Xenophase blade vs an Archon's shadowfield

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.

**JohnnyHell**

Nighttail wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Intent is easy to guess at times and impossible at others.

I agree that intent is easy to see in some sitations, like BCBs all-so-famous "assault weapons can't be fired after advancing" idea. But simultaneously, we had that thread regarding Paroxysm and Counter-Offensive, where certain people argued that the intent is for CO to be usable on a Paroxysm'd unit, which later on got FAQd to not be the intent at all. Therefore it's in my personal opinion that rules should be followed as closely as possible because the only "intent" a rule has is what the rule says it does. If a rule is contradictory or makes no sense (like the 6th ed Pyrovore explosion or current assault weapon rule), one can and should make an educated guess on the intent of the rule and play it like so. However, if there isn't any issues with the rule then RAW = RAI until otherwise stated.

That’s a given, and how I play, no matter how much that other chap may repeatedly try to tar me as a degenerate rule-breaker.

It’s also a given people can disagree over unclear things, and some decorum and politeness wouldn’t go amiss when doing so. It goes nuclear too fast when people start pre-painting others as unreasonable, throwing in erroneous fallacies and generally being douchey. I love a good discussion but hate a disingenuous argument.

**Andykp**

What gets me is when people see a less than clear rule and try to use it to get a wholly unfair advantage in a game. Intent becomes clearer the more some one try’s to manipulate the rule to suit. I don’t think BCB bloke is one of those but for the 30 years I’ve been playing GW have encouraged a loose play style rules wise and encouraged house rules. It’s only the dawn of “competitive” war game that clarity has been needed. In the old days we never had FAQ or errata and the game was a lot more complicated too.

**nosferatu1001**

The classic intent argument was the 4th ed marines codex, where terminators lacked terminator armour...

Arguing raw all the time as being somehow superior, when *noone* plays full raw (as in some cases it's impossible, such as the clsssic 5th ed blocked reserves issue, where the game couldn't continue) is just comical. Been playing too long to realise it's not the rules that this game fun, but the stories you can tell and the laughs you have on the way.

**Andykp**

This ^^^

**Slipspace**

Nighttail wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Intent is easy to guess at times and impossible at others.

I agree that intent is easy to see in some sitations, like BCBs all-so-famous "assault weapons can't be fired after advancing" idea. But simultaneously, we had that thread regarding Paroxysm and Counter-Offensive, where certain people argued that the intent is for CO to be usable on a Paroxysm'd unit, which later on got FAQd to not be the intent at all. Therefore it's in my personal opinion that rules should be followed as closely as possible because the only "intent" a rule has is what the rule says it does. If a rule is contradictory or makes no sense (like the 6th ed Pyrovore explosion or current assault weapon rule), one can and should make an educated guess on the intent of the rule and play it like so. However, if there isn't any issues with the rule then RAW = RAI until otherwise stated.

The problem with that is you have to make a judgement on when a rule "makes no sense" and people who choose to argue in bad faith or are overly stubborn can simply declare that a rule "makes sense" to them. Any debate on here that goes more than about a page is probably useless. There are many rules issues in the game where the correct answer is "we don't know and can't know so we have to resort to HIWPI in order to resolve things for now and hope GW clarifies things". Unfortunately, this board - and certain specific posters - don't seem to accept that is a valid answer in many cases and insist on arguing endlessly to no effect.