Switch Theme:

RAW in general and latest WD editorial  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

There woz a great editorial in the latest WD by a lawyer who is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against rules lawyering and gave some great examples to support his case. Basically he woz saying RAW is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be interpreted because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never support RAW anymore.

I highly encourage everyone here to read it!


Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

Uh, we already have two topics going on the matter.  One in News & Rumors andf one in Dakka Discussions.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=6&tpage=2&view=topic&postid=47049#52383

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=7&postid=51646&view=topic


'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

Popular, huh.

Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in jp
The Hammer of Witches





A new day, a new time zone.

Man, where is the rolly-eyed smiley when you really need him?

Oh, wait, there he is. And look, he brought some friends too.



"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..."
Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe. 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
-






-

First it was 'nades and now "woz"?

And I swear I saw "'Nadoes" out there somewhere recently...

The pain...

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Frankly, if his examples seemed like good examples to you, then you probably shouldn't ever be debating rules.

You can't teach a monkey calculus. But the monkey will never know he doesn't get it.


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

I hate the RAW and rules-lawyers as well. That's why from now on my Fire Warriors are going to Rapid Fire to 15". If anyone argues it's against the RAW, I'll make them take a D6 test on it.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






To Mr. Stonedogs:

"My assault cannons rend on 5's and 6's, because it just feels right."

 


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Murfreesboro, TN

Forget that; I feel that my assault cannons should still have the 2nd ed. profile. Str. 8, D10 wounds, up to 9 shots, baby! And anyone who tries to correct me is a rules-lawyering bastard who's trying to ruin my fun, and is focused too heavily on the rules and not enough on my fun!

As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely the result of wishful thinking.

But there's no sense crying over every mistake;
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Member of the "No Retreat for Calgar" Club 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

Well it is okay for you to feel that way but probably you are going to have a hard time finding anyone to play... coz you are a cheater.

Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

Cheater because it is against RAW, or Cheater because it is against your opinion?

The former forces you to recant your original statement, as you must enforce RAW.
The later doesn't matter, because your opponents opinion is just as valid as yours.

This is why RAW exists, BloodyT. Without it the game degenerates into nothing more than a pissing match.

"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





A bizarre array of focusing mirrors and lenses turning my phrases into even more accurate clones of

I'm just wondering why any attention was given to this post. You guys took the flamebait and now he's supposedly calling someone a cheater, like the kettle/pot-black thing.

Well it is okay for you to feel that way but probably you are going to have a hard time finding anyone to play... coz you are a cheater.

Prove it. It's YMDC after all.

 

Wow, I took much longer than I thought - again.  BlueLoki, you are obviously daft and undeserving of his comments because he's a god, which means he has no reason to stoop to your fallible human logic which is the basis for RAW.  I guess that puts me in the same boat and I should remove my statement.


WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS

2009, Year of the Dog
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

No... don't get the wrong impression. RAW is a great thing as long as we use common sense as well. I agree with the lawyer who wrote the article that no rule system is perfect and they are all open to interpretation. We can use RAW to see what exactly the written rule states then go from there. So for me RAW is a starting point but not necessarily the finish line.

Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






It's common sense that my assault cannons rend on 5's and 6's. 

Duh.  

And a good rules system is not open to interpretation. You don't get alot of arguments in Chess that rooks move diaginally because it's a great example of a rules system that is properly written.


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

Chess is a much simpler game than Warhammer 40k so it only makes sense that its rules are easy to understand, plus it is a game that has been around for a long time with no new editions I can remember in my lifetime. I think it is illogical to compare the rules for chess and 40k.

Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch






Posted By BloodyT on 03/27/2006 12:25 PM
Chess is a much simpler game than Warhammer 40k so it only makes sense that its rules are easy to understand, plus it is a game that has been around for a long time with no new editions I can remember in my lifetime. I think it is illogical to compare the rules for chess and 40k.


Simplicity isn't what makes the rules clear, the clear rules makeit simple. Even warhammer could have very clear rules if they were written in a more consistent fashion.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

Simplicity is what makes the rules clear.

Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Who cares?

All I know is that my marines have 2+ saves and 4 wounds when I play this joker, as that's common sense.


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Sentient OverBear






Clearwater, FL

It's like playing 40k with Erich von Daniken.  People who liked that editorial should also pick up a copy of Chariots of the Gods too; it's more of the "it's right because my opinions are just as valid as any 'facts' that you can produce".



DQ:70S++G+++M+B++I+Pw40k94+ID+++A++/sWD178R+++T(I)DM+++

Trust me, no matter what damage they have the potential to do, single-shot weapons always flatter to deceive in 40k.                                                                                                       Rule #1
- BBAP

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

You have no basis to support your claim. No one will accept what you are saying unless they are a complete novice to the game. That is called talking junk. :S

Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Murfreesboro, TN

And there's no basis to read the rules any way other than the way they're written. Thus, RAW wins.

As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely the result of wishful thinking.

But there's no sense crying over every mistake;
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Member of the "No Retreat for Calgar" Club 
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

T, the point is, if you take even the slightest detour from what is written in black and white, you open the rules wide for abuse by anyone. Since you are then playing with "Intent" in mind, anyone can claim that anything is legal because of designers "intent".

How do you know that it is not their "intent" that all bolters are rending?
How do you know that it is not their "intent" that drop pods can be targeted using mystics?

Both of these statements have the same amount of worth in the eyes of the rules, neither are supported. Yet, some will claim that the second is the designers intent while the first is not. If you open the door to the second statement, you also open the door for the first.

Yes it is rediculous, but the point is that the only way to realistically play using anything other than the RAW is to play with a group of people composed ENTIRELY of players that share and agree with your EXACT opinions. To do otherwise is to force your opinions on another player who may not agree with them.

Such a group is a rare find, and if you have found one, then we are happy for you. But, the rest of us must play by the RAW as closely as possible, deviating only when the rules become so broken that they are unplayable.


"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




I disagree blue loki. I think it's pretty easy to see, in most cases, what the intent of the deisgners was. What that article was doing was not only making a call for common sense, but a call for maturity in general among players. Maturity meaning someone isn't going to try and call "intent" to get rending bolters, etc. It means people will rationally look at the rules and anything that isn't perfectly clear they will make their best judgment on it, using maturity amongst all involved. If there is still a disagreement, then roll a die on it and leave it be there. Personally I won't play a rules lawyer that obviously goes against the intent of the game, they are violating the most important rule of all, HAVE FUN. Yes, contrary to some people's opinion it's possible to have fun without strictly using RAW (and all it's flaws) and completely abandoning common sense. I know maturity is really a lot to ask of some people but I've been fortunate enough to find opponents that are. Yeah there's always some rules confusion but we always resolve it in a quick and easy manner and of the 3 stores I play at all of them will basically laugh out anyone that tries to defy common sense and obvious intent. The article used the example of the psycannons with bikes invulnerable save. This was a great example to use to show what the intent was.

Ed - I respect your abilities tactically and you seem to be able to make extremely effective armies, but man I honestly cannot say I know a less mature poster on this board. Is there ever a time that you do NOT insult someone you don't agree with? Is there ever a time you don't resort immediately to thick sarcasm? Seriously man, just respnd and refute, you don't need to insult, it really detracts form your posts.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

"And there's no basis to read the rules any way other than the way they're written. Thus, RAW wins."

That would exist only in a world where there are no questions regarding the rules. However not even RAW always works as is clearly evident by the many heated discussions here in this forum. We interpret the rules here everyday and sometimes there is no sure answer as to wot is the right answer.


Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





A bizarre array of focusing mirrors and lenses turning my phrases into even more accurate clones of

That would exist only in a world where there are no questions regarding the rules. However not even RAW always works as is clearly evident by the many heated discussions here in this forum. We interpret the rules here everyday and sometimes there is no sure answer as to wot is the right answer.


...Because there are no errata or clarifications. Head over to a CCG site sometime and practically everything's answered by something from the latest addenda packet; anything that is not is working as intended until later clarified. Even PP or Battlefront makes these packets. Now, would you rather carry around a, say, 50-100 page document with all the clarifications for the game as-is or have the chance of a rules argument cropping up in at least half the games you play outside of your local crowd?

 

\/\/\/ I bet Iorek's jealous because somebody told him his turbo-boosted bikes had no save from psycannons and he didn't have the luxury of this article to back him up. (So what? You know it's true.) \/\/\/


WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS

2009, Year of the Dog
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Sentient OverBear






Clearwater, FL

When the RAW fails, of course you'll have to make your own interpretation, but that's not what we're talking about here.  We're talking about people ignoring what IS written because they're magical fairies that can read the minds of the designers, even going back in time.

-=Edit=- This is a response to BloodyT, not Stonefox.

DQ:70S++G+++M+B++I+Pw40k94+ID+++A++/sWD178R+++T(I)DM+++

Trust me, no matter what damage they have the potential to do, single-shot weapons always flatter to deceive in 40k.                                                                                                       Rule #1
- BBAP

 
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

Posted By flyins on 03/27/2006 3:12 PM
I think it's pretty easy to see, in most cases, what the intent of the deisgners was.

 

I strongly disagree. I think it is incredibly hard for players to argee on what the designers intent was much of the time, especially since 40k appeals to such a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Players who have been in the game for several editions have a much different view of what designer intent is than newer players, yet the newer players are not biased by memories of previous editions and the "good ole days".


Issues such as "Why are they called Scouts if they aren't Scouts" come to mind. Was it the designers intent for Marnies Scouts to have the "Scouts" rule? To some it is clearly NO, as the rule is not included in their profile, but to others it is clearly YES, as the word "Scout" appears in the unit's name.

Another example is shooting at incoming Drop Pods. The fluff says no, but the rules might say yes depending on the reader's opinion of the Drop pod/Deep strike relationship.

And of course, there is the ever-present First-striking Doom Siren Power Fist combo. The unofficial FAQ that cleared up the argument was removed from the GW site. Was it the designer's intent to remove the FAQ because they realized they had made an error, or are they really working on a new official FAQ, making their intent to keep the change yet confuse the players?

How about Twin-linked Tyranid weapons?
Line-of-fire vs Line-of-sight for removing casualties from Ordnance Barrage?
6 Venerable Dreadnought lists?
Inquisitors insta-kill themselves when they roll Perils of the Warp?
SOB Faith countering non-counterable psychic effects?
Does every psychic power have to roll to hit?
Using your enemy's teleport homer?
Do bikes require one hand to drive?
Does the maximum range of Rapid fire weapons change if you double tap for casualty removal purposes?

I have heard all sorts of "designer's intent" arguments for both sides of each of these questions. You cannot expect anyone to agree with your own personal view of common sense, designer's intent, etc. on any of these without first having a conversation about it. To expect such is to invite a very heated debate mid-game. Everybody has an opinion as to what designer's intent is, but in the end each of those opinions is ONLY an opinion, and is no more correct or valid than anyone else's.

Example: I think it IS the designers intent that you can use your enemy's teleport homer. The thing is broadcasting a signal. Why wouldn't the enemy be able to unscramble and lock onto it? It makes sense. But I will not play it that way, because the rulebook is a bit hazy on the subject of its efect on the enemy list. So, instead I play it by the RAW as closely as possible while taking the least advantageous position. I.E. if my opponent wants to use mine, go ahead, but I won't use his until its FAQed.


In the end, if you find yourself adamant about an iffy-at-best issue, it might be you who is in error. Its usually the ones who are looking to exploit loop-holes that fail to keep an open mind on the subject. Most of the time, you should be able to accept your opponents opinion on a debatable matter until it can be researched later. Be a good sport, let him have his way, and look it up and hash it out after the game. On the rare occasion that an opponents list is built around one of these iffy "intent" arguments, then you know that just might be facing a true jerk. In that instance, simply refuse to play him and move on, or better yet, cream him dispite the loop-hole.

Playing by the RAW *should* remove all assumption from the game. That, of course, is what claiming "designer's intent" is, an assumption. You are assuming that you know what the designer had in mind when he wrote the rule. Unfortunately it is impossible to actually play the game strictly by the RAW, but playing as close to it as possible is the most fair way to run the game.

If you and you opponent agree on certain assumptions, then by all means use them, thats called a house rule. But, don't force your assumptions and opinions on someone else, its rude.


"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

No Iorek, that is what you are talking about. People asks rules mainly for one of two reasons... they have a legitimate question, legitimate being they truly are unsure... the other reason is to manipulate the rules for an advantage that was not intended, such as Doomfist. The author of the editorial was addressing type two.

Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

T, you are right. But you still don't know that the Doom Fist was not intended. It probably was not (it would be wicked nasty), but you cannot say for certain without an official FAQ on the subject.

See, this is what I mean about assuming intent, the Doom Fist is a prime example.

Unofficial FAQ makes Doom Siren work like it did under 2nd printing, striking at initiative. Removal of said FAQ reinstates Doom Siren to 3rd printing rules, making it always strike first.
Was the intent to retract the change made by the FAQ? If not, why remove the FAQ before the official FAQ is released? Why was it changed so drastically in the first place?

If you attempt to answer any of these questions with a definitive answer, then you are forcing your assumption on everyone else. Because, no matter how logical you assumption is, you have no proof that your opinion is the actual truth.

"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

All things are taken in faith.

Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: