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.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Absolutely. Part of the point of terrain is to district the movement of larger models.

Then GW should have made the rules reflect that.

They did, but unfortunately they didn't account for the level RAW pedantry that people would stoop to.

If you play it with a degree of common sense it isn't a problem - and GW staff play in this way. Not in your very extreme method of rules interpretation.

No, there is very little common sense in GW rules. DW bikes on first, second, third floor of a ruin. Primaris marines cant enter a land raider, but terminators can. Vanilla marines cant enter a repulsor. An imperial knight is stopped by an munitorum container, or by a grot, or an imperial soldier. He cant move over them. A model larger than the ruin cant attack infantry models on the first floor of a ruin. A flyer on its last bracket loses its minimum move and can stand still without hovering, still being hard to hit.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Absolutely. Part of the point of terrain is to district the movement of larger models.

Then GW should have made the rules reflect that.

They did, but unfortunately they didn't account for the level RAW pedantry that people would stoop to.

If you play it with a degree of common sense it isn't a problem - and GW staff play in this way. Not in your very extreme method of rules interpretation.

No, there is very little common sense in GW rules. DW bikes on first, second, third floor of a ruin. Primaris marines cant enter a land raider, but terminators can. Vanilla marines cant enter a repulsor. An imperial knight is stopped by an munitorum container, or by a grot, or an imperial soldier. He cant move over them. A model larger than the ruin cant attack infantry models on the first floor of a ruin. A flyer on its last bracket loses its minimum move and can stand still without hovering, still being hard to hit.

That's what I'm saying, why you can't rely purely on RAW. You have to add your own common sense and interpretation into playing the game sometimes.

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:


No, there is very little common sense in GW rules. DW bikes on first, second, third floor of a ruin. Primaris marines cant enter a land raider, but terminators can. Vanilla marines cant enter a repulsor. An imperial knight is stopped by an munitorum container, or by a grot, or an imperial soldier. He cant move over them. A model larger than the ruin cant attack infantry models on the first floor of a ruin. A flyer on its last bracket loses its minimum move and can stand still without hovering, still being hard to hit.

That's what I'm saying, why you can't rely purely on RAW. You have to add your own common sense and interpretation into playing the game sometimes.

Except all those examples p5freak gave are clear, unambiguous RaW, much like the question at hand. Some, such as re-rolls before modifiers, or the inability to charge models on an upper level of a ruin, are even confirmed as "RaI" via FAQ.

Whether you, personally, agree with it or not is irrelevant. You cannot make an argument to absurdity for 8th edition because it is itself an absurd, illogical system. Are you free to House Rule it to be less absurd? Of course, but that doesn't change what the rules say.

And now, as a SM player, you can take 10 drop pods, and on turn 1 trap your opponent in his own deployment zone. Only FLY units will be able to move Where is the common sense in that ?

This thread demonstrates exactly why “RAW oNlY!” creates ludicrous immersion-breaking situations. Some of the replies simply demonstrate some of the regular posters don’t actually play.

Rotating tanks is stupid and if you can’t accept certain unspoken wargaming conventions and pull this gak mid-game we simply won’t play each other again.

I’ll leave this thread now to the “bUt RaW!” nonsense that has preceded it. Also as noted models on top of models is a no-no, RAW. ;-)

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:


No, there is very little common sense in GW rules. DW bikes on first, second, third floor of a ruin. Primaris marines cant enter a land raider, but terminators can. Vanilla marines cant enter a repulsor. An imperial knight is stopped by an munitorum container, or by a grot, or an imperial soldier. He cant move over them. A model larger than the ruin cant attack infantry models on the first floor of a ruin. A flyer on its last bracket loses its minimum move and can stand still without hovering, still being hard to hit.

That's what I'm saying, why you can't rely purely on RAW. You have to add your own common sense and interpretation into playing the game sometimes.

Except all those examples p5freak gave are clear, unambiguous RaW, much like the question at hand. Some, such as re-rolls before modifiers, or the inability to charge models on an upper level of a ruin, are even confirmed as "RaI" via FAQ.

Whether you, personally, agree with it or not is irrelevant. You cannot make an argument to absurdity for 8th edition because it is itself an absurd, illogical system. Are you free to House Rule it to be less absurd? Of course, but that doesn't change what the rules say.

I don't need to house rule this one though because there is a common convention to follow. If you want to follow RAW instead playing the game everyone else plays you are of course free to do so.

RAW is useful when two people have a disagreement about “how I would play it”. Sometimes two people will come to two different conclusions regarding RAI, and then determining an interpretation of RAW, regardless of intention, can be a mutually acceptable way to resolve a disagreement.

In this case, one player is of the opinion that models should stay bottom-side-down. The other believes the model can be “flipped” to rest on any surface of the model.

My interpretation of the RAW is that you’re given permission to rotate your models as desired, without a clause preventing sitting on their side or end or anything like that. Once permission is given, something has to take it away, and nothing limits the axis of rotation.

If all models had bases, adding a clause along the lines of...

“Models must end their movement in such a way as to have as much of the base contacting the play surface as possible. In addition, if the model’s base can not fit “flat” on the play surface, the model may not be placed there.”

A very quick, “Hey, do you allow vehicles on their sides?” Before the game will let you discuss how you play befor the heat of the moment.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

balmong7 wrote:
So BCB there really isn't anything prohibiting turning it on its side to fit?

No, there isn't. As long as you can physically place a model somewhere, it can go on there. No rule requires a model to be "right side up", even if it has a base. You are given permission to move models "in any direction", which includes rotating.

While i agree that this is legal according to the RAW, keep in mind that many people believe that there is an unwritten rule that says models have only one direction that they can be placed on the battlefield (base on the ground or tracks/wheel on the ground if were talking about a baseless model). RAI, this is probably not intended but as it is written in the rules, it is legal.

Yarium wrote:There is no rule about how to place models, by the RAW. However, there sure is clearly an intent that models should be placed as flat as reasonably possible in relation to the surface that is supporting the model. I can't imagine any judge allowing what the person in this photo is doing to be allowable.

Backspacehacker wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Not technically against the rules to put it on its side, but if someone pulled that I likely wouldn't ever play them again. Very much against the spirit of the rules, and community consensus for both casual and organised play is generally that you shouldn't do it.

The rules of 40k require a level of interpretation and common sense to play, and this kind of RAW pedantry doesn't have any place in the game in my opinion.

Obviously if everyone involved is happy then it doesn't matter how you play, but clearly they aren't happy given the "shouting match"!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.

Vehemently disagree. But I know I'm not going to convince you on it, so I'll let others make up their mind.

This, it's a very quick way to make people not like you. This is very much akin to the BS of rolling scatter die back in 7th on the opposite end of the table from where the blast is and arguing that there is no rule saying I have to roll close to where my blast marker is.

Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Absolutely. Part of the point of terrain is to district the movement of larger models.

Then GW should have made the rules reflect that.

They did, but unfortunately they didn't account for the level RAW pedantry that people would stoop to.

If you play it with a degree of common sense it isn't a problem - and GW staff play in this way. Not in your very extreme method of rules interpretation.

So essentially this thread is someone specifically asking for a RAW answer to an issue, and he gets a wall of RAI or "unspoken gentlemen's rule" nonsense? Unspoken rules aren't rules, they're Tumblr hugfests masquerading as protocol. If GW puts out a "gentleman's handbook" to situations, you could argue that. As it stands, RAW is the only thing you can fall back on to play the game universally and internationally.

This is true. But, I believe they aren't arguing that it ain't RAW. Rather that it's kind of a "dick move". Which, to me, is the essence of being a TFG. A TFG doesn't ignore the rules, or break them. A TFG uses the rules to actively reduce the enjoyment of their opponents. I ain't talking about "oh, I lost a match and now I'm upset" cuz even the most "I have to win" type of person can enjoy playing even when they lose. Rather, it's the types of actions that almost universally upset people that make a TFG. Like magnetizing your bases and making all your terrain out of stainless steel so you can say "see? They don't tip over on the side of this vertical cliff!" Or deploying your Titans on their side so it's easier to get a Cover bonus. The kinds of things that just drive people away from your games and possibly away from the hobby altogether.

Not condoning this in any shape or form.

But how would people feel if it was a skimmer like a falcon?
I say that because I have a habit of parking my wave serpent in the oddest of places lol

Basically Space Marines learned the art of "Fast and the Furious Car-Fu"

Is a rhino sideways legal ? Yes. Is it a dick move ? Yes. You can play by the rules and be TFG. RAW is terrible. But it depends what both players agree upon. I wouldnt allow a sideways rhino. I want some realism in my games.

Well try to do that here and you find yourself out of opponents

I think it's safe to say you can boil it down to:
1. It's okay if you are more obsessed with winning than having a fun game, or
2. It's not legal and everyone moves on

Raw, perfectly fine because GW can't be bothered to write functioning terrain.

Personally: Feth off with that gak.

Secondly, You are not allowed to model stack as pointed out so even on RAW TFG level this is illegal.

Summa sumarum, half the situation is ilegal.
You can turn the rhino that way.
And in probably has to do with models like Helldrake ETC: Still not a particularry good thing.

But frankly at this stage RAW is atleast terain wise, quite a lot off chromosomes short. Now isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
And now, as a SM player, you can take 10 drop pods, and on turn 1 trap your opponent in his own deployment zone. Only FLY units will be able to move Where is the common sense in that ?

Why you little gak, OPERATION STHEEEL RHAIN was the greatest final sacrifice in order to buy time for the Invincible class Primaris marines.
Filthy heretic!

I laughed out loud at the picture tbh.
Sometimes you gotta just let the water roll off the ducks back

 Ratius wrote:
I laughed out loud at the picture tbh.
Sometimes you gotta just let the water roll off the ducks back

Stand up, switch table, be done with it.
No comment no nothing.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think it's safe to say you can boil it down to:
1. It's okay if you are more obsessed with winning than having a fun game, or
2. It's not legal and everyone moves on

But it IS legal, even if you don't like it. That's part of the problem.

 Just Tony wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think it's safe to say you can boil it down to:
1. It's okay if you are more obsessed with winning than having a fun game, or
2. It's not legal and everyone moves on

But it IS legal, even if you don't like it. That's part of the problem.

Technically:

It actually depends on how the players defined the terrain in that situation before the game.

Since we do not have this info, we can not tell if it is legal or not.

I want to go back to 90s gamers who would have laughed at this and moved on with life. You darn "Insert whatever they call this current decade" people are just too persnickety for your own good!

 Overread wrote:
I want to go back to 90s gamers who would have laughed at this and moved on with life. You darn "Insert whatever they call this current decade" people are just too persnickety for your own good!

We need a real rethink on our rules philosophy in my opinion. RAW and only RAW has become a default response but this is severely disconnected from how most people actually play the game.

How people actually play is more important than the rules as they are written. It can't be as easily defined, but that shouldn't stop us from trying.

Gameplay conventions are important, and it's my contention that when we identify them this actually becomes a stronger position than RAW. I would go as far as saying a rule that isn't generally used isn't a rule of the game, even if it is RAW.

If you follow RAW when no one else does, that is a houserule. Conversely if most people turn up to a pickup game and play in a particular way that isn't explicitly without having to agree it beforehand then that is NOT a house rule. It is part of the game - Rules As Played if you like, which should trump RAW in the heirarchy of rules interpretation.

The example that started in this thread is an example of RAP - we don't have to have a conversation about whether vehicles can be placed on their side when playing with most people (one glaring notable exception that presumably!). It is an accepted part of the game conventionally that you cannot - that is the standard for play, and so doesn't need a written rule.

Games should be defined by how they are played, not how they are written.

People who just play RAW have for all practical purposes invented their own houserule system, and forcing that on others is being TFG.

 Just Tony wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think it's safe to say you can boil it down to:
1. It's okay if you are more obsessed with winning than having a fun game, or
2. It's not legal and everyone moves on

But it IS legal, even if you don't like it. That's part of the problem.

Most (all?) of the people in this thread have confirmed it is allowed by RAW. I don't think there's any real dispute about that. However, it's also a good idea in these scenarios to warn people looking for answers that there may be real world consequences for attempting to enforce RAW. This is one of those scenarios. Playing RAW can absolutely be TFG behaviour and I think it's only fair to warn someone when they may encounter those situations.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I want to go back to 90s gamers who would have laughed at this and moved on with life. You darn "Insert whatever they call this current decade" people are just too persnickety for your own good!

We need a real rethink on our rules philosophy in my opinion. RAW and only RAW has become a default response but this is severely disconnected from how most people actually play the game.

100% agree. I've long thought this forum needs to rethink its focus and approach if it's actually going to be a useful resource for people looking to get answers about the rules. Knowing the RAW is important, but equally important is being informed about how the rules actually work in the real world. Sometimes it's impossible to come to a consensus about that last part, but in many cases it's actually very easy to do so. Knowing that technically you can't fire assault weapons after Advancing is an amusing little piece of info, but people claiming that's how the game is and should be played is unhelpful in the extreme and diminishes the usefulness of this forum, IMO.

tldr; RAW is a good thing to discuss. But don't be a jerk, let RAI people discuss what they think the RAI is too. Just because it's not RAW doesn't mean it's not valid to talk about. If you disagree with this, please read the full post before responding.

 Stux wrote:
We need a real rethink on our rules philosophy in my opinion. RAW and only RAW has become a default response but this is severely disconnected from how most people actually play the game.

How people actually play is more important than the rules as they are written. It can't be as easily defined, but that shouldn't stop us from trying.

Gameplay conventions are important, and it's my contention that when we identify them this actually becomes a stronger position than RAW. I would go as far as saying a rule that isn't generally used isn't a rule of the game, even if it is RAW.

If you follow RAW when no one else does, that is a houserule. Conversely if most people turn up to a pickup game and play in a particular way that isn't explicitly without having to agree it beforehand then that is NOT a house rule. It is part of the game - Rules As Played if you like, which should trump RAW in the heirarchy of rules interpretation.

The example that started in this thread is an example of RAP - we don't have to have a conversation about whether vehicles can be placed on their side when playing with most people (one glaring notable exception that presumably!). It is an accepted part of the game conventionally that you cannot - that is the standard for play, and so doesn't need a written rule.

Games should be defined by how they are played, not how they are written.

People who just play RAW have for all practical purposes invented their own houserule system, and forcing that on others is being TFG.

I disagree with your suggestion, though I am fully behind you when it comes to the feeling behind it. It is really, really frustrating to see a situation like this, and learn that no rule technically disallows something that, by all rights, no one should ever play like. If no one plays that way, why should this forum give credence to the person that is being a jerk by contorting the rules like this?

Well, the simple answer, to me, is that it helps establish a base-line. When you know what the rules exactly do and don't allow, you can clearly disallow certain things and clearly allow others. I don't think anyone here, even BCB, plays 100% RAW (yes BCB, I know that if I don't say this disclaimer now, you will chime in saying that you do only, in fact, play 100% RAW, but I bet there are things in the rules that you do no realize the mistake you made, or you've pointed out the RAW to someone and then carried on with the game anyways under an agree that you call it a "house rule"). The nice thing about this is that if someone comes to a tournament and tries this sort of thing (sideways Rhinos), and a TO has read this thread, they'll know that the RAW is on the side of the player using the sideways Rhino. They can then, as the TO, explain that they are over-riding that rule ANYWAYS. This shuts down the player who is being a jerk, and teaches that player that maybe this really weird thing that they do really isn't something that is universally allowable. Their game group may agree that they shouldn't allow this within their own game group so that they practice in a manner that is more generally accepted. They may realize that they should ask a TO about whether or not they'll allow this rule the next time they go to a tournament in which they plan to use it. They may discuss it and say to the TO that they believe the TO is wrong to change the rules like that. All of this is a progressive argument, because you start from a known and agreeable position - the RAW states "X".

What I wish is that certain people on this forum would not try to shut down people that chime in and say "well, you're not discussing the RAW, so gtfo." That's wrong too. A lot of people want to know what they believe the RAI to be. If someone states what they believe the RAI is, and agrees with you on a RAW interpretation that is the same as yours, you really should not fight that. They are agreeing with you for heavens sake! The base-line has been established, and now they are moving on to the next IMPORTANT function of this forum. Heck, it's why we have the term RAI and RAW together. Once the RAW is answered and agreed on, it is helpful that people see differing opinions. If you believe the RAI should match the RAW in that case, and so you disagree on their RAI statement, then argue over that. For example, in this situation, you could state;

"I think the RAI is that this should be allowed. Having vehicles turn sideways isn't any more insane than Grots being turned into mortal-wound causing green energy when fired out a cannon. Forge the narrative! In this case, at the moment where their turn ended, that Rhino was popping a wheelie because the driver is a mightily skilled Astartes who is pushing the capabilities of the Rhino to the limit. He's going full Han Solo."

Now, I don't agree with this kind of RAI interpretation, but if it was a unit with Fly I'd be way more inclined to believe such an interpretation. The point is, we have agreed on RAW in this case - the Rhino can do it. However, I believe the RAI is that the Rhino can't, and I think most reasonable TO's would agree with that RAI to the point of disallowing it and reversing such a move if a player tried it in a tournament.

Both the RAW and RAI/HIWPI are important parts of any question in YMDC.

The RAW gives the "absolute" answer so that in a vaccum, this is how it should be played.

The RAI/HIWPI gives the more "socially accepted" answer so that OP is free to decide what kind of environmen he wants to foster in his games.

The fact that people refuse to see that both point of views bring valid information is annoying. Posts need to stop becoming "Muh RAW va Muh RAI". A good answer includes both.

Completely irrelevant question given my self-imposed rule of "don't play 40K with gakkers", tbh.

Do the rules really need to state every minute detail, like models have to be the right way up??? Can’t we be credited with some common sense? Discussions like this put me off playing against people I don’t know.

Andykp wrote:
Do the rules really need to state every minute detail, like models have to be the right way up??? Can’t we be credited with some common sense? Discussions like this put me off playing against people I don’t know.

So funny enough, only to the US audience. And I'm not memeing or making a "muh dumb murican" joke I'm being dead serious. Compaired to over in the EU, we play like freaking animals over here. Like on average our level of competativeness is way higher than over in the EU. So us players tend to be a lot more aggressive in list building, rule interpreting, and over all playing. It's why you don't see stuff like loyal 32 getting nerfed because over the pond they love having guard with their space marines thematically, not for the power play it possesses

Andykp wrote:
Do the rules really need to state every minute detail, like models have to be the right way up??? Can’t we be credited with some common sense? Discussions like this put me off playing against people I don’t know.

This is why i always give a RAI and RAW answer, of course rhinos dont go on their side, but they technically can. And don't worry, these type of discussions never happen in real games, people are playing to have fun, not to exploit some unclear rules for their advantage.

On the other hand, if i'm having a fun/relaxed beer&pretzel game, i might start dicking around and having the rhinos drift/ do jumps and stuff. It all depends on the ambiance at the table, not all games have to be serious.

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Both the RAW and RAI/HIWPI are important parts of any question in YMDC.

The RAW gives the "absolute" answer so that in a vaccum, this is how it should be played.

The RAI/HIWPI gives the more "socially accepted" answer so that OP is free to decide what kind of environmen he wants to foster in his games.

The fact that people refuse to see that both point of views bring valid information is annoying. Posts need to stop becoming "Muh RAW va Muh RAI". A good answer includes both.

A good answer should sound in what the OP is looking for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Do the rules really need to state every minute detail, like models have to be the right way up??? Can’t we be credited with some common sense? Discussions like this put me off playing against people I don’t know.

Common sense is anything but common and is entirely subjective, so yes, they do.

My buddy pointed out that the next logical step is to deploy his shadowsword on it's back so the barrel is way up in the air and can see the entire table.