Switch Theme:

Is deliberately breaking the Rules cheating?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





reported
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 FlingitNow wrote:
No the rule is you can't have a cookie. However you'd have little recourse against anyone who broke it because there was no reasonable way for them to know that.

Well then you've lost me, because so far this entire thread has seemed to be about the fact that you feel that it is unreasonable for people to not know when what GW wrote doesn't match what you think they meant.

 
   
Made in no
Dakka Veteran




Let me give you a better example of note:

The new Tau flyer with the bomb, it doesnt say it have a bomb in its wargear and people went butts over head on how it cant do a bombing run because it says so in the wargear, it does however have the generator and it was another butts over head discussion wereever this was THE weapon or not ( as a weapon its told in the introduction that every weapon have enough ammo to start with to last the game, unless otherwise specified )

So its obvious that the RAI is that you can start with a bomb, and make a new one on a 2+, however will it be breaking the rules by actually allowing it to bomb, or is it so important that this bomber is in essence useless to its owner?

As for "breaking" the rules, i will class this example rather as "playing another game than your oppoment", basically if you dont agree to the rule, you two are basically not playing the same game and thus its why we have TOs to make sure everyone playing the same game.

As for actually breaking the rules, its hiding dice throws, going over point limits, using weapons you dont have in your list, and generally lying of stats and special rules is more considered as cheating rather than the previous example which is a disagreement on the set of rules.

 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





In some cases the intent is pretty obvious (Wraithlords shooting, the Tau bomber) and in those cases following the literal RAW isnt the right way to play.

That's not what Fling is saying. He's saying that RAI is always knowable and playing anything but his interpretation is cheating.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





Brisbane, Australia

MarkyMark wrote:
 shamikebab wrote:
Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.


Exalted.

As above, if you cant work it out either by yourself or with your opponent agree with them how you both want to proceed, roll a die if needed.


This.

 
   
Made in gb
Boosting Space Marine Biker




Northampton

When you play a game of 40k, you so so by using the rules as presented in the rulebook. For the vast majority of the rules, it is clear what the rules mean, and what they intend because they are written in good english.
You cannot go far wrong if you follow the rules as written, because, assuming both you and your opponent can read, you can both read the same rule, and assuming the rule is well written, you will both read the same meaning. This is the fundamental basis of the game, you both follow the rules as written.

Where differences of opinion usually arise is when the rules are not well written and cause confusion. in these cases you usually discuss with your oponent before the game what you both think the intent of the rules is, and if you cannot reach a consensus, you roll off.
A problem usually arises when one player is determined they are 'right' and their opponent is wrong, in which case conflict arises, and this is usually the case where the rules as written, and the rules as intended, are ambiguous and not clear.

One example that springs to mind is the Death ray on the Doom Scythe. The rules in the necron codex state i can fire the beam 'anywhere' within 12 inches, the rules in the BRB state that you can only shoot within LOS. The Fluff for the doomscythe states that the death ray is turret mounted, but in the model it is quite obviously a fixed weapon.
Obviously there are multiple interpretations of how the Death Ray works in game, but these interpretations are based on an individuals own reading of the rules, and therefore their own interpretations of how the weapon was intended to be fired.

Another example would be (necrons again) the relationship between royal court members attached to units, and their relationship to the units they are in and to the ghost arks repair barge rule.
The rules are a very grey area because you have to know if the character becomes scoring, does he become a member of the unit, do the rules for characters leading units then apply to him, does he count as an upgrade? and so forth. Since the rules are not clear, we are forced to interpret them to the best of our ability, and in this case, since the rules as written are badly written, it becomes a case of how i think the rules were intended to be written, versus how you think they were intended to be written. in this case, both interpretations (they are, or are not, members of the unit, and so count, or do not count, as members of the unit for all purposes) have a firm basis in the rules because i can reference arguments from the BRB for both sides. What is not clear is the intent.

With all rules, whether well written or badly written, only the person or persons who wrote the rules know what they intended. In most cases the meaning and intent are one and the same:

'Models move up to 6" in the movement phase.'
BRB pg 10

It is clear my models can be moved up to 6 inches in the movement phase, i can move them less, but i cant move them more, unless they have special rules that are an exception (exceptions, pg 9)

when a rule is badly written (Death Ray, Repair barge, Tau Bomber) several players can form a different opinion of how the rule works, and this is the fundamental problem with badly written rules, because no-one except the guy who wrote the rules knows what they intended the rules to do. it may be clear to you how you think the rules work, but someone else may come to an entirely different conclusion with the same rule, and the same references.
This is the problem with RAW versus RAI, and why RAW is favoured over RAI. RAI is only generally used when the RAW obviously don't work, and RAI are just personal opinions of how you think the rules were intended to be written.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




rigeld2 wrote:
In some cases the intent is pretty obvious (Wraithlords shooting, the Tau bomber) and in those cases following the literal RAW isnt the right way to play.

That's not what Fling is saying. He's saying that RAI is always knowable and playing anything but his interpretation is cheating.


THis.

RAI is, by definition, unknowable, as it is something you have to assume. You can be pretty sure of what you think they meant, but unless you ARE the designer you cannot KNOW RAI. Unless Flign is claiming to be *all* of the design studio, making a claim that you can "know" RAI is, strictly, a lie.

Whereas you can KNOW the written rules, even if by knowing you realise they are perhaps not what the person wanted to express.

None of this alters that Flings absurd premise that breaking RAI is cheating (as they have claimed RAI == rules, we'll go with that to prove their absurdity) is just that - absurd.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Whereas you can KNOW the written rules,...

...with the caveat expressed so eloquently by Yakface that everyone's interpretation of those written rules may differ. What you 'know' may not be what he next guy 'knows'.

Which is exactly where so many of the arguments over RAW come from.

 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





The Deathwing assault rule was a hotly contested RAI... this alone proves that RAI are in no way THE RULES.

RAW are the only rules you can 100% follow. sometimes these rules are unclear and you must agree with an opponent or roll off.. which is also RAW.
   
Made in us
Wraith






I think that RAI, made by rational and sensible people, usually are the correct assumption. My entire career field, engineering, is founded about following written technical codes for various fields of study (ASHRAE, NEC, etc.) and then using your best judgement in interpretation and applying them. There are courses, subject matter experts and panels, but sometimes, you're making a sound technical judgement.

I know on a great deal of these "rules debates" that stem on Dakka are proliferated usually by one individual trying to gain an advantage (or destroy someone elses advantage they don't like) and it getting shot down. BUT then you have this crowd possy up and say "Well, you'll never know what they thought, vis a vis play it broken, etc."

Well, I'm sorry, but that's a load of hogwash. Use your brain, make a valid assumption and move on. Bouncing flying monstrous creatures, necron flyers and the dudes inside, etc. I'm not a fortune teller, but I called 'em. Being halfway reasonable without going to the fallacy of "Oh, we'd never know their intent so, therefore, play this thing in an asinine way and let's argue about for 20 pages." We all play 40K and probably a lot of other games. We may have been through multiple rules renditions, rewrites, codecis, etc. You can make a pretty sound judgement and move on. And yes, I have packed up my little army men and stopped playing games because people want to stamp their feet on stupid rules matters.

(And yes, there are some just poorly blasted rules that require a dice off or house rule until a FAQ, but more often then not, the FAQ is written with such a forehead slapping tone or simply "No," or "Yes," that you can FEEL the author rolling their eyes out of their sockets. Be realistic.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/24 22:02:12


Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb

 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 TheKbob wrote:
Well, I'm sorry, but that's a load of hogwash. Use your brain, make a valid assumption and move on. Bouncing flying monstrous creatures, necron flyers and the dudes inside, etc. I'm not a fortune teller, but I called 'em.

Cool story bro. Swarms and ID? Warphead ruling being flip-flopped? SitW being flip flopped? Did you call those?

Could you try not to talk down to people who enjoy debating rules for just a minute? That'd be great.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





I think that we all understand the idea of RAI and we all prob use a lot of RAI

the argument here is that some people think RAI are the same as RAW. which they simply are not.
   
Made in us
Wraith






rigeld2 wrote:
 TheKbob wrote:
Well, I'm sorry, but that's a load of hogwash. Use your brain, make a valid assumption and move on. Bouncing flying monstrous creatures, necron flyers and the dudes inside, etc. I'm not a fortune teller, but I called 'em.

Cool story bro. Swarms and ID? Warphead ruling being flip-flopped? SitW being flip flopped? Did you call those?

Could you try not to talk down to people who enjoy debating rules for just a minute? That'd be great.


Enjoy debating? Sure. Enjoy. Being asinine to the T. No? And if you imply my tone as talking down to you, I suppose that's your take on it. I'm just surprised (but not really) when some of these debates go on for 20 pages when the obvious answer is already stated, but you have folks debating for "debates sake," bringing up the thought "We'd never know what they intended!" Then it gets FAQ'd and they slither away.

I gave examples of pretty clear cut ones. The latter two I have know idea what you're talking about, the former; nuke some bugs. I don't really care how'd that play out, either way, the swarm will die super fast, just now determines "how fast". The reason why that probably isn't FAQ'd yet it is being play tested. I could see it going either way, but really, given the amount of swarms seen... yah know, all those rippers!... it's not a big deal. Dice off on those hard to call ones and press forward (which I stated in my last post). Didn't realized this just got FAQ'd. Neat. Didn't really care either way on that one.

As with my technical judgement I have to make, you gather the facts, make an educated call, employ said strategy and observe. If you make the wrong call, correct. More often than not, you're either able to tell one of two things: A) you chose wrong because it's straight BROKE, B) it doesn't cause a major impact in either way, shrug it off and move on.

This saves a super long forum post about nothing but people getting their behinds hurt, excessive moderation and nothing in result.

EDIT: Seen folks walk from tournaments, too, based on "internet" calls. One actually said FMC bounced. Saw daemons players look across at one another going "Are you serious?!" Great that was announced AFTER everyone had already registered and paid. Good times!

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/04/24 22:30:32


Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb

 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare





That's not what Fling is saying. He's saying that RAI is always knowable and playing anything but his interpretation is cheating.


So who's deliberately mis representing now? I repeatedly said that often the RaI is unknowable, in fact I illustrated that nothing is truly know able. I've never said that playing something other than my interpretation is cheating. I've said that deliberately breaking what you believe to be the RaI is cheating. For instance I was convinced the RaI for Crisis suits was if you bought 2 weapons you paid the 2nd cost and got a twin linked one. Other people were convinced (correctly) that this rule was just clarifying what that 2nd point cost was for. Thus if I had a suit with 2 singular plasma rifles Id have trying to cheat. But another player would not have been.

What you and nos and insaniak are saying is that because
RaW is absolute and know able it is the rules and what GW designed is not. As I and Yakface (via a quote) have illustrated is that RaW is neither singular nor knowable. RaI on the other hand is singular but even less know able. However RaI is by definition the game that GW designed. If you agree to play an opponent in 40000 that is what you are agreeing to play. So if you think the RaI is completely unknowable for all rules you'll have to tell your opponent this and agree how to proceed (for instance following RaW in all cases or changing it as you both agree).

But if you disagree with RaI = The Rules you are disagreeing that the GW design team designed the rules. Which begs the question (which none of you have answered) who the shell do you think created the rules? An inanimate object? Or were they created simply by chance.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Yes my Colour is Black but not for the reasons stated mainly just because it's slimming... http://imperiusdominatus.blogspot.com 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 TheKbob wrote:
I know on a great deal of these "rules debates" that stem on Dakka are proliferated usually by one individual trying to gain an advantage (or destroy someone elses advantage they don't like) and it getting shot down.

They're really not. From my experience (and I've been hanging around this form for more than 10 years now) those rules debates are most often the result of one individual who is unsure of how a rule works, and peopel subsequently disagreeing on what the specific wording actually means.

It's really easy to assume that people arguing for a ruling that you disagree with are just looking for some advantage for themselves, but that's not usually the case.


Use your brain, make a valid assumption and move on.

Which is great for keeping the game moving when you are standing at the table, but somewhat misses the point of rules discussions. The whole point of this forum is to help people to understand the rules of the game better... which makes them better equipped to make those 'valid assumptions'.


Bouncing flying monstrous creatures, necron flyers and the dudes inside, etc. I'm not a fortune teller, but I called 'em.

Good for you? There have been any number of other grey areas over the years where GW have ruled against what seemed like the most sensible approach. And plenty of others where they have ruled one way to begin with, and then changed their minds later.

It's not always as simple as going for the result that makes the most sense to you. If only because it's just as likely that your next opponent will think that a different answer is the one that makes the most sense.

 
   
Made in us
Wraith






 FlingitNow wrote:
That's not what Fling is saying. He's saying that RAI is always knowable and playing anything but his interpretation is cheating.


So who's deliberately mis representing now? I repeatedly said that often the RaI is unknowable, in fact I illustrated that nothing is truly know able. I've never said that playing something other than my interpretation is cheating. I've said that deliberately breaking what you believe to be the RaI is cheating. For instance I was convinced the RaI for Crisis suits was if you bought 2 weapons you paid the 2nd cost and got a twin linked one. Other people were convinced (correctly) that this rule was just clarifying what that 2nd point cost was for. Thus if I had a suit with 2 singular plasma rifles Id have trying to cheat. But another player would not have been.

What you and nos and insaniak are saying is that because
RaW is absolute and know able it is the rules and what GW designed is not. As I and Yakface (via a quote) have illustrated is that RaW is neither singular nor knowable. RaI on the other hand is singular but even less know able. However RaI is by definition the game that GW designed. If you agree to play an opponent in 40000 that is what you are agreeing to play. So if you think the RaI is completely unknowable for all rules you'll have to tell your opponent this and agree how to proceed (for instance following RaW in all cases or changing it as you both agree).

But if you disagree with RaI = The Rules you are disagreeing that the GW design team designed the rules. Which begs the question (which none of you have answered) who the shell do you think created the rules? An inanimate object? Or were they created simply by chance.


Having just read Ayn Rand and all this talk about "unknowable" stuff is kind of unnerving.

It's a plastic army men game. Knowing the rules is quite easy. Making sound and reasonable decisions on rules disputes is also capable given experience and a solid foundation in the fundamentals (i.e. those rules you know). Logic and reason are things to be used. Also, the ability to admit mistakes is good too. However, sometimes GW doesn't like using it's own foundations/history and FAQ things outta left field, sorry Tyranids, Eldar, DA...

Also, Imotek's lightning hits flyers. Finally, clarification on that in the "no duh" category.

And you have valid points Insaniak. However, I think these arguements negatively impact a person's ability rationalize, versus nurture. And they do devolve into arguments or a moderation staff wouldn't be necessary. Yea, GW makes some dumb calls that leave a lot of us head scratching, but more often than not, they make the one founded within the logic of their gaming convention/current ruleset.

I'm not always right, but when people base their decisions on either "I feel..." or "We can never know the intent!" you know you're no longer rationally discussing a situation. My assumptions are either "dice off" for those super vague ones, or point out facts. Then if there is still a disagreement, I weight how big of a game breaking issue the disagreement is and move on. Having all my dudes spill out from a nightscythe and taking S10 hits was a big one for me. Imotek being able to hit flyers has been another. Pick and choose your battles, I suppose.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/24 23:12:45


Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb

 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 FlingitNow wrote:
What you and nos and insaniak are saying is that because
RaW is absolute and know able it is the rules and what GW designed is not.

I don't recall having ever said that.


As I and Yakface (via a quote) have illustrated is that RaW is neither singular nor knowable.

Yeah, that's not what Yakface was saying, either. The quoted post was stating that RAW is not always singular, yes. But knowable? Of course it is. You know what the RAW is by reading the text. It's just that someone else may have a different RAW based on their reading of the text.

All he is saying is that RAW may be different to everybody, not that it's impossible to know what the RAW is.


RaI on the other hand is singular but even less know able. However RaI is by definition the game that GW designed.

Which doesn't make it the game as they currently intend it to be played.

That is defined by the rulebook and the FAQs.


But if you disagree with RaI = The Rules you are disagreeing that the GW design team designed the rules.

No you're not. You're disagree that what they wrote was exactly what they intended.


Which begs the question (which none of you have answered) who the shell do you think created the rules?

Nobody has answered it because it's a logical fallacy that you created yourself by choosing your own narrow definition of 'the rules'.

Nobody is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules don't always match what was intended.

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 insaniak wrote:
 TheKbob wrote:
I know on a great deal of these "rules debates" that stem on Dakka are proliferated usually by one individual trying to gain an advantage (or destroy someone elses advantage they don't like) and it getting shot down.

They're really not. From my experience (and I've been hanging around this form for more than 10 years now) those rules debates are most often the result of one individual who is unsure of how a rule works, and peopel subsequently disagreeing on what the specific wording actually means.

It's really easy to assume that people arguing for a ruling that you disagree with are just looking for some advantage for themselves, but that's not usually the case.


I have to agree. I find the best way to know the rules is to know what landmines are currently in the rules and be able to articulate the ambiguity or the multiple positions. By knowing the hotspots and being able to identify them, I can look at an opponent's army and say 'so how do you expect this specific rule to work?' where we can ask a judge pre-game or come to an agreement or roll-off before models are moved.

I define cheating not when someone plays a rule wrong, or there is a disagreement, but when the disagreement has been resolved, either by agreement, dice-roll, 3rd party, FAQ or Judge... and then the person who now *KNOWS* how the rule needs to be resolved for that game/event moving forward, for them to quickly change back to an alternate ruling or interpretation as soon as they can get away with it.

Example: A necron air force player tries to use 180 degree vertical fire arcs at a tourney. He gets away with it for game 1. Game 2 there is a disagreement where a judge intervenes, explains how fire arcs work and how this tourney enforces it, the rest of game 2 is played with the correct fire arcs. Game 3 happens, the Necron player is back to 180 degree vertical fire arcs and placing models and shooting based upon that. His opponent doesn't call him on it, but the person KNOWS BETTER and was given direction by a judge how the rule needs to be played for that event.

That is cheating. There is knowledge and intent behind it. A Good sport should take this education on how a rule works they were misplaying and address it moving forward. If they run into another point of view, they should strive to clarify whenever they use said rule int he future, not to exploit, but to head off issues.


My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
Wraith






nkelsch wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 TheKbob wrote:
I know on a great deal of these "rules debates" that stem on Dakka are proliferated usually by one individual trying to gain an advantage (or destroy someone elses advantage they don't like) and it getting shot down.

They're really not. From my experience (and I've been hanging around this form for more than 10 years now) those rules debates are most often the result of one individual who is unsure of how a rule works, and peopel subsequently disagreeing on what the specific wording actually means.

It's really easy to assume that people arguing for a ruling that you disagree with are just looking for some advantage for themselves, but that's not usually the case.


I have to agree. I find the best way to know the rules is to know what landmines are currently in the rules and be able to articulate the ambiguity or the multiple positions. By knowing the hotspots and being able to identify them, I can look at an opponent's army and say 'so how do you expect this specific rule to work?' where we can ask a judge pre-game or come to an agreement or roll-off before models are moved.

I define cheating not when someone plays a rule wrong, or there is a disagreement, but when the disagreement has been resolved, either by agreement, dice-roll, 3rd party, FAQ or Judge... and then the person who now *KNOWS* how the rule needs to be resolved for that game/event moving forward, for them to quickly change back to an alternate ruling or interpretation as soon as they can get away with it.



I definately agree from the "know thy enemy" stand point on hot topic rules debates. I'm just asking they stay civil and the folks who do agree with a specific outcome, but throw up their hands and say "we can never know!" because we aren't the writers should be chastised or stop providing their input as it only contributes FUD; it clouds a rational conclusion that a community can come to versus lengthy tirades that lead into strawmen, personal attacks, and general frivalty.

Trust me, just by knowing the broken rules from Dakka has made my competitive game better. And that I do appreciate.

Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb

 
   
Made in nl
Loyal Necron Lychguard



Netherlands

 TheKbob wrote:
I'm not always right, but when people base their decisions on either "I feel..." or "We can never know the intent!" you know you're no longer rationally discussing a situation. My assumptions are either "dice off" for those super vague ones, or point out facts. Then if there is still a disagreement, I weight how big of a game breaking issue the disagreement is and move on. Having all my dudes spill out from a nightscythe and taking S10 hits was a big one for me. Imotek being able to hit flyers has been another. Pick and choose your battles, I suppose.

Why? It's much better than claiming we do know their intent.
How can you say that you are rationally discussing a situation when you are guessing(!) to how the writers feel about a rule?
Example: With the Swarm and ID-blast rulings, both 'sides' thought that their interpretation of the rule was how the writers intended it.

All we can do in a discussion is to use facts and the exact wording of things.
And when rules happen to break each other or if a situation isn't explained in rules, than we need a FAQ.

And this is a rules-discussion, we can't just "roll of" on a forum.
YMDC is where you come to AFTER you settled it with a "roll of" or before you play a game.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




FlingitNow wrote:

What you and nos and insaniak are saying is that because
RaW is absolute and know able it is the rules and what GW designed is not.


No, we are saying that is how they have currently intended the rules to be, because that is what they wrote. Or are you stating they just randomly wrote words on a page that happened to form a ruleset? They intended to write those words, and they intended the to have that meaning. That is the rational approach.

But if you disagree with RaI = The Rules you are disagreeing that the GW design team designed the rules.


No we're not. We're saying YOU cannot KNOW RAI. "RAI" is a best guess on what they intended, and is different for everyone

Did you call SitW? No? Guess your RAI argument is bunk and can be safely ignored.


Which begs the question (which none of you have answered) who the shell do you think created the rules? An inanimate object? Or were they created simply by chance.

Of course noone has answered your fallacious argument. The reasoning why is self evident.
Yet you are claiming that they didnt intend to write the words down that they did. Are you claiming they thought of arule, and then randomly spewed rules onto a piece of paper?

The KBob - thanks for using the phrase "slithering away". Do you understand why people may think youre talking down to them?

Shadows in the Warp - first it didnt work against models embarked in a vehicle, then it did. What was your "call" there? Where was the "obvious" RAI? That was an example where we truly DIDNT know their intent after the first ruling -as noone expected that answer. Not a single thread was raised asking if it worked inside a vehicle. Then the FAQ dropped and that "best guess" was wrong - until they suddenly changed their mind again.

Necron flyers - both sides had equaly valid RAI arguments, and only one RAW argument could be made. GW then changed the written rules to something else.

You have used good arguments for resolving issues in a game. You have made a crap argument for why rules should not be discussed on this forum in the manner they are. Some rules ARE worthy of a 20 page thread (and some arent), and it is dishonest to claim you *know* the RAI, unless you are the designer of the game - you cannot know, but guess. As an engineer you should appreciate where precision is important, no?
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare





No, we are saying that is how they have currently intended the rules to be, because that is what they wrote. Or are you stating they just randomly wrote words on a page that happened to form a ruleset? They intended to write those words, and they intended the to have that meaning. That is the rational approach.


Did you really mean that nos? So here you're no longer arguing RaI =/= The Rules your actually claiming RaI = RaW = The Rules, by stating that the exact meaning of what they wrote is what they intended it to mean. Many many FaQs would point to this not being the case. But I am glad you are finally admitting RaI = The rules, but to try to say that RaW = RaI is baffling.

No we're not. We're saying YOU cannot KNOW RAI. "RAI" is a best guess on what they intended, and is different for everyone


This sounds like you're implying I personally can't know RaI? I agree in general someone can't know RaI absolutely but the same is true of RaW. At least RaI is singular where as with RaW there are multiple answers. Whilst we will often disagree what the RaI for a given rule is this doesn't stop RaI being the rule. Which is what you are claiming.

Did you call SitW? No? Guess your RAI argument is bunk and can be safely ignored.


So because I didn't get RaI right on a rule therefore RaI =/= The Rules. Did your RaW argument get that one right too? Remember a FaQ can't change the rules by definition it just answers questions on them (errata changes rules), that is the RaW on a FaQ. The whole RaW = The Rules argument defeats itself as soon as a FaQ rules against RaW.

No you're not. You're disagree that what they wrote was exactly what they intended.


So you're saying the rules were created by accident and not by intelligent design. Yes? That the intentions, ideas that they designed are not the rules. But what was written down is the rules?

Nobody is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules don't always match what was intended.


No one is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules aren't what GW designed? That is what you are saying. The rules that the Design team thought up and agreed on are not the rules.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Yes my Colour is Black but not for the reasons stated mainly just because it's slimming... http://imperiusdominatus.blogspot.com 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 FlingitNow wrote:
The whole RaW = The Rules argument defeats itself as soon as a FaQ rules against RaW.

Have you forgotten Yakface's post already...?


 FlingitNow wrote:
So you're saying the rules were created by accident and not by intelligent design. Yes?

No, he's saying that the rules were written by people who don't always clearly write what they actually mean.


That the intentions, ideas that they designed are not the rules. But what was written down is the rules?

This, however, is correct. Regardless of what they intended, the rulebook contains the rules of the game. Once again, that's what a rulebook is.



No one is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules aren't what GW designed? That is what you are saying. The rules that the Design team thought up and agreed on are not the rules.

Why is that so hard to accept?

If the written text doesn't match the original intent... then the written text doesn't match the original intent.

Where is the issue here?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/25 08:26:11


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare





Have you forgotten Yakface's post already...?


Good point though the comment written was more against Nos' definition of RaW (that it is singular, the same for everyone and there is no arguments with it).


Why is that so hard to accept?

If the written text doesn't match the original intent... then the written text doesn't match the original intent.

Where is the issue here?


The issue is that you don't agree that the rules GW designed are the rules. At which point we are at an impasse. I am talking about 40000 a game designed bt GW. You are talking about a game that is not designed by GW so of course we're talking cross purposes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/25 08:47:27


Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Yes my Colour is Black but not for the reasons stated mainly just because it's slimming... http://imperiusdominatus.blogspot.com 
   
Made in fr
Swift Swooping Hawk






This has got really entertaining tbh.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 FlingitNow wrote:
You are talking about a game that is not designed by GW ...

You keep saying this, but I have no idea where you are getting it from. Of course the game was designed by games workshop. That doesn't mean though that every rule that made it into the rulebook turned out exactly as they intended.

A rule not working as intended doesn't change who designed the game. It just means that they wrote a rule badly.


Maybe part of the problem you're running up against in this thread is that it's not really clear just what you hope to achieve with this discussion. Even if you do miraculously convince everyone that RAI is the true and correct version of the rules regardless of what is written in the rulebook... What then?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/25 09:32:32


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




FlingitNow wrote:
No, we are saying that is how they have currently intended the rules to be, because that is what they wrote. Or are you stating they just randomly wrote words on a page that happened to form a ruleset? They intended to write those words, and they intended the to have that meaning. That is the rational approach.


Did you really mean that nos? So here you're no longer arguing RaI =/= The Rules your actually claiming RaI = RaW = The Rules, by stating that the exact meaning of what they wrote is what they intended it to mean. Many many FaQs would point to this not being the case. But I am glad you are finally admitting RaI = The rules, but to try to say that RaW = RaI is baffling.

I am claiming that RAW expresses their intent as to the rules, and literally IS the rules because that is the definition of the Rulebook - it contains The Rules. Or are you saying The Rules are not cotnained in the Rulebook under the heading "THE RULES"? Because the rules disagree with you there. You are claiming that the written rule is somehow NOT the intent of the designer expressed on paper, and that they just randomly wrote a set of words down rather than what they meant to write.

Again: the *rational* approach is to take the position that a rulebook containing a section called THE RULES contains "the rules" of the game as the designers and writers of these written rules intended them to appear. That is the most rational basis for understanding the ruleset.

Blindly claiming these are not "RAI" because of some personal interprettion of what you think they meant to write (which you still claim is some universal "RAI", but it isnt - it is personal to YOUR beliefs onthe rules) instead of what they did write is irrational.

FlingitNow wrote:
No we're not. We're saying YOU cannot KNOW RAI. "RAI" is a best guess on what they intended, and is different for everyone


This sounds like you're implying I personally can't know RaI?


Yes, that is exactly what I have claimed, and not implied, multiple times now. I guess you have only just connected what I intended to write with what I have actually written all these times.

You, as you are NOT the design studio, cannot know what they intended, you can only guess or have a belief.

FlingitNow wrote:I agree in general someone can't know RaI absolutely

You cannot know RAI *at all*. Ever. Unless and until you prove you are the design studio, entire, YOU personally can only ever GUESS what they intended.

Can it be an educated, informed guess? Yes. Does that mean you suddenly "know" what they intended? No, because that is a barrier your "Intent" approach can never cross, because you are reliant NOT upon the concrete, written word but your own, personal guess as to what they meant to put instead of what they actually DID put down.

This element is unarguable, and is where your entire argument is destroyed. You refuse to see this, however.

FlingitNow wrote:but the same is true of RaW.

Incorrect, as RAW has a factual, knowable basis. Unlike RAI. Or are you claiming that you are the design studio, and can therefore KNOW what the writer meant to put? Can you please admit you are NOT the design studio, so you can put this absurd fiction of "knowing" their intention to rest?

FlingitNow wrote:At least RaI is singular

Provably false, as the many, many, many, many arguments about RAI on here have shown. Because you CANNOT "know" the actual RAI, when YOU say RAI you MEAN to say "Rules as I believe they were Intended". I pointed out this conceptual problem you have a few pages back, and you never acknowledged it. Funny that.

Night scythes taking damage - 2 sides for RAI, both had reason to infer what they did, even using printed, canon material to support. Your argument is, again, invalidated.

FlingitNow wrote:where as with RaW there are multiple answers. Whilst we will often disagree what the RaI for a given rule is this doesn't stop RaI being the rule. Which is what you are claiming.


No, I am claiming that "THE RULES" are those Written in the Rulebook. Because that is what GW have expressly told us is the case. Your argument is that we should IGNORE this direction and make something else up out of thin air instead. I refute that that is a sensible position to take as a basis for a determination of how to play th e game.

FlingitNow wrote:
Did you call SitW? No? Guess your RAI argument is bunk and can be safely ignored.


So because I didn't get RaI right on a rule therefore RaI =/= The Rules. Did your RaW argument get that one right too?

I am saying YOU cannot know "RAI" so therefore any argument YOU Make based off "RAI" is bunk. The RAW *did* get that right, as the written rules agreed with the second FAQ. The first FAQ changed the rules.

FlingitNow wrote:Remember a FaQ can't change the rules by definition it just answers questions on them (errata changes rules),

Seriously, you're making THAT tired, debunked, absurd argument here? Really?

The FAQ for SitW had a Yes or No answer. It went from NO to YES. By definition one of those must have been a change to the rules. Out of Range change recently is a change to the rules.

FlingitNow wrote:that is the RaW on a FaQ. The whole RaW = The Rules argument defeats itself as soon as a FaQ rules against RaW.


Again, you are assuming that the design studio is incapable of altering their ideas on how rules should operate, based on new information. You are assuming a fixed, holistic view on all rules interactions ever, that can never be altered - a prime "I". This is clearly false.

FlingitNow wrote:
No you're not. You're disagree that what they wrote was exactly what they intended.


So you're saying the rules were created by accident and not by intelligent design. Yes? That the intentions, ideas that they designed are not the rules. But what was written down is the rules?


What they wrote down are by definition the rules. Have you opened your Rulebook, and looked at the section entitled "THE RULES" at all? THat is the express function of a rulebook - to convey the rules to the user.

Your first absurd question will not be answered, as you are incapable of debating honestly. You cannot, honestly, derive that conclusion from what I wrote. Retract your assertion and apologise

FlingitNow wrote:
Nobody is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules don't always match what was intended.


No one is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules aren't what GW designed? That is what you are saying. The rules that the Design team thought up and agreed on are not the rules.


I am arguing that the way they expressed the rules in written form, in the section entitled "THE RULES", in the rulebook you bought in order to know the rules written for this game, may not be the way they originally intended the rules to be expressed. It is, however, the rules they designed and wrote down.

You are done.
   
Made in nl
Loyal Necron Lychguard



Netherlands

Yes, the rules were made in their minds.
But they are written on paper!

I can read paper, can you read minds?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Kangodo wrote:
Yes, the rules were made in their minds.
But they are written on paper!

I can read paper, can you read minds?


I can. Regardless of if I may.
   
Made in no
Dakka Veteran




The thing is that you have a large rulebook with a FAQ to boot, to make things to forward you can presume they go by the same way as the rest of the rulebook is going.

Thats where you can draw a reasonable RAI out of without having to go the whole "you dont know what he think" type of arguments... actually yes you can, you have a whole rulebook and the FAQ to learn about their way of thinking and you take similar rules and presume its going the same direction.

Ofcourse at times it might be wrong, but this is what you have until you hit a wall noone can answer on.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: