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.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.

I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.

It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.

its also the most elegant way to design game rules. instead of listing all the exceptions in the generic rule, you have separate rules that create exceptions. This makes the rules a lot cleaner and easier to remember (since you only need to remember the exceptions if they are releveant to your army)

And if you try to list things exhaustively, it either inevitably fails once you release your first expansion, or you end up in the cross-reference update hell.

Really all a person can complain about GW rules is that they haven’t joined in the trend of having the rulebook explicitly say which of the various writing conventions they’re using. Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux and 40k are each written to slightly different conventions. Like invulnerable saves saying you can always use them and then some rule prohibits both regular and invulnerable saves.

 Stux wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.

I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.

It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.

Yes, but in a previous edition we actually had basic and advanced rules where they specified that. Of course it wouldn't make any sense for general rules to override specific rules, so...

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, I’m a longtime MTG player myself. Things like triggered abilities, the “stack”, priority make navigating most rules pretty straight forward.

I may not be remembering editions / game systems correctly, but I thought there was a general rule in 40k about general being overruled by specifics.

It's not an official game rule, it's more of a logical necessity.

Yes, but in a previous edition we actually had basic and advanced rules where they specified that. Of course it wouldn't make any sense for general rules to override specific rules, so...

Agreed. It's an inferred rather than a stated rule. It's a rule because the game doesn't work if it's not.

Edit - misread the conversation.

 Type40 wrote:

It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.

Citation needed. Because the FAQ/Errata document is a part of the GW official rules.

...does that seem like rules syntax to you ?

well this is GW we are talking about so...

At least people realize that GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time.

Chalk this up to weird rules interactions, like so many others in 40k and move on. They will be along to change things again in a few months and it will start over.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.

Citation needed. Because the FAQ/Errata document is a part of the GW official rules.

...does that seem like rules syntax to you ?

well this is GW we are talking about so...

At least people realize that GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time.

Chalk this up to weird rules interactions, like so many others in 40k and move on. They will be along to change things again in a few months and it will start over.

It's done. Stop kindling a dying flame.

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Chalk this up to weird rules interactions, like so many others in 40k and move on. They will be along to change things again in a few months and it will start over.

It's done. Stop kindling a dying flame.

Seems like the discussion is still going on mate.

Bottom line is that GW use FAQ's to change rules, and the reminder/example text is literally a part of the FaQ document, which is official rules.

Right so flavor text is raw now and so is anything scribed anywhere... Except the fact that you need to cut out and rearrange full parts of this writing for it make sense as rule... Seriously... I can understand why someone might think informal reminder text is some kind of rule... But to claim flavor is a rule... Go learn what a rule is... Again a none rule is not Raw and that doesn't mater how permissive you claim the game is... Sorry to tell you that a blerb of informal writing not formulated as rule can't be take as raw with out changing what is actually written. Get a grip. I mentioned the WAW not Raw to show how rediculous it is to think flavor is Raw... It's not complicated. Stop picking out words from an informal sentence and claiming it was an intentional rule... And even RAW lol. This is a ridiculous way of approaching any game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

It's not logical to assume that informal out of rules syntax (aka the reminder/example text) is presented as anything more then what is supposed to be "helpful" explanations to the syntax formal answer to the questions. Even though this "help" is sometimes presented wrong or incorrect. This type of text is not intended by designers to be a "rules/play update." if it was it would get its own dedicated errata or question for the FaQ.

Citation needed. Because the FAQ/Errata document is a part of the GW official rules.

...does that seem like rules syntax to you ?

well this is GW we are talking about so...

At least people realize that GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time.

Chalk this up to weird rules interactions, like so many others in 40k and move on. They will be along to change things again in a few months and it will start over.

And flavor text is a part of the BRB... Which is official rules... But again people have now literally said that flavor text is RAW so I don't know why I am bothering with this.

To harken this back to a more... legal body of rules, there are two main bodies of law to my understanding:
-In common law bodies, answers to previous questions are laws (precedent)
-In non-common law bodies, answers to previous questions are not laws

Court cases in common law bodies (at least in the US) are always questions. In order to be a court case, there must be a disagreement about something. This disagreement must be between two parties (and actually matter). The court then hears the case and picks an answer.

(Note: Juries decide "facts", like "Did this happen?". Judges decide interpretations of law, like "What must now legally happen?". In this conversation, we're talking about questioning rules, not questioning events - so findings of law matter, not findings of fact.)

When it's the law itself that's disagreed upon, a judge provides an answer to the question ("Are non-slaver states required to return escaped slaves to slaver states" in Dread Scott, for instance).

The judge(s) make a decision, then publish that decision. That decision is now law.

In those cases, the answers to asked questions (frequently or otherwise) are, themselves, rules (laws).

The premise of this thread can be rewritten as:
"Is 40k a common-law rulesset"? If so, FAQs are binding (precedent). If not, FAQs are not binding.

Note that the UK is a Common Law country, like the US. And Common Law is a culture thing. So absent specification otherwise, a rulesset based in UK culture would most likely be Common Law-based.

Are there any FAQs that explicitly reference other FAQs?

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Well, yes, flavor text is still within the set [explicitly written down in the rulebook]. Deciding whether it pertains to the game play or not is up to your interpretation.

Is a paragraph in a novel not a paragraph in a novel because the author/editor didn't realize it was completely contradictory?

All I'm trying to do is help you understand what RAW discussion means in this forum going forward because you're getting unnecessarily heated over a discussion with strangers on a forum.

No. Flavor text is flavor text and rules are rules. It isn't WAW(writing as written)[As much as orks may have you believe... Mind the pun] it is RAW

I seriously can't believe this conversation has dissolved to this. Go watch some game design videos on youtube. Specifically look up the difference between the American style of board game design and the German style in relationship to applying game themes. Or just try and figure out what the word "rule" means... I am so incredibly baffled by the lack of formal reasoning and lack of logic in this thread. I have honestly just lost respect for a part of humanities basic ability to comprehend descriptive language... Flavor text is not intended RAW... In no way shape or form. Once you figure that out we can move on to the real conversation.

As previously explained, we discuss RAW because in a permissive ruleset, you need to be explicitly told so in order for you to do something. "The rule doesn't tell me I can't do this, so I can do this" is not a valid reasoning.

What you are discussing is your liberty of interpreting the contradictory nature of BRB, battleprimer, campaign books, FAQ's, etc (currently BRB/Battleprimer vs FAQ). This is strictly RAI and/or HIWPI, which I've noted as this becoming another one of your "prove me wrong" posts.

Why is this a RAI/HIWPI discussion? Because you're asking what to do with a written text when it blatantly contradicts a preexisting convention/rule.

The OP asks whether the so called "reminder/example text" is to be binding changes to the BRB. This is strictly an opinion thread which is why the second poster noted this isn't really YMDC appropriate.

What you're referring to as "WAW" is actually the "RAW" that gets discussed. It's important you understand this going forward in order to avoid these unnecessary arguments.

You clearly do not understand what I am saying in my posts. Go back, try to understand it, and stop cut and pasting it to suit your needs like you do with non intentional "rules"

I don't care how you spin it, flavor isn't RAW and neither is a non-rules statement... Even if a non-rules statement shows up in an official rules document. It's not a complicated thing to grasp... Seriously though, if you think flavor writing equates to a rule... Then I dont even know where to start explaining this from

 Type40 wrote:
Right so flavor text is raw now and so is anything scribed anywhere...

Trying to claim things like the reminder that a transport can't have units both embark and disembark as flavor text seems to strain what people would refer to as "only" flavor text beyond all plausible boundaries for it.

Bharring wrote:
To harken this back to a more... legal body of rules, there are two main bodies of law to my understanding:
-In common law bodies, answers to previous questions are laws (precedent)
-In non-common law bodies, answers to previous questions are not laws

Court cases in common law bodies (at least in the US) are always questions. In order to be a court case, there must be a disagreement about something. This disagreement must be between two parties (and actually matter). The court then hears the case and picks an answer.

(Note: Juries decide "facts", like "Did this happen?". Judges decide interpretations of law, like "What must now legally happen?". In this conversation, we're talking about questioning rules, not questioning events - so findings of law matter, not findings of fact.)

When it's the law itself that's disagreed upon, a judge provides an answer to the question ("Are non-slaver states required to return escaped slaves to slaver states" in Dread Scott, for instance).

The judge(s) make a decision, then publish that decision. That decision is now law.

In those cases, the answers to asked questions (frequently or otherwise) are, themselves, rules (laws).

The premise of this thread can be rewritten as:
"Is 40k a common-law rulesset"? If so, FAQs are binding (precedent). If not, FAQs are not binding.

Note that the UK is a Common Law country, like the US. And Common Law is a culture thing. So absent specification otherwise, a rulesset based in UK culture would most likely be Common Law-based.

Are there any FAQs that explicitly reference other FAQs?

This is completely unrelated.

No one is talking about whether or not the answer is raw. We are talking about whether not the informal text used to describe the answer is law. Especially when it postulates a new rule completely unrelated to the question.

For example:
Q:
Is murder legal?
A:no (if a person steals a spoon and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder)

The question is about if what is in brackets a law. Does the explication text count as law, especially if it references something that doesn't exists... Let's assume there are currently no questions or laws established about stealing... Does this answer make stealing illegal or is this example text used as informal explication that is poorly referenced due to not doing proper research... It's nonrule text and not some embedded convoluted attempt at tacking on new rules.

 Octopoid wrote:

People writing rules are still people. They make mistakes. There's probably multiple people writing rules. They miscommunicate.

That is why editors exist.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

People writing rules are still people. They make mistakes. There's probably multiple people writing rules. They miscommunicate.

That is why editors exist.

Editors are still people. They make mistakes. There's probably multiple people editing rules. They miscommunicate.

In other words, a product produced by humans is likely to have errors. Get over it.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Right so flavor text is raw now and so is anything scribed anywhere...

Trying to claim things like the reminder that a transport can't have units both embark and disembark as flavor text seems to strain what people would refer to as "only" flavor text beyond all plausible boundaries for it.

Some one earlier in the thread literally told me "put on your armor, load your bolter and get ready for war" was raw... That is what I am referring too when I say flavor... I don't call non-rules statements and explanatory text as flavor but I also don't try and call a snipped out section of it raw.

"informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."

This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.

RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.

RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.

You are confusing RAI with RAW.

What is being contended is your claim that reminder texts/examples are not RAW. Clarification of a rule is RAW, it just doesn't modify the wordings of RAW.

 skchsan wrote:
"informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."

This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.

RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.

RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.

You are confusing RAI with RAW.

I disagree to an extent. I think taking RAW purely at face value is in itself a decision based on bias. This is due to there being many instance of clear inconsistencies in RAW. Any position you take, even that of following RAW to the letter, is to some degree arbitrary.

 Stux wrote:

Spoiler:

 skchsan wrote:
"informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."

This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.

RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.

RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.

You are confusing RAI with RAW.

I disagree to an extent. I think taking RAW purely at face value is in itself a decision based on bias. This is due to there being many instance of clear inconsistencies in RAW. Any position you take, even that of following RAW to the letter, is to some degree arbitrary.

That's pretty philosophical. But yes, when there are clear inconsistencies we defer to RAI as otherwise the game collapses.

 skchsan wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Spoiler:

 skchsan wrote:
"informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."

This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.

RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.

RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.

You are confusing RAI with RAW.

I disagree to an extent. I think taking RAW purely at face value is in itself a decision based on bias. This is due to there being many instance of clear inconsistencies in RAW. Any position you take, even that of following RAW to the letter, is to some degree arbitrary.

That's pretty philosophical. But yes, when there are clear inconsistencies we defer to RAI as otherwise the game collapses.

How many of these arguments could be avoided if we considered RAI to mean "Rules as Interpreted"?

It's not even just inconsistencies. We've seen many examples over the years of rules that could be read more than one way, with people refusing to accept that anything other than their chosen interpretation is RAW.

RAW often comes down simply to the interpretation on the reader, and claiming that your given interpretation is RAW doesn't mean that it is actually the way the rule is supposed to be read.

 skchsan wrote:
"informal descriptive example/reminder texts are not rules, because they do not follow the norms of how rules are written."

This in itself is an interpretation. You are implying that a certain portion of the written rule cannot be considered a rule because it does not conform to what you perceive as how rules should be written.

RAW standpoint takes what is written literally. Literally written, pulse rifle hits twice outside of RF range AND pulse rifle hits once outside RF range. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Is it written in the FAQ? Yes.

RAW takes an unbiased approach in its reading. It's up to the players' interpretation within reasonable realm to make it work.

You are confusing RAI with RAW.

What is being contended is your claim that reminder texts/examples are not RAW. Clarification of a rule is RAW, it just doesn't modify the wordings of RAW.

Actually what you are doing is taking informal text, then engaging in determining RAI and then claiming it is RAW. you are picking and choosing a part of written text to make it sound like a rule.

What is literally written is

Q: With regards the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability, what
exactly is meant by ‘may fire an extra shot’?
A: It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.

What you are first doing is first cutting it down to only this, ignoring the context in which it was written

Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.

then cutting it down to this

Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls

then cutting it down to this

a model with a pulse rifle make(s) two
hit rolls

RAW is not the last statement. Thats not even what is actually written there.

What is written is an explanation to an answer (the answer being what is RAW as it is an intended RULE not a piece of explanation text)

Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.

Does this seem like some kind of rules presentation to you ? if you read it word for word as written? is this telling you they are proposing a new rule ? Is this the type of writing that conveys an intentional submission of a rule ?
or is this writing that is being used to explain the answer it is attached to ?

Q: With regards the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability, what
exactly is meant by ‘may fire an extra shot’?
A: It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.

You can't just look at a few parts of a sentence, cut a bunch of words out so it makes sense as a rule and then go on claiming that this is now, not just a rule, but a Rule As Written (even though you have to cut a bunch of text out of what was written to make it a rule). It isn't even in the context of the the rule the game designers were actually trying to present to you, its not rules text, its explanation text which you are butchering just to be able to claim its a rule at all, let alone RAW.

A rule is a rule if it is intended to be a rule. GW has a way of presenting rules. A formal and established way to present rules. If they are postulating a new rule it will get its own Errata or FAQ. They are not presenting some poorly written example embedding into another question and expecting you to butcher it until it becomes a rule so you can claim that it is, just because its in a rules document ... thats not how RAW works.
RAW requires two things

For the text in a rules document to be presented as a RULE (hence, flavour text like "get your armor on" is not a rule).(which an established format for GW to present rules to us is in place)
For the text in the rules document to be unchanged from what is written.

To claim this is RAW, you achieve neither of those points.
Seriously stop cutting and pasting out of context informal non-rules text together and claiming its raw just because you are taking those words out of a rules document. A piece of example text or reminder text is not intended to be a rule, thats why its not written as a rule. So trying to take that piece of text and make it RAW results in at best nonsesne and at worst some kind of butchery until its not even what was written anymore.

I'd say where it's clear the FAQ writers have not read the codex, and the FAQ directly contradict the rule, no, it is not binding. An errata to change the wording of the rule is a binding rule change. An FAQ exists to clarify a frequently asked question regarding a rule. If the FAQ actually makes the issue more confused, then it should be considered non-binding. Or at least that's how I'll be playing it. Also how the feth this is even an issue amazes me. Whoever writes the FAQs should probably have the relevant book open when they're writing them. And maybe get a proof reader who knows the codex.

@type40 That's exactly what youre doing. You're telling us the part that begins with 'Note' should be more or less disregarded as if it's not there (claim that it is not a rule as written) because it doesn't conform to the norms of rules format.

I'm simply stating the definition of RAW takes the rule within its raw state.

RAI/HIWPI, I'd rule that no, it does not grant extra shot beyond RF range.

The RAW is stupid and I'd be "breaking the rule" but that doesn't make the RAw not RAW.

 skchsan wrote:
@type40 That's exactly what youre doing. You're telling us the part that begins with 'Note' should be more or less disregarded as if it's not there (claim that it is not a rule as written) because it doesn't conform to the norms of rules format.

I'm simply stating the definition of RAW takes the rule within its raw state.

No I AM NOT

I am telling you that AS WRITTEN all this is telling you to do is "MAKE A NOTE OF THIS"
If you really want to follow this as RAW then go ahead and make a little mental or physical note of this every time you shoot a pulse rifle with Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability. AS WRITTEN it does not say "pulse rifels are rapid fire 2 weapons" unless you cut the NOTE part out specifically(and a few other things) and then rearrange what is actually written there so it fits what you think is RAI. For all we know some random other ability is being used to give it an extra attack or something else, because this is an out of context explanation but either way it doesn't mater because it is NOT some kind of intentional attempt to embed a rule into some unrelated question. If it was some kind of new rule being presented it wouldn't even be there. It would have its own errata or question and be accompanied by its own explanation text (that may or may not be also just as poorly researched) and guess what! that explanation text wouldn't be a proposed Rule or RAW either, it would be a reference or explanation (either a correct one or not).
What you are doing is niether RAW or RAI. You are literally cutting pieces out of a bad explanation, rearranging it, and calling it RAW.
You know why its written like that? and not "pulse rifles are rapid fire 2 weapons/h Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability works on pulse rifles at full range" because it is NOT an attempt to propose a new rules statement. What it is, is a poorly written rules explanation/reference that happens to be in a rules document.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't see how you can justify even calling this A RULE let alone RAW.
and don't give me this, its written so its a RULE stuff,,, then take the whole sentence as written and make a mental/physical note whilst having no impact on the game then. Or you can even ignore the word "NOTE" try and figure out the context of the game in the which the example is being taken (like what other abilities happened in the particular game they are using as reference) [unfortunately for you that's impossible to know]. You don't get have this both ways, either you acknowledge it as RAW and use every word, in which case what is written is nonsense as a rule, or you don't.

You're actively making a decision to disregard this "reminder text/examples" because they're sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

There are many instances where the RAW was so poorly worded that it didn't have the intended effect, where FAQ cleared it out. So yes, maybe it doesnt MODIFY the RAW in the way you seemingly claim (because it doesn't according to you) but it sure made the rule work in the way we RAI'ed it.

So what about the informal blubs on the side of the rules? Are they not rules because they're informal?

For the Audience, RAI is anything that a poster pre-supposes knowledge of the intention of the rule or wording.

RAW is any argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer. For example, whether or not “reminder text” is considered valid presupposes knowledge of the intention of the writer.

RAW essentially assumes all words written are deliberate, whether or not this creates invalid game states or any manner of difficulties. In the case of the Tau getting an extra shot at long range, despite this being a departure from the original limitation in the rule book, when dissecting RAW we must assume all words are deliberate.

When working with RAW arguments, the most specific rulings take precedence. In cases where two rulings are equally specific (such as the Codex version of the Tau rule and the FAQ version of the rule) the most recent version of the rule takes precedence. This is arbitrary, but much like BEDMAS is an arbitrary manner of resolving equations, it is the expected and generally accepted manner.

So while a person may dislike and refuse to play the game in a way giving an additional shot at long range, the “rules” of dealing with RAW arguments do dictate that as this is an equally specific rule with a more recent version, thus the most recent version is the “correct” interpretation.

Although it conflicts with an earlier version, the earlier version is invalidated by the more recent version, which eliminates the conflict.

Any other interpretation ignores the “rules” of RAW arguments. Either through belief that this was an unintentional mistake, or belief that it “doesn’t count” because of reasons, all written rules, even reminder text, is fair game. To ignore them presumes knowledge of intent, that is unknowable in a RAW argument.

How I Would Play It is different. That is where RAI comes into play, and is unsurprisingly the area in which common sense and common agreement are important.

HIWPI is I would now allow a Tau player to take an extra shot at long range, post FAQ. I’m not a Tau player. Most armies now have some variation on cracking off an extra shot at long range, so whether intentional or not I’d let it happen.

 skchsan wrote:
You're actively making a decision to disregard this "reminder text/examples" because they're sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

There are many instances where the RAW was so poorly worded that it didn't have the intended effect, where FAQ cleared it out. So yes, maybe it doesnt MODIFY the RAW in the way you seemingly claim (because it doesn't according to you) but it sure made the rule work in the way we RAI'ed it.

So what about the informal blubs on the side of the rules? Are they not rules because they're informal?

the "blubs" in the BRB those are presented AS rules and in some cases examples. But the inclusion of examples is CLARIFICATION not a "rule." and it helps you understand the RAI. but they are absolutely NOT rules.
The reminder text that references actual rules or example text that doesn't reference wrong things are helpful yes, but inclusion or exclusion doesn't make the answer any less correct. Just easier to understand. The inclusion or exclusion of an example or reference doesn't make the actual rule's text any less or more correct. They are there to help you understand a rule. When a new rule is being presented, it will be presented to us. Ya it sucks that GW uses bad examples and examples of things that do not exist, but its no justification to think some poor example is a RULE and something can not be a RULE as written if it is not postulated as a rule.

If I was giving you instructions and said "I will give you a rule and you can ask a question about it, then I will give you an answer to THAT question so you may modify your rules". (kinda like a game we play)
"The rule is
Use your hand to pick up things "
and you asked
"Can I pick up a pink ball ? "
and I said "you, in fact, must pick up a pink ball. (note, using your hands is how we pick up things).

The rule is Use your hands to pick up things and you must pick up a pink ball.

I am attempting to clarify the rule with the later part of my answer.. The later is not a rule, it is a piece of clarification. The rules are what are presented as regulatory. The rules are also presented in the defined format. the clarification is what is presented to explain and make sure you got the rule correct. it is a reference to something else or an expansion on what is being directly addressed in the question.

Now if I am GW and I write my clarification wrong ....

Use your hand to pick up things
and you asked
"Can I have a pink ball ? "
and I said "you must pick up a pink ball. (note. using your feet is how we pick up things)

it still does not magically make the a statement of rules text... it is first off not regulatory statement due to the referencing word "note." which would be equivalent to "for example" or "remember," or "don't forget."
A new rule or change to a rule is not presented out of format unless it is directly answering the question, and therefor fitting of the formatting.

for example

Use your hand to pick up things
and you asked
"Can I pick up a pink ball with my feat ? "
and I said "you must pick up a pink ball and using your feet is how we pick up things now.

This simple change changes the entire formatting and changes the later text from clarity text to a new rule.
This is also why I keep stressing that you can't just look at a few lines and build it into what ever you want. You need to look at the whole question in the FAQs and read the example/reminder/explanation text as that. Doing it otherwise is not how syntax works, and GW knows enough that they aren't attempting to propose new rules in reminder text/explanation text. Thus they are formatting it as clarification text (which I think is quite obvious) and thus not a rule. They know enough that if they want to propose a new rule it will be errata or its own FAQ question. They know enough that they know how to write a piece of clarification v.s. extension to an answer of a question. What they do not know how to do is reference other work correctly.

Seriously, how many times can you point to a Q and A that references something incorrectly in example/reminder text and honestly tell me it is not being presented as some kind of clarification v.s. an intentional embedded rule within the answer of another question?

A rule is a rule, a piece of clarification, whether correct or not, is not a rule.

 greatbigtree wrote:
For the Audience, RAI is anything that a poster pre-supposes knowledge of the intention of the rule or wording. ... [see spoiler]

RAW is any argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer. For example, whether or not “reminder text” is considered valid presupposes knowledge of the intention of the writer.

The problem with the Tau example is that if it is taken RAW (aka "argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer ... {that} assumes all words written are deliberate, whether or not this creates invalid game states or any manner of difficulties.") is that the text in question is not written as a rules statement but rather as clarification text and there for is nonsense when looking at it from a rules perspective. What is being debated is whether or not it even is a rule to be considered rules as written, then, even if it is, does it make any sense at all.
The piece of does not read

a pulse rifle gets one extra to hit roll at full range

(this would be what someone may decide is RAI)

What the text objectively actually reads

Q: With regards the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability, what
exactly is meant by ‘may fire an extra shot’?
A: It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.

1. First of all, in the context of this entire question, it is clear that the writing in question is not rules text but it is rather clarification text that references something in the game that does not exist. [see spoiler]



2. The next argument is that this new "rule" is not established in correct formatting, thus supporting the earlier argument that it is poorly written clarification text rather then a proposition of a new rule. [see spoiler]



3.If we do decide that this is a rule and we look at it as a rule, due to the fact that it was written as clarification text, it is literal nonsense in RAW. [see spoiler]



4. as a counter claim, if you do suppose this type of text is RAW and if you are to assume that this does say that pulse rifles get 2 shots. you are neither following RAI or RAW; [see spoiler]



So please,
stop trying to claim that butchering up some text that is unintended to be a rule is in someway RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No pre-suposed anything, this based on a direct reading of the text.

You do not need to pre-supose something is being used for clarity. The very fact that it is presented as an example shows that. That's what examples are for, clarity and not propositions of new rules..

there is a reason we do not assume flavour text to be RAW. Somethings written in rules documents arn't being presented as "rules." example/reminder text is just that, text presented for clarity, not rules propositions.

show me what precedence we are supposed to have from GW to assume that example/reminder text should be considered a proposition of a new rule and regarded as such. Show me what precedent we even have in game design to think that.

p.s. in general, within game design, example/reminder text is not considered to be a proposition of rules [not an assumption, in game design [specifically rules design] you have rule statements and clarity statements(i.e. example/reminder text)] also, keyword definition statements [i,e, defining FLYER, Charge, or combat (gw could do a better job at this))]. most other games make a clear distinction by use of italics for clarity statements and bold for keywords unfortunately GW does this only for keywords... but just because they don't clearly mark when a clarity statement starts doesn't mean its not there and doesn't mean you can pretend its somehow proposing a new rule to you. Other major games have gone out of their way to clarify this to their players and specifically clarify that clarity text is not RAW or expected to be(see MTG rule 207.2). With that precedence, show me where in this permissive game system it says you CAN read every word, even if it is out of context or format, as though the designers were presenting new rules to you, RAW or RAI. remember the keyword in both RAW and RAI is RULE. Shouldn't we be following the established standards given to us by GWs own formatting and game design in general before we are specifically given permission not to (because the game is permissive,... or is that just a term we like to throw around so we can ignore logic and reason ?) I am sorry the game designers arn't specifically trying to spell out how to tell the difference between something written for clarity and a proposed new rule,,, I don't think they expected they would need too.

 greatbigtree wrote:
For the Audience, RAI is anything that a poster pre-supposes knowledge of the intention of the rule or wording.

RAW is any argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer. For example, whether or not “reminder text” is considered valid presupposes knowledge of the intention of the writer.

RAW essentially assumes all words written are deliberate, whether or not this creates invalid game states or any manner of difficulties. In the case of the Tau getting an extra shot at long range, despite this being a departure from the original limitation in the rule book, when dissecting RAW we must assume all words are deliberate.

I'm sorry. No. What you are describing is what as been characterized as "naive literalism". It is the sort of stance that will cause game designers to ignore you and hope you some day get treatment.

According to what you've written out, you're not allowed to type the words "This is a permissive rules set. We know how those work, and in a permissive rules set you must resolve conflicts as follows..." Because that's all constructed out of knowledge concerning the text, how it is written, and how it has been designed.

Everything else in your post appears to be rules of thumb that are made up.

 solkan wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
For the Audience, RAI is anything that a poster pre-supposes knowledge of the intention of the rule or wording.

RAW is any argument free from suppositions regarding the intention of the writer. For example, whether or not “reminder text” is considered valid presupposes knowledge of the intention of the writer.

RAW essentially assumes all words written are deliberate, whether or not this creates invalid game states or any manner of difficulties. In the case of the Tau getting an extra shot at long range, despite this being a departure from the original limitation in the rule book, when dissecting RAW we must assume all words are deliberate.

I'm sorry. No. What you are describing is what as been characterized as "naive literalism". It is the sort of stance that will cause game designers to ignore you and hope you some day get treatment.

According to what you've written out, you're not allowed to type the words "This is a permissive rules set. We know how those work, and in a permissive rules set you must resolve conflicts as follows..." Because that's all constructed out of knowledge concerning the text, how it is written, and how it has been designed.

Everything else in your post appears to be rules of thumb that are made up.

This "naive literalism" you've coined is exactly what RAW is...