What do we think RAW is?

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.

**Audustum**

insaniak wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match

That's what tournament FAQs are for. They take the place of the player discussion before the game.

GW aren't in the business of producing tournament rulesets. They've supported tournaments to varying degrees over the years because people keep wanting them, but it's just not the style of game that they are making. The closest they have ever come was 5th edition, which Alessio supposedly wrote with the intention of it being a tighter, more tournament-friendly ruleset, but the rest of the studio carried on with their beer-and-pretzels approach regardless.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a concise, tournament-ready 40K ruleset. But if the demands for such a thing over the last 30 years haven't been sufficient to persuade GW that this was worthwhile goal, it seems fairly safe to assume that it's unlikely to change - and given that the game has survived for 30 years in an industry where most games are lucky to last for 5, it's also hard to argue that their approach is wrong, at least for them. They're producing the game that they want to make, and by all reports it's still doing well. So wishing that it was a different kind of game entirely isn't going to get us anywhere.

Now see, here we have to disagree a bit again. I agree, that's what tournament FAQ's can be for. For tournaments to be circuits though (as they try to be), they need uniformity across tournaments as well. That best comes from rules.

Where we disagree is I think GW is trying to make a tournament-ready 40k. I don't think that's how the rules team thinks in the slightest, they seem to be really casual, but I believe it's what management wants. With the additions of streams and casting personalities, I also believe they want to try and get something similar to e-sports going on, but with 40k.

Evidence for this in all over 8th edition. We have regular updates for points, we're now getting designer commentary behind buffs/nerfs. The go to method of play is 'matched play', which implies, matchmaking. We even have tournament guidelines in the BRB, which they label "Organised Events" full well knowing, I believe, that most people will see that as 'tournaments' ("If you are using matched play for an organized event such as a tournament..."). It seems fairly obvious to me they're moving closer and closer to a tournament-friendly ruleset but it seems to be a top-down command rather than a natural development from the rules team themselves.

**Bharring**

BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

The example is a bit off.

If you're playing Tennis, and you see the ball fall out-of-play, and your opponent disagrees, then you're disagreeing over the "facts", not the rules. Disagreements about what actually happened is different from disagreeing about what the rules are.

On the other hand, if you're talking about playing against someone who's arguing that the ball falling out of play is not a fault, that's like playing someone in 40k arguing that Marines have 500W each. It's a silly argument, and consensus understanding is to be dismissive of it.

Further, as an interesting point, some people like to just volley in Tennis. Maybe not even keep score. When just volleying in Tennis, a ball falling out-of-play isn't valid reason for not returning it - because you're not playing "a game of Tennis", you're just hitting the ball back and forth. And, if you agreed to just volley, and then decline to return so that you can point out that they faulted, that *is* being a donkey cave. You came to an agreement about what you were doing it, and you broke that agreement so you could feel superior by pointing out their return wasn't any good. The fact that there are ways of doing Tennis (such as a formal match) in which what you did is legal is wholly irrelevant.

**VladimirHerzog**

Bharring wrote:

Like which ones?

I could see MTG, that one is debateable.

the comprehensive rules of MTG are 232 pages long and every possible interaction is defined in it.

Thats in a document with minimum styling, and no flavor text at all.

Its basically what every game should strive for with their rules.

40k has 2 problem : they add on instead of replacing AND they dont have a single document with the rules, they are all over the place.

Make the core rules into a single constantly updated PDF.
Make the codes rules into separate constantly updated PDF.

now you only need 2 documents (unless souping) to play your game.

**BaconCatBug**

Bharring wrote:
If you're playing Tennis, and you see the ball fall out-of-play, and your opponent disagrees, then you're disagreeing over the "facts", not the rules. Disagreements about what actually happened is different from disagreeing about what the rules are.

And to bring it back around to 40k, the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.

**Bharring**

Audustum wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Isaniak's position is untenable for tournament/competitive play. Players need a uniform playing field for evaluation and ranking, not one that changes from table to table, match to match

That's what tournament FAQs are for. They take the place of the player discussion before the game.

GW aren't in the business of producing tournament rulesets. They've supported tournaments to varying degrees over the years because people keep wanting them, but it's just not the style of game that they are making. The closest they have ever come was 5th edition, which Alessio supposedly wrote with the intention of it being a tighter, more tournament-friendly ruleset, but the rest of the studio carried on with their beer-and-pretzels approach regardless.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a concise, tournament-ready 40K ruleset. But if the demands for such a thing over the last 30 years haven't been sufficient to persuade GW that this was worthwhile goal, it seems fairly safe to assume that it's unlikely to change - and given that the game has survived for 30 years in an industry where most games are lucky to last for 5, it's also hard to argue that their approach is wrong, at least for them. They're producing the game that they want to make, and by all reports it's still doing well. So wishing that it was a different kind of game entirely isn't going to get us anywhere.

Now see, here we have to disagree a bit again. I agree, that's what tournament FAQ's can be for. For tournaments to be circuits though (as they try to be), they need uniformity across tournaments as well. That best comes from rules.

Where we disagree is I think GW is trying to make a tournament-ready 40k. I don't think that's how the rules team thinks in the slightest, they seem to be really casual, but I believe it's what management wants. With the additions of streams and casting personalities, I also believe they want to try and get something similar to e-sports going on, but with 40k.

Evidence for this in all over 8th edition. We have regular updates for points, we're now getting designer commentary behind buffs/nerfs. The go to method of play is 'matched play', which implies, matchmaking. We even have tournament guidelines in the BRB, which they label "Organised Events" full well knowing, I believe, that most people will see that as 'tournaments' ("If you are using matched play for an organized event such as a tournament..."). It seems fairly obvious to me they're moving closer and closer to a tournament-friendly ruleset but it seems to be a top-down command rather than a natural development from the rules team themselves.

I think they're trying to do two things - have a rulesset that works for tournaments, *and* have a game that's simple enough to just pick up and play.

Some evidence of this is in what they choose to FAQ. The rules read literally still don't permit you to fire Assault weapons after advancing, and that hasn't been FAQed. This is probably because a technically-correct writing of the rule might be harder to digest when you're first reading the rules, while being functionally no different from the technically-incorrect but easily-understood rules have now.

A better writer might be able to serve both needs, but the current situation (for that rule) isn't a problem. I've never seen it ever impact a game - people are smart enough, and often don't even notice the "problem". It's really on a "thing" when discussing pedantry.

**Lance845**

Like any other war game.

Most card games.

Any ffg living card games including arkham horror and sw.

Most rpgs in general with their ever growing expansions of player options and dm rules.

Any turn based tactical rpg or rts video game. Especially ones like say... Ff tactics or front mission where the options not just in what you bring to battle but how you customize their abilities and equipment can drastically change things.

And more....

Again, gw is in a league all its own for bad. Nobody has so much resources and does so poor a job.

**Bharring**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Bharring wrote:
If you're playing Tennis, and you see the ball fall out-of-play, and your opponent disagrees, then you're disagreeing over the "facts", not the rules. Disagreements about what actually happened is different from disagreeing about what the rules are.
And to bring it back around to 40k, the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period.

I've seen it done. Therefore, clearly it can.

That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so.

The objective, hard truth is that "it explicitly states so" isn't as important as you might believe.

Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.

The Most Important Rule wrote:
In a game as detailed
and wide-ranging as
Warhammer 40,000, there
may be times when you
are not sure exactly how to
resolve a situation that has
come up during play. When
this happens, have a quick
chat with your opponent
and apply the solution that
makes the most sense to
both of you (or seems the
most fun!). [...]

**Lance845**

The "most important scape goat for us not doing our jobs" is exactly that.

**VladimirHerzog**

BaconCatBug wrote:
the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.

EDIT: nevermind im dumb .

Spoiler:

**BaconCatBug**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.

Except it doesnt EXPLICITELY state that you cant fire after advancing.
This is derive information from the wording of two different rules.
if it was EXPLICITELY said, a rule would exist that said "you cannot fire assault weapons if the unit advanced"

I'm sorry, but what part of "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." is not explicit? Do we have different definitions of the term explicit?

Also, you've conflated two ideas. You're claiming a unit cannot fire after advancing. This is not true. You cannot pick a unit to fire in step 1 of the shooting phase if it advanced. If it gets to shoot though some other method, models in such units can fire just fine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I've seen it done. Therefore, clearly it can.

So by that logic I've seen Space Marines with 10 trillion wounds each, ergo it clearly is true.

Also, at no point have I ever said a unit that advances may never be selected to shoot. Other rules can allow this. It's just the Assault weapon type does not do this.

**Bharring**

Lance845 wrote:
Like any other war game.

Most card games.

MTG could be considered as complex. But games like Poker and Blackjack are mechanically *much* simpler.

Any ffg living card games including arkham horror and sw.

I'd agree FFG usually does a much better job of writing rules well. But the LCGs and Arkham Horror series tend to be much simpler than 40k.

Most rpgs in general with their ever growing expansions of player options and dm rules.

Quite the opposite in my experience. While D&D has tended to be better-written, it's also tended to be much more dependent on its exception handling - namely having the DM resolve it. But then, that's appropriate for an RPG.

Any turn based tactical rpg or rts video game.

Have you never played a tactical RPG or RTS that crashed? I've never played a game of 40k that actually crashed.

Especially ones like say... Ff tactics or front mission where the options not just in what you bring to battle but how you customize their abilities and equipment can drastically change things.

And more....

Further, games like this have a great deal more computational and referential capability. They run on much more reliable hardware than "people".

Again, gw is in a league all its own for bad. Nobody has so much resources and does so poor a job.

Games Workshop: 219 GBP revenue
Zenimax (company behind ElderScrolls / modern Fallout): $510 USD revenue

They're certainly in the same league.
I'd also say their games were notable for how buggy they were, just like 40k.
I'd *further* say their games were notable for how great they were - despite the bugs. Also like 40k.

**VladimirHerzog**

BaconCatBug wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.

Except it doesnt EXPLICITELY state that you cant fire after advancing.
This is derive information from the wording of two different rules.
if it was EXPLICITELY said, a rule would exist that said "you cannot fire assault weapons if the unit advanced"
I'm sorry, but what part of "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." is not explicit? Do we have different definitions of the term explicit?

Mistake on my part, youre right on this point.

**BaconCatBug**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.
Except it doesnt EXPLICITELY state that you cant fire after advancing.
This is derive information from the wording of two different rules.
if it was EXPLICITELY said, a rule would exist that said "you cannot fire assault weapons if the unit advanced"
I'm sorry, but what part of "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." is not explicit? Do we have different definitions of the term explicit?
Mistake on my part, youre right on this point.

Appreciated. I'd be rather annoyed if after all this time I had simply forgotten to read the rules. Would have been multiple ostrich class eggs on my face.

**Bharring**

BaconCatBug wrote:

[...]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I've seen it done. Therefore, clearly it can.
So by that logic I've seen Space Marines with 10 trillion wounds each, ergo it clearly is true.

It certainly *can* be done. Go ahead, argue with your opponent that it should be done. He's likely to either pick up and leave, or appeal to a neutral/higher authority party.

On the other hand, you know what happens when someone argues they can fire Assault weapons after advancing? They do. Then the game moves on.

**Slipspace**

Lance845 wrote:
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.

I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but it's not the act of pointing out what the rules say that is the problem. I actually think knowing what RAW says is very important, even in cases where the RAW is clearly not supposed to be followed to the letter. People aren't getting annoyed because someone has the temerity to point out what RAW says, they're annoyed because too often people derail discussions and turn them into some sort of weird exercise in pedantry and a whole series of "well ackshually"s when the purpose of that forum should be to come to a conclusion about how the rules should be played in the real world. This may differ from what's written on the page. It may also be the case that no consensus is possible because the rule isn't written clearly enough to arrive at one, but unfortunately the internet doesn't allow for situations where one person can't declare themselves to be 100% correct so that never seems to come up as an actual resolution.

**happy_inquisitor**

Bharring wrote:

The Most Important Rule wrote:
In a game as detailed
and wide-ranging as
Warhammer 40,000, there
may be times when you
are not sure exactly how to
resolve a situation that has
come up during play. When
this happens, have a quick
chat with your opponent
and apply the solution that
makes the most sense to
both of you (or seems the
most fun!). [...]

^This. The rulebook clearly lays out how to resolve tricky situations and "perform a literalist textual analysis and debate it to the nth degree" is not what it says.

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. It says right there in the rulebook that the rules are a guide to playing the game, why fools insist that they are to be treated as something else is a mystery to me especially when those are the exact same people claiming to adhere to every word it says in the book.

**the_scotsman**

BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

I also want the rules to change! Now, tell me how repeatedly badgering a bunch of anonymous strangers on the internet effects a change to the rules again?

Because, see, when there is a rule that doesn't make sense to me, or works in such a way to reduce the amount of fun my local group has with the game, what we generally do is come to a consensus, and agree to apply a modification or house rule that fixes the problem before Games Workshop even changes the rule. Amazingly, this has not yet resulted in any player imposing a tyranny of 500-wound space marines upon the group, because when consensus among fifty odd players is concerned, the changes we make to the rules as written tend to be the minimum required to get everyone to a functional game.

But, you clearly spend a lot more time and energy than me on this. How has your method worked out? Are the rules what you'd like them to be yet?

**Bharring**

Slipspace wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
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.

I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but it's not the act of pointing out what the rules say that is the problem. I actually think knowing what RAW says is very important, even in cases where the RAW is clearly not supposed to be followed to the letter. People aren't getting annoyed because someone has the temerity to point out what RAW says, they're annoyed because too often people derail discussions and turn them into some sort of weird exercise in pedantry and a whole series of "well ackshually"s when the purpose of that forum should be to come to a conclusion about how the rules should be played in the real world. This may differ from what's written on the page. It may also be the case that no consensus is possible because the rule isn't written clearly enough to arrive at one, but unfortunately the internet doesn't allow for situations where one person can't declare themselves to be 100% correct so that never seems to come up as an actual resolution.

This is the best answer I've seen in this thread.

Lance,
I think you're arguing that the rules technically have problems. I'm arguing that the rules technically having problems doesn't prevent us from know what to do, or having fun. I'm not sure we actually disagree on things.

**VladimirHerzog**

BaconCatBug wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
the fact is that you cannot select a unit that advanced to fire. Period. That is the objective, hard truth. It explicitly states so. Please show me the rule which says I may ignore this restriction under the Assault weapon type, and I will happily change my tune. I can show you some nice rules in the Craftworlds codex that allow you do so, for example.
Except it doesnt EXPLICITELY state that you cant fire after advancing.
This is derive information from the wording of two different rules.
if it was EXPLICITELY said, a rule would exist that said "you cannot fire assault weapons if the unit advanced"
I'm sorry, but what part of "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit." is not explicit? Do we have different definitions of the term explicit?
Mistake on my part, youre right on this point.
Appreciated. I'd be rather annoyed if after all this time I had simply forgotten to read the rules. Would have been multiple ostrich class eggs on my face.

So we have an agreement that the rules are contradicting as they currently written. We simply have different opinions on how to resolve these cases while in-game. i chose (even if it is against the rules) to let assault weaponry work after advancing.

As an MTG player, i am used to making it a point to respect the ruleset of the game i am playing. 40k is the only exception to this since the rules arent crisp. I still believe that the devs intended for assault weaponry to work as most people use it.

As much as i keep complaining against you,i know that in the end you are technically saying truths (i cant argue that RAW assault doesnt work) but i think its the way you refuse to make a difference between RAW and how people would play it out that irks me.

You should really try and accept that.

**Octopoid**

The problem is, we have two groups of people talking past one another. One group is saying, "The rules are the way they are, and no amount of whining can change that!" The other group is saying, "I'm not going to let a contradictory ruleset get in the way of me and my opponent having a (hopefully fun) game!"

Both groups are correct.

Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.

In the end, it doesn't matter how BCB does (or doesn't) play the game. Or anyone else. The only thing that matters is how you and your opponent play the game. The concept of RAW can be useful to that interaction because it highlights the state of the Rules as they are at that instant. Feel free to ignore those rules if you and your opponent (and TO, if relevant) decide that you want to play it differently. Technically, those are "house rules." House rules are to be embraced, not scorned.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

**the_scotsman**

Octopoid wrote:
The problem is, we have two groups of people talking past one another. One group is saying, "The rules are the way they are, and no amount of whining can change that!" The other group is saying, "I'm not going to let a contradictory ruleset get in the way of me and my opponent having a (hopefully fun) game!"

Both groups are correct.

Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.

In the end, it doesn't matter how BCB does (or doesn't) play the game. Or anyone else. The only thing that matters is how you and your opponent play the game. The concept of RAW can be useful to that interaction because it highlights the state of the Rules as they are at that instant. Feel free to ignore those rules if you and your opponent (and TO, if relevant) decide that you want to play it differently. Technically, those are "house rules." House rules are to be embraced, not scorned.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Which would be fine.

But.

In about...I'm gonna say....half an hour to an hour, you'll have a response to this perfectly reasonable post saying

"Well by that logic I get to have space marines with a bazillion trillion quamilblion wounds and if you say no you're the TFG and everyone will have to agree with me and everyone will have to clap! The only way to possibly play the game is my way, everything else makes the universe explode!"

Look, if this was the result of Group A saying one thing and Group B saying "ok, fair, it definitely says that, but it's just more practical to ignore that" and that was the end of the discussion and both parties went their separate ways, that'd be the end of the story. The constant re-interjection of Group A with moralistic condemnation of Group B's lack of Rule Following Purity is what keeps the gak a' stormin'.

When a group of kids decides to play superheroes, the kid who claims "I have ALL the powers!" is definitely an annoying little gak, but you also have to contend with the little kid that insists that everyone is only allowed to play soldiers, and when everyone else decides to play superheroes follows them around shrieking 'SUPERHEROES DONT EXIST YOU ARE ALL STUPIDHEADS" at the top of his lungs.

**Octopoid**

the_scotsman wrote:
Octopoid wrote:
The problem is, we have two groups of people talking past one another. One group is saying, "The rules are the way they are, and no amount of whining can change that!" The other group is saying, "I'm not going to let a contradictory ruleset get in the way of me and my opponent having a (hopefully fun) game!"

Both groups are correct.

Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.

In the end, it doesn't matter how BCB does (or doesn't) play the game. Or anyone else. The only thing that matters is how you and your opponent play the game. The concept of RAW can be useful to that interaction because it highlights the state of the Rules as they are at that instant. Feel free to ignore those rules if you and your opponent (and TO, if relevant) decide that you want to play it differently. Technically, those are "house rules." House rules are to be embraced, not scorned.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Which would be fine.

But.

In about...I'm gonna say....half an hour to an hour, you'll have a response to this perfectly reasonable post saying

"Well by that logic I get to have space marines with a bazillion trillion quamilblion wounds and if you say no you're the TFG and everyone will have to agree with me and everyone will have to clap! The only way to possibly play the game is my way, everything else makes the universe explode!"

Look, if this was the result of Group A saying one thing and Group B saying "ok, fair, it definitely says that, but it's just more practical to ignore that" and that was the end of the discussion and both parties went their separate ways, that'd be the end of the story. The constant re-interjection of Group A with moralistic condemnation of Group B's lack of Rule Following Purity is what keeps the gak a' stormin'.

When a group of kids decides to play superheroes, the kid who claims "I have ALL the powers!" is definitely an annoying little gak, but you also have to contend with the little kid that insists that everyone is only allowed to play soldiers, and when everyone else decides to play superheroes follows them around shrieking 'SUPERHEROES DONT EXIST YOU ARE ALL STUPIDHEADS" at the top of his lungs.

You're absolutely right. One Group, I won't say which, seems intent on spoiling the other Group's fun, at least insofar as they can do so by posting on an internet forum.

However, there's a solution to this!

If someone else's posts have, in your opinion, crossed the line from helpful into troublesome, you can, through a variety of methods, not read that person's posts! I advocate this solution.

**Lance845**

Slipspace wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
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.

I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but it's not the act of pointing out what the rules say that is the problem. I actually think knowing what RAW says is very important, even in cases where the RAW is clearly not supposed to be followed to the letter. People aren't getting annoyed because someone has the temerity to point out what RAW says, they're annoyed because too often people derail discussions and turn them into some sort of weird exercise in pedantry and a whole series of "well ackshually"s when the purpose of that forum should be to come to a conclusion about how the rules should be played in the real world. This may differ from what's written on the page. It may also be the case that no consensus is possible because the rule isn't written clearly enough to arrive at one, but unfortunately the internet doesn't allow for situations where one person can't declare themselves to be 100% correct so that never seems to come up as an actual resolution.

I don't know why I keep having to explain this.

Look at this thread.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/775098.page

Who is derailing it? With what?

The first 3 replies are people going way the feth into derailing to poke at the OP.

The 5th is someone saying, OP is right.

On page 2 it's locked by a mod because the OP "doesn't play the game" and apparently didn't want to move it to YMDC while discussion was going on.

You can say it's BCB who derails threads all you want. You may even have evidence to support times when he has. But it isn't ONLY BCB and it's no ONLY "rules lawyers". Stop painting it like it is.

**Octopoid**

Lance845 wrote:
You can say it's BCB who derails threads all you want. You may even have evidence to support times when he has. But it isn't ONLY BCB and it's no ONLY "rules lawyers". Stop painting it like it is.

Person A has a long history of being disruptive and argumentative.
Person A creates a forum post with the potential (indeed, even a likelihood) of being disruptive and argumentative.
Person A gets shouted down for being disruptive and argumentative.
Person B says, "Not all Person As"

Not buying it.

**Lance845**

the_scotsman wrote:
Octopoid wrote:
The problem is, we have two groups of people talking past one another. One group is saying, "The rules are the way they are, and no amount of whining can change that!" The other group is saying, "I'm not going to let a contradictory ruleset get in the way of me and my opponent having a (hopefully fun) game!"

Both groups are correct.

Group A's point, that the rules are what they are, is irrelevant to Group B, who plays the game based on their best interpretation of the rules.
Group B's point, that the rules are guidelines for them, is irrelevant to Group A, who cares about the primacy of the Rules as Written.

In the end, it doesn't matter how BCB does (or doesn't) play the game. Or anyone else. The only thing that matters is how you and your opponent play the game. The concept of RAW can be useful to that interaction because it highlights the state of the Rules as they are at that instant. Feel free to ignore those rules if you and your opponent (and TO, if relevant) decide that you want to play it differently. Technically, those are "house rules." House rules are to be embraced, not scorned.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Which would be fine.

But.

In about...I'm gonna say....half an hour to an hour, you'll have a response to this perfectly reasonable post saying

"Well by that logic I get to have space marines with a bazillion trillion quamilblion wounds and if you say no you're the TFG and everyone will have to agree with me and everyone will have to clap! The only way to possibly play the game is my way, everything else makes the universe explode!"

Look, if this was the result of Group A saying one thing and Group B saying "ok, fair, it definitely says that, but it's just more practical to ignore that" and that was the end of the discussion and both parties went their separate ways, that'd be the end of the story. The constant re-interjection of Group A with moralistic condemnation of Group B's lack of Rule Following Purity is what keeps the gak a' stormin'.

This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Octopoid wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
You can say it's BCB who derails threads all you want. You may even have evidence to support times when he has. But it isn't ONLY BCB and it's no ONLY "rules lawyers". Stop painting it like it is.

Person A has a long history of being disruptive and argumentative.
Person A creates a forum post with the potential (indeed, even a likelihood) of being disruptive and argumentative.
Person A gets shouted down for being disruptive and argumentative.
Person B says, "Not all Person As"

Not buying it.

Removed - BrookM

**VladimirHerzog**

Lance845 wrote:

This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.

The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.

When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.

lets take the assault weapons as an example for a theoretical thread in YMDC:

Q: Hey guys, i'm unsure of how assault weapons function in-game, help?
A: according to the rules, you have to pick a unit (that didnt advance, fallback and isnt within 1" of an enemy model) to shoot. A model may fire its assault weapon even if it advanced. this means that you cannot pick the unit to shoot since it advanced.(Group A's answer).
However, it is wildly accepted that assault weapons can be fired after advancing and it is used in all tournaments and most casual games. I personally do allow assault weapons to shoot in the games i play in. (Group B answer).

now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.

Removed - BrookM

also. be polite?

**the_scotsman**

Lance845 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
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.

I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but it's not the act of pointing out what the rules say that is the problem. I actually think knowing what RAW says is very important, even in cases where the RAW is clearly not supposed to be followed to the letter. People aren't getting annoyed because someone has the temerity to point out what RAW says, they're annoyed because too often people derail discussions and turn them into some sort of weird exercise in pedantry and a whole series of "well ackshually"s when the purpose of that forum should be to come to a conclusion about how the rules should be played in the real world. This may differ from what's written on the page. It may also be the case that no consensus is possible because the rule isn't written clearly enough to arrive at one, but unfortunately the internet doesn't allow for situations where one person can't declare themselves to be 100% correct so that never seems to come up as an actual resolution.

I don't know why I keep having to explain this.

Look at this thread.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/775098.page

Who is derailing it? With what?

The first 3 replies are people going way the feth into derailing to poke at the OP.

The 5th is someone saying, OP is right.

On page 2 it's locked by a mod because the OP "doesn't play the game" and apparently didn't want to move it to YMDC while discussion was going on.

You can say it's BCB who derails threads all you want. You may even have evidence to support times when he has. But it isn't ONLY BCB and it's no ONLY "rules lawyers". Stop painting it like it is.

So, as the third reply to that post that you claim is "Derailing to poke at the OP"

can you break down for me what part of this post appears to be a "Derailment of the premise of the thread" in my response?

Spoiler:

Because it seems like rather than a derailment of the premise of the thread, it was a disagreement with the various points made in the OP, admittedly with an accusation that the OP had just got finished with a particular type of bad faith argument.

**BrookM**

Back on topic, stop with flinging insults at one another or more warnings will be issued.

**Octopoid**

VladimirHerzog 775190 10443180 wrote:The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.

When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.

Exalted!

**Lance845**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Lance845 wrote:

This comes with an underlying point. When someone comes to YMDC or anywhere else asking questions and looking for answers the Group A is giving the correct answers for the broadest group. Group B is giving their personal answer for how their singular table works. One of those has more actual value. You might not SEE that value. But it's there. A single structured central rule set is great. Otherwise we are not talking about one game on YMDC. We're talking about.... :checks to see how many forum members there are::... 123,162 different games.

The value is there, its true, but to say that either group has more value than the other is false.

When asking a clarification about a rule both informations are important, you need the actual rule (group A) but group b explaining how they execute that rule is also a pertinent information.

I never said the second group had NO value. And I wasn't advocating for "talking down and running off" their opinions. Group B, in this thread and others, advocates both that Group A has no value AND that those people need to be constantly talked down and run off.

lets take the assault weapons as an example for a theoretical thread in YMDC:

Q: Hey guys, i'm unsure of how assault weapons function in-game, help?
A: according to the rules, you have to pick a unit (that didnt advance, fallback and isnt within 1" of an enemy model) to shoot. A model may fire its assault weapon even if it advanced. this means that you cannot pick the unit to shoot since it advanced.(Group A's answer).
However, it is wildly accepted that assault weapons can be fired after advancing and it is used in all tournaments and most casual games. I personally do allow assault weapons to shoot in the games i play in. (Group B answer).

now this gives the person asking a complete answer and lets them decide for themselves how they wish to apply the rule.

Agree. However, the point I am making is that when BCB or others jump in and explain how it's broken, it then follows that the OTHER usual suspects like to jump in and give Group A their daily dose of gak for daring to state the actual rules.