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.

I was reading a lot of past threads where RAW was being debated over fluff. How it can be dangerous to allow "fluff" decide a rules question and that everyone should play by the rules. The other side of the argument is that having rules make sense and adhere to the "fluff" makes the game more enjoyable and fun.

I couldn't help but laughing at the whole idea of RAW over "fluff". The entireties of the rules have been based on "fluff". Why are there stats for a monster/alien hybrid? Someone created a story with a monster that stalked victims from the darkness and killed them without being seen. Then that same person or someone else wrote rules to represent that.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that it is ok to apply the same reasoning after the Rules have been Written, it was how they were created in the first place.

Hope this makes sense and no I am not trying to start a flame war. Just trying to add some perspective to the discussion of rules that I think a lot of us are missing.

Here is another example; a movie has zombies in it. 50% or so fans will hate it because the zombies can run. Why, just because one movie before it didn't have them running? Kind of silly, it’s a story the writer can do what he wants as long as it makes it fun and enjoyable to watch.

lol they would be better off completely seperating fluff excerpts from the codexes

I wouldn’t say the rules are based solely off the fluff. The writers create an idea within the fluff of 40K, and then a game designer has to look at it and say "how would that work believably and consistently with the 40k universe?" Then the game designer has to take his interpretation of the idea and give it a set a rules which accurately depict it while keeping it balanced with other aspects of the game.

Take large Tyranid creatures for example. The game designers have to look at a line of fluff such as "The greatest of the creatures in a Tyranid horde are the towering behemoths whose raw strength and size enable them to smash through the armour of tanks and tear down bastions with ease." and decide that this doesn't mean they can just destroy any vehicles and bastions, but instead means that they are Monstrous Creatures with a Str characteristic of 9 or 10.

The game designers have done their best to provide solid and consistant rules for the warriors of their universe. If we were to throw those out in favour of our own interpretations of the fluff we wouldn't be playing a fun tabletop game, we'd be arguing who's fluff is right.

Also if you go by the fluff then Space Marines become just appallingly OP, and no one wants that.

The problem with fluff vs. RAW is it is difficult to produce consistent fluff based interpretations of rules. This is why R.A.W. sets the standard by which players begin playing the game and lays the foundation for their interactions.

Mutual agreement and discussion (TMIR) is then appropriate to add additional flavor to the game in scenarios where R.A.W. diverges from intent or where multiple R.A.W. arguments have the same or similar logical validity.

Lol if fluff took precedent my kharn would be unkillable because all weapons would be mysteriously deflected away from him
In game? He can definitely be killed

When you are playing a game with no Game Master/DM/judge ensuring fairness, you need some kind of standard of play to make sure both sides understand how the game will work. That standard is the rules. Without rules you aren't playing a game. You're just playing, in the manner of children in the sandbox.

If you let the background decide the rules, you will never have consistent rules because the background is written from each army's perspective. The background in your Codex Space Marines is not going to tell you a bunch of stories about your space marines getting their tin-plated asses handed to them. The same thing with my Codex Eldar. So when we meet for a game, without a common and objective ruleset, you think your space marines need to always win because your background says they do and I think my Eldar need to always win because my background says so. And then we waste hours arguing about background rather than actually playing the game.

Now, that's not to say the rules as written in the rulebook are the only rules you can use. There is nothing wrong with making house rules, home-made special characters, vehicles or units, scenarios, or even re-writing entire codicies if you want. And these things don't have to be fair in a strictly play-tested and perfectly costed sense (we don't even get that with the official product! ) But they have to be fair, meaning the opponent needs to understand how they work beforehand. If you've come to an implicit understanding with your friends about how the rules work and that understanding is different from the rulebook, that's fine.

RAW is not the ideal alternative to just making things up as you go along a la the sandbox. But it is a very efficient way of making the rules understood to both players without hours of discussion beforehand or playing several prior games together to build an understanding. When playing with strangers, like at a tournament, RAW is usually the most practical way forward.

If you base this idea from reading the YMDC forum then you have to remember that that is a place to discuss RAW as it is in the book, many players that argue in there do not actually play pure RAW in game.

For tourny play you need to have a pre agreed set of rules so you can have as little arguing and therefore wasting time as possible. Also many tactics are based on the mechanics of the rules so knowing exactly how everything works is important so since the only thing both you and your opponent have is a rule book then all game rules should be taken from the rule book with no outside sources, or "fluff" to obscure your idea of how the rules work. Hope that made sence.

Personally I see the rules as more of a "frame work" for me to change and play with as I see fit.

I don't think there are really "Fluff Guys" that interface with "Rules Guys" to make a unit, there's usually one or two "Writer Guys" that are given the task of cranking out a single book and then failing to playtest it.