PDA

View Full Version : Rules as Written (longish)



Briohmar
04-01-2007, 19:27
As this is my seventh edition of Warhammer that I've played, I must say positively, and without fear of contradiction, that seventh is the worst rule set yet because of a single rule: Rules as Written. In the six previous editions, the books, all of them, encouraged you to play in the spirit of the game, but now, you have to play exactly as its written. This means that the Game Developers no longer have to admit that they screwed something up.
It perturbs me that the game would change so drastically based upon this one phrase, but apparently it has. Through the first 6 editions, I played the game to have fun, meet people, and enjoy myself. The first six editions of the game encouraged individuality in armies, and conversion of models. Now with RAW, we all have to play cookie cutter armies that conform exactly to one another. The sad part is that it is in part due to forums such as these where players get together to discuss rules and issues. If the general consensus is that the rule as written is wrong, then it should be changed, but the designers have already said that this will not happen. "Beastmen Raiders rule has made the herds too powerful" WTF???
I was never a rules lawyer in the first 6 editions, though towards the end of 6th I was starting to argue certain points more frequently, but now with 7th, I have to be one. I find that rules lawyering ruins the fun of the game. I still want to play in the spirit of the game and have fun doing it. I still want to convert my models, and not worry that my chariot is 3 mm too wide to be usable in a tournament. Not that I think anyone is ever going to measure it, but it would be breaking the rules.
Am I wrong to think that this is still a game, designed to give mature people the joy of pushing toy soldiers around a table, and that it should still be played for the fun of playing, and played in the spirit of the game?

phobia
04-01-2007, 19:33
As this is my seventh edition of Warhammer that I've played, I must say positively, and without fear of contradiction, that seventh is the worst rule set yet because of a single rule: Rules as Written. In the six previous editions, the books, all of them, encouraged you to play in the spirit of the game, but now, you have to play exactly as its written. This means that the Game Developers no longer have to admit that they screwed something up.
It perturbs me that the game would change so drastically based upon this one phrase, but apparently it has. Through the first 6 editions, I played the game to have fun, meet people, and enjoy myself. The first six editions of the game encouraged individuality in armies, and conversion of models. Now with RAW, we all have to play cookie cutter armies that conform exactly to one another. The sad part is that it is in part due to forums such as these where players get together to discuss rules and issues. If the general consensus is that the rule as written is wrong, then it should be changed, but the designers have already said that this will not happen. "Beastmen Raiders rule has made the herds too powerful" WTF???
I was never a rules lawyer in the first 6 editions, though towards the end of 6th I was starting to argue certain points more frequently, but now with 7th, I have to be one. I find that rules lawyering ruins the fun of the game. I still want to play in the spirit of the game and have fun doing it. I still want to convert my models, and not worry that my chariot is 3 mm too wide to be usable in a tournament. Not that I think anyone is ever going to measure it, but it would be breaking the rules.
Am I wrong to think that this is still a game, designed to give mature people the joy of pushing toy soldiers around a table, and that it should still be played for the fun of playing, and played in the spirit of the game?

I've already found a solution to most of the problems I perceive with Warhammer fantasy. I intend to use the Skull Pass models as the basis for a pair of armies constructed for use with Battlesystem 2E rules.

zak
04-01-2007, 19:41
I must admit that I don't see this rule as a problem. People are not going to compalin over 3mm and this really only applies to tournaments and GW ones at that. I only really play in a group of friends in a smallish club where we play friendly and disputes are settled in a gentlemanly manner. Anyone quoting RAW overly tends to get linched.
I don't know enough about tournaments and how people react to argue the point further.

Count de Monet
04-01-2007, 20:06
That's an easy one. Just don't read that rule (RAW) to mean what most folks seem to think it means. ;) If that's the burr in your blanket, pull it out and play with others who do likewise.

Briohmar
04-01-2007, 20:08
Actually, I just found my legal loophole. Yes I can rules lawyer, I just hate doing it. The rule as written for chariots base size is that chariots are normally on a 50 by 100 base, where all other model types specify must be mounted on an x by y base. Here's another interesting RAW point: WYSIWYG is no longer a rule, but it is still a suggestion.

The burr in my tailpipe is the actual Rules as Written Rule. We all know that GW is famous for its ambiguity and occasionally directly conflicting rules. The RAW rule is an open invitation to spend the whole game arguing about who's interpretation of the rule is correct. It gives a git the perfect opportunity to be a git. Granted, on page three it lists "The most important rule" But I'd say, based on the rules lawyering I see on this and other forums, that that is the rule most likely to be ignored.

Chiron
04-01-2007, 20:17
Reading a discussion where people argue over RAW in the smallest detail makes me feel like any interest in the hobby is being sucked out of me through a straw

so much arguing over rules instead of agreeing to either roll for it or talk to your opponent about it, just get on with the game and have fun for gods sake

Briohmar
04-01-2007, 20:27
Reading a discussion where people argue over RAW in the smallest detail makes me feel like any interest in the hobby is being sucked out of me through a straw

Which is why I'm on my rant tonight. I feel the same way. I just want to play the game and have a good time doing it. Even in tourneys I play for the fun of it, though I do relish beating the really "Serious" players. I think that the spirit of the game is how it should still be. I also feel that if there is a problem with a rule, that the game designers should address that rule, not say the rule stands regardless of how much sense it makes.

Festus
04-01-2007, 21:35
Hi

Granted, on page three it lists "The most important rule" But I'd say, based on the rules lawyering I see on this and other forums, that that is the rule most likely to be ignored.
Nice to read you ranting on... ;)

If you haven't noticed yet, the members who are usualy around in the rules subforum do exactly what the forum is for: They discuss rules, see what the rules really are and analyze their implementation with in the closed system of the game WHFB, which happens to have a finite set of rules to cover a major pile of possible - sometimes odd - situations.

We discuss rules to understand, see and know the finer points of the rules system itself.

This does not necessarily mean that we play this way. Far from it: Most who know their rules tend to be much less rules lawyerish than people who have just a cursory knowledge of the rules system.

I would play with most of the regulars in the rules sub-forum in any cold second. They are usually laid-back types who enjoy analyzing systems and still play a fair, fun, and sporty game. One is not mutually exclusive of the other, you know?

Well enough ranting from me, I think...

Greetings
Festus

Tutore
04-01-2007, 21:53
Festus' point of view is also my point of view. I want to know the exact meaning of each rule, and find out how to solve possible rule clashing (f.e. rules of two different army books). THEN I'll play smoothly, avoiding argues. If my opponent doesn't know exactly the rules or distorces them, I'll have to argue and my fun ends. Example: a friend of mine, as I said in the rules subforum, insists that more than one unit of bestigors may have a mark, basing his interpretation in a wrong reading of the armybook's rule. If I let him play so, the results of the game will be distorced. If we are clear about the rules, THEN we can let a charge be successful also if there is half an inch of miscalculation, and so on.

Falkman
04-01-2007, 23:22
Do tell me, Briohmar, how come your gaming has changed so much just because of RAW?
RAW is never mentioned in the rulebook as far as I know, it is only mentioned in a WD article as one persons opinion, not cold hard fact.
Just ignore it, and continue to play in the same spirit as you did before, because really, nothing has changed in the way rules work.

alextroy
05-01-2007, 01:31
I don't see the point in this rant. My rulebook has THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE! on page 3. What is it? Have fun and keep in the spirit of the game.

As for GW and RAW, from what I've seen, they have just said they are not going to try and fix every piece of oddness that 7th Edition creates in the armybooks and that they will avoid making FAQs entries that change the rulebook (necessary errata aside). What's wrong with that?

Heretic Burner
05-01-2007, 03:17
What's wrong with leaving poor rules, well, poor?

What can possibly be right with that?

GW have essentially washed their hands of any mistake with this RAW nonsense. Instead of fixing their own numerous errors they've left it in the hands of rules lawyers. Not the hands I would trust.

Fortunately GW have the sense to know how poor this edict is. Already they've run up the white flag (ie changing fanatics back to being immune to psychology). I, of course, encourage to continue to alter the O&G army book as considering the sorry state it is in now it would be awful hard to make it any worse.

As for THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!, well there is hardly a rule there at all. Making the rule indeed that the spirit of the game and having fun trumps all would indeed by a step in the right direction - except they don't do that. Just some wishy washy suggestion that the spirit is more important than winning at all costs which, of course, suggests winning at all costs is a part of the game anyway. The suggestion of rolling a dice to resolve disputes is equally wishy washy, ironic since these ambiguous rules are often exactly the reason the dispute arose in the first place!

Briohmar
05-01-2007, 06:21
I'm off my rant now, having had a good night's sleep. I will continue to oppose what I see as wrong interpretations of a rule, which is my given right, and I will continue to admit if I am wrong, which I happily do. Now I have to run off to work and read lots of reports about battles and possibility of future battles, determine what is likely to happen, and make suggestions to my general that will affect the lives of other men and women. How bout that, I get to play wargames in real life.

intellectawe
05-01-2007, 16:39
I would like to know where it is written that all games must be followed by RAW. I don't see it in the BRB. All I see, on page 3, is the most important rule of all, Playing the game for fun!

Krankenstein
05-01-2007, 18:18
The problem with using ”the spirit of the game” as a guideline is that it works best when everyone is in agreement. As soon as disagreement rears its ugly head, you need some guidelines for resolutions, that is to say: rules.

That said I too am worried that rules-lawyering is so central as skill in Warhammer. I just see it as a result of complex rules, rather than a result of RAW.

Inkosi
05-01-2007, 18:45
1 word solution.

"House-rules"

i am quite sure when you play at home, no official from GW is going to knock on your door stating that by not following the exact rules word by word you have just broken the law and they have to confiscate your models.

Hell, if you dont like them then play the rules in a way both players can accept.

No one is holding a dagger to your throat forcing you to implement everything the BRB says. Remember, its your opponent and yours game. You 2 decide how to play it. The BRB should always be a guideline if you dont like it.

honestly....

Crazy Harborc
06-01-2007, 02:02
RAW.....IMHO, that's just great for "official" GW locations/events. Most of the time we regular opponents tend to "think". As has mentioned in previous editions.....the rulebook is a starting point.

There are people who enjoy the rules lawyering as part of the fun of the game. Why, I never have understood.

intellectawe
06-01-2007, 03:59
The problem with using ”the spirit of the game” as a guideline is that it works best when everyone is in agreement. As soon as disagreement rears its ugly head, you need some guidelines for resolutions, that is to say: rules.

That said I too am worried that rules-lawyering is so central as skill in Warhammer. I just see it as a result of complex rules, rather than a result of RAW.

Reverse...

The problem with using ”RAW” as a guideline is that it works best when everyone is in agreement. As soon as disagreement rears its ugly head, you need some guidelines for resolutions, that is to say: Quick resolution with a Die roll and having fun!

Duke of York
06-01-2007, 04:16
The single most important thing about seventh the rules are no longer about doing whatever you "think is right" but instead following specific guidelines.

Example: In sixth edition killing blow occured to all man sized model. What the hell is a man sized model? There are multiple base sizes that are man sized models. What about mounted men? THis exemplifies the none discript rules atmosphere of sixth edition. Yes, we were all encouraged to do things "in the spirit of the game" which i guess is good. BUt when there arent even rules for three quarters of what happens arguing acures a LOT!

In seventh edition the killing blow rule applies to all models with a unit strength of two or less. THis is a very clear rule in which 0 argument could occure. THis imbodies the spirit of seventh addition. THe rules are precise, final and all encompasing, while some holes still (and always will) exist there is a lot less room for being a rules lawer because the rules are so clear.

PS: In a way, Briohmar, you are being a rules lawer with your arguement. You are picking out one small insignificant rule only ment for tournaments (wear it is a must) and creating a big stirr about nothing. THink about that next time you want to complain about the rules:mad:

intellectawe
06-01-2007, 05:38
The single most important thing about seventh the rules are no longer about doing whatever you "think is right" but instead following specific guidelines.

Really? You must have not read the 7th edition Errata. You should go check it out and read the last few pages. Seems like GW still wants players to have an imagination and that RAW is sometimes wrong.

Krankenstein
06-01-2007, 07:59
The world might be ready for RAW, but I doubt Games Workshop is. I’m sure there are plenty of examples, and that there will be plenty more as we get to know 7th edition, where the rules wording is imprecise, contradictory or whatever.

As to house-rules being the cure to rules-lawyering? House-rules have to be formulated, people with different armies will have different perspectives and will all have to argue in order not to get the worst of the new rules. Then the rules have to be playtested and evaluated. In short: rules-legislation.

Axel
06-01-2007, 12:35
Reading a discussion where people argue over RAW in the smallest detail makes me feel like any interest in the hobby is being sucked out of me through a straw
so much arguing over rules instead of agreeing to either roll for it or talk to your opponent about it, just get on with the game and have fun for gods sake

Don`t mix up the rules forum with the gaming.
I often let my opponent play his way even when I absolutely know he is wrong, for arguing in game would ruin the fun. Only after the game I pull out the Codex and show him where he was wrong. Nonetheless I enjoy to dissect a specific situation or rule in detail, but not when the outcome of a game depends on it and I have the time and leisure to backup my interpretation.