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.

Yea well i believe the design team intended for saurus to fly and skinks to fart fireballs, anyone who disagrees with this is clearly a rules lawyering douchetitan.

Similarly, I believe that, since the rules say you can take a ward save or a regen save, my Chimeras can take a ward save. As it has no value, it must be 2+, since if it was less good they would have let me know.

Skinks do fart fireballs.

So I take it you both steal and commit murders on a regular basis as the Law is an RaI based rule system?

Equally by RaW we can never play a game as we have no rules to read because you can't prove the rulebook is not an hallucination. See AGAIN how pointless hyperbole is pointless hyperbole.

If you do believe RAW is the rules you must believe one of the following please explain which:

1) GW write their rules perfectly so RaW = RaI
2) The rulebook thought up the rules.
3) Language itself thought up the rules

Please enlighten me.

Allow me to help.
RAW= the law and how it is written
RAI=how law gets interpreted and how it is used to set the final stage of action
RAW/law= it is illegal to kill someone
RAI= how did you kill them, which will generate the resulting penalties or benefits

RAW= You are allowed to Move your models.
RAI=You choose how you move within the guidelines
The RAW of movement is that you can move up to the maximum M characteristic.
The RAI of movement is anything from 0-x inches.
Some RAW are definitely more concrete then others but the written rule must be played as it was intended.
You remove a dead model from the table, that is both RAW and RAI.
They both fully rely on each other.
@Fling-They may be missing the sarcasm in your hyperbole.

@Peasant: Again, that is confusing Rules as Intended with Rules as Interpreted.

Just because you (or anyone else) reads a rule and makes a decision on how to play it in no way means that said interpretation matches the intention of the game designer.

If the posted speed limit is 55 MPH, and the police decide to only write tickets for people driving at speeds greater than 70 MPH, that doesn't suddenly mean that the people who posted the speed limit intended it to be 70 MPH. How the law gets interpreted has little to nothing to do with what the intentions were when the law was created.

Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

@Fling is it your belief that GW cannot write or that GW don't understand what they have written. It must be one or thr other.

Niteware wrote:
@Fling is it your belief that GW cannot write or that GW don't understand what they have written. It must be one or thr other.

Its hardly the most outlandish statement ever to suggest GWs writing team do not write rules 100% correctly, heck even laws are not always 100% air tight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Civil may be less open to interpretation. But what is the actual law is spirit and its intent or the letter? If you live in a society who's entire rule system is based on RaI why do you baulk so much at the idea of other rules systems being based the same way?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

@Fling: In law, neither matters.

What matters is who has the best lawyers.

But that doesn't change the fact that how a law is adjudicated doesn't change how the law actually reads and may have no relationship to the intentions of the rules writer.

Saldiven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

@Fling: In law, neither matters.

What matters is who has the best lawyers.

But that doesn't change the fact that how a law is adjudicated doesn't change how the law actually reads and may have no relationship to the intentions of the rules writer.

Not so much in the UK lawyers have less of an impact on cases. But the law states it is the spirit and intention of the law that matters not the letter.

Saldiven wrote:
@Peasant: Again, that is confusing Rules as Intended with Rules as Interpreted.

Just because you (or anyone else) reads a rule and makes a decision on how to play it in no way means that said interpretation matches the intention of the game designer.

If the posted speed limit is 55 MPH, and the police decide to only write tickets for people driving at speeds greater than 70 MPH, that doesn't suddenly mean that the people who posted the speed limit intended it to be 70 MPH. How the law gets interpreted has little to nothing to do with what the intentions were when the law was created.

Last I checked RAI that everyone likes to throw around is 'Rules as Intended'.
RAW cannot exist without Rules as Intended.

As far as interpretation goes that is what many attempt to make claim as facts. Like KB not causing wounds. The writing and Intent is quite obviously wounds, the interpretation by others is that it doesn't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Straw man, attempt to avoid answering a simple question.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Saldiven: now that you mention law. Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

@Fling: In law, neither matters.

What matters is who has the best lawyers.

But that doesn't change the fact that how a law is adjudicated doesn't change how the law actually reads and may have no relationship to the intentions of the rules writer.

Not so much in the UK lawyers have less of an impact on cases. But the law states it is the spirit and intention of the law that matters not the letter.

It really, realy isn't the spirit of the law that matters in civil law, whuch is the only place that the law is written down. In Common Law, the law is not written.
Anyway, your weird "the rules aren't the rules" arguement aside, you still haven't answeeed the questions I asked OT.

Anyway, your weird "the rules aren't the rules" arguement aside, you still haven't answeeed the questions I asked OT.

I have never said the rules aren't the rules. Anyway your frankly bizarre the rules weren't designed by the GW design team argument aside, I'm fairly certain I have answered your questions.

But here goes again:

1) All saves are triggered by wounds BotWD is no different, passed saves ignore wounds caused. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg65)
2) Ward saves may be taken against any source of wounds BotWD may only be taken if that source is magical attacks, spells or magic weapons. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg65)

Black horror does not do wounds, however it gives us express permission to take a Ward save and tells us the effect of passing it thus over riding requirement 1. Most ward saves don't have a requirement 2, but fortunately for the banner Black Horror is a spell so that meets requirement 2. So we get our 2+ ward and we know the effect if we pass it.

Do Dragonbane Gem or Fireborn get their save:

1) All saves are triggered by wounds DBG/FB are no different, passed saves ignore wounds caused. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg36)
2) Ward saves may be taken against any source of wounds but DBG & FB may only be taken if that source is flaming attacks (BrB pg43-44 & 503, HE pg36)

Black horror does not do wounds, however it gives us express permission to take a Ward save and tells us the effect of passing it thus over riding requirement 1. Black Horror does not have the flaming attacks rule therefore requirement 2 is not met and neither gives the model a ward save.

Peasant wrote:

me wrote:
Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Straw man, attempt to avoid answering a simple question.

No, that isnt a strawman. I didnt create an argument similar to Flings that could be easily disproved, then disproved it. THAT would have been a strawman.

Before flinging round terms you dont fully understand, try researching them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was asked "in law" - I then asked what law, and explained the difference between two common types.

The answer is: it depends on the law you are working under. Now in the UK that is commonly Common law, where interpretation of intent CAN be used, and often IS used, however precedent is usually the binding factor, and it is likely this that Fling was attempting to get at.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Anyway, your weird "the rules aren't the rules" arguement aside, you still haven't answeeed the questions I asked OT.

I have never said the rules aren't the rules. Anyway your frankly bizarre the rules weren't designed by the GW design team argument aside, I'm fairly certain I have answered your questions.

But here goes again:

1) All saves are triggered by wounds BotWD is no different, passed saves ignore wounds caused. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg65)
2) Ward saves may be taken against any source of wounds BotWD may only be taken if that source is magical attacks, spells or magic weapons. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg65)

Black horror does not do wounds, however it gives us express permission to take a Ward save and tells us the effect of passing it thus over riding requirement 1. Most ward saves don't have a requirement 2, but fortunately for the banner Black Horror is a spell so that meets requirement 2. So we get our 2+ ward and we know the effect if we pass it.

Do Dragonbane Gem or Fireborn get their save:

1) All saves are triggered by wounds DBG/FB are no different, passed saves ignore wounds caused. (BrB pg43-44, HE pg36)
2) Ward saves may be taken against any source of wounds but DBG & FB may only be taken if that source is flaming attacks (BrB pg43-44 & 503, HE pg36)

Black horror does not do wounds, however it gives us express permission to take a Ward save and tells us the effect of passing it thus over riding requirement 1. Black Horror does not have the flaming attacks rule therefore requirement 2 is not met and neither gives the model a ward save.

Black Horror does not do wounds. As you stated. So we ignore the bit that says the banner is only for wounds? Even thiugh most wards don't specify that they are for wounds? And you don't se why that is ridiculous?
So you are saying that GW obviously meant it to function in every circumstance, whuch is why they wrote a trigger that we are expected to ignore. Which other things that they explicitly wrote should be ignored?

Black Horror does not do wounds. As you stated. So we ignore the bit that says the banner is only for wounds? Even though most wards don't specify that they are for wounds?

All saves specify they are taken against wounds. The banner is no different, it does not state only wounds. It says "against all wounds caused..." vs normal saves say against "each wound suffered" I really don't see the huge distinction.

And you don't se why that is ridiculous?

No more ridiculous than taking any other ward save against Black Horror.

Which other things that they explicitly wrote should be ignored?

Any case where common sense tells us what they meant when they've used imprecise language to describe a rule (i.e. drawing LoS from a models eyes for models that don't have eyes sculpted on them).

So you are saying that GW obviously meant it to function in every circumstance

No they meant it to work against damage (normally defined as wounds in BrB) from specific sources. Is this an intentional lie or did you not read or understand what I said because I made no such claim.

which is why they wrote a trigger that we are expected to ignore.

We're not expected to ignore the triggers magic atracks/weapons or spells. Black Horror allows us to take a ward save against its damage instead of against wounds as is normally the case.

Fling - your claim is that, even though BH does not cause wounds, you should be able to take a ward save that specifically states it can only be used against wounds anyway? Despite you not meeting the criteria for the ward save even existing?

Do you not see the extremely illogical position you are trying to build here?

BotWD creates a condition under which it grants a ward save. BH does NOT MEET THAT CONDITION, therefore no ward save exists.

Given you lack any rules argument, please mark it as HYWPI, so we know not to try to argue against it.

All saves specify they are taken against wounds.

Lie. All saves state that they can be taken against wounds. True.

The banner... vs normal saves

The banner is not a different type of save. It is a type of ward save that has conditions on its use. Like Dragonbane Gem. The two conditions are that there are wounds and that their source is magical. You can;t just ignore one of the conditions.

No more ridiculous than taking any other ward save against Black Horror.

Except that the majority of items which grant ward saves do not state that they need to be against wounds. Anywhere. In any rule.

they meant it to work against damage

If this were the case, they would have written damage, as they did with KB

Same is true for the Deamon army wide ward.

when they've used imprecise language to describe a rule

How could they have been more precise that to say wounds caused by magic, magical weapons and magical attacks? That is pretty darn precise.

We're not expected to ignore the triggers

Glad you agree. Since all of the BOTWD triggers are wounds from magical sources, you'll agree that things which don't wound don't get the ward.

All saves specify they are taken against wounds.

Lie. All saves state that they can be taken against wounds. True

Banner of the World Dragon can be taken against wounds too. Please find any permission in the Ward Saves rules to take a save against anything other than wounds.

So either:

1) Black Horror overrides the requirement for saves to be taken against wounds so BotWD works
2) Black Horror overrides all requirements for saves so anything with any type of ward gets a save.
3) Black Horror does not override any requirements and thus no ward saves work against it.

Which is it?

Mostly 1) , however your conclusion is false. You have created a false trichotomy, another fallacy.

You are equating a specific extension of permission (taking ward saves against BH damage) with something else entirely - giving permission to BotWD to take saves from non-wounding damage.

You CANNOT show that permission, you therefore CANNOT create your 3 options and pretend only one is correct.

I would suggest you reread on how permissive systems work, as currently you have a bizarre notion indeed.

 FlingitNow wrote:

All saves specify they are taken against wounds.

Lie. All saves state that they can be taken against wounds. True

Banner of the World Dragon can be taken against wounds too. Please find any permission in the Ward Saves rules to take a save against anything other than wounds.

So either:

1) Black Horror overrides the requirement for saves to be taken against wounds so BotWD works
2) Black Horror overrides all requirements for saves so anything with any type of ward gets a save.
3) Black Horror does not override any requirements and thus no ward saves work against it.

Which is it?

You are working off a false premise. Wards saves just describe how a save works. The basic description does not say it is a save against anything in particular, just that it is a save. Other rules then allow you to take a save at some points.
So Black Horror, for example, lets you take any save that fits the ward save rule ajd has had its triggers met. Talisman of Presrvation for example. The banner is nit triggered because it specifies that it only works on wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are still writing as if BOTWD was not just a powerful but limited ward save.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Please find any permission in the Ward Saves rules to take a save against anything other than wounds.

There is none, this is why any rule that damages without wounding will specifically say if you get a ward save or not.
Good examples are KB, Stuff into bag, Black horror, Purple sun and many others who specify how they interact with wards.

People have been having a lot of trouble with reading, lately. A special rule is a special rule. You do what it tells you to do. You don't assume that just because most save are Wounds that you get to ignore the literal text of the special rule which limits it to wounds.

In the very same book Teclis wounds on a 2+ regardless of S->T. Are you going to say that only applies when he fights units with T of 0 (which would be dead anyway)? Because all rolls of 2+ to wound would require him to be that much ahead of his enemy's T. And he has a lousy 2S. Or are you going to go by the literal special rule that is written that says forget what you normally do for to-wound and try and roll 2+ regardless of what you're fighting?

Archaon can never be wounded on <3+ (He and Teclis...). So do you read that long special rule that is very clear, shot him with a cannon and then wound him on a 2+?

There are many instances that break the 99.99999% normal activities of the game and go off into their own special circumstances. If there's a special rule that says you take a ward save to see if you can attack...well, then that's what you do.

There is none, this is why any rule that damages without wounding will specifically say if you get a ward save or not.
Good examples are KB, Stuff into bag, Black horror, Purple sun and many others who specify how they interact with wards

Exactly and that permission applies just as much to BotWD as it does any other ward save that normally only has permission to work against wounds...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:

me wrote:
Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Straw man, attempt to avoid answering a simple question.

No, that isnt a strawman. I didnt create an argument similar to Flings that could be easily disproved, then disproved it. THAT would have been a strawman.

Before flinging round terms you dont fully understand, try researching them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was asked "in law" - I then asked what law, and explained the difference between two common types.

The answer is: it depends on the law you are working under. Now in the UK that is commonly Common law, where interpretation of intent CAN be used, and often IS used, however precedent is usually the binding factor, and it is likely this that Fling was attempting to get at.

Actually you did and apparently you don't realize it.
This was the question...
Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?
To which you replied..
Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation
Then you say...
I was asked "in law" - I then asked what law, and explained the difference between two common types.
In case you forgot, the question is above, you weren't asked about 'in law'. You had a specific question with 2 possible answers.

YOU scream RAW, yet you can't answer the question as written. You had TWO options to respond with #1 or #2 and you answered with neither.
You created the straw man that the type of law, common or civil will make a difference. Changing the topic to discussion of common vs. civil law. Though there was not an actual position to refute you generated a new topic (surprisingly successful) giving the appearance of answering the question.
You can't even answer the question as written but try to tell others that they don't play parts of the game as written. Obviously interpretation is much more important than written as you have shown with this simple avoidance of a question.
You are literal when it suits you, and then general when you are cornered. So in the 'literal' sense, I suppose there was no straw man created, but the feigned importance of civil vs common to create a different discussion did in fact create a strawman.

 Peasant wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:

me wrote:
Depends on your type of law - common or civil. Civil is less open to interpretation.

Straw man, attempt to avoid answering a simple question.

No, that isnt a strawman. I didnt create an argument similar to Flings that could be easily disproved, then disproved it. THAT would have been a strawman.

Before flinging round terms you dont fully understand, try researching them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was asked "in law" - I then asked what law, and explained the difference between two common types.

The answer is: it depends on the law you are working under. Now in the UK that is commonly Common law, where interpretation of intent CAN be used, and often IS used, however precedent is usually the binding factor, and it is likely this that Fling was attempting to get at.

Actually you did and apparently you don't realize it.
This was the question...
Answer this what matters in law:

1) the letter of the law (RaW)
2) the spirit and intention of the law (RaI)

Which of those two things is the law?

This of course varies by context and country. Peace Officers locally can choose to enforce letter of the law, but you are less likely you'll be convicted when spirit and intention vary greatly.
If you want to set up a question where you're forcing one of two answers, you need to provide more background.
Basically, your format isn't specific enough for the provided choices, as both can be correct or incorrect.

-Matt

I believe it was Socrates who didn't want written laws because then you could get around the "LETTER OF THE LAW." Which is basically what lawyers do.

California had a helmet law for motorcyclists. A biker got pulled over for not wearing a helmet. But he did have on a helmet, he was just wearing it on his knee instead of his head. He was found not guilty.

While some podunk judge might throw stuff out and make their own proclamations, laws are the definition of RAW. There are a ton of "clubs" in Hollywood where if you go in them they have off in the corner somewhere a place where you can buy cheese sticks or chicken fingers. And you're like, who on earth would buy this messy snack food at a hip club? No one. But by selling food they can call themselves restaurants under the law instead of night clubs and the licenses are much cheaper and less strict. That's pure RAW.

An inordinate amount of corporations are registered in Delaware as their primary place of business because they have very relaxed corporate requirements. Even though Delaware is a tiny state with hardly any population and the corporations in question don't actually do any business there. That's RAW.

Delaware acquired its status as a corporate haven in the early 20th century. Following the example of New Jersey, which enacted corporate-friendly laws at the end of the 19th century to attract businesses from New York, Delaware played the game of fiscal competition by adopting in 1899 a general incorporation act aimed at attracting more businesses. Before the rise of general incorporation acts, forming a corporation required a special act of the state legislature. General incorporation allowed anyone to form a corporation by simply raising money and filing articles of incorporation with the state government's secretary of state.

laws are the definition of RAW.

Not in any remotely sensible country and certainly not for law in the UK (you know where the rules for 40k are from).