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.

I know I took this thread in a different direction but that is because I disagreed with its core assumption, that RAW is the way to answer rules queries. Still do. Mr hell here does a great job as a bulwark of common sense in this forum. Much better than me but I do like to present another way from time to time. And that’s what this is.

I’m not offended by your being rude, just disappointed. Not sure why my way of doing things gets you so het up. But in a place where people come for help a few more manners might be a good idea.

Andykp wrote:
I know I took this thread in a different direction but that is because I disagreed with its core assumption, that RAW is the way to answer rules queries.

But, in a forum dedicated to discussing the rules, RAW should be the first (and main) part of the discussion, bringing in RAI if it conflicts or if RAW can be interpreted in different ways.

I kinda got to agree. If someone asks "Can cavalry move up walls?" Then the very first thing you have to address is the RAW. After that, you can go into RAI and HIWPI. But RAW has to be the base of the argument. What each person considers to be RAW might be different, but it *does* have to be the core of your argument.

Back to the "horses climbing walls" argument, you could say "by RAW, they can. However, HIWPI, and how my group plays it, they cannot." Or "They can, but by RAW they have to maintain unit cohesion (2" from each base) so, unless you can get the whole unit up there, you have to stay grounded." Etc. Basically, you have to, at least, acknowledge the RAW before you can start making your RAI and HIWPI arguments.

Exactly

Andykp this a rules forum- ergo RAW is the best way of answering rules questions.

It is only acceptable to bring RAI into it when the RAW doesn't work. Or when the exact wording/meaning of the RAW is unclear or when two different RAW are in conflict.

It is always fine to play how you want with your friends but answers based on such have no place in a rules forum.

Furthermore introduceing interpretations when they are not relevant distracts threads and creates issues where their are none - your objection to horses being an example.

Furthermore new players may misinterpret your statements as evidence when they are personal oppinion and not grounded in the rules

I make my statements clearly as HIWPI. Because most people actually play the game. RAW arguments are ever as clear cut as you claim as I showed in the link above. And I always stated RAW should be considered but as I say some people come here to figure out how to play the game not just argue semantics. And don’t Blame me for bringing up horses and walls, that wasn’t my example. It is only here where RAW is the law, it isn’t stated in the actual rules. That’s is your interpretation.

As I said, I say. I make it clear my replies are overtly HIWPI and are in line with the rules of the forum. People need to know you don’t need to be pedant to play the game.

Hi Folks.

My original intention was to try to get input on creating a system by which many people could follow, to arrive at the same RAW interpretation, in the same manner that BEDMAS and the like allow many people to arrive at the same solution to a math problem.

I was trying to generate a system that, if both people agreed to follow, should result in both players arriving at the same result.

But... my 40k enthusiasm has dropped to 0 at the moment and I doubt I’ll be interested again for a while, so I’m going to sheepishly withdraw from this endeavour.

Some other points I was interested in were...

Amend vs overwrite? When to apply one or the other?

If an answer seems contradictory, but there is a clear yes/no answer to the question, should the clear yes/no always take precedence over the rest of the answer?

Most recent ruling takes precedence over older, but what about when specific overrides general? Should specific ruling trump a general, more recent change?

When two equally defensible interpretations exist (vague wording, for example) is there a can/can’t priority that should be in place?

When a rule refers to a non-existent condition (moving in the previous turn, for the second player in the first turn for example) is there a consistent approve / disapprove, or should this be equally valid interpretation situation?

If someone wants to pick this up and run with it, that’s where I’d start.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Hi Folks.

My original intention was to try to get input on creating a system by which many people could follow, to arrive at the same RAW interpretation, in the same manner that BEDMAS and the like allow many people to arrive at the same solution to a math problem.

I was trying to generate a system that, if both people agreed to follow, should result in both players arriving at the same result.

That probably will never happen in 40K. the writers just are not there yet and the game has a ton of rules with all the codexes and chapter approved etc.

Again, a starting point will not help much as the ruleset has its quirks.

Yup. Good intentions. But the best chef can only work within the quality of his ingredients. 40ks rules are not a quality any chef wants to work with.