insaniak wrote:
I find that the sillier RAW arguments are usually either made to prove a point (presenting a silly argument to illustrate the flaws in a particular line of reasoning, generally) or just something to discuss for the sake of discussion.

Of course, exactly where to draw the line is different for everyone. To return to a recent topical example, when the Drop Pod was introduced as an actual vehicle back in 4th edition, there was some debate as to whether the pod being Immobile meant that it counted as having suffered an Immobilised result on the damage table. One side of the fence said 'Yes, of course it does' and the other side said 'You're a pack of stinking cheaters, there is no way that GW intended for the Drop Pod to hand automatic Victory Points to your opponent just by landing on the table. That's just stupid...'


... and then GW ruled that, uh, actually, yes, that's exactly what we intended...


We've seen something very similar going on with the discussion over whether or not the Pod should automatically lose a Hull Point on landing in 6th edition, with the same sort of polarisation between those who see it as a clear extension of the rules, and those who feel that this is just twisting the rules.

Silly RAW, and taking things too far... or just a difference of opinion as to what the rules say? It's all down to your perspective.


Yes, people get personally invested in this sort of thing. Is that really surprising? I've been playing 40K for nearly 20 years now. It would be more surprising if I didn't feel some sort of emotional investment in the game after all that time. People put a lot of themselves into their hobbies, and yes, they sometimes take them very seriously.

It's just a game. But it's a game that a lot of people put a lot of time, effort and money into.