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.

Karol wrote:

And we are back to cultural differences then. Because I am guessing in some places people, when faced with a problem in a game, change the rule in a such a way that it makes fun for both people. Now for me this is hard to imagine, because the natural instinct here is to screw the other person over, as it is not just worth to deal with the other person idea of fun, considering how long people play the game and how much it costs. For example in my situation, the people at my school that made me join w40k mostly are no longer playing , or play other games by now. All the time they did play, someone else fun was never a concern. IMO they got a lot more out of their game time, then someone here who would try making games fun, what ever that means, for everyone.

Why would you want to play a game of little dolls and aquarium terrain and not want everyone to have fun? Why would you want to prioritise screwing over the other person? Why even play a game against another person if it's not a mutual experience?

 Jidmah wrote:
In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question.
Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.

Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.

Yeah, my advice to someone playing in a meta like the one Karol describes is always only ever going to be "don't."

Life is too short, and filled with too many possible sources of joy that cost absolutely zero dollars (or whatever they use...Polandbux? Pollars?)

Ultimately, if you haven't made a financial screw-up that has cost you more than 300$ by the time you're 18 you've led an incredibly lucky life. Gotten into a car accident, made a stupid investment, gotten scammed, gotten sucked into a stupid video game...it happens, man.

What we keep trying to tell you is that even if you took that 300$ and purchased the most perfect wonderful competitive army you could buy with 300$, you'd still be miserable. You'd probably also still be blaming GW for your misery.

You know what's free? art. plenty of sports. People of the type that you are attracted to. Many video games.

You know what's not free? The many, many, many, many, many hours you seem to fruitlessly waste making the exact same post you always make on every thread on this internet forum complaining about how your collection of randomly assorted grey knight models has to play against competitive imperial soup castellan lists and you can't seem to win because gosh darn it GW just won't fix the game!

the_scotsman 775190 10441450 wrote:

What we keep trying to tell you is that even if you took that 300$ and purchased the most perfect wonderful competitive army you could buy with 300$, you'd still be miserable. You'd probably also still be blaming GW for your misery.

You know what's free? art. plenty of sports. People of the type that you are attracted to. Many video games.

You know what's not free? The many, many, many, many, many hours you seem to fruitlessly waste making the exact same post you always make on every thread on this internet forum complaining about how your collection of randomly assorted grey knight models has to play against competitive imperial soup castellan lists and you can't seem to win because gosh darn it GW just won't fix the game!

I think you are right it probably would have been better, if I bought something else. I have a sister that is my own age, we get the same money for confirmation . I bought GK, she bought a tablet. Not some uber machine of doom, but good enough for it to work 2 years later. She had fun with it every day. I think she did a better thing with her money, but then again she always was smarter then me.

I do sports. Am in a sports school. I have enough physical stuff every day. But me personally is not the important thing to judge differences. It is just that when a game exist that, and I think GW plans it that way, expects you to update it every 4-6 months, unless you really hit a jack pot when starting and picked the perfect stuff, it is way different to spend those proverbial 300$, when your hobby yearly budget is 1000$ and a 100$. spread it among a lot of people, and one countries meta, or what ever we call local communities, are going to be different.

For example, I have never someone like that, but I can imagine that if someone has enough spare cash and the will, to change an army every 4-5 months, then buying in to something considered bad is less of a problem. Sure it may be really bad, but the common sense in such a situation is going to tell you that, well armies sometimes are bad, in a few months you will get a new one, and maybe some parts of the bad one arent that bad.

It is totaly different when you have a place where most people are in the situation of probably playing for 1-2 years, and then quiting if your army gets hit real hard, because wait for money for a new army maybe 3-4 years long. The common sense is going to tell you that, you should rather get a good army, then bad one, because when the times comes to have fun no one is going to be waiting, because all of you play for 1-2 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

Yeah, this sort of paragraph is why people say you play in a toxic meta - possibly the post toxic I've ever heard about, outside the ITC.

@Dai - Good point, but maybe spoiler some of such a long post?

you know that is kind of a national trait here. It is just that if the cost is more or less the same, but you make 4xtimes less money it makes people act different. And hobbies are probably the least affected by it, because people do have to play against someone. See it is even in the way we think, we play against someone not with someone.
No is going, well almost no one, to spend 600$ on an army which just does not work. Unless they are way above the avarge in income or have decades of expiriance and just don't need to buy in to much to start a new army. It has less to do with toxicity, and more with the fact that people don't have money to waste.

that is why the common sense argument is hard to pull in places where the view on the game or even how rules are strucutured is different. The fact that GW words two rules the exact same way, and then makes them work in a different way, does help either. Because a RAW"purist" may just point at them and say this is Platos chicken, and there kind of a isn't any argument to counter it other then, GW makes mistakes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question.
Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.

Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.

No, everyone know's you're technically correct (the best kind right?), but they also know that it's an obvious wording oversight and not intended. That's why at every GW store, gaming club and tournament the rule is played as intended (i.e correctly).

 Brother Castor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question.
Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.

Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.

No, everyone know's you're technically correct (the best kind right?), but they also know that it's an obvious wording oversight and not intended. That's why at every GW store, gaming club and tournament the rule is played as intended (i.e correctly).

Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.

Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.

they didnt change it because youre probably the only person advocating that this rule is non-functional, the intent is so damn clear on this that they dont feel/know that they have to clarify it.

Do you actually play the game? Im legitimatly curious because no one that actually plays the game would stop their opponent from shooting with assault.

No, actually the opposite of what you put forth here is true.

Quite a lot of the people where I play spend very little money on games workshop, and I would not be surprised if some of them do have hobby budgets of 150-200$/year. Nearly everyone is playing with an existing collection, because Games Workshop has been around for 20+ years, and as such, it is in the shared interest of everyone to make sure that your army has the maximum playability over time, and that the maximum number of units are playable.

We do have people who come in, and buy up competitive lists to play in tournaments, but because naturally the more competitive your list is, the shorter the amount of time your list's competitiveness lasts, they tend to leave the hobby sooner than the people who just own their collection, have owned it for a long time, and play with the models they have without constantly chasing the drug high of having a tournament list.

The guys who in 7th edition were playing 45x scatter bikes and 2x wraithknights are gone now, they quit when their stuff became bottom of the meta rather than top.

The guys who in early 8th edition were playing guilliman+6 stormravens are gone now, they quit when their stuff became bottom of the meta rather than top.

The guys who since 7th edition played the same non-powergamed, varied collection of ork models or space marine models or guard models and never had a list anywhere near as competitive as the tournament players are still around, because their lists have not fluctuated wildly in power level to make them feel like they're being forced out of the game.

If your hobby group shares the mutual goal of "we want to enjoy this game as much as possible while having to spend the least amount of money possible" the worst thing you can do, collectively, is have lists that spam many copies of the same unit, or have lists that perfectly emulate the top-tier tournament meta. Because those lists simultaneously make the highest number of units unplayable and also are the most prone to extreme point changes when FAQs/new editions/new codexes appear. Any time you get the "casual vs competitive" crowd riled up, the argument of the competitive crowd is essentially "The best way to maximize the chance of a balanced game is to have two players agree upon a ruleset and make lists that are as competitive as possible within that ruleset."

And they're right.....as long as both those players are continuously spending whatever money is required to GET those incredibly competitive rules. the CHEAPEST way to maximize your chance at a balanced game is to have all players collecting the widest possible variety of models even if the units themselves are not the most viable choices for their given role, because that will reduce the fluctuation from rules changes.

What that requires though is for players to resist the urge to buy only the most competitive choices, which is where you run into problems. In the moment it's often very easy to have someone go onto ebay and buy up a 30-man battalion of Storm Bolter/Storm Shield Deathwatch Veterans and they'll perform very good for several months. But their whole army is then equipped with the same thing, and if anything happens to Deathwatch Veterans, Storm Shields, or Storm Bolters, the effect of that rules change will be multiplied by 30x when it comes to impacting their list.

I know a guy just this past FAQ who had every model in his army affected by the changes in some way - he lost SIA on all his deathwatch, his castellan got nerfed and went up 100pts, and he lost the ability to give himself Veteran Intercessors because he made an argument over the rules in the vigilus book that was based on wanting his army to be more powerful, and now only Codex Space Marines can use that detachment. It's probably gonna cost him about 250$ to sell all his minis and buy up a new competitive 2k list, which is exactly what he's doing.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.

Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.

Except that they are the same thing, they are both breaking the rules. The "likely" RaI is what the rules say, because it's already been proven that GW will change rules they made mistakes with, thus lack of errata is proof of intent.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question.
Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.

Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.

No, everyone know's you're technically correct (the best kind right?), but they also know that it's an obvious wording oversight and not intended. That's why at every GW store, gaming club and tournament the rule is played as intended (i.e correctly).

Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.

The only conclusion is that you are interpreting the rules wrong. Full stop.

"lack of errata is proof of intent."

This feels like a basic logical failing...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except that they are the same thing, they are both breaking the rules.

Playing by an interpretation of the rules that you and your opponent have agreed on is not 'breaking the rules'.

The "likely" RaI is what the rules say, because it's already been proven that GW will change rules they made mistakes with, thus lack of errata is proof of intent.

Do you really need the inherent fallacy of this argument to be pointed out to you again?

 insaniak wrote:

Spoiler:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.

...Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.

I'm afraid this is the main issue when determining who's "right" in a rules argument. Most of the time when two opponents agree upon a RAI, there's usually one side that's "losing" and one side "winning". We are "choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI which ends up suiting one side".

In many cases of poor wording that leads to a global effect (i.e. advance and shoot), players will agree that EVERYONE can advance and shoot with the associated penalty, but when poorly written rule favors one side, (i.e. landing pad) where do we draw the line? Of course, the landing pad example is a bad example because the typical RAI ruling merely bring the unit's status from "utterly unplayable" to "playable". But despite our best efforts to arrive at a "fair" solution, there's always a bias on who the ruling favors more, even if in the slightest.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.

Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.

Except that they are the same thing, they are both breaking the rules. The "likely" RaI is what the rules say, because it's already been proven that GW will change rules they made mistakes with, thus lack of errata is proof of intent.

They aren't the same thing at all. It's their difference that matters.

They are both variations on the rules, but the purposes and directions of the two are nothing alike.

The purpose of the first is fairness and fun. The direction is undirected with a bias towards general balance.
The purpose of the second is winning and glory. The direction is to skew the match with a heavy bias in the proponent's favor.

Now, there's no explicit way to provably determine which of the two any given rule is, but that doesn't mean they're the same.

However, we clearly can tell the difference in some cases. 500w Marines are clearly the second. Assault weapons can be fired after avancing is clearly the first. The vast majority of players can recognize that immediately. Thus, it is provable that it's not impossible to discern between the two. There's typically mountains of implicit evidence of which of the two any given rule is.

Now, as for your "GW changed some things, therefore if they didn't change it, the correct reading is RAW". A few mistakes here:
1. Failure rates are frequencies, not binary presences. So, if fixes are made in a large body of potential mistakes, this actually implies there are *more* mistakes. It *refutes* the theory that the body is perfect.
2. Not all mistakes/ambiguities are equal. Some are more obvious than others. Some lead to bigger contentions. So releasing corrections/updates to some issues could also be taken as only those corrections/updates were needed, because the other cases are "obvious enough" without corrections. Put another way, "GW didn't errata that because it's too obvious what to do" is at least as valid as "GW didn't errata that, and in doing so implicitly errata'd it to mean the less-obvious more-technical reading of the material".

BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

 insaniak wrote:
Do you really need the inherent fallacy of this argument to be pointed out to you again?

It's not a fallacy.

Lets use an analogy. I bake cakes. Every day I bake a pink cake. Whenever I accidently bake a red cake, I change it for a pink cake as soon as it has been pointed out to me that it is not pink.

One day I make a red cake. I keep the cake there despite it being pointed out to me that it is pink, and I do not change it.

Do you insist the red cake is intended to be pink?

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

No he's simply taking an extremist's point of view on how RAW should be enforced. He's just an ass about it when he fights for it, but he's not 100% wrong - he is technically right.

Can his choice of words be improved? I think so. Instead of saying "you're all rule breakers" he can instead say "you all alter the rules to suit your cases, so by doing so, you're actually playing a version of 40k based on the rules, but not completely by the rules". But that's not up to us - he's in full liberty to choose his words to make his statement carry the nuances & connotations he wants them to carry, just as much we are in full liberty of pick at him for doing so. I mean, the only thing he's breaking is the rule #1 but I'm sure he knows that but still does it anyways.

Cakes aren’t in the rules so it’s irrelevant what cakes you’ve baked.

Your record is stuck. It’s super tiring. RAW demonstrably isn’t always RAI. Rules that aren’t changed in no way prove your odd collection of nonsense in your signature correct. We’ve been over this in how many threads now but still you trot all these fallacies out???

Baffling.

Oh, and look, another thread is all about BCB and hisbfallacies again. How many threads need to get locked for this reason? No matter how many times a moderator asks him not to post these things whoops, here we go again...

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.

Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.

 skchsan wrote:

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

No he's simply taking an extremist's point of view on how RAW should be enforced. He's just an ass about it when he fights for it, but he's not 100% wrong - he is technically right.

Can his choice of words be improved? I think so. Instead of saying "you're all rule breakers" he can instead say "you all alter the rules to suit your cases, so by doing so, you're actually playing a version of 40k based on the rules, but not completely by the rules". But that's not up to us - he's in full liberty to choose his words to make his statement carry the nuances & connotations he wants them to carry, just as much we are in full liberty of pick at him for doing so. I mean, the only thing he's breaking is the rule #1 but I'm sure he knows that but still does it anyways.

Thing is, he’s actually often wrong but adds “RAW” anyway like it’s a stamp of veracity.

And his fallacies are never correct.

Yes, sometimes his myopic readings follow the letter of the rules ad absurdum, but what use is that in understanding how to play the game? Understand the oddities then move on and play using common sense solutions. Don’t bleat “GW IS INCOMPETENT I CANNOT PLAY” or berate others for using sensible rules patches. That’s bonkers. Yet here we are.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.

Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.

But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule (the written text) to try to understand it's effects.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.

Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.

But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule to try to understand it's effects.

No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.

Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.

Sometimes. You’re often also wrong yet claim you’re never wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.

Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.

But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule to try to understand it's effects.

No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.

Absolutism and a binary approach is your preference. Not the only way. Don’t pretend it’s the only solution.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.

Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.

But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule to try to understand it's effects.

No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.

Eh... no? Its a game not a mathematical or compuer based system. We don't need to remain logically consistent, not even like theres only one kind of logic in this context. Theres no mathematicall logic to apply here.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Galas wrote:
BCB, I really can't understand what kind of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that all of the world is mistaken except you.

And yeah youll come with the "Just because many people think it is right, doesn't mean it is". But whay do you think you are? Some kind of Isaac Newton of Warhammer rules?

At this point he's basically trolling. I don't get how one person can be so certain that they are in the right.

Because I follow the rules as written and do not put my own personal biases into the rules. I am objectively correct and leave out any and all subjectivity.

But RAW isn't THE rule, it's merely a method in which we dissect the rule to try to understand it's effects.

No, it is the rule. If we start ignoring one rule because we don't like it, you must allow the ignoring of ALL rules in order to remain logically consistent, which leads to a total breakdown of the game mechanics and the game ceases to be a game.

Which I believe is the fundamental disagreement you and the interwebz has.

RAW is nonetheless an interpretation of the written text - it's not the actual body of text we encompass as "rules".

We have [RULES], and then we have the [RULES AS WRITTEN].

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

That would depend on your reasoning for making that claim, and whether or not your opponent agrees with that reasoning, just like with any other rules issue that might arise in the game.

Choosing to interpret the rules based on the likely RAI and just making up rules to suit yourself are not the same thing.

Except that they are the same thing.

No, they're not. This is provable by the sheer number of people who aren't you that can discern the difference. Your constant invocation of logical fallacies is also becoming extremely tiresome.

I really don't know what you get out of these absurd arguments anyway. You've already admitted you don't actually play the game face-to-face so clearly your understanding of how the game functions (note, this is different from what the rules say) is pretty much non-existent anyway. That makes your pronouncements on the practical applications of the rules equally flawed.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.

they didnt change it because youre probably the only person advocating that this rule is non-functional, the intent is so damn clear on this that they dont feel/know that they have to clarify it.

Do you actually play the game? Im legitimatly curious because no one that actually plays the game would stop their opponent from shooting with assault.

It’s been said multiple times in the thread that he’s claimed before that he doesn’t play at all. Just tells everyone that they’re playing wrong because they aren’t playing the way he claims is “right”. At this point, the best thing we can all do is put him on ignore. Eventually he’ll get bored of nobody responding to him and he’ll move on to torture another site. Online personalities like this one FEED on attention. Take it away, and they find “food” elsewhere. With that said...ignore button engaged!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
In my opinion, the biggest difference between BCB-RAW and actual RAW is that BCB will claim RAW for things that objectively can never be a valid interpretation of a rule in question.
Best example of this is the assault weapon rule. There would not be such a rule written down if it did nothing. The only thing BCB has proven is that his way to interpret rules (he calls it "parsing") is the wrong way to do it.

Except the rule does do something. It allows a model to fire even if its unit advanced that turn. The problem is that the sequence for selecting a unit to shoot can never get to that point because you don't have permission to select the unit. The rule still does something (if the unit gets selected by some other means than the normal rules), just not what people think it does.

No, everyone know's you're technically correct (the best kind right?), but they also know that it's an obvious wording oversight and not intended. That's why at every GW store, gaming club and tournament the rule is played as intended (i.e correctly).

Your i.e. is incorrect, because playing it that way is playing incorrectly, because it does not follow the rules.

If I said that all my hit rolls automatically hit, without any rule saying so, am I playing it correctly?

If it's such an "obvious" wording oversight, why has it not been errata'd? GW errata'd the issue of single use weapons being forced to fire. If that tiny point that apparently no-one played as written got fixed, why won't they fix the Assault weapons issue? The only conclusion is that the Intention matched the Written.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. You carry on being technically correct on the internet and I'll carry on playing 40k IRL