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.

Please confine discussion to the original thread located here.

Are the "Yes" and "No" answers for RAW or RAI?

Interesting answers here. Not at all how I thought it would play out from the tones of conversation.

Even with the poor wording on your poll, quite curious indeed.

Advise though, change the wording on the poll to this:
RAW Yes, RAI Yes
RAW yes, RAI no, but I'd allow
RAW yes, RAI no, and I wouldn't allow it.
RAW no, RAI no

Bit more clear then just having Yes and No.

I'm curious as to how people are intended to establish RAI on this...

I am taking straight NO for 200 Jim. Lol. As much as I would like to break this completly out in a torney. I think some Logic was required.

Oh I think there Hawiimatt, sorry if I got the name wrong, might have found a way.
The Rules go at least four interaction deep, when you get that many of Rules working and conflicting things can get wonky really quickly but still be Rule as Written legal at first glance.
Not sure I have the time to tackle that one, but being faction-less is a big bonus for Fortifications and if it plays out... well the timing concerns would be Resolved.

I considered the wording you suggest Jinx, and rejected it based on past meat-headery. I appreciate the suggestion though! People seem to be grasping it pretty well, so I'm not too concerned. Someone in another thread had levied the claim that the community leaned towards 'yes,' and the 'no' votes were limited to a couple extremely vocal posters. Seems like that isn't so much the case.

That shows the 8 win at all costs. And the ones that would bend and break anything to get an edge over everyone else. And the 33 no's and not allow it are the ones that go no fing way is that intent of any rule to break the game in such manner.

It also shows how many people are interested enough to log-in and read the arguments but not post their own interpretation. Popular opinion is a fun statistic when compared to the 'louder' opinion.

Fireraven wrote:
That shows the 8 win at all costs. And the ones that would bend and break anything to get an edge over everyone else. And the 33 no's and not allow it are the ones that go no fing way is that intent of any rule to break the game in such manner.

That's a bit of a broad generalisation.

I voted 'No' because I don't think the rules allow it. I might allow it in a friendly game, however, depending on the situation, just for the fun of it. My 'No' vote was nothing to do with what I think GW did or didn't intend. There are a whole bunch of rules in 7th edition that I would never have thought GW would put in there, but they did. So I've pretty much given up on trying to divine their intent except in the most obvious cases.