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.

However, if there is to be any meaningful debate over which persons method is 'correct' we need criteria to judge against.
It is not surprising that 'Rule as Written' is one of the few criteria we can agree on, and considered the strongest.

I agree, and that's why I agreed that the RAW is clear.

When someone claims that any discussion outside of RAW isnt welcome because this is YMDC, they are dead wrong.

JinxDragon wrote:
However, if there is to be any meaningful debate over which persons method is 'correct' we need criteria to judge against.
It is not surprising that 'Rule as Written' is one of the few criteria we can agree on, and considered the strongest.

which is the default setting of the RaW purist yet entirely untrue. Check any number of debates on here that go to 10+ pages of RaW arguments. So we can always agree on RaW just like we can't always agree on RaI. Nor can we prove RaW anymore than we can prove RaI.

RaW has more common ground to it and in some cases is more knowable than RaI. Also understanding RaW is useful. But playing by RaW shouldn't be the aim as many on here contest and RaW isn't the rules as many on here laughably claim. RaI is the what we should be trying to get to if that is not possible or obviously clear RaW can be a great go to solution, can be not always the case.

Lets take destroyer weapons as a case. RaW they do nothing, RaI we don't really know how they work. Do the models under the template get sniped or do we assign hits as we would normally allocate wounds. We don't know but we will play by one of those two likely RaI interpretations rather than the RaW.

Other times the RaI is clear like drawing LoS from models eyes and we just ignore the RaW as we know what they mean. This is another case like that but because it is an advantage that some want to claim that isn't perceived to be game breaking like LoS then people argue the RaW even though we all know what the actual RaI is. The attitude of "I know what the rule is but until they FaQ it I believe I am entitled to get away with cheating".

If the rules on the page aren't the rules Fling what the hell are they?

Rules, laws etc all have an amount of interpretation to one degree or another but that doesn't mean that what's on the page isn't the rule or law.

 FlingitNow wrote:
... then people argue the RaW even though we all know what the actual RaI is. The attitude of "I know what the rule is but until they FaQ it I believe I am entitled to get away with cheating".

Except we don't know what the intention was in this case. You can guess. You can even think it's a fairly informed and likely correct guess. But until GW say for sure one way or another, it's just a guess... And until that happens, someone disagreeing with your guess and playing by the rules we currently have is not cheating.

Fling, unless you can show me, with empirical evidence, that you know the GW teams that devised these rules personally, you can NEVER claim "The words on the page are wrong, this is how they meant to design it."

wargamer1985 wrote:
so my roll of 6 is not a glancing or penetrating hit...

and what are cover saves for vehicles explictly RAW as the C:SM fawq hasnt covered this pointer and with the codex being more upto date, and therefor advanced versus basic rules kick in:

Page 7: Basic Versus Advanced:
Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise. They iinclued the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.

2A load of unimportant speel"

Where advanced rules apply to a specific mode, they always overrride and any contradicting basic rules.2more unimportant speel directly regarding a morale situation"#

On rare occassioons, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rule book, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.

taking out irrelevant poibnters in the text fpormated exactly as it is in the rule book. Including Bold Text

Then in the shooting section we are told how to resolve shots against a vehicle.In the case of a grav weapon only 1 part of this applies due to the above page 7 rule:

Roll to hit. END OF STORY

Advanced then kicks in for Grav Weapons: roll a D6 for each hit and take any 6's and apply an immobilized reults and a hull point of damage.

At what point have you rolled to Penetrate during this process? Wait for this one its a miracle: YOU HAVEN'T

And the final piece of evidence to shut anyone up who wants to claim saves:

Obviously a vehicle cannot Go To Ground, voluntarily or otherwise. If the target is obscured and suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, it must take a cover save.against it like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound ...

And while I don't have for example c:csm where invulnerable saves are covered I believe the wrding is pretty much the same for Invulnerables.

Now evidence ghas once again been put forward to deny saves so bring forth your so called evidence RAW as no faq currently covers this from the brb OR c:sm FAQ

Pulling several posts back to the front that i have made recently in this very subject on this discussion.. the GRAV GUNS USE ADVANCED RULES: Advanced versus basic see above overrides the normal sdhooting procedurre for shooting vehicles versus the normal shooting procedure for shooting themm. Grav guns dont get ignores Cover as infantry can get out of the way. A buiig hulking tankcannot:L fluff back up and see these previously posted quotes for ACTUAL rules back up

 liturgies of blood wrote:
If the rules on the page aren't the rules Fling what the hell are they?

Rules, laws etc all have an amount of interpretation to one degree or another but that doesn't mean that what's on the page isn't the rule or law.

As you brought up Law what is important in law the written words (RaW) or the spirit and intent (RaI)?

Why should it be different for 40k?

The rules are what the design team designed. The written rules are their attempt to communicate them to us. That is the purpose of language, to communicate ideas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
... then people argue the RaW even though we all know what the actual RaI is. The attitude of "I know what the rule is but until they FaQ it I believe I am entitled to get away with cheating".

Except we don't know what the intention was in this case. You can guess. You can even think it's a fairly informed and likely correct guess. But until GW say for sure one way or another, it's just a guess... And until that happens, someone disagreeing with your guess and playing by the rules we currently have is not cheating.

Underlined is as you well know totally false. Its not helpful to post things we all know are not true. You can know to a reasonable doubt just as you can with RaW. Unless you're willing to prove we're not all hallucinating?

Whether they are advanced rules or not don't matter in this case. A save is a save, and they are apparently allowed against vehicle damage that does not originate from a glancing or penetrating hit.

From the precedent, it is only logical to assume that they would be allowed, combined with the fact that cover saves for non vehicle targets are allowed and it does not have any explicit cover ignoring rules, so if it ignores cover for vehicle it would be frankly bizarre.

The whole thing seems more like an easter egg thanks to poorly worded rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The rules are what the design team designed. The written rules are their attempt to communicate them to us. That is the purpose of language, to communicate ideas.

Which is exactly why your refusal to accept that the written rules represent the rules of the game as they are applied to the game is so ridiculous.

Underlined is as you well know totally false. Its not helpful to post things we all know are not true. You can know to a reasonable doubt just as you can with RaW. Unless you're willing to prove we're not all hallucinating?

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
Fling, unless you can show me, with empirical evidence, that you know the GW teams that devised these rules personally, you can NEVER claim "The words on the page are wrong, this is how they meant to design it."

Why not? I know when some one says to me "Can you tell me the time?" That as simple yes is not the response they want. It is entirely normal human social interaction to understand communication in a non-literal manner. So why can't we do that here?

I can tell you as fact that they did not mean for destroyer weapons to do nothing and for FMCs to have the as yet undefined "Relentless Smash" special rule. Just as I can tell you that thry did not mean for Grav weapions to bypass invulnerable saves on vehicles.

 Daba wrote:
... and they are apparently allowed against vehicle damage that does not originate from a glancing or penetrating hit.

Not actually true.

What we know right now is that a save is allowed from one specific damaging effect, for a vehicle with one specific piece of wargear. Since nobody took the time to explain why that save is allowed in contradiction to the actual rules, there is no way to know whether or not it should be taken as a precedent for any other non-penetrating/glancing damage... even if we choose to believe that precedent has any weight when GW are making rulings despite all evidence to the contrary.

...so if it ignores cover for vehicle it would be frankly bizarre..

It doesn't ignore cover for vehicles. Ignoring cover is not the issue. The issue is solely that it doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit.

Which is exactly why your refusal to accept that the written rules represent the rules of the game as they are applied to the game is so ridiculous. 

Why is my refusal to accept RaW = RaI so ridiculous exactly?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why is my refusal to accept RaW = RaI so ridiculous exactly?

Do we really need to go over this yet again?

The issue isn't that you refuse to accept that RAW = RAI... because in some cases it doesn't. It's that you refuse to accept that the RAW is the rules. Hence the big piece of text at the front of them that says 'The Rules'.

Yes, those rules will sometimes differ from what the writers intended when they wrote them. In that case, they have the opportunity to correct that by issuing an FAQ. If they don't do so, then the only logical conclusion is that they're happy for the rules to remain as written, regardless of what they originally intended.

We've had plenty of examples over the years where GW have explicitly ruled in favour of the RAW that made it into the book over the way they originally intended the rule to work. So no matter how strongly you believe your idea of what the RAI probably is to be correct, you still have absolutely nothing to show that this is the way that the game is actually 'supposed' to be played now. All you have is a guess that the writer intended something different to what he wrote, and another guess that if a ruling is made that it will go in favour of the original intention rather than the written rule.

The issue isn't that you refuse to accept that RAW = RAI... because in some cases it doesn't. It's that you refuse to accept that the RAWis the rules. Hence the big piece of text at the front of them that says 'The Rules'. 

I have no idea what this means. It isn't my refusal to accept RaW = RaI but my refusal that RaW is RaI? How is that different?

 FlingitNow wrote:

The issue isn't that you refuse to accept that RAW = RAI... because in some cases it doesn't. It's that you refuse to accept that the RAWis the rules. Hence the big piece of text at the front of them that says 'The Rules'. 

I have no idea what this means. It isn't my refusal to accept RaW = RaI but my refusal that RaW is RaI? How is that different?

Claiming RAYTTWI (Rules as you think they were intended) is fine. A lot of people are fine with posting their view on the RAI while acknowledging the RAW. Its perfectly fine to play by a RAI as opposed to RAW.

What is not fine is calling people cheater when they try to play RAW instead of RATPY (Rules as they please you),

The attitude that cheating is ok if you can semantically out argue your opponent is baffling to me.

Its posts like this one that people criticise ... not your raw=/=rai approach

 insaniak wrote:

Not actually true.

What we know right now is that a save is allowed from one specific damaging effect, for a vehicle with one specific piece of wargear. Since nobody took the time to explain why that save is allowed in contradiction to the actual rules, there is no way to know whether or not it should be taken as a precedent for any other non-penetrating/glancing damage... even if we choose to believe that precedent has any weight when GW are making rulings despite all evidence to the contrary.

Since it is FAQ (and not errata), it is explaining how that one works with the rules (rather than a change that means it specifically affects the rules in that way). In the case of this piece of wargear, it only says 'x+ invulnerable save' with nothing else so for all intents and purposes, that is how a vehicle with a save is affected - while it is an invulnerable save in this case, the rules for saving throws are the same and the differences are only in the exceptions where they are explicitly stated to apply or not (e.g. AP denying saves, or the USR Ignores Cover).

It doesn't ignore cover for vehicles. Ignoring cover is not the issue. The issue is solely that it doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit.

It is in 'game effect' rather than the wording of the rules. Other than this anomaly, the Grav weapon behaves exactly as a normal shooting attack and even things that don't follow the normal rules (such as psychic shooting powers that don't use strength) explicitly mention 'no armour or cover saves' where relevant. That's why I regard the 'glancing and penetrating hit' thing from vehicle cover saves to be an Easter egg where this weapon has nothing specifically mentioning cover, but it is similar enough to other effects that do have to mention cover.

 Daba wrote:

Since it is FAQ (and not errata), it is explaining how that one works with the rules (rather than a change that means it specifically affects the rules in that way).

If this is true show me how the heldrake faq is only a clarification on the rules. They invented completely different shooting rules for the model in the faq. If this isnt a rules change instead of a clarification i dont know what is. Faqs demonstrably DO change rules sometimes.

 Mywik wrote:

 Daba wrote:

Since it is FAQ (and not errata), it is explaining how that one works with the rules (rather than a change that means it specifically affects the rules in that way).

If this is true show me how the heldrake faq is only a clarification on the rules. They invented completely different shooting rules for the model in the faq. If this isnt a rules change instead of a clarification i dont know what is. Faqs demonstrably DO change rules sometimes.

FaQs don't change rules they clarify rules. That is the RaW of what an FaQ does. They do change RaW though and we know they don't change rules. Which proves RaW =/= RaI.

and ALSO since we only refer to them as FAQ's everyone seems to forget they are actually referred to as Errata and FAQ's which is what they were also listed under on the GW website

 FlingitNow wrote:
I have no idea what this means. It isn't my refusal to accept RaW = RaI but my refusal that RaW is RaI? How is that different?

Yes, aside from how that's not at all what I said, that's totally what I said.

I think that's enough turns around the merry-go-round for this time around.

 Daba wrote:
Since it is FAQ (and not errata), it is explaining how that one works with the rules (rather than a change that means it specifically affects the rules in that way).

So you're just going to ignore the Shooting rules change that pretends to be an FAQ, or any of the various other rules changes that are pretending to be FAQs?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
If the rules on the page aren't the rules Fling what the hell are they?

Rules, laws etc all have an amount of interpretation to one degree or another but that doesn't mean that what's on the page isn't the rule or law.

As you brought up Law what is important in law the written words (RaW) or the spirit and intent (RaI)?

Why should it be different for 40k?

The rules are what the design team designed. The written rules are their attempt to communicate them to us. That is the purpose of language, to communicate ideas.

Well I hate to point out the reality of law but it's RAW until changed by either a high court's interpretation or the legislature.
So just like 40k, you go with the RAW unless the faq or new edition changes in, assuming of course the rule isn't unworkable.

Apparently when GW wrote a heading called THE RULES, in a thing entitled a RULEBOOK, we are NOT supposed to think that this contains the actual rules - just something else.

Crazy us, eh, for thinking otherwise!

They also wrote the rules knowing they're flawed, hence the most important rule, and a handful of other rules that start with, unless agreed upon try it this way, and it's important to discuss.

It's not so much RAW, or RAI, but RBA (Rules by Agreement).