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:
You don't think the rules are what games workshop designed but are the literal translation of what is was written in the book...

No, I think that GW designed the rules, but those rules are what is written in the book. That's why it's called a Rulebook.

Those rules may not necessarily be what GW intended them to be. That doesn't change the fact that unless GW changes those rules by actually telling us that what they initially wrote isn't what they meant, what they intended is irrelevant when playing the game.

You establish what the rules are by reading the rulebook which, by very definition, contains the rules of the game.

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You don't think the rules are what games workshop designed but are the literal translation of what is was written in the book...

No, I think that GW designed the rules, but those rules are what is written in the book. That's why it's called a Rulebook.

Those rules may not necessarily be what GW intended them to be. That doesn't change the fact that unless GW changes those rules by actually telling us that what they initially wrote isn't what they meant, what they intended is irrelevant when playing the game.

You establish what the rules are by reading the rulebook which, by very definition, contains the rules of the game.

Stop applying logic, it will confuse him.

No, I think that GW designed the rules, but those rules are what is written in the book

So are "The Rules" what Games Workshop's design team designed? Yes or No?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So are "The Rules" what Games Workshop's design team designed? Yes or No?

The rules are what is contained in the rulebook and codexes. They may be different to what the studio intended, depending on how accurately they were recorded in the relevant books.

So that's a no you don't play the game designed by the GW design team...

 FlingitNow wrote:
So that's a no you don't play the game designed by the GW design team...

Really? I could have sworn that my 40k rulebook says that it was printed by GW.

Who do you think wrote it, then?

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So that's a no you don't play the game designed by the GW design team...

Really? I could have sworn that my 40k rulebook says that it was printed by GW.

Who do you think wrote it, then?

I think GW intended me to play by the rules they printed in the rulebook, as those are "THE RULES"

Fling doesnt think that, and has this highly, erm, "individual" opinion otherwise

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So that's a no you don't play the game designed by the GW design team...

Really? I could have sworn that my 40k rulebook says that it was printed by GW.

Who do you think wrote it, then?

Games Workshop wrote them. Which you don't seem to believe. Language exists to communicate ideas. That is what language is for and does. It is not a sentient being capable of thought itself.

I play a game designed by Games Workshop I play by the rules they designed. You don't.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Language exists to communicate ideas. That is what language is for and does..

Indeed. And it's really not doing it for you, here.

Nobody thinks that the rulebook is sentient. You keep bringing this up, and it's no less batgak crazy now than it was the first time you tried this argument.

The GW studio wrote the rulebook. They published the rulebook. We use that rulebook to establish the rules of Warhammer 40000.

If you choose to ignore one of the rules in that rulebook in favour of playing the game the way you think works better, that's entirely your choice. But no matter how much you think your changed rule may be what the writers actually intended, you're not playing some ethereal 'true' game. You're playing the rule as you think the writer intended despite it not being what they actually wrote. You might be correct. You might not be. Unless you actually get confirmation from the guy who wrote it, you'll never really know for sure, no matter how much you insist otherwise.

And even if you do get that confirmation from the writer, the simple fact that you're playing the rule differently to how the rulebook says to play it means that you're not playing by the rules of the game. Because the rules of the game are the rules that the game's creators wrote down in the rulebook.

If what's in the rulebook doesn't actually match the way they want the game to work, well, that's what FAQs and errata are for. That gives them a way to tell us that the rules as they wrote them originally were wrong. Or, in some cases, to tell us that the rules as they wrote them didn't come out as intended, but we should play them as written anyway. I find myself at least slightly curious as to just what you would do in that latter situation...

Your later paragraphs don't make sense with your first. You claim RaW=The Rules then accept that when FAQs clarify what RaI is then those become the rules. Which means RaW isn't the rules. Or you wouldn't follow any FAQ that ruled against RaW, only errata.

You claim it is impossible to "know" intent and that any intent argument is purely guess work. But it is impossible to "know" anything. Sometimes intent is very clear (like helmeted models drawing line of sight from the lenses of the helmet or eye less models drawing LoS from the head) and to claim we can't know that is as ridiculous as claiming we can know anything. Because inherently it is impossible to rule put any possibility of us being wrong even on RaW.

So yes we can't know anything. We can work stuff out beyond reasonable doubt as to what is RaW and what is RaI. Sometimes it is impossible to work out RaI without further guidance from GW (ghost arks for instance) some times it is impossible to work out RaW (death ray hits, death wing reserve allocation) as pages of arguments on here have proven. But the aim should be to play the game by as close to the rules as possible not by as close to RaW as possible. We all make allowances for RaW silliness for instance no one counts it as a house rule that FMCs have Relentless & Smash rather than the as yet undefined Relentless Smash. Likewise no one says at the start of a game "do you mind if we play by the house rule that helmeted models can draw Line of Sight?"

In these instances people are happy to recognise that RaI is the rule (regardless of what they may say on the internet) yet when someone is pulling some RaW that gives them an advantage which they know wouldn't go their way in an FAQ it is all OK to try it? If the BT players think that if this question came up in an FAQ they think it would be ruled that they can stay in and that other units can embark, then they'd have an argument. But I wouldn't believe anyone on the internet making that claim anymore than I believe someone saying they genuinely believe that Wraithguard/blades/lords/knights are intended to not be able to draw LOS ever...

FlingItNow, you have been warned before about arguing Rules as Intended in the 40K You Make Da Call forum.

The point of this forum is to resolve questions about the rules as they are written. You seem to be on some sort of idealistic crusade to play the game as you see fit without regard to what is actually printed.

This inherently shows that you think that your way of thinking is superior to everyone arguing against you. Why are you trying to convince people to play the way YOU want to play when it is clearly not supported by the rules printed by Games Workshop? Especially when these people are definitely not local to you. Seems like a hell of an ego trip to me.

Any further disruptive behavior of this sort will result in further action. I'm going to lock this thread at this point, considering that the point has been made and there's no reason to continue.

RAW is the rules, but the FAQ changes the RAW and thus the rules.