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.

Fenrisbrit wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I am of the position that RaW = RaI because rules are intentionally written.

If it is not possible to assault a Wave Serpent (RaW), then the converse is also true; the Wave Serpent cannot assault because it cannot manoeuvre its base within 1" of an enemy model. But GW have given the Wave Serpent an attacks characteristic indicating their intent that the Wave Serpent could engage in a fight sub-phase. So Raw does not equal RaI.

Several models that don't have guns have a BS characteristic. Units have Characteristics they can't use all the time. If GW intended for the Wave Serpent to be able to attack/be attacked/be charged, they would have made the rules do so.

Appeal to Absurdity isn't valid for 8th edition because GW also thinks Flamers can automatically hit hypersonic voidcraft but not someone charging at you from 8.01" away.

GW learned their lesson back in 3rd edition when they gave minor psychic powers (some of which were Shooting attacks) to Daemon Princes (which had BS0).

Fenrisbrit wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I am of the position that RaW = RaI because rules are intentionally written.

If it is not possible to assault a Wave Serpent (RaW), then the converse is also true; the Wave Serpent cannot assault because it cannot manoeuvre its base within 1" of an enemy model. But GW have given the Wave Serpent an attacks characteristic indicating their intent that the Wave Serpent could engage in a fight sub-phase. So Raw does not equal RaI.

Any model without a base (or that measure from the model rather than the base) should have no problem assaulting, or being assaulted by, a Wave Serpent.

Ghaz wrote:GW learned their lesson back in 3rd edition when they gave minor psychic powers (some of which were Shooting attacks) to Daemon Princes (which had BS0).

"GW" and "Learned their lesson" should never be in the same sentence unless there is a "hasn't" between them.

alextroy wrote:Any model without a base (or that measure from the model rather than the base) should have no problem assaulting, or being assaulted by, a Wave Serpent.

An excellent point! Clearly it's intended to give Eldar Gravtanks an weakness in being assaulted by mon-keigh metal bawkes.

And yet we have models with characteristics that they can't use so they did learn that lesson.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
. If GW intended for the Wave Serpent to be able to attack/be attacked/be charged, they would have made the rules do so..

That's an utterly absurd claim to make, and given that you've had this explained to you in the past it's difficult to take it as anything other than deliberate trolling.

The intention of the designers is quite often different to what the rules wind up saying. You've made your rules argument, move on.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'm sure you're usually the first one who rails against "authors' intent" when it comes to rules. In any case, I'd suggest that wave serpents being immune to close combat attacks isn't what they intend.

It might be, but I'd expect a fairly solid bit of evidence to back that up, not just "it's not been FAQed yet".

I am of the position that RaW = RaI because rules are intentionally written. I don't see the need for you try and strawman my opinions when my opinions are logically consistent.

The change to the rules for Haarkon Worldclaimer stand as a counterexample disproving your hypothesis. As does the existence of any erratum for any rule, ever.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
. If GW intended for the Wave Serpent to be able to attack/be attacked/be charged, they would have made the rules do so..

That's an utterly absurd claim to make, and given that you've had this explained to you in the past it's difficult to take it as anything other than deliberate trolling.

The intention of the designers is quite often different to what the rules wind up saying. You've made your rules argument, move on.

So disagreement of opinion is trolling now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The change to the rules for Haarkon Worldclaimer stand as a counterexample disproving your hypothesis. As does the existence of any erratum for any rule, ever.

It actually conclusively proves my hypothesis. GW wanted the rule to do something else, therefore they changed it. Ergo, any rule not changed must be intentional.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
. If GW intended for the Wave Serpent to be able to attack/be attacked/be charged, they would have made the rules do so..

That's an utterly absurd claim to make, and given that you've had this explained to you in the past it's difficult to take it as anything other than deliberate trolling.

The intention of the designers is quite often different to what the rules wind up saying. You've made your rules argument, move on.

So disagreement of opinion is trolling now?

After a certain point, yes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The change to the rules for Haarkon Worldclaimer stand as a counterexample disproving your hypothesis. As does the existence of any erratum for any rule, ever.

It actually conclusively proves my hypothesis. GW wanted the rule to do something else, therefore they changed it. Ergo, any rule not changed must be intentional.

Adding "ergo" to a statement doesn't make it correct. A much more reasonable conclusion is that GW wrote a rule, it didn't say what they wanted, therefore they changed it.

Fenrisbrit wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I am of the position that RaW = RaI because rules are intentionally written.

If it is not possible to assault a Wave Serpent (RaW), then the converse is also true; the Wave Serpent cannot assault because it cannot manoeuvre its base within 1" of an enemy model. But GW have given the Wave Serpent an attacks characteristic indicating their intent that the Wave Serpent could engage in a fight sub-phase. So Raw does not equal RaI.

Just to play devil's advocate, how do you know it's not there so that the Wave serpent can attack grots or scarab swarms or anything that would be able to fit under the Wave Serpent and get within 1" of the base?

"Here we see the patrol of Guardians loading up into their might Wave Serpent, Grot Squisher, for another fun day of hunting and making roadkill."

Oh look, another thread detailed by that guy claiming that RAW=RAI again. That’s fun and useful for everyone...

And we're done here.