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.

When it comes to RAW people will cling to the tiniest shreds to prove there points. I find that people actually take it personal that you are showing them a different interpretation then there "established" one. There was a debate awhile back about allied IC's being allowed to start the game in another armies DT. Heck there was even a poll on it. Even though over something like 70% voted NO RAW says you cant use the DT, there was still the one or two hold outs who kept spouting the same 2 sentences that they felt proved there point. The best part? They said in there games they wouldn't play it that way, they are just showing RAW!

RAW is very important, but I fell most people forget the very 1st RAW rule and the most important rule. HAVE FUN! If you read a rule and your opponent finds it different then work something out. If you cant work something out play 1 game her way and then another game your way. YMMV

osirisx69 wrote:
When it comes to RAW people will cling to the tiniest shreds to prove there points. I find that people actually take it personal that you are showing them a different interpretation then there "established" one. There was a debate awhile back about allied IC's being allowed to start the game in another armies DT. Heck there was even a poll on it. Even though over something like 70% voted NO RAW says you cant use the DT, there was still the one or two hold outs who kept spouting the same 2 sentences that they felt proved there point. The best part? They said in there games they wouldn't play it that way, they are just showing RAW!

RAW is very important, but I fell most people forget the very 1st RAW rule and the most important rule. HAVE FUN! If you read a rule and your opponent finds it different then work something out. If you cant work something out play 1 game her way and then another game your way. YMMV

Part of the problem is that people have different attitudes on an anonymous forum, and when dealing with other players in RL. I freely admit that I don't play RAW in certain cases, because either the rules are messed up (such as models without eyes not being able to draw LOS) or (in the case of an attached IC embarking into an allied transport), it is not worth the time to argue over it (and most of my fellow players don't use allies so it is a mostly moot point). The difference is on the forum, I will argue all day that models without eyes cannot draw LOS as RAW, since without knowing what the rules actually say (and how they are "broken") we cannot come to a reasonable work around to make the game function.

 Happyjew wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
When it comes to RAW people will cling to the tiniest shreds to prove there points. I find that people actually take it personal that you are showing them a different interpretation then there "established" one. There was a debate awhile back about allied IC's being allowed to start the game in another armies DT. Heck there was even a poll on it. Even though over something like 70% voted NO RAW says you cant use the DT, there was still the one or two hold outs who kept spouting the same 2 sentences that they felt proved there point. The best part? They said in there games they wouldn't play it that way, they are just showing RAW!

RAW is very important, but I fell most people forget the very 1st RAW rule and the most important rule. HAVE FUN! If you read a rule and your opponent finds it different then work something out. If you cant work something out play 1 game her way and then another game your way. YMMV

Part of the problem is that people have different attitudes on an anonymous forum, and when dealing with other players in RL. I freely admit that I don't play RAW in certain cases, because either the rules are messed up (such as models without eyes not being able to draw LOS) or (in the case of an attached IC embarking into an allied transport), it is not worth the time to argue over it (and most of my fellow players don't use allies so it is a mostly moot point). The difference is on the forum, I will argue all day that models without eyes cannot draw LOS as RAW, since without knowing what the rules actually say (and how they are "broken") we cannot come to a reasonable work around to make the game function.

How does that ever solve anything? Also, how does that fit with YMDC? That forum would just be "D" as YOU aren't MAKING any CALLs. It's just recitation. Therein lies the crux of my argument, if you aren't giving your stance on how a rule is to interpreted (especially when you know them to be contradictory), you're just regurgitating the actual words. Heck, the entire YMDC forum could be replaced with a single sticky that states: Do what the words say.

YMDC is more than throwing feces back and forth over what the rules actually say. Sorry, mon-keighs make me laugh. Occasionally, people show up who don't understand a certain rule. How many times has ID and saves come up? Sometimes, the rules are written in such a way that either reading could be correct, despite the two views contradicting each other. Sometimes, it really is just mon-keighs flinging pooh at one another until a mod locks the thread, and we have peace for a few days until somebody else re-opens a can of worms.

 Idolator wrote:
How does that ever solve anything?

Establishing what the rules actually say and the different ways that people interpret what that means for one shows people the different interpretations that they may encounter when they play, and for two gives people a baseline from which to establish how they want to play. It's easier to establish a house rule if you understand the original rule to begin with.

...if you aren't giving your stance on how a rule is to interpreted (especially when you know them to be contradictory), you're just regurgitating the actual words.

Any time someone presents an opinion on the rules, unless they're just quoting the actual rule, they're presenting their stance on how that rule is interpreted.

The purpose of forums like YMDC is for people to discuss those interpretations.

One that gets me is RAW seems to indicate that units can charge if their transport was exploded (as they do not make a disembark move they are simply placed) but not if it was wrecked (emergency disembark) or they voluntarily disembark.

JubbJubbz wrote:
One that gets me is RAW seems to indicate that units can charge if their transport was exploded (as they do not make a disembark move they are simply placed) but not if it was wrecked (emergency disembark) or they voluntarily disembark.

I thought they clarified that via FAQ. Of course it is St Paddy's day, and I have been drinking, so...

There is a FAQ entry. The issue is it still says 'disembark' from destroyed transport. To me this clearly puts the RAI as a firm 'no assaulting' (I thought it was no anyway) but RAW you can still argue that passengers from an exploded vehicle do not disembark, they are simply placed. I think its clear, GW obviously thinks its clear enough, but RAW arguments are rarely concerned with clarity over literalness.