God of War and "on the table"

[chaplain_quint]

I guess that if you could fire from a transport, then its god of war rules also aplies.

Because you cannot fire from a transport if you are not on the table.

[gainesdp]

I think there are legitimate questions regarding Calgar's rules (e.g., whether God of War invokes Fearless for wound resolution). I can see both sides of that argument, and I think that should have a FAQ written for it.

 

On this question (i.e., whether Calgar counts as on the table while embarked in a transport), I personally think RAI is clear. RAW is maybe a bit unclear, and the damning statement appears to be the line already quoted regarding removing models from the table when embarked on a transport. I'm not really going to add much to the argument here, but personally, I think RAW is still a bit ambiguous (i.e., lack of definition for 'on the table', the idea that this is a book-keeping move, the fact that passengers can be affected by damage to transports that would imply that they are 'on the table' in context, the fact that passengers can use fire points that would imply that 'on the table' in context if not physically). So, I suppose bottom line, I fall in the camp that believes that the removal of models from the table when embarked on the transport is simply a statement of what you physically do to the models in the course of gameplay, but that for all intents and purposes they are still on the table (just in a transport).

 

So, with all that said, I think RAI is clear. I personally think RAW is ambiguous. I am generally pretty straightforward with letting people know about different interpretations about rules when I play (e.g., if I use Calgar I discuss the fearless thing above before the game starts, before the new codex I let people know my HQ had a retinue etc.). This would honestly never be something I would bring up before the game, because I think it is a non-issue. I think anybody, if they wanted to, could break the game by approaching the rules system as an interesting problem to 'hack' (e.g., read posts regarding whether locator beacons work for opposing space marine or chaos space marine armies, whether banners work for opposing space marine armies, etc.). I think this approach does more harm than help to the game, but I can see the appeal. I wish that Games Workshop had just included an 'I win' button in each codex to possibly dissuade people from this. Regardless, I suppose this has degenerated into a slight anti-RAW rant, which I'm not, but if (1) RAI is clear (2) RAW is ambiguous or has implications that 'break the game', I fall on the side of RAI everytime (to be clear, I don't think the above question 'breaks the game', but I think RAW is ambiguous and has implications that don't make sense).

[Brother Gothard]

So, I suppose bottom line, I fall in the camp that believes that the removal of models from the table when embarked on the transport is simply a statement of what you physically do to the models in the course of gameplay...

Right. /blink. What else would we be talking about that the actual physical state of a model being either "on" or "off" the table? The reason why we dont argue rules from RAI is because of the 'I.' As in, "I think the intention is this," versus, "well [/i]I[/i] think it is this." RAW is useful because, whether you agree or disagree, the rules say only ONE thing. When the rules are ambiguous (as I believe they are not in this case), this is a failing of the rules, not RAW, and it does not make any sense to fall back on the RAI way of arguing rules, because we have already shown its faults. It is better to a- house rule, b- roll a die, c- suspend judgement and wait for a FAQ.

 

...but that for all intents and purposes they are still on the table (just in a transport).

The "intents and purposes" part is both valid only for your interpretation, and absent from the rules. In fact, Calgar is not "on the table" at all when he is in a transport.

 

We obviously believe its an oversight, but that does not allow us to break the rules.

[Kurasuke]

RAW is useful because, whether you agree or disagree, the rules say only ONE thing.

The rules are often internally inconsistent which makes RAW hard to work with it. I understand the reason for not using RAI but the rules often do say two things about one thing.

[gainesdp]

So, I suppose bottom line, I fall in the camp that believes that the removal of models from the table when embarked on the transport is simply a statement of what you physically do to the models in the course of gameplay...

Right. /blink. What else would we be talking about that the actual physical state of a model being either "on" or "off" the table? The reason why we dont argue rules from RAI is because of the 'I.' As in, "I think the intention is this," versus, "well [/i]I[/i] think it is this." RAW is useful because, whether you agree or disagree, the rules say only ONE thing. When the rules are ambiguous (as I believe they are not in this case), this is a failing of the rules, not RAW, and it does not make any sense to fall back on the RAI way of arguing rules, because we have already shown its faults. It is better to a- house rule, b- roll a die, c- suspend judgement and wait for a FAQ.

 

...but that for all intents and purposes they are still on the table (just in a transport).

The "intents and purposes" part is both valid only for your interpretation, and absent from the rules. In fact, Calgar is not "on the table" at all when he is in a transport.

 

We obviously believe its an oversight, but that does not allow us to break the rules.

 

Well, you could interpret 'on the table' to mean a model 'in play', or 'a model on the table with more than zero wounds remaining', or 'a vehicle model that has not been wrecked'. For that matter, I may move a squad that had disembarked then re-embarked to the side of the table (but still on the table), so clearly we 'on the table' connotes more than just their physical location. Regardless, my point really is that 'on the table' in the context of 'embarking/disembarking' a vehicle is a book-keeping move, and states what you physically do with the models, whereas 'on the table' in the context of Calgar's rules is a statement of 'a model in play with more than zero wounds remaining'. Alternatively, you can do what was stated before and place Marneus Calgar on the top of your rhino to denote that he is being transported, in which case he is still 'on the table' as suggested by the rulebook.

 

Anyways, I don't really want to turn this into a RAW vs. RAI debate. My stance is really that the question is more ambiguous than you claim, and that a RAW argument is not conclusive (to me at least). If you can find a definition of 'on the table' in the rulebook, I think you could conclusively answer the question, but in the absence of that, you're pretty much left to interpretation. Additionally, if they were to publish a FAQ to answer this question, it would still be a question open to debate as they fairly explicitly state their FAQs are house rules meant to either be adopted or ignored at the consumer's choice (an errata would be a different matter). Ultimately, the Warhammer 40k system is not a rigorously defined system that lends itself to a RAW interpretation in all cases, and that seems to be the stance of the company itself (implied by the caveats they attach to their FAQ and references in the rulebook).

[chaplain_quint]

I think that in this case one could apply the wonderful, if not unworkable, sentence : use your common sense.

 

because units in transports are not on the tble either but can still fire through firepoints, psykers can use psychic powers, rites of war can be used out of a transport etc, yet none of them are on the table.

 

The BBB or BRB is RAW, if the book is RAW then common sense is also RAW.