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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you clearly dont know what a permissive ruleset is.

Under "The rules don't say I can't!"
"The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

Which would be a fine argument to make if it were relevant to this discussion. It is not. This is not an issue of taking an un-permitted action or benefit. This is an issue of whether or not to apply a clause to a rule that is literally not present in the rules text.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Rules state. Rules shouldn't imply. Rules that imply are rules that are open for interpretation, which means that you are guessing (reasonably or not) at RAI, not actually reading the RAW.

False, implicit rules are still RAW.

And you clearly dont know what a permissive ruleset is.
Under "The rules don't say I can't!"
"The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

I know what a permissive ruleset is. A permissive ruleset means you only do things the rules say that you're allowed to do. If you're interpreting the rules, there's a chance that someone else interprets is differently. Having an interpretation puts it as a case of RAI or HIWPI, not RAW. The rules don't state that the bonuses the model with the relic gets are only against the unit the player selects. You are making an interpretation that that is what is intended. A WAAC player, or someone in the forum trying to point out actually what the RAW is, will point out that the statement about what the model with the relic gets for bonuses is in no way limited to only the unit selected in the first sentence. That means that it's not a case of "the rules don't say I can't", it's a case of the rules as written don't limit it the way you are claiming. (and trying to claim that my argument boils down to "The rules don't say I can't!" as you imply is dishonest and insulting).
Again it can be RAI, but it's not RAW, and you have not demonstrated that it is RAW .

We're going to keep going back and forth, you insisting that your interpretation is RAW, with hardly anybody thinking that your interpretation is anything more than RAI (if there is someone, they haven't posted yet or I missed it, but I will allow for the potential for someone to agree with you). We might as agree that we all think that the other side in the debate doesn't know what they're talking about and just let the matter rest. Almost everyone agrees how the rule should be played whether it's a RAW or a RAI interpretation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Rules state. Rules shouldn't imply. Rules that imply are rules that are open for interpretation, which means that you are guessing (reasonably or not) at RAI, not actually reading the RAW.

False, implicit rules are still RAW.

And you clearly dont know what a permissive ruleset is.

Under "The rules don't say I can't!"
"The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

Exactly. The rules say the bonus applies when you fire the weapon, regardless of target. You're arguing "It doesn't say I can't restrict it to only the chosen unit."

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Rules state. Rules shouldn't imply. Rules that imply are rules that are open for interpretation, which means that you are guessing (reasonably or not) at RAI, not actually reading the RAW.

False, implicit rules are still RAW.

And you clearly dont know what a permissive ruleset is.

Under "The rules don't say I can't!"
"The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

That has no real bearing on what's being discussed here. You are expressly told:

Until the end of the turn, when resolving an attack made by a model with this Relic, improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon by 1 for that attack.

So there's your permission. In fact, to NOT improve AP by 1 would be going against the rule-in the same way that, if I want my model to die, I cannot voluntarily fail a save they make.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Rules state. Rules shouldn't imply. Rules that imply are rules that are open for interpretation, which means that you are guessing (reasonably or not) at RAI, not actually reading the RAW.

False, implicit rules are still RAW.

And you clearly dont know what a permissive ruleset is.

Under "The rules don't say I can't!"
"The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

Exactly. The rules say the bonus applies when you fire the weapon, regardless of target. You're arguing "It doesn't say I can't restrict it to only the chosen unit."

Another fallicy argument, you need to not ignore context.

In context it says the bonus applies when you fire the weapon at the chosen target.

But you are going to ignore that again so I will not be responding to you in this thread again.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Rules state. Rules shouldn't imply. Rules that imply are rules that are open for interpretation, which means that you are guessing (reasonably or not) at RAI, not actually reading the RAW.

False, implicit rules are still RAW.

And you clearly dont know what a permissive ruleset is.

Under "The rules don't say I can't!"
"The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

Exactly. The rules say the bonus applies when you fire the weapon, regardless of target. You're arguing "It doesn't say I can't restrict it to only the chosen unit."

Another fallicy argument, you need to not ignore context.

In context it says the bonus applies when you fire the weapon at the chosen target.

But you are going to ignore that again so I will not be responding to you in this thread again.

Where does it say "Improve AP by one point against the chosen target" or anything of the sort?

No one is arguing with you on RAI, or how they'd play it. We're just capable of acknowledging that GW ain't perfect, and that in this instance, they done goofed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Where does it say "Improve AP by one point against the chosen target" or anything of the sort?

In sentence one, but it is implicit not explicitly written. This is because of the context of the rule.

No one is arguing with you on RAI, or how they'd play it. We're just capable of acknowledging that GW ain't perfect, and that in this instance, they done goofed.

They did not explicitly say what the first sentence is refering to, therefor it is implicit. Still RAW though if you do not ignore the context.

Either:

1) The first sentence means nothing, and the rule that says to choose a unit is wasted ink. (Which is not how games are written).
or
2) The first sentence means that you only get the bonuses mentioned in the other part of the rule for the chosen unit

One of these does something, one does not. In this case the rules that actually do something are correct, because that is how rules for games are writen.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Where does it say "Improve AP by one point against the chosen target" or anything of the sort?

In sentence one, but it is implicit not explicitly written. This is because of the context of the rule.

No one is arguing with you on RAI, or how they'd play it. We're just capable of acknowledging that GW ain't perfect, and that in this instance, they done goofed.

They did not explicitly say what the first sentence is refering to, therefor it is implicit. Still RAW though if you do not ignore the context.

Either:

1) The first sentence means nothing, and the rule that says to choose a unit is wasted ink. (Which is not how games are written).
or
2) The first sentence means that you only get the bonuses mentioned in the other part of the rule for the chosen unit

One of these does something, one does not. In this case the rules that actually do something are correct, because that is how rules for games are writen.

If something is implicit, it's not explicit. Implicit is RAI. Explicit is RAW.

And you can hardly say that GW runs such a tight ship that they'd never put excess words in a rule. Hell, as BCB pointed out, MtG made a rule that did nothing-and MtG is a much, MUCH tighter system than 40k.

Your interpretation of the rule is not RAW. It's almost certainly RAI, and like I mentioned before, most casual gamers won't even realize that RAI and RAW are mismatched. But that doesn't change the RAW.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Your interpretation of the rule is not RAW. It's almost certainly RAI, and like I mentioned before, most casual gamers won't even realize that RAI and RAW are mismatched. But that doesn't change the RAW.

If you ignore the context then it is not RAW. With the context it is RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Your interpretation of the rule is not RAW. It's almost certainly RAI, and like I mentioned before, most casual gamers won't even realize that RAI and RAW are mismatched. But that doesn't change the RAW.

If you ignore the context then it is not RAW. With the context it is RAW.

You yourself said it's implicit. Implicit is not explicit-and RAW is explicit.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Your interpretation of the rule is not RAW. It's almost certainly RAI, and like I mentioned before, most casual gamers won't even realize that RAI and RAW are mismatched. But that doesn't change the RAW.

If you ignore the context then it is not RAW. With the context it is RAW.

You yourself said it's implicit. Implicit is not explicit-and RAW is explicit.

RAW is not always explicit. Sometime RAW is implicit.

You forgot option 3: you gain ownership of the chosen unit and all models therein.

This 'interpretation' of the rule has precisely as much textual support as the bonus AP applying only to the chosen unit.
See? It's 'implied', and thus RAW! If you don't hand over the unit, then you're violating RAW!

/s