This is starting to look too similar to the old "if the rulebook doesn't say i can't do it, i can do it" argument.
This is starting to look too similar to the old "if the rulebook doesn't say i can't do it, i can do it" argument.
The reality is that it is the other way around.Originally Posted by ihavetoomuchminis
"If the rulebook doesn't say I can do it, I can't do it."
To put this into context.
The rulebook does not state that you may place the unit that suffered 'mishap 3-4' on top of another unit. Therefore you may not. The rules even go so far as to say "In a valid deep strike formation." Which leads you back to the second and third paragraphs on page 95 to see what a valid deep strike formation is. You must also note that instead of placing the first model, as it describes in said paragraphs, you are placing the unit, as it describes in the 3-4 result on the deep strike mishap table.
The rules, in general, are not restrictive rules, but are rather permissive. Any restrictive rules are, again in general, restrictions on the permissions given.
For example, the rules will tell you that you can move a model/unit a certain distance, but will then also restrict that movement with things like difficult terrain, board edges and the 1" buffer zone around opposing enemy models/units.
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
RAI is not more important the RAW. Infact RAW is all we can go with.
We don't know what the intent of any rule is. Several different people can have all different interruptions of what RAI, which depending on the situation always seem to benefit the person arguing RAI
RAW most of the time is pretty black and white. The rule says this so we do this.
If he'd been right about the rule, he would have been playing by the rules (and would therefore have been fair).
If he had known the correct rules but tried to do it anyway, then obviously that would have been cheating (and unfair!), but there is no reason to believe that this was anything other than a genuine mistake.
jt.
Indeed, I often think that RAI should stand for "rules as invented", since it is generally invoked when someone doesn't like the RAW and is trying to claim some false authority to ignore it.
Of course, ignoring the RAW is fine but there is a way to do it (it is called a houserule) and a way not to ("but its what they meant, honest...").
jt.
Random Aberrant Imaginings
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
Rules Aren't Indisputable
Rules Aren't Important?
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
Real and Imaginary.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote