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.

This one is really just for fun and by no means am I 100% Serious on this one but, could someone please define what the "RULES" for Warhammer 40K are. Having read a bunch of posts and arguments about various situations I am curious to discuss what people concider to be the "RULES" of this game we all love/hate to play. I am aware of the schysm between "TOURNAMENT PLAY" (hard core RAW, WYSIWYG, even keel across the board play) and "Beer and Pretzels" play (loose "friendly" outlandish scenario play). I think the two SHOULD be intetwined as it makes for a more enjoyable experience. (Imagine a whiffle ball tournament, still fun and silly but can be played "to win")

Many times I have seen people refer to the "FORGING A NARATIVE" section or the "HOBBY" section of the BRB only to have another poster state that those arent ACTUAL rules. However they ARE in the book and do have merrit (at leaast I would think they have merrit). Just curious as to see how other people feel about it.

The difference between forging a narrative and actual rules for the game are simple. The narrative is for the story leading up to the game, and typically revolves around the story following one of the armies as it battles the other over whatever backstory someone can think up for it. The narrative part has no actual influence over how the game is played, which is what the rules are for. The rules are the ironclad foundation that the narrative house is built on. You couldn't have a narrative game without the rules, there would be no game, thus it would only be a narrative. You can have a game without having a narrative, but it makes it into a drudgery and doesn't add much flavor to the game.

I consider myself a tournament player, if I'm seen playing outside of a game it's to tune up my army for the next tourney. When it comes time for a tournament game, I don't think I'm alone when I say this, I look at the mission and put my army that I've made into the scenario. I see that I'm playing Guard versus Space Marines. I come up with a reason in my mind why a loyalist Guard detachment would fight a loyalist Space Marines chapter. It just adds something to the game in my mind, but the reason I come up with has no bearing whatsoever on the rules. It's two parts that can go hand in hand, but there should be little to no bleedover between from forging a narrative to the rules. As soon as we start twisting rules to fit the narrative, the game has fundamentally changed. However we can always twist the narrative to fit the rules.

I do the same thing with my Drop pods (How would Space Marines handle this Capture the Relic situation? Why they would get slammed down your throat!) My question and subject for the conversation was "Where do the rules Start and end" and what can we pick and choose to abide by. Many times people will be STAUNCH RAW ONLY players abbiding by the rules as they are written and not divergeing from them at all. However, they wil later go on to state that one CANT POSSIBLY play strictly as RAW it just isnt posible (No rules on HOW TO ROLL DICE, put together/paint your models etc). So were is the LINE between THESE ARE IRON CLAD STONE SET RULES and "NO those are just sugestions" (ie The hobby section, campaigns, Forge World, the appendix etc),

The rulebook has a section titled, "The Rules" (pages 1 - 135ish). The hobby, fluff, and expansion content are in separate sections.

Many tournaments use mostly RAW interpretations because it makes it much easier for players to predict rulings. Determination of "intent" varies from person to person. In tournament settings, avoiding rules questions and disputes keeps the event moving quickly, and helps keep players from losing games due to unexpected rulings.

The rules exist so that anyone can walk into a club or GW store and play the game.

Modifications to the rules, such as new set-ups, units or list restrictions are used in situations such as house hules or tournaments where everyone either knows each other or have mutually agreeded before hand.

I am understanding ALL of this however I do not understand why there would be pages on pages or hours of rules discusion when Rule 1 of the game allows for an easy out. If it doesnt makes sence ROLL FOR IT. This IS A RULE in the rule book. Why then would one need to have FAQ's Erratas INIATS etc?

Dooley wrote:
I am understanding ALL of this however I do not understand why there would be pages on pages or hours of rules discusion when Rule 1 of the game allows for an easy out. If it doesnt makes sence ROLL FOR IT. This IS A RULE in the rule book. Why then would one need to have FAQ's Erratas INIATS etc?

If one person is certain that a rule is meant one way, and the other it certain it isn't, you have a problem. That's why you need FAQs and such to resolve these Frequently Asked Questions.

If someone built his entire army around a certain rule, he's going to be pretty pissed off if he has to "roll for it" each game. That's unacceptable, obviously.