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.

If the intent of the BotWD was to have a blanket save against everything magic, why did they add the "against wounds" part while every other regular Ward save item is not specifically against wounds?
Plus it's nice to have them unable to laugh in the face of their hated brothers "lulz, I has skillzbanner!"

Even they have to break thing down into actual game events. A hit is not a wound. And a roll to wound isn't a wound. Remaining moves isn't all movement which is just a charge. There's all kinds of limitations that apply to those very specific sub-phases.

If the intent of the BotWD was to have a blanket save against everything magic, why did they add the "against wounds" part while every other regular Ward save item is not specifically against wounds?

Its not like they added the "against wounds" part they are defining what types of damage the BotWD gives a ward space against. Damage in Warhammer is almost always in the form of wounds "... 2+ ward save against all Wounds caused by spells, magic weapons and magical attacks." It would have been difficult to word it such that it ignored all damage from such sources without using the wounds terminology (as damage is not really defined in any other way), plus adding in stuff like instant kills would give you ward saves against Dwellers and other IK spells that don't normally allow ward saves, then add in the fact that no IK attack allowed ward saves before and why they put the against all wounds language in there. The wounds isn't the restriction it is the spells, magic weapons and magical attacks that are the restrictions that need to be met to get the ward save (I know this isn't the RaW but it is the clear intention).

I disagree that it is a clear intention. Setting aside KB, which the banner doesn't block - see various other threads - GW creatsd a very specific save. If they had wanted to make it cover instant kills which allow saves, they could just have dropped the word wounds. " A 2+ ward save against spells, magic weapons and magical attacks" would have been perfectly cpear. You still wouldn't have got it against dwellers etc, because those spells state no saves of any kind. You would get it against KB and Black Horror.
The inclusion of the word wounds shows the intent that it should only work on wounds.

The way I go about reasoning it out.
First, is black horror a magical attack or effect? Yes
Second, does it say no saves of any kind are allowed? No
Third, does it allow ward saves? Yes
Fourth, does the BotWD provide a WS? Yes
Fifth, how does GW quantify damage? Wounds

Therefore you get a save.

Matt ward wrote both books. He created black horror and BotWD. If he didn't want the banner to work on black horror then he would have totally omitted the ward save part of the spell.

Fourth, does the BotWD provide a WS? Yes

Only against Wounds, Bloack Horror does not cause wounds, otherwise all "slain outright" effects would need to be replaced with the "multiple wound(10)" rule

TanKoL wrote:

Fourth, does the BotWD provide a WS? Yes

Only against Wounds, Bloack Horror does not cause wounds, otherwise all "slain outright" effects would need to be replaced with the "multiple wound(10)" rule

Yet Ward Saves like other saves are all taken against wounds. There is specific permission in this spell (as there is for killing blow) to take a ward save against it instead of against wounds (telling you to ignore the effect if the save is passed).

There is specific permission in this spell (as there is for killing blow) to take a ward save against it instead of against wounds

Nope, it's just a "slain outright spell" that does authorizes Ward Saves if you have one, not "Ward saves as if it was a wound"
Nothing in the BRB says what "slain outright" effects authorizes save-wise, every effect of this category specifically says what saves can be taken (usually none, except KB and Black Horror), they still don't cause wounds

TanKoL wrote:

There is specific permission in this spell (as there is for killing blow) to take a ward save against it instead of against wounds

Nope, it's just a "slain outright spell" that does authorizes Ward Saves if you have one, not "Ward saves as if it was a wound"
Nothing in the BRB says what "slain outright" effects authorizes save-wise, every effect of this category specifically says what saves can be taken (usually none, except KB and Black Horror), they still don't cause wounds

The issue is that you're apply a level of accuracy to the language that the rules simply weren't written with. That is not a good way to work out what the actual rule is. RaW is a useful tool to a point but it is not the best tool to work out RaI in many situations.

Remember that Canadians get to vote, so everyone who votes is Canadian. Therefore changing how Egyptians get to vte would break Canadian law. Not RAW, but RAI.

Ridiculous backwards logic.

Niteware wrote:
Remember that Canadians get to vote, so everyone who votes is Canadian. Therefore changing how Egyptians get to vte would break Canadian law. Not RAW, but RAI.

Ridiculous backwards logic.

That's not even remotely close to what I've said. If you're going to use strawmen then at least use some based on the claim some one has made.

 FlingitNow wrote:

TanKoL wrote:

There is specific permission in this spell (as there is for killing blow) to take a ward save against it instead of against wounds

Nope, it's just a "slain outright spell" that does authorizes Ward Saves if you have one, not "Ward saves as if it was a wound"
Nothing in the BRB says what "slain outright" effects authorizes save-wise, every effect of this category specifically says what saves can be taken (usually none, except KB and Black Horror), they still don't cause wounds

The issue is that you're apply a level of accuracy to the language that the rules simply weren't written with. That is not a good way to work out what the actual rule is. RaW is a useful tool to a point but it is not the best tool to work out RaI in many situations.

How many other rules do you assume were written badly? Wards against flaming always apply, because flaming was just an exclamtion (Drat those flaming wounds)?

Sorry what are you saying? Are you saying it is impossible to work out what the writers meant beyond the most literal translation of the text?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Remember that Canadians get to vote, so everyone who votes is Canadian. Therefore changing how Egyptians get to vte would break Canadian law. Not RAW, but RAI.

Ridiculous backwards logic.

That's not even remotely close to what I've said. If you're going to use strawmen then at least use some based on the claim some one has made.

Ok then, I'll repeat what I said earlier. The fact that you get a ward against wounds does not mean that wounds are the only thing you get warss against. Matt Ward is quite capable of writing what he intends (even if what he intends is usually stupid), and he specifically wrote wounds on the BOTWD. Being too accurate with rules is not a valid criticism in a rules forum. You can say how you would play it, but don't confuse that with rules.

Ok then, I'll repeat what I said earlier. The fact that you get a ward against wounds does not mean that wounds are the only thing you get wards against

You need specific permission to take ward saves against anything other than wounds though. The general ward save rules define only how they are taken against wounds. Thus given this context the BotWD makes perfect sense to mention wounds as that is what ward saves are normally taken against and anything else gives you explicit permission to take ward saves and tells you what passing that save means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You can say how you would play it, but don't confuse that with rules.

And you can state RAW, but don't confuse that with the actual rules...

As a primer - Fling has tried the rules != RAW argument repeatedly in the 40k forum, and warned against it there by Mods. Same should be applied here.

That's not entirely true I been earned for derailing threads. Not for arguing that the GW design team designed the rules, something you disagree with rather bizarrely.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ok then, I'll repeat what I said earlier. The fact that you get a ward against wounds does not mean that wounds are the only thing you get wards against

You need specific permission to take ward saves against anything other than wounds though. The general ward save rules define only how they are taken against wounds. Thus given this context the BotWD makes perfect sense to mention wounds as that is what ward saves are normally taken against and anything else gives you explicit permission to take ward saves and tells you what passing that save means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You can say how you would play it, but don't confuse that with rules.

And you can state RAW, but don't confuse that with the actual rules...

1) Read the OP, you have specific permission to take a ward
2) No other ward save specifies that it is against wounds. Why do you think the only one which does must mean something different?
3) RAW is the rules. Period. That is what "the rules as written" means. RAI means what you think was meant. This is not the rules.
4) Seeing as your assumptions neither make sense (2) or are the rules (3), do you have anything further which will be useful for the discussion?

1) Yes I know and I believe that permission extends to the BotWD.
2) All saves specify they are taken against wounds, why do you think this other save would be any different?
3) RAW is the literal translation of the written text. RaI is the actual rules that GW designed. My interpretation of RAI is just that an interpretation of what the actual rules are using the written text. It of course could be wrong, just as my interpretation of RaW could be wrong (as it was in the other thread about mounts and Murderous Prowess). Unless you are claiming the rules were not designed by the GW design team as Nos believes.
4) Hopefully I've explained them better now.

I am trying to discuss the actual rules using the written texts and FAQs to deduce them. If you do not wish to discuss this and wish only to discuss RaW then don't argue against my posts as we will be talking cross purposes and will get nowhere.

Ward saves are not specifically taken against wounds alone
For instance you can take a Ward against a KB / HKB if said ward is available to you
agreed, a successful KB / HKB usually means that you are taking a wound as well, but it's two separate effects (you could trigger a HKB -dealing d6 wounds in this case- on a Toad dragon but not wound it if you're less than S4)

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) Yes I know and I believe that permission extends to the BotWD.
2) All saves specify they are taken against wounds, why do you think this other save would be any different?
3) RAW is the literal translation of the written text. RaI is the actual rules that GW designed. My interpretation of RAI is just that an interpretation of what the actual rules are using the written text. It of course could be wrong, just as my interpretation of RaW could be wrong (as it was in the other thread about mounts and Murderous Prowess). Unless you are claiming the rules were not designed by the GW design team as Nos believes.
4) Hopefully I've explained them better now.

I am trying to discuss the actual rules using the written texts and FAQs to deduce them. If you do not wish to discuss this and wish only to discuss RaW then don't argue against my posts as we will be talking cross purposes and will get nowhere.

1) Why do you think it can be taken, seeing as Black Horror explicitly does not cause wounds and you agree that RAW BOTWD only protects against wounds. Do you mean that you would let your opponent take it / hope that your opponent would let you take it?
2) The fact that saves can be taken agaunst wounds does not mean they can only be taken against wounds. BOTWD specifies that it can be taken against wounds, but no other ward save does. Why do YOU think that it is written differently to every other ward save?
3) Ok... that is not the rules though. Nobody else means RAI when they talk about rules, because it is entirely subjective. You can ague that any rule doesn't mean what it says, because you don't think that is what was intended The actual rules for a game are the ines that are written down. Look up the word rules ifyou ddon't believe me.
Arguing RAI is fine, as long as you are clear that that is what you are arguing, rather than actual rules.

RaI is the actual rules unless you are stating you don't believe the GW design team designed the rules?

As for fallacious arguments about you could argue anything is RaI you could do the same with RAW (you say RAW says an Orc is T4 I say you're hallucinating and that RaW says Orcs are T10, you can't prove that anyone isn't hallucinating, see how pointless arguments are pointless).

RaI is not subjective however our interpretations of it are, but then so can the same be said about RAW. There is more certainty and more clarity in RAW I agree that is what makes it a useful tool and a great way to create a house rule when RaI isn't clear. You may say that we can't agree what the rule is so we will default to RaW as our house rule in such situations. Some times the RaI will be unclear and the RaW clear yet we'll still not decide to play RaW. Like the Empire Detachments Steadfast rule, it could have been meant to work a couple of ways but the actual RaW was completely stupid so I don't know anyone that played it by the RaW, the FAQ came out and gave us the answer that is was the most generous of the likely RaI answers, but before that FAQ no one could say they knew what the actual rule was unless they were on the GW design team or spoke to one of them directly.

As for the difference in wording between BotWD and normal saves I really don't see it. Normal saves say you take them against wounds "Each wound suffered may be cancelled if..." Banner of the World Dragon says you get a save against wounds. I really don't see the difference given the context of how each rule was written.

RAI is hard to divine from GW's often cryptic writings.

RAI is hard to divine from GW's often cryptic writings

It sure can be, but also remember a lot of people argue RaW just for the sake of it. Whilst others are actively looking for loop holes. These things make the issue seem far bigger than it is (plus no one discusses the rules that are clear in RaI and RAW for 8-10 pages so they don't make the headlines). Remember even in law where language is written far more precisely the spirit and intention (RaI) of the law is what matters not the letter(RaW) of the law.

If GW did write rules as precisely as laws it would create 2 issues:

1) Rulebooks would double if not triple or more in price. Lawyers aren't cheap.
2) Only lawyers could play the game as no one else would understand what was written...

Would you really want that?

RaI is the actual rules unless you are stating you don't believe the GW design team designed the rules?

No. RAI would be the rules if the people who designed the system had written them that way. Except that that would be RAW.
If you could definitely guarantee that a particular thing was meant by the development team, but that they had instead written something else, you might be able to claim that those were the rules. Except they wouldn't be - because what the team actually wrote would be the rules.
If the team, at some point, decide that what they have written is not what they intended the rules to be, they can FAQ it.

As for fallacious arguments about you could argue anything is RaI you could do the same with RAW (you say RAW says an Orc is T4 I say you're hallucinating and that RaW says Orcs are T10, you can't prove that anyone isn't hallucinating, see how pointless arguments are pointless).

The difference being that RAW is in black and white, RAI is not. You can gather a group of people and they can all read the paper which has the rules on. RAI is the argument "I know that X is what is written, but I think they meant Y", which is far more open to debate / silly arguments.

more clarity in RAW I agree that is what makes it a useful tool and a great way to create a house rule when RaI isn't clear

Hang on, you want to use the actual written rules as "a house rule" when the version of them that you have made up is unclear?

Like the Empire Detachments Steadfast rule, it could have been meant to work a couple of ways but the actual RaW was completely stupid so I don't know anyone that played it by the RaW,

This is the actual meaning of playing a house rule. When you, as a playing group, decide that RAW is not what you should play. The "house" then makes a ruling, rather than using the actual, written rules.

he FAQ came out and gave us the answer that is was the most generous of the likely RaI answers, but before that FAQ no one could say they knew what the actual rule was unless they were on the GW design team or spoke to one of them directly.

Highlighting my point above and showing the problem with using RAI in the first place.

Normal saves say you take them against wounds

1) Find any item that that is true for. BOTWD is a magic item that grants a specific ward save. Find any other - I have already provided a list of some that don't
2) Normal saves do not say that you take them against wounds. They say how you take them against wounds, but do not limit themselves in any way to only apply to wounds.
3) It seems like you are trying to compare a misreading of a general rule with the effects of an item, rather than comparing items to each other. This doesn't work; BOTWD doesn't provide a new type of save (which would allow you to compare a BOTWD save to a ward save), it provides a type of ward save. This means that you need to compare the ward save provided by BOTWD with ward saves provided by other items. Read the effects of different magical items (I would suggest Armour of Destiny, Talisman of Protection, BOTWD and Dragonbane gem) and compare them.
Next, re-read the section on ward saves and try and find anything which tells you that it only applies to wounds.
BOTWD provides a different type of ward save which specifies that it affects all types of magical wound, but that is all.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

RAI is hard to divine from GW's often cryptic writings

It sure can be, but also remember a lot of people argue RaW just for the sake of it. Whilst others are actively looking for loop holes. These things make the issue seem far bigger than it is (plus no one discusses the rules that are clear in RaI and RAW for 8-10 pages so they don't make the headlines). Remember even in law where language is written far more precisely the spirit and intention (RaI) of the law is what matters not the letter(RaW) of the law.

If GW did write rules as precisely as laws it would create 2 issues:

1) Rulebooks would double if not triple or more in price. Lawyers aren't cheap.
2) Only lawyers could play the game as no one else would understand what was written...

Would you really want that?

Firstly, the letter of the law is actually what matters in most cases - people refer to it as "getting off on a technicality" when the letter of law has not been broken, but the spirit of the law has.
Secondly, depending on your legal system, most law isn't written. UK law, for example, is largely based on common law, which is previous court judgements. It is, therefore, a very bad example for a game with written rules.
Finally, the main problem, as I see it, with GW writing an accurate rulebook would be that it would be very dull to read - they would have to use the same word every time they meant the same thing, have no fluff in rules etc. That being said, the current system of FAQ>Army Book>RAW>RAI>WIWL works pretty well most of the time.

No. RAI would be the rules if the people who designed the system had written them that way. Except that that would be RAW.
If you could definitely guarantee that a particular thing was meant by the development team, but that they had instead written something else, you might be able to claim that those were the rules. Except they wouldn't be - because what the team actually wrote would be the rules.
If the team, at some point, decide that what they have written is not what they intended the rules to be, they can FAQ it.

No FAQs don't change rules they clarify what is meant by them, Errata changes rules. GW designed the game I find it bizarre that you think what they designed isn't the rules. If you want me to explain in further detail why the rules are what GW made them please PM me on this and I'll explain in greater detail let's not derail this thread into an argument about whether GW designed the rules.

The difference being that RAW is in black and white, RAI is not.

Yes it is this is what makes it a useful tool or a common ground people can choose to house rule from.

This is the actual meaning of playing a house rule. When you, as a playing group, decide that RAW is not what you should play. The "house" then makes a ruling, rather than using the actual, written rules.

No a house rule is when you either know what the RaI is but choose to change it. Or you don't know (or can't agree) what the actual rule is so create one yo handle the situation.

Highlighting my point above and showing the problem with using RAI in the first place.

Just because RaI can be impossible to determine at times (so can RaW) does not mean that the GW design team didn't design the rules. I don't understand why you'd think it would?

If some says to you " Can you tell me the time please?"
Do you:
a) Reply "Yes" and walk off glad you were able to help him with his query, and get confused when he thinks you haven't.
b) Look at your watch/phone etc and then tell him the time.

Then to your numbered section:

1) Every single item that provides a save according yo the saves rules gets to use that save against wounds and by those rules are only permitted to use those saves against wounds. Other rules then tell you when you get to use a save against them if they do not cause wounds and detail how that works.
2) permissive ruleset the normal saves rules only give you permission to use saves against wounds. This is the same argument you are using to deny BotWD as it too only gives permission to use saves against wounds.
3) Yes BotWD provides a ward save. Does Black Horror allow ward saves? Is it a Spell?

Not but as an often times judge at the local tourneys i prefer to know the strictest form of RAW in order to have a high quality rules pack for events.

1) Every single item that provides a save according yo the saves rules gets to use that save against wounds and by those rules are only permitted to use those saves against wounds. Other rules then tell you when you get to use a save against them if they do not cause wounds and detail how that works.
2) permissive ruleset the normal saves rules only give you permission to use saves against wounds. This is the same argument you are using to deny BotWD as it too only gives permission to use saves against wounds.
3) Yes BotWD provides a ward save. Does Black Horror allow ward saves? Is it a Spell?

You are absolutely wrong about 1 and 2. Unless you can demonstrate where it is written, or even implied. The rules define what a ward save is, without any reference to wounds in that description. They then give an example of how that works for wounds, but that is not the same as defining the scope of a ward save.
Items which detail specific circumstances in which they can be used can only ever be used in those circumstances. Seeing as you want to think about what was intended instead of what is written, do you think that Mat Ward might have been indicating that he intended something different when he decided to use different language than for any other item? Including items in the same army book. Is that not pretty clear sign of intent?

As to your question, in the street I would give the time. In a court, I would answer "Yes" and leave it at that. Giving extra information in court is really bad practice.

FAQs don't change rules

This would be true a) if GW used Errata properly and b) If FAQs didn't sometimes change to be the exact opposite of what they previously were - crumble and overrun for example.

No a house rule is when you either know what the RaW is but choose to change it. Or you don't know (or can't agree) what the actual rule is so create one to handle the situation.

Fixed that for you.

 HoverBoy wrote:
Not but as an often times judge at the local tourneys i prefer to know the strictest form of RAW in order to have a high quality rules pack for events.

I completely agree with this. I just don't think we should lose sight of the fact that RaW =/= The Rules as many people claim. RaW has its place and is a very useful tool. Only on internet forums and in tournaments do I ever come across the idea that RaI isn't the rules and in person no one has ever stuck yo that when pointed out that GW designs the rules. Only on the Internet's do I ever see people claiming the rulebook overrides the writers.

I completely agree with this. I just don't think we should lose sight of the fact that RaW =/= The Rules as many people claim. RaW has its place and is a very useful tool. Only on internet forums and in tournaments do I ever come across the idea that RaI isn't the rules and in person no one has ever stuck yo that when pointed out that GW designs the rules. Only on the Internet's do I ever see people claiming the rulebook overrides the writers.

The only time that could ever matter is if you were playing with a developer. Apart from that, you have what the developers have written. That is what people usually refer to as the rules.
RAI = what people make up when they think the actual rules don't work / they don't understand the rules. Unless you are a developer or are with one, you have no basis to say that what they wrote is not what they intended and even less basis to over rule what is written.