|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Sept 25, 2017 16:35:57 GMT
sometimes the herd is right. that does make me chuckle. although, for a truly devoted follower of the one true RAW, this shouldn't change a thing. The rule is 'crystal clear' after all and intent should never play into it, not even if it is the rule writers intent.  |
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Sept 25, 2017 17:08:38 GMT
You know a rule I learned several editions ago in Warhammer internet discussions.
If you have to argue against everyone that you and only you know the correct interpretation of a rule and that everyone else has just always been playing it wrong - - you probably want to carefully reconsider your position.
Doesn't mean you are definitely wrong but it's definitely worth considering if you are taking too hard of a stance.
Just a thought FvonSigmaringen.
EDIT note this was typed before I saw the Mat Ward summary. I am not trying to dogpile after the issue is put to rest. But I did want to suggest some moderation that I learned after taking the hard line stance many a time when I was young. Hoping you can save yourself some of the grey hairs I now have.
Oh and as background I was the Direwolf FAQ council rep for all the Chaos and Orc and Goblin books from seventh to 8th edition. We emailed directly back and forth with the main GW rules writers for each book/edition submitting FAQ's. Those questions were in part generated by the rep but also by popular submission to the FAQ team (on the Direwolf news group pre forums and on warhammer.org) I also ran one of the biggest 8th ed GT's (and now only) in the US during 8th eds heyday.
Doesn't mean I know all the right rules interpretations (particularly 2 years after I stopped playing much 8th) but I'm very familiar with most of the questions that come up.
I've seen this argument before on the internet but it never had enough traction amongst the player base for official submission to GW through the official FAQ process (If I recall correctly)
|
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 25, 2017 17:17:55 GMT
I just want to say, regardless of opinion or evidence or outcomes regarding this debate, this was an enjoyable debate and I completely respect FvonSigmaringen 's arguments, logic, and debating style. No one should be discouraged by this kind of forum debate and I hope to see more... |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 25, 2017 17:55:51 GMT
I for one fully enjoy having a resident rules lawyer around even if i will from time to time argue with them  |
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Sept 25, 2017 17:58:19 GMT
I just want to say, regardless of opinion or evidence or outcomes regarding this debate, this was an enjoyable debate and I completely respect FvonSigmaringen 's arguments, logic, and debating style. No one should be discouraged by this kind of forum debate and I hope to see more... YES! Fidelis is the MAN! I've often looked to his wisdom regarding rules! Thank you Fidelis. I hope we haven't been too hard on you. Just know you have my utmost respect and I really appreciate your contributions! |
|
|
|
Post by vintageof79 on Sept 25, 2017 18:37:49 GMT
I must say that in terms of this argument I do agree with Fvonsigmaren - as stated at the beginning I do not follow the rule but believe that it categorically states, without exception, that the general should have the highest leadership. There are inconsistencies throughout the army books (already mentioned) that made me have doubts about the developers consistency. The history of the rule provided by fvonsigmaren seems to point to lazy rule writing if they did not mean what was written. The fact that Ward and GW never faq'd the rule is fairly typical of the state of Games Workshop throughout 8th Edition; they just did not listen that well to their customer base and there were many inconsistencies never answered; I like the fact he could not remember the rule himself! What I do think the except from Ward shown earlier in the discussion is the RAI, rather than RAW.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Sept 25, 2017 18:40:24 GMT
I must say that in terms of this argument I do agree with Fvonsigmaren - as stated at the beginning I do not follow the rule but believe that it categorically states, without exception, that the general should have the highest leadership. There are inconsistencies throughout the army books (already mentioned) that made me have doubts about the developers consistency. The history of the rule provided by fvonsigmaren seems to point to lazy rule writing if they did not mean what was written. The fact that Ward and GW never faq'd the rule is fairly typical of the state of Games Workshop throughout 8th Edition; they just did not listen that well to their customer base and there were many inconsistencies never answered; I like the fact he could not remember the rule himself! What I do think the except from Ward shown earlier in the discussion is the RAI, rather than RAW. Were about to say the same  |
|
|
|
Post by frozenfood on Sept 25, 2017 19:21:52 GMT
Me three. Virtual beer to FvonSigmaringen and the merry men that give him something to talk about :-) |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 21, 2017 22:34:52 GMT
sometimes the herd is right. that does make me chuckle. although, for a truly devoted follower of the one true RAW, this shouldn't change a thing. The rule is 'crystal clear' after all and intent should never play into it, not even if it is the rule writers intent. Well, the rule as written was in fact crystal clear - it just did not reflect what Mat Ward intended. But who is to blame for that? As I have pointed out multiple times before, there is little use arguing intent, unless the intent is stated. Given that Mat Ward has now stated the intent, I obviously accept that - but I do have point out out that what he wrote clearly did not match his intent. To quote myself here from earlier in this thread: QED. That said, the designer's intent does not necessarily mean that his intent will become an official rule, as exemplified by Which must be one of the weirdest and self-contradictory FAQ ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Nov 22, 2017 9:39:47 GMT
Haha. It is like the unkillable Chaos characters. Sure you can pick them. But I will judge you for it. Also spoken as a true RAW lawyer As you say Matt Ward only provides us with a RAI, which we could have made a fair guess at to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Nov 22, 2017 14:38:07 GMT
It's been a while since I heard the old RAW vs. RAI debates.
|
|
