy" route of area terraining everything.

It IS an appropriate example of the majority *NOT* playing the Rule (as defined in the RuleBook) but instead playing by a houserule, and is an appropriate example that disproves your assertion.

ph34r wrote:The Merriam Webster dictionary. I can find a different dictionary if you don't like Merriam Webster. I suspect you will be disappointed with what the result is.

Try OED, for a rulebook written in actual English this is a good start.

ph34r wrote:Key word: only. The only is you and gwar and whatever imaginary people actually play by awful rules interpretations. You just keep setting yourself up to get shot down. Pick a few of my points that you think are bad, and pick what you think are the weakest ones, because refuting all your stupid false statements gets really dull.

So, yet again you make a baseless and repeatedly refuted assumption about how I play - BRAVO for pointing out that you deliberately ignore contradictory to your view statements. 100% for effort here!

Oh, I'm sorry, maybe this was the collective "you" that "you" keep pretending is contextually correct, despite the rules of the english language (oops, sorry, I forget you and rules dont see eye to eye...) saying otherwise?

THen stop responding - nothing forces you to continue posting illogical, badly supported and trivially reduced arguments.

ph34r wrote:I'm sorry you did not understand my post. The rest of the internet and the human race can understand me just find, but I'll remember to break out the crayons for you in the future.

Sorry, what part of the above is you "not insulting" me?

I understood it jsut fine, and responded and refuted your arguments. You just posted...this.

ph34r wrote:The only thing that I'm doing with every post is wasting time refuting all your ridiculous text blocks of wrongness.

Nope, not so far you havent.

BTW It is your time you're wasting, you CAN stop if you truly dont want to do it...I just find it funny how deeep you're going to dig this hole for yourself.

ph34r wrote:The person knows that it is invalidated due to a rule that the special rule references no longer existing, rather than an overly strict interpretation that breaks a brand new rule.

How are you defining "overly strict"? Using the written words that define the Rules of the game to determine that a rule, as written, does not function?

What about Chaos terminators not having the abiltiy to move and fire as if stationary? This is NOT a special rule referenced in their ruleset, but was part of the 4th ed rulebook.

Your "approach", for lack of a better word to describe the mess you made here, leads to inconsistency .

ph34r wrote:As stated earlier, house rule is what the dictionary defines it as, not what you want it to be.

ANd the dictionary deos not say what you think it does, which still invalidates your point. You keep plugging away though, eventually someone will listen to you.

ph34r wrote:The Chaos terminator example is indeed clear and cut and I have yet to meet a person who did not follow it the same way as the majority of your experiences.

So will you address the actual point of that part of the post anytime soon? Or shoudl it be taken as read that you agree with it, that unconscious houserules (the assumption that chaos terminators work exactly the same as before) CAN lead to issues?

ph34r wrote:If I ever run into a person that honest to goodness thinks that Doom should not have an invulnerable save, first off I will be shocked and awed, and second off I will revise my statistics.

You confuse "should" with "does not". Strictly "does not", probably "should" - however unlike yourself I am not arrogant enough to assume I *know* for 100% accuracy what the author intended.

ph34r wrote:I think that the way that a person chooses to play the rules is bad if they use interpretations along the lines of "Doom has no invlun". If you follow this, I think that your rules interpretations are bad. If I said otherwise I would be lying.

You get two things confused here: the way rules are interpreted, whcih if done according to the rulebook are not inherently "bad" or "good", they just *are*, and the way someone plays.

You, lie? Shock.

ph34r wrote:I have fairly consistently reminded you that I recognize the difference between people arguing one point online and playing the same way. What is the issue here?

BEcause you consistently conflate the two, and make unwarranted assumption to link the two together despite being *repeatedly* told otherwise?

Essentially the issue is you are either dishonest or incapable of practicing what you preach.

ph34r wrote:Do you play by the rules interpretations that you argue or not? Simple question, no need for debate on this point.

Yes, I do.


Now, if you had asked do I play by *all* of them then you may have a different answer - however you didnt.

ph34r wrote:To clarify, when I say "I may have been unclear" I am implying that you are purposefully being dense in order to have something to argue about.

Again with the "not being insulting" insults! Your doublethink is on TOP form today!

ph34r wrote:I have backing for my definition, if you would read my posts. Please read the posts I make before replying to them, it makes discussion a lot more clear.

Yawn. I dissected your post clearly, you have provided a wall of text that jumps about all over the place.

ph34r wrote: Also, please see my previous point refuting you: House Rule is defined as a rule that applies only among a certain group. If many groups have the same "house rule" as you would call it, then it is not a house rule, as it is not only among a certain group, unless you consider "the vast majority of people, 'those who consider Runic Terminator Armor to be Terminator Armor' to be only a certain group, which would be stretching the meaning of House Rule to the point of it being meaningless.

And yet the definition still does not say what you want it to say. Good try though, again you're consistent in your "misunderstanding"'s

ph34r wrote:Also, if you cut out the insults you could probably cut your post volume in half and save me some reading time. That would be great. Also please note that trolling is not what you think it is, to troll is to say something that you believe to be false in order to stir up emotions, while I am stating my opinion along with facts that you do not seem to like.

Sorry, what "facts"? You made up some numbers, lied about posts and their attribution, dissembled by trying to claim something else, and then resorted to baseless insults while claiming to not actually be insulting me. That fits one definition of "troll" btw.

I havent insulted you, just raised incredulity that you appear incapable of understanding a simple premise: unconcsious House Rules are BAD(tm) as they cause arguments. I have seen this happen many, many times when disparate groups meet and play without understanding all the CHANGES they have made to the Rules as provided in that handily named Rule Book. Your "solution" to this is - what now?

If you can't take a snide insult stop packing your posts so full of blatant insults.

Your comprehension of the English language is poor. You are bad at reading posts. You are bad at understanding posts.

Find me a definition that you like better if you don't like the definition in the English language. I will carry on Being Right.

Thank you for supporting my point. GW was divided on the issue, not only in time but in area.

You have not posted all the reasons for why it is unclear, to do so would be to reiterate dozens of pages of well presented arguments. There was no obviously correct answer to the deffrolla ram question. There was a favored answer, but there is no parallel to the current issue.

I make the best conclusions I can with my sample set. If you would like to help me refine my statistic, please do, as it would benefit both of us.
Do you play with Runic Terminator Armor is not Terminator Armor?

4th edition LOS rules WERE a mess. They were interpreted so differently that there was no clear majority. Again, there was no overwhelming conclusion, it serves no purpose in this discussion, it is not an appropriate example of a rules issue like Runic Terminator Armor.

According to OED, "house rule" has no definition. According to RAW, house rule has no meaning, we should refrain from using it in the future. I mean, we could use a different English Rulebook for the definition if you want, but I'm fine with "house rule" not existing. It makes this conversation a lot more funny.

You keep refusing to answer my question (because you are embarrassed to admit that you don't play the way you argue? I cannot say for sure.) so I'm going with your arguments as a basis for how you play. You're the one keeping me guessing, don't get all flustered when I guess the one that you don't like.
I find it hilarious that you trash my arguments as trivially reduced, while consistently ignoring my questions and going back to old issues that I have already answered for you.

The part with the crayons is an insult. I consider you childish.

The dictionary says that "house rule" has no meaning, I guess it doesn't mean what you want it to be or what it actually is

Unconscious house rules can lead to issues. However when everyone except potentially two people agree on a rule, it is not a house rule, as I have said a million times, unless house rule has no meaning (RAW, see OED for reference) in which case this section of argument is meaningless.

Okay. Does not. You somehow are arrogant enough to construct an insulting internet argument with a stranger, supporting a position that your do not practice in play (or so I suspect, you still evade my blunt question).

I would never lie intentionally in an argument.

Okay, cool, what is your stance on Runic Terminator Armor?
If you think it does not function a terminator armor, there is a link between the two for yo.
If you think that it doesn't, then you are incapable of practicing in reality what you preach in theory, making you quite a hypocrite. Unless your argument is merely for the sake of argument, which you still won't tell me.

Do you play by all the rules interpretations that you argue or not?
It's hard to get a straight answer out of you. One would think that you would just answer the question, but you really don't want the world to know.

That was an insult. Sometimes I get bored of being polite to you and return your insults in kind.

I answer your quotes in order, not jumping back and forth. You apparently do not read my posts, as you insult me and ask for backing, in response to a post where I show backing.

Read the post again. Reading comprehension skills are important, clearly you do not understand it.

Still wrong. Facts: the evidence I have provided referencing past dakka posts, my experiences, my online experiences.
Also still incorrect on the meaning of troll. You are pretty bad at this.

Unconscious un-house rules are worse than house rules.

If we could perhaps refrain from making cracks about each others reading capability, personalities and general intelligence that'd be super.. and also comply to the the Dakka posting rules as well.

Take a breath, count to 10 etc etc.

Leaving out all of your insults (bravo for coming clean on them) which makes up 99% of the wall of text post above, I will respond to one thing only:

I *did* answer your question, you just didnt ask a good question. You also a) only asked it once, so i couldnt "continually evade" it, and b) you have made up a new question just then, different to the question I *did* answer.

Edit: to clarify IF I ever come across Doom, I will let my opponent use it as a 3++ save. If I ever use Doom myself, I would not *expect* to be able to use a 3++ save.

THAT is the difference between your advocated position (ignorance of the actual Rules of the game in favour of <something&gt and mine: I acknowledge the rules, and where i thin kthey have problems, but do not expect my opponent to always agree to use a houserule. I consider making the *assumption* that your houserule is the only way to play to be highly arrogant and unsporting.

The OED not having a definition of "house rule" does not mean that "RAW", house rules cannot exist. De facto rules the roost where de jure does not exist. Also any discussion of English should only use the OED, only when you use qualified English (US, Australian) would you use the appropriate dictionary. This is more important than you appear to realise, as US and English "wield" have different meanings, to use a simple example which changes how 2CCW section is read.

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

Because you do not know no-one will play that way, and that is actually the correct way to play.

If you don't like it, feel free to make up a house rule!

No its your INTERPRETATION of how the rule works. It doesn't make it right, only your interpretation. There's literally a million lawyers making themselves wealthy on interpreting the same law, over and over and over, differently for their advantage.

Thats the fallacy of this. There can be multiple correct interpretations of what the RAW actually is. Its also why I generally avoid this portion of the board like the plague, and if anyone ever used some of the more esoteric RAW arguments from YMDC (not just Dakka but other locations) I'd laugh out loud and ignore them utterly.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

Because you do not know no-one will play that way, and that is actually the correct way to play.

If you don't like it, feel free to make up a house rule!

No its your INTERPRETATION of how the rule works. It doesn't make it right, only your interpretation. There's literally a million lawyers making themselves wealthy on interpreting the same law, over and over and over, differently for their advantage.

Thats the fallacy of this. There can be multiple correct interpretations of what the RAW actually is. Its also why I generally avoid this portion of the board like the plague, and if anyone ever used some of the more esoteric RAW arguments from YMDC (not just Dakka but other locations) I'd laugh out loud and ignore them utterly.

And you are more than free to. It doesn't change what the rules actually say!

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How is ruling something that no one will ever actually play by as correct consistent?

Because you do not know no-one will play that way, and that is actually the correct way to play.

If you don't like it, feel free to make up a house rule!

No its your INTERPRETATION of how the rule works. It doesn't make it right, only your interpretation. There's literally a million lawyers making themselves wealthy on interpreting the same law, over and over and over, differently for their advantage.

Thats the fallacy of this. There can be multiple correct interpretations of what the RAW actually is. Its also why I generally avoid this portion of the board like the plague, and if anyone ever used some of the more esoteric RAW arguments from YMDC (not just Dakka but other locations) I'd laugh out loud and ignore them utterly.

And you are more than free to. It doesn't change what the rules actually say!

which kinda makes it an oxymoron that you guys make INAT Faqs for rules clarifications.. lol