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.

Gwar! wrote:
Even treating them as halfway decent leads to the same situation. A Halfway Decent ruleset would say "A model with the Warp Field Special rule has a 3+ Invulnerable Save". Instead, we have a rule that gives ONE SPECIFIC model a save which is then given to models that aren't that model.

So you agree, then, that they aren't even halfway decent. Which would make trying to impose a highly precise and literal interpretation onto them an even more futile and foolish exercise.

Back to OP.

I've felt for awhile that the only RaW responses consist of, "As it says on Page XYZ..."

There's a lot of unclear rules in 40k. It's improved in the past few years (although, it seems like Nids and SW are step backs for 'good rules'), but it's still not a tight ruleset. And it's not meant to be.

I think the RaW is a lot less important than the 'how do you play it'? view. RaW answers of "See page XYZ" are pretty straight forward. YMDC is full of conflicting special rules and incomplete rules, but there's still not a RaW answer to most of them.

Relic_OMO wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Even treating them as halfway decent leads to the same situation. A Halfway Decent ruleset would say "A model with the Warp Field Special rule has a 3+ Invulnerable Save". Instead, we have a rule that gives ONE SPECIFIC model a save which is then given to models that aren't that model.

So you agree, then, that they aren't even halfway decent. Which would make trying to impose a highly precise and literal interpretation onto them an even more futile and foolish exercise.

No, I agree they are not halfway decent, but that doesn't change what they say. If a Rule A says "Model X has Rule Y" and Model Z has Rule A, why would you think that Model Z benefits from Rule A?

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

And where do you get your data suggesting that the "great majority" finds no issues with the rules and that "everyone understands the rules just fine"? I assume you have done some sort of scientifically correct survey? If so, where can I access this data? Which journal did you send it for peer review?

And before someone gets upset and reports me, I am not being snarky, I would truly like to know if this claim that "everyone" knows the rules fine is substantiated or just pulled out of thin air.

Based on replies to RaW vs RaI threads, general YMDC, and people I know in real life, the vast majority of people understand the rules (as intended) just fine. Nobody I have ever played against has been confused by Doom's warp field rule, or anything of that level of "vagueness". I don't actually know of anyone that plays the rules in cases like Doom invlun field as RaW. If I did, then I might be more on the "rules are confusing and different between groups" side, but I have never had a rules interpretation difference from anyone that isn't on the internet and/or only argues for RaW in theory and/or devil's advocate.

Gwar! wrote:

Relic_OMO wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Even treating them as halfway decent leads to the same situation. A Halfway Decent ruleset would say "A model with the Warp Field Special rule has a 3+ Invulnerable Save". Instead, we have a rule that gives ONE SPECIFIC model a save which is then given to models that aren't that model.

So you agree, then, that they aren't even halfway decent. Which would make trying to impose a highly precise and literal interpretation onto them an even more futile and foolish exercise.

No, I agree they are not halfway decent, but that doesn't change what they say. If a Rule A says "Model X has Rule Y" and Model Z has Rule A, why would you think that Model Z benefits from Rule A?

Because Model Z is a Model X.

ph34r wrote:Based on replies to RaW vs RaI threads, general YMDC, and people I know in real life, the vast majority of people understand the rules (as intended) just fine. Nobody I have ever played against has been confused by Doom's warp field rule, or anything of that level of "vagueness". I don't actually know of anyone that plays the rules in cases like Doom invlun field as RaW. If I did, then I might be more on the "rules are confusing and different between groups" side, but I have never had a rules interpretation difference from anyone that isn't on the internet and/or only argues for RaW in theory and/or devil's advocate.

So your experiences playing a completely negligible portion of games with a negligible portion of people (when compared to the number of games and people playing worldwide) let you claim that "everyone" understands the rules?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Because Model Z is a Model X.

Z != X. Model Z is not a Model X. If it were a Model X, it would not be a Model Z.

Gwar! wrote:

be nice to the kitty...
give the kitty its treats...
don't make nice kitty angry...

ROOOAAARRRRRRR NOM NOM NOM NOM

kitty just ate your face

just quoting you so we everyone knows who im talking about

lol i always enjoy gwar responses to people you made me laugh when ive been havin a crap day to gwar

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Based on replies to RaW vs RaI threads, general YMDC, and people I know in real life, the vast majority of people understand the rules (as intended) just fine. Nobody I have ever played against has been confused by Doom's warp field rule, or anything of that level of "vagueness". I don't actually know of anyone that plays the rules in cases like Doom invlun field as RaW. If I did, then I might be more on the "rules are confusing and different between groups" side, but I have never had a rules interpretation difference from anyone that isn't on the internet and/or only argues for RaW in theory and/or devil's advocate.

So your experiences playing a completely negligible portion of games with a negligible portion of people (when compared to the number of games and people playing worldwide) let you claim that "everyone" understands the rules?

My experiences indicate that people do not have issues with the the majority of the rules. This includes real life and online aside from people who argue simply for the sake of argument. My knowledge taken from forums and real life indicate that most people do not have anywhere near as many problems with the rules as you do.

You are somewhat of a unique case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TopC wrote:lol i always enjoy gwar responses to people you made me laugh when ive been havin a crap day to gwar

Gwar's comments do always seem to provoke a chuckle. It's therapeutic almost.

I think Gwars! point, ph34r, is that as you havent played a sstatistically significant portion of the WH40K popoulation, you cannot claim" the majorioty" do anything. Essentially - be more precise in your responses.

Additionally: I do know what "you" you used: context. In the context of the sentences the "you" was personal, not group. So either you cannot write correctly formatted english sentences, or you lied.

Anyway - did you even read the part about De Facto? Do you understand what that means? Do you understand a) hiow dictionaries are written and b) how they are updated?

Finally: I *did* answer your question, and you keep returning to my initial answer and complaining about it. You inability to ask the question you meant to ask isnt my problem. Your inabiltiy to be happy that I then provided another answer to a marginally better written question is not my problem. All of these issues are imaginary - they exist solely in your head.

You can make such a claim based on the frequent polls we have in Dakka about "How do you play this situation..."


I have to say if a rule says a model has a rule, I would assume the model has the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I think Gwars! point, ph34r, is that as you havent played a sstatistically significant portion of the WH40K popoulation, you cannot claim" the majorioty" do anything. Essentially - be more precise in your responses.

I have observed as much of the 40k population as I can, and made projections based on it. The evidence is strongly in my favor and it would be unwise to ignore it.

Additionally: I do know what "you" you used: context. In the context of the sentences the "you" was personal, not group. So either you cannot write correctly formatted english sentences, or you lied.

I just wrote a correctly formatted English sentence up above, so looks like option one is out, and I do not lie, so bye bye option two, so looks like both of your "options" are wrong.
Oh wait, you are the one that misinterprets debate posts based on "RaW", so I should probably actually prove you wrong instead of getting out of defending myself on a technicality/misinterpretation like you would do.
My sentence was correctly formatted English. You assumed what "you" I used based on context that you interpreted. You were incorrect. I both can write English sentences and did not lie. You on the other hand, have misspelled more words in your post than my little cousin does when he writes a story.

Anyway - did you even read the part about De Facto? Do you understand what that means? Do you understand a) hiow dictionaries are written and b) how they are updated?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thanks for your questions, that was easy.

Finally: I *did* answer your question, and you keep returning to my initial answer and complaining about it. You inability to ask the question you meant to ask isnt my problem. Your inabiltiy to be happy that I then provided another answer to a marginally better written question is not my problem. All of these issues are imaginary - they exist solely in your head.

You answered my question technically, but not to the extent that a normal person would expect a question answered. It's like when you ask little Timmy who is throwing a tantrum to hand you something. "Could you hand me that Timmy?" "I could." Timmy answered the question just as well as you did the first time. Would society consider this a satisfactory answer? No. Did I consider your answer satisfactory when you initially "answered" my question? No.

Kilkrazy wrote:You can make such a claim based on the frequent polls we have in Dakka about "How do you play this situation..."

Indeed. Even with more grey-area RaW arguments, the majority sides with RaI. With something as obvious as Doom warp field, the numbers would be crushing in favor of RaI.

Gwar! wrote:No, I agree they are not halfway decent, but that doesn't change what they say. If a Rule A says "Model X has Rule Y" and Model Z has Rule A, why would you think that Model Z benefits from Rule A?

I wouldn't. But I would then consider it strange, even logically absurd, that a precise and watertight ruleset would give Model Z Rule A, when it has no function. Then I'd remember that it's not a watertight and precise ruleset, and use inductive interpretation to work out a consistent alternative. It would be foolish to do otherwise. It would be especially foolish to consider the ruleset weak, poorly worded and designed, yet refuse to use inductive reasoning to fill in the glaring gaps, and thus treat it with a reverence that not only does it not deserve, but also has never been shown to any ruleset for any game or sport.

While i agree that obsolete stats and rules are a sore to the eye in the sense that you know these things were factored in when the model pts were calculated, trying to restore their full function definitely belongs in houserule domain.
There are other such eyesores in my opinion, but not sure they 're fixable without codex revision, some units/armies lost bit of their shine due to rules being reshuffled, pinning getting weaker due to proliferation of fearless units, eldar/genestealer used to be the only ones that could run, now only the only part that remains exclusive is the assault after run, genestealers got fixed. Eldar skimmers still carry the pricetag they had to pay for the holofield/skimmer moving fast cheesyness and defensive weaps of str 6. Starcannon shots were lowered by 1 in an edition before they boosted cover saves across the board. I think that summs up about all the reasons why i'm keeping my eldar chilled until the next codex and playing orks instead. And oh yeah fear my strategy rating of 4 :p

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vis - you were ignored because the very first page, page 1, is entitled "THE RULES", which makes a complete nonsense of your entire post. Again.

You may disagree, unfortunately you are wrong.

Hrm... how to say this a third way that you might understand... Ok, so the problem you're having is the fact that the technical use of a word of art and the colloquial use of the same word are not synonymous. "Severability" come to mind as a decent, although not perfect, example. This is a word of art in the legal field and people who are not well versed in this field may not understand how to properly use this or may understand it a little bit and use it incorrectly. Ok, so, words of art are complicated and require an examination and perhaps guidance by one who understands it in order to understand it.

Back around to you, your equivocation comes from the fact that the word "Rule" can mean guidance in the colloquial sense; a parent may set down rules for his or her children but these are by no sense of the word "law" as it means in the technical sense; instead, the parent is simply stating that he or she is setting up guidance for the child, not technical laws as you would find in the UN Charter or the UCMJ or the Constitution.

Thus, you are equivocating when you say "the rulebook is full of the rules". First you start out saying in the colloquial sense, "set of guidance I call the rulebook but the writer's call guidelines with the colloquial title of 'rulebook'" is a set of "technical laws on par with the UCMJ or the Constitution..." This is pure equivocation on your part nosferatu, again, you may misunderstand this point, but that does not make you right.

Essentially my argument chalks up to, don't judge a book by its cover... which is exactly what you're doing... in order to understand whether a book with the title "Rulebook" is actually a technical set of laws or a colloquial set of guidelines, you need to examine the book. In the absence of this examination qua 'law', and in the absence of the understanding of what "law" means in the technical sense, you are not able to espouse a coherent opinion on the topic of whether it is a set of laws or set of guidelines.

A 4th way: Simply because it has the colloquial title "Rulebook" does not indicate the book is full of technical rules, id est, laws; actually, it is quite the opposite. Since the writers overtly tell us they mean this in the colloquial sense, the title "Rulebook" is just the same as the parent laying down rules for the child, they are not even remotely attempting to create technical laws, they are attempting to create mere guidelines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

This is in error. By an objective analysis of the book, irrespective of what you call it, one can easily find many real holes. Furthermore, the writers overtly state that you're going to find holes. Finally I never tried to find a hole in the rules regarding my white scars outflanking, my friend thought it would be a great way to keep my troops off of the table and as such deployed his troops along the board edge. We were both ignorant to the reality that the rulebook did not cover this, we were both ignorant to the fact that this has occurred in what appears to be a highly controversial and now popular interaction at a tournament. We did not try to find problems, he employed a tactic in an attempt to counter my outflanking tactic and we stumbled upon this obvious and unequivocal hole in the rules, whether or not the majority of the players understand the guidance in that book, the book has many holes, if this is what you define as "Decent" then sure, they're decent.

ph34r wrote:I have observed as much of the 40k population as I can, and made projections based on it. The evidence is strongly in my favor and it would be unwise to ignore it.

Then provide the evidence - I cannot "allow" you to base your argument on something with no basis or standard of proof.

ph34r wrote:I just wrote a correctly formatted English sentence up above, so looks like option one is out, and I do not lie, so bye bye option two, so looks like both of your "options" are wrong.

Nope, just means your last claim is also an untruth.

ph34r wrote:Oh wait, you are the one that misinterprets debate posts based on "RaW", so I should probably actually prove you wrong instead of getting out of defending myself on a technicality/misinterpretation like you would do.

Projection again?

Sorry, was that the wrong "you" again?

ph34r wrote:You assumed what "you" I used based on context that you interpreted. You were incorrect.

Bsaed on the rules of the english language there was only one way to interpret it. good try at trying to weasel out of admitting you were being abusive - you acknowledged your insults in later posts, why the problem with this one?

Given that other posters came to the same conclusion shows you dont pass the "reasonable man" test in your claims at least.

ph34r wrote:I both can write English sentences and did not lie. You on the other hand, have misspelled more words in your post than my little cousin does when he writes a story.

Wow, your insults get *more* petty, dont they? Struggling to find a point to your posts still?

ph34r wrote:Yes. Yes. Thanks for your questions, that was easy.

Ah, you understand but dont practice?

Nice one.

ph34r wrote:You answered my question technically, but not to the extent that a normal person would expect a question answered.

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to base your argument on something which is not provable and has no evidential basis.

Gets annoying doesnt it.

ph34r wrote: It's like when you ask little Timmy who is throwing a tantrum to hand you something. "Could you hand me that Timmy?" "I could." Timmy answered the question just as well as you did the first time. Would society consider this a satisfactory answer?

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to base you argument on something that you cannot prove.

ph34r wrote: No. Did I consider your answer satisfactory when you initially "answered" my question? No.

And again, this is *your* problem, not mine - get it yet? The probvlem exists SOLELY in your head.

Vis - they certainly can provide a set of rules to be followed in a game universe they control, that has no interface to the "real" laws.

Not all rules are laws.

"The Rules" is enoguh for a reasonable person to conclude they do, actually, mean to wite Rules.

Then provide the evidence - I cannot "allow" you to base your argument on something with no basis or standard of proof.

I am not going to compile a list of names, social security numbers, and stances on RaW. The evidence is all right here on the forums, for you to see. If you don't want to look at it, too bad for you.

Nope, just means your last claim is also an untruth.

Hah. No. You are still wrong on the "you" matter. You think that nosferatu1001 is the one that decides what ph34r means when he types. You are wrong. It would be insane to think otherwise.

Projection again?

You try to RaW the definition of words, rules in 40k, and questions I ask. I most certainly am not projecting

Bsaed on the rules of the english language there was only one way to interpret it. good try at trying to weasel out of admitting you were being abusive - you acknowledged your insults in later posts, why the problem with this one?

Because it's not an insult, you misinterpreted what I say, and nothing you can say will change what I wrote, because I wrote it, and I know what form of you I used. No matter how much you want it to be so, it will always be the you that I wanted to use.

Wow, your insults get *more* petty, dont they? Struggling to find a point to your posts still?

No. Try to make your posts more presentable. You arguing one second about the sanctity of the English (that's capitalized, you know) language and the next misspelling every other words is not supporting your argument.

Ah, you understand but dont practice?

Wrong.

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to base your argument on something which is not provable and has no evidential basis.

Gets annoying doesnt it.

You are seriously arguing that it is perfectly normal to answer a question without actually answering it.
Wow, I guess you are an donkey-cave in real life as well. Okay, whatever goes for normal in your life.

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to base you argument on something that you cannot prove.

You really are running out of arguments aren't you?

And again, this is *your* problem, not mine - get it yet? The probvlem exists SOLELY in your head.

No. It very much is your problem. If you consider the question sufficiently answered then you are an ill mannered individual who I do not enjoy conversing with. You are less fun and interesting to talk to than mad little Timmy.
Also, I feel like I am reading copy+paste from your earlier posts, if you don't have anything better to use to defend your position just forfeit the argument. You don't have any more real evidence to stand on, now that the whole house rule situation turned against you.

Vis - they certainly can provide a set of rules to be followed in a game universe they control, that has no interface to the "real" laws.

Not all rules are laws.

"The Rules" is enoguh for a reasonable person to conclude they do, actually, mean to wite Rules.

What is this Vis? I don't see it in my copy of OED. Please find a new argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

visavismeyou wrote:

ph34r wrote:I would say that 40k rules are more than halfway decent, as the population of 40k by the great majority finds no issues with most of the rules. Sure, there are some rules that many people get wrong that are tricky, but for the most part everyone understands the rules just fine. It is only those that try to analyze the rules for "problems" that have problems with the rules.

This is in error. By an objective analysis of the book, irrespective of what you call it, one can easily find many real holes. Furthermore, the writers overtly state that you're going to find holes. Finally I never tried to find a hole in the rules regarding my white scars outflanking, my friend thought it would be a great way to keep my troops off of the table and as such deployed his troops along the board edge. We were both ignorant to the reality that the rulebook did not cover this, we were both ignorant to the fact that this has occurred in what appears to be a highly controversial and now popular interaction at a tournament. We did not try to find problems, he employed a tactic in an attempt to counter my outflanking tactic and we stumbled upon this obvious and unequivocal hole in the rules, whether or not the majority of the players understand the guidance in that book, the book has many holes, if this is what you define as "Decent" then sure, they're decent.

A reasonable point. I don't think that all rules in the book are airtight, but for the purposes of most play they work well. Some rules are definitely in need of FAQ, such as the one you provided an example of.

ph34r wrote:I am not going to compile a list of names, social security numbers, and stances on RaW. The evidence is all right here on the forums, for you to see. If you don't want to look at it, too bad for you.

Ah, so what you mean is you DONT have any evidence that can be cehcked? Please provide thread links etc to your "proof" if you argue otherwise.

Sorry, I cannot "allow" you to not provide evidence to back up your assertions

ph34r wrote:Hah. No. You are still wrong on the "you" matter. You think that nosferatu1001 is the one that decides what ph34r means when he types. You are wrong. It would be insane to think otherwise.

Context states it. In a text only forum WHAT YOU WRITE, oddly enough, determines WHAT you wrote. You may have been thinkiing something else, but you did not express it. So again we're back at you inability to write clear English sentences or you lied.

Simple.

ph34r wrote:You try to RaW the definition of words, rules in 40k, and questions I ask. I most certainly am not projecting

Says the persons using the wrong dictionary to "RAW" the definition of a word in the way they want. Pot, kettle, black. definitely projection.

ph34r wrote:Because it's not an insult, you misinterpreted what I say, and nothing you can say will change what I wrote, because I wrote it, and I know what form of you I used. No matter how much you want it to be so, it will always be the you that I wanted to use.

See above. the "you" you used was personal based on context. Yet again your problem exists SOLELY in your own head.

ph34r wrote:Wrong.

Nope, not wrong - you seem to believe the only place a definition can be is in the dictionary, meaning de facto cannot exist according to you. Good one!

ph34r wrote:You are seriously arguing that it is perfectly normal to answer a question without actually answering it.

No, I *did* answer the question. You are arguing it is OK on a text only forum (not real life, you struggle with the difference here) to ask a question, have it answered 100% accurately, and then claim the other person should have read your mind and answered a *different* question to the one that was asked?

Really?

Sorry, your inabilty to formulate a question is not my problem. You being unhappy with my answer is not my problem. All of these are problems that only exist in your head - commoinly called delusions by other people.

ph34r wrote:Wow, I guess you are an donkey-cave in real life as well. Okay, whatever goes for normal in your life.

Again with the insults. Theres something about resorting to insults and losing arguments that I cant quite put my finger on...of course, this would have applied what, 2 pages back? the rest has just been you, digging deeper.

ph34r wrote:No. It very much is your problem.

Oddly enough given you are the only person with a problem it IS your problem, not mine.

ph34r wrote:If you consider the question sufficiently answered then you are an ill mannered individual who I do not enjoy conversing with. You are less fun and interesting to talk to than mad little Timmy.

Then feel free to quit the thread - I find you quite amusing in how you attempt to duck everything and frantically try to cover up your insults as something else.

ph34r wrote:Also, I feel like I am reading copy+paste from your earlier posts, if you don't have anything better to use to defend your position just forfeit the argument. You don't have any more real evidence to stand on, now that the whole house rule situation turned against you.

"Now"? how has it turned against me?

You seem to think a hosuerule is only a houserule if only *1* group uses it. Meaning your definition is functionally useless. I have also explained the other issues with your definition, but you ignore them and pretend they dont exist.

You stopped debating (as in, actually argiung the point and not the person) as soon as it was pointed out your definition did not exist in the language the book was written in. Ever since then we have had desperate clutching at straws (but but but you have to have A definition!) and further insults. You're quite amusing at times.

ph34r wrote:What is this Vis? I don't see it in my copy of OED. Please find a new argument.

So, deliberate obtuseness again? "vis...." does not capitilise their avatar name, so when I shortened it I did not either.

I assume that you ignore the words "The Rules" as well?

It seems like this thread has run its course.

Locking thread.