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:

I doubt a single Tournament would rule that Eldar can take Malefic and anyone that would do that in a game is clearly OK with cheating, as that is exactly what doing this is.

I'd challenge any TO who wouldn't allow it with the following information: the base rulebook AND the Eldar FAQ currently say they CAN take it, and the NOTHING says they can't. Unless the tournament rules specifically address this issue, there is no "ruling" to be made. The rules in the books and in the FAQ are clear. It's clearly NOT cheating. It's following the rules. Ruling against it without any house rule or prior adressing of the issue is what would be cheating.

Meh. Generalizing eldar losers is about the only fun thing to do other than not play with the.. as you see above, OP is wanting to break his codex more and will not listen to reason or truth otherwise. He wants so bad to be right he can't accept he is wrong. As all eldar players are.

I'd challenge any TO who wouldn't allow it with the following information: the base rulebook AND the Eldar FAQ currently say they CAN take it, and the NOTHING says they can't. Unless the tournament rules specifically address this issue, there is no "ruling" to be made. The rules in the books and in the FAQ are clear. It's clearly NOT cheating. It's following the rules. Ruling against it without any house rule or prior adressing of the issue is what would be cheating.

Nah intentionally breaking the rules is cheating, willful ignorance of the rules is still cheating. Yes RaW this works but the rules are clear, a lack of understanding of that shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of language and an inability to engage in human society.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I doubt a single Tournament would rule that Eldar can take Malefic and anyone that would do that in a game is clearly OK with cheating, as that is exactly what doing this is.

I'd challenge any TO who wouldn't allow it with the following information: the base rulebook AND the Eldar FAQ currently say they CAN take it, and the NOTHING says they can't. Unless the tournament rules specifically address this issue, there is no "ruling" to be made. The rules in the books and in the FAQ are clear. It's clearly NOT cheating. It's following the rules. Ruling against it without any house rule or prior adressing of the issue is what would be cheating.

I wouldn't use the Eldar FAQ, as it's for an old Codex (and there is no such thing as Codex: Eldar now, only Eldar Craftworlds).

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'd challenge any TO who wouldn't allow it with the following information: the base rulebook AND the Eldar FAQ currently say they CAN take it, and the NOTHING says they can't. Unless the tournament rules specifically address this issue, there is no "ruling" to be made. The rules in the books and in the FAQ are clear. It's clearly NOT cheating. It's following the rules. Ruling against it without any house rule or prior adressing of the issue is what would be cheating.

Nah intentionally breaking the rules is cheating, willful ignorance of the rules is still cheating. Yes RaW this works but the rules are clear, a lack of understanding of that shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of language and an inability to engage in human society.

Alas you have described eldar players good sir. Exalt

Doesn't the Daemon FAQ state Fateweaver can use Daemonology ?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Doesn't the Daemon FAQ state Fateweaver can use Daemonology ?

Malefic yes. BRB does state that Chaos Daemons can't roll on Santic.

Too bad for eldar... Such a shame too.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Meh. Generalizing eldar losers is about the only fun thing to do other than not play with the.. as you see above, OP is wanting to break his codex more and will not listen to reason or truth otherwise. He wants so bad to be right he can't accept he is wrong. As all eldar players are.

I actually have never summoned Daemons with my Eldar. I only brought this issue to Dakka to point out something that SHOULD be FAQed to be more clear, because the 2 reviews I've read on the new codex BOTH mentioned Eldar no longer being able to summon Daemons, and after receiving my codex, I saw that this was not specifically stated as being the case. I have a tendency to remember how things are worded, and I immediately recognized that, based on the wording of Daemonology in the rulebook, the writing of the new codex was not sufficient to accomplish the task that they were clearly attempting to accomplish, which was to make Maelific Daemonology something that Eldar didn't have access to. It would have been so simple to just say, "Eldar Psykers do not get access to Maelific Daemonology." But they didn't, and so they failed.

I'm not arguing to empower my codex. I am simply a butterfly, flapping my wings and hoping a tidal wave on the other side of the world results in a FAQ to fix this obvious oversight. As for your opinion regarding the "broken" Eldar codex, my response can be found here, in a section where such a discussion belongs: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/646186.page#7787024

It's not an oversight - eldar can't summons daemons.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It's not an oversight - eldar can't summons daemons.

That's not what any of the books or the FAQs say.

So being explicitly told you have access to santic daemonology isn't enough evidence?

The eldar FAQ is for the old codex, and irrelevant.

They're specifically told they have Sanctic. They are not specifically told they don't have Malefic. The BRB states that, unless otherwise indicated, they have access to Malefic.

While it's possible, even likely, that it was intended by GW for the absence of specific mention of Malefic to mean they can't cast from it, the current wording of their rules around that discipline requires us to interpret that writing in that way, but such an interpretation is as valid as interpreting it the other way.

 Psienesis wrote:
They're specifically told they have Sanctic. They are not specifically told they don't have Malefic. The BRB states that, unless otherwise indicated, they have access to Malefic.

While it's possible, even likely, that it was intended by GW for the absence of specific mention of Malefic to mean they can't cast from it, the current wording of their rules around that discipline requires us to interpret that writing in that way, but such an interpretation is as valid as interpreting it the other way.

It is not merely possible it is blatantly obviously the case. Yes a literal translation of the written word leads to a different interpretation. But if someone asks you "Can you please tell me the time?" Do you respond simply with "Yes" and wonder why they don't see that as the answer to their question?

Yes RaW they and Harlequins have access to Malefic. But we all know the RaI (the OP even admits as such) and anyone trying to abuse the loop whole is cheating. There is no need to FAQ an issue that is so obvious. Particularly given the number of genuine issues that are actually outstanding.

I just want to remind you that the very Thread title concerns itself with RAW.
So however obvious RAI is, it has no effect on RAW.

Besides that though, saying there is no need to faq it is a slippery slope. What is obvious to one, may not be to another.
Regardless though, if RAI is not in line with RAW there is a need to faq or update. The presence of more important issues doesn't change that.

In addition, it might be as Ghazkuul said. It may well be a glimpse into 8th edition. And I don't see where the the whole cheating thing came from. OP only pointed out one of the many issues as far as I'm concerned. Issues that one needs to be aware of before they can be fixed.

RAW they can use malefic.

Flingitnow is correct though. The RAI is plain as day here.

Following the rules as they are written is never cheating. Trying to house rule something to the way we THINK it is supposed to be, without prior notice that this is the house rule, is cheating. I agree that it's relatively obvious what they meant to write. That's not what they wrote.

When it comes to rules interpretations, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. How obvious does something have to be, intentions-wise, before we accept it as the rule? Well, there is a clear answer to that, that avoids unpleasant arguments: It needs to be the written rule, or a previously established house-rule.

Most fair TOs and gaming groups I know use this policy: If a rule dispute comes up that is not addressed, we will always go with the rules as written. If the group consensus is that this was not the intention, or that this rule is completely disruptive to the game, we will thereafter establish a house rule that alters or clarifies the issue that caused said rules dispute. To do so in the middle of the game is not fair. If their book, all FAQs, and our own published rules didn't address the issue before that, no ruling will change the RAW until the end of the event or game they're currently involved in.

There is no other way that doesn't trod the grey path. In a game with rules, to avoid arguments and unpleasantness, there is no room for grey. It must be black and white. It must be RAW or house-ruled.

Black and white rules would be a godsend. Unfortunately Warhammer is basically double rainbow levels of gray.

Roknar wrote:
Black and white rules would be a godsend. Unfortunately Warhammer is basically double rainbow levels of gray.

I agree there are a lot of rules conflicts, but it is our job as TOs to establish rulings on those grey areas to eliminate them, making it black and white in our own house rules, until such time as GW does it in a FAQ, or a new edition comes out.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Following the rules as they are written is never cheating. Trying to house rule something to the way we THINK it is supposed to be, without prior notice that this is the house rule, is cheating. I agree that it's relatively obvious what they meant to write. That's not what they wrote.

When it comes to rules interpretations, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. How obvious does something have to be, intentions-wise, before we accept it as the rule? Well, there is a clear answer to that, that avoids unpleasant arguments: It needs to be the written rule, or a previously established house-rule.

Most fair TOs and gaming groups I know use this policy: If a rule dispute comes up that is not addressed, we will always go with the rules as written. If the group consensus is that this was not the intention, or that this rule is completely disruptive to the game, we will thereafter establish a house rule that alters or clarifies the issue that caused said rules dispute.

There is no other way that doesn't trod the grey path. In a game with rules, to avoid arguments and unpleasantness, there is no room for grey. It must be black and white. It must be RAW or house-ruled.

So I'm guessing during 5th & 6th you played that Wraith units could not shoot nor assault anything unless you agreed a house rule first? In fact the same was true for Helmeted Marines and about 90% of models in the game? In law what is important the letter (RaW) or the spirit (RaI) of thelaw? And that is law where prison sentences are potentially on the line, so for a game of toy soldiers we can live with a much wider margin of error. Following RaW can absolutely be cheating if you are intentionally breaking the rules you are cheating end of story. You admit you know what the rules are (what GW meant as we all know in this case) so intentionally breaking that rule is by definition cheating.

You say that like he's encouraging the use of RAW, when he's not. At least as far as I can tell.

He's only pointing out that there is a problem that needs to be adressed. To take your law example: If an old law is still around that no longer fits the current cultural model, then you wouldn't accuse the person that points out that problem of trying to bend the law either would you?

Roknar wrote:
You say that like he's encouraging the use of RAW, when he's not. At least as far as I can tell.

He's only pointing out that there is a problem that needs to be adressed. To take your law example: If an old law is still around that no longer fits the current cultural model, then you wouldn't accuse the person that points out that problem of trying to bend the law either would you?

Pointing it out is one thing. Saying politicians should waste tax payers money resolving a non-issue is another. Arguing that the law should be enforced until that pointless endeavour takes place (which IS what he is suggesting) is entirely another.

Right, in our local gaming group, I am going to be pointing this issue out so that we can house-rule it to be what our interpretation of RAI is. That doesn't change the fact that RAW, it is legal to take Maelific, and should be addressed by GW when they release a new FAQ.

As for the spirit of the law, that is not how we roll here in the United States. Here, the law is the law, and judges and jurists are instructed not to make rulings based on how they THINK the law should be interpreted, but rather to make their determinations based solely on what the law IS. It's a major difference in how our cultures look at things. There would be hellfire and brimstone if someone important was imprisoned or otherwise punished for violating the "spirit" of the law while strictly adhering to the word of the law. Such a situation could likely make an unimportant person wealthy and important overnight, here.(EDIT: Because they'd win when they sued for millions.)

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Right, in our local gaming group, I am going to be pointing this issue out so that we can house-rule it to be what our interpretation of RAI is. That doesn't change the fact that RAW, it is legal to take Maelific, and should be addressed by GW when they release a new FAQ.

As for the spirit of the law, that is not how we roll here in the United States. Here, the law is the law, and judges and jurists are instructed not to make rulings based on how they THINK the law should be interpreted, but rather to make their determinations based solely on what the law IS. It's a major difference in how our cultures look at things. There would be hellfire and brimstone if someone important was imprisoned or otherwise punished for violating the "spirit" of the law while strictly adhering to the word of the law. Such a situation could likely make an unimportant person wealthy and important overnight, here.

I imagine that is reality spirit of the law is just as important in legal practice in America. But ludicrous legal systems aside, in the country where these rules are created what matters?

Fair enough.

But I don't it's asking much if a single word would suffice to fix the issue. Then again, they can't even be bothered to take down the old faq soooo...

Roknar wrote:
Fair enough.

But I don't it's asking much if a single word would suffice to fix the issue. Then again, they can't even be bothered to take down the old faq soooo...

In an ideal world RaI = RaW however for that to be the case the language would have to be written to a legal standard and you'd needs law degree to understand the rulebook. GW has shown no interest in resolving actual issues asking them to solve non-issues likes this just justifies their idea that it's our fault for failing to comprehend...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Roknar wrote:
Fair enough.

But I don't it's asking much if a single word would suffice to fix the issue. Then again, they can't even be bothered to take down the old faq soooo...

In an ideal world RaI = RaW however for that to be the case the language would have to be written to a legal standard and you'd needs law degree to understand the rulebook. GW has shown no interest in resolving actual issues asking them to solve non-issues likes this just justifies their idea that it's our fault for failing to comprehend...

That statement just fills me with an overwhelming desire to bash on GW lol, but I don't wan to derail the thread.

Roknar wrote:
Black and white rules would be a godsend. Unfortunately Warhammer is basically double rainbow levels of gray.

This right here, oh man am I in stitches! Love it dude, enjoy the exalt. While I do dearly love this game I agree they could use some help in the rules-writing and play-testing areas.
I'd say the OP made a good point with this thread though, RAW it does seem they can still use Malefic, however RAI seem pretty clear. The OP even acknowledges the difference, good on ya bud. Nice catch dude, I'll never use the malefic tree for my eldar since I'm a RAI player (beer and vodka infused gummy worms games only, I don't do competitive play) but it's funny to see these little holes all the same.

 FlingitNow wrote:
But ludicrous legal systems aside, in the country where these rules are created what matters.

Many things are factors. First, I'd say the most important is who is reading them. If two cultures inherently view things differently, with one always looking for the "spirit" of the rule, and the other always looking to the "letter" of the rule, then whether intention matters or not is solely dependent on the reader, with all other potential factors being non-factors in that particular case. The reason the "letter of the law" is a more fair interpretation is that it doesn't require the reader to guess at what the law may be. What might be clear to one person due to the culture they grew up in may be completely unclear to another, without specifically spelling it out. Therefore, the only logical way to handle it is to spell out the rules directly so everyone is playing the same game.

Imagine walking out your front door tomorrow morning and immediately being arrested and shuttled off to prison. When you ask why, you're told you aren't allowed to leave your house between 6am and 6:05. It's not actually written in the law that this is the case, but "you should have known better" because "everyone knows this", even though it's not actually in the law, it's the "spirit of the law" as determined by other people, and even though we can't be bothered to actually write that law down, you're going to suffer the consequences as if it were actually the law/rule.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
But ludicrous legal systems aside, in the country where these rules are created what matters.

Many things are factors. First, I'd say the most important is who is reading them. If two cultures inherently view things differently, with one always looking for the "spirit" of the rule, and the other always looking to the "letter" of the rule, then whether intention matters or not is solely dependent on the reader, with all other potential factors being non-factors in that particular case. The reason the "letter of the law" is a more fair interpretation is that it doesn't require the reader to guess at what the law may be. What might be clear to one person due to the culture they grew up in may be completely unclear to another, without specifically spelling it out. Therefore, the only logical way to handle it is to spell out the rules directly so everyone is playing the same game.

Imagine walking out your front door tomorrow morning and immediately being arrested and shuttled off to prison. When you ask why, you're told you aren't allowed to leave your house between 6am and 6:05. It's not actually written in the law that this is the case, but "you should have known better" because "everyone knows this", even though it's not actually in the law, it's the "spirit of the law" as determined by other people, and even though we can't be bothered to actually write that law down, you're going to suffer the consequences as if it were actually the law/rule.

Cool fictious examples apart how would you feel if everyone in America with a gun was arrested because they didn't have Bear arms? Rules can be difficult to know from either a RaW our a RaI perspectiveso let's not pretend that RaW is anymore knowable than RaI. Here RaI is abundantly clear you even admit that, so RaW has no value. Discussing this from an interest language perspective can be enjoyable debate but pretending this non issue is an issue does nothing to help. It just clouds actual issues.