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.

Honestly, for this part of the debate, it really is spliting hairs.
The question here is,
How do you define a rules change:

some people :
When a piece of written rules is explicitly changed.

other people :
When the way we play the game is changed.

Either way, it is inconsequential to whether or not reminder/example text is an intentional or deliberate effort to change how the game is played/is considered RaW. The question is whether or not poorly worded/mistaken/and unrelated informal out of syntax explanation text (intended to explain an answer or new errata not the formally presented question itself) is the designers making an effort to change how the game is played and to provide new RaW. Even though they have an established format to change the way we play the game and change the RaW outside of this type of convoluted embeded method. I personally don't see a reason why we would think the GW designers would do something as ilogical as breaking their own formating in this way ... and even if they somehow are... then i don't see a reason why we would take that seriously without an official statement for us to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, i think it is completely possible that some FaQs are rules changes and others are presented for clarity... it still does not say anywhere that ALL information provided in the errata/faqs are rules anywhere. this is an inference ..

"These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions."

again, like i said earlier, the word AND in the sentences shows that they have both rules admentmants AND answers to FaQs not that ALL FaQs are rules.

But again, inconsequential to this topic when it comes down to reminder/example text.

Question is misleading. RAW is never binding over RAI to begin with, thanks to the golden rule.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Question is misleading. RAW is never binding over RAI to begin with, thanks to the golden rule.

Thats why the question is not
Is FAQ reminder/example text to be regarded as binding ?

The question IS
Is FAQ reminder/example text to be regarded as binding Rules as Written (RAW) ?

The question I presented is quite specific in these regards.

 Type40 wrote:

again, like i said earlier, the word AND in the sentences shows that they have both rules admentmants AND answers to FaQs not that ALL FaQs are rules.

They are amendments to rules through errata and clarification of rules through FAQ. Both parts are as much valid updates as each other, or they would have published them seperately. If it's in the FAQ/Errata, it's the latest ruling. It doesn't always make sense or is liked by those affected by it.

You have 3 choices though. Take the update, continue with the older version, or house rule it.

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
FAQs don't over-ride the rules - they are clarifications of the rules. An expanded explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.

Where they get it wrong and the FAQ winds up directly contradicting rules text from elsewhere, it's up to the players to determine how to deal with that, just as it would be if the conflicting pieces of text were both in the rulebook to begin with.

A properly written ruleset doesn't need to rely on players determining "how to deal with that".

We get it. You hate GW's technical writers.

This saw is old.

He's not wrong. GW's technical writing is very poor and has been for a long time. So long as the writing remains poor, people will keep pointing that fact out. If you want BCB to stop, complain to GW... not to BCB.

 Dr Coconut wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

again, like i said earlier, the word AND in the sentences shows that they have both rules admentmants AND answers to FaQs not that ALL FaQs are rules.

They are amendments to rules through errata and clarification of rules through FAQ. Both parts are as much valid updates as each other, or they would have published them seperately. If it's in the FAQ/Errata, it's the latest ruling. It doesn't always make sense or is liked by those affected by it.

You have 3 choices though. Take the update, continue with the older version, or house rule it.

again, like i said earlier, the word AND in the sentences shows that they have both rules admentmants AND answers to FaQs not that ALL FaQs are rules.

But again, inconsequential to this topic when it comes down to reminder/example text.

this still doesn't address the fact that I am saying that's not the issue at hand XD. You focused in on a single part of ALL my posts and literally ignored the next line that said to disregard that in the context of this question ... This is exactly the attitude that is making people believe example/reminder text is RaW XD.

you see, where I wrote, that it is inconsequential to this topic.

We are really amongst comunity of people who just focus in on single pieces of text we want to see and ignore the rest... its quite funny that even in the context of this forum people don't understand how to read things in the larger context of a document (or set of rules)... hence this discussion all together.

The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".

GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.

That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.

I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.

We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.

Well, this post has escalated to another "prove me wrong" thread.

If you disagree, house rule it. If you think a rule was a typo, don't follow it. If you want to follow the rules to a dot, then play with it.

GW's poor QC and writing is nothing new.

Discuss with opponent before the game.

 Talizvar wrote:
The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".

GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.

That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.

I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.

We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.

YES !
This !!!

It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.

This is just documentation standards... in the games industry and elsewhere . Until GW specifically tells us this is not the case, it baffels me that people jump the the conclusion of thinking it is !
Maybe it's because I sift through code documentation all day long for my career... but I think this should be fairly obvious... I have never seen any game in existence that would tell you take this type of text as literal rules. Doing that has no precedence without GW specifically saying otherwise. Stop reading a line and ignoring the context of the whole rules set. There is no reason GW would emplore a method of embeding new rules/play standards into the an informal explanation of an answer to a question regarding something different. That would be ridiculous , even for GW. It's much more logical to look at ilogical/incorrect/misquoted reminder/example text and regard it as a mistake in explaining something.
Stop adding extra rules and exceptions just because half of an informal sentence sounds kind of like it doesn't work the way established formal syntax correct rules documentation says it should.

Like I have mentioned before, if you really want to take this type of sentence as an insertion of RAW you'll end up having an existential crisis. Because if you take informal text as RAW, the rule you are subscribing to every time it says "remember, do X" is literally ,,,, "I need to stop and recall X" .... does that seem like rules syntax to you ? or some out of context example says you get 2 shots with a weapon that fires once.... If you play that as RAW then why arn't you mathing out some film noir bulletin bord trying to figure out how that little piece of RaW effects every other rule in the game. AKA if it takes a shot does that mean all rapid fire weapons shoot twice and full range, or does that mean the ability makes all weapons fire at full range, or maybe that means only pulse rifels fire an extra shot at full range... There is context to these sentences and because reminder/example text is not formal, its not in GWs standard rules syntax, it is clearly not intentional RAW.

Stop reading "the pulse rifel gets 2 shots" and caling that RAW when it is acompanied by an entire sentence that makes no sense in the context of RAW... I seriously can't believe this needs explaining.

 Type40 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".

GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.

That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.

I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.

We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.

YES !
This !!!

It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.

This is just documentation standards... in the games industry and elsewhere . Until GW specifically tells us this is not the case, it baffels me that people jump the the conclusion of thinking it is !
Maybe it's because I sift through code documentation all day long for my career... but I think this should be fairly obvious... I have never seen any game in existence that would tell you take this type of text as literal rules. Doing that has no precedence without GW specifically saying otherwise. Stop reading a line and ignoring the context of the whole rules set. There is no reason GW would emplore a method of embeding new rules/play standards into the an informal explanation of an answer to a question regarding something different. That would be ridiculous , even for GW. It's much more logical to look at ilogical/incorrect/misquoted reminder/example text and regard it as a mistake in explaining something.
Stop adding extra rules and exceptions just because half of an informal sentence sounds kind of like it doesn't work the way established formal syntax correct rules documentation says it should.

Like I have mentioned before, if you really want to take this type of sentence as an insertion of RAW you'll end up having an existential crisis. Because if you take informal text as RAW, the rule you are subscribing to every time it says "remember, do X" is literally ,,,, "I need to stop and recall X" .... does that seem like rules syntax to you ? or some out of context example says you get 2 shots with a weapon that fires once.... If you play that as RAW then why arn't you mathing out some film noir bulletin bord trying to figure out how that little piece of RaW effects every other rule in the game. AKA if it takes a shot does that mean all rapid fire weapons shoot twice and full range, or does that mean the ability makes all weapons fire at full range, or maybe that means only pulse rifels fire an extra shot at full range... There is context to these sentences and because reminder/example text is not formal, its not in GWs standard rules syntax, it is clearly not intentional RAW.

Stop reading "the pulse rifel gets 2 shots" and caling that RAW when it is acompanied by an entire sentence that makes no sense in the context of RAW... I seriously can't believe this needs explaining.

But it's literally written as so, therefore it's RAW which stands for Rules As Written. FAQs & errata are officially sanctioned rule source.

You can't say something that's written in writing isn't something that's written in writing when it actually is written in writing. Your interpretation of the written text is up to you, but that doesn't change the binary condition of being written or not written because you disagree/have an issue with the clarity of it.

We're not disagreeing there's a clear disagreement/contradiction in the rule in question, but you seem adamant in applying common logic to interpret the RAW is the true RAW, which is clearly false.

 skchsan wrote:
Well, this post has escalated to another "prove me wrong" thread.

If you disagree, house rule it. If you think a rule was a typo, don't follow it. If you want to follow the rules to a dot, then play with it.

GW's poor QC and writing is nothing new.

Discuss with opponent before the game.

The burden of proof is not on the ones who do not believe it is on the ones who postulate something.

There is precedence in game design and the gaming industry to ignore the use of informal language and syntax like reminder/example text.
GW does not say you should include this type of language when determining RAW.

People are proposing that every word of the FAQ are rules ...

We arn't saying proove us wrong, we are saying we do not accept peoples proposition that this type of informal text is intended to be considered RAW.
So please, show us where, GW tells us that we should use informal examples/reminders as some kind of basis for rules ?

All people keep saying is that the FAQs are rules... no one is arguing that they are not. they are arguing that it is ilogical to infer use the informal explinations the come after the answer to a question or an errata as a basis for thinking that a new rule is being aplied. The language used in the reminder/example text is not even remotely syntax accurate to the rule set... If you really want to take these things as RAW, then look at the whole setnence at least and then have a good time trying to call your oponent on not stoping to have contemplation and "remember" something. Or read the whole sentence and try and figure out how an incorrect example as whole impacts the whole game ... Instead you are snipping a part out of informal text and calling it a new rule... this makes absolutley no sense.

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Well, this post has escalated to another "prove me wrong" thread.

If you disagree, house rule it. If you think a rule was a typo, don't follow it. If you want to follow the rules to a dot, then play with it.

GW's poor QC and writing is nothing new.

Discuss with opponent before the game.

The burden of proof is not on the ones who do not believe it is on the ones who postulate something.

Yes, and you're suggesting what's written there isn't actually written there.

 Type40 wrote:
People are proposing that every word of the FAQ are rules ...

No, we're proposing that every word of the FAQs are RAW. We're not discussing the quality of the rule, but whether the rules are actually written out.

 Type40 wrote:
We arn't saying proove us wrong, we are saying we do not accept peoples proposition that this type of informal text is intended to be considered RAW.

Well, the rules are actually & literally written out.

 Type40 wrote:
All people keep saying is that the FAQs are rules... no one is arguing that they are not. they are arguing that it is ilogical to infer use the informal explinations the come after the answer to a question or an errata as a basis for thinking that a new rule is being aplied. The language used in the reminder/example text is not even remotely syntax accurate to the rule set...

Right, we're not saying the obvious contradiction to the core rules is not a contradiction. All we're telling you is it is up to you to interpret the contradiction. But at the end of the day, whether GW made a mistake or not, the rules are actually written out as so.

You need to understand when we discuss RAW in this forum, its literally literal, contradictory or not.

The arguments in this post can be summarized as:
1. (RAW ignores the standard RF rule) If you want to follow strictly to the letter of the rule, RF1 pulse rifles now shoot twice at full range because GW messed up.
2. (GW messed up and I'm having none of it) Well there's an obvious contradiction to what RF does in the game and the FAQ kinda has that messed up. Talk with your opponent/TO prior to game.

The former is a strict RAW stance and the latter is a perfectly viable HIWPI.

We're not telling you that you must play the game as written. When you ask for RAW, we give you the literal RAW. Stop getting so heated over your misunderstanding of our responses.

 flandarz wrote:
So, rather than changing a rule, they clarified it, yes? The rule didn't allow or disallow for modifiers to lower a dice roll below 1. It was vague, and so GW released an FAQ to state the intent that a dice roll could not be lowered below 1. Again, this isn't RAW. It *is* RAI, and I agree that going by RAI is better than going by RAW. Just saying that you shouldn't conflate the two, if you're making an argument about RAW vs RAI.

Your statement isn't correct. They allowed modifiers to be applied to raise and lower a dice roll. Previous to the FAQ there was no statement about limitations on how it affects the die roll. This means that the modifiers would be allowed to lower a dice roll before one or raise it above 6; it's not what you're trying to assert that it didn't either allow or disallow it.

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".

GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.

That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.

I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.

We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.

YES !
This !!!

It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.

This is just documentation standards... in the games industry and elsewhere . Until GW specifically tells us this is not the case, it baffels me that people jump the the conclusion of thinking it is !
Maybe it's because I sift through code documentation all day long for my career... but I think this should be fairly obvious... I have never seen any game in existence that would tell you take this type of text as literal rules. Doing that has no precedence without GW specifically saying otherwise. Stop reading a line and ignoring the context of the whole rules set. There is no reason GW would emplore a method of embeding new rules/play standards into the an informal explanation of an answer to a question regarding something different. That would be ridiculous , even for GW. It's much more logical to look at ilogical/incorrect/misquoted reminder/example text and regard it as a mistake in explaining something.
Stop adding extra rules and exceptions just because half of an informal sentence sounds kind of like it doesn't work the way established formal syntax correct rules documentation says it should.

Like I have mentioned before, if you really want to take this type of sentence as an insertion of RAW you'll end up having an existential crisis. Because if you take informal text as RAW, the rule you are subscribing to every time it says "remember, do X" is literally ,,,, "I need to stop and recall X" .... does that seem like rules syntax to you ? or some out of context example says you get 2 shots with a weapon that fires once.... If you play that as RAW then why arn't you mathing out some film noir bulletin bord trying to figure out how that little piece of RaW effects every other rule in the game. AKA if it takes a shot does that mean all rapid fire weapons shoot twice and full range, or does that mean the ability makes all weapons fire at full range, or maybe that means only pulse rifels fire an extra shot at full range... There is context to these sentences and because reminder/example text is not formal, its not in GWs standard rules syntax, it is clearly not intentional RAW.

Stop reading "the pulse rifel gets 2 shots" and caling that RAW when it is acompanied by an entire sentence that makes no sense in the context of RAW... I seriously can't believe this needs explaining.

But it's literally written as so, therefore it's RAW which stands for Rules As Written. FAQs & errata are officially sanctioned rule source.

You can't say something that's written in writing isn't something that's written in writing when it actually is written in writing. Your interpretation of the written text is up to you, but that doesn't change the binary condition of being written or not written because you disagree/have an issue with the clarity of it.

We're not disagreeing there's a clear disagreement/contradiction in the rule in question, but you seem adamant in applying common logic to interpret the RAW is the true RAW, which is clearly false.

Seriously then the next time you play a game and you don't

strap on your armour, load your bolter and get ready for war!

BRB pg 13
I am going to call over a TO because you arn't following RAW.
Informal text is not the same thing as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Well, this post has escalated to another "prove me wrong" thread.

If you disagree, house rule it. If you think a rule was a typo, don't follow it. If you want to follow the rules to a dot, then play with it.

GW's poor QC and writing is nothing new.

Discuss with opponent before the game.

The burden of proof is not on the ones who do not believe it is on the ones who postulate something.

Yes, and you're suggesting what's written there isn't actually written there.

 Type40 wrote:
People are proposing that every word of the FAQ are rules ...

No, we're proposing that every word of the FAQs are RAW. We're not discussing the quality of the rule, but whether the rules are actually written out.

 Type40 wrote:
We arn't saying proove us wrong, we are saying we do not accept peoples proposition that this type of informal text is intended to be considered RAW.

Well, the rules are actually & literally written out.

 Type40 wrote:
All people keep saying is that the FAQs are rules... no one is arguing that they are not. they are arguing that it is ilogical to infer use the informal explinations the come after the answer to a question or an errata as a basis for thinking that a new rule is being aplied. The language used in the reminder/example text is not even remotely syntax accurate to the rule set...

Right, we're not saying the obvious contradiction to the core rules is not a contradiction. All we're telling you is it is up to you to interpret the contradiction. But at the end of the day, whether GW made a mistake or not, the rules are actually written out as so.

You need to understand when we discuss RAW in this forum, its literally literal, contradictory or not.

The arguments in this post can be summarized as:
1. (RAW ignores the standard RF rule) If you want to follow strictly to the letter of the rule, RF1 pulse rifles now shoot twice at full range because GW messed up.
2. (GW messed up and I'm having none of it) Well there's an obvious contradiction to what RF does in the game and the FAQ kinda has that messed up. Talk with your opponent/TO prior to game.

The former is a strict RAW stance and the latter is a perfectly viable HIWPI.

We're not telling you that you must play the game as written. When you ask for RAW, we give you the literal RAW. Stop getting so heated over your misunderstanding of our responses.

What part of read the whole sentence do you not get... the literal reading of a reminder text is "REMEMBER ..... do X"
Are you telling me the literal rule is to stop and contemplate something or are you telling me to take that as RAI ?,
Informal text is not an attempt at inserting RAW, especially considering reminder/example text as RAW is out of format from how the introduce new rules and changes to mechancs as RAW by their own use of an FAQ and Errata format. Seriously, how do you not understand this.

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
The "clearly" stated rule is the RAW rule.
The reminders and examples are to help illustrate the application of the rule so just by the structure of them you cannot use them as "gospel".

GW seems to always mess-up anything they try to write in "friendly language", the more explicit wording are the only places you have a hope of a "clear" rule.
I see the same thing in industry where you have the actual rule document (say for some quality system) and then the companion explanation document can go anywhere from helpful to garbage.

That is my own take on it applied to many things, GW usually applies some weasel wording of "do what you think best" or "roll-off" if it means that much to you.
I "hate" roll-off since that gives opportunity for your opponent to ignore a rule they do not like.
Because heaven forbid they try to ensure smooth play by clear wording and an organized and logical structure.

I have had to group salient texts with their reference documents and pages with a category to make a cheat-sheet and with all the various rules updates.
The freaking jumping around, multiple sources and metric ton of examples and strange little boxes and asides make it a mess to look anything up.

We could argue forever on this BUT in "real world" settings, we always went by the standard and official addendum that explicitly states the rule, explanations are typically ignored.

YES !
This !!!

It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.

This is just documentation standards... in the games industry and elsewhere . Until GW specifically tells us this is not the case, it baffels me that people jump the the conclusion of thinking it is !
Maybe it's because I sift through code documentation all day long for my career... but I think this should be fairly obvious... I have never seen any game in existence that would tell you take this type of text as literal rules. Doing that has no precedence without GW specifically saying otherwise. Stop reading a line and ignoring the context of the whole rules set. There is no reason GW would emplore a method of embeding new rules/play standards into the an informal explanation of an answer to a question regarding something different. That would be ridiculous , even for GW. It's much more logical to look at ilogical/incorrect/misquoted reminder/example text and regard it as a mistake in explaining something.
Stop adding extra rules and exceptions just because half of an informal sentence sounds kind of like it doesn't work the way established formal syntax correct rules documentation says it should.

Like I have mentioned before, if you really want to take this type of sentence as an insertion of RAW you'll end up having an existential crisis. Because if you take informal text as RAW, the rule you are subscribing to every time it says "remember, do X" is literally ,,,, "I need to stop and recall X" .... does that seem like rules syntax to you ? or some out of context example says you get 2 shots with a weapon that fires once.... If you play that as RAW then why arn't you mathing out some film noir bulletin bord trying to figure out how that little piece of RaW effects every other rule in the game. AKA if it takes a shot does that mean all rapid fire weapons shoot twice and full range, or does that mean the ability makes all weapons fire at full range, or maybe that means only pulse rifels fire an extra shot at full range... There is context to these sentences and because reminder/example text is not formal, its not in GWs standard rules syntax, it is clearly not intentional RAW.

Stop reading "the pulse rifel gets 2 shots" and caling that RAW when it is acompanied by an entire sentence that makes no sense in the context of RAW... I seriously can't believe this needs explaining.

But it's literally written as so, therefore it's RAW which stands for Rules As Written. FAQs & errata are officially sanctioned rule source.

You can't say something that's written in writing isn't something that's written in writing when it actually is written in writing. Your interpretation of the written text is up to you, but that doesn't change the binary condition of being written or not written because you disagree/have an issue with the clarity of it.

We're not disagreeing there's a clear disagreement/contradiction in the rule in question, but you seem adamant in applying common logic to interpret the RAW is the true RAW, which is clearly false.

Seriously then the next time you play a game and you don't

strap on your armour, load your bolter and get ready for war!

BRB pg 13
I am going to call over a TO because you arn't following RAW.
Informal text is not the same thing as RAW.

Yes, I'll make sure I'm well dressed (my interpretation of the RAW of what 'armor' refers to), bring my army case with models (my interpretation of the 'loaded up bolter') and get get set up to play a game of 40k (my interpretation of the 'getting ready for war').

I'm still not sure why you don't understand RAW is simply the binary condition of being written or not.

Because 40k utilizes permissive ruleset, if a rule literally isn't written out to grant you permission, you cannot assume the you are allowed to do so; "well the rulebook doesn't tell me I can't do this" is not a valid reasoning, whcih is why we discuss RAW - whether you were explicitly permitted to do so.

There's no issue of you interpreting the flavor texts as not being part of a rule, but you can't go so far as to say that it is not written so, aka RAW.

Guys, please learn how to hide what you're quoting in spoilers instead of giving us a quote the equivalent in length to War and Peace. Or, just truncate to the relevant parts of what you're quoting. The rest of the forum will appeciate that. Thanks.

I am at a loss for words,
Fine, you take your bible, pick the parts you like, whether intended to be rules or not, follow those parts word for word, ignore the other inconvient words that make the statemnts you chose non-sense in a rules context, and pretend you are somehow playing RAW.

I on the other hand will look at intentional rules a play the game as RAW and using the rules intended to be RAW.
If you really can't figure out the difference between formal syntax and informal explanation, I have no idea how to help you.

It doesn't mater how premissive the game is, when informal text, like reminder/example text is not an intentional placement of new rules / mechanics or RaW. Especially non-sense reminder/example text... what is it giving you permision to do exactly ? contemplate the existence of a rule ? or figure out the strange set of circumstances that made a pulse rifel shoot twice at max range ? seriously.

Are you seriously trying to tell me now, you will go so far as implying flavour text is RAW ?
I give up, there is no point in this conversation if you maintain a stance like that.

Peace out


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Will do, sorry.

Well, yes, flavor text is still within the set [explicitly written down in the rulebook]. Deciding whether it pertains to the game play or not is up to your interpretation.

Is a paragraph in a novel not a paragraph in a novel because the author/editor didn't realize it was completely contradictory?

All I'm trying to do is help you understand what RAW discussion means in this forum going forward because you're getting unnecessarily heated over a discussion with strangers on a forum.

 skchsan wrote:
Well, yes, flavor text is still within the set [explicitly written down in the rulebook]. Deciding whether it pertains to the game play or not is up to your interpretation.

Is a paragraph in a novel not a paragraph in a novel because the author/editor didn't realize it was completely contradictory?

All I'm trying to do is help you understand what RAW discussion means in this forum going forward because you're getting unnecessarily heated over a discussion with strangers on a forum.

No. Flavor text is flavor text and rules are rules. It isn't WAW(writing as written)[As much as orks may have you believe... Mind the pun] it is RAW

I seriously can't believe this conversation has dissolved to this. Go watch some game design videos on youtube. Specifically look up the difference between the American style of board game design and the German style in relationship to applying game themes. Or just try and figure out what the word "rule" means... I am so incredibly baffled by the lack of formal reasoning and lack of logic in this thread. I have honestly just lost respect for a part of humanities basic ability to comprehend descriptive language... Flavor text is not intended RAW... In no way shape or form. Once you figure that out we can move on to the real conversation.

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Well, yes, flavor text is still within the set [explicitly written down in the rulebook]. Deciding whether it pertains to the game play or not is up to your interpretation.

Is a paragraph in a novel not a paragraph in a novel because the author/editor didn't realize it was completely contradictory?

All I'm trying to do is help you understand what RAW discussion means in this forum going forward because you're getting unnecessarily heated over a discussion with strangers on a forum.

No. Flavor text is flavor text and rules are rules. It isn't WAW(writing as written)[As much as orks may have you believe... Mind the pun] it is RAW

I seriously can't believe this conversation has dissolved to this. Go watch some game design videos on youtube. Specifically look up the difference between the American style of board game design and the German style in relationship to applying game themes. Or just try and figure out what the word "rule" means... I am so incredibly baffled by the lack of formal reasoning and lack of logic in this thread. I have honestly just lost respect for a part of humanities basic ability to comprehend descriptive language... Flavor text is not intended RAW... In no way shape or form. Once you figure that out we can move on to the real conversation.

As previously explained, we discuss RAW because in a permissive ruleset, you need to be explicitly told so in order for you to do something. "The rule doesn't tell me I can't do this, so I can do this" is not a valid reasoning.

What you are discussing is your liberty of interpreting the contradictory nature of BRB, battleprimer, campaign books, FAQ's, etc (currently BRB/Battleprimer vs FAQ). This is strictly RAI and/or HIWPI, which I've noted as this becoming another one of your "prove me wrong" posts.

Why is this a RAI/HIWPI discussion? Because you're asking what to do with a written text when it blatantly contradicts a preexisting convention/rule.

The OP asks whether the so called "reminder/example text" is to be binding changes to the BRB. This is strictly an opinion thread which is why the second poster noted this isn't really YMDC appropriate.

What you're referring to as "WAW" is actually the "RAW" that gets discussed. It's important you understand this going forward in order to avoid these unnecessary arguments.

greatbigtree wrote:Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.

After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.

This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.

Again, this is for the audience.

DeathReaper wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.

After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.

This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.

Again, this is for the audience.

Yes, this is 100% correct.

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat.

Type40 & Flandarz, you can see this is an FAQ that changes rules right and not just a clarification?

Just a quick wrench to toss in here:

Necrons now have a FAQ that tells us that a -1 modifier does turn the result into 0.

Q: Can the Quantum Deflection Stratagem (-1 to the QS roll) allow a unit with the Quantum Shielding ability (ignore damage if die result is lower than damage) to ignore attacks with a Damage characteristic of 1?
A: Yes.

 Draco765 wrote:
Just a quick wrench to toss in here:

Necrons now have a FAQ that tells us that a -1 modifier does turn the result into 0.

Q: Can the Quantum Deflection Stratagem (-1 to the QS roll) allow a unit with the Quantum Shielding ability (ignore damage if die result is lower than damage) to ignore attacks with a Damage characteristic of 1?
A: Yes.

And yet when I point out these contradictory FAQs, the mods lock the thread.

This makes me legitimately angry. How can they have people writing the rules this incompetent?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And yet when I point out these contradictory FAQs, the mods lock the thread.

This makes me legitimately angry. How can they have people writing the rules this incompetent?

Yes, you're so persecuted. It has nothing to do with your abrasive manner, and everything to do with the fact that the mods irrationally dislike you.

People writing rules are still people. They make mistakes. There's probably multiple people writing rules. They miscommunicate. It happens, and it's not the end of the world, or even of a game. Work it out with your opponent, report it to the FAQ line, and move on.

DELETED

Without access to the direct quotes, is this a case of general (can’t modify below 1) being overridden by specific (can be modified to 0 in this case)?

 greatbigtree wrote:
Without access to the direct quotes, is this a case of general (can’t modify below 1) being overridden by specific (can be modified to 0 in this case)?

Its not said in the 40k rules that specific overrides generic but thats how i always try to apply the rules since its the most natural way for me as a MTG player. If you start looking at the rules this way, the game rules make more sense and i wish a certain user would use this logic instead insulting the game they clearly hate.

Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.

I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.

I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.

It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.

 Stux wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.

I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.

It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.

its also the most elegant way to design game rules. instead of listing all the exceptions in the generic rule, you have separate rules that create exceptions. This makes the rules a lot cleaner and easier to remember (since you only need to remember the exceptions if they are releveant to your army)

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And yet when I point out these contradictory FAQs, the mods lock the thread.

This makes me legitimately angry. How can they have people writing the rules this incompetent?

Yes, you're so persecuted. It has nothing to do with your abrasive manner, and everything to do with the fact that the mods irrationally dislike you.

People writing rules are still people. They make mistakes. There's probably multiple people writing rules. They miscommunicate. It happens, and it's not the end of the world, or even of a game. Work it out with your opponent, report it to the FAQ line, and move on.

Exalted. Totally for the second paragraph of course.