|
Post by avatarofbugman on Nov 23, 2017 14:06:53 GMT
Your characterisation of RAW versus RAI seems very much a biased caricature and a complete straw man. And as always... have a nice day! I see what you are saying in a way, but that entry posted by nightbringer does present itself as a rule and does mention interpretation as a necessary component. How about instead of dismissing it off hand explain why it is a straw man.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 23, 2017 14:26:28 GMT
Fvon, A couple of things. I posted the FAQ for all, not as a shot at you. I did not take it as a shot at me. Stating conditions preventing a weapon from firing at all is in now way, shape or form explaining how something fires. Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. In any case, the reference is to war machine. And it applies for those weaposn that are in eefect war machines.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 23, 2017 14:32:36 GMT
Your characterisation of RAW versus RAI seems very much a biased caricature and a complete straw man. And as always... have a nice day! I see what you are saying in a way, but that entry posted by nightbringer does present itself as a rule and does mention interpretation as a necessary component. How about instead of dismissing it off hand explain why it is a straw man. Again, not sure what you mean by "that entry posted by nightbringer does present itself as a rule." And I have never met an adept of RAW who would deny interpretation as a necessary component. That said, a discussion about the so-called RAW versus RAI would be more appropriate in a thread of its own.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Nov 23, 2017 15:03:09 GMT
This is where you are mistaken (in my opinion). You requested that I show you where in the rules for firing a Stone Thrower (p. 114-115) it says that it gets a free pivot. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your stance), the WoC AB states "Doomfire is fired following the rules for a stone thrower" and not "Doomfire is fired following the rules under the subheading Stone Throwers on pages 114-115". So I ask you this, if you wanted to fire a stone thrower what rules would you need to access? You'd need to access the rules that you specified in your post as well as the rules under the "Shooting with War Machines" subheading on page 109. It is those two sections that tell you how to fire a stone thrower, and since the Doomfire fires following the rules for a stone thrower, it to follows the rules described within both sections. The information posted by avatarofbugman seems to support the viewpoint I subscribe to As I have pointed out already a couple of times before (and which you seem to ignore): the Doomfire is fired following the rules for a stone thrower. The pivot takes place before you fire. This tallies perfectly with something else you choose to ignore: what the BRB expressis verbis tells us in p. 108: " The first part of rules pertains to the rules for the war machine troop type — essentially its chassis and crew — which apply to all war machines. The second part consists of the rules for how each specific type war machine fires (and how it slaughters your foe)." Regarding avataofbugman: see above. It's not that I am ignoring it, but simply that I do not believe that it has any validity for the reasons I have stated numerous times. The pivot takes place before you fire, but it is still part of the firing rules for a stone thrower (because it pertains to Bolt Throwers, Cannons, Fire Throwers, Stone Throwers). So the fact that it is part of the firing rules for a stone thrower, means that it is part of the firing rules for Doomfire. The BRB reference you provide is ultimately irrelevant (imho), because although the Hellcannon does not have a Warmachine unit type, it fires as one, so it circumvents the necessity for being a warmachine itself.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Nov 23, 2017 15:13:13 GMT
Your characterisation of RAW versus RAI seems very much a biased caricature and a complete straw man. Do not confuse colorful commentary with logical content. As for bias, we all have that, yours appears to be in favor of RAW and mine against. Throwing a blanket statement over it by calling it a straw man without even attempting to back up your claims does nothing to disprove it. Surely we can do better. If you disagree, then by all means point out how and where it fails. This isn't the first forum I have posted the RAW Paradox to, and thus far it has stood the test of time.
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Nov 23, 2017 15:59:30 GMT
I see what you are saying in a way, but that entry posted by nightbringer does present itself as a rule and does mention interpretation as a necessary component. How about instead of dismissing it off hand explain why it is a straw man. Again, not sure what you mean by "that entry posted by nightbringer does present itself as a rule." And I have never met an adept of RAW who would deny interpretation as a necessary component. That said, a discussion about the so-called RAW versus RAI would be more appropriate in a thread of its own. I'm referring to page 2. It specifically says that there will be times where you need to interpret a rule. It makes sense that this will happen in this scope of a game and the use of language. You'll argue that it's a side bar, and therefore doesn't count. My question to you is where is it written that the sidebars are not a part of the rules?
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Nov 23, 2017 16:08:57 GMT
Fvon, A couple of things. I posted the FAQ for all, not as a shot at you. I did not take it as a shot at me. Stating conditions preventing a weapon from firing at all is in now way, shape or form explaining how something fires. Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. In any case, the reference is to war machine. And it applies for those weaposn that are in eefect war machines. But you fail to adequately show why this blanket rule does not apply to the stonethrower section when firing weapons that fire like a stone thrower. P.109 is part of how to fire a stone thrower, so why can you ignore that? After all, the errata for the cannon reiterates p. 109, thus allowing it to apply to the "second part" of p. 108, as it now exists past p. 109, RAW.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 23, 2017 16:21:41 GMT
@ avatarofbugman:
Duh. The Erratum has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand. It just changes (like it did on p. 109) the pivot from the Movement to the Shooting phase.
Hers is the updated paragraph:
"Nominate a point within the war machine's line of sight and that is not outside the cannon's maximum range. Your target does not have to be an enemy model; it can be a point on the ground if you wish. Remember that war machines are allowed to pivot in the Shooting phase, the better to bring your chosen target into the weapon's line of sight." The BRB re-iterates that war machines are allowed to pivot in the Shooting Phase. How one can claim that this says anything other than that war machines (not chariots, not monsters or anything else) can pivot in the Shooting Phase is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 23, 2017 16:43:02 GMT
It's not that I am ignoring it, but simply that I do not believe that it has any validity for the reasons I have stated numerous times. Well, you have stated numerous times that war machine = stone thrower = Hellcannon. However, you cannot cite anything in the actual rules to support that notion. Indeed, you must ignore what the BRB expressis verbis says, and what the WoC Army Book says. Uhm, no. As the BRB specifies time and again, the pivot pertains to war machines. Again, you cannot point at anything in the actual rules to support that notion. Nor is it part of the rules for firing a stone thrower. For this too, you cannot cite anything in the actual rules. Indeed, once more you need to ignore what the BRB actually says on the subject. The Doomfire is fired following the rules of a stone thrower. That still does not make it a war machine. As the WoC AB unequivocally makes clear, the Hellcannon has the Troop Type Monster. The rules of firing a stone thrower are on p. 114-115. They do not mention a free pivot at all.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 23, 2017 16:46:40 GMT
If you disagree, then by all means point out how and where it fails. It fails from the very beginning, with your definition of RAW and RAI. That is the straw man.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 23, 2017 16:59:03 GMT
I'm referring to page 2. It specifically says that there will be times where you need to interpret a rule. It makes sense that this will happen in this scope of a game and the use of language. You'll argue that it's a side bar, and therefore doesn't count. My question to you is where is it written that the sidebars are not a part of the rules? No, I will not. I have no problems with the Most Important Rule. Here is what it actually says: "In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer, there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can't seem to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really close call, and players don't agree on the precise outcome. Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves (in a manner befitting gentlemen, of course). If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply far the remainder of the game - on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides. Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules." That said, it is not a blank check either to claim all and anything, and when people point to the actual rules say: We'll dice it off.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Nov 23, 2017 17:07:42 GMT
I agree with everyone. Which obviously doesn't solve anything. Perhaps it's time to send for Matt Ward
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Nov 23, 2017 17:43:44 GMT
It's not that I am ignoring it, but simply that I do not believe that it has any validity for the reasons I have stated numerous times. Well, you have stated numerous times that war machine = stone thrower = Hellcannon. However, you cannot cite anything in the actual rules to support that notion. Indeed, you must ignore what the BRB expressis verbis says, and what the WoC Army Book says. Uhm, no. As the BRB specifies time and again, the pivot pertains to war machines. Again, you cannot point at anything in the actual rules to support that notion. Nor is it part of the rules for firing a stone thrower. For this too, you cannot cite anything in the actual rules. Indeed, once more you need to ignore what the BRB actually says on the subject. The Doomfire is fired following the rules of a stone thrower. That still does not make it a war machine. As the WoC AB unequivocally makes clear, the Hellcannon has the Troop Type Monster. The rules of firing a stone thrower are on p. 114-115. They do not mention a free pivot at all. I feel that the AB rule of "Doomfire is fired following the rules for a stone thrower" is pretty clear on this matter. You continually request further citation to support my arguments, when no more is required. I think we both agree that: - the Hellcannon fires following the rules for a stone thrower
- a stone thrower is a warmachine
I assert that the Hellcannon fires following the rules for a warmachine because that is an inherent and inseparable component of firing as a stone thrower. You can't properly fire a stone thrower without accessing the rules describing how the fire a warmachine.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Nov 23, 2017 18:00:58 GMT
If you disagree, then by all means point out how and where it fails. It fails from the very beginning, with your definition of RAW and RAI. That is the straw man. It most definitely does not fail from the very beginning and you have provided no evidence support that. First off, the RAW and RAI definitions are in my opinion pretty spot on. However, if you are stating otherwise, a little reasoning supporting your assertions is required (or your point is effectively moot). Second, the RAW paradox follows directly after those RAW/RAI descriptions I provided. Even if you don't fully agree with the descriptions I provided, the RAW paradox still holds true. It begins precisely after the statement reading "So now the RAW paradox. Let's look at the rules using strictly RAW...". Thus far your counter arguments to a very detailed line of reasoning can be summed up with: "I don't agree with your definition of RAW/RAI (with no supporting rationale).... straw man".
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Nov 23, 2017 19:03:13 GMT
eight pages of RAI vs RAW? it's almost like the good old days! I agree with everyone. Which obviously doesn't solve anything. Perhaps it's time to send for Matt Ward This!
|
|