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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Leaving out all of your insults (bravo for coming clean on them) which makes up 99% of the wall of text post above, I will respond to one thing only:

I *did* answer your question, you just didnt ask a good question. You also a) only asked it once, so i couldnt "continually evade" it, and b) you have made up a new question just then, different to the question I *did* answer.

Edit: to clarify IF I ever come across Doom, I will let my opponent use it as a 3++ save. If I ever use Doom myself, I would not *expect* to be able to use a 3++ save.

THAT is the difference between your advocated position (ignorance of the actual Rules of the game in favour of <something&gt and mine: I acknowledge the rules, and where i thin kthey have problems, but do not expect my opponent to always agree to use a houserule. I consider making the *assumption* that your houserule is the only way to play to be highly arrogant and unsporting.

The OED not having a definition of "house rule" does not mean that "RAW", house rules cannot exist. De facto rules the roost where de jure does not exist. Also any discussion of English should only use the OED, only when you use qualified English (US, Australian) would you use the appropriate dictionary. This is more important than you appear to realise, as US and English "wield" have different meanings, to use a simple example which changes how 2CCW section is read.

Sorry. This is another one of those things where I guess I just wasn't clear enough. It must be some sort of mysterious America/England language barrier, because I cannot say that I would ever purposefully not answer a question just because it was phrased in a way that it can be "answered" without actually answering the question. Thanks for actually answering it, for the Doom example at least.

How can you say that using the rules as everyone except a few people (you for yourself not your opponent, possibly gwar though he has his own faq, other people who I have not heard of and I doubt the existence of) is a house rule? The one definition of house pretty clearly states that the group that is the distinct only group to use the particular rule, is using the house rule. In this case the vast majority that does not use that rule would not be the house rule.
You can't debate on whether or not something is a house rule if the only dictionary that you want to use does not define house rule. You can't just choose to fill that void with whatever you think house rule means.

Also, can we agree on all of the statements in my previous post that were not insults? I assure you that "99%" of it is not only insults, this is a fact that can be measured quantitatively.

Quite frankly no, your post is not worth the time to dissect.

You asked a very simple question: do I play with my rules interpretations. I answered "yes". That perfectly answered the question you asked. Whether that was the question you wanted to ask, or thought you were asking, is not really MY problem but yours.

The RULEBOOK defines THE RULES. That is what the RULEBOOK does. Got it yet?

So if you play a rule that is *not* in the rulebook, for example by changing a rule, you ARE playing by a "house rule", by definition of the term in common usage in the UK. As in, when I ask someone "what is a houserule", they would answer something very differently to the mildly bizarre definition you are so concerned with.

That was my "de facto rules the roost where de jure is absent" bit, since you seemed to miss that entirely. The one definitiion in a language the rulebook is not written in, that has some quite pertinent differences to the language the book was written in, is not exactly relevant to me or to my argument. You may think it is relevant, but that doesnt actually make it so.

I've used the argument "It does nothing" or "The rule would not work" as a case of reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the contradiction. That is, I would state that if my opponent's understanding of the rule were to be correct, then the rule would do nothing and since this cannot be the case, we must conclude the opposite of his/her position (or something else) is true.

I take the "Rulebook" to be a "Guidebook" (P2 SRB) and as such I will err on the side of playability as opposed to incomprehensibility. With that said, I believe that every sentence of the guidebook does say something about how the game is to be played and as such I will pay attention when the guidebook speaks about an issue; however, I will never again take the guidebook to be a legal document, that is, I will not look at it as a rulebook ever again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The RULEBOOK defines THE RULES. That is what the RULEBOOK does. Got it yet?

Yes, and the "Rulebook" states that the rules are not important, so what was your position again? (Page 2 "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!")

visavismeyou wrote:
Yes, and the "Rulebook" states that the rules are not important, so what was your position again? (Page 2 "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!")

Which is a rule, so using your reductio ad absurdum arguments we shouldn't listen to it because it isn't important.
So what was your position again?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Quite frankly no, your post is not worth the time to dissect.

You asked a very simple question: do I play with my rules interpretations. I answered "yes". That perfectly answered the question you asked. Whether that was the question you wanted to ask, or thought you were asking, is not really MY problem but yours.

The RULEBOOK defines THE RULES. That is what the RULEBOOK does. Got it yet?

So if you play a rule that is *not* in the rulebook, for example by changing a rule, you ARE playing by a "house rule", by definition of the term in common usage in the UK. As in, when I ask someone "what is a houserule", they would answer something very differently to the mildly bizarre definition you are so concerned with.

That was my "de facto rules the roost where de jure is absent" bit, since you seemed to miss that entirely. The one definitiion in a language the rulebook is not written in, that has some quite pertinent differences to the language the book was written in, is not exactly relevant to me or to my argument. You may think it is relevant, but that doesnt actually make it so.

If you are not capable enough to read a question without trying to RaW your way out of it, then I am flabbergasted, though I really should not as it fits your character perfectly. If you are not capable of responding to my points where I prove you wrong again and again, then I accept your concession of the argument, and you may simply stop responding.

As you may not be aware, de facto (by the law we should say, as you become enraged at the sight of even English that is not from a British dictionary being used) is open to interpretation. This is why lawyers and judges exist, to interpret the law. You are free to come up with an argument for why 99% of people use house rules, but you may not make up your own definition of the word. Sorry, it does not work that way. The only house rule is the one where Doom does not have a 3+ invulnerable: as this is the only group where it is used, in comparison to the rest of the population where it is not.

I cannot allow you to base your argument on the "common usage in the UK" as that is not factually provable and is entirely meaningless. We can use the OED that you love so much, in which case your entire argument is meaningless, or we can use a dictionary that defines House Rule, in which case I am right, but we will not be using the "because I said so and it makes me right" definition of the word as the basis for this discussion. Choose one, or abandon your argument. It's up to you.

Gorkamorka wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:
Yes, and the "Rulebook" states that the rules are not important, so what was your position again? (Page 2 "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!")

Which is a rule, so using your reductio ad absurdum arguments we shouldn't listen to it because it isn't important.
So what was your position again?

You misunderstand, every time you say the rules are more important than playing (which is what you're argument chalks up to), you are violating your own argument. I am not saying "we should not listen to them" that is a confusion you have generated ex nihilo and does not affect my argument whatsoever.

Nightwatch wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because reminding people what the rules *actually* say, so they know when they are making a *houserule* to work around issues IS important.

Too many gaming groups have their own houserules, and dont realise it. So when visiting players arrive, or they go out to other places, this can cause conflicts - whereas if you know *beforehand* you play a rule a certain way via a houserule you can clear up any inter-group inconsistencies much easier.

ph34r - um, ok. if you say so.

Pretty much this.

I argue RaW because it is the only thing that is constant. Houserules are fine and all, but they are just that, House Rules.

The whole point of this thread is that RaW isn't constant, it is full of holes and anomalies that players need to bridge in order to play the game.

Yes.

You can call it "just House Rules" with a dismissive air, but the fact remains that when the "proper" rules aren't clear, players need to figure out a way to play a fun game. This happens more often than we would like.

Yes.

When a so-called "House Rule" is accepted by 90% of players, it becomes the de facto rules.

I don't see the point of worshipping GW rules, they are a false idol.

Yes. Unfortunately, none of the above matters when you are looking at it from the perspective of one trying to find a universal constant that can always be applied. The point is that House Rules are used in pretty much every game you play because of the holes GW digs in its merchandise, but it is important to understand the basics that every player must know, because otherwise you will have no ability to determine where your own rules start and where the opponent's begin. Assumptions are fine, but that decisive roll mid-game will turn into blood, sweat, and tears if you or your opponent does not have a firm grounding of what the RAW actually says.

Oh come. Do you really think there is some ultimate truth behind GW's rules?

It isn't a philosophical quest for the meaning of Life, The Universe and Everything, it's just a skirmish wargame.

The reality of argument comes from the players being TFG as much as from discrepancies in the rules.

ph34r wrote:If you are not capable enough to read a question without trying to RaW your way out of it, then I am flabbergasted,

Insult 1. well done, I thought you had stopped with the baseless insults?

I answered your questions, both of them, and gave clear and concise answers. You being unhappy that the answers didnt prove your "point" is, again, not my problem but yours.

I answered your questions. Accept that you were not "capable" enough to correctly state your position, which you should not be so flabbergasted at - you've been doing it in almost every post so far.

ph34r wrote:though I really should not as it fits your character perfectly.

SO poor attempts at character assasination is the limits of your intelligent debate now?

Hilarious. Keep digging that hole. What were those posting guidelines again?

ph34r wrote:If you are not capable of responding to my points where I prove you wrong again and again, then I accept your concession of the argument, and you may simply stop responding.

On the contrary - I proved you were incorrect. Many times. Again: your self delusion is not my problem, and while you continue to lie - i have not conceded anything, so at best you are misrepresenting here - I will continue to post to show your flawed statements.

Or was this again your mythical non-personal "you" where you, despite all context, claim it wasnt aimed at a singular person? It';s very hard to tell with your persistent mangling and abuse of the language.

ph34r wrote:As you may not be aware, de facto (by the law we should say, as you become enraged at the sight of even English that is not from a British dictionary being used)

Yawn, your insults are getting poor. When have I become enraged? I simply pointed out that a) citing "a dictionary" was a bad start, and b) citing a dictionary that has significant differences to the language the book was written in is a poor basis for your argument. Not that your argument has a good basis anyway, but at least get the foundations right for a change? It would be an improvement.

Secondly - you are wrong. De facto is "by the fact", not "by the law" - you meant de jure - as I already stated. At least 3 times. Hence "de facto rules the roost where de jure is absent" - in absentia an actual rule (dictionary definition) then the definition as used in practice (what people actually use) is the only thing that is important.

ph34r wrote: is open to interpretation. This is why lawyers and judges exist, to interpret the law.

and your point is? I mean, you got it wrong to start with but carry on. Some form of conclusion would be useful.

ph34r wrote:You are free to come up with an argument for why 99% of people use house rules, but you may not make up your own definition of the word.

Actually that is how language works - you did know that, right? How do you think new words get in the dictionary? Have you any idea how the first dictionary was written? Are you truly as ignorant as your post suggests? The last is rhetorical: I think the quality of your posts speak loudly here.

ph34r wrote: Sorry, it does not work that way. The only house rule is the one where Doom does not have a 3+ invulnerable: as this is the only group where it is used, in comparison to the rest of the population where it is not.

according to an american definition of the term, one that your have then misconstrued to say what you want it to say.

Not following the rules in the rule book means you are creating a houserule, irrespective of how many people do this. By definition as soon as you dont follow the Rules and follow your own rules you are using House rules. Your precious definition does not define terms or limits, and is therefore meaningless to begin with.

ph34r wrote:I cannot allow you to base your argument

Actually you have no choice in the matter - you have based your argument on something demonstrably wrong, and then misconstrued it in an attempt to make it say what you want it to say, I have simply based it on accepted terms.

You can disagree, odesnt make you right, but you cannot "disallow" me from doing something - you are entirely powerless in your trollage.

ph34r wrote:on the "common usage in the UK" as that is not factually provable and is entirely meaningless.

And your argument is entirely false to begin with, so I guess you should concede defeat now?

ph34r wrote:We can use the OED that you love so much,

Again with the attempt to insult - I was pointing out an appropriate, as opposed to an inappropriate, source for you to base an argument off.

If you cannot respect the language the book is written in, and the differences to Webster et al version, then dont expect your argument to be taken seriously - ever.

ph34r wrote: in which case your entire argument is meaningless, or we can use a dictionary that defines House Rule, in which case I am right, but we will not be using the "because I said so and it makes me right" definition of the word as the basis for this discussion. Choose one, or abandon your argument. It's up to you.

Ah yes, the logical fallacy - present two options as if they are the only choice possible! well done - you have an argument based on a flawed premise and source, which does nto follow a logical construct, ignores pertinent examples in an attempt to dissemble, relies on lying and insults in an attempt to distract from the flaws, and YOU decide I have to abandon my argument?

Wrong. so, so wrong. In so many ways.

If you do not follow the Rules as given in the Rulebook then you are not playing by THE rules, but another set of rules. A common term for this is you are using "house rules", and unconcious "hosue rules" can create friction between groups when they meet. as such determining the ACTUAL RULES is an important function of this forum, and is a good practice for forming a logical, consistent basis from which to work out the changes you make in order to make the game work as you want. This can help reduce the potential for arguments.

Now, your argument appears to be that sticking your fingers in your ears and going "naaah naaah Im right!" makes you right. Honestly, after this many incoherent posts I cant actually see what youre trying to do- are you arguing that people shouldnt know what the Rules say?

Maybe he likes the number 99?

My bad. Maybe you are capable of reading my question, but you choose not to. I have no way of knowing.
You "answered" my question, but you did not actually answer my question. If in British society it is perfectly acceptable to "answer" someone's question without actually answering it, then I'm sorry I didn't know. Example: can you hand me that paper? Your answer would be "I could". In America, this would be considered rude and not a fitting answer.

If you think that is character assassination it speaks only of how you consider yourself, as RaW interpreting a question fits perfectly with RaW interpreting rules.

Please stop saying that I am "deluded", as I have provided time and time again reasons why your arguments are bad, why my statements are not unfounded, and why I am right and you are wrong.

It is quite ironic when you accuse me of lying when I preface everything with "if" to avoid such an possibility, but you can find a bone to pick with anything. There was no lie, I said "if ... then ..."
In the case that the "if" is disagreed with, then the "then" does not apply, and there is no lie. You are therefore incorrect in accusing me of lying, and in a sense lying about me lying.

Please stop clinging onto the "but I don't know waht type of you you are using!!!111", it is not a substitute for a real argument to hand on to your misunderstanding and apply it to every other word.

Okay, sorry. You are not enraged, that is what I gathered from your posting style. I'm not psychic, you know.
My bad on the typo switching facto and jure. In any case, my argument remains the same, as the meaning of the word was not important to the statement. Pick either "ONLY BRITISH ENGLISH OTHER WORDS DO NOT EXIST!!!!!111 YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID!!!111" or be open to other languages, you can't have both and insult me too.

So this entire argument that you have made...
Is based on you making up whatever definition you want for house rule. That doesn't fly.

No, wrong. You have based your argument on something that you want to be true. I have based my argument on a dictionary. Anyone can see who is right here (except you!). Also good job accusing me of trolling, did you know that false accusations of trolling is one of the most common forms of trolling?

My argument is founded in reality. Your argument is founded in "generally accepted by British people which I cannot prove"

I gave you two options to make things easy for you. You see, you are wrong, and the two options present the ways that you can go about things (the 3rd way is insult me and my arguments, that is the path that you have chosen, good job Neo) by either using a dictionary definition or dropping the argument. Your argument is as unfounded as me saying that "house rule" is a phrase that means "whatever rule you don't like". There is no 3rd way where you decide what house rule means in the absence of a British dictionary having a definition and the American dictionary having one you don't want.

This is how you sound: "The American dictionary disagrees with me and the British dictionary does not provide any information so I get to make up whatever I want for a definition. That's you. Single you. nosferatu1001. Making up the definition because you don't like the one that exists.

Your last paragraph is totally meaningless and adds no value to your post.

Unconscious house rules can create friction, great, I never disagreed on that. Unfortunately something as singular as a group of ~1 playing by the "Doom has no invuln" does not qualify the other way of playing as a house rule, by definition of the word house rule.


So, what definition of house rule are you using? The one that you are making up to make yourself correct? The one that is in a dictionary? Something else?

The answer to the previous question will settle many points. By the definition of house rule that is in a dictionary, I am correct.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you do not follow the Rules as given in the Rulebook then you are not playing by THE rules, but another set of rules. A common term for this is you are using "house rules", and unconcious "hosue rules" can create friction between groups when they meet. as such determining the ACTUAL RULES is an important function of this forum, and is a good practice for forming a logical, consistent basis from which to work out the changes you make in order to make the game work as you want. This can help reduce the potential for arguments.

Again, you're really about 3 weeks behind me, until I truly got to know how and why the "Guidebook" was written, I too was fooled into thinking it was a "Rulebook". But now that I have really delved into an exegesis of the book, I have learned that it is in fact nothing more than a Guidebook.

You are expecting a rulebook on par with Magic the Gathering's rulebook, you're not going to get that here and until you accept that, you will not play the same game as 99% of the rest of the WH40k community plays. But, the beauty of the WH40k guidebook is that it allows people like you to take the "Guidance" it offers as hard rules and you too can have your own niche of people who think that the guidebook is actually a legal document. You, however, will be doomed to relegating yourselves to house rules to fill in the obvious gaps.

All I can say is good luck making up your own rules!

Imagine a rules discussion forum where players kept their arguments de personalized and could politely agree to disagree. No WALL OF TEXT responses focused upon insulting others. Imagine that...

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Imagine a rules discussion forum where players kept their arguments de personalized and could politely agree to disagree. No WALL OF TEXT responses focused upon insulting others. Imagine that...

G

You're right, I would much prefer if things were calmed down. I've edited my most recent post to be less offensive, hopefully this will reduce the reply from a wall of anger to a few arguments on key points.

ph34r wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:Imagine a rules discussion forum where players kept their arguments de personalized and could politely agree to disagree. No WALL OF TEXT responses focused upon insulting others. Imagine that...

G

You're right, I would much prefer if things were calmed down. I've edited my most recent post to be less offensive, hopefully this will reduce the reply from a wall of anger to a few arguments on key points.

Yes, that is a good idea.

Let's all hope that is what actually happens going forward.

(Yes, that was a hint.)

ph34r - fine, if you are so convinced I did not answer your question, please repost a question OR explain what part of my two answers you find fault with. Vague insults are not exactly helpful - neither is your wall of text. try quoting, it helps context.

I provided a very clear answer: in actual play I do not *expect* to be able to use houserules, henc I discuss them with my opponent first. This has the advantage of clearing up ANY potential for misunderstandings FIRST, before we're in the game when such misunderstandings would be harder to deal with fairly.

Why is that something you dislike so much? Are you anti-good communications with your opponent? Do you play all games in a stony silence? Or do you simply disgaree that two groups can have different houserules? I am intrigued as to your experiences.

[As for your if....then - given I have proven you wrong (the "if" is true) the then follows...]

I also am not "clinging" to the "i dont know what "you" you used" - I know *exactly* what form you used, as the context was abundantly clear. I was more pointing out your frankly laughable attempts at pretending you werent levying personal insults was one of your many manglings of the language. You got caught, get over it, wriggling doesnt help.

Finally - language. the rulebook is written in English. Note the lack of a qualifier. If you are using dictionary quotes to "prove" your argument, then your only option if you want to have a *meaningful* basis is to use a dictionary written in the language the game is written in - as I have pointed out with pertinent examples the differences between US and English English can dramatically alter the way rules are read. If you are so caught up in your own world that you cannot see that that, then again - that isnt my problem. Until you DO see that however your argument is flawed, right from the start.

Going back to Yakface's original question: what happens in a situation which is clearly not defined in the rules (as opposed to a situation not being clearly defined).

For example; denying outflankers by blocking table edges
or
the 3 valkyrie squadron + 3 infantry platoon conundrum. (one squad from each platoon on a valkyrie in each squadron; how many rolls do you make for reserve?)

Many people (even the super rules laywers) claim that in the first example, the unit is Destroyed. When in fact there is no rule saying such a thing will happen. This is an opinion, a house rule, but many rules lawyers stand by it.

I also find it amusing, even ironic, that many people advocating strict RAW interpretations of rules are called Lawyers. Because in real life, the Law is much much more formally defined than the rules are in 40k, yet legal interpretation is still big business, and 'the law as written' is seldom the sole, accepted or best interpretation of the law. But then we get to a miniatures game, where the rules are written in prose and dotted with 'witty' anecdotes, and people expect there to be a single, reasonable, consistent interpretation. There is a site HERE where some players (for a while) attempted to adapt the US Statutory Interpretation Canon for rules debates (unfortunately they seem to have stopped doing this).

There is an interesting recent interview with Gav Thorpe HERE in which he basically says 'if we get the rules to work in 90% of situations for 90% of the playerbase, that's good enough in our view'. With that kind of attitude coming down from the rules developers, it astounds me that people cling to 'RAW' as a shield when there is so much evidence that the designers are uninterested in that point of view.

One of the main issues that I have with the 'does not work' line of reasoning is that it goes against the logical reading of the rules - the reading that causes the least confusion. For example
Premise #1: Developers write exactly what they want to write.
Premise #2: The rules as written have no function.
Conclusion: The developers intended to write a nonfunctional rule.
We would assume however that the conclusion is incorrect, therefore one of our premises is incorrect.

Hmm. Well this is rambling a bit, so I'm not sure how to sum up (i hope I made at least one valid point in there). But, TLR I agree with Yakface. Don't use 'does not work' but instead use 'ambiguous', 'inconclusive' or 'unclear'.

You missed out: and the codex and rulebook rules change over time, not in step with eachother

Trasvi wrote:Going back to Yakface's original question: what happens in a situation which is clearly not defined in the rules (as opposed to a situation not being clearly defined).

For example; denying outflankers by blocking table edges
or
the 3 valkyrie squadron + 3 infantry platoon conundrum. (one squad from each platoon on a valkyrie in each squadron; how many rolls do you make for reserve?)

Many people (even the super rules laywers) claim that in the first example, the unit is Destroyed. When in fact there is no rule saying such a thing will happen. This is an opinion, a house rule, but many rules lawyers stand by it.

I also find it amusing, even ironic, that many people advocating strict RAW interpretations of rules are called Lawyers. Because in real life, the Law is much much more formally defined than the rules are in 40k, yet legal interpretation is still big business, and 'the law as written' is seldom the sole, accepted or best interpretation of the law. But then we get to a miniatures game, where the rules are written in prose and dotted with 'witty' anecdotes, and people expect there to be a single, reasonable, consistent interpretation. There is a site HERE where some players (for a while) attempted to adapt the US Statutory Interpretation Canon for rules debates (unfortunately they seem to have stopped doing this).

Yea, I tried point this obvious point out to Nosferatu but he wouldn't pay attention to any argument which completely deracinates his own position. Fact: There are holes in the guidebook. Fact: The guidebook is not a rulebook nor a legal document no matter how much you wish it to be Nosferatu, it is not a legal document with rules in it, it is a book with guidance in it how to play the same game so that we are all, roughly, on the same page.

As I said before, if you want to pretend that the guidebook is in fact a "Rulebook" stuffed full of rules and pretend it is a legal document, the guidebook says you are allowed to do so. Too bad that you then have to find extralegal means to fill in the holes in the rulebook. Whenever you apply something arbitrary, whenever you make your own house rules, you admit that you are wrong Nosferatu.

Just so you dont make the same mistake twice, nowhere above did I say anything about "We should ignore the Games-Workshop Rulebook as published"; I actually said quite the opposite.

Vis - you were ignored because the very first page, page 1, is entitled "THE RULES", which makes a complete nonsense of your entire post. Again.

You may disagree, unfortunately you are wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - fine, if you are so convinced I did not answer your question, please repost a question OR explain what part of my two answers you find fault with. Vague insults are not exactly helpful - neither is your wall of text. try quoting, it helps context.

"Yes, I do.


Now, if you had asked do I play by *all* of them then you may have a different answer - however you didnt. "
This is the part I have issue with. You trying to evade simple questions and locking on to perceived (and nonexistent) grammar errors ("I think that the "you" you used was meaning the wrong definition of you! I will post about this forever and not admit that I am mistaken"!) makes debating with you tiresome.

I provided a very clear answer: in actual play I do not *expect* to be able to use houserules, henc I discuss them with my opponent first. This has the advantage of clearing up ANY potential for misunderstandings FIRST, before we're in the game when such misunderstandings would be harder to deal with fairly.

You answered my question later, after I had to badger you to get an answer out. For things like Doom invuln save, it is not a house rule, as given by the definition of house rule. For things where the population is actually divided, it is a good idea to talk things over with your opponent.

Why is that something you dislike so much? Are you anti-good communications with your opponent? Do you play all games in a stony silence? Or do you simply disgaree that two groups can have different houserules? I am intrigued as to your experiences.

It isn't, I am not, I do not, I do not. Sorry I couldn't comply with your "do you do this bad thing or do you do this bad thing pick one" "question". My experiences are that of someone who has never had issues with rules in real life. All rules discrepancies are discussed and settled.

[As for your if....then - given I have proven you wrong (the "if" is true) the then follows...]

Are you implying that you are not capable of responding, but my "then" is true? You have responded, so you are capable apparently. If you have issues with my if...then statements, please state your issue more clearly, as there is no room for issue in the statements.

I also am not "clinging" to the "i dont know what "you" you used" - I know *exactly* what form you used, as the context was abundantly clear. I was more pointing out your frankly laughable attempts at pretending you werent levying personal insults was one of your many manglings of the language. You got caught, get over it, wriggling doesnt help.

You don't know exactly what form I used, as you are not me and not psychic. Sorry that it was confusing for you, but really, I know what I wrote and you need to drop it as your clinging to it as a central part of your arguments is not helping you one bit.

Finally - language. the rulebook is written in English. Note the lack of a qualifier. If you are using dictionary quotes to "prove" your argument, then your only option if you want to have a *meaningful* basis is to use a dictionary written in the language the game is written in - as I have pointed out with pertinent examples the differences between US and English English can dramatically alter the way rules are read. If you are so caught up in your own world that you cannot see that that, then again - that isnt my problem. Until you DO see that however your argument is flawed, right from the start.

Your entire argument is based on the word house rule. The definition that you have made up for it is the only thing keeping you afloat. I have an actual source to back me up, you have nothing. Your argument is the one flawed from the start, because you have either no backing, or backing that disagrees with you. There is no situation in which your argument is supported, there is only no conclusion or I am correct.

Do you two find it even slightly ironic that you are arguing over interpretations of what each other has said?
Inserting incorrect emphasis, interpreting phrasing in different ways than what it was intended... just goes to show that any given sentence in the English language can be interpreted in multiple ways, one/all/none of which can be correct.
So when the rules are interpreted in multiple different ways, why do some people suddenly advocate ignoring context, ignoring precedence and taking the most literal meaning of the rules, when we can see from the argument above that a literal reading of the text is often inappropriate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You missed out: and the codex and rulebook rules change over time, not in step with each other

I left that out because it does not apply to situations which occur within the same codex. Case in point Doom vs Zoanthrope. We get back to an obviously incorrect conclusion that developers purposefully wrote non-functional rules.

@visavismeyou. I disagree with your assessment of 'the guidebook'. It is obviously a rulebook, it contains rules from which to play the game; it just so happens that the developers are uninterested in writing a water-tight rule set (see interview with gav thorpe, see lack of errata/faq), so we need to apply some interpretation to resolve some disputes.

And I think this discussion is going away from where Yakface wanted it. While it was inevitable to degenerate into a RAW vs RAI debate, what is really being discussed is; if me make a very small assumption that the rules are designed to work, then in a RAW debate is it kosher to claim "it does not work", or should the resolution be more along the lines of "a literal interpretation gives no sensible resolution".

yakface wrote:I've used this terminology many times in the past but recently while thinking about the subject it occurred to me that I was treating 40K different than any other game in existence. In any other game if I encountered a rule that didn't seem to make sense or have a purpose my first thought would be 'I need to bring this up with my fellow players and ask them how they think we should proceed' instead of with 40K where I had been thinking (and many continue to do so) 'if this rule doesn't make sense then it should essentially be ignored'.

Killkrazy wrote:The whole point of this thread is that RaW isn't constant, it is full of holes and anomalies that players need to bridge in order to play the game.

You can call it "just House Rules" with a dismissive air, but the fact remains that when the "proper" rules aren't clear, players need to figure out a way to play a fun game. This happens more often than we would like.

When a so-called "House Rule" is accepted by 90% of players, it becomes the de facto rules.

I don't see the point of worshipping GW rules, they are a false idol.

These two are the most important statements in the thread.

GW games, including 40K, are not intricately designed rulesets, worded with exacting precision and constantly revised and modified to account for any discrepancies. To treat them as if they are designed that way is to not only give them a false air of precision, but also to treat them like no other games or sports on earth are treated. Applying that sort of rigid, structured thinking to them is nothing more than a mental exercise at best. And insisting that their wording is rigidly sacrosanct is the sort of pure foolishness you can only find in people who think they are highly intelligent.

Except that no-one is expecting them to be. We are expecting them to be halfway decent, which as it is, they are not.

Gwar! wrote:Except that no-one is expecting them to be. We are expecting them to be halfway decent, which as it is, they are not.

And if you agree that they are not, why treat them as if they are?

I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

Relic_OMO wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Except that no-one is expecting them to be. We are expecting them to be halfway decent, which as it is, they are not.

And if you agree that they are not, why treat them as if they are?

Even treating them as halfway decent leads to the same situation. A Halfway Decent ruleset would say "A model with the Warp Field Special rule has a 3+ Invulnerable Save". Instead, we have a rule that gives ONE SPECIFIC model a save which is then given to models that aren't that model.

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

And where do you get your data suggesting that the "great majority" finds no issues with the rules and that "everyone understands the rules just fine"? I assume you have done some sort of scientifically correct survey? If so, where can I access this data? Which journal did you send it for peer review?

And before someone gets upset and reports me, I am not being snarky, I would truly like to know if this claim that "everyone" knows the rules fine is substantiated or just pulled out of thin air.

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

For the most part, everyone understands the majority of the rules just fine. The "problems" with the rules that arise result when one person, who interprets a slightly vague rule a certain way, plays a game with another person, who interprets the exact same rule differently for any number of possible reasons.

It is important to know what RAW actually is. This is because everyone plays by the same rule book. While their own interpretations of the few less-than-perfect rules may seem valid, not everyone else will play them the same way. By knowing RaW, you are accepting a standard that all other people can relate to, and this lets you determine with your opponent before the game which rules need clearing up and which rules stand as they are. Very few of the people who argue RaW on Dakka actually play them that way. We know they don't make sense if interpreted literally. We just don't want to fall into the trap of thinking that our interpretations are correct, because they can and will differ from the interpretations that others have.

Trasvi wrote:

There is an interesting recent interview with Gav Thorpe HERE in which he basically says 'if we get the rules to work in 90% of situations for 90% of the playerbase, that's good enough in our view'. With that kind of attitude coming down from the rules developers, it astounds me that people cling to 'RAW' as a shield when there is so much evidence that the designers are uninterested in that point of view.

Now I haven't clicked that link but personally I find is disgusting that anyone who provides a good/service could say this, like at a hospital "Oh well we admit about 90% of the serious cases that come here. And yes of them about 90% recive treatment" or to not use an extra example - what if someone from that 10% (one in ten - that's bloody huge) meets another person from that 10% - so on soforth what Mr. Gav thorpe has effectivly said is well if only 80% of people can play the game with no problems it doesn't seem to be effecting my bottom line so it can't be that serious...

ChrisCP wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

There is an interesting recent interview with Gav Thorpe HERE in which he basically says 'if we get the rules to work in 90% of situations for 90% of the playerbase, that's good enough in our view'. With that kind of attitude coming down from the rules developers, it astounds me that people cling to 'RAW' as a shield when there is so much evidence that the designers are uninterested in that point of view.

Now I haven't clicked that link but personally I find is disgusting that anyone who provides a good/service could say this, like at a hospital "Oh well we admit about 90% of the serious cases that come here. And yes of them about 90% recive treatment" or to not use an extra example - what if someone from that 10% (one in ten - that's bloody huge) meets another person from that 10% - so on soforth what Mr. Gav thorpe has effectivly said is well if only 80% of people can play the game with no problems it doesn't seem to be effecting my bottom line so it can't be that serious...

Well, there is a bit of a difference between a hospital and a gaming company. GW doesn't seem to want to make a perfect product, or at least try. Why should they? People buy it anyway.

Good post.

Ultimately, when rules lack clarity the only thing that matters is your locality (and player group). Message boards might point the debate in certain directions but the 'game' is still a social contract between two players sharing time together.

That said, it is nice to have a consistency to games with your mates and using an abridged FAQ (Or the INAT as we do) helps players prepare a bit more. Which brings me to what I consider the real issue with vague rules; timing. I don't believe I've ever seen someone grow angry with another player over FAQ'd rules before a game. However, enter the game at a telling moment late in the 4th turn...well a house rule might ruin (or make) someone's game. A little discussion before hand (How do you play Explodes Results in terms of disembarking?) goes a long way.