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.

 insaniak wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
If you're told to roll to hit, you consult the to hit chart. That's not peronal interpretation of the chart, you see the value needed and know. There's no personal interpretation needed. That's RAW. You can't say 'well, I interperate my BS 4 really gets a 2+ to hit', becase it's right there.

There's still personal interpretation there... it's just that the meaning is clear enough that the vast majority of people will interpret it the same way...

There is no interpretation, unless you mean interpreting a written numeric system, in which case you're seriously clutching at straws.

You see your BS on the chart, and move across to what your value needed it.

The only interpretation is reading a wirtten numeric system and understanding it, which isn't down to interpreting the rules, it's down to basic mathematichs interpretation. The rule itself is clear cut.

Not all rules need interpretation, outside of knowing how to read, which isn't a problem with the ruleset, but the reader.

 -Loki- wrote:
There is no interpretation, unless you mean interpreting a written numeric system, in which case you're seriously clutching at straws.

The point was that establishing meaning from the written word requires interpretation. That was in response to the idea that applying a personal interpretation somehow means you're applying RAI rather than RAW.

All reading is interpretation. By extension, RAW is always going to come down to interpretation of the written word... and so it's entirely possible for multiple interpretations to all be considered RAW.

 insaniak wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
There is no interpretation, unless you mean interpreting a written numeric system, in which case you're seriously clutching at straws.

The point was that establishing meaning from the written word requires interpretation. That was in response to the idea that applying a personal interpretation somehow means you're applying RAI rather than RAW.

All reading is interpretation. By extension, RAW is always going to come down to interpretation of the written word... and so it's entirely possible for multiple interpretations to all be considered RAW.

That's so metaphysical it makes the whole idea of RAI vs RAW pointless. You're taking the first steps towards an idea where we might as well just have a book with the word "do" in it, and then interpret that, since what it says has no meaning, only what you read into it.

What? There's nothing 'metaphysical' about it at all. If that's what you're getting from what I said, you're reading far more into it than was actually there.

 insaniak wrote:
What? There's nothing 'metaphysical' about it at all. If that's what you're getting from what I said, you're reading far more into it than was actually there.

you're even saying that you can interpret a mathematical table because "all reading is interpretation" so then, since everything in the book is interpretation, the word is no longer useful as it applies to everything or nothing depending on how you want to steer the conversation. You're just arguing yourself out in a sort of long detour to be able to catch it all up in the end and then use your arguments to be right. It's not even a red herring, it's just a sort of really weird logic where you dismantle words over a long time in order to never have to be wrong.

You've said one thing that was something close to normal logic. We're never gonna agree on this and the whole discussion is pointless. I'll make sure to avoid discussing anything where you are in the thread again.

SO, yes, that would be reading more into it than was actually there for 30, Bob.

That's great, I'll take grasping for straws in an argument for 10 then please, Bob.

What is - not even believing in your own arguments but clinging to them even though they are paper thin!

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There is no possible way to interpret the top hatch as being the second hatch from the top.

The domed hatch on a tank turret isn't called a hatch. It's called a cupola.
Therefore it's not the top hatch.
Therefore, by RAW, you're wrong.

No, it's called a cupola roof, which can or cannot have a hatch, as the case may be.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There is no possible way to interpret the top hatch as being the second hatch from the top.

The domed hatch on a tank turret isn't called a hatch. It's called a cupola.
Therefore it's not the top hatch.
Therefore, by RAW, you're wrong.

No, it's called a cupola roof, which can or cannot have a hatch, as the case may be.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=define%3A%20cupola&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=dda7bce3fd5de397&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1389&bih=913

rigeld2 wrote:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=define%3A%20cupola&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=dda7bce3fd5de397&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1389&bih=913

From your link:

a small domed hatch above a gun turret on some tanks.

But it's a cupola. Yes, it has a hatch, but the term that would be used is a cupola.

Therefore, the only hatch is the one over the transport bay.

rigeld2 wrote:
it has a hatch

That seems pretty open-and-shut to me.

rigeld2 wrote:
But it's a cupola. Yes, it has a hatch, but the term that would be used is a cupola.

Therefore, the only hatch is the one over the transport bay.

How do you move a Razorback? Nothing in the rules about how to move something that is termed a Razorback. There is about something called a vehicle, which a razorback also happens to be.
Just like a cupola by your definition happens to be a hatch.

Or we could call it a cupola hatch door.

 n0t_u wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Some times old rules just don't gel with new rules. Like, using a psychic power from an Eldar ally in your army. The power says it lasts until the start of the next Eldar turn. But, there is no Eldar turn.

Yes there is. This is the same argument as the old 'Librarian's Movement Phase' argument for Gate of Infinity... with the exact same conclusion.

It's just an example. There are many reasons why the RAW don't always work.

Good one would probably be the Deffrolla. The arguments that thing got until it was finally fixed.

Interesting you should mention that one. RAI for the Deffrolloa, according to the codex author (yes, personal conversation with him at Baltimore Games Day as I was prepping to run the RTT there that year) was that it could Tank Shock but could not Ram. Yet it was eventually FAQed to allow the Ram. Definite case of them changing the intent through an FAQ.

 insaniak wrote:

Yes, the top hatch being the top-most hatch is one literal meaning of the words in question. But assuming that the top hatch is the one on top of the tank is equally valid... and of the two, is the one that best fits the context, since it is patently absurd for 5 guys to squeeze out of the cupola hatch to fire their weapons.

Given the not to scale sizes of infantry compared to vehicles, I do not think that it is "patently absurd for 5 guys to squeeze out of the cupola hatch to fire their weapons"

I think it makes for an interesting interpretation, but due to the size differences there might be a small chance that the hatch could fit 5 guardsmen.

Vehicles are generally undersized and infantry are generally oversized (Especially Guardsmen who are about the same size as Space Marines)