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.

 Crimson wrote:
Funny. In my twenty years of playing 40K I have never encountered a rule issue which would have caused the game to crash. All games have somehow been resolved successfully.

Only time I’ve ever broke the game was in 5th when some IG gets killed The Deceiver from inside their Chimera and the C’tan’s resulting explosion gave the vehicle Crew shaken.

Game ground to a halt as we worked out what happened to vehicles damaged in their own turn.

 insaniak wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

I would say the roll for it option never leaves a good moment. Particularly if you need to roll for it again latter.

I have to say, I've rarely had to do this. In 25 years, I could count on one hand the number of times that I've actually would up rolling off on a rules issue. What usually happens instead is both players say how they think it should go, and agree to go with whichever of them sounds more confident that they're correct...

And once I've run into a legitimate issue mid-game, if it's with a regular opponent we'll discuss how to deal with it for future games, and if it's a pickup game the issue goes on the list of things to discuss before the game in future if it's likely to crop up again.

They have bleed out players, the only real players for me entering would be though internet saying everyone plays it rather then telling players to ask there local groups.

Given that GW's profits over the last year or two have been through the roof, clearly they're getting players from somewhere. There have always been bleed out players. Most people who pick up the game don't last more than a couple of years before moving on to either different games or different hobbies.

Honestly i have only ever had to do it for GW, Ever. Every other system we have play has been clear when reading the rules or able to find a response to how it worked. And i would say they are probably making a lot when players can drop 500$ into a game like 40k and still not even have everything they need in some cases Whales can keep even super neche games going for years.
I also was specificaly saying 40k, as other games have got interest. Such a kill team, Which is the only regularly played GW game where i am now.
Still probably the bigist system, but i wonder if it can hold out without selling a new space marine every 2 months to keep those players buying constantly.
I also think the major issue is a combination of three things and not just the what raw says and issues with how GW writes there rules. which i stated at the start, Maybe not clear enough. And its why i think This Raw vs Rai is such a issue. They have some issues, Lots of issues in all area of the game that cause it to be of such low quality.

Ok, so, skipped a few pages of the thread to add my thoughts.

So, in most cases RAI is RAW. This meaning, that the way a rule is intended to be played, is the way it is written down. The problems arise when what is written can be interpreted in more than one way, not only by multiple people but by a single person just reading the rule to begin with.

True RAW is when there is only one way to interpret how a rule works. Now, this can be incredibly hard to achieve, especially when there are layers upon layers upon layers of interactions and special rules to consider, like in 40k. That said, when you take a step back and think on it logically, it is possible to achieve. It just takes time, logic and understanding.

The main issue we have, as a community in regards to the RAI v RAW debate on many things, is that in many cases RAI isn’t clear, or, the correct RAI isn’t clear in instances where more than 1 interpretation could be considered correct. This then leads down the GW prescribed path of resolution that inevitably gets to the point of “how is it written?”

RAI should be RAW. Unfortunately, GW is at fault in this regard due to their writing of rules and often their faq responses as well.

In most cases, BCB is -technically- correct and the vast majority of the player base is -technically- incorrect in the way something is interpreted, however, interpretation and enjoyment are a big part of the game at the casual level. The issue starts being an issue when we step from the casual game into a more serious game. Because there are then 2 different ways to play the game this then leads to conflict within the community because, even though both could be right (or wrong), the game breaks when you try to play the same rule in 2 different ways, should a member of each community end up playing each other. We then also have the issues of each community, at store/house/club level around the world has their own house rules in place. Topped by each major event having their own house rules in place, and then the ITC and ETC having their own house rules in place. All this does is further muddy the water on what is “correct” in any given situation. As such, we then have to revert back to the original wording of rules and start over again with our opponent – which isn’t then recorded somewhere afterwards so next game you could end up coming to a different conclusion based on another interpretation.

Put simply, the game from a rules point is a big mess at times, and it could be resolved with a bit of time and effort.

I agree with everything kdash just said. Though it comes to no real answer (mostly because I don't think there is one (thanks GW)), it sums up the current and continuing situation.

RAI should be RAW. When it's unclear what RAW is (with shocking frequency) it's up to individual players to come to a resolution that inevitably ends up lacking consistency if not from game to game then within play group to play group and so on.

HIWPI is the name of the game for 8th. And good luck navigating the mess of documents to figure out a basis for coming to an answer.

I've often said that the GW hobby is actually 6 hobbies in one.
Collecting
Modelling
Painting
Playing
Complaining about the rules
Rewriting the rules

Everyone here follows at least one of these hobbies. Most enjoy more than one.
I think BCB is the ultimate example of a complaining only hobbyist.

Edit
I just remembered the 7th hobby, the lore

Let's be honest here: these problems only really exist in Warhammer due to the strange way GW insists on writing rules. Specifically I think this is just a 40k problem; I haven't seen much RAI vs RAW arguments in AOS.

I think the answer is it depends. Some rules, like the Assault weapon one, it's obviously clear what they mean, regardless of how it's actually written. I'd pose a question to BCB: Does he play it as written? What I mean is would he really argue that you can't fire an assault weapon after advancing, or is it just a good example of how poorly worded the rules are?

However, I notice the players tend to assume rules and that becomes canon and the way it's played, regardless of what it says. My go-to example of this is the Renegade Traits section of Vigilus Ablaze, as I have gotten flamed on other forums and social media for pointing this out when everyone else ignores it. The first sentence says your "Chaos Space Marine army" must be taken from a Renegade Chapter to be able to select either the Renegade Trait from the codex or from Vigilus. It then goes on to say if you select from Vigilus, the units in a detachment get the appropriate trait. Literally everyone I've talked to ignored that sentence and just goes to the second one that has the usual detachment wording. But RAW that first part says your whole army needs to be Renegades to even pick the trait, and nothing else in the game has this specific wording.

This is RAW but nobody plays it that way and I've been flamed and called an idiot for pointing out the first sentence gives permission to go to the second instead of just reading the second part like everybody else. Whether or not it's RAW, the players have chosen to treat the intent as something else (in this case, working like everything else in the game). GW didn't choose to address it in the FAQ, so I'm left playing it how everyone else does or risk being labelled TFG.

Sadly that's how it works in 40k. BCB might be technically correct in a lot of cases, but if people are going to ignore it and play by intent as they view it then yes, you are a rules-lawyering TFG to argue against the accepted way it's played. Is that right? No, it's not and GW should absolutely write clearer rules that aren't so ambiguous, but that's how a social game works. Correct or not, you don't go against the grain.

Kdash wrote:
We then also have the issues of each community, at store/house/club level around the world has their own house rules in place.

Is that an issue, though? If my gaming group plays a rule one way, and your gaming group on the other side of the planet plays that same rule a different way... what impact does that have?


The only time it's potentially an issue is if someone plays in multiple venues that rule things differently. For the most part, that's just tournament players, and tournaments having their own house rules is hardly something unique to 40K, or gaming.

Kdash wrote:
Ok, so, skipped a few pages of the thread to add my thoughts.

So, in most cases RAI is RAW. This meaning, that the way a rule is intended to be played, is the way it is written down. The problems arise when what is written can be interpreted in more than one way, not only by multiple people but by a single person just reading the rule to begin with.

True RAW is when there is only one way to interpret how a rule works. Now, this can be incredibly hard to achieve, especially when there are layers upon layers upon layers of interactions and special rules to consider, like in 40k. That said, when you take a step back and think on it logically, it is possible to achieve. It just takes time, logic and understanding.

The main issue we have, as a community in regards to the RAI v RAW debate on many things, is that in many cases RAI isn’t clear, or, the correct RAI isn’t clear in instances where more than 1 interpretation could be considered correct. This then leads down the GW prescribed path of resolution that inevitably gets to the point of “how is it written?”

RAI should be RAW. Unfortunately, GW is at fault in this regard due to their writing of rules and often their faq responses as well.

In most cases, BCB is -technically- correct and the vast majority of the player base is -technically- incorrect in the way something is interpreted, however, interpretation and enjoyment are a big part of the game at the casual level. The issue starts being an issue when we step from the casual game into a more serious game. Because there are then 2 different ways to play the game this then leads to conflict within the community because, even though both could be right (or wrong), the game breaks when you try to play the same rule in 2 different ways, should a member of each community end up playing each other. We then also have the issues of each community, at store/house/club level around the world has their own house rules in place. Topped by each major event having their own house rules in place, and then the ITC and ETC having their own house rules in place. All this does is further muddy the water on what is “correct” in any given situation. As such, we then have to revert back to the original wording of rules and start over again with our opponent – which isn’t then recorded somewhere afterwards so next game you could end up coming to a different conclusion based on another interpretation.

Put simply, the game from a rules point is a big mess at times, and it could be resolved with a bit of time and effort.

Well said.

I'm curious what the "GW didn't address it so clearly its not a real problem" people's viewpoint is on things like Tau Hammerheads which had their keywords fixed in the index, but returned back to the broken state in the codex. It still isn't fixed after multiple FAQs and Chapter Approved. Longstrike buffs Hammerhead Gunships which is not the keyword used, but the index version of longstrike buffs HAMMERHEAD units which is both the FW and Codex keyword. (but longstrike himself does not have the keyword in the codex version) Does longstrike buff everything? Everything but him? Nothing? If obliterators are a clear example of GW making sure the latest timestamp change is the correct one, does this mean its intentional? Longstrike clearly should buff other hammerheads, but I could see someone arguing that he doesn't buff himself on purpose since he is the ONLY one without the HAMMERHEAD keyword, but instead has his name. All versions also have both the TX7 (variant name goes here) HAMMERHEAD GUNSHIP keyword and HAMMERHEAD keyword except for longstrike.

Wayniac wrote:

I think the answer is it depends. Some rules, like the Assault weapon one, it's obviously clear what they mean, regardless of how it's actually written. I'd pose a question to BCB: Does he play it as written? What I mean is would he really argue that you can't fire an assault weapon after advancing, or is it just a good example of how poorly worded the rules are?

IIRC he's said that when he plays on tabletop simulator he doesnt allow his opponents to use assault weapons as intended. Many people say that he's also said that he doesnt actually play the game at all so IDK who to believe at that point.

How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter

 Lance845 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Take the top 50 video games ever.

How many of them had 0 mistakes in their rules?

I'm entirely confident in saying none of them.

Writing nontrivial rulessets perfectly is virtually impossible.

This is nonsense.

The types of errors we are talking about in 40ks rules are logic errors. In programing they cause system crashes. How many of the top 50 video games have system crashes that end the game entirely?

Wanna know some of the top 50 board games of all time with no system crashes? fething pick any of the top 500.

Chess. Checkers. Sorry. Bingo. Backgamon. Go. Poker, any version. Etc...

Games rules writing to prevent logic errors is not THAT hard. It just takes time and care. The more complex the rules the more care needs to be taken and the more likely you need a professional. GW is just gak. Dont make bad excuses for them.

Only because exception handling is worked into the game.

Take Chess for example:
-It has very real potential for an endless loop. So an exception handler was built into the game. End the game in a draw.
-It has a very real potential for arriving at game states for which there is no legal path forward. Again, the exception is handled by rules that cause a draw.

In the same way, 40k actually has had exception handling for most of it's history:
Catch (Exception ex) {
Opponent.Discuss(ex);
If (!ex.Resolved) {
ex.AcceptYourAnswer(Die.Roll(4+));
}
}
This handler solves most problems.

Also, one of the reasons you don't see as wild a problem with the rules in Chess or Checkers, is they're mechanically simpler games. Chess might have a lot more strategic depth, but not mechanical. Chess has ~10^50 possible board setups. That is a lot. But nowhere near 40k. There are only 64 individual positions, only 9 possible units, and only 18 members of each faction.

A super simple game would be something like 3 IG squads and 2 IG HQs vs 3 Tac squads and 2 SM HQs. That's 49 models on the board vs Chess's 36. And that's ignoring selecting armies, equipment, subfactions, missions, etc. And there are far more than 64 places any model can be.

Then we get to individual pieces. In Chess, the most complicated piece is the pawn. It can:
-Move forward 1 space
-Threaten kitty-corner-forward
-Capture a piece kitty-corner-forward
-Conditionally, move forward 2 spaces
-Conditionally, can take a piece in-passing when moving forward
-Conditionally, can transform into another piece

One of the most basic units in 40k is a Tac Marine. It can:
-Move up to 6" in any direction - including vertically
-Embark into something
-Disembark
-Can shoot a boltgun at a target 12-24" away
-Can shoot a boltgun twice at a target 1-12" away
-Can throw a Krak grenade at nearby enemies
-Can throw a Frag grenade at nearby enemies
-Can Overwatch with any of the above
-Can Charge
-Conditionally can pile in
-Conditionally can consolidate
-Can attack something in CC
-Can roll an Armor Save when taking a wound
-Can deny deepstrike
-Can reroll morale

Not to mention, each of those actions themselves are much more complicated.

None of the games you mention have anywhere near as much technical complexity as 40k.

 Lance845 wrote:
How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter

It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.

That's what all of these theoretical arguments about whether the RAW works if converted to computer logic completely miss. It's an irrelevant question. We're not computers and the rules are always able to be interpreted by a human being. I don't think there's anyone who's read the rules who disagrees that, according to RAW, the rules don't actually allow you to fire an assault weapon after Advancing. But it's just not a point worth dwelling on when literally everyone I've ever played against plays that rule the same way, and it's not the literal RAW way.

Double post?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter

It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.

That's what all of these theoretical arguments about whether the RAW works if converted to computer logic completely miss. It's an irrelevant question. We're not computers and the rules are always able to be interpreted by a human being. I don't think there's anyone who's read the rules who disagrees that, according to RAW, the rules don't actually allow you to fire an assault weapon after Advancing. But it's just not a point worth dwelling on when literally everyone I've ever played against plays that rule the same way, and it's not the literal RAW way.

Except thats not how it gets bought up and the discusion is rarely the assault weapons. The vastbmajority of discusions are nowhere near as clear cut and it gets bought up to attack bcb when he points out new flaws in the latest faq/errata. Its disingenuous to attribute it to the one clear cut example i would agree anyone reasonable moves past and then ignore the context under which his or anyones frequency of play comes into question.

Wayniac wrote:
Let's be honest here: these problems only really exist in Warhammer due to the strange way GW insists on writing rules. Specifically I think this is just a 40k problem; I haven't seen much RAI vs RAW arguments in AOS.

The AoS team at some point became aware that the way they word their rules, even slight variations of wording in otherwise functionally identical rules, affected the way players interpreted and played those rules. One of them discussed it on a Stormcast podcast when talking about their move towards consistent use of language in the rules and separating out flavour text from the actual rules.

The 40k team should be moving to emulate this, as it ought to make the rules clearer and cut down on inconsistencies. It should also make it easier for the designers to explain how things are meant to work without the community getting hung up on how exactly a rule applies against a myriad of slight variations. Ideally the rules would work exactly as written, but to take the earlier example of legislation, even the most prescriptive of documents can still be open to interpretation in respect of how they're actually supposed to be applied. However, GW should be writing a ruleset that is clear, consistent, concise and user-friendly.

In the end, the truth is there are 2 different discussions people are looking for here:

1) A technical ruleslawyery jaunt into pedantry
2) A wishy-washy subjective consensus-check

The people looking for #1 can't stand the arguments #2 people put forth with their fuzzy logic - fuzzy logic being a cardinal sin to technical discussion. So they throw out language like "ignoring the rules". So they don't get what they're looking for, because #2 people keep saying they're looking for the wrong thing.

The people looking for #2 can't stand the arguments #1 people put forth with their pedantry - as pedantry is a cardinal sin to consensus-building or getting along/going along. So they throw out language like "never even plays". So they don't get what they're looking for, because #1 people keep saying they're looking for the wrong thing.

Bottom line, BCB and Scotsman (I assume these two posters are OK with me using them as examples) are two intelligent people whom I respect and I could have very enjoyable conversations with. And both write some very insightful posts. But BCBs posts are downright detrimental to those looking for the "accepted" or consensus ruling/reading on a topic. And Scotsman's posts that are aimed at helping people find the "accepted" or consensus readings contradict those who are looking for some good technical pedantry fun.

Reasoning out which group is "right" won't get us anywhere. They're looking for two different things. And leaving things as is won't get us anywhere - we'll just keep having this thread over and over again, clog the forums, and chase away less-invested members of both groups.

To move beyond this, we either need to seperate the two sets of conversations, or we need to clarify - and come to a consensus on - which conversation we're having here.

And, from what I'm reading in these threads, it seems the consensus is that this forum and YMDC are mostly looked to for consensus building.

 Lance845 wrote:
Double post?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter

It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.

That's what all of these theoretical arguments about whether the RAW works if converted to computer logic completely miss. It's an irrelevant question. We're not computers and the rules are always able to be interpreted by a human being. I don't think there's anyone who's read the rules who disagrees that, according to RAW, the rules don't actually allow you to fire an assault weapon after Advancing. But it's just not a point worth dwelling on when literally everyone I've ever played against plays that rule the same way, and it's not the literal RAW way.

Except thats not how it gets bought up and the discusion is rarely the assault weapons. The vastbmajority of discusions are nowhere near as clear cut and it gets bought up to attack bcb when he points out new flaws in the latest faq/errata. Its disingenuous to attribute it to the one clear cut example i would agree anyone reasonable moves past and then ignore the context under which his or anyones frequency of play comes into question.

Thats because every time someone tries to argue RAW. It always turns into this:

Ah yeah, so its okay by forum policy to attack forum posters about something irrelevant to the discusion because you dont like their stance? Good to know.

Bharring wrote:
In the end, the truth is there are 2 different discussions people are looking for here:

1) A technical ruleslawyery jaunt into pedantry
2) A wishy-washy subjective consensus-check

I think people coming asking questions nearly always want

3) Guidance for playing the game

That they usually get an answer which is either (1) or (2) and then it devolves into a discussion between the proponents of those positions is the problem with YMDC.

(2) Is at least semi-relevant in any context of organised play as the current consensus is highly likely to be the ruling a TO will make. I am not sure that (1) is ever likely to be actually useful as an answer in any case where it differs from (2) - except as some sort of abstract point of principle and maybe a matter of intellectual interest to some. The answers of form (1) would be useful to someone putting together a list of questions to send to the GW FAQ email, I would be entirely supportive of raising them in the context of someone asking for that sort of information.

I was considering guidance for playing the game to be a subset of consensus-checking. I could see some variation, but posts for one typically also service the other.

Slipspace wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter

It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.

This.

It’s just annoying chest thumping and showing their own self superiority. He needs to get out and play the game irl and see how far he gets with these, because the answer will be not very far.

I’ve put this challenge to him before and he’s not bitten as frankly I doubt he even owns a single miniature but he needs to go to his local FLGS or GW and play the game from the edicts he has given and see how smoothly it goes against a real person. Answer? It won’t.

Almost as if wargames are a cooperative effort between you and your opponent...

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
How and if he plays doesnt matter. The discussion isnt what frequency any of us plays. Its the rules and that just requires a pdf of the internet. Bringing it up the way it gets bought up is petty and just doesnt matter

It matters when the end goal of discussion is to arrive at a playable resolution. If you don't even play the game you don't have any experience of what a playable resolution should look like. It matters when said person continually brings up ridiculous points with no bearing on the real world when the purpose of the discussion is to figure out how to play the game in the real world.

This.

It’s just annoying chest thumping and showing their own self superiority. He needs to get out and play the game irl and see how far he gets with these, because the answer will be not very far.

I’ve put this challenge to him before and he’s not bitten as frankly I doubt he even owns a single miniature but he needs to go to his local FLGS or GW and play the game from the edicts he has given and see how smoothly it goes against a real person. Answer? It won’t.

Almost as if wargames are a cooperative effort between you and your opponent...

Actually, it's because I live in the middle of nowhere and need to make a 4 hour round trip to get to my "local" GW/FLGS, but keep on being rude without any repercussions.

I play on Tabletop Simulator and so far have not had a single problem.

Prove it.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Prove it.

Prove what? That I live in the middle of nowhere? Nice dox attempt but I am a little more internet savvy than that (I remember a time when we weren't supposed to put our real info and/or dickpics on public facebook pages, although it would have been BBS or IRC back then). Prove that I've had good experiences in TTS? Come join the TTS server and chat with the people there, I'll PM you an invite.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Actually, it's because I live in the middle of nowhere and need to make a 4 hour round trip to get to my "local" GW/FLGS, but keep on being rude without any repercussions.

Is that even physically possible in UK?

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Actually, it's because I live in the middle of nowhere and need to make a 4 hour round trip to get to my "local" GW/FLGS, but keep on being rude without any repercussions.

Is that even physically possible in UK?

It is when you don't have a car. And in any case, I am British but not currently living on the island of Great Britain (woops there goes my dox, only 192 other countries left to check! ).

I think you all take way more offense to what is being said then you should.

What he, and i, and others, say is this is what the rules tell you to do. That is important. I get that you dont care much about it. But your care is less important then the fact that the company that produces the rules tells everyone that these are the rules.

Where any individual goes from there is only actually important to that individual. Others might like that and go along and thats fine. Nobody is going to arrest you for playing your way. But keep in mind that at that point you are not playing matched play. You are playing open. The version where you are told to do what you want.

Me personally? I play beyond the gates of 40k at every opportunity. AA has much better tactical depth and those rules just work. Does that disqualify me from rules discusions? Am i gunna catch gak from here on out for playing an entirely different rule set the vast majority of the time when ever i chime in a ymdc thread talking raw?

I dont care if its annoying. Be an adult. You're old enough to type and spell you should be old enough to not get pissy because someone is answering a rules question with what the rules say. The last time a thread was started in ymdc pointing out the new rule inconsistencies the first page of replies wasnt the op degrading everything. It was the non-rules lawyers, including some mods, taking personal jabs at the op because they dont like that he points out the letter of the law.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 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?

Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations.
Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.

You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.

 sfshilo wrote:
Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations.
Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.

You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.

Do you know what a fault in tennis is? To ask again, if you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?

Changing the rules is a good thing. I want the rules to change. I want them changed to not be stupid and non-functional.

For example, there is a rule in Tennis that states "If a ball hits the net post and goes in, it is in play." Now, by the logic presented by certain posters, that rule shouldn't exist, it should be obvious that the "intent" is for the ball to remain in play. What happened is that whoever decides the rules of the game saw this situation, decided "we need a rule for this", and added it.

 sfshilo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 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?

Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations.
Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.

You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.

Stop making excusses for gw. Other games with equal or greater complexity manage to have more concise rules in less docments with nowhere near the amount of flaws in the rules.

 Lance845 wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 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?

Tennis is a 160 year old game that changes rules when the game become un-competitive for some reason or another, usually technology being the reason. Faults are subject to human levels or senses, brain power, and incompetence not rules interpretations.
Warhammer 40k 8th edition is 2 years old and has an insane level of complexity with each army playing each other differently every time it's played.

You are playing the strawman, again, and I'm glad I don't have to actually play you in a friendly or competitive environment.

Stop making excusses for gw. Other games with equal or greater complexity manage to have more concise rules in less docments with nowhere near the amount of flaws in the rules.

Like which ones?

I could see MTG, that one is debateable.