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.

Gravmyr wrote:
Since I seem to have lost my thread.....

Hover pg 81: "If a flyer is hovering, treat it exactly as a fast skimmer." Do fast skimmers have Skyfire? Can they use Skyfire?

There are clearly times when they have chosen to make grand assumptions on how thoroughly they cover things.

Yes as "Flyers can choose whether or not to use the Skyfire special rule at the start of each Shooting phase."

They are still a flyer if they are in hover mode, check out page 411 It lists the Stormraven as Fl (Which means Flyer) H (Hover ) T (Transport)

Nothing takes the flyer classification away if you are in hover mode.

Also you would have to stay in hover mode for the rest of the game as only a flyer can pick between zooming and hover.

"A Flyer that has the Hover type can choose to Hover instead of Zooming" (81)

"Flyers can usually only make a special kind of move called Zoom." (80)

You could never zoom again if Flyer was removed from its type. (Good thing Flyer is never removed).

But this all goes to show that FAQ's can change rules.

The force Vs FNP was a change in the rules.

I disagree it was a change perse, at most it's an addition to the rules for clarification. Be it that potential effects must be tested for before accumulating the sum of all effects that will apply with the unsaved wound.

I think the point is, even where RAW does not line up with FAQs, for the vast vast majority we can see where they were coming from - most deal with oversights, missing information, illogical or inconsitant rulings. When they do change how some people play the rules, for the most part it will be towards how they intended people to be playing those rules.

Lots of things are written in the rule book. If we took all forms of interpretation of those away, removed any assumptions and human logic, followed it to the letter you end up with something unplayable. Assumptions, logic and interpretation are a needed factor in determining the rules.

 Nem wrote:
I think the point is, even where RAW does not line up with FAQs, for the vast vast majority we can see where they were coming from - most deal with oversights, missing information, illogical or inconsitant rulings. When they do change how some people play the rules, for the most part it will be towards how they intended people to be playing those rules.

Lots of things are written in the rule book. If we took all forms of interpretation of those away, removed any assumptions and human logic, followed it to the letter you end up with something unplayable. Assumptions, logic and interpretation are a needed factor in determining the rules.

QFT

As for rules that prove those FAQs were following RAW I can't provide an nor do I have to for my argument to hold. Flyers count as skimmers skimmers can't skyfire. It was all there before. FMC whilst swooping are intended to count as flyers hence the FAQ. The FAQs literally tells us what the RAI is, this may differ from the RAW. Your lists of FAQs that are different to RAW don't prove me wrong on FAQs changing the rules they just highlight that the position that RAW=The Rules is untenable.

If treat as is not the same as is, as I believe you have claimed in several threads now where it supported you, then lance weapons do and do not work against quantum shielding. It also means that at any time treat as is used it retains it's original status despite what it is treated as. FNP does not change the status of a wound.... I can keep going but the claim that treating a flyer as a fast skimmer does not remove it's ability to use skyfire negates a number of your arguments in other threads if you are basing it off of treats as does not change it's base state therefor it does not loose anything based off this.

In the end if you are using Skyfire you are not treating it as a fast skimmer now are you? Isn't that how you worded your argument of FNP negating all other activated SR's?

The only way you get to Force vs FNP being a rule change is if you ignore possible outcomes you don't like. Out of all the SR's that activate off of unsaved wounds how many use immediately?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Nem wrote:
I think the point is, even where RAW does not line up with FAQs, for the vast vast majority we can see where they were coming from - most deal with oversights, missing information, illogical or inconsitant rulings. When they do change how some people play the rules, for the most part it will be towards how they intended people to be playing those rules.

Lots of things are written in the rule book. If we took all forms of interpretation of those away, removed any assumptions and human logic, followed it to the letter you end up with something unplayable. Assumptions, logic and interpretation are a needed factor in determining the rules.

QFT

As for rules that prove those FAQs were following RAW I can't provide an nor do I have to for my argument to hold. Flyers count as skimmers skimmers can't skyfire. It was all there before. FMC whilst swooping are intended to count as flyers hence the FAQ. The FAQs literally tells us what the RAI is, this may differ from the RAW. Your lists of FAQs that are different to RAW don't prove me wrong on FAQs changing the rules they just highlight that the position that RAW=The Rules is untenable.

So there is no way for you to be wrong then? If you argue it is always what was intended they could add "on a 4+ the game continues! but on a 1 any Tyanid player wins the game regardless of the mission". And you would tell us they wanted that all along ?

I agree that FW vs FNP was clarified , over 50% of the people on Dakka voted that way, but I disagree FAQs can't change rules. Even if it is what GW wanted RAI all along the book they published didn't have that rule so they had to FAQ it as such.

Keep in mind FAQs often go against one another. FAQs use Fluff. Fully expect FNP to go 2nd against some abilities and nullify other abilities.

If you argue it is always what was intended they could add "on a 4+ the game continues! but on a 1 any Tyanid player wins the game regardless of the mission". And you would tell us they wanted that all along ?

Yes if they included an FAQ that said that, it would not be a rules change it would be an FAQ.

I agree that FW vs FNP was clarified , over 50% of the people on Dakka voted that way, but I disagree FAQs can't change rules. Even if it is what GW wanted RAI all along the book they published didn't have that rule so they had to FAQ it as such.

The rules are what GW designed them to be. Written language is just a tool to communicate ideas it can not generate them itself.

Keep in mind FAQs often go against one another. FAQs use Fluff. Fully expect FNP to go 2nd against some abilities and nullify other abilities.

True FAQs are not always consistent with RAW.

Yet many FAQ's do make changes, against the RAW.
So we either accept the rules changes these FAQ's are making, or we discount them entirely.

 grendel083 wrote:
Yet many FAQ's do make changes, against the RAW.
So we either accept the rules changes these FAQ's are making, or we discount them entirely.

Yes FAQs give answers that differ from RAW. So we are left with 3 options:

1) RAW =/= The Rules (or in other words the rules were designed by the GW design team not an inanimate object).
2) Discount the FAQs entirely
3) Ignore the RAW fact that FAQs can not change rules whilst stubbornly and hypocritically still claiming pure RAW is the rules except where you decide for them not to be (i.e. that FAQs can't change rules) and then complain when GW makes an obvious FAQ answer that upsets us because it is different from a silly RAW answer...

So are you going for option 2, or believing that FAQ's can change rules?

 grendel083 wrote:
So are you going for option 2, or believing that FAQ's can change rules?

I'm going for option 1 as I believe the GW design team designed the rules. Which apparently is a controversial belief in this forum.

Which option are you going for? Option 2 or RAW counts if and when you choose it to? Or the obvious answer of the rules are what the GW design team designed them to be?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So are you going for option 2, or believing that FAQ's can change rules?

I'm going for option 1 as I believe the GW design team designed the rules. Which apparently is a controversial belief in this forum.

Which option are you going for? Option 2 or RAW counts if and when you choose it to? Or the obvious answer of the rules are what the GW design team designed them to be?

Option 1 isn't really an answer.
Of course the design team makes the rules, who ever disputes that? And what does that have to do with rule changes in an FAQ?
Option 1 is dodging an answer.

I'll go with option 4. The one that makes the game playable.
FAQ's change rules. And they are as much a part of the rules as a codex or rulebook.

 grendel083 wrote:
Option 1 isn't really an answer.
Of course the design team makes the rules, who ever disputes that? And what does that have to do with rule changes in an FAQ?
Option 1 is dodging an answer.

Everyone that does not believe RAI = The Rules is saying they don't believe that the rules are what the GW design team designed and this the rules are not designed by the GW design team. Option 1 is not dodging an answer it is giving an answer based on axiomatic truths (FAQs can't change rules, the GW design team designed the rules).

I'll go with option 4. The one that makes the game playable.
FAQ's change rules. And they are as much a part of the rules as a codex or rulebook.

Option 1 also makes the game playable, indeed it is only one that does so. You are clearly going with option 3, do you not see that as hypocritical?

So the only way to truly play 40k by the rules is how you think the design team intended it to be played? How convenient for you.

While you are right in saying that FAQs are not supposed to change rules (as that's what the errata is for) it is clear that in certain cases the writers of the FAQs have ignored this and decided to put things that should be erratas into the FAQ section. Treating the blurb at the front of FAQs as The Rules while treating the actual rules written in the rulebook as a bunch of scribbles you can ignore when it's convenient for you is ridiculous and I feel sorry for people who have to deal with you in tournaments.

Fling - so you are claiming you know the RAI? Always?

Bonkers. Desist with your stance, which breaches the tenets, and get back on topic. At least you've stopped insulting the social skills of those who disagree with your unplayable stance on rules.

Personally I find the statement THE RULES is clear enough.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So the only way to truly play 40k by the rules is how you think the design team intended it to be played? How convenient for you.

You read the rulebook and try to interpret what they meant by the rules they have written. If your opponent disagrees with your interpretation you discuss it an come to a concensus or dice off (or defer to higher ruling like a TO). How is playing by RAW any different? The only thing with my way is that I'm not going to try to pull that your helmeted models can't shoot or assault. Or that FMCs don't have relentless or smash, but instead have the as yet undefined "relentless smash" rule. That you can't overwatch because "normal shooting attack" is not defined. Or any other RAW silliness and don't need to attempt to discuss them I just play those things how we all know they are meant to be played.

While you are right in saying that FAQs are not supposed to change rules (as that's what the errata is for) it is clear that in certain cases the writers of the FAQs have ignored this and decided to put things that should be erratas into the FAQ section. Treating the blurb at the front of FAQs as The Rules while treating the actual rules written in the rulebook as a bunch of scribbles you can ignore when it's convenient for you is ridiculous and I feel sorry for people who have to deal with you in tournaments.

Do you not see the inconsistency between on one hand saying it is impossible to understand anything beyond the literal but then claiming that FAQs aren't literal FAQs?

At the end of the day it is about aim. Claiming just because I want to play by the rules GW designed means that I can or will just ignore all the written text and pick and choose what I want from the rules is a ludicrous exaggeration. I aim to play the rules as they were designed and I understand that some of the rules are written in a sloppy and inaccurate way. If me and my opponent disagree on a rule my aim is to work out what the RAI is. Understanding the RAW is often an important step in this process. But blindly claiming RAW results in breaking the game. In honesty I'm fairly certain you all defer to RaI on some of the rules you play (like all the situations above) yet on the internet you take up the attitude RAW is the rules to argue semantics or scrape that extra advantage on anything you see as a RaI grey area (like Gravguns ignoring cover for vehicles for instance).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - so you are claiming you know the RAI? Always?

I have never made such a claim. My opinion on RaI is just that my opinion on it. You are free to disagree with it. This is something I have pointed out to you multiple times Nos.

Bonkers. Desist with your stance, which breaches the tenets, and get back on topic. At least you've stopped insulting the social skills of those who disagree with your unplayable stance on rules.

It doesn't breach the tenets. Why is my stance unplayable? So tell me how your games go when you tell your opponents that their helmeted models can't shoot or draw LoS to anything ever? I'm just wondering how that goes? Or when you inform your opponent that is FMC doesn't gave relentless or smash etc?

Personally I find the statement THE RULES is clear enough.

Personally I find the statement FAQ is clear enough as is the purpose of language and that the GW design team designed the rules...

I'm not suggesting we play by pure RAW, but I think playing by pure RAI is equally absurd. The way I play is RAW until there's an issue where pure RAW is ambiguous, an obvious oversight (Relentless Smash, anyone?), or breaks the game, then discuss these issues with my opponent and find a solution we both agree on. I may not always like the way a certain rule plays per RAW or think the rule should be played that way, but if it is perfectly functional as it is written I will play it that way.

 FlingitNow wrote:

If you argue it is always what was intended they could add "on a 4+ the game continues! but on a 1 any Tyanid player wins the game regardless of the mission". And you would tell us they wanted that all along ?

Yes if they included an FAQ that said that, it would not be a rules change it would be an FAQ.

An interesting if wrong standpoint. I like your gusto, you are using the wording of how FAQ's are explained on GW website to have a never wrong approach, even if it is absurd. The moment they "add" or "change" the wording of any rule in the BRB, they have changed the actual "RAW" rules. Regardless if it is to just "Clarify" something.

For instance when they in the BA "FAQ" actually list the new weapon profiles for Glaive Encarmine, the profile changed because they had to FAQ to work with 6th edition, however there is no denying it has changed compare to the codex.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm not suggesting we play by pure RAW, but I think playing by pure RAI is equally absurd. The way I play is RAW until there's an issue where pure RAW is ambiguous, an obvious oversight (Relentless Smash, anyone?), or breaks the game, then discuss these issues with my opponent and find a solution we both agree on. I may not always like the way a certain rule plays per RAW or think the rule should be played that way, but if it is perfectly functional as it is written I will play it that way.

It depends what you mean by pure RAI. I mean that whenever RAW gives a ludicrous, game breaking or clearly unintentional result I try to work out what they meant. I don't see what is absurd about that?

So for instance I would not entertain the notion that FMCs have "relentless smash" or that models without modelled eyes can't draw LOS. Likewise I see it no real difference to say it seems entirely unintentional that grav weapons bypass cover for vehicles or that successful vehicle invulnerable saves only discount wounds.

To be honest I would be very surprised if anyone on here that defends RAW fundamentalism would be so belligerent in an actual game. Just my stance doesn't change from internet to game as it doesn't need to in order for me to have a game against an actual person.

So you do not consider THE RULES to be the rules? Yet can claim rai?

Absurd position is absurd

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you do not consider THE RULES to be the rules? Yet can claim rai?

Absurd position is absurd

I consider "The Rules" to be the section of the rulebook where the GW design team try to communicate to us the rules of the game. That is literally what a rulebook is for.

But thanks for the personal attack.

My position is that the rulebook is a rulebook not a sentient being. That the rules were designed by the GW design team. You think this is absurd. You're entitled to your opinion.

Don't put words in my mouth. Straw man argument is straw man.

It wasn't a personal attack. You are treating the shrine wording as infallible, but ignoring the clear and unambiguous THE RULES and claiming they are not, actually, the rules. In fact, GW just splurged words without really knowing what they're writing.

I'll take the view that they intended to write THE RULES, not what you think they meant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth. Straw man argument is straw man.

It wasn't a personal attack. You are treating the shrine wording as infallible, but ignoring the clear and unambiguous THE RULES and claiming they are not, actually, the rules. In fact, GW just splurged words without really knowing what they're writing.

I'll take the view that they intended to write THE RULES, not what you think they meant.

You are treating all words as infallible except when YOU say they are not (like the shrine wording).

I'm treating no words as infallible. I'm treating the words as communication of ideas. I'm aware that that communication is not always perfect. I'm not putting any words in your mouth I haven't I've just taken what you've said here and previously on this topic. You are however trying to put words in my mouth words you know that I have not stated and have in fact stated the opposite.

I also take the view that they intended to write the rules so that we could play a game using them and so they themselves can remember them. I however do not believe that they always write perfectly what they meant as no one does.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I have not said they are infallible. I have, repeatedly, stated when the rules break down. You ignore this, and state I have no social skills when playing people, in a deliberate mischaracterisation. It gets tiresome .

I just simply treat THE RULES as the rules. As they tell you to , in, you know, the phrase. You are claiming that a THE RULES are not the actual rules, just whatever you decide at the time.

The studio disagrees witty you, the vast majority on here disagree with you, and your position, is at heart, an absurd one.

Now, stop with your OT illogic, please.

The FAQ WAS, like a number of FAQS, a change in the rules. This is indisputable truth.

I would dispute this FAQ was not a change in the rules, along with many other people. It's not so much a indisputable truth as much as it depends what you think the RAW is or was.

I do believe in most cases RAW is clear and absolute. This is not one of those cases.

I meant more it was a change in rules, same ssony other FAQS changed rules, and that FAQS can and do change rules

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, putting words in my mouth. I have not said they are infallible. I have, repeatedly, stated when the rules break down. You ignore this, and state I have no social skills when playing people, in a deliberate mischaracterisation. It gets tiresome .

You state that RAW = The Rules thus the written text is exactly what the rules are thus the entirety of the words are law. Then you choose when you want to make some of those words not the law. Like the wording on the shrine of knowledge. Unless you accept that the wording on the shrine of knowledge is to be interpreted as you say is the only way to interpret the rules. In which case as you know FAQs can not change the rules... So which is it? Are there ways to interpret text beyond the purely literal and come to a concensus or not?

I just simply treat THE RULES as the rules. As they tell you to , in, you know, the phrase. You are claiming that a THE RULES are not the actual rules, just whatever you decide at the time.

The underlined is as you know completely false and is a personal attack. I am claiming the rules are whatever the GW design team designed them to be.

The studio disagrees witty you, the vast majority on here disagree with you, and your position, is at heart, an absurd one.

You speak for the studio now? The Studio says that they didn't design the rules? The position that the GW design team designed the rules is an absurd one? The position that rules should be interpreted in this game in the same manner as any rule system ever written is interpreted is an absurd one? OK. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it however I do not believe it is as widely held as you believe it is. Hence the old RAW silliness thread, just because the attitude of RAW = The Rules has hounded people who want reasonable rules discussions beyond the RAW out of the forum does not make it the only way to interpret the rules.

Now, stop with your OT illogic, please.

We're discussing whether something is a rule change. I've stated the fact that thing is an FAQ means it can't possibly be a rules change. You've tried to attack that position.

The FAQ WAS, like a number of FAQS, a change in the rules. This is indisputable truth.

By indisputable truth you mean factual impossibility. What a strange thing to say.

 FlingitNow wrote:

There is literally nothing in the rules that even suggests that challenges should use their own toughness... It was most definitely a change of the RAW.

agree it was a change in RaW

So you do agree it was change in Rules As Written.

 FlingitNow wrote:
but by definition it can not be a change in the rules.

You're contradicting yourself. So you're now claiming that a change in a rule is not in fact a change in rules?

 FlingitNow wrote:
. FAQs do not and can not change the rules.

We have already shown you that they change rules. You yourself have agreed that they change rules. By definition, RAW is the rules. So anything that changes RAW changes rules and vice versa.
And if you try to argue that RAW ain't rules, I'd like you to define exactly what are rules and how are we supposed to know them if they are not written anywhere?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Anyone claiming that they change the rules simply does not know what an FAQ is.

No, we very well know what FAQ is. Assuming that GW follows its stated own convention about that FAQ's are not supposed to change rules in spite of all clear evidence to contrary is mindboggling to say at least. GW being GW, they still use FAQs to change rules (as has been proven multiple times) even though they're not supposed to do that.
So anyone claiming that GW FAQs don't change rules is just living in denial or has not actually ever properly read FAQ written by GW and compared it to what the actual rules say.

Luide all the answers to the questions in your post are already on this thread so let's not derail it by going over them again and again. If you need further clarification please pm me and I'll happily explain why the rules are not always equal to RAW (mainly due to GW being not perfect rules writers).

 FlingitNow] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, putting words in my mouth. I have not said they are infallible. I have, repeatedly, stated when the rules break down. You ignore this, and state I have no social skills when playing people, in a deliberate mischaracterisation. It gets tiresome .

You state that RAW = The Rules thus the written text is exactly what the rules are thus the entirety of the words are law. Then you choose when you want to make some of those words not the law. Like the wording on the shrine of knowledge. Unless you accept that the wording on the shrine of knowledge is to be interpreted as you say is the only way to interpret the rules. In which case as you know FAQs can not change the rules... So which is it? Are there ways to interpret text beyond the purely literal and come to a concensus or not?

Yes, the entirety of the words are the Rules. however some of those rules are broken. I acknowledge this, nothing you state is true or new

FAQs therefore can change the rules, as they change what is literally written. Out of Range is a literal change to the rules.

FlingitNow wrote:

I just simply treat THE RULES as the rules. As they tell you to , in, you know, the phrase. You are claiming that a THE RULES are not the actual rules, just whatever you decide at the time.

The underlined is as you know completely false and is a personal attack. I am claiming the rules are whatever the GW design team designed them to be.

No, you are claiming the section called THE RULES is not, in fact, the rules. That is 100% your position. Making the name THE RULES a lie, in your eyes. I go for GW not deliberately misleading us by publishing a book of RULES called a RULEBOOK with a section called THE RULES yet these somehow are not "the rules"., thanks

FlingitNow wrote:

The studio disagrees witty you, the vast majority on here disagree with you, and your position, is at heart, an absurd one.

You speak for the studio now?

No, I stated exactly what context that was in previously, do NOT put words in my mouth. Again. You seem incapable of doing otherwise.

I have 2 friends who work in the studio, neither of them believe your stance on the rules to be true. I hold their opinion >>>>>>>>>>>> yours.

FlingitNow wrote:The Studio says that they didn't design the rules?

I never said that

FlingitNow wrote:The position that the GW design team designed the rules is an absurd one?

I never said that. Youre good at this.

FlingitNow wrote:The position that rules should be interpreted in this game in the same manner as any rule system ever written is interpreted is an absurd one? OK. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it however I do not believe it is as widely held as you believe it is. Hence the old RAW silliness thread, just because the attitude of RAW = The Rules has hounded people who want reasonable rules discussions beyond the RAW out of the forum does not make it the only way to interpret the rules.

You dont sensibly discuss rules, however. RAW ARE THE RULES. They are the rules as GW have communicated them to us. Your position is we should try to divine RAI - which is, functionally, impossible without being the studio. Making discussion of "RAI" functionally useless. There is no debate possible with RAI arguments, as they are just opinions.

FlingitNow wrote:

Now, stop with your OT illogic, please.

We're discussing whether something is a rule change. I've stated the fact that thing is an FAQ means it can't possibly be a rules change. You've tried to attack that position.

Wrong, I successfully attacked, with rules support, that position. You disagreed. You havent proivided proof, in fact posited a hypocritical position - that the Shrine wording is infallible, yet other words arent. We have proven otherwise, over and over.

Your position is debunked. Concede gracefully.

FlingitNow wrote:

The FAQ WAS, like a number of FAQS, a change in the rules. This is indisputable truth.

By indisputable truth you mean factual impossibility. What a strange thing to say.

Ha. Ha,

Your position remains untenable.