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:
What they say their intent is and what the rules say are unconnected..

And with this admission, maybe you can put to rest your stating that RAW = RAI in the future.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What they say their intent is and what the rules say are unconnected..

And with this admission, maybe you can put to rest your stating that RAW = RAI in the future.

There is a difference to what they say their intent is after the fact to save face and what their actual intent is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What they say their intent is and what the rules say are unconnected..

And with this admission, maybe you can put to rest your stating that RAW = RAI in the future.

There is a difference to what they say their intent is after the fact to save face and what their actual intent is.

In other words, you don't accept what they say is their intentions for rules when they mention what their intention is. We can't believe their lying words about intent because we have their words about what RAW is, and it's obviously lying if it's different. Ah, got it.

“The writers are lying” is a new one...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What they say their intent is and what the rules say are unconnected..

And with this admission, maybe you can put to rest your stating that RAW = RAI in the future.

There is a difference to what they say their intent is after the fact to save face and what their actual intent is.

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've read over the years I've been frequenting this forum. I don't even know how to respond.

Short of a conversation with or commentary from the actual authors, we can never know what the intention was behind a poorly written rule. There are tons of poorly written rules. GW has an established history of being unable to write clear, consistent and unambiguous rules. To pretend that you know the authors intent without being the author or having some commentary from the author comes off as both superior and naive. To pretend that the rules as written always accurately reflect the author's intent is self delusional at best. Authors make mistakes. It happens. It's very unlikely that they're sitting at corporate and thinking, "Man, i hope nobody notices this mistake. I'll have to say I meant to do it to save face." That's crazy.