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.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera.

I'll stop you there.

Nope. That's just what the first line of the rule says. The entire rule says much more than that. If it were that simple there wouldn't be any need for the clarification section, would there?

Unless the clarification is simply reiterating that you don't use the modeled-on lasguns at all any more.

I try to play RaW. There's times it's not clear. Then I default to the INAT FAQ. Beyond that, I think you try to take the 'most sporting' interpretation (aka 'the least advantageous'), unless the other guy is being a total TFG, then I think you fight him on it.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera.

I'll stop you there.

Nope. That's just what the first line of the rule says. The entire rule says much more than that. If it were that simple there wouldn't be any need for the clarification section, would there?

No, the last part of the rule gives a semi fluff justification for it. Does it say "3 of these shots must be Lasgun Shots?" Does it say "only two models may fire non Lasguns"? No it does not. The Chimera has 5 Fire Points, and can fire 5 of whatever the passengers have, as per the Fire points rules. End of Discussion. Anyone saying otherwise are just trying to cheat.

I think everyone knows where I stand on the NFW. I don't see any reason for further discussion as we all know each others positions. I am enjoying this thread and see it as very positive... No mud slinging and name calling... very nice indeed.

G

I play the way that makes the game win for me. WOOOOOOOO. Unfortunately this is how most people are and remain; regardless of whether is RAI or RAW people will usually have some bias when a rule affects them; so in effect if all play this way then things balance out as you have two hopefully equal arguments.

Hollismason wrote:I play the way that makes the game win for me. WOOOOOOOO. Unfortunately this is how most people are and remain; regardless of whether is RAI or RAW people will usually have some bias when a rule affects them; so in effect if all play this way then things balance out as you have two hopefully equal arguments.

Luckily enough, there are some people who are objective enough to not be swayed by it. These people are called "Dark Angel Players who use the Dark Angel Codex"

That's just the way it is people are going to argue for themselves and in their own favor to how it benefits them most of the time.

Two types of people grow old in the world. Crusty old bastichs (RAW) and happy old people who others like to spend time with (RAI).

Lemartes wrote:Two types of people grow old in the world. Crusty old bastichs (RAW) and happy old people who others like to spend time with (RAI).

Uh-huh. Nice to see a beneficial contribtution to the thread.

RaI has problems in that it is highly subjective. Maybe I think GW's intent was to have infantry on Valk's be unable to deploy normally (unless deploying onto a cliff/ruin). How is that any less valid than the idea that troops can disembark normally? At least with RaW, we have a somewhat objective set of guidelines, not an opinion pissing contest.

RustyKnight wrote:At least with RaW, we have a somewhat objective set of guidelines, not an opinion pissing contest.

Are you kidding? That happens more with RaW than anything else (I mean, Look at God Of War, a Massive pissing Contest over RaW there)

Just because I want to make sure this thread goes to 10 pages.

I always play RAW when it is clear, that is why Deffrollas don't inflict D6 S10 hits when ramming vehicles.

Uh-huh. Nice to see a beneficial contribtution to the thread.

Why thank you for seeing the benefit as you have probably seen this argument before RAW vs. RAI like I have since the inception of DAKKA were it goes on and on and devolves into a pissing contest and the threads eventually get locked. Your response is also a classical RAW personality type BTW.

If you use the grav chute on a guard gunship it says if any model can't deploy the entire squad is destroyed... They all have to take a DT... a strict RAW interpretation would say that if any fail their DT then the entire squad is destroyed as well.

G

There are various situations where the rules are either unclear or even impractical and it is better to play by a sensible interpretation than the strict letter of RAW.

The 4e AP1 vs SMF shows that when 95% of the players have misunderstood the RAW and are playing it differently, even GW cave in and use an FAQ to instate the incorrect RAI as the way it should be played.

Gwar! wrote:

sourclams wrote:Eh, semantics. The rules are written in a way that suggests very strongly something is possible (Shrike, infiltrate) but to do so would actually be against the rules. Call it RAI, houserule, whatever, we're adding onto the literal ruleset.

Hmm? I was under the impression that Shrike gave a Unit Infiltrate so it could outflank. Oddly enough, that is both RaW and by extension RaI (otherwise they would not have written the rule as it was written).

Granted, Gwar, this assumes a high-level on competency on the part of GW...something I think we both agree they lack when writing rules (otherwise we would never have the need for FAQs or Errata).

Green Blow Fly wrote:If you use the grav chute on a guard gunship it says if any model can't deploy the entire squad is destroyed... They all have to take a DT... a strict RAW interpretation would say that if any fail their DT then the entire squad is destroyed as well.

G

Incorrect. The very Fact they are taking DT tests shows they have deployed.

I kinda agree with that GW aren't exactly masters of writing rules. But with the scope of the game I'm not really surprised since there is no way to keep everything perfect with new releases, new versions, new codexes, etc. To expect full 100% perfection in the product is like thinking that the $100 car for sale is in perfect condition. There are going to be bumps and parts that are breaking down and you can only fix one thing at a time (actually with GW speed its more like 1 part a year).

I think to go completely with one side or the other in the RaW VS RaI debate is absolutely crazy. You need a bit of both to get the most of the game without making one or both players go completely out of their minds when something does comes up. People that are pure RaW come off as know-it-offs that must prove they are always right while pure RaI come off as crazy cheaters to some.

Now if we all could just find that group of players that all think exactly the same way and all have the exact same opinion then we all could hold hands and rejoice, but that would be boring through so at least be civil and polite about it and let our models do all the fighitng.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:If you use the grav chute on a guard gunship it says if any model can't deploy the entire squad is destroyed... They all have to take a DT... a strict RAW interpretation would say that if any fail their DT then the entire squad is destroyed as well.

G

Incorrect. The very Fact they are taking DT tests shows they have deployed.

Incorrect. The RAW can be read both ways.

Kilkrazy wrote:The 4e AP1 vs SMF shows that when 95% of the players have misunderstood the RAW and are playing it differently, even GW cave in and use an FAQ to instate the incorrect RAI as the way it should be played.

Either I was playing differently to 95% of people and didn't know it or I question whether your RAW interpretation of this may have been incorrect.

My take was always The AP 1 causes glancing hits to penetrate, but the rules said "This can be still be reduced back to a glancing hit due to the target being obscured, (see Obscured Targets and Glancing Hits)" then when you refer to this section it says "A vehicle moving especially fast or behind cover [...] The exact circumstances are detailed later." Then on the following page it does on to detail the skimmers moving fast rule, which would mean the SMF rule is one of the things that can still revert AP1 to a glance.

I suppose I'm just shocked at the possibility that everyone else was playing the other way but nobody in my local group ever encountered it.

What else is there for RAW wackiness...

If you tie the dice for rolling for first turn twice the game cannot go on, as you cannot reroll a reroll.

Your opponent doesn't have to reroll the damage result for Venerable Dreadnoughts, as the rules only give the dreadnought's owner the ability to ask them to reroll it. (Actually, since 40k is a permissive ruleset, they're not allowed to reroll the dice, even if they want to.)

As already mentioned, Monoliths gaining attacks with Weapon Destroyed results.

Feel no Pain never working, as you can never take an armor save against a wound that you have already attempted to save and failed.

Absolutely everything can be contested with a dice off, which makes the entire ruleset invalid.

FNP is specifically not a save, either cover, inv or armour. Sorry you're just wrong there and havent read the rule you claim doesnt work.

You may not take FnP against wounds that you are never allowed an armor save against. You may never take an armor save against a wound you have already attempted to save and failed. Thus, you never get FnP.

I never said FnP was a save.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Your opponent doesn't have to reroll the damage result for Venerable Dreadnoughts, as the rules only give the dreadnought's owner the ability to ask them to reroll it. (Actually, since 40k is a permissive ruleset, they're not allowed to reroll the dice, even if they want to.)

Not if it is a Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnought.

Orkeosaurus wrote:What else is there for RAW wackiness...

If you tie the dice for rolling for first turn twice the game cannot go on, as you cannot reroll a reroll.

Your opponent doesn't have to reroll the damage result for Venerable Dreadnoughts, as the rules only give the dreadnought's owner the ability to ask them to reroll it. (Actually, since 40k is a permissive ruleset, they're not allowed to reroll the dice, even if they want to.)

As already mentioned, Monoliths gaining attacks with Weapon Destroyed results.

Feel no Pain never working, as you can never take an armor save against a wound that you have already attempted to save and failed.

Absolutely everything can be contested with a dice off, which makes the entire ruleset invalid.

Nice. Let me buy you a beer. I'm on Bell's Oberon tonight.

Gwar! wrote:Not if it is a Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnought.

Either way; when a Space Wolf asks you to do something, you do it!

The ultramarine Ultramarines have no such luck.

olympia wrote:Nice. Let me buy you a beer. I'm on Bell's Oberon tonight.

I don't know what that is, but sure!

Lemartes wrote:

Uh-huh. Nice to see a beneficial contribtution to the thread.

Why thank you for seeing the benefit as you have probably seen this argument before RAW vs. RAI like I have since the inception of DAKKA were it goes on and on and devolves into a pissing contest and the threads eventually get locked. Your response is also a classical RAW personality type BTW.

So, because it may eventually get locked, we should all just start insulting each other? "classical RAW personality type"? What? I tend to go RaI if the RaW are unclear.

All this just goes to support RAI and shows RAW is not all that it's cracked up to be. In the end being a good sport is the most important.

G

Obviously you go with RAW if clear. (ie there is only one logical conclusion to be derived from the rles)
If unclear (ie both sides have a valid and logical argument that they can back up with other rules or examples, or applying the strict letter of the rules makes no sense) then RAI.
If you both disagree on RAI then... FAQ/Errata, TO, or dice off.

At least, that's me.
I find sportsmanship points tend to go to the person who values RAI over nitpicking semantics of RAW. And I will happily leave a game if my enjoyment of the game is being ruined by an opponent who is being childish about rules resolutions.

Trasvi wrote:Obviously you go with RAW if clear. (ie there is only one logical conclusion to be derived from the rles)
If unclear (ie both sides have a valid and logical argument that they can back up with other rules or examples, or applying the strict letter of the rules makes no sense) then RAI.
If you both disagree on RAI then... FAQ/Errata, TO, or dice off.

At least, that's me.
I find sportsmanship points tend to go to the person who values RAI over nitpicking semantics of RAW. And I will happily leave a game if my enjoyment of the game is being ruined by an opponent who is being childish about rules resolutions.

This.

Obviously you want to be as close to the rules as possible, otherwise a sense of anarchy is instilled. However there comes a point in every rules discussion where reason and logic is not meted out evenly between people and there's no way to convince the brick wall of your opinion. Hence ask a judge/dice off.

Its important to remember that we're all playing a game here, and the goal of the game is to win. The point is to have fun.

And some people have fun by playing the actual game and not trying to make a house rule every time something doesn't go their way.

RAW, the Necron Monolith's Flux Arc is reduced by -1 each time it suffers a weapon destroyed result. When you reduce something by a negative (resulting in a double negative), you actually add something to it. I am pretty sure everybody will agree the Monolith should not get -more- powerful after you get some weapon destroyed results on it.