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.

Sorry. I was going to title the thread 'rules or fluff?' or 'rules in the fluff?' but couldn't come up with a catchy title, so forgive my attempt at levity.

Alright, check it out: in a recent thread, some people (not me) have claimed that a line that appears within the drop pod rules is not a rule, but a piece of fluff. It appears to be a bit of descriptive text, and I personally do not think it's a rule.

What's your opinion on the subject? In order to prevent this from becoming a rehash of that issue, I present some other examples of the same sort of thing?

Eldar Codex p24 wrote:Molten Body- The Avatar's body is fashioned from burning iron flooded with glowing magma...

Grey Knights Codex p47 wrote:Runes of Destiny- Valeria has acquired a number of Eldar runes...

Orks Codex p41 wrote:Kaboom!- The Trukk explodes, catapulting flaming debris and stunned orks in all directions

What do you think? These statements appear to be nothing more than flavor text for the rules they are included in, but they do not appear in the large block of background text that precedes them. Instead, they appear within the special rules themselves. So, should they be considered as part of the special rule or not?

Descriptive text is not rules... except where it is.

That's part of the fun of GW rules.



For the less flippant answer, in the most part, descriptive text isn't rules, simply because in a rules context it is meaningless. It is generally used to give a fluffy reason for a rule's existence. So they tell us that the Avatar is made of molten metal as a fluff reason for the existence of the Molten Body rule. It doesn't mean that the model actually has to be constructed of molten metal.

There are cases where the descriptive text does count, though, like where we are told that anything that refers to 'plasma' in its entry is counted as a plasma weapon. GW normally makes these cases quite clear in their FAQs, though. For our own sanity, it's best to assume that flavour text is just fluff unless specifically told to treat it otherwise.

Otherwise, we're all going to have to buy a heap of firecrackers to use on our destroyed vehicles...

I'm trying to avoid rehasing the drop pod issue. Can you perhaps point out another case where there is controversy over whether a statement within a rules section is a portion of the rules or a bit of descriptive text? I thought I had found one, but I fact-checked myself and that it wasn't.

I think in general, they are not rules, but give some insight to intent. However, GW has a history of ruling for and against the descriptive text, so if you absolutely must make a pure RAW decision, they should typically be ignored. Most of the time however, reasonable players can come to an agreement on the intent.

In other games there is a clear distinction between fluff and rules (MtG for example), GW however tends to muddy the waters and puts what should be fluff in the body of rules text.

In the examples you've mentioned, I'm not sure what you're angling for though. In the Ork rule obviously the Orks are placed as opposed to scattered randomly (although that sounds fun). What rules implications could the other two have?

TBH, fluff is fluff, and rules are rules.
They should be kept apart at all times.

The fluff is simply there to give us some insight into the rule/wargear and what it may do/look like.

The rules however tell us what it does and how to use it.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm trying to avoid rehasing the drop pod issue. Can you perhaps point out another case where there is controversy over whether a statement within a rules section is a portion of the rules or a bit of descriptive text? I thought I had found one, but I fact-checked myself and that it wasn't.

Until it was FAQ'd the necron night scythe fuctioned like any other transport... If it went down the passengers took damage even though by "fluff" they were not even IN the transport.

The rules were changed to match the fluff.

By contrast: nightscythes and doomscythes are described as having turret-mounted tesla destroyers in their fluff. The model on the other hand clearly indicates this is false. (or some very oddly defined example of the entire plane being a 'turret'; one, or the other)

There's plenty of "fluff" FAQ's; you can pretty much pull up a random FAQ and find a few every page, in most cases.

But are there FAQ's that went with absent RaW over clear fluff (the usual divide)?

Fluff in no way makes a rule, otherwise they could never go against the fluff like they have in the past.

Is the title of this thread a reference to how Reece's pieces were invented?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm trying to avoid rehasing the drop pod issue. Can you perhaps point out another case where there is controversy over whether a statement within a rules section is a portion of the rules or a bit of descriptive text? I thought I had found one, but I fact-checked myself and that it wasn't.

I don't have the codex on me, but the flavour text of seeker missiles allows s to fire them without markerlight support.

I voted "authors intent" because it maintains a nice, clear divide between rules and fluff text. I'd have no problem playing a game where fluff = rules as long as they asked in advance so we can both build lists to benefit from it.

Kaboom!- The Trukk explodes, catapulting flaming debris and stunned orks in all directions

How does this alter the rules for Kaboom? Trukk explodes and Orks come out. Things nearby get damaged. Seems to me that the fluff and the rules say the same thing here.

Pyrian wrote:
There's plenty of "fluff" FAQ's; you can pretty much pull up a random FAQ and find a few every page, in most cases.

But are there FAQ's that went with absent RaW over clear fluff (the usual divide)?

Yep...a recent one in fact. Necrons get to make RP rolls against things that would remove that individual from the battle entirely, for instance JotWW.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Is the title of this thread a reference to how Reece's pieces were invented?

No, the title references Reese's peanut butter cups

Hence the commercial.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Kaboom!- The Trukk explodes, catapulting flaming debris and stunned orks in all directions

How does this alter the rules for Kaboom? Trukk explodes and Orks come out. Things nearby get damaged. Seems to me that the fluff and the rules say the same thing here.

Except they don't. The fluff says that the trukk explodes, the rules say that you apply damage to certain models. The fluff is an explanation as to why the rule exists, rather than a fluffy way of saying the same thing.

To return to a recent example (and I know jimsolo said he didn't want to rehash that debate, but it's a perfect example of this divide) the drop pod entry says that when it lands the hatches are blown, and so it counts as an open topped vehicle. The first part of that is fluff (which we know, because there are no rules for 'blown hatches', nor is there any standard mechanic in the game for 'blowing hatches') that explains why the pod counts as open topped.

But claiming that this piece of fluff means that you actually have to open the doors is like claiming that the fluff description of 'Kaboom!' means that you actually have to make the vehicle explode. It's not a reference to something that you have to do. It's a piece of flavour text that gives a piece of in-universe fluff for why a given rule exists.

 Super Ready wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
There's plenty of "fluff" FAQ's; you can pretty much pull up a random FAQ and find a few every page, in most cases.

But are there FAQ's that went with absent RaW over clear fluff (the usual divide)?

Yep...a recent one in fact. Necrons get to make RP rolls against things that would remove that individual from the battle entirely, for instance JotWW.

No, that's the vice-versa, a clear example of fluff trumping an absence of rules. The fluff for Jaws unambiguously states the model is dead. The FAQ agrees. The RaW was silent on the distinction.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:

Kaboom!- The Trukk explodes, catapulting flaming debris and stunned orks in all directions

How does this alter the rules for Kaboom? Trukk explodes and Orks come out. Things nearby get damaged. Seems to me that the fluff and the rules say the same thing here.

Except they don't. The fluff says that the trukk explodes, the rules say that you apply damage to certain models. The fluff is an explanation as to why the rule exists, rather than a fluffy way of saying the same thing.

Thats kind of exactly what I'm arguing...

The trukk comparison is bad because there's little ambiguous in the trukk-splosion in the first place.

Contrast with drop pods, where the argument hinges on the mere notion that no rule quite sufficiently explicitly requires the doors to be down. The drop pod argument, like the Jaws and plasma siphon arguments before it, is first and foremost a rules argument, that happens to have a clear fluff position attached.

Contrast with drop pods, where the argument hinges on the mere notion that no rule quite sufficiently explicitly requires the doors to be down

I've never heard of that argument, but already I think I know just how ridiculous a discussion it would be...

 Dakkamite wrote:

Contrast with drop pods, where the argument hinges on the mere notion that no rule quite sufficiently explicitly requires the doors to be down

I've never heard of that argument...

Really? Modeling your open-topped vehicle as close topped is about as clear a WYSIWYG violation as you can get.

EDIT: It's also a clear example of an argument of the form "it doesn't say I can't".

Nope, not getting into it. Never used drop pods and never will. Don't know why the doors would matter, and if they do, people should just take the "don't be a douche" option of the choices available.

Pyrian wrote:
Modeling your open-topped vehicle as close topped is about as clear a WYSIWYG violation as you can get.

Might want to tell whoever designed the model, then, because they're the ones who designed it that way...

Actually I've got a good one for this.

The Ork burna can be used as a flamer or as a power weapon.

The Kombi-Skorcha is a gun with a one shot Skorcha on it.

The Skorcha is like a big burna. Ergo, can my Kombi-Skorcha Nobs use it as a power weapon?

 Dakkamite wrote:
The Skorcha is like a big burna.

It's really not.

Fluffwise, the burna is essentially an oxy torch. The skorcha is just a big flamethrower.

I look at it in a contextual manner.

"The trukk explodes, yada yada"
This is no different from the normal rules, ergo it is not treated differently because it says something descriptive.

"the droppods doors fly open"
This to me would say that to deploy its cargo, all 5 hatches blow open, no doors may stay closed, etc.

I have found very few rules as to where this can be confusing. In many cases, I believe it to be over analyzed to either cheat the system in place for advantage, or on the other end of the spectrum to protect you. Maybe I'm just odd, and I take things at face value.

I think a couple of people might have misunderstood what I was asking.

Just to be clear, in case anyone missed it, we're not talking about pure fluff, we're talking about descriptive text contained within a block of rules.

Unfortunately, I think that Insaniak is right and the drop pod issue is the most relevant example I can think of. (The Ork trukk is a weak one. The descriptive text says that the orks are both 'stunned' and scattered 'in all directions,' neither of which is supported in the mechanics, since your orks aren't necessarily stunned by any game mechanic (like, say, pinning) and they aren't forced to disembark in all directions.) With the drop pod example, I think the confusion comes in when some people claim that the text is clearly descriptive (which it is) and should be ignored, while others claim it is part of the rules, because it's IN a paragraph of hard rules.

Just to be clear, again, I'm not trying to argue that the fluff should be a substitute for the rules, I'm just curious when they are both in the same paragraph (or even line of text) where we draw the distinction.

The problem with the poll questions is that it assumes that there is a clear distinction in the text between rules and fluff (and examples).

This is an ongoing problem with GW rules (just see the LoS debates over whether the "head, torso, arms, legs" text was rule or example). They badly need to implement a rules formatting standard where the three categories are distinct.

Pyrian wrote:
No, that's the vice-versa, a clear example of fluff trumping an absence of rules. The fluff for Jaws unambiguously states the model is dead. The FAQ agrees. The RaW was silent on the distinction.

I could have sworn this was recently changed - that is, that models that are removed from play in ways not covered elsewhere in the FAQ (ie falling back off the board) DO get to make the roll. This would override the fluff, reversing what was the case before.
However, I've just pored over the FAQ and can't find it. Someone help! Am I going mad?!

 insaniak wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Modeling your open-topped vehicle as close topped is about as clear a WYSIWYG violation as you can get.

Might want to tell whoever designed the model, then, because they're the ones who designed it that way...

Indeed - you do not need to model it to be "close topped", just competently assemble it.

The doors stay up just fine on our 4 drop pods...

It is fluff and fluff only till a FAQ says other wise. It is why they had to put out the Plasma FAQ for the Syphon. I think not giving it a clear rule was really bad on GWs part. You don't want players to argue whether the Doom Scythe has a turret or not. They should keep their fluff and rules a bit more separate.

The doors may blow open on a drop pod to allow the troops to exit quickly but drop pods can be collected and reused. I find it hard to believe they don't have a button to press to close the doors. At our tech level that would be easy and cheap. At their tech level it would be silly not to have closeable doors. There are no rules for treating the drop pod different than any other vehicle where you can close or open doors. If I want to open the front door on my land raider when the guys come out and then close it or leave it open after I am allowed to do so. It doesn't change anything about the vehicle itself even if it would seem the front doors being open should lower it armor value. Now the rules use true line of sight tho so I would say leaving the doors up or down could be a possible rules issue on the drop pod but it should be controlling player who decides that.