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.

The only consistency I've seen in this board is people saying "check with your TO/opponent when it comes to rules that seem wrong/broken."

And people getting mad at BCB.

Would you ask a hobo for financial advice?

Would you ask a (celibate) priest for sex advice?

Would you ask a childless couple for parenting advice?


Have you ever tried to codify the means of crafting a RAW argument? All systems start somewhere, and a heirarchy of Rules sources is a first step.

It’s not a one step process, and I would rather wait on opinions of value until after I finish the project. For example had the finished project included social media as a valid rules source, it would have been deemed flawed from the get go. Similarly, had a substantial objection to prioritizing by time stamp occurred, I would have needed to address that. One step at a time. Noting Indexes, and potential tournament packs is also a good idea.

 greatbigtree wrote:
All systems start somewhere, and a heirarchy of Rules sources is a first step.

The "heirarchy of Rules sources" is as such:

The only sources anyone should consider official are: Rulebook, Codex, FAQ/Errata, and the Supplement books (Campaign Books, White Dwarf) If they come directly from the GW rules team.

That is it, those documents are all equal.

It is a permissive ruleset so specific rules trump general ones.

Social media, blogs, etc... should never be considered official rules.

With the most Recent Document gaining precedence when there is a conflict. For example, the most recently published version of a Data Sheet (such as the new Obliterators data sheet replacing the old one). should always be used instead of an earlier printing.

 flandarz wrote:
The only consistency I've seen in this board is people saying "check with your TO/opponent when it comes to rules that seem wrong/broken."

And people getting mad at BCB.

I agree with both points

This thread highlights the problem with raw arguments. They aren’t about the rules as written. They are about people’s interpretation of the rules as written. It’s highlighted by people’s definite answers on what counts as “rules”. The people are giving them as definite unarguable obvious answers. But that’s their opinion. Nothing more. And as we see they don’t all agree.

I think the better bet, rather than trying to establish a way of examining the RAW, instead develop a method of analysing rules including the presumed intent of the author and the presumed intent of the person trying to argue the rule.

I go a bit like this.

What does the rule mean, in basic terms not getting into grammatical knots?

What does the rule represent in the game?

What’s the intent behind it? (Quite often obvious or even stated, but a number of possible intentions can be considered).

Is the argument trying to gain an unfair advantage that was never really intended or are they trying to execute the rule in the character of the game?

Using this seems to work most times and leads to fun stress free games that flow well. Rules discussions become just that, a discussion not an argument and you both normally end up agreeing a solution and no one feels aggrieved.

Also it appears to be what GW want you to do too, they are increasing discussing the intent of rules and their frustration at players trying to manipulate them. This years faq guidance on wobbly model syndrome for example.

Last thing. On social media. I trust the interpretation of the rules given by a social media term working for the company more than that of the group of individuals on a random Internet forum thinking they know best.

And i would trust the consensus of the vast majority of forum gamers as they are dedicated enough to read the forums where as the social media team don't always get things right and may not be big on the particular game system they are talking about.

I would think most players find it difficult to infer the intent of GW accuratly untill they tell you what their intent is. In instances like WMS they should have written their rule with clarity then players wouldn't hàve to infer.

I'll go back to 7th and ask what was the intent with super heavy robot Giulliman for example.

I think, in some cases, it's pretty clear what the intent is (like Assault weapons being able to shoot after Advancing). But I'll concede that it's not always the case. Hell, even in situations where it seemed clear what the intent of a rule is, GW has come back with a "this isn't what we intended" (the recent nerf to Mob Up comes to mind). At the end of the day, both you and your opponent have to make logical conclusions as to how to interpret any ambiguous rules, or rules that don't "seem right". Because, we're playing this game to have fun, and "broken" rules just ruin that fun.

In the majority of cases it’s pretty clear, it’s quite often stated in the blurb before the actual rule. And intent is only one part of my analysis of a rule. Fluff and the character of the rule also matter.

WMS was pretty clear. It’s called “wobbly model syndrome”. Not hovering in mid air syndrome. The title alone shows the intent was to allow you to move a model from a precarious position to protect it but count it as there. It was perfectly clear. And anyone trying to claim otherwise would have fallen foul of point 4 of the system.

It honestly works, I’ve never written it down before but it has never let me down before. As long as the goal of everyone involved is to have fun then it leaves no one unhappy. It allows comprimise, reasonable discussion and maintains the narrative. I might patent it!

Fluff is subjective and subjective interpretation should never be a determineing factor in a ruleing. Largely because it creates inconsistancy between play groups.

If we look at cavalry and ruins for example

Currently cavalry may ride vertically up a wall to get to the top of a ruin fine.

However when they hit a ledge on the other side they must ride along the ceiling down the inner wall along the next ledge etc etc.

Fluff and intention doesn't come into it. Your telling me GW intended for horses to run along ceilings? However the RAW is explicit.

As to WMS its still vague if I have a 2" model can I place it on a 1 and a half" ledge. It would balance fine so it fits. However ot does overhang so maybe that doesn't count as fully fitting.

That seems a perfect use for WMS.

Fitting onto a 0.5” ledge would not be.

J.Hell speaks the truth.

So using my newly formalised system (which still needs a name) raw isn’t the overriding power people on here think it is. It’s one aspect of rules interpretation. It should all be considered as a whole. The fluff side of things has to be considered. It’s in their minds when they write the rules and it’s often printed above the rule itself.

Each of the 4 stages of the system are as important and as valid as the next.

So continuing with cavalry as the example,

1 what does the rule mean- it states that infantry can move in a certainly way and it lists certain types of model that can only end on the ground floor. It fails to mention cavalry. It doesn’t specifically state cavalry must act in a particular way.

2 the rule is to represent how models move through ruins, how do horses move through ruins? Fluff wise that’s not very subjective, horse do not climb walls or climb on ceilings.

3 did gw intend to allow horses to climb walls? Probably not. It’s fairly safe bet that they did not. If they had it’s quite likely that they would have mentioned it specifically. If they intended for a unit type to move in a unique way (like infantry) they probably would have said. It’s perfectly clear that the intent is that horses do not climb walls.

Is an unfair advantage being gained, in this case it depends on what the player wants to do, if it is put the horses up some 2nd floor ruins? Then maybe. Is the player trying to say their was insufficient move to go somewhere because they didn’t measure up around the walls and ceilings? Then maybe.

So in this case on balance cavalry should not be able to move through ruins in a unique way or end up anywhere other than the ground floor. They should be treated as bikes, vehicles etc.

The system works! Common sense restored and fun had by all. No reasonable person could argue in good faith that horses can climb walls and ceilings.

except RAW overules RAI and RAW is clear so in this instance RAI is irrelevant

Infantry can move through floors and ceilings because the ruins rules say they can

just as vehicles and monstrous creatures can't because the rules say they cant

cavalry are not mentioned so do not follow either special rule. So with sufficient movement they may run up walls to higher levels as they are not vehicles or monstrous creatures but may not move through walls or ceilings as they are not infantry.

and my rough riders have certainly done this in several tourneys to get to objectives

so
1 correct
2 fluff is Irrelevant to a rules discussion
3 Your reasoning may well be correct but it is still prognostic subjective and unprovable so irrelevant when the raw is clear.



problem with any intent argument is you can argue alternatives

vehicles and monstrous creatures where intend to be limited for balance, cavalry units wern't strong enough to require nerfing- iso intent was balance not fluff

maybe they did intend it we just don't understand their reasoning

maybe GW intended for the horse to run up walls because the guardsmen have faith in the emperor and it spurs them to the near impossible - intent imperial propaganda

maybe the mechanicus decided to attach rockets to the horse and chemically propel it up - intent do not question the will of the omnissiah

or maybe the intent was simply that they forgot about cavalry because they can't write good rules - so its simply not intended one way or another

either way RAW is clear and we can agree on that which is why it trumps RAI by default

RAW overrules RAI is your rule. It’s not in any of the books and has never been stated as the way to interpret rules by GW ever. That is all you. And that’s fine for you but I imagine you and I would not have any fun in any game we played.

My system is based on having played 40k for 30 years, it works in a way that considers RAW as well as intended and definitely fluff.

If your happy to have horses running up walls to get to objectives then good for you, but that would ruin the game for me.

But RAW is not the default. It might be to many on here but in real life it isn’t. But the so far named 4 point rule interpretation system of common sense is there for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps fluff is never irrelevant. It’s the driving force of the game. It’s why we all love 40k. It certainly isn’t for the slick and easy to follow rules. It’s the story which drives it all. Models, painting and games.

Andykp wrote:


If your happy to have horses running up walls to get to objectives then good for you, but that would ruin the game for me.

My opinion on RAW vs. RAI notwithstanding, I believe you can follow RAI alongside RAW most of the time with a little suspension of disbelief. At the end of the day, we're pushing miniature soldiers that are mere representations around a battlefield. Just because your cavalry model is at the top of a building doesn't mean the riders in the unit didn't toss up a grappling hook and scale the building, leaving their steeds behind. It is unreasonable to assume that every model would represent every situation they could get into. I mean, when your multi-wound model takes 1 wound, you suspend disbelief that he has a limb blown off or bulletholes bored into his armor. I don't think imagining that a cavalry unit could scale a wall *somehow* is too far-fetched.

Andykp wrote:
RAW overrules RAI is your rule. It’s not in any of the books and has never been stated as the way to interpret rules by GW ever. That is all you. And that’s fine for you but I imagine you and I would not have any fun in any game we played.

My system is based on having played 40k for 30 years, it works in a way that considers RAW as well as intended and definitely fluff.

If your happy to have horses running up walls to get to objectives then good for you, but that would ruin the game for me.

But RAW is not the default. It might be to many on here but in real life it isn’t. But the so far named 4 point rule interpretation system of common sense is there for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps fluff is never irrelevant. It’s the driving force of the game. It’s why we all love 40k. It certainly isn’t for the slick and easy to follow rules. It’s the story which drives it all. Models, painting and games.

RAW is absolutely the default. Without RAW you have no basis for any single aspect of the game. You don't know a mission to play, a win/loose condition, a turn structure, nothing. You need RAW. You can only ever guess RAI. The moment they tell you RAI as a rule it's no longer just RAI, it's now also RAW. The only thing that actually matters.

I don't love 40k for the fluff. Don't assume anything about anybody. YOU like the fluff. The fluff has never been accurately represented on the table. Not just because it's wildly inconsistent but also because it would be game breakingly broken and unfun. Ruin the game for you with horses or not, thems the rules.

I would agree with OP

"Rulebook, Codex, Supplement (Campaign Books, White Dwarf), Social Media, FAQ/Errata. "
Then most recent, then specific outweighs general.

However, many of you know my opinion about what is RAW and whether or not we can objectively parse out what is or isn't a rule for us to call a rule as written. But this isn't the thread for that debate. The thread is about what sources and what is the priority.

For that, all of the above, most recent then specific outweighs general .

 Lance845 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
RAW overrules RAI is your rule. It’s not in any of the books and has never been stated as the way to interpret rules by GW ever. That is all you. And that’s fine for you but I imagine you and I would not have any fun in any game we played.

My system is based on having played 40k for 30 years, it works in a way that considers RAW as well as intended and definitely fluff.

If your happy to have horses running up walls to get to objectives then good for you, but that would ruin the game for me.

But RAW is not the default. It might be to many on here but in real life it isn’t. But the so far named 4 point rule interpretation system of common sense is there for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps fluff is never irrelevant. It’s the driving force of the game. It’s why we all love 40k. It certainly isn’t for the slick and easy to follow rules. It’s the story which drives it all. Models, painting and games.

RAW is absolutely the default. Without RAW you have no basis for any single aspect of the game. You don't know a mission to play, a win/loose condition, a turn structure, nothing. You need RAW. You can only ever guess RAI. The moment they tell you RAI as a rule it's no longer just RAI, it's now also RAW. The only thing that actually matters.

I don't love 40k for the fluff. Don't assume anything about anybody. YOU like the fluff. The fluff has never been accurately represented on the table. Not just because it's wildly inconsistent but also because it would be game breakingly broken and unfun. Ruin the game for you with horses or not, thems the rules.

So what do you love about 40k, I have seen you in here complaining about the rules a lot, so is it the rules and game play you love. Most posters this part of the forum are always slagging off the rules and rules writers, so one can only presume that they do not love the rules or how the game plays. So what keeps bringing them back? Is it the models, the fluff, the community maybe? Something has allowed 40k to flourish for 39 years and GW to become the biggest war games company in the world. I would argue it is the story or fluff. As that is what produces the models and characters we use. If it was purely rules their are clearly better games out there rules wise and gameplay wise. Why do you play 40k and not just those games?

GW have clearly stated in a number of faqs and commentaries that they expect us to use RAI and don’t write the rules to be used RAW. Anyone who has read a legal document will see the lengths of language that lawyers have to go to to stop any misinterpretation of their writings. I don’t want rules like that. Raw is not the go to position. Because if it was, the game doesn’t work as has been shown many times. At some point you have to compromise.

As for the chap saying about grappling hooks and climbing, that argument could convince me. It makes sense, but I would say then that they would move like infantry and pos lose any benifits for mounts, extra attacks etc whilst on ruins. That is how the unnamed system works. It’s a dialogue. I would have said my piece and you would have said that I would have gone, yeah cool. But their horse can’t bitw me 3 floors up if the are left down stairs. Everyone is happy. Everyone is having fun.

 Lance845 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
RAW overrules RAI is your rule. It’s not in any of the books and has never been stated as the way to interpret rules by GW ever. That is all you. And that’s fine for you but I imagine you and I would not have any fun in any game we played.

My system is based on having played 40k for 30 years, it works in a way that considers RAW as well as intended and definitely fluff.

If your happy to have horses running up walls to get to objectives then good for you, but that would ruin the game for me.

But RAW is not the default. It might be to many on here but in real life it isn’t. But the so far named 4 point rule interpretation system of common sense is there for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps fluff is never irrelevant. It’s the driving force of the game. It’s why we all love 40k. It certainly isn’t for the slick and easy to follow rules. It’s the story which drives it all. Models, painting and games.

RAW is absolutely the default. Without RAW you have no basis for any single aspect of the game. You don't know a mission to play, a win/loose condition, a turn structure, nothing. You need RAW. You can only ever guess RAI. The moment they tell you RAI as a rule it's no longer just RAI, it's now also RAW. The only thing that actually matters.

I don't love 40k for the fluff. Don't assume anything about anybody. YOU like the fluff. The fluff has never been accurately represented on the table. Not just because it's wildly inconsistent but also because it would be game breakingly broken and unfun. Ruin the game for you with horses or not, thems the rules.

These questions aren't rhetorical:

What would you do if someone advanced a unit, then tried to fire an Assault weapon at -1-to-hit? Would you deny them the option as it's now RAW, or give them the option?
What would you do if both players rolled the same number for who-goes-first twice, back when the rules were a rolloff and rerolls were not permitted to reroll? Would you reroll a second time, or just accept that the game stalled?

I would go so far as to argue that in almost all cases, the accepted ruling is the one that's not technically RAW here. In those cases, RAW wouldn't be default.

Andykp wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
RAW overrules RAI is your rule. It’s not in any of the books and has never been stated as the way to interpret rules by GW ever. That is all you. And that’s fine for you but I imagine you and I would not have any fun in any game we played.

My system is based on having played 40k for 30 years, it works in a way that considers RAW as well as intended and definitely fluff.

If your happy to have horses running up walls to get to objectives then good for you, but that would ruin the game for me.

But RAW is not the default. It might be to many on here but in real life it isn’t. But the so far named 4 point rule interpretation system of common sense is there for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps fluff is never irrelevant. It’s the driving force of the game. It’s why we all love 40k. It certainly isn’t for the slick and easy to follow rules. It’s the story which drives it all. Models, painting and games.

RAW is absolutely the default. Without RAW you have no basis for any single aspect of the game. You don't know a mission to play, a win/loose condition, a turn structure, nothing. You need RAW. You can only ever guess RAI. The moment they tell you RAI as a rule it's no longer just RAI, it's now also RAW. The only thing that actually matters.

I don't love 40k for the fluff. Don't assume anything about anybody. YOU like the fluff. The fluff has never been accurately represented on the table. Not just because it's wildly inconsistent but also because it would be game breakingly broken and unfun. Ruin the game for you with horses or not, thems the rules.

So what do you love about 40k, I have seen you in here complaining about the rules a lot, so is it the rules and game play you love. Most posters this part of the forum are always slagging off the rules and rules writers, so one can only presume that they do not love the rules or how the game plays. So what keeps bringing them back? Is it the models, the fluff, the community maybe? Something has allowed 40k to flourish for 39 years and GW to become the biggest war games company in the world. I would argue it is the story or fluff. As that is what produces the models and characters we use. If it was purely rules their are clearly better games out there rules wise and gameplay wise. Why do you play 40k and not just those games?

The answer to this is irrelevant to the actual discussion. My point stands. Don't make absolute statements about other peoples opinions. The fluff has never been accurate on the table. The fluff would be unfun on the table. Unless you want Nid SitW to be a table wide effect that reduces leadership on all models and introduces a extra (good 50%+) chance to kill any non nid psyker attempting to manifest power. Does that sound like a fun game to you?

GW have clearly stated in a number of faqs and commentaries that they expect us to use RAI and don’t write the rules to be used RAW.

Link to a source that says this.

Anyone who has read a legal document will see the lengths of language that lawyers have to go to to stop any misinterpretation of their writings. I don’t want rules like that. Raw is not the go to position. Because if it was, the game doesn’t work as has been shown many times. At some point you have to compromise.

You don't need to. Pick up any board game and read the rule book. RAW is not hard. GW just sucks at it.

As for the chap saying about grappling hooks and climbing, that argument could convince me. It makes sense, but I would say then that they would move like infantry and pos lose any benifits for mounts, extra attacks etc whilst on ruins. That is how the unnamed system works. It’s a dialogue. I would have said my piece and you would have said that I would have gone, yeah cool. But their horse can’t bitw me 3 floors up if the are left down stairs. Everyone is happy. Everyone is having fun.

Welcome to open play then. Where you are actively encouraged to make up and do whatever you want. You are of course free to play that way. No shame in it. But again, its the "one of three ways to play" that specifically has no real rules. It's the do what you want version. If you want to play matched then there is a rule book to follow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
RAW overrules RAI is your rule. It’s not in any of the books and has never been stated as the way to interpret rules by GW ever. That is all you. And that’s fine for you but I imagine you and I would not have any fun in any game we played.

My system is based on having played 40k for 30 years, it works in a way that considers RAW as well as intended and definitely fluff.

If your happy to have horses running up walls to get to objectives then good for you, but that would ruin the game for me.

But RAW is not the default. It might be to many on here but in real life it isn’t. But the so far named 4 point rule interpretation system of common sense is there for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps fluff is never irrelevant. It’s the driving force of the game. It’s why we all love 40k. It certainly isn’t for the slick and easy to follow rules. It’s the story which drives it all. Models, painting and games.

RAW is absolutely the default. Without RAW you have no basis for any single aspect of the game. You don't know a mission to play, a win/loose condition, a turn structure, nothing. You need RAW. You can only ever guess RAI. The moment they tell you RAI as a rule it's no longer just RAI, it's now also RAW. The only thing that actually matters.

I don't love 40k for the fluff. Don't assume anything about anybody. YOU like the fluff. The fluff has never been accurately represented on the table. Not just because it's wildly inconsistent but also because it would be game breakingly broken and unfun. Ruin the game for you with horses or not, thems the rules.

These questions aren't rhetorical:

What would you do if someone advanced a unit, then tried to fire an Assault weapon at -1-to-hit? Would you deny them the option as it's now RAW, or give them the option?

I would let them. Knowing that I am breaking the RAW because GW sucks.

What would you do if both players rolled the same number for who-goes-first twice, back when the rules were a rolloff and rerolls were not permitted to reroll? Would you reroll a second time, or just accept that the game stalled?

I would keep doing a roll off because GW sucks at writing rules. Or more likley I would just flip a coin the first time because that cannot create the situation GW has created. Or roll a die but call odds or evens. Because the same thing.

I would go so far as to argue that in almost all cases, the accepted ruling is the one that's not technically RAW here. In those cases, RAW wouldn't be default.

And I would argue that you are playing Open because of it. I am cool with that. As I have stated before my preferred game doesn't use the BRB at all, I play a AA version of 40k at every opportunity. It's easy for you to pick out the most obviously easy question to support your argument. Why don't you try for some of the more complex ones with no consensus on how to deal with them?

So you admit to not playing raw and thinking he suck. So why do you play 40k. It’s not the rules, it’s not the fluff.

Fluff doesn’t have to be the novels. Thematic things and rules are always relevant to the table. The close combat rules represent hand to hand fighting. The shooting phase fire fights. The movement phase represents troops moving around the battle field. If you are happy to imaging horses running up walls good for you. But it isn’t ever going to convince me. For a citation read the first pages of this years big faq. Ge talks about its intent and unintended consequences and interpretations of the rules through out.

Board games do not come close to the complexity and options of 40k. The way you guys analyse rules on here is as if you are lawyers or English professors scrutinising every detail and phrase. With the application of my system common sense, intent, narrative and raw. And balances them all. Equally.

U also say you don’t make assumptions about what people think but you are happy to tell me and others how we should play? But then don’t play the way you insist it should be? Odd.

I don’t play narrative open or matched play. Me and my mates play using the rules we like, and that is why I love 8th. It’s such an open system that allows to play how ever suits you best. We pay matched play missions and rules some times but use power levels and also narrative play missions and rules.
We also use open play rules, homemade rules and units. We basically play what we think is cool. But spending time slagging of the company tat made the game we are enjoying and trying to break the system to feel clever isn’t how we have fun.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
What is a AA version of 40k?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also on your last point, the obvious examples that support our arguments are easy to pick out because they clearly support our argument. It doesn’t reduce the validity of them.

If raw was so clear cut this forum wouldn’t exist. There is very rarely consensus on the raw on here. Hence we need another system.

The unnamed awesome system.

Andykp wrote:
So you admit to not playing raw and thinking he suck. So why do you play 40k. It’s not the rules, it’s not the fluff.

I am going to say it again. This has nothing to do with the discussion. Why I do what I do doesn't matter. Drop it.

Fluff doesn’t have to be the novels. Thematic things and rules are always relevant to the table. The close combat rules represent hand to hand fighting. The shooting phase fire fights. The movement phase represents troops moving around the battle field. If you are happy to imaging horses running up walls good for you. But it isn’t ever going to convince me. For a citation read the first pages of this years big faq. Ge talks about its intent and unintended consequences and interpretations of the rules through out.

Your right. The fluff is in the codex. The shadow in the warp impacts a planet weeks before the nids arrive. When they are days out people start having nightmares and killing themselves. By the time the nids arrive most people with psychic ability and no training go completely mad, speak jibberish, bleed out their eyes and ears, and collapse dead.

No, I won't go digging for your citations to support your statements. YOU provide the link and the quote. It's your argument, you do the work.

Board games do not come close to the complexity and options of 40k. The way you guys analyse rules on here is as if you are lawyers or English professors scrutinising every detail and phrase. With the application of my system common sense, intent, narrative and raw. And balances them all. Equally.

Here I will spell it out for you how it could be better and how it's not that hard.

Good rules writing mostly involves consistent, structured, grammar with defined terms that are used consistently.

For instance, it's good that they added KEYWORDS to units because they can reference any KEYWORD in any rules text and it immediately has a value and meaning. What they fethed up with was structuring the KEYWORDs properly. For instance, how the DEAMON strats could be used on DEATHGUARD or whatever because the keywords were the same. Or how the Tau Hammerhead has problems with Longstrikes ability because the forgeworld ones and his own damn datasheet have the wrong keywords.

This isn't an issue of "it's HARD! CUT THEM SOME SLACK!"

It's easy, and they suck at it. They write rules using conversational speech instead of rules grammar and even when they put elements in place to provide structure to the rules grammar they feth it all up.

Again, it's not hard. They are just bad at it. RAW should just work. It doesn't. It doesn't require a lawyer. It requires a competent writer. No matter the complexity of the game with hundreds or thousands of potential combinations (like Magic the Gathering or any other trading card game) or tens of thousands of potential player choices (like Go) the rules writing is easy if you follow simple structured rules in the writing of it.

U also say you don’t make assumptions about what people think but you are happy to tell me and others how we should play? But then don’t play the way you insist it should be? Odd.

I never told you how to play. Let me quote me.

Welcome to open play then. Where you are actively encouraged to make up and do whatever you want. You are of course free to play that way. No shame in it. But again, its the "one of three ways to play" that specifically has no real rules. It's the do what you want version. If you want to play matched then there is a rule book to follow.

I mean every word of that. Play however you want. Have the most fun you can have in whatever way you and your friends want to have fun. But call it what it is. Matched play requires RAW. Open doesn't. Do you play ITC format? Well that uses ITC house rules. Guess what? It's open play. Not matched. You don't like horses running up walls? Guess what? It's house rules. Welcome to open. Seriously. Play how you want. Call it what it is.

I don’t play narrative open or matched play. Me and my mates play using the rules we like, and that is why I love 8th. It’s such an open system that allows to play how ever suits you best. We pay matched play missions and rules some times but use power levels and also narrative play missions and rules.
We also use open play rules, homemade rules and units. We basically play what we think is cool. But spending time slagging of the company tat made the game we are enjoying and trying to break the system to feel clever isn’t how we have fun.

That thing I highlighted in yellow? That means you play Open. Again, call it what it is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
What is a AA version of 40k?

Alternating unit activation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also on your last point, the obvious examples that support our arguments are easy to pick out because they clearly support our argument. It doesn’t reduce the validity of them.

If raw was so clear cut this forum wouldn’t exist. There is very rarely consensus on the raw on here. Hence we need another system.

The unnamed awesome system.

Yes it does reduce the validity because your argument doesn't hold up upon actual scrutiny. Example: A scientist did an experiment to show how some scientific journals are bs. They "performed a study" in which they sought out to prove that eating chocolate was healthy for you. They pick and chose what data they got from their experiments to support their own argument and disregarded any data that proved them wrong. Point being, they were in fact wrong and chocolate was not good for you and anyone who looked any further then the examples they cherry picked would know that. So the data they presented was actually invalid. Your argument does not hold up when you look past your couple simplest examples. So your argument is in fact less valid.

Open play is described in the rules, I don’t Olay that, missions are listed as open, narrative or matched play, I ignore that. What I play is just 40k, it’s an open version of it but I use matched play and narrative Olay elements as they are determined by “the rules”. So if you want to call it open play that’s fine but RAW it is not open play and people here seem to think RAW is king.

As for citations, I’m not in court I’m in a forum discussing the rules of toy space soldiers. I’ve told you where to look if you are bothered if not then don’t bother, I’m easy either way. And as for my asking why you like 40k, it’s not relevant to the op but it’s relevent to the discussion we are having now but it’s obviously a touchy subject so I won’t ask you again.

I’m here explaining to people how I interpret rules and how it makes the game fun. In this section of the forum especially fun is sadly lacking. People seem to find the thoroughly frustrating and unenjoyable. And then when a casual or new gamer comes along with a sensible question they get met with a wall negativity and very toxic environment.

The way myself and my mates apply and interpret the rules covers all the bases and keeps the game playing and keeps the narrative going.

Stating that an argument doesn’t hold up to actual scrutiny, without providing any scrutiny or counter argument isn’t actually proving anything. All you have said is that those examples were the obvious ones somfind some more.

In actual fact we were stating that playing RAW doesn’t work, the game doesn’t function going off pure RAW. Those examples and many others demonstrate that. The only counter made to that has been that I would criticise GW whilst ignoring the RAW in that circumstance.

So in summary, call how I play what you like. I do. My unnamed rules interpretation system is an attempt at balanced rule analysis with fun at its core and equal weight given to player interpretations and preferences. It is a cooperative system that encourages players to reach a consensus. It’s based on 30 years experience of playing GW war games and board games.

GW are the best and biggest war games company because they are very good at what they do, on the whole. Their rules writing isn’t the tightest but that isn’t a problem if you play the game for fun. Which is why I ultimately advocate a separate match play system with streamlined rule set, more akin to epic 40000. I think we have discussed this before in a thread where a chap was trying to house rule AA (which I now know what means thank you).

Thats the problem you have though the way your mates play and interpret may work for you

But it will differ from the way me and my mates play and interpret. Crtainly from.the way youve described it seems unfair and unbalanced distortion of tthe rules.


RAW we can agree on and it is always the default.

Yes their are a couple of areas where the RAW doesn't work advancing and firing assault weapons, +1 to armour saves in that case yes the consensus is you apply RAI these however are rare and only exist because the rule doeant work.


Are GW the best compnay I wouldnt say so I prefer wyrd and mantic again its subjective - they are the most successfull and they do create good minatures but thats like saying foootball is the best sport because it has the most money and widest playerbase.


Truth is this is a rules thread in general we try not to give subjective answers and when you introduce intent, oppinion and how your mates play your not dealing with facts so you wont get a clear answer in most cases

This is the problem. Every thread that has any serious number of reply’s shows that raw can’t be agreed on, different people interpret RAW very differently from one another.

Yes best was a subjective word to use, I should have said most successful.

Most people coming to this forum want rules clarifications. That isn’t what they get most the time. As I said before intent is something GW expect you to consider. They make that clear in their faq and commentaries. This forum doesn’t work as well as you think. It is an unpleasant place to come and is policed by some people who treat people very rudely and who think it’s their personal kingdom.

I always state that my interpretations are HIWPI. The way my and my mates do it isn’t unfair because if you weren’t happy with my interpretation we would discuss it and come up with one that we were both happy with it.

RAW that’s how you are supposed to do it. It’s in the battle primer under rule number @@ (the rule that must not be mentioned here because it allows fun to be had).

Andykp wrote:
This is the problem. Every thread that has any serious number of reply’s shows that raw can’t be agreed on, different people interpret RAW very differently from one another.

Yes best was a subjective word to use, I should have said most successful.

Most people coming to this forum want rules clarifications. That isn’t what they get most the time. As I said before intent is something GW expect you to consider. They make that clear in their faq and commentaries. This forum doesn’t work as well as you think. It is an unpleasant place to come and is policed by some people who treat people very rudely and who think it’s their personal kingdom.

I always state that my interpretations are HIWPI. The way my and my mates do it isn’t unfair because if you weren’t happy with my interpretation we would discuss it and come up with one that we were both happy with it.

RAW that’s how you are supposed to do it. It’s in the battle primer under rule number @@ (the rule that must not be mentioned here because it allows fun to be had).

Right now it looks like the problem here is you dont understand what open play is. And further you seem to be insisting that you and your friends deciding to use matched play missions but with your home brew adjustments to the rules means you are still playing matched play. And further that this wierd consensus of what you feel is right while ignoring established definitions should be considered rules as written.

You are so far off the mark in terms of what is raw that you are not even on the same planet.

 Lance845 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
This is the problem. Every thread that has any serious number of reply’s shows that raw can’t be agreed on, different people interpret RAW very differently from one another.

Yes best was a subjective word to use, I should have said most successful.

Most people coming to this forum want rules clarifications. That isn’t what they get most the time. As I said before intent is something GW expect you to consider. They make that clear in their faq and commentaries. This forum doesn’t work as well as you think. It is an unpleasant place to come and is policed by some people who treat people very rudely and who think it’s their personal kingdom.

I always state that my interpretations are HIWPI. The way my and my mates do it isn’t unfair because if you weren’t happy with my interpretation we would discuss it and come up with one that we were both happy with it.

RAW that’s how you are supposed to do it. It’s in the battle primer under rule number @@ (the rule that must not be mentioned here because it allows fun to be had).

Right now it looks like the problem here is you dont understand what open play is. And further you seem to be insisting that you and your friends deciding to use matched play missions but with your home brew adjustments to the rules means you are still playing matched play. And further that this wierd consensus of what you feel is right while ignoring established definitions should be considered rules as written.

You are so far off the mark in terms of what is raw that you are not even on the same planet.

Well put

I’ve not said we play matched play at all, or open, we just play using the rules that suit. U label it what you like. We don’t ignore any bit of the book. I have a perfectly fine understanding of different types of play and you or I can call it what ever we like. The issue here is my way of interpreting the rules works because it’s about reaching a consensus with your opponent and having fun. It isn’t suitable for tournaments but that is a separate beast entirely. You have said or shown nothing that undermines my unnamed system and are trying to divert away from That. It works, it incorporates RAW and all other factors, it’s cooperative and it’s in the spirit of the game and covered in the rules. Rule number 1. You don’t like it, tough. Don’t use it. Play your AA home brew version and feel superior, I will be off having fun with my mates enjoying the game and loving the fluff, which you don’t like, or the rules. (You never did say why you play 40k as you don’t like so much of it).

I also understand rules as written perfectly well, it’s not a difficult concept. I just don’t believe it’s the be all and need all that you guys do, even though you play open play with home made rules by your own definition.

And this is the problem here. Some one disagrees with you or sees the game differently and the toxicity comes out again and it’s all very passive aggressive and patronising. You don’t have some deeper insight into the game or the world. This forum and its gate keepers aren’t some games gurus who understand more than others. There is no need to so rude yet again. It doesn’t make look or sound clever and only makes this a less pleasant place to come.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756959.page

Yay RAW in action. Such fun.

Andykp wrote:
I’ve not said we play matched play at all, or open, we just play using the rules that suit. U label it what you like.

THAT IS OPEN PLAY, Get your BRB out. Read about open. Thats what you are doing.

We don’t ignore any bit of the book.

That part where you don't like horses running up walls? That is you ignoring the permissions granted to the unit by RAW. That is you ignoring bits of the book.

I have a perfectly fine understanding of different types of play and you or I can call it what ever we like.

Only if you ar ignoring the book. The book gives what you do a name.

The issue here is my way of interpreting the rules works because it’s about reaching a consensus with your opponent and having fun. It isn’t suitable for tournaments but that is a separate beast entirely. You have said or shown nothing that undermines my unnamed system and are trying to divert away from That. It works,

Look at the title of this thread. "RAW - What are the sources, and what is the priority?" Your "unnamed system" had no place here. In terms of what is the priority you are not even on the list.

it incorporates RAW and all other factors, it’s cooperative and it’s in the spirit of the game and covered in the rules. Rule number 1. You don’t like it, tough. Don’t use it.

Rule #1 is great. But it doesn't remove the structures laid out by the rest of the book. Open, Narrative, and Matched are still very much a thing and presented in rising order of structure to the way the game plays. Open is literally Rule 1 writ large. It has no real structure. Which is why is has the lowest page count. Narrative has structure, but it's wobbly and fluctuates to suit the needs to the story instead of the game. Matched is structured like a damn pyramid (a lop sided pyramid with uneven sides but the architects are just so bad at what they do...). Everything has a rule and those rules need to be followed for it to be matched. When someone comes here asking about a rule they are mostly asking about matched because matched is where that rule actually matters most. RAW trumps everything else there.

Play your AA home brew version and feel superior, I will be off having fun with my mates enjoying the game and loving the fluff

\

I don't feel superior for playing the way I want to play. I bring it up in discussions only when relevant to the discussion. How is your consensus driven system relevant to the discussion of RAW and it's sources?

I also understand rules as written perfectly well, it’s not a difficult concept. I just don’t believe it’s the be all and need all that you guys do, even though you play open play with home made rules by your own definition.

Again, how I play doesn't matter when discussing the actual rules of the actual game. Here, in YMDC, RAW is where people get the answers to their questions. Even if I don't play it doesn't mean I can't help them understand it.

And this is the problem here. Some one disagrees with you or sees the game differently and the toxicity comes out again and it’s all very passive aggressive and patronising. You don’t have some deeper insight into the game or the world. This forum and its gate keepers aren’t some games gurus who understand more than others. There is no need to so rude yet again. It doesn’t make look or sound clever and only makes this a less pleasant place to come.

Yay RAW in action. Such fun.

If you want to take offense I can't stop you. Maybe you can be on topic for the thread? What is RAW and it's sources and which ones trump others. I am glad you play the way you want to play. WTF does that matter here?

Stop refuting him then...

Also, RAW is not the only way people get their answers. Because in some cases RAW doesn’t function and inferrable intent is necessary to make the game work.

Not sure the topic has any steam left in it tbh. The rules are anything published that says it is rules. You apply more specific/latest over core, as a general rule. What else is to discuss? Individual rules interaction situations can be dealt with in relevant separate threads.