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.

Warhammer 40,000 is a miniatures wargame with plastic figures that represent opposing forces. The game itself uses an abstract set of rules to represent what is going on, and the results of these actions are determined using random number generators and us removing figures from the table until one party emerges victorious.

If it was simply a game of rolling dice to see who was the winner, then we could just roll 20 divce each, count the sixes, and be done with it.

We don't because we prefer to visualise the battle thats raging in our minds. When your squad of marines passes every single one of their 20 armour saves, we don't comment on how statistically improbable it is (aside from saying how lucky it was) we view it in our minds as the fearsome adeptus astartes shrugging off the worst that the enemy can throw at them like the super men they are.

The fluff and models helps us visualise these epic struggles

The rules help us represent them

When you mix these two aspects of the game, it creates a grey area. the drop pod is a perfect example. the rules include both fluff AND rules. it would be much better to have the rules themselves remain as abstract as possible. this would avoid confusion and disagreement. if the codex entry simply had the bold faced rules: Transport capacity 12, open topped, drop pod assault, immobile, inertial guidance. with perhaps a little elaboration as to the rules themselves then there would be no issues. for that matter, if they added in 'the doors must be down' into it, again, there would be no issues.
The issues with the drop pod, and many other rules, is that they add in visual (fluff) concepts to the abstract rules, and while the abstract rules in general do a good job of representing the fluff, i don't think fluff has any place in the rules themselves.

The Trukk is the best example of Fluff and rules saying 2 different things in the same entry.

The Fluff sentence explains what the result means on the battlefield.

The rules go on to say something entirely different.

We have rules for what happens when a vehicle Explodes, none of those rules are applied when the trukk receives a Kaboom result(you do not even remove the Trukk model, replacing it with with an area of Dangerous terrain).

Fluff sentences within rules must be treated as something other than rules(excepting where we are told they are rules or the rules are insufficient without deriving a meaning from the Fluff); it is the only way for the actual rules to work, especially where that fluff sentence says to do something that is directly counter to the actual rules given.

A case where the Fluff helps define the rules is the Rhino, Razorback, and Chimera. The Rhino and Chimera have fire points defined as the top hatches. A Coupla is also a hatch by definition. We have to look to the Art, the Models, and the fluff to help explain that the Hatch referred to is the large doors found on top, not the Coupla(turret-y bit, on the actual turret in the chimera model).


Short Version: Fluff is not rules excepting when we are told fluff is rules or the fluff helps us explain the rules.

If anyone bothers to look at GW rulings in FAQs, they'll see that GW considers their fluff text in rules to be context for those rules. So, yes, I'd say that the 'fluff' part of rules is present to provide clarity to the actual 'crunch' of the rule.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
If anyone bothers to look at GW rulings in FAQs, they'll see that GW considers their fluff text in rules to be context for those rules. So, yes, I'd say that the 'fluff' part of rules is present to provide clarity to the actual 'crunch' of the rule.

SJ

Except that if that was true than they would never go against fluff with FAQ's.

Yet they've done so in the past.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
If anyone bothers to look at GW rulings in FAQs, they'll see that GW considers their fluff text in rules to be context for those rules. So, yes, I'd say that the 'fluff' part of rules is present to provide clarity to the actual 'crunch' of the rule.

SJ

Yeah, thats not true. If you "bothered" to actually tally up the number of times they go against fluff vs changing the rules to fit some of the fluff (as most of the fluff is contradictory anyway, see Nightscythes) you would see how close it was.

Sometimes the background and the actual rules mix up, to make for some very confusing results. A great result of this is the mawloc, who deep strikes by exploding from the ground in a shower of earth and stone. Anything that isn't moved out of the way gets destroyed. The big issue becomes when he deep strikes on, say, a bastion.

Does he destroy the bastion because it cannot move out of the way, or does he end up on top of it as per rules for deep striking on the bastion, despite the fact that he comes from underneath?

Wrestling, Monster Trucks, Football and Baseball teams are all often given slight favor/disparagement to create a more dramatic outcome, why not 40k?

seriously though the drop pod idea always perplexed me, always kind of wanted the ability to deploy only half the sides to make a sort of mobile wall with a few pods that enemies couldn't ram/assault/shoot through but always figured that sort of constituted a breaking of the spirit of the rules

Proof of intent.

Writers are only human and they screw up or make poorly written rules texts. In these cases, it is important to view the rules with their writers' intent. Trying to squeeze every little available advantage via loopholes that might go against flavor seem wrong to me.

THat's not to say you should tailor rules to match the fluff perfectly; else my SM list would consist of two guys fighting 2000 + points of orks or something.
However the drop pod issue, for example of a rule where I think intent should be seen.

The quote on the text is that the doors "are blown clear." This is the wording in the 5th ed. Codex (the most current). To some that might mean that the doors stay open, but if the doors are blown clear and then men inside rush out, then that seems to imply the doors open on entry (and thus justifies the open topped rule)
In this case, the intent of the fluff (and the words chosen) seem to suggest a certain fact, that is not explicitly stated. To press this topic and try to squeeze out a strategic advantage in an instance where the rules are uncertain (but seem, via open topped, to at least suggest something is open) is too much for my tastes

Cyaneye wrote:
Sometimes the background and the actual rules mix up, to make for some very confusing results. A great result of this is the mawloc, who deep strikes by exploding from the ground in a shower of earth and stone. Anything that isn't moved out of the way gets destroyed. The big issue becomes when he deep strikes on, say, a bastion.

Does he destroy the bastion because it cannot move out of the way, or does he end up on top of it as per rules for deep striking on the bastion, despite the fact that he comes from underneath?

Well since the Mawloc only destroys models that can not move out of the way, and the Bastion is not a model as it is terrain, then the Mawloc would not destroy the bastion. (The bastion does not even take a hit because of the blast marker touching the bastion, as the Mawloc's rules say that "Every unit under the template" (Nid Dex 51) suffers Str 6 hits and the bastion is not a unit so it does not take the hits).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BarBoBot wrote:

 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.

Like a really bad house rule.

I think it's a rule. It's in the the same section with the rule. It's not separated off into the fluff itself. In a case where the fluff part directly goes against something that the rule specifically outlines, I'd say the rule would win out. However, if the "fluff" simply further describes what happens with the model, and doesn't contradict any of the clear rules of the model, but rather works WITH those rules, you have to accept that it is part of said rules.

Such is the case in the drop-pod example. I haven't seen that thread, but I already can tell why it's important. A 4+ cover save versus completely blocking true LoS. It's very clear in the text that the doors are opened upon landing. While an argument could be made that they could be re-closed, there is nothing to indicate that that happens, and pretty much all of the GW-approved animations from games and things show that the doors are indeed "blown" upon landing, and don't close back up.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Such is the case in the drop-pod example. I haven't seen that thread, but I already can tell why it's important. A 4+ cover save versus completely blocking true LoS. It's very clear in the text that the doors are opened upon landing. While an argument could be made that they could be re-closed, there is nothing to indicate that that happens, and pretty much all of the GW-approved animations from games and things show that the doors are indeed "blown" upon landing, and don't close back up.

Just so you know, nowhere does it say the doors are opened, or even blown.
It specifies the "hatches" are blown IIRC.

Which could be anything, truthfully.

Betray - so, you think it is a rule that the hatches are blown? Well in that case I assume you model explosive charges into the hatches, otherwise you cannot fulfil your "rule"

Oh, no, wait. It isnt a rule

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - so, you think it is a rule that the hatches are blown? Well in that case I assume you model explosive charges into the hatches, otherwise you cannot fulfil your "rule"

Oh, no, wait. It isnt a rule

It's written in the rule section. It's a descriptive/artistic way of saying the hatches are open. It just tells "how" they're opened. Either way, I'm not going to argue with nitpicking. It's obvious to me that they intended for the doors to be open. If people have a logical, non nit-picking argument otherwise, I'll be happy to read it and give due consideration. But I won't be responding to silly/snarky comments from here on out.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - so, you think it is a rule that the hatches are blown? Well in that case I assume you model explosive charges into the hatches, otherwise you cannot fulfil your "rule"

Oh, no, wait. It isnt a rule

It's written in the rule section. It's a descriptive/artistic way of saying the hatches are open. It just tells "how" they're opened. Either way, I'm not going to argue with nitpicking. It's obvious to me that they intended for the doors to be open. If people have a logical, non nit-picking argument otherwise, I'll be happy to read it and give due consideration. But I won't be responding to silly/snarky comments from here on out.

Why would the doors have to be opened?

Hatches are blown, this could be "hatches" on ventilators, "hatches" on door locks, "hatches" for the Space Marine Guinea pigs to escape.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - so, you think it is a rule that the hatches are blown? Well in that case I assume you model explosive charges into the hatches, otherwise you cannot fulfil your "rule"

Oh, no, wait. It isnt a rule

It's written in the rule section. It's a descriptive/artistic way of saying the hatches are open. It just tells "how" they're opened. Either way, I'm not going to argue with nitpicking. It's obvious to me that they intended for the doors to be open. If people have a logical, non nit-picking argument otherwise, I'll be happy to read it and give due consideration. But I won't be responding to silly/snarky comments from here on out.

Why would the doors have to be opened?

Hatches are blown, this could be "hatches" on ventilators, "hatches" on door locks, "hatches" for the Space Marine Guinea pigs to escape.

Because hatches=doors. They're the same thing. To argue otherwise is nitpickery of the highest order. Have a great day, done discussing this aspect of your argument.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - so, you think it is a rule that the hatches are blown? Well in that case I assume you model explosive charges into the hatches, otherwise you cannot fulfil your "rule"

Oh, no, wait. It isnt a rule

It's written in the rule section. It's a descriptive/artistic way of saying the hatches are open. It just tells "how" they're opened. Either way, I'm not going to argue with nitpicking. It's obvious to me that they intended for the doors to be open. If people have a logical, non nit-picking argument otherwise, I'll be happy to read it and give due consideration. But I won't be responding to silly/snarky comments from here on out.

Why would the doors have to be opened?

Hatches are blown, this could be "hatches" on ventilators, "hatches" on door locks, "hatches" for the Space Marine Guinea pigs to escape.

Because hatches=doors. They're the same thing. To argue otherwise is nitpickery of the highest order. Have a great day, done discussing this aspect of your argument.

Than the hatch/door is a part of the drop pod, part of the hull and you may disembark from the furthest extent of it as well, correct?

I typically play with mine closed, however when I open them I don't use them as a disembarkation ramp.

Hatches are blown, does not say hatches are opened. I read it as the hatches are now no longer sealed for your safety.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Than the hatch/door is a part of the drop pod, part of the hull and you may disembark from the furthest extent of it as well, correct?

This is a different argument altogether, but I will happily respond to it. I have no problem considering the ramps as part of the hull for disembarkation purposes, so long as we consider them a part of the hull for all other purposes as well. This is something that commonly comes up with not just drop pods, but other "open-topped" vehicles also. My stance remains the same in all cases: It is up to the player to decide if they are using it as part of the hull or not, but if they do, that decision sticks for the remainder of the game, and applies in all circumstances.

Yet it isn't, actually, a rule. There is no rules text contained in it.

GW constantly add non-rule sentences to "rule" sections, so I presume you have a better, more logical argument as to why it is a rule than that?

Therein lies the relative conundrum, nos. I think that some people feel that its inclusion in the hard rules section means that if it can be applied, it should be. Obviously, there is a larger faction that favors the other side of that argument, with the plurality of respondents favoring a middle ground, where these things are taken on a case by case basis.

I DO think the 'hatches are blown' is a clear indicator of the intention behind the rules, although I am doubtful that the statement is intended to be hard rule itself. I think it's a very ambiguous area, and I hesitate to trust any strong opinion one way or another. I think that in this, as in many things, balance and moderation are the correct course.

Of course, balance and moderation have little place on the internet these days. So, take that for what it's worth.

The ones you have used in your OP are not good examples. I cant find one at the moment, but when the fluff describes what happens, it backs up the rule itself for the purpose of rules as intended. That fluff you have in your OP does not really suggest any rules at all. By that logic the Sanguinor can pick up demon princes and take them into space mid game. Cus its been written.

I know they aren't good examples, blood lance. I even said so later on down on that same page. The drop pod is so far the best example anyone's been able to provide, but if you'd be able to provide a better one, I'd sure appreciate it. I've seen the "it's a rule/no it's fluff" issue on dakka before, which is why I made this poll, I just couldn't put my finger on where else I'd seen it.

Something I've noticed that addresses this in the newer Codexes - the fluff text is presented in italics first, followed by the actual rules. There's a clear separation.
Unfortunately, that doesn't help us with the older books.

 Super Ready wrote:
Something I've noticed that addresses this in the newer Codexes - the fluff text is presented in italics first, followed by the actual rules. There's a clear separation.
Unfortunately, that doesn't help us with the older books.

I agree. I noticed that too, when perusing the Necron codex in order to create this thread. It's a good shift.

One that bugs me off top of my head is the runic armour and saga of the hunter.

The saga states that only a model with power armour can take the upgrade.
Runic armour is classes as power armour only in the fluff entry.

So RAW if you're taking SotH you have to use power armour. At least I've usually stuck to that, erring on the side of caution. However, the RAI is fairly clear considering the fluff description and the general limitation on TDA armour outflanking.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/531361.page

New argument here that I think similarly lines up with what we are discussing here. What do you think?

Fluff should be ignored whenever possible. "To blow hatches" is not a game term at all, so one should not start creating random rules based on fluff. When disembarking, no one forces you to open the hatch of a chimera or land raider either, I don't see a reason to handle drop pods any different.