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.
Bharring wrote: Fun factoid: The MLB rulebook is 184 pages. These are rules for playing Baseball, not for running a league.
And MTG 's comprehensive rules is 232 pages long. Writing solid rules isnt an wasy task, and the more rules you add, the harder it is to havbe a solid ruleset.
BaconCatBug wrote: The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
Last time i checked Language is sort of a democracy in that the way words are interpreted change over time depending on how the majority of people use it.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
Not at all.
You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each. I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).
In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".
So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
So you're literally saying that you need to follow the rules because it's the only objective method? Glad you agree with me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 18:23:27
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
Not at all.
You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each.
I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).
In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".
So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
So you're literally saying that you need to follow the rules because it's the only objective method? Glad you agree with me.
Well, the act of following a rule involves a certain degree of interpretation of the given text. At which time, is it truly RAW or is it actually RAI(interpreted)?
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
Not at all.
You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each.
I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).
In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".
So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
So you're literally saying that you need to follow the rules because it's the only objective method? Glad you agree with me.
That is some gold-medal-worthy, Olympic-level mental gymnastics.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Elbows wrote: BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
Elbows wrote: BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
I have to say though BCB's often overly hunted over (often justified, but that's besides the point), but the points he bring up are real issues requiring further intervention via RAInterpreted in order for the said rule to work in a real game.
This further blurs the practical usage of RAW because RAW is never truly RAW, but once removed RAInterpreted.
Which goes back to the point - is it actually practical for us to call RAW as RAW? Or should it be called something else entirely?
As a game designer myself, I can easily point fingers at GW. Their writing is quite poor and they lack a style book, and definitely don't invest in technical editing. However, even with cleaned up and technically proficient writing, no wargame will ever feature 100% correct rules...because a reader or consumer is always able to go one step deeper in the "well, what do they mean by..." zone.
This is akin to the old study where someone was able to make an obnoxiously lengthy document on how to assemble a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. This was done for entertainment value, but it highlighted how much we take for granted using simple instructions. Even with cleaned up rules writing, if GW wanted a 100% RAW correct document, the rulebook could be 3,400 pages. There becomes a finite point where any rules writer or instructional writer must surrender to the common sense of the consumer and go on faith that they are a functioning and literate adult capable of parsing out the general purpose of the statement.
If I say "take a slice of bread and put peanut butter on one side"...this is understandable to an average adult, right?
What I didn't say was:
1) Using your hands and fingers obtain the package of bread.
2) Grip the package of bread in one hand, careful not to crush the contents - apply only the pressure needed to hold the package securely without deforming the contents' physical shape and structure
3) Manipulate the twist-tie using two of your fingers until it becomes free from the bag and falls to the counter top
4) Manipulate the package so that the open end is upward and you can physically reach into the package using one of your hands.
5) Using the muscle control in your hand, and several fingers, carefully pick one slice of bread between your fingers, careful again not to crush it
6) Using an upward motion extract the single slice of bread from the package and place it carefully on a provided plate
etc.
It's a absurd example, and I would have missed 1,000 additional steps you could apply in that same time...but it highlights how crazy any instruction could become. As someone who playtests a ton of games, I've never seen a perfectly written game...ever. GW is at the lower end of the spectrum from the stuff I've read and playtested, but the intent is almost always clear and playing the game without hiccups is possible and reasonable.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?
because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.
now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.
But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.
Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".
Not at all.
You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each.
I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).
In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".
So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
So you're literally saying that you need to follow the rules because it's the only objective method? Glad you agree with me.
No; the point is that, objectively, fancy RAW arguments without consensus are less valid than simplistic RAI assumptions with consensus.
BaconCatBug wrote: The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
Last time i checked Language is sort of a democracy in that the way words are interpreted change over time depending on how the majority of people use it.
Not at all:
US Constitution wrote:
The Congress shall have Power To [...]
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
[...]
Piracy now means IP violations. The Constitution gives Congress to define and punish people hijacking other boats, not the power to define and punish listening to music you didn't pay for.
It is a "sort of democracy" in that it means what those conversing in it agree, but the meaning of a conversation doesn't change after the fact when the words used change meaning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 18:40:01
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.
I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
So answer the question, if we're playing tennis, you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?
He's saying if you're playing football and discover and interpretation that you argue allows you to underinflate the football.
RAW is an interpretation. It may or may not be correct. When RAW conflicts with RAI then troubles begin.
Having said that, I agree rules can be made less difficult, with effort. But that costs money and may cost enjoyment.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BaconCatBug wrote: I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?
If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Except the ball landing in the wrong area beign a fault is the intended result of the rule.
Not letting your opponent use assault weapons after advancing because "ITS NOT RAW!!!!!" is clearly not the intended result of the rule. Why would GW bother to write down this rule and make this class of weapon if it litterally had no purpose? this is the difference.
Youre the bad guy because you refuse to agree (or at least tolerate) how 99% of the playerbase uses rules.
Now im not saying that you dont have a point in that the rules shouldnt be broken like this, and i've used your posts to tell my opponents in real life how "technically this situation isnt legal, how bout that". but never have i applied the obviously not intended result of these broken rules, its more of a fun anecdote to share while smalltalking.
Lets not make this personal with someone "being the bad guy."
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: He's saying if you're playing football and discover and interpretation that you argue allows you to underinflate the football.
RAW is an interpretation. It may or may not be correct. When RAW conflicts with RAI then troubles begin.
Having said that, I agree rules can be made less difficult, with effort. But that costs money and may cost enjoyment.
I never understood the anger about that. The rules allowed them to do so. I assume if the NFL doesn't want them doing that, they changed the rule?
Deflating/underinflating the ball make it significantly easier to catch. So, no, you're not allowed to deflate your ball. This is actually a major violation of rules and you're fined/suspended.
But unlike the current discussion, regulation has a clear cut regulations, must be inflated to certain PSI, then manually checked by the ref prior to the start of the game.
On the other hand if the regulations have read, "the ball must be inflated to a reasonable amount", one can argue, "well, exactly how much is "reasonable amount?""
In this case, can we clearly define the given ruleset, the RAW of the said ruleset, and the allowable degree in which one can RAI?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 18:52:44
Oh, this is some seriously arrogant horse manure. EVERYONE'S reading is an interpretation, even yours, .
Of course it is. This is the entire basis of the legal profession. The only time a law or administrative rule is settled, is when it has been adjudicated to the highest ruling body available. ASGW does not have ruling bodies for interpretation outside of FAQs, questions remain questions and completely matters of interpretation. Indeed, one could argue that there is no such thing as RAW, only RAI (rules as interpreted).
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
That is an incorrect statement. The game is a voluntary association. If a rule interpretation is not supported by the player base, the player base won't play it. If you go against that support, you will discover the democracy inherent in the system when you find no one will play against you.
EDIT: thanks Vlad. Corrected it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/08 19:00:43
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.
That is an incorrect statement. The game is a voluntary association. If a rule interpretation is not supported by the player base, the player base won't play it. If you go against that support, you will discover the democracy inherent in the system when you find no one will play against you.
im pretty sure you messed up the quoting here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 18:56:36
Frazzled wrote: He's saying if you're playing football and discover and interpretation that you argue allows you to underinflate the football.
RAW is an interpretation. It may or may not be correct. When RAW conflicts with RAI then troubles begin.
Having said that, I agree rules can be made less difficult, with effort. But that costs money and may cost enjoyment.
I never understood the anger about that. The rules allowed them to do so. I assume if the NFL doesn't want them doing that, they changed the rule?
Its actually violative of the rules (as demonstrated by penalties I believe, I didn't follow it intensely), and provides a player advantage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well the rules dont say youre not allowed to dump water on the battlefield so if i did you wouldnt be angry?
No but my wienerdog might pee on your leg. He's kind of antisocial.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 18:58:30
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
When dealing with RAW in contracts, in the real world, intent means nothing. If you put something in writing then that is how the contract is interpreted. If there are contradictions and/or ambiguities then they are interpreted in favor of the person who did not write the contract.
Do I expect GW, or any game manufacturer, to use lawyer level proof readers and editors? No. But that doesn't mean that the mind set of the reader shouldn't be set at that level. When someone says, "it's obvious that..." and another person says that it's something different then it's not obvious. Some of the things that BCB points out could easily be fixed by GW just adding or changing a few words.
Technically BCB is correct in that since GW has posted numerous FAQs and Errata if GW is silent on something then they meant what they wrote. Thus if you are insisting on RAW games then you should be aware of his signature and talk out the resolutions to the game (at that point you may or may not be playing the game RAW but you will be playing some version of 40K).
Did some cleaning, warnings have been issued, I would like to remind all participants of the great state of Dakka Dakka that Rule #1, to be polite, is not optional.
Any further reports will be dealt with accordingly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 20:01:20
Leo_the_Rat wrote: When dealing with RAW in contracts, in the real world, intent means nothing. If you put something in writing then that is how the contract is interpreted. If there are contradictions and/or ambiguities then they are interpreted in favor of the person who did not write the contract.
This is not entirely true. In some cases judges rule against the wording of contracts. For instance, in terms of service it has at times been ruled that a clause was unreasonable, given the context of a long terms of service for a relatively mundane product. Although the language is clear and it is undisputed that the contract was agreed to.
This is because judges are given scope to look at context and common sense to interpret the law.
The same should be done with the rules of a game, more so as it is written less rigorously. Context and common sense are often more important than what is actually written.
BaconCatBug wrote: Lack of errata is proof the rule is intended to be the way it is written.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If I intend to spray a model green, and accidentally grab the blue spray, the fact that the model winds up blue is an accident. It's intended to be green.
If I leave it sitting on the bench for three and a half years before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I spray a whole bunch of other models before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I fix another model that I similarly sprayed incorrectly, and don't fix this one, it's still intended to be green.
If I never get around to fixing it, and archaeologists find it in my dark and dusty workroom in a thousand years time, it's still intended to be green.
BaconCatBug wrote: Lack of errata is proof the rule is intended to be the way it is written.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If I intend to spray a model green, and accidentally grab the blue spray, the fact that the model winds up blue is an accident. It's intended to be green.
If I leave it sitting on the bench for three and a half years before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I spray a whole bunch of other models before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green.
If I fix another model that I similarly sprayed incorrectly, and don't fix this one, it's still intended to be green.
If I never get around to fixing it, and archaeologists find it in my dark and dusty workroom in a thousand years time, it's still intended to be green.
The rules are no different.
Great comparison. Its clearly intended for assault to be able to shoot after advancing (i keep using this example since its the most egregious one). The fact that these rules havnt been errata'd probably stem from the fact that either no one has told GW (after all, the fact that it doesnt work in the RAW is a weird wording) or that GW thinks that one guys arguing for it doesnt warrant being put in a FAQ since the intent is obvious.
Lets not forget the "i cant believe you guys were arguing about this" message that GW put in the latest FAQ
BaconCatBug wrote: Lack of errata is proof the rule is intended to be the way it is written.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If I intend to spray a model green, and accidentally grab the blue spray, the fact that the model winds up blue is an accident. It's intended to be green. If I leave it sitting on the bench for three and a half years before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green. If I spray a whole bunch of other models before I get around to respraying it, it's still intended to be green. If I fix another model that I similarly sprayed incorrectly, and don't fix this one, it's still intended to be green. If I never get around to fixing it, and archaeologists find it in my dark and dusty workroom in a thousand years time, it's still intended to be green.
The rules are no different.
This is not even remotely true, no matter how many times you claim it to be.
If you intend it for be green and don't change it, how am I supposed to know what your intent is, especially if you've already changed your models colour in the past?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: Yes, it has become very clear from the tone of errata that GW expect common sense to be applied to the rules.
And who gets to decide what is and isn't common sense?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/08 20:45:21
