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.

Playing by the RAW *should* remove all assumption from the game.

We all know it doesn't even remotely, this is evidenced by the debates on this forum alone. Playing by RAW, with all it's flaws and obvious errors, does nothing any better than playing with some obvious agreed upon assumptions. You invite just as many arguments that way, and in my opinion look awful silly in some cases where the RAW is devoid of common sense.

Would you prefer to sap all fun from a game by bringing a complete list of debated topics and then sit down and choose the ruling you will use for that game from that list? Hell you're going to add at least 30 minutes of pre-game discussion that way, and might end up pissing off an opponent before you've even played. If and when a debatable topic comes up in a game each "side" should make their case, politely and calmly. If the other does not agree to your reasoning roll a die to decide and then move on. Makes for a quick game, good sportsmanship, and fun.

To expect such is to invite a very heated debate mid-game.

Not if it's handled maturely. If in the event you still have someone that gets all hot under the collar then at least you know of a person not to play again. Situations that are handled maturely by mature players should never result in heated arguments, just open discussisons. It doens't mean you necessarily agree, but that you respect the other person's opinion, make a decision based on a die roll if needed, and proceed on with the fun!

Everybody has an opinion as to what designer's intent is, but in the end each of those opinions is ONLY an opinion, and is no more correct or valid than anyone else's.

Absolutely I agree, but the RAW is not even close to being "hard, fast, and clear". Again it's nothing that can't be handled by mature people.

On the rare occasion that an opponents list is built around one of these iffy "intent" arguments, then you know that just might be facing a true jerk. In that instance, simply refuse to play him and move on, or better yet, cream him dispite the loop-hole.

I agree here as well. Creating a list around something that is known to be a contraversial ruling is not being a good sport at all. Of course I don't assume every person that does that is intending to try and expose a loophole, they may be a new player that just thought he had the right ruling. I admit that's a rare case, but I'm just trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

If you and you opponent agree on certain assumptions, then by all means use them, thats called a house rule. But, don't force your assumptions and opinions on someone else, its rude.

Everyone has "house" rules. This is proven by your statement above that playing strictly by the RAW is impossible. There MUST be some level of assumption and house rules in place to actually play a successful game. I'm certiainly not advocated forcing someone to play to my interpretations of intent, that's been one of my major points here from the start. If there's a disagreement, then just roll on it. Quick, simple resolution. If it doesn't go in your favor, then you better be mature enough to deal with it and move on.

If you attempt to answer any of these questions with a definitive answer, then you are forcing your assumption on everyone else. Because, no matter how logical you assumption is, you have no proof that your opinion is the actual truth.

I think most mature people are not so "forceful" when they state their case.  I don't think a mature player tries to "force" anything on other players.  They state their case and why.  The other person does as well.  If they both still disagree then a die is rolled and that determines the ruling.  If someone is still upset after this then they are NOT a mture and reasonable player, and thusly I wouldn't play them again.  I think too many people forget it's a freaking GAME. 

flyins, you seem like a very reasonable person.

Unfortunately, a fair number of less reasonable people do play this game. Some of them turn up at tournaments, where I lack the luxury of choosing not to play them. And, in the heat of the moment, even reasonable, "mature" people can begin to grow a bit disgruntled; Centurian99 has the perfect example of why this could occur, courtesy of one Adepticon opponent. (I won't spoil his story, but oi!)

We have precisely ONE tool to use to determine what the rules are: the rule book(s). The books, in turn, have words. Words have meanings. If GW wanted their rules to be much better than they are, they could be - a competent technical writer (or, in my case, a patent writer) could take what they've tossed us, create a set of defined game terms, and remove at least 75% of the rules issues. But until GW is willing to pay my hourly rate for the work (I'd estimate about 50 hours for a truly top-notch job, with extensive cross-checking), I'm not going to do it.

The "why" is simple: anything I do to fix their rules is just a house rule. And, for a game that just drew 300+ games into a single hall on a single day from across the entire country, a house rule doesn't cut it.

All I know is, if I hear my opponent use the words "common sense" or "intent" in his rules argument he's going to have a very, very unfun time trying to convince me that my terminators don't have jumppacks and my powerfists don't go at initiative order.

After all, that's just common sense.

Well now we get into the creation of a whole new stereotype of gamer. The "argue till I get a d6" gamer.

See you have your Rule Lawyers and your blatant cheaters. You have your Proxyists and now we have the arm chair lawyers.

Arm chair lawyers are being created by this entire article, claiming to know intent and arguing until they can get a "d6" ruling on a situation in a game.

To me I would rather play against a blatant cheater, because then you can disprove what they are saying, the armchair lawyer is too lazy to actually attempt to prove a point by looking in the rule so they say "let's d6 it".

Bah I say. I'd play with any of you guys anytime, even Anderton.

can i hire a rules lawyer ? i need help with this.

its my contention that by RAW, a squad embarked in a transport are all 1 unit. the vehilcle is an upgrade to said unit... yes ?

so on my turn i nominate to shoot at said unit (embarked in their vehicle) it blows up, and now i can assault them, because you are allowed to assault the unit you shot at.

most people argue that its not allowed becasue its always been played that you can do it. but 4th edition RAW allows its, unless i missed something.

You missed something.

But open a new thread, you hijacker.

All I know is, if I hear my opponent use the words "common sense" or "intent" in his rules argument he's going to have a very, very unfun time trying to convince me that my terminators don't have jumppacks and my powerfists don't go at initiative order.

After all, that's just common sense.

No, it's just being immature and pissy. You're obviously unwilling to admit there is possibly any other intent than what you have decided is the intent (as we've proven before there is ALWAYS some level of assumption even when using strict RAW).

If you were willing to accept the obvious proof (this forum being enough proof) that there are some unclear rules can be interpreted more than one way then there would be no problem. The "examples" you try to add in above are not examples of unclear rulings (other than the Doom Siren Powerfist, which if I'm not mistaken you do not play anyway).

Unfortunately, a fair number of less reasonable people do play this game.

Sadly yes, but I've found many many more that are perfectly reasonable.

Some of them turn up at tournaments, where I lack the luxury of choosing not to play them. And, in the heat of the moment, even reasonable, "mature" people can begin to grow a bit disgruntled

Personally I hold that if you're going to get angry about it at all, then it's ceased to be a game to you and then you need to re-evaluate if you should even be playing or not. In a tournament, you go with the ruling of the judges (or whatever they are called) and move on. If you're the one trying to use an army based on a contraversial rule, well we've discussed that above. If your opponent is and they get the ruling on their side, then beat them anyway. If you don't beat them, shake hands gracefully at the end and politely voice your opinion on the ruling with the judge afterwards.

Arm chair lawyers are being created by this entire article, claiming to know intent and arguing until they can get a "d6" ruling on a situation in a game.

To me I would rather play against a blatant cheater, because then you can disprove what they are saying, the armchair lawyer is too lazy to actually attempt to prove a point by looking in the rule so they say "let's d6 it".

I'm sorry you make that assessment about me, it's quote inaccurate. I never said to not know the rules. I never said to not use the rules in defending your "side" of the disagreement. I never said I was "too lazy" to look up and know a rule. What I did say is if there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules then each state your case concisely. If both sides are unwilling to cede then the quickest resolution is to use a die roll and move on. Makes for quick game flow, avoids argument, and settles the issue. Of course, as I said before, this relies on mature players.

"The most important rule about playing games of Warhammer 40,000 is to have fun! Now while having fun may often be gained by mercilessly crushing your opponent's forces, never ever forget that you are BOTH there to have fun. Whenever you play a game, you and your opponent are basically agreeing to duel according to a set of fairly abstract rules, with a theoretical ground scale, using representative forces and a thousand other subtle agreements that go together to make it work.

The battle itself is a shared experience and great entertainment for both sides if they are both willing to make it so. No one particularly enjoys playing a game with someone who is overwrought, irascible and generally mean, or who only plays to win at all costs. That kind of player soon has difficulty finding opponents because they simply aren't much fun to game against. So the most important rule is to play nice and treat your opponent with the respect you would wish to get back from them so that you both have a (sic) enjoyable and exciting game. If you can do that AND mercilessly crush their forces at the same time, then you really are a winner."

BGB

Personally I hold that if you're going to get angry about it at all, then it's ceased to be a game to you and then you need to re-evaluate if you should even be playing or not. In a tournament, you go with the ruling of the judges (or whatever they are called) and move on. If you're the one trying to use an army based on a contraversial rule, well we've discussed that above. If your opponent is and they get the ruling on their side, then beat them anyway. If you don't beat them, shake hands gracefully at the end and politely voice your opinion on the ruling with the judge afterwards.

You seem like a nice and reasonable person, but this for me betrays a lack of understanding of competition and its effect on people. The exact same psychological and phsysiological factors which make competition exciting and fun are the ones that will make it easier for you to become angry or stressed if your opponent seems to be trying to pull a fast one.

If the game draws in 300+ people from across the country, there will inevitably be confusion and conflicts between people's varying understandings of the rules. Is it better to try to play by the rules as best we can, or to allow your opponent a d6 roll even if the rule is clear?

The Psycannon example was well covered in the Discussions thread, IMO. By the RAW, Psycannons ignore bike saves when bikes turbo boost. By fluff/logic, I think this makes sense- a guy driving 100mph (or even kph) who gets psychically assaulted with a machinegun is probably more vulnerable than most, with very likely deadly consequences. From a game balance perspective, it makes sense to me that there is at least ONE way to shoot and wound that damn 2+ save chaos lord on a bike. From the "designer's intent" argument, when Pete Haines wrote on the GW message boards that it did indeed work that way, well, that seems pretty solid.

Yet your perspective is exactly the opposite, despite a clear understanding of exactly what the RAW says.

I'm sorry you make that assessment about me, it's quote inaccurate. I never said to not know the rules. I never said to not use the rules in defending your "side" of the disagreement. I never said I was "too lazy" to look up and know a rule. What I did say is if there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules then each state your case concisely. If both sides are unwilling to cede then the quickest resolution is to use a die roll and move on. Makes for quick game flow, avoids argument, and settles the issue. Of course, as I said before, this relies on mature players.

I think you are taking a comment personally which was never directed at you. He was pointing out that there are potentially wider consequences to this article, in that both cretins and nice-but-misguided people may use it as reason to believe they have a leg to stand on when asking that a d6 decide whether their opinion trumps the rules even when they are clear. And that by sanctioning this approach when used between nice people, he gives cretins cover in which to pretend that they are actually just nice but misguided people when they try this tactic in a rules disagreement.

A couple quick points:

<?  

?How can Common Sense be used to interpret rules?

I agree that RAW states the psycannon kills 3+ boosting bikes dead.  But this does feel wrong to me.  It doesn?t feel wrong because it is ?unrealistic? or any such thing.  It feels wrong because:

 

a)      Boosting is supposed to make a bike MORE difficult to hit, it is, as we say, a ?buff?

b)      Normally a psycannon would have a hard time killing a bike.

c)      Why, when buffed, is the model actually worse off?

 

Does anyone actually believe that GW wrote the rule and thought?you know, we?d really preserve game balance if psycannons could stop speeding bikes, lets word it this way.  I doubt it.  I think what really happened was that it was an accident, not intent, but when pressed GW read the rules, said ?yep, that?s what it says, yer right?um, yes, we meant to do that.?

 

?Designing an army around a known debatable rule.?

This is definitely uncool and bad sportsmanship in my opinion.  When I design tourney or league lists I try to NOT use such issues when possible, so that I can avoid these situations.  It is VERY frustrating to be on the other side of this, and I actually had this done to me in the last game of 40k I played (fall ?05).  Since then, I?ve taken a break from 40k and won?t play for awhile.  Yep, it was that bad.  The biggest problem I had was that the RAW crowd was all in agreement on it, but every one of them said ?it?s almost certainly wrong, but by the rules as written he can do it.? 

 

It was at that point I decided that I had either progressed to a level so competitive that 40k rules were just not written well enough to support it, or I had just grown too frustrated with debating the 40k rule set with folks.  So I needed a break.

 

?What the heck is my point??

The point is that people that push the line know they are pushing it.  I don?t understand why some folks feel the need to push it so hard.  My opponent in the above example KNEW what he was doing was debatable; he even said he?d NEVER do it in a tourney, but he felt he could do it in the venue we were playing.  So he intentionally mis-used RAW to build a stronger list. 

 

My point is that if you want to be thought of as a friendly gamer who is fun to play against, you want to build lists and read the rules as balanced as possible.

 

If you want to build a list around a startling discovery you found on page 85 of your codex  along with what you read on paragraph 3 on page 10 of the rule book and  when combined with the ?clarification? on the 8^th post on the 5^th thread of page 6 of the eye-of-terror forums, well go for it.  But expect 3 things: Arguments, Wins (because your opponent will stop caring about ½ way through the game), and more and more difficulty finding opponents over time.

Beautifully put Russ.

Posted By flyins on 03/28/2006 10:24 AM

Arm chair lawyers are being created by this entire article, claiming to know intent and arguing until they can get a "d6" ruling on a situation in a game.

To me I would rather play against a blatant cheater, because then you can disprove what they are saying, the armchair lawyer is too lazy to actually attempt to prove a point by looking in the rule so they say "let's d6 it".

I'm sorry you make that assessment about me, it's quote inaccurate. I never said to not know the rules. I never said to not use the rules in defending your "side" of the disagreement. I never said I was "too lazy" to look up and know a rule. What I did say is if there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules then each state your case concisely. If both sides are unwilling to cede then the quickest resolution is to use a die roll and move on. Makes for quick game flow, avoids argument, and settles the issue. Of course, as I said before, this relies on mature players.

I'm sorry Flyins, but when did I say that YOU were the target of my comment? I was making a general statement about what I feel the effects of the article in WD is going to create. I never once said that you are any part of my statement. Please refrain from assuming that I would single you or anyone else out without specifically stating that I am doing so. You could've saved yourself a whole paragraph of typing and ending said paragraph with a ridiculous hidden insult.

Does anyone actually believe that GW wrote the rule and thought?you know, we?d really preserve game balance if psycannons could stop speeding bikes, lets word it this way. I doubt it. I think what really happened was that it was an accident, not intent, but when pressed GW read the rules, said ?yep, that?s what it says, yer right?um, yes, we meant to do that.?

I have no doubt thats what GW INTENDED.

BUT

I'm not willing to conceed it until GW puts it in a FAQ. Its rewarding bad behavior on GW's part. If they want the psycannon rules to say it, THEY need to get off their lazy butt and do so. If their so intent on laying claim to the idea that they, GW are the porche of miniature gaming, then they need to SHOW ME that in their product.

Their sloppy "good enough" ethic belays their intent. Hire a real editor for god sakes....

As long as Psycannons ignore a save due to dodging things with lightning reflexes, I see no problem with them popping a bike that's moving really fast.

You have no basis to support your claim. No one will accept what you are saying unless they are a complete novice to the game. That is called talking junk.

Precisely. Just like the "Rules Lawyers are bad" article. It's junk.

"There woz a great editorial in the latest WD by a lawyer who is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against rules lawyering and gave some great examples to support his case. Basically he woz saying RAW is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be interpreted because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never support RAW anymore."

Translation:

There [was] a [largley pointless] editorial in the latest WD by [someone who says he is] a lawyer who [says he] is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against [following the rules] and gave some [flawed] examples to [derail] his case. Basically he [was] saying [playing by the rules] is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be [skewed to whatever you feel like at the time] because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never [play by the rules] anymore.

BYE

There [was] a [largley pointless] editorial in the latest WD by [someone who says he is] a lawyer who [says he] is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against [following the rules] and gave some [flawed] examples to [derail] his case. Basically he [was] saying [playing by the rules] is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be [skewed to whatever you feel like at the time] because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never [play by the rules] anymore.

Sigged, you magnificent cynical bastard!

Playing RAW is impossible. You cannot play RAW period, simply because the Rules as currently written still need some opinion based interpretation. Until GW writes a clear Rulebook, no one can possibly play RAW without contradiction.

I so love the people who argue that RAW is the only way when it really does not exist.

This is the dumbest argument ever.

You can play RAW when the rules are clear. The fact that some rules are ambiguously explained does not mean that everyone can argue with any bit of rules they don't like.

I'm sorry Flyins, but when did I say that YOU were the target of my comment? I was making a general statement about what I feel the effects of the article in WD is going to create. I never once said that you are any part of my statement. Please refrain from assuming that I would single you or anyone else out without specifically stating that I am doing so. You could've saved yourself a whole paragraph of typing and ending said paragraph with a ridiculous hidden insult.

Being that your post directly addressed talking about rolling a d6, something I stated several times in multiple posts, it was a fair assessment that you were responding to me. If not, then I apologize for mistaking what appeared to be a direct response to me by any rational person.

I in no way made any insult attempt at you. If I were to insult you, I'd come right out and say it. Subtlety can be left to politics. Please refrain from assuming insult were none is present, my comments on maturity were stated several times before as well. Please feel free to actually read the entire topic if you don't know what I'm referring to. Thanks.

There [was] a [largley pointless] editorial in the latest WD by [someone who says he is] a lawyer who [says he] is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against [following the rules] and gave some [flawed] examples to [derail] his case. Basically he [was] saying [playing by the rules] is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be [skewed to whatever you feel like at the time] because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never [play by the rules] anymore.

Garbage, plain and simple.  We've already spoken above (again if you actually read the entire topic) that it is impossible to play STRICTLY by RAW.  There must be SOME level of assumption of intent to actually get through a game at all.  Your assertion that the writer of the article doesn't want to play by the rules is childish and inaccurate at best.  Saying he suggests one can "skew the rules to whatever you feel like at the time" is as well.  Try a rational, mature argument for once.  I know that's rare on dakka, but please, try.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I would take you a lot more seriously if you did. 

I in no way made any insult attempt at you. If I were to insult you, I'd come right out and say it. Subtlety can be left to politics. Please refrain from assuming insult were none is present

Now you know where I am coming from.

No reasonable need to assume I was referring directly to you, just like there is no reasonable need to assume you were insulting...

see my point?

"Your assertion that the writer of the article doesn't want to play by the rules is childish and inaccurate at best."

The writer of the article very clearly states he doesn't want to play by the rules himself, as evidenced by his claim that he's going to take an armor save with a turbo boosted bike.

Try a rational, mature argument for once.  I know that's rare on dakka, but please, try.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I would take you a lot more seriously if you did.

<?

Now flyins, that's hardly fair.  There are LOTS of rational arguments on Dakka.  Rational arguments by HBMC...on the other hand. ;-)

Let's just say that if you assume all the article writter's statements about his career, gaming history, and association with Dakka are true, you'd be a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">LOT</st1:place> closter to the truth than if you assumed they were false.

Let's pick appart HBMC's comments as he picked appart the article author's.  It seems only fair:

[largely pointless] - Clearly not true.  The point of an editorial is to foster debate on an issue.  Here at Dakka there are no less than 3 threads debating the topic, as I?m sure there are elsewhere.  Since there is debate, the editorial had a point.

 [someone who says he is] a lawyer - He says he is a lawyer because he is.  I know him.

[says he] is a member of Dakka Dakka ? again, he says it because he is.

[flawed] examples to [derail] his case ? How flawed these example are is also debatable because there is discussion about them.  If they are debatable, then they support his argument that the RaW can be interpreted different ways.  Who better than a lawyer to understand that individuals can interpret the exact same language different ways?

[playing by the rules] is total rubbish ? No, that is not what the article says.  The article attempts to illustrate that no mater the writing some interpretation is always required.  BTW, HBMC, I?m fairly certain that you?ve stated elsewhere that you play by house rules with your friends.  So your group has already discovered that playing RaW is not possible?have they not?

[skewed to whatever you feel like at the time] ? The point was that anyone can attempt this, no matter how the rules are written, and without common sense and courtesy, it will occur. 

 

Now here is something that happened just recently and I found very funny. One of the playtesters told a group in my area recently that the development team was aware of the psycannon situation with turbo boosting as soon as the new rule was developed. Wot he said woz the developers felt turbo boosting is cowardly so the Space Marines deserve no armor save when they speed their bikes. This positively proves there is no way anyone can rightly say what is the true intent of a game designer.

Even better the unofficial FAQ on GW's own forums says he gets no save.

BloodyT said: "Wot he said woz the developers felt turbo boosting is cowardly so the Space Marines deserve no armor save when they speed their bikes. This positively proves there is no way anyone can rightly say what is the true intent of a game designer."

Wow.

Just, wow.

Since HBMC did a great a job on translating the last one from BloodyT, can we get him to work on this one too?

I lost a lot of respect when I heard that. Still I love the game. :-) Know wot I mean?

OT but I think wot and woz have vaulted to the top of the "internet shorthand that makes jeff red and shaky with rage" list

Now you know where I am coming from.

No reasonable need to assume I was referring directly to you, just like there is no reasonable need to assume you were insulting...

see my point?

Being that your post directly addressed talking about rolling a d6, something I stated several times in multiple posts, it was a fair assessment that you were responding to me.

Enough said there.

The writer of the article very clearly states he doesn't want to play by the rules himself, as evidenced by his claim that he's going to take an armor save with a turbo boosted bike.

That is to eliminate anything else the author said in the article. This is not good practice in a debate. I once saw an ad for the Bose Wave radio. In the ad they quoted a notable audio magazine and the review they gave it. The quote read, "The best sound I've ever heard.." The actual FULL quote from the magazine was "The best sound I've ever heard next to my $2 headphones." I would hold that it's not a good idea to take out one piece or sentence of an argument and leave nothing else of the offered opinion intact.

Now flyins, that's hardly fair. There are LOTS of rational arguments on Dakka. Rational arguments by HBMC...on the other hand. ;-)

See someone toss out grand sarcasm and/or insults in a post once or rarely I can forgive. See them repeat the behavior over and over, I tend to ignore that opinion.

Now here is something that happened just recently and I found very funny. One of the playtesters told a group in my area recently that the development team was aware of the psycannon situation with turbo boosting as soon as the new rule was developed. Wot he said woz the developers felt turbo boosting is cowardly so the Space Marines deserve no armor save when they speed their bikes. This positively proves there is no way anyone can rightly say what is the true intent of a game designer.

Everyone "knows a guy who knows a guy" or "knows one the developers themselves" or "knows someone inside at GW but I can't say who" or etc., etc.

If I paid attention to everyone who said they knew the latest rumors from the inside source I would be waiting at my local GW shop for the new DA, BA, Ork, and Necron codexes and new models to come out.