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.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Deliberately breaking the rules as they're written is cheating.

So you're saying Rules as written = the rules correct?

I see you deliberately edited out all the qualifiers I spent time typing. It's cool - if you need to do that to make a point I understand. Your point will be completely invalid but I understand.

Edit: and no - your farcical reference to hallucination isn't proof of anything aside from your refusal to accept that calling someone who disagrees with you a cheater is wrong.

No I've accepted that. The farcical reference to hallucination is no more farcical than not being able to know that Wraithlords are intended to be allowed shoot and assault.

Wraithlords being able to shoot and assault is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.
You cannot guarantee intent. I'd put money on them intending Wraithlords to shoot and assault, but I wouldn't claim "That's not fair!" if I was wrong.

Good players try to stay clear of "grey" areas of rules in order to be able to play and not indulge in lively debate.

Bad rules writing can still get you stuck in grey even when trying to avoid it. The wound pool only able to apply to models "in range" with bolters and say a lascannon (or worse, multiple flamers) is still making things fun.

"Cheating" would only be a label if someone agreed to a set of rules of play and try to get around them by not informing the other player or performing actions contrary to rules the other player is not aware of.

I personally like to beat people within the framework of rules or it stops being a game and more an exercise is sadism.

Another example ir anna is FMCs with "relentless smash" rather than relentless and smash separated by a comma. It goes both ways.

Some times intent is unclear (as in your example) sometimes it is clear (as in mine). The same is true for RaW.

Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wraithlords being able to shoot and assault is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

That were are not all Hallucinating is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Another example ir anna is FMCs with "relentless smash" rather than relentless and smash separated by a comma. It goes both ways.

Some times intent is unclear (as in your example) sometimes it is clear (as in mine). The same is true for RaW.

Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

lol, troll post.
But to answer you.
RAW is what is written not how the rules were created.

Apparently you are a psychic now and can read minds of authors of all these complicated books

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed. That's the fault of the design team. It's also not particularly relevant.

Wraithlords being able to shoot and assault is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

That were are not all Hallucinating is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

So no defense for your selective editing? I'll pretend there's an apology in there somewhere - I'm sure you intended one.

And no, I am factually not hallucinating right now. It's not an assumption.

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed. That's the fault of the design team. It's also not particularly relevant.

Wraithlords being able to shoot and assault is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

That were are not all Hallucinating is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

So no defense for your selective editing? I'll pretend there's an apology in there somewhere - I'm sure you intended one.

And no, I am factually not hallucinating right now. It's not an assumption.

Maybe if we "hallucinate" that FIN is apologizing it might actually happen?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Another example ir anna is FMCs with "relentless smash" rather than relentless and smash separated by a comma. It goes both ways.

Some times intent is unclear (as in your example) sometimes it is clear (as in mine). The same is true for RaW.

Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

I'm confused by your rebuttal, it seems to only be furthering my point.

You pointed out the issue of "relentless smash". I would say, in terms of Rules as Written, that this obviously does not exist and therefore, has no effect.

However, as Nos pointed out, I would believe that they meant for a comma to be there and discuss this with my opponent before the game. That's not to say I am the great omniscient rules developer of Games Workshop, it's how I believe it should be. On the other hand, if my opponent wished to play it Rules as Written, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on because it's exactly what's written. Effectively, I'm asking to change the rules.

Note the use of the word "change" not "break" as one implies a collaborative decision and the other is pejorative.

The point is, the RAW can never be unclear - only your interpretation of them.

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Another example ir anna is FMCs with "relentless smash" rather than relentless and smash separated by a comma. It goes both ways.

Some times intent is unclear (as in your example) sometimes it is clear (as in mine). The same is true for RaW.

Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

I'm confused by your rebuttal, it seems to only be furthering my point.

You pointed out the issue of "relentless smash". I would say, in terms of Rules as Written, that this obviously does not exist and therefore, has no effect.

However, as Nos pointed out, I would believe that they meant for a comma to be there and discuss this with my opponent before the game. That's not to say I am the great omniscient rules developer of Games Workshop, it's how I believe it should be. On the other hand, if my opponent wished to play it Rules as Written, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on because it's exactly what's written. Effectively, I'm asking to change the rules.

Note the use of the word "change" not "break" as one implies a collaborative decision and the other is pejorative.

The point is, the RAW can never be unclear - only your interpretation of them.

Iranna.

Agree with everything else except RAW could be unclear in the case of contradiction.

He clearly just selects what he likes and then somehow twists the argument into some uncomprehendable state and give it back at us with no progress of discussion what so ever.

We use the rules for relentless smash on pg. 62 of the rule book. For every smash attack that causes an unsaved wound they get another smash attack. Is my rulebook the only one with that section?

Page 62 of my rulebook contains data for various grenades.

But maybe I'm just hallucinating.

Not sure about you but my 62 has grenades.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Page 62 of my rulebook contains data for various grenades.

But maybe I'm just hallucinating.

That might be a side effect of the hallucinogen grenades...

 Happyjew wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Page 62 of my rulebook contains data for various grenades.

But maybe I'm just hallucinating.

That might be a side effect of the hallucinogen grenades...

This thread is over. Happyjew has won.

I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.



Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by the rules as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing the rules. What is changing the rules as detailed in your books if not cheating?

I completely understand that GW's rules writing is EXTREMELY poor leading to a lot of situations requiring some alteration to make any sense (Your example for instance) you're still altering the rules. Which is, in essence, cheating.

From wrote:
I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.



Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by the rules as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing the rules. What is changing the rules as detailed in your books if not cheating?

I completely understand that GW's rules writing is EXTREMELY poor leading to a lot of situations requiring some alteration to make any sense (Your example for instance) you're still altering the rules. Which is, in essence, cheating.

QFT. And Exalted.

The page 62 maybe different I am using the Latvian rule book.

Seriously? Why are we having this discussion?

RAI: How the writers want a rule to work.
RAW: How the rule is actually written.
Houserules: How your group decides to play a rule.

In most cases RAI = RAW = Houserule!

Cheating is when you break a rule that you agreed on to follow.
If I follow a houserule that is different from RAW/RAI that is not cheating.

Kangodo wrote:
Seriously? Why are we having this discussion?

Because it would seem that Fling is of the opinion that people who follow RaW are Cheating.

Iranna.

Can anyone else confirm Relentless Swooping Smash rules from the Latvian codex?

tgf wrote:
Can anyone else confirm Relentless Swooping Smash rules from the Latvian codex?

Jā, es varu.

Es esmu tik foršs.

Iranna.

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed.

So who designed those rules? Who or what created them?

If your rules aren't what GW designed then how on earth is that Warhammer 40000? This is the problem with your stance. That you are fundamentally nit playing the game GW designed. Which is ok but you should not be doing this without your opponents consent. Otherwise that is cheating.

 FlingitNow wrote:

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed.

So who designed those rules? Who or what created them?

If your rules aren't what GW designed then how on earth is that Warhammer 40000? This is the problem with your stance. That you are fundamentally nit playing the game GW designed. Which is ok but you should not be doing this without your opponents consent. Otherwise that is cheating.

No, I'm playing the game that the designers wrote. I don't pretend to know what they intended the rules to say beyond what's written - to presume I could is to presume that I'm better than them at their job.
And while I probably could write clearer rules I'm too lazy to do so, so I do other things for a living (like write code, write documentation, etc).

I'm playing by what the GW designers wrote. You're asserting that I should play by what the GW designers meant in your opinion and to do otherwise is cheating.
That kind of thinking is so wrong it's amazing you are able to type it out. There's no "problem" with my stance - I can back up everything I've talked about RAW wise. You have to pretend you know what the designers are thinking which, unless you're omniscient, is literally impossible.

edit: Also, again with your selective editing. I'd appreciate it if you didn't leave out half of my point when responding.

This thread is very odd.

There is no way one could possibly state that "deliberately breaking the rules" is anything but "cheating" - the definitions of the words make this impossible.

However, once one starts to mess with the definitions of the words we can bend this to mean lots of things. Throw in some ambiguity in what the rules are, and you remove the necessary capacity to "deliberately break the rules" since the term rules is defined as an unknown.

You can't deliberately break rules when you don't know what they are.

If you start pulling out "well the codex meant this, event though it says that" you are putting ambiguity in the rules making the intent impossible to form.

Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by RaI as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing RaI.. What is changing the RaI as detailed in your books if not cheating?

How can following RaI be changing RaI? Did that even make sense when you typed it?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by RaI as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing RaI.. What is changing the RaI as detailed in your books if not cheating?

How can following RaI be changing RaI? Did that even make sense when you typed it?

I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

Rigeld: I left out what wasn't relevant and your full post is still there for everyone to see. I'm not intending to change what you've said.

Still with the repeatedly de bunked RaW is knowable RaI isn't argument. Which is still not even relevant. Even if we accept that premise, it still does change who designed the game.

So (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe the rules are not inteligently designed by anyone to created at random by the process of turning the designed rules into written ones?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by RaI as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing RaI.. What is changing the RaI as detailed in your books if not cheating?

How can following RaI be changing RaI? Did that even make sense when you typed it?

Seriously... you just completely edited his post in your quote to make him look bad, then called him on his wording THAT YOU CHANGED.

What the hell is this thread...

Is deliberately breaking the rules cheating

It is defined by dictionary.com as "to violate rules or regulations"

So yes, yes it is cheating. How the feth would it not be cheating? Why the feth would you even ask this question? And more importantly, why the feth has the testament to autism that is this thread popped up in response?

 FlingitNow wrote:

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed.

So who designed those rules? Who or what created them?

If your rules aren't what GW designed then how on earth is that Warhammer 40000? This is the problem with your stance. That you are fundamentally nit playing the game GW designed. Which is ok but you should not be doing this without your opponents consent. Otherwise that is cheating.

Nope, the problem with your stance is that you have an issue: you cannot tell "belief" from "fact"

RAW is factual. RAI, as in your OPINION or BELIEF as to what they intend, is just that - opinion or belief.

I am playing the game they wrote, by the rules they wrote. You arent.

I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable. Yes sometimes playing by the rules is not playing by RaW. Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.