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.

Hey there. Idolator here.

There have been many arguments about how to settle rules conundrums. I have been firmly in the RAI camp since I began playing in 4th ed. as I have always thought that the RAW arguments in the face of so many ambiguities and discrepancies was terrible. When 6th edition came out it seemed that GW had so poorly edited the rules, through cut and paste from older editions combined with new rules that didn't properly fit with those cut and pastes, that playing the game became more of a frustration than an enjoyable experience.

After many months of playing the new rule set, I gave up on the game.(around the same time that they quit updating the FAQs, about 11 months ago!) I recently began looking back into the forums and doing some sniffing around to see if things have improved. It appears that the same issues and arguments keep popping up, not a similar vane, the very same issues. So, what I would love to do here is to have you kind people help me come up with a list of rules written in the BRB or perhaps from your respective codexes that:

A. When taken as strictly RAW would make the game unplayable in it's current form.
or
B. Contradict one another
or
C. Seem to have missing parts that would have an affect on game play.(oh, say a psychic power that effects enemy shooting but only has an effect for a single turn and doesn't state "game turn" making it effectively useless)

This is not a "I wish that they would change rule X, because it overpowers certain armies." or "I wish that they would do Y because it nerfed my assault units." It's for real mechanical issues.

Here's a few that I have discovered.

Line of sight. You have to have to have a view from a models eyes to the target. Not all models have eyes.

Assaults: You can only charge a unit that was fired upon by the charging unit, yet there are also rules for multiple assault. Here's where the "permissive rule set" argument has difficulties as one forbids an action while the other allows it without making specific reference to lifting the original restriction.

(as an aside, I've never understood the "permissive rule set" argument at all. Certain words are negative others are positive, the positivity or negativity of a word has little bearing on the restrictiveness of the term. "Must" carries just as much weight as "Cannot". "Must" is an even more restrictive term than "Cannot" as it precludes every other action possible. I just don't get it)

Assaults: I love this one! Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot. A strict RAW reading will cease all remaining models from charging as soon as the first model makes base to base contact.

Night fight and barrage. This one is a doozie and a direct contradiction. You determine if a unit even gets a cover save based on the center placement of the blast marker, not the position of the firing unit, Night fight determines bonuses to cover saves based on the position of the firing unit.

Then there's ruins. This was so janked up that if you ask 3 different people you get three very different answers. Ruins are listed in the area terrain section as being area terrain. There is no reference to being area terrain in the ruins section. The rules for ruins state that they are based on the "height and area" of the ruins meaning that all three dimensions of the terrain peice are considered ruins (even the floors) without any description of what kind of cover save those floors provide. It then tells you to treat any base that you may put it on as area terrain and ruins without a base treat the ground floor as no terrain. It later goes on to explain how certain units can only move on the "ground level" of a ruin, which, according to RAW, doesn't even exist.

Then, there was recently a debate on another forum regarding a FAQ. According to the FAQ answer and following the RAW rule, a model in an Allied Detachment is not allowed to repair Allied vehicles, meaning that Allied models can only repair Primary detachment vehicles, while Primary Detachment models can repair either Primary or Allied vehicles. That is literally how the FAQ was worded. I'll find it and post later.

So, what do you guys have? What needs to be fixed or clarified? What just sticks in your craw?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here it is, the FAQ.

FAQ:
"Q: Can models from an Allied Detachment that have the ability to repair Hull Points or Immobilised/Weapon Destroyed results from the Vehicle Damage Table use this ability on Allied vehicles? (p112)
A: No."
(Emphasis GW)

I like sixth, it feels like a very complete edition.

RAW must be the standard. It is the one thing we have in common with every player.
In the few situations where RAW is actually an impossibility we can talk about it, but the standard we return to will and must always be RAW.

Guidelines such as "Specific trumps General" helps a lot in understanding RAW. Understanding that the game world isn't governed by the physical rules of real life Earth anno 2014 is another.

I am curious. You have not understood why a permissive rule-set (yes, yes, not actually the correct term, but it will suffice) is the way to go?

Steelmage99 wrote:
RAW must be the standard. It is the one thing we have in common with every player.
In the few situations where RAW is actually an impossibility we can talk about it, but the standard we return to will and must always be RAW.

Guidelines such as "Specific trumps General" helps a lot in understanding RAW. Understanding that the game world isn't governed by the physical rules of real life Earth anno 2014 is another.

I am curious. You have not understood why a permissive rule-set (yes, yes, not actually the correct term, but it will suffice) is the way to go?

Yes, a "permissive" rule set is the way to go. And you are right it is a terrible term. But it does cause friction due to the writers using differing terms to express the same meaning. Such as my "MUST" vs "CANNOT" example.

"Specific trumps General" is a good way to settle things. The examples that I gave can't be resolved with that guideline. Ruins are listed as a type of area terrain but are not ever excluded from being area terrain in it's own rules sub-set, causing people to deny that they are in fact area terrain. The specific FAQ, prevents an Allied detachment from repairing it's own vehicles. The specific rule for locked in combat prevents all models after the first from making a charge. Night fight specifically says that you use the shooting units position to determine cover, while the barrage rule specifically state that you do not use the shooting units position.

RAI is a necessary part of dealing with this game as RAW, especially in the circumstances that I described, doesn't always work.

Sometimes it's not even important though. For example;

RAI for Elysian Stormtroopers: They can assault out of their valkyries when they arrive.

RAW for Elysian Stormtroopers: They can assault out of their valkyries when they arrive by deep strike on any turn after the first if they don't Run or Shoot.

Valkyries cannot deep strike after the first turn, because they can only deepstrike during the first turn through Combat Drop.

RAP (Rules As Played): Stormtroopers don't ever want to assault so who cares?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Sometimes it's not even important though. For example;

RAI for Elysian Stormtroopers: They can assault out of their valkyries when they arrive.

RAW for Elysian Stormtroopers: They can assault out of their valkyries when they arrive by deep strike on any turn after the first if they don't Run or Shoot.

Valkyries cannot deep strike after the first turn, because they can only deepstrike during the first turn through Combat Drop.

RAP (Rules As Played): Stormtroopers don't ever want to assault so who cares?

Isn't grav-chute insertion a form of deep striking? So they could deepstrike out of a Valkyrie on any turn. Even though you normally wouldn't want to, grots would make an excellent target for that.

 Idolator wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
RAW must be the standard. It is the one thing we have in common with every player.
In the few situations where RAW is actually an impossibility we can talk about it, but the standard we return to will and must always be RAW.

Guidelines such as "Specific trumps General" helps a lot in understanding RAW. Understanding that the game world isn't governed by the physical rules of real life Earth anno 2014 is another.

I am curious. You have not understood why a permissive rule-set (yes, yes, not actually the correct term, but it will suffice) is the way to go?

Yes, a "permissive" rule set is the way to go. And you are right it is a terrible term. But it does cause friction due to the writers using differing terms to express the same meaning. Such as my "MUST" vs "CANNOT" example.

We totally agree with each other that the Games Designers (if one thinks they deserve such a title) are absolutely horrible at using consistent language.
I would love to imprint two rules in the minds of the Games Designers; "Use One Language!" and "Random Isn't Funny. Random Gets Smacked!".....and I would use a big club "wif a nail innit".
My question to you is; do you think a restrictive rule-set would be better?

RAI is a necessary part of dealing with this game as RAW, especially in the circumstances that I described, doesn't always work.

As you may have noticed I very much acknowledged that once in a while you have to work out what the rules says/is supposed to accomplish.
This rare visit to RAI-land does not mean that RAW ceases to be the defacto standard when it comes to understanding the rules.

Infantry models may move up to 6" per Movement Phase. Models with Ballistic Skill of 4 hit on a roll of 3+. Flamers ignore cover saves. And so on.
RAW is how we play the game.
If you were to be perfectly honest you would also have to admit that for every unclear rule there is something in the neighborhood of ten perfectly clear rules.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
RAW must be the standard. It is the one thing we have in common with every player.
In the few situations where RAW is actually an impossibility we can talk about it, but the standard we return to will and must always be RAW.

Guidelines such as "Specific trumps General" helps a lot in understanding RAW. Understanding that the game world isn't governed by the physical rules of real life Earth anno 2014 is another.

I am curious. You have not understood why a permissive rule-set (yes, yes, not actually the correct term, but it will suffice) is the way to go?

Yes, a "permissive" rule set is the way to go. And you are right it is a terrible term. But it does cause friction due to the writers using differing terms to express the same meaning. Such as my "MUST" vs "CANNOT" example.

We totally agree with each other that the Games Designers (if one thinks they deserve such a title) are absolutely horrible at using consistent language.
I would love to imprint two rules in the minds of the Games Designers; "Use One Language!" and "Random Isn't Funny. Random Gets Smacked!".....and I would use a big club "wif a nail innit".
My question to you is; do you think a restrictive rule-set would be better?

RAI is a necessary part of dealing with this game as RAW, especially in the circumstances that I described, doesn't always work.

As you may have noticed I very much acknowledged that once in a while you have to work out what the rules says/is supposed to accomplish.
This rare visit to RAI-land does not mean that RAW ceases to be the defacto standard when it comes to understanding the rules.

Infantry models may move up to 6" per Movement Phase. Models with Ballistic Skill of 4 hit on a roll of 3+. Flamers ignore cover saves. And so on.
RAW is how we play the game.
If you were to be perfectly honest you would also have to admit that for every unclear rule there is something in the neighborhood of ten perfectly clear rules.

What we actually have is both a "Permissive rule set" and a "Restrictive rule set", both at the same time. Basically it's just a rule set. At the same time there you cannot do anything that is not indicated in the rules and you cannot do anything forbidden by the rules. All rule sets are that way. All of them, in every game in the world. Monopoly, Snakes and Ladders, Basketball, etc. etc......

I never stated that RAW wasn't the defacto standard. I was quite specific in those instances where it couldn't be used. To be fair though, some of those are very basic game mechanics that happen in every game.

When was I not perfectly honest? The clear rules do out number the unclear ones. I was addressing the unclear ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Come to think of it, there is no such thing as a "Permissive Rule Set". They are all restrictive from the start. They all restrict you from doing anything not covered in the rules.

And that goes back to my "must" vs "cannot" argument. They are both restrictive terms.

The rules for various RPGs would very strongly suggest that there are *plenty* of games where you can attempt to do things not specifically covered in the rules.

 Psienesis wrote:
The rules for various RPGs would very strongly suggest that there are *plenty* of games where you can attempt to do things not specifically covered in the rules.

True enough to a point. RPG's are highly subjective, however, and each game does have a designated referee to decide what is and is not restricted. But I do get your meaning and stand corrected. Going back 25 years of RPG play, I've never heard a RAI vs RAW argument in a RPG game as it's always a RAI game and we know that going in. Maybe I was just lucky to have good groups but it seems like an intrinsic part of the game.

40K doesn't fall into the RPG category though.

Some of your examples in the OP are a little silly.

- You're complaining the RAW states to use where the eyes are in line of sight. Common sense and general knowledge would take care of the issue if something didn't have eyes, which is very few in this game. When in reference of vehicles, you use the end of the gun for line of sight. No contradictions or ambiguity.

- GW needed to put rules in for Multiple assaults because it's not about directly charging two or more units, it's about after the charge. If your (charging unit) is in base to base with more the one (defending) unit, you need some sore of way to go on with the game in a uniform fashion. Or having multiple units charging the same unit. This happens quite often.

- "Assaults: I love this one! Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot. A strict RAW reading will cease all remaining models from charging as soon as the first model makes base to base contact. "
What? Like you're mad because the model can't charge in the second turn of assault or what? I'm curious of the issue to this one.

- How is night fighting and barrage a contradiction? Barrage is a form of ignore cover. So it negates the stealth/shrouded gained from Night Fighting. And Night Fighting has no difference with the position of any unit, only distance.
In a practical example, let's say you are in night fighting. You have a squad of guardsman behind a piece of cover, such as an Aegis. For my turn I shoot a large blast barrage at them that would negate their armor. I originally place the blast to hit all of the guardsmen, on their side of the ADL. Now if I don't scatter, they don't get any cover or armor saves. If I do scatter back across the ADL, they get full cover saves, including the stack of stealth/shrouded. Very simple, and not contradictory in a practical sense. If the guardsmen were in area terrain, then if the barrage hits on the INSIDE of the area, they don't get cover. If it hits on the outside and still gets the guardsmen, they get cover.

- The only one I agree with is the classification of terrain types. This is when you TALK to your opponent to get a final answer on how you both classify it. Do it before the game starts to clear up confusion before it happens.

I think the issue here is lack of applying these rules to the game. On paper and in a vacuum, they may contradict themselves. But after some experience with them, they become more and more clear retrospectively. Not to say that ALL rules are like that though.

 Smokeydubbs wrote:
Some of your examples in the OP are a little silly.

- You're complaining the RAW states to use where the eyes are in line of sight. Common sense and general knowledge would take care of the issue if something didn't have eyes, which is very few in this game. When in reference of vehicles, you use the end of the gun for line of sight. No contradictions or ambiguity.

- GW needed to put rules in for Multiple assaults because it's not about directly charging two or more units, it's about after the charge. If your (charging unit) is in base to base with more the one (defending) unit, you need some sore of way to go on with the game in a uniform fashion. Or having multiple units charging the same unit. This happens quite often.

- "Assaults: I love this one! Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot. A strict RAW reading will cease all remaining models from charging as soon as the first model makes base to base contact. "
What? Like you're mad because the model can't charge in the second turn of assault or what? I'm curious of the issue to this one.

- How is night fighting and barrage a contradiction? Barrage is a form of ignore cover. So it negates the stealth/shrouded gained from Night Fighting. And Night Fighting has no difference with the position of any unit, only distance.
In a practical example, let's say you are in night fighting. You have a squad of guardsman behind a piece of cover, such as an Aegis. For my turn I shoot a large blast barrage at them that would negate their armor. I originally place the blast to hit all of the guardsmen, on their side of the ADL. Now if I don't scatter, they don't get any cover or armor saves. If I do scatter back across the ADL, they get full cover saves, including the stack of stealth/shrouded. Very simple, and not contradictory in a practical sense. If the guardsmen were in area terrain, then if the barrage hits on the INSIDE of the area, they don't get cover. If it hits on the outside and still gets the guardsmen, they get cover.

- The only one I agree with is the classification of terrain types. This is when you TALK to your opponent to get a final answer on how you both classify it. Do it before the game starts to clear up confusion before it happens.

I think the issue here is lack of applying these rules to the game. On paper and in a vacuum, they may contradict themselves. But after some experience with them, they become more and more clear retrospectively. Not to say that ALL rules are like that though.

This was a bit confusing but I'll try. Your statement about eyes is a perfect RAI prevails over RAW argument.

The multiple combat has little to do with what I stated in the OP as I specifically mentioned Multiple ASSAULT, meaning charging multiple units, including those that you did not shoot at. Which is expressly forbidden.

I was pretty clear on the clunky rules for locked in combat. I'll break it down for you bit by bit.
1. You declare a charge.
2. You roll charge distance
3. You move the closest model into base contact
$4$. Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot.
5. the remainder of the charging unit must remain in their current location until pile in moves are made as the rules forbid moving or shooting of any kind with the exception of pile-in moves.
Unless of course you want to use the RAI that they should all get to charge.

Barrage/night fight. Firstly Barrage is not a form of ignore cover. It's a factor for determining from which a shot has originated.
Night fight rules determine what improvement a cover save gets based on it's relative position to the firing unit. Barrage doesn't use the relative position of the firing unit to determine cover. Which takes precedent??? From how far away is a barrage shot coming, the firing unit or the blast template? One uses one criteria the other uses the other.
A unit out in the open gets hit by a barrage blast template from a unit that is 25" away. Barrage rules say that the unit hit determines its cover save and wound allocation based on center of the template not the firing unit. Does that mean that you would also determine what ever cover bonus you would receive is also determined by this??? Since night fighting bonuses are determined by distance from the firing model, which is not taken into consideration when allotting cover or wound allocation from barrage, which rule is used? It's a mess.

Your post seems to agree that RAI is a only way to determine these rules conundrums.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remember, this thread is about having to consider the Intent of rules in some cases as the actual wording is confusing or contradictory. AND that I'm looking for any other instances others may have noticed where this is also the case.

This is an easy question. The status quo (not considering house rules and game club alterations of rulesets - which I encourage):

The rules must be played as written. This allows two players from different clubs to play together without having unexpected changes in rules.

There are two exceptions to this, but only because lapses in the writers technical prowess result in:

1)The rules are unplayable as written - if two rules contradict each other directly and offer no means to resolve the contradiction.
2)The rules disable a unit from functioning entirely.

In those two situations, I would discuss the matter beforehand.

 Dracos wrote:
This is an easy question. The status quo (not considering house rules and game club alterations of rulesets - which I encourage):

The rules must be played as written. This allows two players from different clubs to play together without having unexpected changes in rules.

There are two exceptions to this, but only because lapses in the writers technical prowess result in:

1)The rules are unplayable as written - if two rules contradict each other directly and offer no means to resolve the contradiction.
2)The rules disable a unit from functioning entirely.

In those two situations, I would discuss the matter beforehand.

Those are the only two instances to which I was referring. Such as assaulting and being locked in combat preventing you from finishing an assault.
My bottom line is that RAW can not always be used. I know that there are plenty of instances where this is the case, I just highlighted a few and wanted to see what else anyone else have found.

Framing it as if RAW and RAI are incompatible is a very strange place to be coming from. In my mind, RAI compliments the game where RAW fails. It is non-adversarial.

You have framed the thread with the title as if they are adversaries.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Sometimes it's not even important though. For example;

RAI for Elysian Stormtroopers: They can assault out of their valkyries when they arrive.

RAW for Elysian Stormtroopers: They can assault out of their valkyries when they arrive by deep strike on any turn after the first if they don't Run or Shoot.

Valkyries cannot deep strike after the first turn, because they can only deepstrike during the first turn through Combat Drop.

RAP (Rules As Played): Stormtroopers don't ever want to assault so who cares?

Cool, didn't know IG could do this. But if Stormtroopers, who dgaf about assaulting from reserves, can do so, why the feth can't my Orks?

 Dracos wrote:
Framing it as if RAW and RAI are incompatible is a very strange place to be coming from. In my mind, RAI compliments the game where RAW fails. It is non-adversarial.

You have framed the thread with the title as if they are adversaries.

In the cases mentioned, they are. One prevails over the other.

I made this statement: I have been firmly in the RAI camp since I began playing in 4th ed. as I have always thought that the RAW arguments in the face of so many ambiguities and discrepancies was terrible.

I stand by that RAW arguments fail miserably when confronted with discrepancies and ambiguities.

 Idolator wrote:
Assaults: You can only charge a unit that was fired upon by the charging unit, yet there are also rules for multiple assault. Here's where the "permissive rule set" argument has difficulties as one forbids an action while the other allows it without making specific reference to lifting the original restriction.

There is no conflict here. Shooting restricts you to declaring your assault against your target. The multiple assault rules allow you, under certain conditions, to also assault a second unit.

Assaults: I love this one! Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot. A strict RAW reading will cease all remaining models from charging as soon as the first model makes base to base contact.

Nope. By a strict RAW reading, nobody is actually locked or engaged until their initiative step.

The RAW silliness here is actually just that there is technically no way for a character to issue a challenge on the turn that they charged.

Then, there was recently a debate on another forum regarding a FAQ. According to the FAQ answer and following the RAW rule, a model in an Allied Detachment is not allowed to repair Allied vehicles, meaning that Allied models can only repair Primary detachment vehicles, while Primary Detachment models can repair either Primary or Allied vehicles. That is literally how the FAQ was worded. I'll find it and post later.

This isn't a RAW issue. It's a misinterpretation - people are taking 'allied unit' to be synonomous with 'unit from the Allied Detachment'.

Units in your Allied Detachment are Allied units with units in your Primary Detachment. Units in your Primary Detachment are Allied Units with units in your Allied Detachment. So the FAQ isn't saying that units from the Allied Detachment can't fix their own vehicles. It's saying that they can't fix Allied vehicles... meaning units from the Detachment to which they are Allied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smokeydubbs wrote:
- You're complaining the RAW states to use where the eyes are in line of sight. Common sense and general knowledge would take care of the issue if something didn't have eyes, which is very few in this game.

That was entirely the point.

Strictly by the rules, there is no way to establish LOS for shooting from a Wraithlord, or an Ork Kannon. Players have to decide for themselves how to play it.

In general, when someone refers to 'RAI' they don't actually mean the rules as intended, because the best we can usually have as to what was intended is a best guess based on what we think makes sense. So the 'RAI' answer will almost always be what the individual player sees as the most common sense answer.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Assaults: You can only charge a unit that was fired upon by the charging unit, yet there are also rules for multiple assault. Here's where the "permissive rule set" argument has difficulties as one forbids an action while the other allows it without making specific reference to lifting the original restriction.

There is no conflict here. Shooting restricts you to declaring your assault against your target. The multiple assault rules allow you, under certain conditions, to also assault a second unit.

Assaults: I love this one! Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot. A strict RAW reading will cease all remaining models from charging as soon as the first model makes base to base contact.

Nope. By a strict RAW reading, nobody is actually locked or engaged until their initiative step.

The RAW silliness here is actually just that there is technically no way for a character to issue a challenge on the turn that they charged.

Then, there was recently a debate on another forum regarding a FAQ. According to the FAQ answer and following the RAW rule, a model in an Allied Detachment is not allowed to repair Allied vehicles, meaning that Allied models can only repair Primary detachment vehicles, while Primary Detachment models can repair either Primary or Allied vehicles. That is literally how the FAQ was worded. I'll find it and post later.

This isn't a RAW issue. It's a misinterpretation - people are taking 'allied unit' to be synonomous with 'unit from the Allied Detachment'.

Units in your Allied Detachment are Allied units with units in your Primary Detachment. Units in your Primary Detachment are Allied Units with units in your Allied Detachment. So the FAQ isn't saying that units from the Allied Detachment can't fix their own vehicles. It's saying that they can't fix Allied vehicles... meaning units from the Detachment to which they are Allied.

The assault rules state clearly "a unit that fired in the shooting phase can only charge the unit that it targeted during that turn's shooting phase." Then under the multiple combats section it tell you how to work out charging two or more units, but never once says that you may charge a unit that you didn't shoot at. Since it is possible in some units to split fire it is possible for a single unit to fire upon two different units. So, you could charge two units if you had fired at both of them with the same unit.

Where does it say in the rules that a unit is not locked or engaged in combat until it's initiative step? What page number.
This seems pretty straight forward and makes no mention of initiative step. " Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."

Then the last one. No it's not a misinterpretation. It's the capitalization that denotes what it is. It's referred to as Allied not allied. The capital letter shows that it is in reference to units in the Allied Detachment not just allies in general. Now I know that it's a mistake, so do you, so should everyone but I was pointing out how RAW isn't the end-all-be-all of rules interpretation.

 Idolator wrote:
The assault rules state clearly "a unit that fired in the shooting phase can only charge the unit that it targeted during that turn's shooting phase."

Which, if you want to go totally strict RAW, could also be read to mean that the unit that shot can only charge in the shooting phase...

However, the multiple assault rules expand on the original rules for charging. There is no specific need for them to state that a unit that shot can assault a secondary target - that's quite clear from the text as is.

Where does it say in the rules that a unit is not locked or engaged in combat until it's initiative step? What page number.
This seems pretty straight forward and makes no mention of initiative step. " Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."

That quote is from the 'Fight' sub-phase, which happens after the Charge sub-phase. There is no rule that tells you to consider a unit locked until that point.

This is the argument that allows for a unit to fire Overwatch against a second (or later) charging unit after they have already been successfully charged that turn. It's a fairly widely discussed hole in the current rules.

The capital letter shows that it is in reference to units in the Allied Detachment not just allies in general

And this is explained where in the rules?

...but I was pointing out how RAW isn't the end-all-be-all of rules interpretation.

Except it is. The RAW is the only source of rules that we have, so in order to interpret what the rules are, the RAW is what we use.

Whether or not we choose to follow those rules as written is another story entirely.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
The assault rules state clearly "a unit that fired in the shooting phase can only charge the unit that it targeted during that turn's shooting phase."

Which, if you want to go totally strict RAW, could also be read to mean that the unit that shot can only charge in the shooting phase...

However, the multiple assault rules expand on the original rules for charging. There is no specific need for them to state that a unit that shot can assault a secondary target - that's quite clear from the text as is.

Where does it say in the rules that a unit is not locked or engaged in combat until it's initiative step? What page number.
This seems pretty straight forward and makes no mention of initiative step. " Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."

That quote is from the 'Fight' sub-phase, which happens after the Charge sub-phase. There is no rule that tells you to consider a unit locked until that point.

This is the argument that allows for a unit to fire Overwatch against a second (or later) charging unit after they have already been successfully charged that turn. It's a fairly widely discussed hole in the current rules.

The capital letter shows that it is in reference to units in the Allied Detachment not just allies in general

And this is explained where in the rules?

...but I was pointing out how RAW isn't the end-all-be-all of rules interpretation.

Except it is. The RAW is the only source of rules that we have, so in order to interpret what the rules are, the RAW is what we use.

Whether or not we choose to follow those rules as written is another story entirely.

I won't even address the incorrect statements made. It is enough that you both argued that RAW is the only way to go with this statement:

The RAW is the only source of rules that we have, so in order to interpret what the rules are, the RAW is what we use.

But started off with this statement.

Which, if you want to go totally strict RAW, could also be read to mean that the unit that shot can only charge in the shooting phase...

However, the multiple assault rules expand on the original rules for charging. There is no specific need for them to state that a unit that shot can assault a secondary target - that's quite clear from the text as is.

Effectively arguing against yourself. I especially like the "there is no specific need for them to state that a unit that can assault a secondary target". That would be true, but only if one uses a RAI point of view.

 Idolator wrote:
...Effectively arguing against yourself.

Not at all.

As I pointed out at the end of my last post, what the rules are and how the game is played by the players are not necessarily the same thing. If what you're looking for is what the rules are, then you look at the rules. But that includes taking the context into consideration. The interpretation that a shooting unit has to assault in the shooting phase is a valid interpretation of the rule as written, but only if you only consider that single statement in isolation. Since launching assaults is done in the assault phase rather than the shooting phase, it's clearly not the correct interpretation.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
...Effectively arguing against yourself.

Not at all.

As I pointed out at the end of my last post, what the rules are and how the game is played by the players are not necessarily the same thing. If what you're looking for is what the rules are, then you look at the rules. But that includes taking the context into consideration. The interpretation that a shooting unit has to assault in the shooting phase is a valid interpretation of the rule as written, but only if you only consider that single statement in isolation. Since launching assaults is done in the assault phase rather than the shooting phase, it's clearly not the correct interpretation.

I notice that you chose to ignore this part of my point.

However, the multiple assault rules expand on the original rules for charging. There is no specific need for them to state that a unit that shot can assault a secondary target - that's quite clear from the text as is.

Where you specifically state that the rule allowance is not written but is implied or intended. Ya know, the part that you stated that argues against your thesis.

 Idolator wrote:
... but is implied or intended.

These two words are not synonymous.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
... but is implied or intended.

These two words are not synonymous.

UH, True. Neither are tomato and airplane. Are we just stating unrelated facts now?

Airplanes are not fish!

Pomegranates don't build star ships!

Neither implied rules or intended rules are actually written rules!

None of the above statements, including the post quoted, have anything to do with the points that I have made!

Though all are true.

Edit: Wait, I may be wrong. Hold on....Yep....That last statement is part of the points that I made. HMMMMmmmmmm!

Edit again: Not the last, last. The second to last. last. The one about implied and intended rules not actually being written rules. That one was spot on.

Edit once again: A lot of edits, spelling, new unrelated facts, realizing that certain facts weren't quite unrelated, a beverage or two, you know how it is.

 Idolator wrote:
Edit again: Not the last, last. The second to last. last. The one about implied and intended rules not actually being written rules. That one was spot on.

Except we can not possibly know what the rules as Intended are, since we did not write the rules we have no idea what the writers intended.

We can speculate and give our best guess, but it will only ever be a guess.

 Idolator wrote:
UH, True. Neither are tomato and airplane. Are we just stating unrelated facts now?

No. We're pointing out that stating that a rule is implied by the written text is not quite the same thing as making an argument based on RAI.

I can read the rule for multiple assaults and can clearly see that a unit that shot in the shooting phase is able to assault multiple units, even though the rules don't expressly say so.

Whether or not a unit that shot was intended to be able to do so, I have no idea. I can argue that I think the rules are supposed to work as written... but that is only ever going to be a guess. I can't categorically say that the writer intended for the rules to work that way.

Why is it other rules sets are able to be written with much better clarity and elegance than 40k?
And FAQs actually address questions actually asked by players directly and replied to by devs promptly.

I find the developers notes at the start of the rules can deliver an oversight into what the developers intended.And can be helpful in determining any rules ambiguities.
But writing ' ...the rules are not all that important ...' indicated the level of effort they put in IMO.

 Idolator wrote:
Assaults: I love this one! Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot. A strict RAW reading will cease all remaining models from charging as soon as the first model makes base to base contact.

I think it's a stretch to call that "strict RAW", as the rules say that after you move the first model "After moving the first model in the unit, you can move the others in any sequence you desire".

So it's not strict RAW saying the remaining models can't charge, as to say that, you have to ignore the sentence I just quoted. At best you can say the RAW are contradictory.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Assaults: I love this one! Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot. A strict RAW reading will cease all remaining models from charging as soon as the first model makes base to base contact.

I think it's a stretch to call that "strict RAW", as the rules say that after you move the first model "After moving the first model in the unit, you can move the others in any sequence you desire".

So it's not strict RAW saying the remaining models can't charge, as to say that, you have to ignore the sentence I just quoted. At best you can say the RAW are contradictory.

You seem to get get it. The rules as written do directly contradict one another.

Unlike others that have directly stated that rules that are expressly not written must be considered when applying RAW.