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.

 insaniak wrote:
You're unlikely to ever see a version of 40K where they write the rules specifically to counter people deliberately taking them out of context in order to break them.

Not the "context" argument again . If MTG can do it, so can GW. GW have existed longer than WotC, they have no excuse.

"It's hard to write rules properly" is not an excuse.

Look, I'll even do it for free:

"Each time a unit shoots, a single model in the unit that is equipped with Grenades may throw one. If it does so, it may not fire any other ranged weapon (if any) it is equipped with."

 insaniak wrote:

Kall3m0n wrote:

"instead of' has always (as in, for the last 30 years and at least 7 editions of the game) meant 'at the time when you potentially could' " This is true, though for rules lawyering, this needs to be explicitly said by GW in an official document, because just because it has been that way before doesn't mean it's that way now.

It really doesn't. It's nice when they clarify it, but it's a bit like the 'within' debate that also keeps happening despite GW using the same language for 30 years on that as well.

The language is only unclear if you choose to use the interpretation that doesn't actually make any sense.

The big argument now is weather a model without a gun can choose to throw a grenade "instead of" shooting with its gun.

There is no argument there. Of course a model without a gun can choose to throw a grenade. The grenade is thrown instead of using a gun. If they don't have a gun, that's proof positive right there that they're not going to be using one. So they're free to throw the grenade.

"The language is only unclear if you choose to use the interpretation that doesn't actually make any sense." It makes sense to quite a few people. It's not as open and shut as you think. But yes, if one interpretation is logical and makes easy sense -both linguistically and rules-wise, and one interpretation is kinda far-fetched and needs some explanation, and you choose the latter option, you probably have a reason for it (like exploiting or semi cheating).
However, not everyone agrees on what is more obviously correct, easy or far-fetched.

"There is no argument there. Of course a model without a gun can choose to throw a grenade. The grenade is thrown instead of using a gun. If they don't have a gun, that's proof positive right there that they're not going to be using one. So they're free to throw the grenade:" I agree with you, but some don't. Since it doesn't say "instead of using any of its guns that model actually has". Some would argue that you can't use X instead of Y if you dan't have Y from the start. Like, how I can't ride my bike to work INSTEAD OF my horse if I don't have a horse in the first place. I do agree that that argument can be made, though it's a tad far-fetched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
You're unlikely to ever see a version of 40K where they write the rules specifically to counter people deliberately taking them out of context in order to break them.

Not the "context" argument again . If MTG can do it, so can GW. GW have existed longer than WotC, they have no excuse.

"It's hard to write rules properly" is not an excuse.

I agree. Being consistent with the use of words would be a great start!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not the "context" argument again . If MTG can do it, so can GW. GW have existed longer than WotC, they have no excuse.

"It's hard to write rules properly" is not an excuse.

I never said that they couldn't. I said that they're unlikely to do so.

GW are not WotC. They're not going to write airtight, tournament-style rules. They have made this abundantly clear over the last 30 years. That's just not the style of game that they are choosing to make.

You can keep trying to nail that jelly to the tree, or you can accept that this game is simply never going to meet your expectations, because it's not at all trying to do so.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not the "context" argument again . If MTG can do it, so can GW. GW have existed longer than WotC, they have no excuse.

"It's hard to write rules properly" is not an excuse.

I never said that they couldn't. I said that they're unlikely to do so.

GW are not WotC. They're not going to write airtight, tournament-style rules. They have made this abundantly clear over the last 30 years. That's just not the style of game that they are choosing to make.

You can keep trying to nail that jelly to the tree, or you can accept that this game is simply never going to meet your expectations, because it's not at all trying to do so.

So where does the slippery slope end? By your logic I can claim "They're not going to write airtight, tournament-style rules. They have made this abundantly clear over the last 30 years. That's just not the style of game that they are choosing to make", therefore all my Ultramarines have 5000 wounds each. Either you ignore ALL the rules, or you ignore NONE of them, there is no in-between.

Kall3m0n wrote:

"The language is only unclear if you choose to use the interpretation that doesn't actually make any sense." It makes sense to quite a few people. It's not as open and shut as you think.

To be clear, I'm normally all for 'What 'makes sense' is different to different people'... but it's incredibly difficult to see any way possible for someone to claim with a straight face that a model armed with a knife and a grenade not being allowed to use that grenade due to not having a gun makes any sense at all.


I mean, sure, you can claim that this interpretation makes sense... but you had better be prepared for people to just ignore that claim as pointless pot-stirring.

 insaniak wrote:

Kall3m0n wrote:

"The language is only unclear if you choose to use the interpretation that doesn't actually make any sense." It makes sense to quite a few people. It's not as open and shut as you think.

To be clear, I'm normally all for 'What 'makes sense' is different to different people'... but it's incredibly difficult to see any way possible for someone to claim with a straight face that a model armed with a knife and a grenade not being allowed to use that grenade due to not having a gun makes any sense at all.


I mean, sure, you can claim that this interpretation makes sense... but you had better be prepared for people to just ignore that claim as pointless pot-stirring.

So you're basically blaming the opponent for GW not writing rules properly? And somehow we're the "pot-stirrers"?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By your logic I can claim "They're not going to write airtight, tournament-style rules. They have made this abundantly clear over the last 30 years. That's just not the style of game that they are choosing to make", therefore all my Ultramarines have 5000 wounds each. Either you ignore ALL the rules, or you ignore NONE of them, there is no in-between.

Sure. You do you.


Slippery slope arguments rarely get you very far in the real world, though.


Since the original question has been answered, and we've progressed to discussing 40K as played by Spike Milligan, I think we can all safely move on.