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.

 skchsan wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.

Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.

Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.

Except for GW FAQ and errata are same thing.

Just learn to accept that for GW FAQ can and does change RAW. Also people need to accept that GW FB can and does contain official answers that can thus change RAW. Trying to remove legallity by using stupid terms like special snowflake FAQ accomplish only making users credibility drop down.

tneva82 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.

Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.

Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.

Except for GW FAQ and errata are same thing.

Just learn to accept that for GW FAQ can and does change RAW. Also people need to accept that GW FB can and does contain official answers that can thus change RAW. Trying to remove legallity by using stupid terms like special snowflake FAQ accomplish only making users credibility drop down.

I love how what had become a spoof thread veers back around to debating whether FAQs can change rule for the umpteenth time. GET OVER IT GUYS!

tneva82 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.

Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.

Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.

Except for GW FAQ and errata are same thing.

Just learn to accept that for GW FAQ can and does change RAW. Also people need to accept that GW FB can and does contain official answers that can thus change RAW. Trying to remove legallity by using stupid terms like special snowflake FAQ accomplish only making users credibility drop down.

I forgot to add quotation mark on that last statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
If the player with the tomb blades isn't granting you base to base because of the gun, he's pulling a TFG move. He can easily turn his models to fulfill the base-to-base (not that you need to be base to base in order to fight) condition.

Technically not illegal, but generally a distasteful maneuver using MFA.

What allows him to turn his models? Not being able to go base to base could mean fewer models get to fight. But am I right that it is essentially just a houserule that carried over from 7th that you ignore the model except when figuring out line of sight? Is there anyone who doesn't play it this way? Has anyone ever tried pulling a "you can't charge my Wave Serpent because it's too far off the ground" in your community?

It's not modelling for advantage when it's the official model, built per the instruction manual.

Your wave serpent example is precisely what I'm referring to. Denying your opponent base-to-base simply because you have pieces sticking out over the base is no different than denying a charge against a wave serpent because you measure to the hull and the hull is always more than 1" away from the ground.

Followed swiftly by "But that's literally what the rule says."

I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand

Because it's a game and there's a nuance between playing by the rules and playing exactly by every letter of the rules. General interpretations of the rules are much more widely accepted than nitpicking every possible fringe interaction.

 deviantduck wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand

Because it's a game and there's a nuance between playing by the rules and playing exactly by every letter of the rules. General interpretations of the rules are much more widely accepted than nitpicking every possible fringe interaction.

So if I decided my "interpretation" of the rules was that all my models have 20 wounds, by your logic you'd have accept it or you're "nitpicking every fringe interaction". Where is the line drawn and what is your justification? For me the line is drawn when it breaks the written down rules, with the justification that games are a set of instructions and rules, followed by the player until a win state or other failure state is reached.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand

Because it's a game and there's a nuance between playing by the rules and playing exactly by every letter of the rules. General interpretations of the rules are much more widely accepted than nitpicking every possible fringe interaction.

So if I decided my "interpretation" of the rules was that all my models have 20 wounds, by your logic you'd have accept it or you're "nitpicking every fringe interaction". Where is the line drawn and what is your justification? For me the line is drawn when it breaks the written down rules, with the justification that games are a set of instructions and rules, followed by the player until a win state or other failure state is reached.

Dude, I know you have me blocked, but for everyone else's benefit, I think the reason you come across as ridiculous is that you seem to have no idea what the reasonable person standard is. Would a reasonable person look at the rules and interpret them to say that your dudes get 20 wounds each? No. You're debating in bad faith.

Where is the line drawn? It's generally drawn where an average, reasonable person would draw it. In practice, it's drawn in that hard to nail down grey area between the rules as written and what most people think the authors were trying to convey. I've seen thousands of games played by hundreds of players (used to run a gaming store) and I've never seen someone rigidly and doggedly stick to the rules as written and completely ignore what is sometimes a pretty obvious intention. You're in the minority in terms of where you're willing to draw the line.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.

Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.

Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.

Not sure what a "special snowflake FAQ." is, but the FAQ's certainly can change RAW. (GW has proven this time and time again).

FAQs can change the result of a rule, but they can never change the RaW. You need an errata to change the RaW. That's why FAQs that ignore the RaW are Special Snowflakes.

GW FaQ's disagree with you, the most certainly can (and have) changed the RaW.

"Special Snowflakes" terminology something you attributed to the FAQ for no reason. got it.

Does it really matter what it's called? FAQ, Errata or some made up terminology I won't repeat?
No, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you read the rules and all current FAQs/Erratas and apply any and all changes. Done

-

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand

Because it's a game and there's a nuance between playing by the rules and playing exactly by every letter of the rules. General interpretations of the rules are much more widely accepted than nitpicking every possible fringe interaction.

So if I decided my "interpretation" of the rules was that all my models have 20 wounds, by your logic you'd have accept it or you're "nitpicking every fringe interaction". Where is the line drawn and what is your justification? For me the line is drawn when it breaks the written down rules, with the justification that games are a set of instructions and rules, followed by the player until a win state or other failure state is reached.

That's quite the exaggeration. It's pretty difficult to argue about the value of a printed number. There is no set 'line' for interpretations. The best example I can think of is the banshees and their extra charge distance. There's not a player I've met that would interpret the rule as you do, nor wouldn't allow their opponent the extra charge distance.

BCB as a child: Condolences, female sibling. You have achieved a state of failure. I await your congratulations. Let us ingest off-cycle refreshments based of pudding.

Oh not the W20 fallacy *again*...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh not the W20 fallacy *again*...

It's his favorite move. You want to apply critical thinking and context clues in an effort to work out rules as intended? Well, I guess I can interpret my models as having 20 wounds and there is nothing you can do about it. Huzzah! Debate win.

 deviantduck wrote:
The best example I can think of is the banshees and their extra charge distance. There's not a player I've met that would interpret the rule as you do, nor wouldn't allow their opponent the extra charge distance.

Why must you strawman? I never said the Banshees don't get the extra distance, they just can't declare a charge past the limit the game sets, because their special rule does not allow them to do so. This actually makes a big difference when charging up ruins now. You can be 10" away diagonally, and have to move 5+8 inches to get within 1", making the Banshees extra 3" movement range important. Also, just because your opponents break the rules doesn't change what the rules are.

He probably meant they allow the Banshees to declare a charge up to 15" away as well.

It should probably be noted that if both parties agree on house rules beforehand, they aren't breaking rules because they are playing by the rules they agreed on. House rules do change what the rules are, at least in the house where those house rules apply.

 doctortom wrote:
He probably meant they allow the Banshees to declare a charge up to 15" away as well.

It should probably be noted that if both parties agree on house rules beforehand, they aren't breaking rules because they are playing by the rules they agreed on. House rules do change what the rules are, at least in the house where those house rules apply.

Because of "The-Rule-Which-Must-Not-Be-Invoked-Upon-In-YMDC" rule, which is in fact a rule in the BRB.

 skchsan wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
He probably meant they allow the Banshees to declare a charge up to 15" away as well.

It should probably be noted that if both parties agree on house rules beforehand, they aren't breaking rules because they are playing by the rules they agreed on. House rules do change what the rules are, at least in the house where those house rules apply.

Because of "The-Rule-Which-Must-Not-Be-Invoked-Upon-In-YMDC" rule, which is in fact a rule in the BRB.

And since we're talking about rules in YMDC, I am always talking about rules in the way YMDC allows you to talk about rules, and I assume others are doing the same.

 skchsan wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
He probably meant they allow the Banshees to declare a charge up to 15" away as well.

It should probably be noted that if both parties agree on house rules beforehand, they aren't breaking rules because they are playing by the rules they agreed on. House rules do change what the rules are, at least in the house where those house rules apply.

Because of "The-Rule-Which-Must-Not-Be-Invoked-Upon-In-YMDC" rule, which is in fact a rule in the BRB.

And because most people wouldn't need a house rule to allow banshees to declare charges at 15" away because most don't even know others feel there is a conflict so it would never come up.

We're done here.