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.

Slackermagee wrote:RAW should be used to the point where it no longer allows units/models to function 'as intended' (i.e. markerlights not working). Apart from that, exceptions could be made when you feel that something just doesn't make any sense (psycannons ignoring the acrobatic invuln of Harlies for instance). That's about all I would feel comfortable with.

Just a minor point, Harlequins don't have acrobatic saves, it's holographic ones. By their description cover saves would make more sense, but they are meant to work in melee as well...

Edit: and I really do stress that this is a minor point

Well in that case I think it's silly for Lascannons to ignore my Wolf Guard Terminators saves because they are the bestest ones ever.

Rules are there for a reason. Follow them or go play something else.

B, mainly because if a model has a rule, it can use it.

The Doom's invulnerable save is a good example, as is Dante's Special Ammunition. One isn't a Zoanthrope, the other isn't a Sternguard Veteran squad, but they have those rules in their profile for a reason.

forkbanger wrote:B, mainly because if a model has a rule, it can use it.

The Doom's invulnerable save is a good example, as is Dante's Special Ammunition. One isn't a Zoanthrope, the other isn't a Sternguard Veteran squad, but they have those rules in their profile for a reason.

Yes, the reason is that GW are idiots. Duh.

Gwar! wrote:I can point to 3 better ones for 3 armies at present...

Yours are not complete. They aren't very useful as they are only for 3 armys (and i didn't see a main rule book when i looked at your FAQ's).

VoxDei wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I can point to 3 better ones for 3 armies at present...

Yours are not complete. They aren't very useful as they are only for 3 armys (and i didn't see a main rule book when i looked at your FAQ's).

They are more useful for the armies they are for.

Only useful if you can get people to play by them . INAT is usually pretty easy to get people to play by since they are complete.

VoxDei wrote:Only useful if you can get people to play by them . INAT is usually pretty easy to get people to play by since they are complete.

It is so full of holes and inconsistencies I find it's pretty hard to get anyone to play with it.

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:Only useful if you can get people to play by them . INAT is usually pretty easy to get people to play by since they are complete.

It is so full of holes and inconsistencies I find it's pretty hard to get anyone to play with it.

Try visiting adepticon then, or any number of tournaments around the world, or my local gaming store...

I believe the reason people use them (INAT) is that they are nearly complete and that they are one of very few sources that offer a complete/unified rules clarification, not that their quality is superb. This speaks volumes about the FAQs presented by GW themselves more than anything (since we're talking about printed material and not electronic, you'll have to give the rule book some measure of leniency).

I don't feel like giving any leniency though. I'll be generous and say it takes one full day to sit down, look at a busted codex or rule book and fix the stupid crap. Then it's a few minutes of typing, and hand it off to the web dev guys and ta-dah, you've fixed your product for years! (because many codexes go that long without an update)

insaniak wrote:option D: The rules are just a framework, and will be altered at will to please the players.

This would get my vote.

GW official rules are not dictated by god. They are not the best rules ever that can never be improved upon. They are really just glorified house rules, made up by whichever bunch of nerds happen to be hanging out in the GW studio while the book was being put together. And they can only realistically undergo very limited testing and balancing before they are released. Also GW has a conflict of interest since their objective is primarily to make money, which does not necessarily go hand in hand with making a great game. Not to mention half the official rules being stupid fanwank anyway.

I do see the need for there to be a consistent frame of reference that all players can relate back to. But I feel the game provides that, whether you stick to RAW religiously or not. It does bug me when I see so many people getting almost fanatical about 'official rules'. I find it symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the hobby.

For me miniatures are about creativity and imagination at every step of the way. I think that is as true for scenarios and rules as it is for painting and modelling. When I see people who don't paint their miniatures, don't make their own scenery, don't play anything other than book scenarios, and don't allow any variation on RAW... Basically don't do anything creative or use their imagination at all. It makes me wonder why they even bother with this hobby? Might as well just stick to DoW if strict computer controlled limitations, and minimal creativity/effort is what you like.

On the other hand it takes a certain level of maturity and magnanimity (on the part of both players) to play the game that way. If you're TFG then I'm option 'A'.

The poll is not about whether or not the rules ought to be modified.

I'm running a campaign right now that includes, for example, a unit that could best be described as "partially death company" and a stompa that launches stormboyz. The main question asked by the poll is: "If you are trying to play a 'standard' (i.e. no attempt to actively change the rules as laid out by GW other than interpretation) version of the game, then how would you do it?" I'm not saying there is no room for variants, house-ruling, and just plain making up your own stuff. I'm about getting an accurate idea of what you'd do if you weren't doing that.

MekanobSamael wrote:The poll is not about whether or not the rules ought to be modified.

I'm running a campaign right now that includes, for example, a unit that could best be described as "partially death company" and a stompa that launches stormboyz. The main question asked by the poll is: "If you are trying to play a 'standard' (i.e. no attempt to actively change the rules as laid out by GW other than interpretation) version of the game, then how would you do it?" I'm not saying there is no room for variants, house-ruling, and just plain making up your own stuff. I'm about getting an accurate idea of what you'd do if you weren't doing that.

That's like saying, "I'm not asking whether you want to be mugged or not, I'm asking how hard the mugger should hit you." I'd just rather not get mugged.

Likewise, there are several places where the rules in the rulebook and codices just simply don't work as written and FAQ'd due to poor writing. So unless by "interpretation" you mean "rewrite whole paragraphs because what's in the rulebook is nonsense", I'm not sure what you're asking.

MekanobSamael wrote:The poll is not about whether or not the rules ought to be modified.
...
The main question asked by the poll is: "If you are trying to play a 'standard' (i.e. no attempt to actively change the rules as laid out by GW other than interpretation) version of the game, then how would you do it?" I'm not saying there is no room for variants, house-ruling, and just plain making up your own stuff.

I'm sorry but in my opinion... If you are not playing RAW, then you're plain making up your own stuff, no exceptions.

I'm about getting an accurate idea of what you'd do if yo...

Honestly you're not going to get anything like an accurate idea because the questions you asked are loaded with the answer you want. Why don't you read over them again...

Option A: blah blah blah (examples of how option A makes the game worse)
Option B: blah blah blah (examples of how option B makes the game better)

If you hadn't done that then I think most people would have picked option A, but you 'poisoned the well' for them.

It depends on what environment you play in, anytime I go to a store for a pick up game or a tourney I try to follow raw as best I can (ie. if I'm not following raw its because either I am doing it by accident or a house rule needs to be made for certain situations and these house rules are usually set by the store) However if I am playing with one of my friends we like to simply view the rule book as a "framework" of rules that can be broken, bent, discarded, or replaced either permanently or temporarily. I just don't see bringing a rai mindset somewhere where you will be playing strangers a good idea, there "interpretation" can be much different than yours.

I voted in this poll with a similar idea in mind of GWAR's answer of option 'A' wherever possible. With that in mind, just the other day I was in my FLGS modeling some things for my =I= and SoB within earshot of an ongoing game. It was Orks vs. IG and was quite clearly a very friendly game. What I mean by that is that they were playing to have fun and many rules were played slightly incorrect or just outright wrongly. I thought about correcting several of the more glaring issues, but then I stopped. They were having fun! I honestly would have not liked to have played in a game like that, as following the RAW as much as possible IS what is fun for me. But I realized I didn't want to take away from their fun just as I wouldn't want someone to take away from mine. My FLGS does host a good number of 40k tournaments where RAW is much more important, but for this pickup game, it was not as important for them. I still would like to play as close to the rules as possible, but I did realize that there are people out there who RAW is not as important. And just as much as someone like GWAR or myself would like to play RAW as closely as possible, there are others whose fun is not determined by how closely the rules are followed. I also had to ask myself which would have been the greater evil, "intruding" on their game to point out their rule mistakes, or to let them continue playing 40k "incorrectly". I opted to continue to model and listen to them enjoy playing their game.

Edit: Spelling fail.

Edit 2: Edit 1 spelling fail.

insaniak wrote:The poll is missing an option D: The rules are just a framework, and will be altered at will to please the players.


I doubt it would get many votes on the forums, but it would likely be a not too uncommon approach in people playing largely at home with a static group.



For myself, B with a leaning towards C on occasion and the odd rules change made on the fly because it fits the moment would probably sum it up best.

"The Codex is more like what you would call...guidelines, than actual rules. Welcome to the Black Pearl!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoxDei wrote:Only useful if you can get people to play by them . INAT is usually pretty easy to get people to play by since they are complete.

Oh, that rag? It makes excellent toilet paper. Occasionally I use it to pick up my dog's fecal matter from the lawn.

solkan wrote:That's like saying, "I'm not asking whether you want to be mugged or not, I'm asking how hard the mugger should hit you." I'd just rather not get mugged.

...which is like answering a poll on whether you'd take a bus or a taxi to Times Square with "I don't go to Times Square." Possibly accurate, but probably not very helpful.

solkan wrote:Likewise, there are several places where the rules in the rulebook and codices just simply don't work as written and FAQ'd due to poor writing. So unless by "interpretation" you mean "rewrite whole paragraphs because what's in the rulebook is nonsense", I'm not sure what you're asking.

That sort of "interpretation" is what I'm trying to cover under C. That is, as long as you're trying to make sense of rules that don't make any, as opposed to changing the game based on what you think would be a more fun way of doing it. The latter is just modifying the game, which is, while incredibly fun, not something I'm trying to address here.

SmackCakes wrote:If you are not playing RAW, then you're plain making up your own stuff, no exceptions.

So, that sounds to me like A is the best approximation of your answer.

SmackCakes wrote:Honestly you're not going to get anything like an accurate idea because the questions you asked are loaded with the answer you want. Why don't you read over them again...

Option A: blah blah blah (examples of how option A makes the game worse)
Option B: blah blah blah (examples of how option B makes the game better)

If you hadn't done that then I think most people would have picked option A, but you 'poisoned the well' for them.

Just because you think that A makes the game worse and B makes the game better, it doesn't mean that everyone thinks like that. You can't assume everyone is exactly like you. This is why we have these discussions. There are people who would laugh if you said that markerlight target designators weren't markerlights. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at you if you said that they were. There are people who steadfastly maintain that the markerlight target designator is just a markerlight that's assault instead of heavy, and others that just call them flavor text. This is because the lack of information means that every player has to exercise his or her own discretion, so obviously there will be disagreements.

Obviously, when you're playing with friends in an informal setting, there is plenty of room for modifying the rules to make the game more interesting, smoother, funnier, more strategic, and/or more fun. I'm not questioning that. If there weren't so many great opportunities for creatively reconstructing the way warhammer is played, it wouldn't be half as fun as it is. Not even close. But, that's not what I'm trying to discover when I ask how strict the rules "should" be.

Let me see if I can make it more clear: the poll is about defaults. If you were playing with someone you'd never met before, which one of these ways of playing the game is preferable? If there were a disagreement, which sort of reasoning would you fall back on? That's what I'm trying to get at.

My simple opinion:

1) For home games/games with friends outside of home, as loose as you see need for rules to be; as to be agreed upon without arguing.

2) For pickup games, agree on whatever is common ground stuff that may be different from gaming circle to gaming circle.

3) For tourney games do the same from #2 though out of more respect to holding true to how the rulebook states.

As I watched a tourney today, I saw that with #3, was moreso of a mix of 1 and 2. Perhaps for big regional or national level tourneys even, stick to option A from the poll...

I got back into this game for the fun of it all recently. I find the newer ruleset SO MUCH simpler than when I first ever got into the game 10+ years ago. It really should not be that hard to have fun while following this ruleset properly, with a few minor tweaks here and there if needed.

Went for B because it's a game and I don't play in tournies or owt.

Trying to follow the rules specifically as they are written some times makes the game very tricky to play and would probably make it last longer than necessary as you would be forever consulting the BRB to clarify. Well, I would as I am still fairly new to this malarky

If you want option A play warmachine or magic the gathering.

SmackCakes wrote:I'm sorry but in my opinion... If you are not playing RAW, then you're plain making up your own stuff, no exceptions.

I'm assuming you think that's a bad thing? Not to push an old thread, but THIS is what playing RAW means - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278461.page


On another note, do people REALLY have this many rules queries? I play pretty regularly, I've done two small tournaments this year, and i don't think I encountered a real rules contradiction once. I've never used the INAT FAQ - I've never seen a need for it.

ArbitorIan wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:I'm sorry but in my opinion... If you are not playing RAW, then you're plain making up your own stuff, no exceptions.

I'm assuming you think that's a bad thing? Not to push an old thread, but THIS is what playing RAW means - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278461.page


On another note, do people REALLY have this many rules queries? I play pretty regularly, I've done two small tournaments this year, and i don't think I encountered a real rules contradiction once. I've never used the INAT FAQ - I've never seen a need for it.

I have to agree. With all the years that I have been playing, every question that I have ever seen pop up couldn't even justify a need to make "homebrew Faq".

We play Warhammer 40k just fine.... what game do you play?

Rulelawyers 40,000 questions?

Option A

If you are applying (GW) FAQs as rules, you are still applying RAW (you are just changing the 'written' part, as GW is the "source")

Implications/Interpretations are subject to the bias of those making them, and hold no level of consistancy. Without consistancy, you can't have a stable game system.

Don't agree with me? I challenge you to a game of chess with my own personal interpretations of the rules, you may not have access to my interpretations before the game begins, but thats ok, right?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Option A

If you are applying (GW) FAQs as rules, you are still applying RAW (you are just changing the 'written' part, as GW is the "source")

Implications/Interpretations are subject to the bias of those making them, and hold no level of consistancy. Without consistancy, you can't have a stable game system.

Don't agree with me? I challenge you to a game of chess with my own personal interpretations of the rules, you may not have access to my interpretations before the game begins, but thats ok, right?

Chess's rules have had a VERY long time to evolve and fix any inconsistencies and fill in any holes. There's no need for interpretations because the rules cover everything in the game. Even the exploit of using a promoted pawn to castle has been dealt with in the rules. (I'm not 100% sure of this, any die-hard chess players know of any current loophole?)

With a new edition of 40k coming out every few years, there's no time for this evolution to happen, and, as such, there are a ton of holes and contradictions in the rules. Plus, there's a ton of abilities that look like they should work but actually don't RAW. So, you have to make up some house rules and some "logical" interpretations of the RAW in order to play the game.

Well, the answer is simple unless you play with d-bags; you use RAW whenever possible and common sense in gray areas. I use the FAQ's on the GW site. Despite being "unofficial" they are still closer to GW making a ruling than some pompous guy on the internet.

A good rule of thumb I use is that unless it explicitly says you can, then you can't. Assuming and extrapolating rules lead to all sorts of WAAC players trying to sleaze every little advantage they can.

JGrand wrote: I use the FAQ's on the GW site. Despite being "unofficial" they are still closer to GW making a ruling than some pompous guy on the internet.

This

In my honest opinion, when a tournament group goes to the trouble of assembling a 118 page FAQ to address the various problems with the rules, and even THAT ends up being incomplete, you may as well just give up on RAW vs. RAI and move on to voting for "Fair vs. Unfair" as a standard for what changes to use.

I chose option B. If my opponent makes a mistake and places a unit one inch out of where they wanted it to be, I do not allow a change, but I am not one of those people who will say Mephiston remains strength 10 for the rest of the game after using his str 10 psychic ability, nor will I say Phoenix Lords cannot confer powers to the squads under them. I am not a "dw we can change the rules in your favour person", but I am a DBAD person