Cleansing Flame

[thade]

lol a smily AND a winky in one package!

[Valerian]

Grammatically, it's so very clearly #1. But then, it IS a poorly written codex... :rolleyes:

 

This happens far too much, in every book, and it makes me assume that GW actually doesn't have any editors. I know I've given a quote from each book that, when changing or adding/subtracting a single word, it makes all the difference and ever so clear what they "meant" to say. For instance:

 

- "all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" (original)

- "each enemy model that is part of the same assault suffers one wound on a roll of 4+" (modified)

Bam, now it's #2 and what we all "feel" it should be. But alas, with no editors we get the former and thus are required to play by #1.

 

Er, Seahawk, we aren't required to play in any way other than what we and our opponents come to agreement on.

 

V

[Dan VK]

Er, Seahawk, we aren't required to play in any way other than what we and our opponents come to agreement on.

That is true. In fact, the only time someone else gets to tell you how to play the game is when they are a TO, because if you do not obey you will no longer be playing in the tournament. Outside of that situation how you play is entirely up to opponent consent and, failing that, the Most Important Rule.

 

I think what Seahawk meant (please correct me if I am wrong) is that we are required to play that way if we do not use a house rule. As with all discussions in the +OR+, the discussion is not about how the rule should be played; the discussion is about how the rules state the rule is played. Again, someone please correct me if am wrong, especially since we all seem to agree we should roll a die for each effected model.

 

As for how we should play, I vote for Nerf darts from twenty paces away to determine ordnance scatter instead of rolling for it. :)

[Seahawk]

No, you're right Dan, that's the meaning I was trying to get across.

 

We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

[GreatEscape_13]

I think camp 2 is often a result of us reading what we'd like it to be as opposed to what it actually is.'

 

But if we agree to preface our read of the rules as "it is unclear", then "what it actually is" can only ever be the prevailing opinion. And in that case, prevailing opinion does have to take account of a multitude of sources: if it includes what we want it to be, then fortunately (or unfortunately) we have to consider that.

 

By our very defining it as unclear, then we invalidate any claim about "what it actually is", or rather are obligated to consider those claims as "how I particularly understand it." And there is no clear winner between "How I particularly understand it" and "how I understand it in a manner consistent with my desire for it's understanding in prevailing opinion." Both dissolve down to "my understanding is the correct one".

 

So I would solve this in one of two ways:

1) You and your opponent share the same understanding? Then play ball.

2) You and your opponent differ? 4+ roll.

 

Nothing else would work except for:

1) An official FAQ

2) A large enough, valid, random-sample poll of 40k players. And that poll would need to include both the hyper-rules conscious folks (those who frequent this particular subforum, for instance) and your casual player who has read the rulebook once.

 

And my guess is that more people would side with the 4+ for every model, for sheer precedent's sake--people are tremendously swayed by precedent, particularly in English-speaking countries. Thus if all sorts of other tests are resolved as a roll affecting every model, then this one would be assumed to follow suit by a majority of casual, un-interested observers--because of precedent set by other rules. This always seems to be the difficulty with RAW, as it generally ignores the supposition that the rules creators are seeking to create more consistency in rules rather than less (that has to be a supposition only, as game systems such as Space 1889 show us that certain authors prefer less consistency in rules behavior). Assuming that GW is seeking a more consistent rules set, which seems evident by the evolution of their product (e.g. moving certain special rules to the BBRB as universal special rules), then precedent seems like a fine determining factor in decisions.

 

Thus a 3rd option seems available:

3) Use a general sense of precedent to determine our answer, and decide which ruling is more similar to other rules within the system.

 

Other than leadership tests and difficult terrain tests (which seem to be a different category), what rules affect the entire squad with a single roll result? I can think of lots of procedures where each model gets affected by the roll...

 

Anyhow, that's a very long-winded response. Sorry. Just the way that point was phrased, I thought a healthy dose of John Stuart Mill kinds of thinking (re: prevailing opinion) might

be helpful.

 

Cheers.

[Jacinda]

I played in a tournament not long ago for both 40K and Warhammer Fantasy. The fantasy side held a drawing for a prize after each round. All 40K players received a free tee shirt on a massive victory.

 

 

^.^

 

Over time, the two versions will cause the same number of wounds no matter which way you call it. The one die method will be more spiky in the short term for swinging between causing wounds and doing nothing. But in the end, it really does not matter much. There are more important things to worry about than which way you fall into the average number of wounds. It is just silly wording and sound be given no more thought than that. Agree on how you want to play and move on. You could even give your opponent the chance to pick; do you feel lucky or do you want to take the safe and sure route? All or nothing on a single die or roll for each knowing at least some will not take a wound?

[Morticon]

Ive been giving the "intent" aspect of this power a lot of thought over the last week.

 

I'm not convinced AT all that the designer of this dex didn't intend for this power to work exactly as it's written.

I believe it is incredibly powerful the larger the squad size you're fighting, yet also balances with the fact that half the time, you will do nothing at all

 

Its easy to harp on about intent based on precedence, but at the end of the day, I have not been swayed either way of the intent discussion, because lets face it- we really have no idea what the designer intended.

 

Every new codex breaks previous precedence on some level. Be giving Inv. saves to vehicles (as opposed to cover) or whatever...it happens. Why is this suddenly different?

 

At the end of the day, this will probably be rules FAQed by someone that isnt the designer/writer of the dex, as it seems to so often be the case at GW.

 

I gave this rule to a bunch of newer players and non-players over the past week, to get their feedback. All of them read it as a single roll.

Now, if those new players, or non players had to start up a game, and theres some veteran telling them, no thats not the meaning of this rule, because the precedent isnt that- I find that a bit rich, and blatantly unfair. The guy looks at his dex, and says - but this is what it says? Why must i change what it says to fit what it has said in the past?

 

Anyway, just some thoughts on that matter.

 

Try giving this to new players or non-players. (Someone with an adequate grasp of the language will be helpful tho).

[GreatEscape_13]

lets face it- we really have no idea what the designer intended.

 

Not at all. We can tell that the designer intended: 1) that then power would have the capability to effect the entire squad and 2) that the odds of it happening to any one model in the squad would be 50-50 (note that this holds with either interpretation-whether we roll for each model or once for the unit, the odds of any one model taking the wound are the same). The debate could begin from there.

 

Every new codex breaks previous precedence on some level.

 

That is a very compelling argument to consider. The logic there would be that the game has a particular feel, and that the uniformity of the game is broken by different mixes of unit types and by creating exceptions to phases/rules/effects. So what separates the "feel" of each army can partially be their differentiation from the baseline. I think Vampire Counts in WFB are a particularly good example--here we see a change from the general procedure to create a unique feel to the force. So then, we might ask, is that the case with this particular codex and rule?

 

Try giving this to new players or non-players.

 

Okay, so now we're on to the REALLY interesting considerations! With a suggestion like this, we see that the RAW vs. RAI debate has that amazing other layer to it. Not just do we advocate for one or the other, but that our advocacy of one determines who gets "authority" in judging the disputes. A RAW thinker would suggest that a neutral and/or uninterested arbiter is best (as above--giving to non-player). The view would be that their detachment from preference over the outcome would lead to better interpretation. But it also supports the core of RAW thinking: that the text as written has primacy over other factors of the game. A RAI thinker, on the other hand, would suggest that experienced players be the ones consulted, right? Because here the goal is to have an informed arbiter--because that information about what the game is about, how it generally works, etc. is useful to the specific interpretation of the rules. The very information that a RAW thinker wants to exclude is what an RAI thinker demands for inclusion. So what we see is that not only is RAW vs. RAI a theoretical debate about the proper method to understanding rules, but that our position in that theoretical debate determines who has the right (correct? proper?) method to make authoritative judgments about rules disputes.

 

So like I said, really interesting. It is fascinating how everything hinges on a single word (e.g. think how it might be a non-issue if had they used "Each" rather than "All"). Good stuff and compelling arguments on both sides, which is the really fantastic part of this ruling issue (I think of the Ork Deathrolla vs. vehicles discussion as a comparable one, where both sides of the issue made sense but were mutually exclusive).

 

Cheers.

[Dan VK]

Anyone can tell you, without solid evidence, how they think the rule is meant to be played. "How does the rule state it is played?" is the important, and more difficult, question. Everything other than the RAW is inference, and circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence.

 

Also, even though I am thoroughly enjoying it, I fear we are ;).

 

 

[EDIT: Added the awesomely grumpy-looking off-topic emoticon.]

[Isiah]

Anyone can tell you, without solid evidence, how they think the rule is meant to be played. "How does the rule state it is played?" is the important, and more difficult, question. Everything other than the RAW is inference, and circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence.

 

Also, even though I am thoroughly enjoying it, I fear we are ;).

 

Agreed. There really is no need to continue with this one as it can't be satisfactorily resolved here.

 

If there is a lack of clarity then petition GW for an updated GK FAQ.

[thade]

If there is a lack of clarity then petition GW for an updated GK FAQ.

I wish this would be effective. :D

 

...Can it?

[Dan VK]

If there is a lack of clarity then petition GW for an updated GK FAQ.

I wish this would be effective. :)

 

...Can it?

I imagine a large enough number of letters and emails would work.

[Isiah]

Supposedly they do listen - so why not? Nothing ventured nothing gained as they say

[thade]

Supposedly they do listen - so why not? Nothing ventured nothing gained as they say :P

I can't dispute it. Also, I admire your optimism. :P

 

Where do I send this email? Can we maybe get the email itself stickied at the top of this forum, haha? ;)