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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.

The said tenets are outdated and stupid. GW does not five a feth about some Dakka tenets, and frankly, neither do I.

Can we have two separate forum sections:
One for people who actually want help with the rules in order to play the game;
Second for people who want to do these inane rules lawyer battles.

So you're saying you don't play the game by the rules? Isn't that kind of pointless? The whole point of a game is to use a framework of rules to win the game.

or the point could be to have fun?

my gaming group has decided the best way to do that is use rules as intended. seems rather silly for us to follow rules as written to the letter when we know some aren't intended and cause weird situations.

and yes, i get it, as someone who doesn't even have a facebook account it's an awful place to post rules (exclusively too?) but that doesn't mean i'm going to ignore it now that i have seen it as long as everyone i'm playing with is aware as well.

I derive fun from playing a game by the rules. Why am I suddenly the bad guy? If we play Chess, and then I decide that my Queen can't be captured, who is in the wrong?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.

What more is there to communicate? They made their intent crystal clear. It is not really GW's problem that there are some neurotic people who cannot accept that this is how it should be played even if Jervis Johnson showed up on their doorstep in person and told them so. Or would you have preferrd if they had not clarified it at all, and let the confusion reign for several months?

The GW facebook said that if your name begins with B you automatically win. Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof falls on you. Where's your special snowflake link to the rule about the first name?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I derive fun from playing a game by the rules. Why am I suddenly the bad guy? If we play Chess, and then I decide that my Queen can't be captured, who is in the wrong?

I never said you were the bad guy, people should be allowed to play how they want and i fully respect you wanting to play as written. i was just trying to explain why some people use rules as intended in order to help you understand instead of implying there was no point like you did in the post i was responding to.

also, your chess example is in nowhere close to equivalent and to me shows you have a warped view of how this works from my experiences. rules as intended (at least how our gaming group plays it) isn't the wild west where you can do whatever you want, its still a set of rules that no individual in the group can just change because they feel like it. there's really not much different to begin with and if anyone tried to pull something like your chess example without any basis for the rule they would be laughed out of the room. additionally, chess's rules leave no doubt about the rules of the game, unfortunately i cannot say that about the 40k ruleset which is why we do this rather than suffer through poorly worded rules because GW is taking to long to fix it in print.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I derive fun from playing a game by the rules. Why am I suddenly the bad guy? If we play Chess, and then I decide that my Queen can't be captured, who is in the wrong?

It depends - did you talk with your opponent beforehand and both agree that Queens couldn't be captured? If so, there's not an "in the wrong" there.

The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.

What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?

If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.

How is that a good thing?

 JimOnMars wrote:
The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.

What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?

If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.

How is that a good thing?

This seems like a problem that could be easily solved if GW would just post their "official" answers on their official site.

 JimOnMars wrote:
The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.

What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?

If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.

How is that a good thing?

In a casual game the answer is indeed "just get another opponent." In a tournament it is TO's call how the rules should be played, and if the tournament decided to use beta rules, then it is their responsibility to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

 JimOnMars wrote:
The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.

What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?

If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.

How is that a good thing?

Presumably a tournament has already established a rule dealing with the issue so you shouldn't be hitting the point where "your opponent is a jerk".

On the friendly game side, I'd suggest get a better argument that the opponent might accept. In this case, you don't have to use the beta rule in the first place, which is what is causing the problem requiring the facebook post. If he doesn't want to go by the FB post, then maybe the two of you can agree to not use the beta rule at all until GW fixes it with a FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Octopoid wrote:

This seems like a problem that could be easily solved if GW would just post their "official" answers on their official site.

Yes, the easiest and best solution to be sure.

 doctortom wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.

What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?

If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.

How is that a good thing?

Presumably a tournament has already established a rule dealing with the issue so you shouldn't be hitting the point where "your opponent is a jerk".

This brings up the added problem (mostly in small tournaments) when the said Donkey Cave has sway over the TO, either because the TO does not want conflict and will appease the loudest player at all costs, or the TO is the Cave's buddy , or the TO IS the Cave.

 JimOnMars wrote:

This brings up the added problem (mostly in small tournaments) when the said Donkey Cave has sway over the TO, either because the TO does not want conflict and will appease the loudest player at all costs, or the TO is the Cave's buddy , or the TO IS the Cave.

This is problem of completely different magnitude and would manifest in one way or another regardless.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.

What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?

If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.

How is that a good thing?

Presumably a tournament has already established a rule dealing with the issue so you shouldn't be hitting the point where "your opponent is a jerk".

This brings up the added problem (mostly in small tournaments) when the said Donkey Cave has sway over the TO, either because the TO does not want conflict and will appease the loudest player at all costs, or the TO is the Cave's buddy , or the TO IS the Cave.

It's not a problem if how to play it is established with people before the tournament. Always best to ask the TO about what rules apply first, especially if you have an inkling that there might be a Donkey Cave involved. It would be just as important to know if the beta rules are going to be followed in the first place, or if they are how they are treating the facebook post.

I like that some posters have decided that their definition of,official is somehow universal and the only true definition

It's fairly staggering arrogance

GW have stated how the rule functions. Feel free to ignore that, but that is not playing by the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I like that some posters have decided that their definition of,official is somehow universal and the only true definition

It's fairly staggering arrogance

GW have stated how the rule functions. Feel free to ignore that, but that is not playing by the rules.

Read the Tenets of YMDC. It's a sticky post at the top of the page. It's not arrogance, it's following the rules of this forum.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I like that some posters have decided that their definition of,official is somehow universal and the only true definition

It's fairly staggering arrogance

GW have stated how the rule functions. Feel free to ignore that, but that is not playing by the rules.

GW have done no such thing. Some Rando on facebook has.

 Octopoid wrote:

Read the Tenets of YMDC. It's a sticky post at the top of the page. It's not arrogance, it's following the rules of this forum.

Right. For purposes of YMDC rules-lawyering, the Facebook post doesn't count. For purposes of actually playing the game, it, for most people, will. So you can rage here all you want, most people who will be using the beta rule will be playing according to the Facebook clarification.

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Read the Tenets of YMDC. It's a sticky post at the top of the page. It's not arrogance, it's following the rules of this forum.

Right. For purposes of YMDC rules-lawyering, the Facebook post doesn't count. For purposes of actually playing the game, it, for most people, will. So you can rage here all you want, most people who will be using the beta rule will be playing according to the Facebook clarification.

I'm not raging. I'm planning on playing according to the Facebook clarification. But according to the RULES of this forum, which is about discussing official rules as written, that Facebook post doesn't count.

Don't confuse logical argumentation on RAW with HIWPI. They're often different. (I'm not BCB.)

 Octopoid wrote:

I'm not raging. I'm planning on playing according to the Facebook clarification. But according to the RULES of this forum, which is about discussing official rules as written, that Facebook post doesn't count.

Don't confuse logical argumentation on RAW with HIWPI. They're often different. (I'm not BCB.)

Sure. It doesn't count official according to the rules of this forum. So? What does it actually matter?

I for one will be playing by the actual rules.

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

I'm not raging. I'm planning on playing according to the Facebook clarification. But according to the RULES of this forum, which is about discussing official rules as written, that Facebook post doesn't count.

Don't confuse logical argumentation on RAW with HIWPI. They're often different. (I'm not BCB.)

Sure. It doesn't count official according to the rules of this forum. So? What does it actually matter?

So it matters because this is the forum where we're discussing them. If you want to discuss them elsewhere, feel free to make up your own rules on your own forum, and I'll follow them there like I follow these here.

 Octopoid wrote:

So it matters because this is the forum where we're discussing them. If you want to discuss them elsewhere, feel free to make up your own rules on your own forum, and I'll follow them there like I follow these here.

It is not disallowed to discuss RAI here.

The truth is of the situation is that the RAW in this instance is nebulous*, and RAI is crystal clear.

* Newsflash, language is not math. In many situations RAW doesn't really exist. Language can be ambigious, as it is here.

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

So it matters because this is the forum where we're discussing them. If you want to discuss them elsewhere, feel free to make up your own rules on your own forum, and I'll follow them there like I follow these here.

It is not disallowed to discuss RAI here.

The truth is of the situation is that the RAW in this instance is nebulous*, and RAI is crystal clear.

* Newsflash, language is not math. In many situations RAW doesn't really exist. Language can be ambigious, as it is here.

Did I say it couldn't be discussed as RAI?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I for one will be playing by the actual rules.

I repeat this, as I think is something you really need to understand:
Newsflash, language is not math. In many situations RAW doesn't really exist. Language can be ambiguous, as it is here.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I for one will be playing by the actual rules.

I repeat this, as I think is something you really need to understand:
Newsflash, language is not math. In many situations RAW doesn't really exist. Language can be ambiguous, as it is here.

And this forum is for discussing those ambiguities within the RAW. Which we are doing. We are simply also following the rules of the forum for doing so.

Not sure why you're getting so heated about it, to be honest.

 Octopoid wrote:

Did I say it couldn't be discussed as RAI?

So what purpose you think further RAW discussion about this topic serves?

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Did I say it couldn't be discussed as RAI?

So what purpose you think further RAW discussion about this topic serves?

To nail down exactly what the RAW says. To try to eliminate the ambiguities you've stated exist.

Honestly, at this point the thread is mostly bickering about what is or is not RAW rather than what the RAW says at all. So... meh?

 Octopoid wrote:


To nail down exactly what the RAW says. To try to eliminate the ambiguities you've stated exist.

What does it matter? Sometimes there just is no right answer, as the wording just is too unclear. And considering that GW issued a clarification, they definitely are aware that not everyone understood it how they intended, so they certainly will adjust the wording when and if the rule becomes official.

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:


To nail down exactly what the RAW says. To try to eliminate the ambiguities you've stated exist.

What does it matter? Sometimes there just is no right answer, as the wording just is too unclear. And considering that GW issued a clarification, they definitely are aware that not everyone understood it how they intended, so they certainly will adjust the wording when and if the rule becomes official.

What does this forum matter, then? Its entire point is to discuss RAW and eliminate ambiguities. If you think this forum is as pointless as you're coming across, maybe the problem isn't with the forum. I know a lot of posters here want to keep discussing RAW conflicts and potential ambiguities.

There's always a "right" answer, where "right" means "according to the rules as they are currently written." That may not be how we play it, but it may be how we play it. That's an individual choice. The purpose of this post, this thread, and this forum are to give us the information we need to make that personal choice.

You've made your choice. That's fine, and I won't say it's right or wrong. But don't shut down the whole discussion just because you have what you need from it. Let the rest of us keep talking.

 Octopoid wrote:

What does this forum matter, then? Its entire point is to discuss RAW and eliminate ambiguities.

It is not the sole purpose of the forum.. It's purpose is to resolve rules issues, in which RAW is obviously important, but not the only tool. Everyone except BCB plays according to their understanding of RAI anyway.

If you think this forum is as pointless as you're coming across, maybe the problem isn't with the forum. I know a lot of posters here want to keep discussing RAW conflicts and potential ambiguities.

There's always a "right" answer, where "right" means "according to the rules as they are currently written."

Yeah, that's where you're wrong. There literally isn't always the right answer. That's not how a natural language works. That is not even how law works.

"Look at the dog with one eye," either means: 'look at the dog that only has one eye,' or it can mean 'look at the dog using only one of your eyes.'
Silly example, but that's how language works, and sometimes the rules are like that.

That may not be how we play it, but it may be how we play it. That's an individual choice. The purpose of this post, this thread, and this forum are to give us the information we need to make that personal choice.

You've made your choice. That's fine, and I won't say it's right or wrong. But don't shut down the whole discussion just because you have what you need from it. Let the rest of us keep talking.

You're completely free to discuss the RAW, though I really don't see anyone here interested in doing so besides BCB, and you guys seem to agree. My stance on the RAW on this matter is that is inconclusive, but as GW has kindly provided us with their RAI, in practice this does not matter.

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

I'm not raging. I'm planning on playing according to the Facebook clarification. But according to the RULES of this forum, which is about discussing official rules as written, that Facebook post doesn't count.

Don't confuse logical argumentation on RAW with HIWPI. They're often different. (I'm not BCB.)

Sure. It doesn't count official according to the rules of this forum. So? What does it actually matter?

It matters in that since it isn't RAW right now, you have to talk with your opponent beforehand if you want to use it. You can't make a blanket assumption that everybody is going to play by a facebook post, even if most people end up playing using it (and a good portion of those not using it not using the beta rule either, making it a moot point).