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.

You can't be serious .... You just admitted you are ignoring the points put forth because "you don't think it matters".

Are you a troll?

You can't be serious .... You just admitted you are ignoring the points put forth because "you don't think it matters".

This is one of those things that's so simple, I'm sitting here struggling to even think of a way to dumb it down far enough for you.

No "point" was made.  Insaniak made an argument, I debated it, he responded with a non-sequitor.  I said it was a non-sequitor, and he said I was off topic.  I said it was ridiculous that he refused to speak in anything but non-sequitors and he said something else along those lines.  I gave up.  Then you came along, and wanted to pretend you have a functioning forebrain.

Let me recap:  If somebody says something that's not correct, I don't care where they say it. I don't care if "they only discuss the rules online" that way, and play another way. If it's wrong it's wrong. I already explained this. I can't say it any more simply.

You tell me, why does it matter where an incorrect argument is made?

If you want to discover what's going on here, I suggest you banish the illusion that you're smarter than me.

Now, if I know your pattern, you'll say something terse and meaningless and think you've really shown me up.

This has been an interesting journey, to say the least.

I remember this discussion before, when someone suggested that we have a separate "Rules as Played" discussion forum (or something like that), separate from YMDC, since YMDC is so RAW focused.

Its interesting that while RAW is debated endlessly, RAW-vocates say they actually play it differently on the table.  So, in effect, what we do here is debate the meaning of "or" and "and" or "may be", give casual forum readers a potentially skewed interpretation of the rules, which they then take back to their group of players.  Its a purely academic exercise.  

I mean, I find YMDC equally frustrating and interesting, but also have found that 99.7% of what is discussed here as 'rules problems' have never come up once in any game I've ever played, casually or in a GT (since 2nd ed).

Sorry, just musing in an OT way...

 

YMDC is often very interesting in a theoretical way. Anyone who finds it overwhelmingly frustrating may, with permission, stop reading it and go elsewhere.

Well, the two most played armies here are IG and Orks and we run into strange problems in almost half of the games we play. Artillery and Walkers in 4th edition are seriously sloppy just for example. Although, these forums don't always come to a solid conclusion they at least are a good way to get multiple views and find strange hidden rules that the two players involved may have missed before. We usually get a good basis for a house rule from here at least.

Cruentus: Yeah, that was me.

I still think it would be far more interesting and useful to discuss how the game is/should be actually played in real life, than limiting ourselves to RAW (which everyone agrees is unplayable in many instances). However, I was shouted down before. At least I got a new sticky topic (The Nature of the YMTC Forum)!

Please feel free to start another Dakka Discussions post about this - I will gladly support you!

can i get the link to the original post of Ed's article?

Nope. That got deleted due to massive flaming.

I will dismiss your ad hominems and respond to:

"You tell me, why does it matter where an incorrect argument is made?"

Because you already admitted you were having a discussion using 2 different rulesets.

One being RaW, and the other "how it should be".
The 2 are quite clearly not compatable, and the very nature of the forum clearly dismisses the latter.
It doesn't take much of a "forebrain" to figure that out. Unless you only want to argue, because that's all it will accomplish.


They are quite clearly not compatable, and the very nature of the forum dismisses the latter.

Because you already admitted you were having a discussion using 2 different rulesets.

No. No... No?

I'm not using 2 different rulesets. I'm not the one who's confusing themselves with context. I'm just using logic. I take an argument on its merits and I engage it.

"The RAW say blah," is an argument. I take that on its merits.

"The most fun way to play is blah," is an argument. I take that on it's merits.

In neither case do I give a crap where you're standing when you say it. Say it at the table. Say it in the YMDC forum. Say it while teabagging Jaques Chirac. I don't care.

Either the logic works or it doesn't.

I can't even believe I'm belaboring this point, but it's gotten to be a sort of personal challenge to explain this to you.

Follow me here:

Somebody says "according to the RAW, I conclude blah."

But the RAW don't support blah. So I say "no, I don't agree."

So then the person says "well, I don't actually PLAY that way, obviously."

And I say "I don't care how you play, you made a RAW argument that the RAW don't support."

That's all.

So, I don't really care if somebody employs RAW when they play the game, or "common sense," or whatever. If they say "the RAW says" and the RAW don't, then I don't agree. "Well, I don't actually USE that argument" isn't a refutation, it's just further stupidity. Like, if it's not supported by the rules AND you don't intend to play that way, why are you even mentioning it?

I'm not really interested in wether or not you "belabor" anything; you have nothing of interest to say to me really.
I was merely pointing out the fact that the argument was being held by 2 very different rulesets. wether or not you choose to honor the spirit of the YMDC forum and post by your own rules is entirely up to you, however , be prepared to have many more "laborious" conversations with many other people who actually understand and follow the nature of this forum.

Just because the nature of this forum doesn't appeal to your sensibilities doesn't change a thing.


Done.

Posted By Thunderkiss on 07/17/2006 12:03 PM


Just because the nature of this forum doesn't appeal to your sensibilities doesn't change a thing.


Done.

Ah yes, the superiority trump.  Right along with the 'well, you can go elsewhere' type comments.  Because its RAW, and its YMDC, nothing else really matters.

All that I've taken from this thread is that the RAW players argue RAW endlessly, and nit-pick the holy snot out of the ruleset, while not actually following those rules on the table

So, then it just makes most of this a time-wasting, academic, and logic-based exercise, with no real-world utility.  Bravo. 

if the article isnt online anymore, which WD was it in so i can back order it. Im fairly interested in exactly what was said and debated.

Posted By Cruentus on 07/17/2006 3:28 PM

All that I've taken from this thread is that the RAW players argue RAW endlessly, and nit-pick the holy snot out of the ruleset, while not actually following those rules on the table

Thats a rather broad generalization (or is it a generalization about broads? ).

Most RAW players will stick to the RAW as much as possible when playing, and will only deviate when one of those rare unplayable situations arises. I believe that most of the times that you see a RAW advocate not playing by RAW will be times that they could not convince their opponent that the RAW says what it says.

 

...with no real-world utility

Everything has real-world utility, you simply must find a way to apply it. It may not be obvious at first, but its there.

I was merely pointing out the fact that the argument was being held by 2 very different rulesets.

How do you expect me to avoid insulting you if you're going to be this stupid?

The argument is being held by rulesets? Really? The two rulesets grew little metaphysical mouths and started debating each other?

Again: An argument was made that, by RAW, Terminators have Terminator Armor. I don't feel that this is a valid argument according to the RAW.

I was talking strictly about the RAW, per the spirit of YMDC.

But you don't care. You're pissy cause I'm refusing to be patient with your idiocy, and so you refuse to read what I write. Rather than reading, you've manufactured some anti-YMDC viewpoint for me, possibly an amalgam of me, Cruentus, and the voices bouncing around your idiot head.

Considering how confident you are of your knowledge, and how totally illusory that knowledge actually is, you really, really need to change your sig. REALLY. Change it to "Done." I think that fits you a bit better.

Ah yes, the superiority trump.

Don't worry, he's not talking to you. He thinks he's talking to me, but he's not bright enough to actually read what I'm writing. Or possibly he doesn't understand the complicated system this notesboard uses, wherein the poster's name appears next to his post. So, hey, maybe he is talking to you. I think he's just yelling at the voices in his head, cause they won't stop reminding him what a dope he is.

Ok Ok ... have you two finally stopped behaving like six year olds that are fighting over who kicked the ball over the fence. Can one of you just not reply to the other so this thread can now die with a shred of dignity.

Posted By DaBoss on 07/17/2006 3:30 PM
if the article isnt online anymore, which WD was it in so i can back order it. Im fairly interested in exactly what was said and debated.

The latest issue (US WD 318 if memory serves).

@Looper & Cruentas, the issue with a 'how to play it' forum is that every answer is going to be "you should discuss it with your opponent and dice off if you can't agree"

Any time that I have put something like "XXXXX, How to actually PLAY it" in the subject line in YMDC I have had good responses from people that mostly come out "Well RAW is X but my group plays by Y because it makes more sense"

'pants: I'm well aware of your inclination to dice off for any- and every-thing

And while, yes, things should be discussed with one's opponent beforehand, the list of things to discuss is pretty long. What I am saying is that it would be USEFUL to have a forum where many people discussed how they and their groups play the game, so that a group could agree to follow the 'dakka consensus' or something along those lines, so that you *don't* need to bring a 10 page list of things to be discussed pregame. Something along the lines of the Warseer FAQs, but with more of the odd situations that come up here.

As opposed to the way this forum works, where RAW trumps all, and special dispensation must be cajoled in order to discuss IRL gameplay.


When I started playing 40k, I had only 2 opponents. So my view of what was 'reasonable' in terms of sorting out situations that were a) unclear by RAW or b) ridiculous by RAW, were limited to myself and two others. It would be useful to have a place to discuss how the many groups of players represented by the Dakka community ACTUALLY play out these situations IRL games.

Especially due to the poor writing of GW, where they leave out lots of things that are obvious by precedent to people who have played previous editions (ie that you use a squad leader's LD for the squad, or that terminators get a 5+(i) save). These would not necessarily be obvious to some nOOb who just picked up 4th ed and a codex.

Granted, it's POSSIBLE to get a consensus in this forum on actual gameplay of many situations, but you have to deal with a bunch of punks spouting "RAW you can't charge me with your dreadnought if I have two units of marines alternately interspersed ", before you can get people to comment on actual gameplay.

I just think that a forum to discuss a consensus of how the rules are generally interpreted/used/played would be infinitely more useful than YMTC, where you can get a 6-page discussion on esoteric RAW that everyone involved admits they don't use when playing the game!

I just think that a forum to discuss a consensus of how the rules are generally interpreted/used/played would be infinitely more useful than YMTC, where you can get a 6-page discussion on esoteric RAW that everyone involved admits they don't use when playing the game!

But then we would lose the amusement of reading all of the brow-beating and chest-pounding... and it would be so much harder to tell who the stupid people and smart people are!

Kidding aside, I think it's a great idea. For someone new to the game, it's not helpful to read pages after page of pedantic posturing and back and forth Monty Python-esque arguing ... "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!"...

Don't get me wrong. As an abstract exercise, it's funny to see how truly badly written the GW rules are, and how certain some people seem to be about absolute uncertainties. But, it tends to run in circles and spiral out of control (but, this is the internet after all, so my expectations shouldn't be too high...).

That's not saying that every answer in this forum is unhelpful. Yakkface's answers, for example, are always clearly written and to the point. And he often punctuates things by pointing out how most people tend to play something. He helps solve problems, unlike most, who seem to be more interested in bickering.

Maybe rather than an entirely new forum, the self-appointed experts could be less anal about RAW-only interpretations and temper their answers with real-life (real helpful) examples of how the game is played in their parts.

But maybe that's not the purpose of this forum... maybe it is supposed to be just another way to have a good laugh.

Even though it's sometimes stupid, I enjoy YMDC as it is.

You do get genuine replies to questions along with the nit-picking. Besides, it's unrealistic to give an answer "this is how everyone does it" without first examining the rules to see if they are right or if it's unclear. (There are certainly cases where the way "everyone does it" is wrong by the clearly written rules.)

If you want to take a vote as to how most people here "do it", that would be interesting but it wouldn't necessarily help the next time you are arguing with someone about a rules interpretation.

A separate forum where everyone can vote on interpretations seems a sensible way to go. Then you can have the best of both wordls, the YMDC RAW argument and the vote for popular interpretation.

Word! If you're interested in what the consensus on how something is played then just include that in the question. Or if the question has already been asked, post your own addition questioning about how people will actually play it.

I think that having a good grasp on the RAW is the right place to start though. Then at least we all have a good starting place to go on to try to figure out what the heck the rules are actually trying to steer us toward. For those that don't know I am an "intent" player. It has been proven that by using a strict RAW approach to the rules results in an unplayable game. However, certain players may have a different idea of the "intent" of the rules than I do so we have to use the RAW as a starting point for what we think the best way to play is. And that is the story of how house rules are made! Tune in next week for the story of how Dark Eldar are made!

Yes, well, the last time I proposed a separate forum for 'how do people actually play the game' questions, I was pedantically referred to the howling wasteland of the "40K Proposed Rules" forum.

I agree that you have to know the RAW as a starting point. The problem is with those who view that means as an end, in and of itself.

To get back to the original question of the topic:

While RAW it is obvious that units from those codices that list 'replace' will lose their normal weapon when they upgrade, and units from other codices get to keep their normal weapons, I find this blatantly unbalanced in practice. It is rather obviously an effect of poor editing and of codices being released over long time cycles.

If any of you would like to sentence me to Arcoflagellation for daring to make such an 'intent' argument in this sacred forum, I invite you to infiltrate a Berserker up your naked, armourless Terminator.

Ahem....sorry. I would like to propose that IRL, one or the other interpretation be used for *all* units with upgradeable weapons, regardless of the text in the actual codex. While I think it's reasonable from fluff purposes for a model to have both an upgraded and a basic weapon, I think that for game play it is more reasonable to assume that the word 'replace' is present in all codices, for special/heavy weapon upgrades. So melta or lascannon-toting troops lose their bolter/lasgun/whatever. Just to make things consistent across the board.