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.

Except that lo and behold, the errata turned RAI into RAW in just the way that most common sense people used it.

One of the real problems is that people like to try and stealth RAI and claim it as RAW. I have actually seen Gwar comment on this very phenomenon in the INAT faqs.

At least with RAI people, they are open about saying that they believe this is how the rule intended. Often times the RAW fundamentalists as they have been called just attempt to paper over their RAI and pass it off as RAW in unclear situations. This doesn't apply to all people who like to argue RAW, nor does it apply to that subset that does all the time. But it does happen, and thats where a great deal of the frustration comes from.

ZepherZealot257 wrote:I agree with Sidstyler, GW must know there own rules (or so reason would have us believe!)

Sure they do............ So they gave the DE Baron the same ability to add +1 to the roll for deployment zone that they gave SW Bjorn, and then had to FAQ the puppy ability. 'Oh wait, we meant the roll to go first because we've already pointed out in the FAQs that there is no such thing in standard rulebook scenarios as a roll for deployment zone'. So yeah, sure they do.

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Knowing the rules and therefore, how to play, is very important. Knowing how the rules should be played. . .is less so and simply clutters the issue.

It seems to read that you are saying the rules are very important but the way people should apply them is clutter.

Did I mis-read that?

Editing to add:
Sorry for adding to the off-topic, undeserved derailment--that part confused me.

Yeah, I noticed that it read weird and so I edited my post. You also left out a bit of context:

puma713 wrote:Knowing the rules and therefore, how to play, is very important. Knowing how the rules "should" be played (but still aren't - ie., RAW fun thread), is less so and simply clutters the issue.

If someone asks how to play something, tell them how it is played, not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

This is the kind of problem when you have multiple writers working in a large corporation. Several things are lost in transition and they dont have time to look at the specific wording of it all. This is also why some people have merit when they use RAI since, due to deadlines, the writers of the individual codex has to use whatever wording that sounds about right, and hope that nitpickers wont notice the difference (which, of course they do, since a few people seem to make it their sole purpose in life to point out the flaws of others without consideration). There is also the issue of layout. If they did reprint the exact way they wanted you to use the rule in there with no other way of interpreting it, it could result in a lone word or even a whole sentence falling on a separate page, and a whole blank page with a lone sentence is not a good thing. They could also exceed the page count and possibly make playing the game even harder as the players now have to go through the large block of text just to find the point they are refering to. This is mainly why Disclaimers are so goddamn long and why no one likes to read them (except when you're trying to sue someone or prove your innocence, but who likes courtroom antics in a game?).

puma713 wrote:Yeah, I noticed that it read weird and so I edited my post. You also left out a bit of context:

If someone asks how to play something, tell them how it is played, not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

I left that out on purpose as hyperbole neither helps nor adds anything.
Telling someone what the rules state is closer to telling them how to play than telling them what you think the rules
should be stating.

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Yeah, I noticed that it read weird and so I edited my post. You also left out a bit of context:

If someone asks how to play something, tell them how it is played, not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

I left that out on purpose as hyperbole neither helps nor adds anything.
Telling someone what the rules state is closer to telling them how to play than telling them what you think the rules
should be stating.

First, what part of my post is hyperbole? I don't think I exaggerated on anything. . .

Secondly, you're making a gross overgeneralization. You're suggesting I simply state the way I think it should be played and that's that, when that is incorrect. I take my experiences, the tournaments that I go to, documents like the GW FAQs and the INAT, the different playerbases I come in contact with and discussion here and elsewhere and then form an opinion not only on what the rule does, but how it should be played based on how it is being played. Not simply me stating, "This is what I think!"

The RAW point-of-view doesn't even do you that favor. It doesn't even give you a glimpse into how it is being played, rather exactly what the rulebook says and how a handful of people think it should be played based on a sacrosanct text to which logic shouldn't be applied. Perhaps instead of simply reading off the rulebook and saying, "There! I've done it! Thank me." You should have a discussion with the person and come up with a solution that satisfies their question. Giving your opinion and the opinion of people you've played with is much more valuable, imo, than simply reciting the text and telling them they're wrong (even if they are).

Of course, YMMV.

@the whole issue;
Nah, it's pointing out that after ten years of the old DE codex and over two years of 5th, Games workshop chooses not to implement the strategies needed to produce coherent documents.
Why they do this and how they manage to magle the apparently complex task of writing a book when they have teams of people assigned to task, is up for debate, if we should buy product off a company with this ethos towards the market, is up for debate, that GW "do not write rules good, like", isn't.

puma713 wrote:First, what part of my post is hyperbole? I don't think I exaggerated on anything. . .

I was refering to the part I quoted:

puma713 wrote: not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

That read to me as an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.” Apologies if I mistook that.

puma713 wrote:I take my experiences, the tournaments that I go to, documents like the GW FAQs and the INAT, the different playerbases I come in contact with and discussion here and elsewhere and then form an opinion not only on what the rule does

This is generally refered to as learning, and I daresay most folks do that.

puma713 wrote:The RAW point-of-view doesn't even do you that favor. It doesn't even give you a glimpse into how it is being played, rather exactly what the rulebook says and how a handful of people think it should be played based on a sacrosanct text to which logic shouldn't be applied

Emphasis mine--that part applies equally to RAI "rulings".

Again though, to reach for the topic at hand. . .knowing what the rules actually state is the only place to start any kind of discussion regarding the rules. Telling people "we play xxxx" does not help if people near you use house rules because you think the rules as written are incorrect, if people near you simply mis-read rules, or if folks are wanting to know why something that has been covered in one FAQ is not covered in another--despite the text in each being identical, which happens.

The invuln saves for vehicles were clarified in Bjorn's text. For other vehicles to lack that clarification is. . .awkward at best.

As for the written rules not giving a glimpse into how the game is played. . .I am not sure whether that was another exageration or you really think folks cannot figure how to play a game by utilizing its rules.

Wow this one has gone to the dogs. We have the raw purists claiming moral high ground while those who advocate rai only want to play fun games using the rules as intended. Bjorn has been thrown under the bus yet again to obfuscate the issue at hand - very poor form indeed. I think we all know that the flickerfield is intended to prove a save versus shooting attacks. Why else would it be there? Does anyone honestly think GW will FAQ or Errata the flicker field such that it doesn't work? I mean seriously please get a life and stop with the reading too much into the rules. It may pain you but you'll be a lot better for it.

Despite the spite, if you actually read my posts my pain has more to do with people discount what the game designers wrote than discounting fun.

Assuming anyone other than game designer's know the intention of game designers takes. . .hubris.
To accuse people that follow the rules of claiming MORALS as the basis is ignorance.

The fact that they may need to errata Flickerfield is exactly the point. The same rules have been written clearing WITHOUT errata before--and yet GW did NOT duplicate those rules.
Yet folks claim the rules are intended to be duplicate.

Stop assuming so much of the rules and read them. It may pain you but you'll be a lot better for it.

Ramshackle Monster: the mega-dread is a smoke-belching monstrosity, heavily plated with ablative armour and is a difficult machine to stop once it has gotten going! It has a 5+ invulnerable save against attacks.



Seems pretty simple to me. Whether you're shooting at it with a weapon or psychic power or punching and kicking it in close combat it get's a 5+ save against those attacks unless the weapon or psychic power you happen to be attacking with ignores invulnerable saves.


In the case of the mega dread, that seems more than fair. It's a large model and the chance of it getting cover are pretty slim (other than from a kff).

I don't wish to challenge arguments of anybody here; I'm much too new to the game to be either an authority on the rules or to contend on the RAW/RAI debate. Nor do I wish to defend Gwar! untowardly, seeing as I've only been reading his posts for the last few weeks.

However, from what I've gleamed in his august judgements, where The Rules As Written contradict (perhaps through typo) The Rules AS Intended (e.g., vehicles not having "wounds" to be saved against) one must rely on a House Rule; that that House Rule may change from place to place; and be ready to defend yourself against challenges in tournaments, which will presumably have an equavalent set of House Rules.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:This is the kind of problem when you have multiple writers working in a large corporation. ...

with no editorial oversight and control.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of the problems are instantly obvious to the most cursory inspection.

Kilkrazy wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:This is the kind of problem when you have multiple writers working in a large corporation. ...

with no editorial oversight and control.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of the problems are instantly obvious to the most cursory inspection.

I would love to know how work and responsibilities flow at Games Workshop. Know that lawyers proofread pretty close across a lot of material, and when they write they tend to use templates, etc. Games Workshop doesn't really generate all that much in terms of words written, rules made.

Assuming they aren't just plain moronic -- and I don't, seeing as they must have corporate guidelines, etc. -- I do wonder whether they make mistakes purposefully to keep the game alive in game places and on forums such as these. What I'm saying is, Could all this oversight and mishmash actually be a market strategy?

I sincerely doubt that its a marketing strategy. You have to make a rather heroic leap that they are pretending to be morons where its much easier (and more likely) that they just make mistakes and have learned to say "This is just a game, and I don't care if some people rules lawyer over it or not."

It isn't a marketing strategy, it is just amateurism.

The whole background of GW was amateur from the earliest days. That was a good thing in many ways, because it led to a lot of creativity and doing stuff because it would be fun, not because it would be positive on the bottom line. Wargames isn't the kind of business you go into to make reliable profits.

It has changed a lot, of course, in other areas of the business.

It isn't even a problem now to employ designers who aren't editors or technical writers. There aren't any specific qualifications for being a rule designer.

The mistake is not adding a small technical writing team to edit what comes out of the studio. It would only need a couple of people. The company produces rules and codexes at about the rate of one every two months, which is about as much effort as publishing WD. Everything is done using standard layout templates, and much of the stuff in each book is recycled from the one before.

olympia wrote:My point is that you and your RAW fundamentalist ilk serve a limited purpose.

I disagree entirely. I find the RAW fundamentalists to be quite useful: it helps to know when there is potentially going to be an argument before it happens. Because of Gwars opinion (which, incidentally, I find correct) I know that if I am a DE player, and I have this wargear, as soon as I put down my bag, I had better discuss this with my opponent right up front - that GW wrote something in the Codex which as-written makes no sense, and that this is how I'd like to play it. The great part here, is no matter what then happens, it's a win for you!

A.) no reasonable opponent will say say you can't take the save, so fight averted. Win.

B.) If they argue that we're playing RAW that strictly, then you know before even putting a mini on the table that you're going to spend more time arguing then playing, and can just play with someone else without even unzipping the bag. Win!

I think the problem is that you're assuming that Gwar endorses the positions he espouses. I take them as dispassionate judgements, and they are a good way to defuse landmines before the game starts.

so wait... the brb says nothing about vehicles taking invun saves for hits... however, dreadnoughts in CC counts 'each roll on the damage table as wounds for purpose of close combat results"

why would this same theory not apply to to other vehicles? a "roll on the damage result (or a glance/pen hit)" is the same or equal to for all intents a "wound".

since nothing in the brb mentions vehicles and invun saves either way, specific 'dex rules apply, and allow the 5++. its treated as an invun, meaning they get the save regardless, and thats that.

now to keep this in retrospect, a 5+ invun is hardley a sure bet. also, if it was meant to be an "obscured save" then it would be a 4+ save, or simply "counts as obscured", or "provides cover" etc. clearly the dex wanted to provide an invun save to the vehicle, but made it worse or harder to make then the standard obscured/cover save.

Because it is for combat resolution, and nothing else?

There is NO specific rule stating that the invulnerable save works against hits - nothing at all. Which is the point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because it is for combat resolution, and nothing else?

There is NO specific rule stating that the invulnerable save works against hits - nothing at all. Which is the point.

Ramshackle Monster: the mega-dread is a smoke-belching monstrosity, heavily plated with ablative armour and is a difficult machine to stop once it has gotten going! It has a 5+ invulnerable save against attacks.

Now I'm stupid, someone help me here, what's an attack? Is that like a hit.. or like.. something that could potentially damage or destroy the model on the receiving end..

Sarcasm aside it seems pretty clear to me, the mega dread is so badass that it doesn't have to care about cover because it always get an invul against attacks... unless those attacks are from a psycannon or warscyth or any other weapon or power that ignore invul saves....

Yes, and SAVES save against wounds, as defined in the rules on pages 21/22 (from memory) - so it gets a save that works against wounds against any attack. The "attack" is when you decalre you are shooting / hitting it.

Find something that states it works against penetrating hits.

Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because it is for combat resolution, and nothing else?

There is NO specific rule stating that the invulnerable save works against hits - nothing at all. Which is the point.

Ramshackle Monster: the mega-dread is a smoke-belching monstrosity, heavily plated with ablative armour and is a difficult machine to stop once it has gotten going! It has a 5+ invulnerable save against attacks.

Now I'm stupid, someone help me here, what's an attack? Is that like a hit.. or like.. something that could potentially damage or destroy the model on the receiving end..

Sarcasm aside it seems pretty clear to me, the mega dread is so badass that it doesn't have to care about cover because it always get an invul against attacks... unless those attacks are from a psycannon or warscyth or any other weapon or power that ignore invul saves....

Look at what the BRB defines as attacks as well. They are close combat. Pg vii, page 6, and a couple of others.

Yup - in theory the dread only gets an Inv against close combat, and only saves wounds....

FW sloppier at writing rules than GW main? nah

Again with the strawman. No-one is going to gloat and go "Haha you are stupid for wasting points!" No, I am going to point out, exactly as I said before, that it technically doesn't work, and leave it at that.

But people *do* gwar! - there are rectums out there that get a kick by wining by being tools. Its sad but it happens.

Also I've yet to meet a raw player who'd find a clever loophole(That wasn't from DD), kindly point it out on the table when it came into play, then wave it off as "Oh GW are so silly, so how many orks do you kill with that hull-mounted flamer?

I''ve done that - 'technically it canot fire but it's obvious that it can. go on and burn those nids'

whatever....ive made my point, and thats how my gaming group plays it, or will once the models and dex are avalable for sale. and for all those RAW purists... take a look at pg 2 of the brb. i do believe that with the rules lawyering and pissing about that rule has been broken. and thats all i have to say about that.

Ouze wrote:

olympia wrote:My point is that you and your RAW fundamentalist ilk serve a limited purpose.

I disagree entirely. I find the RAW fundamentalists to be quite useful: it helps to know when there is potentially going to be an argument before it happens.

On the flickerfield - only jerk would say to you that they don't do anything (ie not save your vehicle on 5+), or even begin discussion after you just say that its 5+ invul. save

DarthSpader wrote:whatever....ive made my point, and thats how my gaming group plays it, or will once the models and dex are avalable for sale. and for all those RAW purists... take a look at pg 2 of the brb. i do believe that with the rules lawyering and pissing about that rule has been broken. and thats all i have to say about that.

Much like the tenets of this forumhave been broken by yourself, you mean?

In my opinion, if this situation happened to me, e.g. My lascannon penetrates the raider and I discover there´s a 5++ save then that would be fine with me, common sense should prevail people! You wouldn´t walk into a store, buy something for 3.99, discover you get a 10% discount for something and say "sorry, price as written on the shelf is 3.99, I have to pay that". And to all the RAW players and indeed the RAI players also, we have to remember that this is a GAME. when you think about it this is just a game for all people to play toy soldiers. And always in games there has to be a room to breathe regarding the rules.

As far as the editorial quality of the GW games and writing staff goes vis their publications, calling them slip-shod or fraught with the perils engendered by a lack of oversight or editorial syncopation is hilarious at worst and unjust at best. 5th edition is well over two years old, and a lot of the continuity errors or rules contradictions are only coming out after hundreds of fine-tooth readings and thousands of games of 40k. The game is open-ended and has infinite variables. There's no reason to expect that, in a game with a limited rule-set, an editorial staff of people just like you and I can cover those variables with any gradient of accuracy or anticipate them when producing new editions. They can't comb every 40k forum and every WAAC gamers' blog to find out exactly how many rules are being mis-played. Even if they could, and did, that's a vast body of information that would have to be synthesized and incorporated into the already existing rules framework.

Perhaps someone might suggest, "That's their job."

To which I reply: go work in publishing and see how weekly deadlines work.

Under the circumstances, I think they do a pretty awesome job.

To me this thread is one of the classic silly ones you see here so often. Personally I doubt most of the RAW purists would have the gumption to actually tell another player that the 5++ is void, but here we have page after page of people telling us this is the way it is and even going so far as to say we are cheaters. Like I said it's silly and in reality a non issue. Let the RAW purists thump their chests here and go on about it, I doubt you will ever here it mentioned in a store or at a well run tournament.