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.

Fling - I'm guessing you have the team on stand by then and always ready for a quick chat when you want to know what they mean by a rule?

While RAW can be played through various loop-holes, RAI can also be twisted just as easily to suit a certain need when the time arises.

The issue with RAI is that it is very hard to actually prove that point unless the rule makes no sense when reading it any other way.

RAW remains alot more solid since we have the words infront of us and can simply follow them like the instructions that they are.
We do not have to decide what the writer was trying to achieve at the time of making said rule.



OT - I believe you dont get the saves.

The banner only provides the save against a wound.
Horror does not cause any wounds, so the banner would fail to trigger.
Just because it does allow a ward save does not mean its a wound being caused.
It simply means they are not making it an over powered spell (to some degree)

Alot of times in WHFB you are forced to make the same tests or rolls, but from a different source.

Also, you will find that people argue these rules alot in actual games, aswell as on the internet.
The old deathroller debate was a good bit of proof of this one.



Granted, im not saying this is the best way to play it, but its easier to use whats actually written and use it as instructions, as opposed to trying to stab a guess at what the writer had in mind with the rule.

Read page 43 for my reference on what I was saying for 1&2. If you want me to explain to you that GW designed the rules please do so on PM but don't say fixed that for you in reference to making a ludicrous statement like RaW = The Rules.

Back on topic: pages 43&44 don't give examples of how to take saves the literally define how saves are taken. Please point me to the other section that deals with how saves are taken if you believe this not to be the case (and by that I mean a section that deals with saves in general not an exception to the normal saves rules that allows you to take as save against that specific rule).

Why did they write the banner as they did? Well I think I've covered that already. As for claiming the banner is written differently to other rules in the book I suggest you take a look at the Fireborn rule.

Most of what Flingitnow write is insane.
In any post relating to GW.

Jakal if you want to discuss the rules vs RaW then PM me I don't want to derail this thread. Though I am curious do you play or believe that the rules are that any model that does not have eyes (or has something covering where its eyes should be like a helmet or face mask) can't ever charge, shoot or use spells that require LoS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:
Most of what Flingitnow write is insane.
In any post relating to GW.

Personal attacks aren't necessary or helpful. But why do you think it is insane to believe the GW design team designed the rules to Warhammer? Personally I find it frankly bizarre to suggest otherwise.

I was meaning that as a literal truth, not a personal attack.

Feel free to report it.

What you post is regularly incorrect or full of opinions posted as rules.

Kirsanth so another personal attack. I would ask you to refrain from such posts I won't report you but a mod may still look at it differently. We are supposed to be polite at all times. Do you have anything to say regarding the actual subject? Do you believe BotWD provides a ward save against ABH? And why?

To be clear, my point in reiteration was that my statement was not personal but rather an objective view of what you have written.

Even so, I think that taking a save to prevent a wound that is not dealt is irrational.

How does the game describe what ways wounds are dealt?

While I'm somewhat proud for creating a fairly heated YMDC thread, I do feel this is heading in the direction of the KB + Ethereal thread. I was just looking for clarification.

Surely the fact that BotWD specifically says it's 2++ can only be taken against WOUNDS caused, is enough?

In either case, I hope there's only one way of stuff dying in 9th edition...

Saying something is a rule because other stuff kinda looks like it isn't RAW. RAW means, as written. You can mouse over that term.

The reason I bring up Blade of Realities from Lizardman so much is because it breaks a lot of that "this is always the way it is" nonsense even though it's so short. You cannot take armor or ward saves against wounds caused by the magic weapon Blade of Realities.

But you can take Regeneration saves, because it doesn't say you can't. That might the only instance in all the army books and BRB where you get that situation. But without the Blade, that was still possible. Just because it never existed before doesn't mean it can't be done.

When you break into a special rule, you follow the guidelines of the special rule. Sometimes the special rule will link back to the normal actions you split off from, sometimes it doesn't. Like when a giant goes to attack, you do a giant's special rules and don't worry about anything other than his special rules--though when he applies Hits/Wounds you still respond as usual, if he stuffs you in a bag, you die. When you use armor piercing on an attack, that is just a modification of a normal CC attack and you behave as normal.

We know how to respond if something is a Hit. You take a S->T test then save. We know how to respond if something is a Wound, you take a save. Those are game terms. If something says you die, then you die. If it says you get to take a T test or LD test or Ward save, then you get that, but that is because the special rule says so not because it is in the BRB. RAW isn't magic, it's just reading.

 The Shadow wrote:
While I'm somewhat proud for creating a fairly heated YMDC thread, I do feel this is heading in the direction of the KB + Ethereal thread. I was just looking for clarification.

Surely the fact that BotWD specifically says it's 2++ can only be taken against WOUNDS caused, is enough?

In either case, I hope there's only one way of stuff dying in 9th edition...

For everyone who believes that rules are what is written down, BOTWD doesn't give a save.
For those who have their own rules in their head, it will remain a grey area.

DukeRustfield wrote:
RAW isn't magic, it's just reading.

This is one of my favorite posts.
Ever.

For everyone who believes that rules aren't what GW designed, BOTWD doesn't give a save.
For those who want to play by the rules GW designed, it will remain a grey area.

FTFY.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RAW isn't magic, it's just reading.

The issue is that RaW is reading without comprehension beyond the pure literal.

Understanding the literal is the basis of written communication.

Understanding the literal is the most basic way to interpret written communication. I'd agree with that. Communication is the process where by human share ideas, thoughts, feelings and knowledge. Language itself is not capable of thought and does not create rules it merely communicates them.

^ and love destroys evil.

But back on planet reality and in the context of a miniature game, or in the context of any game in history, the written rules are what we use to play. Even if RAI is something different, no one knows what RAI is. If the author wanted to communicate it, it would still at some point have to be RAW (kind of like the Army Book he created already...) because we do not have telepathic links to the author. The FAQs are just RAI that are converted into RAW and are the last word. But until they are made RAW, the maybe-sorta-who-knows of RAI is always trumped by RAW because RAI is just conjecture and opinion.

I think Flingitnow just has really close connections to the dev team, so he can tell every time they wrote one thing but meant something totally different. They are with him everywhere he goes, so he can talk to them. All day, all night.
That is why he gets to reroll to hit (wfter all, the rulebook mentions ererolls for attacks at one point, so they probably meant it to apply). He also gets to take a ward save for everything, since that is the stage after AS. They meant that to mean that everything gets a 1+ ward, again with rerolls, unless stated otherwise.
The fact that this is nonsense is only evident if you read the rulss, but my feelings say it is true, so it must be. RAI is bliss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Understanding the literal is the most basic way to interpret written communication. I'd agree with that. Communication is the process where by human share ideas, thoughts, feelings and knowledge. Language itself is not capable of thought and does not create rules it merely communicates them.

Language communicatss thoughts. Written language perhaps? That we might read? And then apply as written? Unless you are suggesting that the BRB is bursting with metaphors and similes. Or just hints at therules? If only they had left sections of the "to wound" chart blank, we could have guessed what they meant there too...
As to my quote which you "fixed" did you disagree with the content? For people who believe rules = RAW, the question IS obvious. For people who believe rules have a loose connection to what is written, it iS a grey area. Where was your objection?

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is that RaW is reading without comprehension beyond the pure literal.

This is a ruleset, literal is the best way to interpret it.
Or are you saying that we as gamers should go pirate and just treat the rules as guidelines.

This thread is obviously getting sensitive and off subject. To everyone who believes BoTWD receives their ward save in this case let me ask you one question. Does a model with a 2+ ward against flaming attacks get their ward save against black horror simply because it does in fact have a ward save? If your answer is no (because black horror isn't flaming) you obviously understand how triggered ward saves work. Therefore you should understand why the banner does not work here. As for rules you are free to do whatever you want with them in your circle of friends but don't get all bent out of shape when your made up rules don't hold up in a tournament.

Ward saves that are allowed are universal non triggered wards (such as from talisman of preservation)

 HoverBoy wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is that RaW is reading without comprehension beyond the pure literal.

This is a ruleset, literal is the best way to interpret it.
Or are you saying that we as gamers should go pirate and just treat the rules as guidelines.

It is drifting off topic but I think what he is getting at is that the rules need to be taken as a whole, not broken down by sentence. Each sentence requires the other and the more literal you become the more unintended conflict you create.
Yet these are the problems, by the topic creator himself, that occur when we start picking at the literal definitions.
Anyone remember this line...
.it depends what the meaning of 'is' is...

I think Flingitnow just has really close connections to the dev team, so he can tell every time they wrote one thing but meant something totally different. They are with him everywhere he goes, so he can talk to them. All day, all night.
That is why he gets to reroll to hit (wfter all, the rulebook mentions ererolls for attacks at one point, so they probably meant it to apply). He also gets to take a ward save for everything, since that is the stage after AS. They meant that to mean that everything gets a 1+ ward, again with rerolls, unless stated otherwise.
The fact that this is nonsense is only evident if you read the rulss, but my feelings say it is true, so it must be. RAI is bliss.

Or we live in RAW land where there are literally no rules so we can't play. We only play by rules we can be 100% sure on an since we can not prove we are having a mass hallucination we can not know what is said in the book. What a pointless way to play a game.

Right guys if you don't understand the purpose of language, how the rules are created and/or what is important in rules sets please pm me rather than derail this thread. Everyone accepts some RaI as RaW (for instance LoS for models without eyes) so to claim that you don't is being dishonest. RaI is literally by definition the rules. RaW is simply a method of interpreting them. If you don't understand this PM me and I'll explain it to you. But don't make outlandish ludicrous claims like those above or that RaW = The rules.

The rulebook in 40k has a section called "THE RULES"

Fling truly, honestly believes that those are NOT the rules the designer intended to put to paper, but are instead something else they accidentally put there.

I believe the designers intended to write rules down, in the section called "THE RULES", and that those ARE the rules of the game. By definition the written rules ARE the rules.

Fling has been told, repeatedly, to not present their view in other threads, as it neither serves a purpose, nor logically can be understood. It is their own creation.

Indeed. I'm intigued that tyere are some votes acruing for allowing the banner save, but nobody posting in favour of it. HE players hoping to pull a fast one do you think?

That does seem odd - its not like BotWD isnt already awesome sauce, it doesnt need to be able to be used when you explicitly do not cause wounds....

The rulebook in 40k has a section called "THE RULES"

Fling truly, honestly believes that those are NOT the rules the designer intended to put to paper, but are instead something else they accidentally put there.

No they are what the designer intended to put there to communicate the rules to us. You don't believe the rules are what the GW design team designed...

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaI is literally by definition the rules.

This is only true if you mean RaI = Rules as Interpreted.

Because, as has been pointed out a million times before, your belief of what the rules writers intended is no more valid than any other competing belief of what the rules writers intended.

You don't have a mystical connection to the minds of the design team thereby making your belief as to their intentions more valid than anyone elses.

This is only true if you mean RaI = Rules as Interpreted.

Because, as has been pointed out a million times before, your belief of what the rules writers intended is no more valid than any other competing belief of what the rules writers intended.

You don't have a mystical connection to the minds of the design team thereby making your belief as to their intentions more valid than anyone elses.

No RaI is the rules as intended. My assertation of what the RaI of a particular rule is just that my interpretation of the RaI. As you point out this is not intrinsically more or less valid than anyone else's interpretation.

Thus when we play a game for each rule one of 3 things happen:

1) we both read the RaI as the same and play it that way.
2) we have different interpretations of the RaI and discuss them and come to a consensus on what the RaI is and play by that.
3) we have different interpretations of the RaI and are unable to come to a consensus, thus we either dice off or agree a house rule to cover the situation.

Notice all the above is still true if you put RaW in there instead of RaI. The difference is with RaI you are trying to play by the actual rules, with RaW you are being a slave to the written word and will get some really really dumb rules.

Lol for the trolling by fling.

Read the RAI? Cracks me up.

Still not a single comment that suggests a) why the banner is written differently to practically every other ward ie with a specific wounds trigger
b) why anyone would assume that they should ignore that trigger for an attack that specifically doesn't cause that trigger
Or c) Whether they think that the 2+ from dragonbane gem could be taken, since it is also a ward save (and since we can ignore triggers...)

 FlingitNow wrote:

The rulebook in 40k has a section called "THE RULES"

Fling truly, honestly believes that those are NOT the rules the designer intended to put to paper, but are instead something else they accidentally put there.

No they are what the designer intended to put there to communicate the rules to us. You don't believe the rules are what the GW design team designed...

They are what the designer specifically wrote down, to state the rules. Those ARE the rules. It is why they are in a section called "THE RULES"

I remember now why I had you on ignore.

Nah, not playing anymore.

I'm beginning to remember why I never bother to read any of Fling's posts.

Welcome to #3 on the ignore list in all my time on Dakka (including the time on the pre-conversion site).