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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes thats definitely cheating. Just as much as moving wargear around models or lying about dice rolls or measuring wrong intentionally.

I disagree - it's clearly not intended for them to be able to fire or charge as they have no eyes.

Who is the final arbiter of intent? You? You can't accuse people of cheating when the only person who knows for a fact what intent is in GWHQ.

You can easily gather intent from what's written. We could be hallucinating as to what's written who's the arbiter of what we are really seeing you? It is about using common sense to draw a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Your assertation was not reasonable. Wraithlords are clearly intended to be able to shoot and assault.

So yes you can accuse someone of cheating if they are clearly intentionally breaking the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes thats definitely cheating. Just as much as moving wargear around models or lying about dice rolls or measuring wrong intentionally.

I disagree - it's clearly not intended for them to be able to fire or charge as they have no eyes.

Who is the final arbiter of intent? You? You can't accuse people of cheating when the only person who knows for a fact what intent is in GWHQ.

You can easily gather intent from what's written. We could be hallucinating as to what's written who's the arbiter of what we are really seeing you? It is about using common sense to draw a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Your assertation was not reasonable. Wraithlords are clearly intended to be able to shoot and assault.

So yes you can accuse someone of cheating if they are clearly intentionally breaking the rules.

So every single situation has absolutely clear intent?
You know that can't be true.

No not every situation has clear intent. So you have to house rule in this case. You may choose to follow RaW as your house rule or choose something different. Remembering house rules have to be agreed with your opponent.

Are you trying to imply that in every situation RaW is clear because there are numerous examples on this forum that would suggest otherwise...

FlingitNow wrote:No not every situation has clear intent. So you have to house rule in this case. You may choose to follow RaW as your house rule or choose something different. Remembering house rules have to be agreed with your opponent.

Are you trying to imply that in every situation RaW is clear because there are numerous examples on this forum that would suggest otherwise...

FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - are you making the same "following RAW is cheating" argument you've been asked to desist from in the past?

Surely not.

Not been asked that. I've never said "following RaW is cheating" just that intentionally breaking the rules is cheating. It always surprises me when people think that deliberately breaking RaI isn't cheating hence I point it out to them.

No, not every situation is clear - that's my point.
You're saying that intentionally breaking the rules is cheating and asserting that RAI is "the rules" without giving any kind of final arbiter. Which means, according to you I might be cheating when I play that blasts can't wound out of LoS but I'm not actually breaking any rules.
If you don't see a problem with that, we can agree to disagree that your position is reasonable.

" You're saying that intentionally breaking the rules is cheating and asserting that RAI is "the rules""

These two points are by definition the case surely you can't disagree with either? If you do please give me your definition of cheating or indeed your definition of who's ideas the rules are?

As for a final arbiter there doesn't need to be one. We can both read the rules and can agree where intent is clear (wraithlords can shoot/assault, Space Marines are T4, FMCs have relentless & smash etc), where it is not we can argue until there is agreement or create a house rule. There is no final arbiter for RaW either so why does there need to be one for RaI (before you say the rule book is for RaW I could disagree with you what the rule book says. For instance I could insist is says by space marines are T10).

 FlingitNow wrote:
" You're saying that intentionally breaking the rules is cheating and asserting that RAI is "the rules""

These two points are by definition the case surely you can't disagree with either? If you do please give me your definition of cheating or indeed your definition of who's ideas the rules are?

No, RAI is your (FlingitNow's) interpretation of the rules. It is not, by definition, "the rules".

As for a final arbiter there doesn't need to be one. We can both read the rules and can agree where intent is clear (wraithlords can shoot/assault, Space Marines are T4, FMCs have relentless & smash etc), where it is not we can argue until there is agreement or create a house rule. There is no final arbiter for RaW either so why does there need to be one for RaI (before you say the rule book is for RaW I could disagree with you what the rule book says. For instance I could insist is says by space marines are T10).

And I'd ask for a citation. If you can provide one we can discuss intent.

Oh, you can't provide one? So your statement has no basis in fact and you made something up. That's not trying to interpret rules, that's making things up.

 FlingitNow wrote:
(before you say the rule book is for RaW I could disagree with you what the rule book says. For instance I could insist is says by space marines are T10).

Except You do not have a Page reference for the T10 on Space Marines, while the Rulebook has a Page and Graph that can be referenced for Space Marines that have a T4.

Rigeld what is your definition of the rules other than those designed by GW. You're talking about facts as if intent is unknowable but RaW is.

Deathreaper where's your proof of T4 for space marines. Remember you need to prove you are not hallucinating and that neither am I when we look at the book.

We need to prove we're not hallucinating? That's both an unfair burden and celestrial teapot mate.

And we're back to the argument youve been told previously not to make

RAW is as close as we can come to the Rules, as it is a lot more concrete than Flings idea of Intent

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld what is your definition of the rules other than those designed by GW. You're talking about facts as if intent is unknowable but RaW is.

Absolutely. I can prove what is written. edit: You're trying to say that you can prove what was intended. Please, prove what was intended with:

Blasts scattering out of LoS.
Pile-ins in CC killing combat (Yakface's recent poll)
Tau Codex - taking 2 non TL weapons on battlesuits

Remember - proof. Because it's your assertion that Intent must be what is played doing otherwise is cheating. So you're saying that a significant number of people cheat based on yakface's poll.

Deathreaper where's your proof of T4 for space marines. Remember you need to prove you are not hallucinating and that neither am I when we look at the book.

Sure - you can pretend I'm hallucinating if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the words that are actually on the page.
You have literally no evidence for your claim that a Space Marine is T10. None.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Secondly deliberately breaking the rules is cheating. By definition

Yep, and playing RAW is by definition, not breaking the rules, it's following them.

Are you saying that RaW=RaI? I'm not so convinced that RaW always follows the intention of a rule and FaQs would support that.

No, I think he is saying RaW > RaI. It would be great if we all knew and agreed on what the writer was thinking when he wrote that rule, but you can't know unless he tells you some how. If you don't know then you are completely in your right to form an opinion, and so am I, and there is nothing under the sun that can declare one opinion to be better then the other. Thats the trouble with opnions, they can't be wrong. With the rules as written we have structure and we can all come to the same conclusion using logic. Granted not every gets to the same place but at least here we have a way of discussing how one person could be wrong.

Its the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. When you get into court the letter of the law is what really maters.

As I've pointed out to Fling in the past on this issue the RaI supports dual unlocking. If you read the Command Squad entry in the "fluffy" portion of the codex it distinguishes DA Command Squads from "Codex" Marine CS's. Specifically they can be used to lead the main portion of the DA Army while the Company Master deals with Inner Circle business. So the fluff of the Chapter tells us that they are not like C:SM CS's and RAW supports dual unlock so my RaI is dual unlocking.

And again before you try your tired argument Fling a missing Oxford comma is both editorially and stylistically correct in both American and British English, FMCs have Relentless and Smash. Further a missing Oxford comma does not give you leeway to insert an entire missing clause to the Command Squad entries.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Deathreaper where's your proof of T4 for space marines. Remember you need to prove you are not hallucinating and that neither am I when we look at the book.

Really?

Okay here it goes.

Page 411 of the BRB has the stats for Space marines.

The Space Marines are all listed at T4 (Most are with a few exceptions) not T10.

Or if you want to be more specific, for say Blood Angels, the stats for Toughness are on Page 96 it has the stats for any particular SM unit, and they are all listed at T4. (Except units on Bikes which are T5, Servitors that are T3, and Meph who is T6) None of them are T 10.

Remember - proof. Because it's your assertion that Intent must be what is played doing otherwise is cheating.

That is not what I've said at all. I said deliberately breaking RaI is cheating. But I no one has come up with a different interpretation for cheating beyond deliberately breaking the rules. If you can discern RaI from the rule book then you have to create a house rule. I don't see why this causes a problem. Often RaW is not clear so people argue and then either agree or create a houserule to govern the situation.

Those that think I am wrong please show me a definition of the rules beyond those designed bt GW. That is what I play when I play 40000. A rule set designed by the GW design team.a list of ideas from their minds. Who's rules are you playing by when you play 40000 and whose ideas are they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Deathreaper where's your proof of T4 for space marines. Remember you need to prove you are not hallucinating and that neither am I when we look at the book.

Really?

Okay here it goes.

Page 411 of the BRB has the stats for Space marines.

The Space Marines are all listed at T4 (Most are with a few exceptions) not T10.

Or if you want to be more specific, for say Blood Angels, the stats for Toughness are on Page 96 it has the stats for any particular SM unit, and they are all listed at T4. (Except units on Bikes which are T5, Servitors that are T3, and Meph who is T6) None of them are T 10.

Nah you are halucinating it says there that they are T10 prove otherwise.

Page 410.

I think I hear what you are saying. Your point comes down to the idea that if I personally think it goes against RAI but I do it anyway then I am cheating. Trouble with that is that 'cheating' is a heavy handed word. It requires that I knowingly and willfully sought to violate the rules of the game but RAI is not the rules of the rules of the game. They can't be because they cannot be definitely defined.

I like this thread.

"I don't like that so it must be cheating."

and the idea that you can't definitively know what is written because we all might be experiencing a shared hallucination, or this is all Patrick Duffy's dream is complete horse gak and you know it. Yes, RAI is unknowable. No RAI is not unfathomable. There is a difference.

If you believe that RaI is not the rules then what is the rules? In many cases RaW is not definitely defined so by your argument they also can't be the rules. Likewise what are the rules we live by? Laws can't be as they also are not definitively defined...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yes, RAI is unknowable. No RAI is not unfathomable.

This is my point exactly. If you want to be pedantic about what is know able then nothing is. We can however in many cases work out RaI. If we can't we have to create a houserule. The same is all true of RaW.

So question is how do you think the rules were created. I believe they were designed by the GW design team (which means RaI = The rules). How do you believe they were created?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Deathreaper where's your proof of T4 for space marines. Remember you need to prove you are not hallucinating and that neither am I when we look at the book.

Really?

Okay here it goes.

Page 411 of the BRB has the stats for Space marines.

The Space Marines are all listed at T4 (Most are with a few exceptions) not T10.

Or if you want to be more specific, for say Blood Angels, the stats for Toughness are on Page 96 it has the stats for any particular SM unit, and they are all listed at T4. (Except units on Bikes which are T5, Servitors that are T3, and Meph who is T6) None of them are T 10.

Nah you are halucinating it says there that they are T10 prove otherwise.

What are you talking about, did you actually read the pages I referenced? Or are you reading the same pages that I referenced, or are you reading different pages.?

The BA Codex (ISBN 978-1841549606) Page 96 is what I am referencing.

P.S. Please follow the rules of the forum and actually give a page reference for your assertation.

 FlingitNow wrote:
We can however in many cases work out RaI. If we can't we have to create a houserule. The same is all true of RaW.

The part about RAW is not correct at all.

We can look at the book and figure out RAW.

We can not always look at the book and figure out RAI.

The BA Codex (ISBN 978-1841549606) Page 96 is what I am referencing.

Yeah says they're T10 you're just Halucinating. You're seeing a 4 where it is actually a 10.

The part about RAW is not correct at all.

We can look at the book and figure out RAW.

But as numerous threads on this forum prove we can't actually always do this which is your reason for not using RaI...

Again I ask anyone who thinks RaW = The Rules please explain how you think the rules were created?

We're talking about a game of space men with probably over 1000 pages of rules. We're not talking about morality, laws, ethics, codes of practise or philosophy (the worst of all topics unless drunk).

The phenomenon named "Rule as Intended" is fallacious due to it's erroneous naming. In a permission based environment you have to be given permission. RAW there is or is not permission to do a certain action. You may temporarily agree that X means Y but it is just that, a temporary agreement.

rule :Noun :
One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

"RAI" are not explicit regulations nor understood regulations (due to the ambiguity in the explicit regulations). They aren't principles because they aren't a fundamental truth.

RAW are explicit regulations. They are understood regulations and they are fundamental truths in a permissive based environment. When these criteria are ambiguous we temporarily agree, but those agreements don't fulfil those criteria because they are not written in the rule books.

Edit: The hallucinating argument again? Dude, learn what fallacies are mate. We're not playing Socrates, we're playing spacemen.

 FlingitNow wrote:
This is my point exactly. If you want to be pedantic about what is know able then nothing is. We can however in many cases work out RaI. If we can't we have to create a houserule. The same is all true of RaW.

So question is how do you think the rules were created. I believe they were designed by the GW design team (which means RaI = The rules). How do you believe they were created?

I know they were created by the GW design team. I have evidence that proves this idea. Its a documented and verified fact. If I were to tell you I believe they were handed down to man in the form of many stone tablets I would be, drum role please, wrong. Thats right, wrong because how they rules were created is not a matter of opinion. What they were thinking when they developed the rules, now there is something that is a matter of opinion. That is until they flat out tell you.

When it comes to the rules of the game, none of what some one meant when they wrote a rule matters. The only thing that matters is what they wrote. The only time what the meant has any bearing is when things are written in such a way to mean to different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Again I ask anyone who thinks RaW = The Rules please explain how you think the rules were created?

Some one WROTE their INTENT using words.

What dictionary did you get that definition from?

Concise Oxford says:

Rule noun: principle to which action or procedure conforms or is bound or intended to conform, dominant custom, canon, test, standard, normal state of things.

Again I ask you how you think the rules are created? Why can't the RaW side answer that question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Some one WROTE their INTENT using words.

And why did they write their intent? Why do we have language?

When your argument boils down to "I'm right or you're hallucinating." You've pretty much lost.

Rules are created by putting words on paper. Sometimes those words say what is intended. Often, in the case of GW, they don't.

Here

Rules are written in a permissive environment. That is it. They are written. How they are decided upon doesn't matter. What matters is that they are written and they give permission.

 FlingitNow wrote:
What dictionary did you get that definition from?

Concise Oxford says:

Rule noun: principle to which action or procedure conforms or is bound or intended to conform, dominant custom, canon, test, standard, normal state of things.

Again I ask you how you think the rules are created? Why can't the RaW side answer that question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Some one WROTE their INTENT using words.

And why did they write their intent? Why do we have language?

If you read the YMDC rules then you would know tenant 6 of this forum:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

This is a discussion on RaW. If you are not using RaW, then you are using house rules. This is what the forum tenants have to say on the subject:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Further, you have broken tenant 5 of YMDC by calling people cheaters:

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The BA Codex (ISBN 978-1841549606) Page 96 is what I am referencing.

Yeah says they're T10 you're just Halucinating. You're seeing a 4 where it is actually a 10.

1) please spell hallucinating correctly.

2) Are you really saying that I am hallucinating?

3) Can you please follow the tenets of the forum and give us a Page and Graph where it says what you claim, because I have given page numbers that support my claim.

4) If you have to resort to breaking the forum rules your argument is automatically invalid.

5) everyone, but you, agrees that the page I referenced says they are T4, you are the one that is reading it incorrectly.

 FlingitNow wrote:
But as numerous threads on this forum prove we can't actually always do this which is your reason for not using RaI...

We can always figure out what RAW says, as the Rules as Written are exactly what is written. It may take some time, but what is written is what is written, it may be confusing, but there is always only one answer on RAW (Which sometimes tells us that the rule does not work as written and breaks the game or is totally ambiguous so we have to figure out the best way to play it that breaks the least rules).

Warspider I wasn't the first person to bring up dictionary definitions and you are allowed to use them when discussing the rules.

I think you don't understand what s Houserule is. It has nothing to do with RaW. A houserule is when you change the rules.

Also I didn't call anyone a cheat I merely defined cheating.

Deathreaper

1) I'm dislexic sorry.

2) yes prove otherwise

3) it is the same page numbers you quoted

4) I haven't

5) so is RaW a vote? You said it was absolute. Which is it?

We can figure out what the rules read (if we are willing to use common sense) we can not always determine what RaW because as you state it can be ambiguous as to what a rule does or means. Which is your argument against RaI. As illustrated above you can't even prove a Space Marine is T4, without having to assume we are not all Hallucinating.