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.

snooggums? lol. gosh.

Look, this is what I don't understand, maybe you can explain it to me. As I pointed out on the first page.

pg. 31, under Mob Rule!
"Ork mobs may ..."

hense the reason for determining if a gretchin mob is an Ork Mob. If "Ork Mobs" means every unit in Codex: Orks as you asserted, then gretchin would be an ork mob, and their numbers would then contribute to the Runtherd's number of Orks in the mob. This is the ld10 argument, where the Runtherd gets ld10 from the gretchin but the gretchin don't benefit from fearless because they themselves are not. But they _can_ use the Runtherd's leadership via the normal leadership rules.

I do understand what you're trying to say with your RAI argument where Gretchin don't have the Mob Rule! What you don't seem to understand is that the whole point of discussing this in the first place is the ambiguity of combing Runtherds (obviously Orks) with Gretchin.

And so the question remains:

Are Gretchin 'Orks'?

"Snoogums."

Dr Phibes wrote:

tacobake wrote:Have we agreed that Gretchin are not Orks?

This is Dakka Dakka, if god published a rule book to the universe we could find every single ambiguity and argue them until god either smote us all or published a FAQ. Let's just all agree to disagree and then mutter under our breath about how we're right.

Dr. Phibes, your truth is as transcendental as it is entertaining.

Tacobake:

I was addressing you and the poster named "snooggums". Likewise I make neither RAW nor RAI arguments.

When a unit of Gretchin shoot at another unit the unit cannot choose to use Sluggas instead of Blastas. The models with the Sluggas use the Sluggas, the models with the Blastas use the Blastas, and the shooting for the entire unit is resolved.

Similarly when a Gretchin Mob makes a Morale test or Pinning test the unit can make use of the Mob Rule of some of its members. It is an Ork Mob, since it is a unit in Codex: Orks and 'units' is interchangeable' with "mobs", but it only counts the number of models with that rule. Just like you only count the members of the unit with Sluggas when resolving shooting attacks with Sluggas.

I certainly understand that this is considered ambiguous by some people, but being found ambiguous and actually being ambiguous are too different things. This is not ambiguous. It sure looked it, but then I gave it a second and more careful look. Third thoughts suggest the second look is correct.

Nurglitch wrote:I was addressing you and the poster named "snooggums". Likewise I make neither RAW nor RAI arguments.

When a unit of Gretchin shoot at another unit the unit cannot choose to use Sluggas instead of Blastas. The models with the Sluggas use the Sluggas, the models with the Blastas use the Blastas, and the shooting for the entire unit is resolved.

Similarly when a Gretchin Mob makes a Morale test or Pinning test the unit can make use of the Mob Rule of some of its members. It is an Ork Mob, since it is a unit in Codex: Orks and 'units' is interchangeable' with "mobs", but it only counts the number of models with that rule. Just like you only count the members of the unit with Sluggas when resolving shooting attacks with Sluggas.

I certainly understand that this is considered ambiguous by some people, but being found ambiguous and actually being ambiguous are too different things. This is not ambiguous. It sure looked it, but then I gave it a second and more careful look. Third thoughts suggest the second look is correct.

ah ok ic. Yes, sorry about the snooggums confusion I can be a little quick to get touchy

I say RAI because you're saying gretchin don't apply to Mob Rule! because they themselves don't have the rule. This is exactly what RAI is, it's not written down anyplace so we have to make a 'common sense' or a 'friendly game' decision. Your wargear comparison is a simple RAW situation.

It's like the difference between the philosophy of law and actually being a lawyer or judge.

You should think of gaming rules as being like a computer program, and we are the unthinking CPUs.

Tactics and strategy notwithstanding .

It's not a RAI argument because it refers strictly to the written materials in question. I'm not saying this: the rules are saying this.

Runtherds have the Mob Rule! and Gretchin do not. That is what is written.

Runtherds are counted for resolving Slugga shooting. Gretchin are not. Likewise Runtherdz are counted for resolving the Mob Rule! Gretchin are not.

Nurglitch wrote:Tacobake:

I was addressing you and the poster named "snooggums". Likewise I make neither RAW nor RAI arguments.

When a unit of Gretchin shoot at another unit the unit cannot choose to use Sluggas instead of Blastas. The models with the Sluggas use the Sluggas, the models with the Blastas use the Blastas, and the shooting for the entire unit is resolved.

Similarly when a Gretchin Mob makes a Morale test or Pinning test the unit can make use of the Mob Rule of some of its members. It is an Ork Mob, since it is a unit in Codex: Orks and 'units' is interchangeable' with "mobs", but it only counts the number of models with that rule. Just like you only count the members of the unit with Sluggas when resolving shooting attacks with Sluggas.

I certainly understand that this is considered ambiguous by some people, but being found ambiguous and actually being ambiguous are too different things. This is not ambiguous. It sure looked it, but then I gave it a second and more careful look. Third thoughts suggest the second look is correct.

wow, that is apparently reading a lot of words that never appear in my Codex.

never does it say that "mobs" and "units" are the same. they ARE used interchagably. that said, a "mob" as defined does need to be from the Codex: Ork. but that does not make it a mob of Orks. all Orks make mobs. this does not make all mobs Orks.

for a point of reference Codex:Tyranids:
Hive Tyrants and Tyrant guards are not, I repeat NOT listed as broods. Boneswords never affect them (unless the tyrant is actually weilding one) as they specifically target "BROODS" RAW

Gretchin/Grots are (as I mentioned previously in this thread) specifically differentiated from Orks in the text of the Codex (31). yet they are NEVER stated to be the same in the text I have read.

/shrug

Nurglitch wrote:It's not a RAI argument because it refers strictly to the written materials in question. I'm not saying this: the rules are saying this.

Runtherds have the Mob Rule! and Gretchin do not. That is what is written.

Runtherds are counted for resolving Slugga shooting. Gretchin are not. Likewise Runtherdz are counted for resolving the Mob Rule! Gretchin are not.

By RAW: Runtherds have Sluggas (or whatever they have), so that's what they do and they do it at BS 2.
By RAW: Gretchin have Grot Blasters (or whatever it's called now), so that's what they do and they do it at BS 3.

It's called RAW because the rules for shooting their weapons is spelled out in the rulebook.

Now on the other hand, the Mob Rule! rule is explained on page 31 of the Ork codex. But it doesn't actually SAY that a model HAS to also have the Mob Rule! to count as extra models towards the count to see if the Runtherds have the Mob Rule! rule. All it says is "Ork mobs may ...".

If it actually SAID that, it would be RAW and there would be no debate.

But unfortunately it doesn't and therefore it is a RAI issue and we are forced to come to our own conclusions. If it came up in a game and we couldn't agree we would be forced to
a) d6 it (recommended)
b) throw things at each other (better?)
c) consult a higher power eg at a tournament

If you want to get fussy about it, Runtherds don't form a "mob" on their own anyway. One to three guys standing around inside a larger group of skittish gretchin does not a mob make.

I want to make clear what we're discussing here.

You're saying that Gretchin don't count towards Mob Rule! because they themselves don't have the rule.

I'm saying that that is a RAI argument, it's not a RAW argument. If it was a RAW argument it would be written down somewhere eg in a FAQ. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. But as Mauleed pointed out, "No one cares about friendly games."

The overriding argument in the rest of the thread is if Gretchin count towards "Ork mobs may ...", and it looks like we've agreed on "no"/ FAQ issue/ agree to disagree, other than this RAI and RAW issue.

Bascically I'm saying your argument is invalid because it's a RAI argument it's not RAW.

kirsanth: When "mob" and "unit" are used interchangeably, the text says they are synonymous. And as I pointed out this does make all mobs in the Codex Orks by dint of being in Codex: Orks.

Likewise in Codex: Tyranids a "brood" is a "unit".

On P.31, Waaagh!, Gretchin are specifically an exception to a rule that covers the category of Ork infantry units. That tells us that Gretchin are an Ork unit. Specifically, infantry.

Tacobake:

That's cool, because I'm not talking about RAW, as I pointed out. I'm talking about the information in the rulebooks. Runtherds have Sluggas and Mob Rule!, Gretchin have Blastas and don't have Mob Rule!

On P.31 of Codex: Orks it says: "Ork mobs may always choose to substitute the number of Orks in their mob for their normal Leadership value."

The question, of course, being: "What does the term "Ork" refer to?"

That's easy, because the Mob Rule refers to Orks, just like It's A Grot's Life refers to Gretchin. Orks have Mob Rule! and Gretchin have It's a Grot's Life. This is not about what the writers may have intended or anything as stupid as that. The information is there in black and white. This is about what the rules state.

What it comes to in a game is irrelevant. The players could agree that the mob does not get to use Mob Rule!, or they could allow it to use Mob Rule! counting the Runtherds as "Orks", or they could allow it to use Mob Rule! counting the Gretchin. The point is how it gets played is irrelevant to what the rule actually is, and here we are concerned with what the rule actually is.

hmm, interesting.

so despite the fact that the tyrant guard are not a brood,
a unit of them can be targeted as a brood because they are in the tyranid codex?

wow, good news for me and my reading too hard.

but it sure explains why grots can be claimed to be orks!

Here I thought RAW actually needed to be written.
I guess I must have missed that rule somewhere, but I shall look.
If you get the motivation would you point me in the right direction?

Nurglitch wrote:kirsanth: When "mob" and "unit" are used interchangeably, the text says they are synonymous. And as I pointed out this does make all mobs in the Codex Orks by dint of being in Codex: Orks.

Likewise in Codex: Tyranids a "brood" is a "unit".

can you show me page numbers, please?

Nurglitch wrote:
That's cool, because I'm not talking about RAW, as I pointed out. I'm talking about the information in the rulebooks.

So it is your posit that RAW and what you are referring to as "information in the rulebooks" are not the same thing? May I ask what you think RAW is an acronym for?

Nurglitch wrote:
On P.31 of Codex: Orks it says: "Ork mobs may always choose to substitute the number of Orks in their mob for their normal Leadership value."

The question, of course, being: "What does the term "Ork" refer to?"

That's easy, because the Mob Rule refers to Orks, just like It's A Grot's Life refers to Gretchin. Orks have Mob Rule! and Gretchin have It's a Grot's Life. This is not about what the writers may have intended or anything as stupid as that. The information is there in black and white. This is about what the rules state.

Please give me a page number that says "Orks have the Mob Rule!, Gretchin have It's A Grot's Life, and that's how you can tell," because I can't find it.

Do you have any kind of background in logic? I'm just asking. Because what you may not understand is that being an Ork and being a Gretchin is not necessarily mutually exclusive. An Ork can be an Ork and just an Ork but just because a Gretchin is a gretchin does not mean that it is _also_ not an Ork.

Nurglitch wrote:
What it comes to in a game is irrelevant. The players could agree that the mob does not get to use Mob Rule!, or they could allow it to use Mob Rule! counting the Runtherds as "Orks", or they could allow it to use Mob Rule! counting the Gretchin. The point is how it gets played is irrelevant to what the rule actually is, and here we are concerned with what the rule actually is.

I agree 100%.

I hope you can find page numbers for your posits because I'm afraid I will have a hard time taking you seriously unless you do.

Discussions like this beg a thought I've been having for a long long time. Why can't GW have some sort of interactive page for each of their codices where you submit a question to the computer and it compiles the top 5 questions of the month and adds them to some RSS feed page that is an official FAQ type feed. This would be sorta the reach around we get to make up for the buggering GW gives out every time you have to buy an elite unit that's only sold in metal blisters of 1 or 2.

Tacobake wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
That's cool, because I'm not talking about RAW, as I pointed out. I'm talking about the information in the rulebooks.

So it is your posit that RAW and what you are referring to as "information in the rulebooks" are not the same thing? May I ask what you think RAW is an acronym for?

Do you have any kind of background in logic? I'm just asking. Because what you may not understand is that being an Ork and being a Gretchin is not necessarily mutually exclusive. An Ork can be an Ork and just an Ork but just because a Gretchin is a gretchin does not mean that it is _also_ not an Ork.

Good points. Your first might explain a lot... Kidding. Your second is interesting to this discussion and I had not viewed it that way. I'm not sure if it is necessarily relevant in this case, but I am still totally open to all points of view. Thanks.

Tacobake:

In Codex: Tyranids it's P.34. In Codex: Orks it's P.100.

RAW and what is stated in the rulebooks is not the same. RAW (a.k.a.: "Rules as Written") would demand that every rule in the book correspond to a sentence expressing it. But that would be stupid because not all of the rules expressed in the rulebooks are explicitly stated in sentences. Some of the rules stated in the rulebooks are encoded with charts, diagrams, formatting, and layout. Some are encoded by groups of sentences, and some are encoded as interactions between groups of sentences. That's just a fact of expressing rules in a natural language such as English, rather than a regimented artificial language such as those employed by mathematicians, logicians, and computer scientists.

In the case of Orks and Gretchin, an inclusive disjunct applies for some uses of the terms, and other times an exlusive disjunct applies because unlike in a regimented formal language terms in the language used in the Warhammer 40k rules allows terms to denote more than one referent.

As I've explained there are Ork units and units with Ork models in them. Ork models have the Waaagh! rule, and count towards the number of 'Orks' specified in that rule when it is applied to Ork units.

As for my background in logic? I've done some graduate work in it but it's an area of interest, not my specialty. Currently I'm working on applying non-well-founded semantics to problems in decision theory and ethics.

Nurglitch wrote:It's not a RAI argument because it refers strictly to the written materials in question. I'm not saying this: the rules are saying this.

Runtherds have the Mob Rule! and Gretchin do not. That is what is written.

Runtherds are counted for resolving Slugga shooting. Gretchin are not. Likewise Runtherdz are counted for resolving the Mob Rule! Gretchin are not.

So you are makeing a RAW argument.

I agree that Gretchin don't count towards the "mob rule" because they don't have said rule. Therefore the gretchin may not use the number of runtherds to modify their leadership (I don't know why you would want to) again because they don't have the rule.

Tacobake wrote:Please give me a page number that says "Orks have the Mob Rule!, Gretchin have It's A Grot's Life, and that's how you can tell," because I can't find it.

page 50 & pg 100
Each mob has it's special rules listed seperatley in the sections labeled: Special Rules (Runtherds) & Special Rules (Gretchin)

Dr Phibes wrote:Discussions like this beg a thought I've been having for a long long time. Why can't GW have some sort of interactive page for each of their codices where you submit a question to the computer and it compiles the top 5 questions of the month and adds them to some RSS feed page that is an official FAQ type feed. This would be sorta the reach around we get to make up for the buggering GW gives out every time you have to buy an elite unit that's only sold in metal blisters of 1 or 2.

I have wondered the same thing myself many times. I also wonder why they don't update their FAQs more frequently.

A lot of dakkites have the attitude "nobody cares about friendly matches" ... it's starting to look like GW has the attitude "nobody cares about competative matches". It's almost like GW doesn't support competative play and wants to eliminate it as part of the hobby. This is very evident (to me) haveing read many of the recent Standard Bearers in the WD & have read alot of what GW has said about Apoc and the direction they're trying to take the hobby.

Not sure if they want to eliminate it from the hobby or not. They may not actively support and sponsor tourney play, but they won't be able to eliminate it without a complete destruct of the game as it is now. Why would they go to all that trouble.

I do agree with you though that they seem to be moving away from it. Probably because things are tight in GW-land and large-scale tourney seasons probably don't bring in any real profits for the effort that must go into them.

Meep357:

No. That is not a RAW argument. A RAW argument would be pointing to a sentence and saying that its literal reading solves the problem.

Nurglitch wrote:RAW and what is stated in the rulebooks is not the same. RAW (a.k.a.: "Rules as Written") would demand that every rule in the book correspond to a sentence expressing it. But that would be stupid because not all of the rules expressed in the rulebooks are explicitly stated in sentences. Some of the rules stated in the rulebooks are encoded with charts, diagrams, formatting, and layout. Some are encoded by groups of sentences, and some are encoded as interactions between groups of sentences. That's just a fact of expressing rules in a natural language such as English, rather than a regimented artificial language such as those employed by mathematicians, logicians, and computer scientists.

Nurgly- We don't really care what academia might define RAW should be (as you indicated from your statement). When we discuss RAW here, on Dakka YMDC, we are discussing what the rules in the BGB and the codeci say (including their interaction) and how the game must be played iaw with those rules as they are written. I'm surprised you really don't get that distinction.

I get that. It's just a stupid way of reading the rules.

Nurglitch wrote:I get that. It's just a stupid way of reading the rules.

Then why are you participating in the discussions? We are not in a classroom here. We don't care what academia might think of our hobby and how we conduct discussions about it. If you think it is stupid then start your own forum and do it how you like...

Nurglitch wrote:Tacobake:

In Codex: Tyranids it's P.34. In Codex: Orks it's P.100.

RAW and what is stated in the rulebooks is not the same. RAW (a.k.a.: "Rules as Written") would demand that every rule in the book correspond to a sentence expressing it. But that would be stupid because not all of the rules expressed in the rulebooks are explicitly stated in sentences.

Yes, that is what RAW is, and no it isn't stupid. They are the Rules As Written. If it's not expressed clearly it's not RAW, it's RAI and we're just guessing.

Nurglitch wrote:
Some of the rules stated in the rulebooks are encoded with charts, diagrams, formatting, and layout. Some are encoded by groups of sentences, and some are encoded as interactions between groups of sentences. That's just a fact of expressing rules in a natural language such as English, rather than a regimented artificial language such as those employed by mathematicians, logicians, and computer scientists.

OK true enough. How about this: Off topic, try and find me a rule that is explained solely via some other means than the semantics of the english language. Even a picture demonstrating LoS will have some kind of caption on it.

Nurglitch wrote:
In the case of Orks and Gretchin, an inclusive disjunct applies for some uses of the terms, and other times an exlusive disjunct applies because unlike in a regimented formal language terms in the language used in the Warhammer 40k rules allows terms to denote more than one referent.

Yes, this is what we're talking about. I'm assuming you're referring to the word, 'Ork'. In army list entries such as in an army builder program the terms 'ork' or 'gretchin' are labels. But we also have the expression, "Ork mob".

The problem is your misunderstanding of what RAW is. I'm not trying to be tiresome but the case at hand is the sentence, "All Ork mobs may ...". So via our inclusive disjunct gretchin can be considered an 'Ork mob' because they are a mob of infantry. Sorry if I gave you a hard time about it earlier, I was trying to find a fallacy in your logic, which was bugging me.

Nurglitch wrote:
Ork models have the Waaagh! rule

This is where the problem lies. It doesn't actually say under Mob Rule!, "Ork mobs may always choose to substitute the number of Orks in their mob that have the Mob Rule! rule for their normal Leadership value." It just says, "... choose to substitute the number of Orks ...".

So Gretchin don't have the Mob Rule! rule so they don't get any benefit from being in a mob. But the Runtherds do, and they may or may not benefit from the Gretchin, hence the debate.

What I'm trying to say is, and I know this sounds stupid. But you're shutting down the ld10 rule because you're trying to say that gretchin are exclusive from being Orks because they don't have the Mob Rule! rule. But the Mob Rule! rule doesn't say that the Orks within the mob have to have the Mob Rule! rule themselves. Hence it is a RAI issue, and not a RAW issue.

Beast:

I don't think academia cares about our hobby either. I've certainly learned they care very little about it and that I should keep my mouth shut about my involvement with it.

Regardless, I have an interest in my hobby, which just so happens to be our hobby. In particular I have an interest in how people conduct discussions about the rules because rules are my specialty, and how the community reads (or misreads) the rules affects my hobby experience. Since no one else seems to notice that RAW and RAI are stupid ways of reading the rules I speak out about it, and participate in discussions about it.

Nurglitch wrote:Beast:

I don't think academia cares about our hobby either. I've certainly learned they care very little about it and that I should keep my mouth shut about my involvement with it.

Regardless, I have an interest in my hobby, which just so happens to be our hobby. In particular I have an interest in how people conduct discussions about the rules because rules are my specialty, and how the community reads (or misreads) the rules affects my hobby experience. Since no one else seems to notice that RAW and RAI are stupid ways of reading the rules I speak out about it, and participate in discussions about it.

I understand your Billy Jack attitude towards the way we discuss things here on YMDC. You can speak out about it all you want, but you will have a hard time being taken seriously if you continue with your academia attitude towards this board and its practices. It comes across as very snobbish, arrogant and aloof. You may be an expert at 'rules' in academia, but the rest of us are not and don't want to be. We just want to understand and clarify how our hobby works. Applying academia-type rules disection is not what we do here. Trying to make us do that is the equivalent of jamming a square peg into a triangular hole... It just doesn't work- not to mention the fact that we see RAW as something very different than you (or academia). And you, the messenger of that effort, will continue to bear a lot of hostility. Or people will just start to ignore you...

Not being sarcastic so please don't take it that way. Just trying to enlighten you as to why a lot of people seem to be getting more and more hostile towards you.

Tacobake wrote:Yes, that is what RAW is, and no it isn't stupid. They are the Rules As Written. If it's not expressed clearly it's not RAW, it's RAI and we're just guessing.

No, RAW is only what is explicitly stated in the rules, rather than everything stated in the rules, as I've explained. RAW is asking for a sentence that states a rule, and reading that sentence literally. RAW and RAI are quite simply stupid theories of meaning that were abandoned decades ago by actual linguists.

Tacobake wrote:OK true enough. How about this: Off topic, try and find me a rule that is explained solely via some other means than the semantics of the english language. Even a picture demonstrating LoS will have some kind of caption on it.

The Warhammer 40k rules are poorly written, but not so poorly that any diagrams lack written explanations. They're just poorly written that not all written explanations have diagrams to reiterate their meaning more visually. The arrangement of falling back models in the fall back corridor is the closest thing you'll find as an answer to that request. My point is that the text does not exhaust the expression of the rules, and that their literal interpretation does not always suffice to state the rules of the game.

Tacobake wrote:This is where the problem lies. It doesn't actually say under Mob Rule!, "Ork mobs may always choose to substitute the number of Orks in their mob that have the Mob Rule! rule for their normal Leadership value." It just says, "... choose to substitute the number of Orks ...".

That's only a problem for RAW and a prime example of why RAW is stupid. That we would need the rules expressed in that manner in order for the rule to be stated clearly and unambiguously is false.

Tacobake wrote:So Gretchin don't have the Mob Rule! rule so they don't get any benefit from being in a mob. But the Runtherds do, and they may or may not benefit from the Gretchin, hence the debate.

Yes, I know that there's a debate and that people are debating this because they are confused about how, given that by RAW it's only clear when iterated in an English sentence (or several), the situation is resolved.

Tacobake wrote:What I'm trying to say is, and I know this sounds stupid. But you're shutting down the ld10 rule because you're trying to say that gretchin are exclusive from being Orks because they don't have the Mob Rule! rule. But the Mob Rule! rule doesn't say that the Orks within the mob have to have the Mob Rule! rule themselves. Hence it is a RAI issue, and not a RAW issue.

There's two reasons it sounds stupid, and that's (1) because my argument makes no reference to the intentions of the writers or what the rules should be, and (20 because my argument makes no reference to a sentence or sentences in English that state models with the Mob Rule! are "Orks" for the purposes of that rule and models without the Mob Rule! are not. It sounds stupid because you are applying a double-negative where no double-negative is applicable. RAW and RAI do not exhaust our options (or even begin our genuine options).

Take a mob of Ork Boyz, nine strong. Each model in that mob has the Mob Rule! Since the mob has the Mob Rule! they can replace their Leadership score with the number of Orks in the unit. That makes them Ld9.

This is the standard case. All models in the unit have the rule, yet there are no Orks in the unit. There are Boyz and there are Nobz, but no models labeled "Orks". Going by RAW would mean that there are no Orks in the unit and they could not use the Mob Rule! Going by RAI would mean any of a set of mutually inconsistent things. Both are equally bad ways of reading the rule.

That's telling it for sure. Now for a horse of a different color and such.

- G(reen)

Beast wrote:I understand your Billy Jack attitude towards the way we discuss things here on YMDC. You can speak out about it all you want, but you will have a hard time being taken seriously if you continue with your academia attitude towards this board and its practices. It comes across as very snobbish, arrogant and aloof.

And not taking my contribution seriously because of my perceived attitude is not in itself snobbish, arrogant, and aloof?

Beast wrote:You may be an expert at 'rules' in academia, but the rest of us are not and don't want to be.

Firstly I'm not an expert. Expertise would mean a PhD after my name and no time for posting on non-field related message boards. I'm a graduate student, and I'm applying what's taught in the very basic classes to undergraduates. All of it and more can be found on the Internet, and you can teach it to yourself far more easily than wasting time in a critical thinking or introductory logic class. This isn't 'high-falutin' stuff'. This is basic stuff you should already know because you can read and write.

Secondly, and I may be mistaken, this forum is about the rules of the Warhammer 40k game, what they are and what we do with them when we play. It is a given that insofar as the rules concerned, we do want to know what they are, and we want to be able to figure them out correctly. As you say, we want to understand and clarify how our hobby works.

As mentioned I am not employing academic "rules dissection" here. I am asking people to apply the basic reading skills they should have acquired in high school. Asking people to apply those skills to the task of figuring out what the rules are is entirely appropriate if people want to know what the rules are. Of course I'm not simply asking people to just apply these skills, I'm asking that they apply them methodically, with care, and with attention to detail. That is to say: productively.

If I generate hostility by doing this, then that's not my problem (although it is a problem for the disruption it causes to the forum and our discussions of the rules) and whoever is hostile approaching the rules this way has some growing up to do. As you say people can just ignore me, as they can ignore anyone trying to lend a helping hand. It's just stupid for them to do so, since it is counter-productive, and inconsiderate as well.

I understand why some people are getting more and more hostile to me. It's because they can't leave the personal stuff at home and deal with the subject at hand like adults. They have to construe everything I say as mean-spirited, nasty, acerbic, or whatever. Even in addressing this I've demonstrated that same stupidity when I should rightly ignore any and all references to me, what I think, what my education is, and what I've eaten for breakfast (and likewise treat everyone else as similarly irrelevant to the rules). We're here to talk about rules, yet some people have to make it about other posters, and I've let myself be trolled by it. It's shameful, counter-productive, and very much against what I've been trying to do here.

Okey dokey then...

Green Blow Fly wrote:That's telling it for sure. Now for a horse of a different color and such.

- G(reen)

Can we beat that one also sir?

Nurglitch wrote:
Regardless, I have an interest in my hobby, which just so happens to be our hobby. In particular I have an interest in how people conduct discussions about the rules because rules are my specialty, and how the community reads (or misreads) the rules affects my hobby experience. Since no one else seems to notice that RAW and RAI are stupid ways of reading the rules I speak out about it, and participate in discussions about it.

RAW and RAI aren't stupid ways of reading rules, because the purpose of having rules is so we can play the damn game. Part of GWs success is ... its success. Everywhere you go you can find someone to play GW games with. But you can't play a game unless you agree on the rules.

Look, I've had some of your other posts regarding RAI and RAW and game design on the back burner, I'll give them a look this weekend (game design is a theoretical interest of mine). Maybe if you're looking to continue this conversation it might be best to do it in a seperate thread or via PM.