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:

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.

And yet...

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

So because someone disagrees with you on what's "pretty clear" you decide they're cheating.
I've misrepresented nothing.

At this point I'm wondering whether FlingitNow is unable to get his point across or simply refuses to back down until he "wins" the argument.

Ever since I've been playing WH40k, GW has FAQed pretty clear as well as completely ambiguous rules, both according to what most people saw as common sense, as well as completely opposite directions. Anyone who claims to know the intent of anything GW wrote is delusional. Even 100% clear rules have been FAQed to work completely differently, in a way no one would have expected.

Someone claiming that your tau bomber can't drop bombs is both a bad sportsman and someone you shouldn't play anymore. But he is not a cheater, because he hasn't broken any rules.

The intent of a bomber being able to drop bombs seems obvious - but there are a lot more rules around that don't work as their author intended when writing them, namely all those that got broken/altered when 6th hit. If I suddenly start shooting with Ol' Zogwort again, taking 4+ KFF saves for my vehicles (there is written evidence of Phil Kelly himself doing so) and charging with Snikrot when coming from reserves, then I'm the cheater. Not the guy asking me to play by the rules as written.

Dracoknight wrote:
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.

That would be true if GW showed any interest in being consistent with their FAQ rulings...

When 6th edition was released, there was absolutely no reason within the rules as given to assume that a vehicle that became immobilised without suffering a glancing or penetrating hit would lose a hull point.

Then GW released an FAQ that explained that failing a dangerous terrain roll meant becoming immobilised, and that this included losing a hull point. Which gives us a clear precedent, no? We should assume that they intended us to take a hull point off whenever a vehicle is immobilised, for the sake of consistency, surely?

Fast forward past much wailing and gnashing of teeth over what this meant for drop pods to the current FAQ, where GW have ruled that becoming immobilised without suffering a hit does not, in fact, remove a hull point... except for when running into terrain, which still stands for no apparent reason.


How about special rules and transports? The rules make it quite clear that if a unit is in a transport, you measure ranges for things that affect that unit from and to the transport vehicle. Except now we have a slowly growing number of things that rather arbitrarily don't affect units in transports, or aren't measured from the vehicle. And at least one example of something that did affect units in transports, and then didn't, and now does again. How exactly do you establish a precedent there?

We can only ever guess at RAI... and even if we guess right, there's still no guarantee that GW will actually go with that RAI if they ever issue a ruling on how it should be played. After the mess of 4th edition where they just made up rulings on the fly with no reference to anything else that was already in place (most infamously where they ruled on whether or not bikers could get the +1 CCW bonus in close combat on an army by army basis, completely arbitrarily) followed by 5th edition where they actually stated that where the RAW differed from what had been originally intended they would go with the RAW to keep things less confusing... and then followed through with that about half of the time, we come to 6th edition were they have shown rather conclusively that they have no compunction about changing rules at the drop of a hat. Was it originally intended that LoS should apply to the nearest model but somehow the message was garbled? Or did they change their minds afterwards? And if the latter, and RAI is 'the rules' then should we ignore the errata and keep playing it as per the rulebook?

Probably not. What we probably should do when we want to establish what the rules of the game are, rather than trying to imagine what the writer might have been thinking of when he wrote the rules, is just read them.

 Jidmah wrote:
At this point I'm wondering whether FlingitNow is unable to get his point across or simply refuses to back down until he "wins" the argument.

It could be one of several things I think;

a) Fling is misconstruing "RAI" to mean "Rules as Games Workshop Writers Intended" and not "Rules as we THINK Games Workshop Writers intended" (ie: RAI is apparently a GW or universal convention and not something made by the players to discuss and debate interpretations of rules as written), in which case, RAI would, in fact, be the rules. However RAI *is* a player convention and not the rules. "the rules" are what is written in the book. the *presumed* intent is discussed through RAW and RAI on these forums.

b) Fling's *intent* is unclear, and as has been pointed out nobody can know the authors intent without being the author (and this would prove that statement beyond a doubt if this is the case)

c) Fling is intentionally obtuse, in which case, successful troll is successful

d) Fling is actually obtuse, in which case everyone is banging their head against a brick wall pointlessly.

theres always going to be those funky rules people ignore or alter because it makes no sense or is very confusing. But if you dont discuss it before hand, yes it is cheating.

My local meta treats challenges separate from the rest of the combat, even though the rules say they happen simo. Reason being, it is very confusing sometimes whats going on and its VERY rare that the non-challenge units will wipe the other out before the challenging character strikes his blows, thus gaining morale support rerolls.
Totally against rules, but it makes the game go much easier/smoother/faster/whatever. But if i did that with a random person they'd go "Wait wtf you doing?"

 FlingitNow wrote:
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.

Wait..
So this big book called "Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook" with sections called 'The Rules' does not contain the rules for the game they designed?
I always knew GW was conning me with their products, but I would never guess they'd ask 60 Euro for a rulebook that does not contain the rules for the game I am playing.

FlingitNow called it guys, throw your rulebooks away! They do not explain the rules for the game they designed.

Dracoknight wrote:
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.

Which would work if GW as at *all* consistent on their rulings. You have the flip flow rulings, such as the furious charge working with counter attack and then not rule, shadow in the warp, then you have the totally unexpected rules - nids cannot use emplaced weapons, the changes to out of range, etc, and the downright bizarre ones (falchions not gaining +2A as the rules state, but only +1, making them really not worth their points, as a simple explanation)

So no, you can only make a *guess* as to what they mean, and even that guess will have a high failure rate. Hence you truly cannot "know" RAI, ever.

This is something Fling is seemingly incapable of understanding or acknowledging.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dracoknight wrote:
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.

Which would work if GW as at *all* consistent on their rulings.

Or even giving rulings on some things that people argue about. For example, it took until the 6th edition Eldar FAQ to make Banshee Masks work against terrain again. People had a couple editions worth of fighting over whether they worked or not - on one hand they were obviously intended to work but new rules had made them not work as they were written. And there was the rulebook FAQ where you were told that wargear etc that didn't work in the new edition just didn't work then.

I'm pretty tired of this now. You know what my responses will be to your tired arguments. Keep believing the, rules to Warhammer 40000 aren't what the design team designed. Keep believing that there's nothing wrong with intentionally breaking the rules as designed by GW. Keep believing that RaW is know able even though it has been proven to not be the case. I'm done.

Thank god.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm pretty tired of this now. You know what my responses will be to your tired arguments. Keep believing the, rules to Warhammer 40000 aren't what the design team designed. Keep believing that there's nothing wrong with intentionally breaking the rules as designed by GW. Keep believing that RaW is know able even though it has been proven to not be the case. I'm done.

Well, at least you're consistent.

You didn't bother to answer my question on just what you expected this thread to achieve, from which, along with your continued misinterpretation of the opposing points, can only lead me to conclude that all you wanted was to rile people up. Which was certainly a productive use of everyone's time...