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.

Gwar! wrote:

Hollismason wrote:The intention of leaping is to give a 12 inch charge

Wow, you must have written a lot of codex's to know all these intentions!

No, I have lived as functioning human being in society for the last 29 years this along with social skills above that of someone who seemingly never advanced beyond games of social grace such as " POW YOUR DEAD NO IM NOT" cowboys and indians which seemlingly unfortunately large numbers of the people who frequent YMDC never have.


The basic idea is that I unlike the seemingly autistic masses have developed what can best be described as intelligence and understanding.


It's unfortunate that so many peoples apparent crippling comprehension of the world around has led them to try and focus their black and white view of people , motives, world events as well as general social conditions to the focal point of a game that people play to enjoy to the detriment of others who view their constant baying to be nothing more than the equivalent of a child playing a game of cowboys and indians and insisting that he is in fact not dead.


It would benefit and behoove us all if some could take a step back and stop trying to reinforce their own belief structure onto a product intended to bring joy to people instead of the constant berating of their inadequate assumption that the world exists in a vacuum and that others may have insight into matters that they do not simply because they have learned to live and interact with others outside in society instead of constructing realms of realities within their own minds.


Fortunately, I do not game with people who seem to be autistic at best and sociopaths at worst so that I benefit from a enjoyable gaming experience. Unlike no doubt through example of words and attitudes many in YMDC and Dakka have inflicted horror stories upon during a game of plastic miniatures.

Hollismason wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Hollismason wrote:The intention of leaping is to give a 12 inch charge

Wow, you must have written a lot of codex's to know all these intentions!

No, I have lived as functioning human being in society for the last 29 years this along with social skills above that of someone who seemingly never advanced beyond games of social grace such as " POW YOUR DEAD NO IM NOT" cowboys and indians which seemlingly unfortunately large numbers of the people who frequent YMDC never have.


The basic idea is that I unlike the seemingly autistic masses have developed what can best be described as intelligence and understanding.


It's unfortunate that so many peoples apparent crippling comprehension of the world around has led them to try and focus their black and white view of people , motives, world events as well as general social conditions to the focal point of a game that people play to enjoy to the detriment of others who view their constant baying to be nothing more than the equivalent of a child playing a game of cowboys and indians and insisting that he is in fact not dead.


It would benefit and behoove us all if some could take a step back and stop trying to reinforce their own belief structure onto a product intended to bring joy to people instead of the constant berating of their inadequate assumption that the world exists in a vacuum and that others may have insight into matters that they do not simply because they have learned to live and interact with others outside in society instead of constructing realms of realities within their own minds.


Fortunately, I do not game with people who seem to be autistic at best and sociopaths at worst so that I benefit from a enjoyable gaming experience. Unlike no doubt through example of words and attitudes many in YMDC and Dakka have inflicted horror stories upon during a game of plastic miniatures.

Hi, Welcome to YMDC where we debate OUTSIDE OF A GAME what the actual RAW is. Even though most of us would never play this way in a friendly or even competitive game. Making personal attacks in this forum about us being TFG does nothing to prove your point and just shows that you can't have an intelligent rules debate without getting upset.

If this forum and our discussions about actual RAW and not RAI is too much for you, feel free to not post in this forum.

Thanks.

RustyKnight wrote:I can't find a "Fast Charge" USR in the fourth edition rule set. Sooooo, I'm thinking either Hormagaunts have a fast charge (of 12") or GW just wants to misdirect readers. Of course, some will adamantly (an irrationally) claim that GW did indeed intend to deliberately convinve people that hormagaunts can charge 12" even if that wasn't what the writers wanted.

Hormagaunts can make an assault move of 12" even if it said they have a "Slow charge of Banana Pudding". They are beasts, beasts have an assault move distance of 12" and have rules for doing so though cover.

The "issue" are Warriors with Leaping, as there is nothing to 100% confer a 12" assault move, nor the ability to have the beasts special Cover charging rules.

Let's add more fuel to the flames!

If you -assault- my Necron Lord equipped with Gaze of Flames, you get your +1A for assaulting now, since Gaze of Flame denies the bonus if you -charge-. Sure, the description makes it obvious that it applies to Assaults, but they say Charge instead. :(

Amusingly, the C'Tan special rules that requires units to make a LD test if they want to -assault- still works, since they use the term -Assault-.

Yay GW!

Timmah wrote:Hi, Welcome to YMDC where we debate OUTSIDE OF A GAME what the actual RAW is. Even though most of us would never play this way in a friendly or even competitive game. Making personal attacks in this forum about us being TFG does nothing to prove your point and just shows that you can't have an intelligent rules debate without getting upset.

If this forum and our discussions about actual RAW and not RAI is too much for you, feel free to not post in this forum.

Thanks.

Understanding RAW where it will actually apply to a game is great, but why spend all the time people seem to debating things that (supposedly) never actually play that way?

Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality. "Using the rules in that fashion creates a mindset of false legitimacy. By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsibility and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to play an army of miniature soldiers not a dictate on the way they must do so."

That's a quote from an actual current codex author. Intentionally blinding yourself with pure RAW-ism means your doing it wrong. That isn't just my opinion, that's the guys that wrote the game's opinion.

Saying you can't get your 12" charge because you can show a loophole in the text even though the intention is clear to anyone with half a brain is indeed playing the game in a way opposite from the way the designers wrote it and intended it to function. Enjoy your forum bones if that's your thing by all means, but don't for a moment think you shouldn't have that ability or model in your Tyranid army because you found a loophole.

/rant off
Now back to the regularly scheduled RAW purist discussions.

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

you're miss the point i think Kaaihn. It's not they don't get the 12" movement its they don't get it through difficult terrain. That's rules as written. But fluff wise they don't want to risk jumping forwards, tripping over a rock and land flat on their face in-front of the enemy.

Kaaihn wrote:

Timmah wrote:Hi, Welcome to YMDC where we debate OUTSIDE OF A GAME what the actual RAW is. Even though most of us would never play this way in a friendly or even competitive game. Making personal attacks in this forum about us being TFG does nothing to prove your point and just shows that you can't have an intelligent rules debate without getting upset.

If this forum and our discussions about actual RAW and not RAI is too much for you, feel free to not post in this forum.

Thanks.

Understanding RAW where it will actually apply to a game is great, but why spend all the time people seem to debating things that (supposedly) never actually play that way?

Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality. "Using the rules in that fashion creates a mindset of false legitimacy. By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsibility and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to play an army of miniature soldiers not a dictate on the way they must do so."

That's a quote from an actual current codex author. Intentionally blinding yourself with pure RAW-ism means your doing it wrong. That isn't just my opinion, that's the guys that wrote the game's opinion.

Saying you can't get your 12" charge because you can show a loophole in the text even though the intention is clear to anyone with half a brain is indeed playing the game in a way opposite from the way the designers wrote it and intended it to function. Enjoy your forum bones if that's your thing by all means, but don't for a moment think you shouldn't have that ability or model in your Tyranid army because you found a loophole.

/rant off
Now back to the regularly scheduled RAW purist discussions.

If an author said that it is just a line to excuse their terrible rule writing.

As far as intent, how can we assume to know an authors intent. maybe the authors of the BRB changed the word charge to assault know all of these old interactions would change and that is what they wanted.

Pretending you know the authors intent without having written the rules is a joke. As is your claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you is dumb.

Timmah wrote:As far as intent, how can we assume to know an authors intent. .

Exactly. Yet people do it constantly here, by assuming they know or understand the intent of the structure of the rules. Bit hypocritical there.

It gets especially comical when the beliefs some folks labor under are shown to be wrong by the game designers, but they plug their ears and go lalalalalalal the designers are wrong, I'm right! That always makes me laugh.

No, they explain what the structure of the rules means using the english language. No intent added in there, you're just making that up.

It relies on interpreting the written word, but at least that is fixed: "designer intent" changes so often it is laughable to use it as a rules basis.

Gwar! wrote:Hormagaunts can make an assault move of 12" even if it said they have a "Slow charge of Banana Pudding". They are beasts, beasts have an assault move distance of 12" and have rules for doing so though cover.

The "issue" are Warriors with Leaping, as there is nothing to 100% confer a 12" assault move, nor the ability to have the beasts special Cover charging rules.

I know, I posted in a rush and put hormagaunts instead of warriors with leaping.

I can't find a "Fast Charge" USR in the fourth edition rule set. Sooooo, I'm thinking either Warriors with Leaping have a fast charge (of 12") or GW just wants to misdirect readers. Of course, some will adamantly (an irrationally) claim that GW did indeed intend to deliberately convinve people that Warriors with Leaping can charge 12" even if that wasn't what the writers wanted.

The thing I find funniest about the "you want to abuse the loophole" crowd is that I started this thread, and I play only Tyranids. What abuse do you think I am aiming for?

I was looking for a rule letting Leaping give 12" assault moves - perhaps that is abuse?

As for what people think should be done, yes that is obvious, it should be allowing 12" assault moves.

Unfortunately it does not actually say that, explain that, or allow that anywhere - technically.

So, if I play some random opponent (who is apparently TFG, based on the comments here) who asks me why Leaping lets my warriors move 12" in the assault phase, as of now my only response is "Read this, but realize that they MEANT to write it like this. . ."

Is it just me or does that sound sort of . . . lacking? So, to avoid this, I have stopped using it myself (playing the least advantageous interpretation and all).

As a funny note, the fact that a rule was not defined in a previous edition, despite how people played it, does not really help the discussion (or matter) - other than to perhaps imply that people, including GW (gasp!) missed something, are not critically reading, or are making assumptions with absolutely no backing.

shrug

kirsanth wrote:So, if I play some random opponent (who is apparently TFG, based on the comments here) who asks me why Leaping lets my warriors move 12" in the assault phase, as of now my only response is "Read this, but realize that they MEANT to write it like this. . ."

Is it just me or does that sound sort of . . . lacking? So, to avoid this, I have stopped using it myself (playing the least advantageous interpretation and all).

As a funny note, the fact that a rule was not defined in a previous edition, despite how people played it, does not really help the discussion (or matter) - other than to perhaps imply that people, including GW (gasp!) missed something, are not critically reading, or are making assumptions with absolutely no backing.

shrug

And the Irony of the situation is that if this happened, I would ask, nay, INSIST you resolve the Assault move as beasts If you went "WAAAA WAAAAA RAI BLAAAAAAAA!" I'd make damn sure you use RaW

kirsanth wrote:So, if I play some random opponent (who is apparently TFG, based on the comments here) who asks me why Leaping lets my warriors move 12" in the assault phase, as of now my only response is "Read this, but realize that they MEANT to write it like this. . ."

Is it just me or does that sound sort of . . . lacking? So, to avoid this, I have stopped using it myself (playing the least advantageous interpretation and all).

As a funny note, the fact that a rule was not defined in a previous edition, despite how people played it, does not really help the discussion (or matter) - other than to perhaps imply that people, including GW (gasp!) missed something, are not critically reading, or are making assumptions with absolutely no backing.

shrug

And if you played Necrons, you would play that Gaze Of Flame doesn't remove the +1 attack from assaulting opponents?

There's RAW, and then there's RAW.

If it were questionable, I would err on the side of the least advantageous to myself.

Still.

Barakia wrote:And if you played Necrons, you would play that Gaze Of Flame doesn't remove the +1 attack from assaulting opponents?

There's RAW, and then there's RAW.

I have played Necrons (I have played every army, I borrow them ya see ) and we have discussed this, and we decided to house rule it for that game, despite it being RaW (For the record, I wanted to Play RaW, not that it mattered as I was not using it, but that's beside the point), just like with Banshees, which no longer have advantages when Assaulting through cover.

Oh, also, according to the Dark Eldar codex, Warp Beasts may charge 12", in the same way cavalry do. But Cavalry do not charge 12', they assault 12".. So what happens there?

For extra fun, when they do so through difficult terrain, it uses the term assault, and they double the dice. So... Warp Beasts, in many cases, are actually better off assaulting through difficult terrain.

Barakia wrote:Oh, also, according to the Dark Eldar codex, Warp Beasts may charge 12", in the same way cavalry do. But Cavalry do not charge 12', they assault 12".. So what happens there?

Well, by strict RaW, Cavalry no Longer Charge, they make 12" assault moves, so they do not get a bonus. However, as it says "in the same way cavalry do" one can assume that BOTH rules apply, so they both Charge 12" and Make Assault Moves of 12"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Barakia wrote:For extra fun, when they do so through difficult terrain, it uses the term assault, and they double the dice. So... Warp Beasts, in many cases, are actually better off assaulting through difficult terrain.

Well, them's the breaks I suppose. Not my fault GW cannot write is it?

You are actually all still argueing RAI regardless of your claim to RAW with the following assumptions made

1. GW has stated and is obvious to disregard rules that refer to the 4th edition of the game such as target priority tests and combat rules that no longer apply.

2. For all intents and purposes you are stating that there are rules and statements in codexes that do not exist due to wording.



Only specific parts of the games and codexes such as target priority etc. are non functioning parts of the rules as they have no equivalent inside the rules of the game.


This is a instance where there is not only a rule equivalent but a rule statement.


Just because you can produce a means of breaking a portion or rule of the game through strict interpretation does not mean you are correct.


I can tell you right now that the game designers did not write portions of the game to be nonfunctioning except in very specific circumstances is incongruous at best and ridiculous at worst , I make the Rules as intended argument without needing prior knowledge of the author by simply following the logical assumption that the game is meant to function. I can also interpret work with out needing a direct line to the author. It is not neccessary to have first hand knowledge in order to understand something otherwise society would not be functional and you would not be a functional person if you could not interpret without first hand knowledge. Thats just a illogical statment.

A bird has feathers, I place Feathers on my Horse , My horse is a Bird.

That is not a logical statement.


Personally the assumption that I cannot not make reasonable decisions not only based on the fact that the intention of the rules are to basically function.


That's it the rules are meant to function.

The rules are not written with the intention initially of being nonfunctioning.


This is why I can make a rules as intention argument and disregard the fact that everyone here seems to believe that the world is like a Joseph Heller novel and we all live on Pianosa.

Hollismason wrote: I can tell you right now that the game designers did not write portions of the game to be nonfunctioning except in very specific circumstances.

[Citation Needed]

Hollismason wrote:text

For whom?

I am not parsing "Fast Charge" and saying charge is irrelevant. The people saying Leaping gives 12" assault range are.

I am questioning what "Fast Charge" as a rule does - as it is not ever addressed.
Much like Thornback (and symbiote Rippers, etc) are perfectly fine to pay for, but the rules for having them do anything are lacking, so they do nothing.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

"An army (and a Codex) are more than just a set of rules. In the scheme of things, rules come and go; they are an abstract mechanical representation of something else. The exact rules representation may change from edition to edition, but hopefully they fundamentally represent the same thing. The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.

"This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so."

Gav Thorpe (http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/)

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

"An army (and a Codex) are more than just a set of rules. In the scheme of things, rules come and go; they are an abstract mechanical representation of something else. The exact rules representation may change from edition to edition, but hopefully they fundamentally represent the same thing. The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.

"This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so."

Gav Thorpe (http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/)

A Web Log that can be easily forged by anyone is hardly a good source.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

"An army (and a Codex) are more than just a set of rules. In the scheme of things, rules come and go; they are an abstract mechanical representation of something else. The exact rules representation may change from edition to edition, but hopefully they fundamentally represent the same thing. The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.

"This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so."

Gav Thorpe (http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/)

A Web Log that can be easily forged by anyone is hardly a good source.

Really Gwar? Really? lol

In fairness, that is why YMDC tenet 2 =
"The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on."

That said, it is funny because the query was about

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

shrug

I don't need to post a source to say that common knowledge is applicable to the statement.

" The rules are meant to serve the functionality of the game and are a guideline to understanding the progressions made with in said game"


I do not need to state common knowledge that rules are written to be functional at their core. When functionality due to a new edition or change in understanding occurs you generally can disregard them which has been proven not only by Gamesworkshop despite what you claim about faqs are in fact the creators of the product.


The rules serve functionality of the game.


By your logic I can play you in a game of Monopoly and just [Modquisition Edit for being more than a little over the top]

Simply because this common sense adage is not applied in the set rules of the game.

kirsanth wrote:

Hollismason wrote:text

For whom?

I am not parsing "Fast Charge" and saying charge is irrelevant. The people saying Leaping gives 12" assault range are.

I am questioning what "Fast Charge" as a rule does - as it is not ever addressed.
Much like Thornback (and symbiote Rippers, etc) are perfectly fine to pay for, but the rules for having them do anything are lacking, so they do nothing.

The problem is that in older codexii, they used charge and assault interchangably. I'll grant you that the addition of the word "Fast" in the leaping entry confuses things even further, but if you are going to play it that anything in an old codex that uses charge instead of Assault doesn't do anything, you are left with situations that make no sense. My favorite is the Warp Beasts, who assault only 6", but assault 3d6 take highest and double it in difficult terrain, and have a beastmaster that assaults 12" "in order to keep up with them", even though they only assault 6".

I understand that using RAI is very iffy in many cases, as reasonable people may very well disagree as to what constitutes RAI. But I'd submit that when every reasonable person would agree, as I think must be the case here, it's rather safe to do so.

Barakia wrote:The problem is that in older codexii, they used charge and assault interchangably.

So? The current edition does not.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

I know I'm a bit late, but I couldn't help but chime in at seeing this.

Gav Thorpe, re: Codex Chaos Space Marines wrote:http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.

This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so.

Admittedly they deal with different issues, but the exact same wording being used made me think of it.

Kwosge wrote:

s2ua7 wrote:
I think you've hit the nail on the head there Don.... While it is relatively easy to support the charge = assault argument, because the rule states they do not become beasts it is harder to justify the d6x2 argument.

It's not hard to support or justify it at all. What you are having hard doing is realizing that your a huge pile of gak who can't spell.
Leaping grants the unit a 12" assault that uses the following rule when assaulting through difficult terrain: roll 2d6 (or 3d6) and multiply the highest by two.

This is not a matter of RAW or RAI it is a matter of GW sucks as writing rules. In extreme situations like this just go with what everyone knows is right, in the case of Tyranids it's 3d6 PTHx2, and not what you want it to be because you are a power gaming loser who throws a fit every time they are proven wrong. It's called being an adult. Also, go take a bath because I'm tired of going into a hobby store and having it smell like a trash can.
On a side note, whenever someone is actively trying to ruin an aspect of a game due to being a huge pile of gak they shall be called a "s2ua7."

Modquisition on. In addiiton to the warning this poster is about to receive I am putting a reminder out to all posters-lets remember Rule #1, or you will be potentially liable for disciplinary actions.