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:

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.

This is where you and I will simply never agree, because here, TOs house rule things or follow RAW, period. So discussion of RAI is completely irrelevent. Apparently they don't follow the rules where you're from, and that's ok. To each his own.

If a TO around here ever made a ruling in the middle of a tournament that was clearly NOT RAW, I would work tirelessly to ensure they were never viewed as a legitimate TO ever again. The most basic tenant a good, unbiased TO needs to understand, is that you must follow RAW any time there isn't an established house rule or errata. I brought this situation up here specifically to facilitate TOs being able to institute house rules before this issue comes up, and in hopes that with enough TOs establishing this house rule, GW would reactively clarify this in their eventual FAQ.

If you know the intent then doing otherwise is trying to enforce a loophole.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The most basic tenant a good, unbiased TO needs to understand, is that you must follow RAW any time there isn't an established house rule or errata..

I think you'll find a good many TO's who would disagree with you there.

The most basic tenet a good, unbiased TO needs to understand is that, ultimately, it's a game.



There are any number of situations in 40K where the RAW leads to silliness or breaks the game, where it would be perfectly reasonable for the TO to rule in favour of what makes the most sense for the game. And as the TO, that's entirely within their remit.

I disagree with that. The only thing you can rely on when two parties are at odds, is the rule as written.
That doesn't make it less of a douche move depending on the context, but in a formal enviroment such as a tournament the rules are law. If the TO didn't catch that mistake then you can't blame the player for adhering to the agreed upon rules. It was the TO's fault for not preparing accordingly.

In this specific case, the intent seems to be clear, but a tournament has to rely on watertight rules. And unless they come up with an exception to the rulebook, an eldar player is specifically allowed to cast malefic. This could provide a player with a legitimate strategy that relies on malefic if the TO does not previously rule it out. In such a competitive setting, it should not even come as dick move. Rather it would be a reward for diving real deep into the rules.

Of course in any other situation you would have to have a major case of "that guy" to even consider using malefic. But the context here is tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course it would depend on the judge and I would assume most would just decide to not allow malefic even if they just discover it at that moment given how likely it is to be forbidden by RAI. But like I said, I wouldn't blame a judge if they decided to allow it and then fix that for following tournaments.

It can depend how some reads a rule and what they think it means taking a blind eye to everything else.

The thing with intents is that we we don't know for certain.
I wouldn't be surprised if GW's take on this was:

We're writing this rule with 8th in mind, when they won't be able to cast malefic anymore. So what if you can still cast it in 7th? Let them have it for now.

And assuming that was the case, it would not only be allowed via BRB, but if the TO decided to allow, they would in fact unwittingly be applying the rule with the "correct" intent.

I`m 99% sure GW screwed up and simply don't care enough to release a FAQ, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow malefic until some future time.
Currently, just about everybody else gets to cast malefic, so maybe they thought it would be fair to leave it for the moment.

Roknar wrote:
The thing with intents is that we we don't know for certain.
I wouldn't be surprised if GW's take on this was:

We're writing this rule with 8th in mind, when they won't be able to cast malefic anymore. So what if you can still cast it in 7th? Let them have it for now.

And assuming that was the case, it would not only be allowed via BRB, but if the TO decided to allow, they would in fact unwittingly be applying the rule with the "correct" intent.

I`m 99% sure GW screwed up and simply don't care enough to release a FAQ, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow malefic until some future time.

Cool so you're OK with my marines being T10 because I'm 99% sure that I am not hallucinating when I look at their stat line and see a 4, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow marines to be T10 until some future time...

Facetious arguments are facetious.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Cool so you're OK with my marines being T10 because I'm 99% sure that I am not hallucinating when I look at their stat line and see a 4, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow marines to be T10 until some future time...

Facetious arguments are facetious.

That's not even close to the argument he's making. The argument is that you should follow the rules. Simple, effective.

You're arguing that their "INTENT" is clear, so you must rule in a manner that is inconsistent with the written rules. Then, above, you make an illogical jump to an argument about something else that it doesn't say in the book at all, and try to compare his argument to that. The truth is, your example above is a better argument against your own position, as the position you're arguing for doesn't have any written rules to support it. We're just supposed to assume that's what they meant, and go with it, even though the actual rules say otherwise.

No he was responding to tue guess that it was written with 8th edition in mind.

But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.

The FAQS for SM and Fateweaver state they can roll on Malefic... So there is precedent .

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.

But it is not guessing. That is the point, the intent here isn't a guess it is known beyond all reasonable doubt. Any TO worth they salt will go with the rules and say no to Malefic. I doubt a single TO that runs a tournament attended by more than 20 people would rule Malefic can be used by Eldar or Harlrequins.

 FlingitNow wrote:
reasonable doubt.

When you deal with absolutes like RAW, you don't have to concern yourself with defining things like "reasonable doubt". When trying to defend your position, you have to ask yourself, "How much doubt is reasonable?" If you're 99% sure of something, and 1% unsure, you're speculating by going with what it most likely is. It's an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. When interpreting RAW, you don't have that problem. The rule says what the rule says.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Roknar wrote:
The thing with intents is that we we don't know for certain.
I wouldn't be surprised if GW's take on this was:

We're writing this rule with 8th in mind, when they won't be able to cast malefic anymore. So what if you can still cast it in 7th? Let them have it for now.

And assuming that was the case, it would not only be allowed via BRB, but if the TO decided to allow, they would in fact unwittingly be applying the rule with the "correct" intent.

I`m 99% sure GW screwed up and simply don't care enough to release a FAQ, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow malefic until some future time.

Cool so you're OK with my marines being T10 because I'm 99% sure that I am not hallucinating when I look at their stat line and see a 4, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow marines to be T10 until some future time...

Facetious arguments are facetious.

I'm pretty sure RAW is 100% clear here. They have Toughness 4.

And we both agree that eldar can cast malefic using RAW.

The rules are clear and we can both work with them. There is no room for argument ( let's just pretend that actually holds true for all rules for the sake of the discussion). This is what you want for a tournament. A rule-set all player can agree on. Whether or not you agree with the rule is a different matter entirely. But the rules say eldar can cast malefic. Period. So you can safely make a list with malefic psykers for your tourny list.

RAI has no place in a tournament because it creates rules that are ambiguous.

HOWEVER, there is nothing wrong with the tournament adding rules, such as 1 LOW, or changing rules to better suit their needs. Or in this case changing the rules to prevent eldar from casting malefic.
But this has to be done before hand, in order to create an even ground for all players to build their lists. In this context, the vast majority agree that is a rule change that benefits the game.

But the fact remains that intent is entirely subjective for all those outside of the GW rules team. Subjective rules make for very rocky gameplay. You don't want that.
GW allowing Malefic for the time being is just as legitimate an intent as is is them preventing malefic in the current codex. It's up to the TO to decide which intent benefits the game/tourney.

As you pointed out, as far as RAI is concerned, somebody could say: The lore has a space marine being super soldier killer machines. T4 has to be a misprint, obviously that has to be 40.
And so that person would be in conflict with the RAW and might contest a have them match their version of RAI. You don't agree with him and so you fall back to the only thing you can agree on....RAW. Maybe some 40k movie was released and the tourney actually makes marines into the monsters they are portrayed as....nothing wrong with that.

The OP's post was so that any TO can settle the matter before the tournament and create a set of rules that either include malefic or not, whichever they go with. Technically there's nothing wrong with either.
As far as rules discussions go, RAI is worthless. RAI is really no different to any other Houserule. Which are totally fine, but again, everybody has to agree on them.

If you/the TO decides that RAI is to deny malefic and then adds that to the tourny rules, then it becomes RAW for that tournament and there is no room for error again.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.

But it is not guessing. That is the point, the intent here isn't a guess it is known beyond all reasonable doubt. Any TO worth they salt will go with the rules and say no to Malefic. I doubt a single TO that runs a tournament attended by more than 20 people would rule Malefic can be used by Eldar or Harlrequins.

You realize you're actually agreeing with him here?
Your saying the TO is house ruling that malefic is forbidden and he said:

BetrayTheWorld wrote: any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata.

He's just saying that the house rule should be determined in advance and not on the fly.

^ Exalted. Well said.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.

But it is not guessing. That is the point, the intent here isn't a guess it is known beyond all reasonable doubt. Any TO worth they salt will go with the rules and say no to Malefic. I doubt a single TO that runs a tournament attended by more than 20 people would rule Malefic can be used by Eldar or Harlrequins.

Intent is always a guess unless you either wrote the rules or spoke directly to the person who wrote the rules. If you bother reading literally ANY Black Library book featuring psychic powers, you'll know that any sort of dabbling in the warp runs the risk of causing a breach and opening a doorway for daemons to come through. Would the average Eldar psyker actively try to summon daemons? Probably not. Would some of them? Sure. Maybe they're down to a last resort and have to stop the dirty Mon-Keighs any way they can. Given this, the intent could very well be that ANY psyker has the option to summon daemons unless they've been conditioned not to and have hexagrammatic wards inscribed onto the inner faces of their armour keeping warp critters at bad (Grey Knights).

Sorry if this was said, but the eldarncodex came after the BRB. The BRB says that all psyckers may chose daemonology, and use either malefic powers or sanctic powers. It then later says that a codex will list what powers are available to them in their description.

BRB says we get daemonology, says we get to chose a tree, we look in our codex, which was written after the publication of the BRB and see that we are allowed to choose sanctic specifically.

Nothing is stopping the raw that we get daemonology. The only time the two aspects of this discipline are treated as separate is for the purposes of psychic focus. We have the discipline, but our codex tells us what side of it.

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.

But it is not guessing. That is the point, the intent here isn't a guess it is known beyond all reasonable doubt. Any TO worth they salt will go with the rules and say no to Malefic. I doubt a single TO that runs a tournament attended by more than 20 people would rule Malefic can be used by Eldar or Harlrequins.

Intent is always a guess unless you either wrote the rules or spoke directly to the person who wrote the rules. If you bother reading literally ANY Black Library book featuring psychic powers, you'll know that any sort of dabbling in the warp runs the risk of causing a breach and opening a doorway for daemons to come through. Would the average Eldar psyker actively try to summon daemons? Probably not. Would some of them? Sure. Maybe they're down to a last resort and have to stop the dirty Mon-Keighs any way they can. Given this, the intent could very well be that ANY psyker has the option to summon daemons unless they've been conditioned not to and have hexagrammatic wards inscribed onto the inner faces of their armour keeping warp critters at bad (Grey Knights).

Didn't Eisenhorn summon a daemon? If not, don't ruin it for me. Just finished the second book last night.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
^ Exalted. Well said.

thanks

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:


This is where you and I will simply never agree, because here, TOs house rule things or follow RAW, period. So discussion of RAI is completely irrelevent. Apparently they don't follow the rules where you're from, and that's ok. To each his own.

Anyone else love when someone says "Follow the rules" while engaging in behavior that is not following the rules of YMDC? I think it's pretty special.

Don't tell people how to play the game. You want to argue a specific stance, that's fine. You're doing that, and stating which stance you're arguing, and saying it's your interpretations of RAW. Cool. That's following the YMDC rules.

However, telling people they are doing it wrong by arguing RAI, especially when they are very clear that's their arguments, is rude and against the tenants of the forum. Also assuming your interpretation of what the rules are is the only way they could ever possibly be interpreted is just logical fallacy.

Clearly a lot of people feel like the BRB saying Eldar got all Daemonology powers was because at the time, the latest Eldar book was out and the BRB was necessary to give any army those powers. Those same people also feel like the new book, by not mentioning malefic powers, means you can't do malefic powers anymore because new book trumps previous rulebooks regarding how to play said army, including the BRB.

It's not a hard side to understand. Being rude as hell about it isn't making your position any stronger, nor does it weaken the other sides. Get over yourself. "PLAY IT THIS WAY OR YOU SUCK AT ENGLISH" is just asinine. There's no need for that behavior.

Well firstly only With deal in absolutes

You said I agree on RaW, well you've admitted you agree on RaI so to an extent that is irrelevant. If you want RaW to win because it is an absolute I'm going to want absolute proof. First step is prove absolutely that we are not all hallucinating when looking at the book.

Then you claim RaI has no place in tournaments, from this comment I know you don't go to tournaments. Because RaI is absolutely rife in tournaments. For instance Far sight Enclave armies are there without Shadowsun and Aun'va (due to the cannot not include wording). No one allows you to move your models vertically and claim wobbly model. No one plays that destroyer weapons do nothing. Go back an Edition and no tournament played that FMCs didn't have Relentless or Smash but instead the undefined Relentless Smash rule which therefore does nothing. These are just some of the RaW silliness from the top of my head that we all ignore. In order to actually play a game you have use RaI, heck in the roll off if you both roll the same number twice you can't continue the game (hence why we treat roll again differently to reroll yet no RaW supports that stance).

That's exactly my point, tournaments change the rules.

They may changed them based off of RAI or just for fun, but they make those changes part of the rule-set of the tournament, therefore turning the RAI rules into RAW rules for that tournament. You know the changes they make in advance.

Whether or not malefic is allowed for any given tournament is something you would want to know ahead of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That doesn't stop a judge from using RAI on unforeseen matters that come up, but you'd want to keep those to a minimum.

Roknar wrote:
That's exactly my point, tournaments change the rules.

They may changed them based off of RAI or just for fun, but they make those changes part of the rule-set of the tournament, therefore turning the RAI rules into RAW rules for that tournament. You know the changes they make in advance.

Whether or not malefic is allowed for any given tournament is something you would want to know ahead of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That doesn't stop a judge from using RAI on unforeseen matters that come up, but you'd want to keep those to a minimum.

Nope those are issues that don't appear in rules packs. I'm yet to see a rules pack that for instance states that when a Psyker joins a non-psyker unit he still generates warp charge and can still manifest powers (though RaW he can't). RaI is accepted in lots of areas without prior agreement, particularly when RaI is so blatantly clear or RaW is broken. The aim should be play as close to RaI as possible (in other words play by the rules as much as possible), RaW is simply a method for interpreting the rules and not one that the rules are designed to be used with. RaW has its uses but is certainly not the default.

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaI is accepted in lots of areas without prior agreement.

You're right that I don't go to tournaments, but if I did, I would expect an extensive rules pack, so maybe that's just me then. I suspect that some areas/specific events would offer such a pack though.
Though from what you say, I gather the majority run on social contracts, in which case the RAI is clear and this is pretty much a non issue. Just like you say.
Still, for those exceptions, it is a matter worth noting. And it would appear that OP is indeed playing in an environment where RAW trumps RAI.

You can't only look at this one example. If you go by RAI once, you have to give it credit every time. Or will you then start arguing degrees of certainty about the RAI? Who makes the call then? Where does it end?

Strict adherence to RAW is the only way to play the game with (relative) strangers. In your own local meta, sure, house rule away. And we will be.

(Disclaimer: I do not play Eldar. Seems you need to state this these days, because people have an us vs. them mentality now, so you can't agree with -anything- an Eldar says without being one!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Roknar wrote:
I'm yet to see a rules pack that for instance states that when a Psyker joins a non-psyker unit he still generates warp charge and can still manifest powers (though RaW he can't).

RAW he totally can. The example in the psyker section has an astropath generating warp charges, and those can only be part of a unit. Clearly when the rules say "psychic unit = any unit with the psyker, psychic pilot, etc rule..." they mean that includes at least one of those guys. Just as I could say "A unit with a banner" and not need all of them to have a banner. Basic English. It's ambiguous, but you can read it like this just fine.

Unahim wrote:
You can't only look at this one example. If you go by RAI once, you have to give it credit every time. Or will you then start arguing degrees of certainty about the RAI? Who makes the call then? Where does it end?

Strict adherence to RAW is the only way to play the game with (relative) strangers. In your own local meta, sure, house rule away. And we will be.

(Disclaimer: I do not play Eldar. Seems you need to state this these days, because people have an us vs. them mentality now, so you can't agree with -anything- an Eldar says without being one!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Roknar wrote:
I'm yet to see a rules pack that for instance states that when a Psyker joins a non-psyker unit he still generates warp charge and can still manifest powers (though RaW he can't).

RAW he totally can. The example in the psyker section has an astropath generating warp charges, and those can only be part of a unit. Clearly when the rules say "psychic unit = any unit with the psyker, psychic pilot, etc rule..." they mean that includes at least one of those guys. Just as I could say "A unit with a banner" and not need all of them to have a banner. Basic English. It's ambiguous, but you can read it like this just fine.

Arguments about the Psychic phase aside (yes they are broken) playing a stranger and insisting on RaW results in you jot being able to play a game. Strict adherence to RaW literally breaks the game. TOs don't go with RaW for that very reason. If you want to interpret the rules as a computer would interpret code, go ahead and the game is unplayable. For instance I enfeeble your Walker game breaks. The entire Psyker phase the game breaks. Last Necron codex I could use the Ghostark to add d3 Warhound Titans to my warrior units each turn. No one anywhere plays strict RaW. No one. No TO rules strict RaW all the time, and none have rules pack that go over every change to RaW that they'll play by. To be fair you could RaW break their rules pack unless they are legal professionals.

SRSFACE wrote:Anyone else love when someone says "Follow the rules" while engaging in behavior that is not following the rules of YMDC? I think it's pretty special.

Don't tell people how to play the game. You want to argue a specific stance, that's fine. You're doing that, and stating which stance you're arguing, and saying it's your interpretations of RAW. Cool. That's following the YMDC rules.

However, telling people they are doing it wrong by arguing RAI, especially when they are very clear that's their arguments, is rude and against the tenants of the forum.

Actually, this entire thread since my initial post has been filled with people violating tenet 4 of YMDC. My OP was just talking about RAW, which I made clear. I even went on to say later, when responding to all the HYWPI and RAI arguments(The ones violating tenet 4), that I would be seeing to it that local games added house rules to prevent that from happening, as I think it is fairly clear that GW meant to disallow maelific to Eldar. The ONLY point we seem to disagree on, is that I believe it's unfair to players to alter RAW in the middle of a tournament, while FlingitNow thinks that's fine. If a player completely designs their army list around a rule in the book that you haven't house ruled, then you change it on him in the middle of the tournament when he doesn't have time to alter his list in response to your altering of the rules, that isn't fair. That's it. That's the only thing I've been disagreeing with. Changing the rules on the fly isn't playing by the rules. Saying so isn't being rude. It's how I would feel as a player if a TO did that to me. And as a TO, if any of my judges made that call to change ANY rule in the book from RAW to what they thought it would be without consulting me, they'd never be invited to assist with a tournament again. It's that important.

FlingitNow wrote:Well firstly only With deal in absolutes

You said I agree on RaW, well you've admitted you agree on RaI so to an extent that is irrelevant. If you want RaW to win because it is an absolute I'm going to want absolute proof. First step is prove absolutely that we are not all hallucinating when looking at the book.

Then you claim RaI has no place in tournaments, from this comment I know you don't go to tournaments. Because RaI is absolutely rife in tournaments.

It's not rife in tournaments around here, which I attend very often. I am both a TO, and primarily a tournament player. If I am not acting as the TO, about the only time I play these days is in tournaments. I'm not trying to be "cheeky" here. Your local meta sounds completely different than it is here. I seriously believe it is based around the cultural difference you demonstrated earlier, regarding the "spirit of the law". I know the spirit of the law is a big thing where you're from. Here, it isn't. Here, our laws are full of double-talk and loopholes that are constantly exploited by corporate America and lawyers. It is the culture we're from. Here, we follow the letter of the law in most cases. This is how large corporations work the system into paying zero taxes on a 300 million dollar profit without any legal repercussions. I'm not saying that the idea of "spirit of the law" is completely foreign to us. It's not, but it also isn't a major legal precedent as it is in your country. Because it's not a major part of our law, our country has set the stage for the prevailing attitude to be one of following the "letter of the law".

THIS ONLY APPLIES HERE, IN MY LOCAL META. NOT TELLING YOU HOW TO PLAY: That said, at the tournaments here, it would be considered TERRIBLE form to alter RAW in a way any more significant than adding a comma or something. When you actually have to add an entire sentence to the book in order to interpret the rule in the manner you are ruling, that is an erratta, and should be reserved for adding it to your standard tournament house rules in BETWEEN tournaments, NEVER in the middle of them. You'd lose the respect of your playerbase if you did so, as people would never feel comfortable building a list around the rules for your tournament, knowing those rules could just be changed on the fly if they were using a little-known rule from a book to do something awesome.

I actually won a tournament not too long ago using some obscure rules. The entire tournament was based around the relic mission, so I took a Macro Cannon Aquila Strongpoint with void shield, 4 heavy bolters, and an escape hatch. My list used a unit consisting of D-scythe wraithguard, Lelith Hesperax, and Eldrad(Hammerhand, Sanctuary, Gate of Infinity, Cleansing Flame, Banishment). Basically, turn 1 I'd use the escape hatch to claim the relic, positioning in a manner that kept me from being charged, then turn 2, i'd embark back into my AV 15 mighty bulwark, void-shielded building through the escape hatch that I placed next to the relic. I ultimately won that tournament based on several RAW rulings that were immediately thereafter altered in that particular group's house rules to ensure it never happened again. Do I begrudge them adding those house rules to stop me from doing something similar in the future? Not at all. They handled it exactly as it should be handled. They followed the rules until such time as it was appropriate to alter them more to their tastes. That's how we do things here. It's what stops people from getting upset over shades of grey rulings. In this case that we're discussing, it's fairly obvious, but there are plenty of other examples where the RAI is closer to 50/50, not really sure which way they intended it. And it's because of those that we have the local policy of always going RAW until such RAI debates are completely settled by having a local house rule.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
reasonable doubt.

When you deal with absolutes like RAW, you don't have to concern yourself with defining things like "reasonable doubt". When trying to defend your position, you have to ask yourself, "How much doubt is reasonable?" If you're 99% sure of something, and 1% unsure, you're speculating by going with what it most likely is. It's an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. When interpreting RAW, you don't have that problem. The rule says what the rule says.

if this RAW is completely flawless and crystal clear. Why does some codexes have faq that they actuly CAN take Maelific Daemonology. We're talking about RAW to be flawless so I don't exactly understand why it has been put on faq before.

So I'm wondering out loud here.. why is your absolute RAW told how they work in faq if they are absolute RAW as you call them?

It's not rife in tournaments around here, which I attend very often. I am both a TO, and primarily a tournament player. If I am not acting as the TO, about the only time I play these days is in tournaments. I'm not trying to be "cheeky" here. Your local meta sounds completely different than it is here. I seriously believe it is based around the cultural difference you demonstrated earlier, regarding the "spirit of the law". I know the spirit of the law is a big thing where you're from. Here, it isn't. Here, our laws are full of double-talk and loopholes that are constantly exploited by corporate America and lawyers. It is the culture we're from. Here, we follow the letter of the law in most cases. This is how large corporations work the system into paying zero taxes on a 300 million dollar profit without any legal repercussions. I'm not saying that the idea of "spirit of the law" is completely foreign to us. It's not, but it also isn't a major legal precedent as it is in your country. Because it's not a major part of our law, our country has set the stage for the prevailing attitude to be one of following the "letter of the law".

Cool so you're a TO did your most recent rules pack cover the following and if not would you have ruled in favour of RaW.

Brotherhood of Psykers does something (it is based on units with the rule but no units have the rule only models).

Psykers joined to another unit are still psykers generate warp charge.

Roll again and reroll are separate things.

You can't move your model vertically and have it hovering over the board using WMS to count it as being there.

Farsight Enclaves detachments don't HAVE to include Shadowsun or Aun'va (in fact they can't).

Units can't overwatch with ALL their weapons and grenades.

Destroyer Weapons do something (currently you roll on the table for each model hit but models are never hit by shooting attacks only units).

If I enfeeble a Walker the game breaks.

If my opponent passes a FnP against a wound that was caused by a weapon that allows no saves I win because they cheated (FnP is not a save so they get the roll if they pass it the wound counts as saved thus breaking the no saves rule).

My mind may be stuck in last edition, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Doesn't specific access to Sanctic simply allow them the ability to peril on only double sixes instead of any doubles? This wouldn't restrict what disciplines they can take, but only make them better at manifesting Sanctic powers.