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.

So, in the 40k subforum I've often seen it said that all arguments are RAW unless otherwise specified as HYWPI. Try as I might, I can't actually find that anywhere in the forum rules. Have I missed it, or is it a common misconception?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

4th Tenet is as close as it comes.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. The tenets never actually say that. It just says to make it clear which one you mean, and not to cross them. A 'default' isn't established, at least that I could find.

YMDC Is a forum for discussing rules; assuming you're dealing with actual rules-based arguments instead of HIWPIts (unless otherwise stated) isn't exactly illogical.

I doubt a default is established in the forum rules simply because it's assumed that most threads will be based on the rules as they are written as opposed to the rules as played by Bob and Jimmy in their garage.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I doubt a default is established in the forum rules simply because it's assumed that most threads will be based on the rules as they are written as opposed to the rules as played by Bob and Jimmy in their garage.

This, pretty much.

Unless you specify that you are talking about HYWPI, people are just naturally going to assume that when you refer to 'the rules' you're talking about the actual rules in the book.

See, that's just it.

The whole POINT of the rules is to enable us to play the game, not argue theoretical interactions in a vacuum. I've never understood the point of a purely RAW argument. If I'm bringing up a rules argument, it's because I want to know how to resolve the issue in order to play the game.

I think it's far more logical to assume that without any other qualification, we're examining a possible rules discrepancy and trying to find the most reasonable way to resolve it so that we can keep going with our games.

There is nothing stopping you providing your opinion on how to resolve a matter so long as you make it clear that it is your opinion.

Most rules discussions are argued using the rules as they are written; the conclusion may very well be "ask your opponent" or "the rules say to play it ____, but since that clearly needs an FAQ you should play it like _____ until it's FAQ'd", but the discussions themselves use the actual rules. What is trying to be avoided is someone trying to argue a point using an altered HIWPI rule as if it were RAW.

The issue here is not the resolution, it's people who taint the discussion by treating their opinions as fact, or otherwise not making it clear that they're not actually referencing the rules, more that they're referencing their own opinions of them.

As has been mentioned, making it clear that you're talking about HYWPI is perfectly acceptable; trying to argue that a Land Raider can fly because of your interpretation of a certain rule, whilst simultaneously managing to let nobody know that you're actually using your opinion and not RAW, is not acceptable, and more often than not will end in raised voices, various thrown insults and objects, tears, and red text.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The whole POINT of the rules is to enable us to play the game, not argue theoretical interactions in a vacuum. I've never understood the point of a purely RAW argument. If I'm bringing up a rules argument, it's because I want to know how to resolve the issue in order to play the game.

Sure. But when you're wanting to figure out how to play the game, you first need to establish the baseline, which in this case is the RAW.

I think it's far more logical to assume that without any other qualification, we're examining a possible rules discrepancy and trying to find the most reasonable way to resolve it so that we can keep going with our games.

But until we look at how the rules actually work, we don't even know if there is a discrepancy, or if you just have a flawed understanding of the rules.



Let's say you want to build an awesome chair. You buy a chair kit from Ikea... When you start to figure out the most awesome way to build it, do you just start coming up with alternative ways to build chairs... or do you start by reading the instructions to determine how the chair you have bought is supposed to be assembled, and decide from there whether or not to do it that way or come up with a variation of your own? And if you decide to build it as per the instructions, and miss a page, is it more logical to have another look at the instructions to see if there is something you missed, or to start asking random people how they build chairs?


That's what we're doing in YMDC. The rules as presented in the rulebook for the 'default' state of the Warhammer 40000 game. So when you want to determine how to play the game, the obvious place to start is with how the rules say to play the game. And if that doesn't suit you, or the rules are unclear, you go from there and figure out how you want to actually play it instead.

 insaniak wrote:

That's what we're doing in YMDC.

With you right up to here. While I'll even go so far as to say the majority of posters in YMDC are indeed interested in the 'establish what the RAW says and then move on to a functional way to play it,' which is what it should be, the unfortunate truth seems to be that the majority of posts in YMDC come from a handful of people, many of whom are interested not in finding a way to play the game, but just in winning some arbitrary argument on the internet. They go round and round with one another, and in many cases never even mention how it should be played.

That will be at least in part because for some players, unless the RAW winds up with something that is simply not functional, the RAW is how the game should be played.

And yes, there are those who are there just for the sake of argument. You'll get that on any discussion forum.

For some others, they don't tend to discuss how they would play it over the RAW because it its such a situational thing... The fact that some guy on the internet says that he plays a given rule a certain way doesn't mean that your gaming group will see it the same way...

Ultimately, though, the content of a thread, and the focus of a discussion, is up to the posters. If you see thread that is bogged down on the RAW, and you want to find out how people actually play out, then participating in the discussion and pushing it in that direction is the way to do it.