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.

Most folks find that there are at least a few ambiguities and holes they need to patch in the rules for everyday play. Some folks don't even think about it and remember it later.

Part of the point of discussing rules on the internet is that we can highlight problem areas and confusing bits and not be surprised if/when we run into someone in the real world who interprets them differently than we do.

It's a mistake to assume that someone on the internet genuinely plays a rule in a stupid or nonfunctional way just because they point out that (in their opinion, at least) there's a problem with the way it's written. Most of the guys who focus on RAW in rules discussions are perfectly willing and happy to agree with their opponnents to tweak things in a real life game to run smoothly.

@pretre correct but that doesn't invalidate my point.

@mannahnin very well put indeed.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Arrathon wrote:
Actually, yes i do play by whats in my rulebook..not what is interpreted by the masses. Actually, Everyone at my local shop plays by the rulebook, and our games are just fine.and no rules as written is not a unplayable game..it IS the game. You don't buy a 80.00$ rule book to use the rules inside as to what you think they mean.

So where do Hive Guard, helmeted Marines, Zoanthropes, and other models without eyes draw line of sight from?
Cite the page in the rulebook please. You must be able to since you play by what's in there.

And again, i was just adding my two cents, not looking for a spitting contest.

I'm not either. I'm just trying to show you that things are not as absolutely clear as you pretend.

See...now your being silly.. if someone across the table for me told me that a space marine model with a helmet on has no line of sight id probably tell them to get off my table. It's Stuff like what you've said(the eye thing)..that are beginning to make me not enjoy this game, because yes..i have come across players who think literally that way..and yes..i am the type of person to say..pack your gak and go to a different table.Also,it says from the models line of sight.. not the models EYES line of site. Now i will go back to lurking, thank you for helping make my coffee time interesting

 Arrathon wrote:
.Also,it says from the models line of sight.. not the models EYES line of site.

Main rulebook page 8 wrote:For one model to have line of sight to another, you must
be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to
any part of the target's body (the head,torso,arms orlegs).

The problem you are having, Arrathon, is differentiating between arguing RAW on the internet and actual play. For the most part, arguing RAW on the internet is an academic process to determine what the actual rules say. It allows us to understand the rules and know what to expect when playing people from different clubs and geographic locations. Most people who argue the rather out there RAW issues tend to play them a bit differently when actually on a table.

 Arrathon wrote:
[See...now your being silly.. if someone across the table for me told me that a space marine model with a helmet on has no line of sight id probably tell them to get off my table. It's Stuff like what you've said(the eye thing)..that are beginning to make me not enjoy this game, because yes..i have come across players who think literally that way..and yes..i am the type of person to say..pack your gak and go to a different table

And that's my point. Playing by the absolute RAW leads to an unplayable game. You have to use some level of RAI to be able to play at all.

Also,it says from the models line of sight.. not the models EYES line of site. Now i will go back to lurking, thank you for helping make my coffee time interesting

Page 8 BRB wrote:For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs).

No, it really does say "eyes".

Arrathon- your not the only one that shares your opinion. Well said. Thank you.

However, the rule book and army books do contain errata. The interpretation is the crux of your point.

What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

Good lord.

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the Internet that a pretty obvious joke about pretty much anything can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

FTFY.

Welcome to the Internet!

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

Good lord.

Problem is... they weren't joking.

 Byte wrote:

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?
Good lord.

Problem is... they weren't joking.

I was. See?

 Byte wrote:

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

Good lord.

Problem is... they weren't joking.

Not sure if srs...

It was really quite clear it was satire on WAACs willingness to read out of context and GW's terribad writing facilitating this.

I've found reading this thread to be a huge waste of time. It almost make the online dakka community look like a bunch of fools. It almost makes GW look smart by continuing to spite us all.

 Ledabot wrote:
I've found reading this thread to be a huge waste of time.

Which you have then compounded by taking more time to post about it... Well done, that man.

I'm just happy the Telion thing got cleared up... looks like I'm paying for cloaks on m'scouts again.

Wasn't the telion thing fixed multiple FAQs ago?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Wouldn't stop people, just give them something else to bitch about.

That's assuming the complaint of a poorly worded FAQ isn't valid and we are complaining just to complain. FAQ issues are a recurring theme and just warrants the complaint.

It's not like people are looking for things to rage over. I was hoping that the FAQs were going to include useful updates. Instead I saw ads and the standard poorly worded FAQ. If I didn't see those issues, are you saying I'd just go looking for something to be upset about?

Pretty much. Instead of saying "hey although they are not where i want them to be yet i am happy to see gw is trying to improve". It is always about how much they suck and are not as good as other companies. No matter how they try to change for the better they are still told they are crap. When people cant applaud an improvement or at least an attempt then yes i say you are doing nothing but looking for something to complain about.

Do i wish the typos werent there in the first place? Sure. However the fact that they are jumping on it right away within days now shows an improved dedication To pleasing the customer.

text removed.
Reds8n

I don't see how this is an improvement. Would have been much more efficient if they would have reprinted the WD issue and made that available to every store like a regular release. Or if they wanted to update it they could have updated it through a FAQ/ errata.

However they pulled another GW. Since some of us need those rules they figured "hey we already have em by the balls, might as well squeeze a little harder". So they reprint the rules and charge more than double and while their at it decide to through the rules into a reprint of a supplement that won't sell well to make sure it does. Win win for GW. Not so much for us.

I would consider them improving if they would sell us the product we want without trying to swindle me every time I buy something. " here's your new car sir, o and by the way you'll need to buy the keys separately for extra cost and oops we don't seem to have them in stock so we'll have to order them, that's another 10$ for the shipping" Thank you GW, can I have some more abuse. I need it I've been a baaad boy. <--sarcasm for the impaired.

 Leth wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Wouldn't stop people, just give them something else to bitch about.

That's assuming the complaint of a poorly worded FAQ isn't valid and we are complaining just to complain. FAQ issues are a recurring theme and just warrants the complaint.

It's not like people are looking for things to rage over. I was hoping that the FAQs were going to include useful updates. Instead I saw ads and the standard poorly worded FAQ. If I didn't see those issues, are you saying I'd just go looking for something to be upset about?

Pretty much. Instead of saying "hey although they are not where i want them to be yet i am happy to see gw is trying to improve". It is always about how much they suck and are not as good as other companies. No matter how they try to change for the better they are still told they are crap. When people cant applaud an improvement or at least an attempt then yes i say you are doing nothing but looking for something to complain about.

Do i wish the typos werent there in the first place? Sure. However the fact that they are jumping on it right away within days now shows an improved dedication To pleasing the customer.

For the (very) premium price we pay well-written rules and timely, accurate patching is the bare minimum of what should be expected. While I am glad to see that GW (seems to be starting) to do the second the lack of a common vocabulary is inexcusable and the quality of rules-writing is overall fair at best.

GW is not a slightly "special" child who needs to have each one of their C- papers posted on the refrigerator because "hey, at least it isn't a D!".

They why do you pay it if you don't think you are getting your value? That sounds like the C- child right there. I am not going to buy something if I don't expect to get my value out of it as is. Now could they be better? sure but when you compare something you compare everything, not just one aspect that is better elsewhere. You compare the entire package.

If your goal was improvement then your methods are not an effective method towards that goal. However if your goal is to complain without changing anything then you are right on track.

If someone complains but does not do anything about it then they are complaining to complain. If it bothered me enough I would actually write the company, call customer service. Maybe form a coalition of gamers to invest in the company(it is publically traded) to get some say in business decisions. If you really wanted it to change you would do something that involved getting out of your chair. However if you expect change to just happen without doing anything then better start worshiping a giant bird because that's the best bet you got.

Also if you have the right to complain about something that you don't like why am I not allowed the same courtesy to complain about something that bothers me as well?

Leth wrote:
If your goal was improvement then your methods are not an effective method towards that goal. However if your goal is to complain without changing anything then you are right on track.

My assumption is that GW does (all joking aside) read forums. They can't actually be as clueless as they let themselves be thought to be. They would end up accidentally hanging themselves while trying to tie their shoes.

Leth wrote:
If someone complains but does not do anything about it then they are complaining to complain. If it bothered me enough I would actually write the company, call customer service.

Ah yes, the roolzboyz, the real reason they got disbanded was they totally had too many good ideas!

Leth wrote:
Maybe form a coalition of gamers to invest in the company(it is publically traded) to get some say in business decisions. If you really wanted it to change you would do something that involved getting out of your chair. However if you expect change to just happen without doing anything then better start worshiping a giant bird because that's the best bet you got.

A shareholder revolt is a fantasy. It's never worked.

Leth wrote:
Also if you have the right to complain about something that you don't like why am I not allowed the same courtesy to complain about something that bothers me as well?

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
They can't actually be as clueless as they let themselves be thought to be.

I continue to theorize that this is the sum of all of their problems. They are more clueless than we could ever imagine. My theory: Everything people attribute to big evil GW and their evil business practices is actually them being that oblivious and dumb.

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:

Leth wrote:
If your goal was improvement then your methods are not an effective method towards that goal. However if your goal is to complain without changing anything then you are right on track.

My assumption is that GW does (all joking aside) read forums. They can't actually be as clueless as they let themselves be thought to be. They would end up accidentally hanging themselves while trying to tie their shoes.

Leth wrote:
If someone complains but does not do anything about it then they are complaining to complain. If it bothered me enough I would actually write the company, call customer service.

Ah yes, the roolzboyz, the real reason they got disbanded was they totally had too many good ideas!

Leth wrote:
Maybe form a coalition of gamers to invest in the company(it is publically traded) to get some say in business decisions. If you really wanted it to change you would do something that involved getting out of your chair. However if you expect change to just happen without doing anything then better start worshiping a giant bird because that's the best bet you got.

A shareholder revolt is a fantasy. It's never worked.

Leth wrote:
Also if you have the right to complain about something that you don't like why am I not allowed the same courtesy to complain about something that bothers me as well?

Not really sure how to respond to this. To begin with you'll have to show me where I said you aren't allowed to complain...

Had a whole post typed out, then realized that it was not on topic. Deleted the rest of it. Back to the FAQs.

Happy that they are updating quickly and looking for feedback. With the rapid release of books, as well as timely FAQs I feel that GW is taking steps in the right direction.

 Leth wrote:
Back to the FAQs.

This is a Good Idea.

 Kroothawk wrote:

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

You did not read that correctly or more acutely you have used faulty logic . You have denied the antecedent. Lets start with an example of how this kind of faulty logic looks. If I tell you that only US currency has George Washington's face on it you could make the logical argument.

'If the currency has George Washington's face on it, then it is US currency."

If you then looked at a 20 dollar bill with Alexander Hamilton's face on it and used the logic 'The face on the currency is not George Washington's. Therefore, the currency is not US currency.' Clearly the logic is faulty. This logic only works when you deny the consiquent. For this logic to be valid the argument form would need to be inverted to look like this.

'If it is US currency, then the currency has George Washington`s face on it.'

And for the argument to take that form i would have needed to tell you something completely different.

The FAQ response states that the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Black Templars. Without any language specifically denying the availability of the units to any army chosen from any other codex the argument must take the following logical form.

'If the army is chosen from Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Black Templars, then the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships are available.'

Your logic would follow as 'The army is not chosen from Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Black Templars. Therefore the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships are not available.' Like the currency example this logic is only valid if we invert the argument but to do so would require language in the FAQ stating those units are available ONLY to armies chosen from either of those two codex.

Some might argue that the response does limit those two units to armies chosen from those two codex because it lists the Stormtalen and Stormraven Gunships availability to be an exception to the standard that only units in your codex are available to your army. An exception to a standard does not invalidate the standard. For example a 7-11 is open 24 hours a day except on Christmas. Not being open 24 hours a day on December 25th has no impact on it being open 24 hours a day any other day of the year. Not sure the name of this logical fallacy

Before any one makes the argument that this means these units are available to armies chosen from any codex remember you can't draw an affirmative conclusion from,a negative premise. Or in more basic terms, just because nothing says you can't do something does not mean you can.

Hope this helps

You do realize that the sentence you quoted is missing the word "only" that is in the actual FAQ, right?

rigeld2 wrote:
You do realize that the sentence you quoted is missing the word "only" that is in the actual FAQ, right?

Don't feed him. We all have our opinuion now. Further discussion in the YMDC forum.

rigeld2 wrote:
You do realize that the sentence you quoted is missing the word "only" that is in the actual FAQ, right?

You are correct. I did not notice that somehow and have made an incorrect argument. The correct form of the argument is 'If the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships are available, then the army is chosen from Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Black Knights' which is the inverted argument you need for Kroothawk's logic to be valid.

I know all that was in English but I'm not exactly sure what I just read. Yesh

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

Good lord.

Would you say that your post was more RAW than RAI? That could explain the lack of humor.