Banshees/Quickening versus Unwieldy

[Raeven]

Why not simply conclude Initiative = Initiative modified and Initiative Step = Initiative Modified.

 

It eliminates all these "inconsistencies".

 

You don't do it with Leadership, Strength, WS, BS, etc. For example, when you check the chart for wounds, you add the Strength bonus to your model with Powerfists and Power Axes when giving and taking wounds.

[Morollan]

I think every single person here knows, or at least suspects, that the correct position is intended to be that models pile in and attack on the initiative step equal to their modified initiative, that dangerous terrain modifies your initiative to 1 and that frag and plasma grenades remove that penalty. Sadly the RAW doesn't quite say that yet so we can either agree to follow common sense and play as above or have ridiculous situations where models pile in after they attack or gain no benefit from frag grenades whose only job is to benefit the user in that exact situation.

[puffin]

I think every single person here knows, or at least suspects, that the correct position is intended to be that models pile in and attack on the initiative step equal to their modified initiative, that dangerous terrain modifies your initiative to 1 and that frag and plasma grenades remove that penalty. Sadly the RAW doesn't quite say that yet so we can either agree to follow common sense and play as above or have ridiculous situations where models pile in after they attack or gain no benefit from frag grenades whose only job is to benefit the user in that exact situation.

 

Seconded.

 

I'm calling 6th Edition the "RAI Edition" seeing as the writers have chosen to deliberately use vague and ambiguous wording throughout the whole book.

[DarkGuard]

Sadly, RAI isn't really the remit of this board. It's fine as an evener when all else fails, but while there are solid RAW arguments we have to stick with them.

 

And that's coming from a person who prefers RAI most times. :)

[Lysere]

Sadly, RAI isn't really the remit of this board. It's fine as an evener when all else fails, but while there are solid RAW arguments we have to stick with them.

 

And that's coming from a person who prefers RAI most times. ;)

 

I always argue RAW when issues arise, and once they understand how it is written I am more then happy to decide on an RAI that we agree on, or roll off. This actually happened with the whole blast weapons being able to kill models it can't see. Although I will always resort to having them roll for the RAI until GW takes a stance on that officially.

[puffin]

Sadly, RAI isn't really the remit of this board. It's fine as an evener when all else fails, but while there are solid RAW arguments we have to stick with them.

 

And that's coming from a person who prefers RAI most times. ;)

The problem is that most of the time there aren't solid RAW arguments.

 

You only have to look at the number of arguments over such diverse topics as Signums vs Skyfire, Blast Templates vs Models out of LOS, Initiative Steps vs Frag Grenades (vs Initiative vs Unwieldy vs Quickening), Reserve requirements vs Dedicated Transports, etc, etc to see that the rules are not written as a RAW ruleset and to attempt to interpret them as such ends up tying yourself in knots.

 

Yes, when there are solid arguments you should use RAW, but in the case where there aren't it's much better to take an agreed RAI then the semi-trolling approach of trying to twist the rules to their most ridiculous ends while claiming "it's RAW, therefore it's right".

[Gentlemanloser]

Sadly, it was deemed that RAI is fair game for this board. -_-

 

Which obviosuly means I win any rule discussion here on a roll of 4+! ;)

 

The rulebook *should* be fully RAW, without loopholes or failures. That it isn't is indicative of two things.

 

GW are *bad* at rule writing

They deperately need to FAQ thier new rulebook

 

As paying customers, we deserve better.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

I think every single person here knows, or at least suspects, that the correct position is intended to be that models pile in and attack on the initiative step equal to their modified initiative, that dangerous terrain modifies your initiative to 1 and that frag and plasma grenades remove that penalty.

Of course. Sadly, as you point out, RAW doesn't support that, but c'est la vie.

 

I think every single person here knows, or at least suspects, that the correct position is intended to be that models pile in and attack on the initiative step equal to their modified initiative, that dangerous terrain modifies your initiative to 1 and that frag and plasma grenades remove that penalty. Sadly the RAW doesn't quite say that yet so we can either agree to follow common sense and play as above or have ridiculous situations where models pile in after they attack or gain no benefit from frag grenades whose only job is to benefit the user in that exact situation.

 

Seconded.

 

I'm calling 6th Edition the "RAI Edition" seeing as the writers have chosen to deliberately use vague and ambiguous wording throughout the whole book.

Except for one little thing. When you and I, or anyone else on this board, get together for a game with someone they don't really know, and haven't played with before, there is only one common ground: RAW. We'll be used to different houserules, different ways of doing things, and might even be used to different methods for deciding rules conflicts. All we really have in common are the rules, and RAW is the best way to deal with them. RAI is too often turned from "Rules As Intended" to "Rules As I Want Them To Be." Heck, I've had people try to argue RAI with me all the way up to the point where I showed them the FAQ.

 

Sadly, it was deemed that RAI is fair game for this board. :(

 

Which obviosuly means I win any rule discussion here on a roll of 4+! :P

 

The rulebook *should* be fully RAW, without loopholes or failures. That it isn't is indicative of two things.

 

GW are *bad* at rule writing

They deperately need to FAQ thier new rulebook

 

As paying customers, we deserve better.

GW doesn't even have to make a perfect ruleset (no such thing, really), but they could at least make one that would stand up to the rigours of WAAC and RAW interpretation, without having to go on and on about "the spirit of the game" and being a gentlemanly player.

 

Come on, GW, the world doesn't do things the way you guys do in the studio. You should have realised this by now.

[Morollan]

Come on, GW, the world doesn't do things the way you guys do in the studio.

 

As a quick glance at any WD battle report will readily reveal!

[DarkGuard]

Sadly, it was deemed that RAI is fair game for this board. :rolleyes:

 

I'd still only apply it when RAW fails. And some of the arguments that were mentioned had some solid RAW conclusions, that may have been supported by RAI, but some people didn't agree with them, which is why RAI was called in.

 

Anyway, there's a time and place, and this isn't it.

[Rik Lightstar]

Come on, GW, the world doesn't do things the way you guys do in the studio.

 

As a quick glance at any WD battle report will readily reveal!

 

This is so true, GW Lenton, is like its own little world, and staff games are typically very laid-back (there's a bar, talk about it over a pint after), also because they all work together all the time, they tend to "read things the same way" if you see what I mean.

 

There's the GW anecdote about Rick Priestly at the first Warmaster (which Rick regarded as a beautiful and simpe ruleset) Grand Tournament at Lenton, he was wandering around the hall, chatting to the gamers and at every second or third table, he'd have to stop and ask "why are you doing it like that?" (or similar), only to be told "well that's what the rules say", he'd then have the rule in question shown to him in the book, and be shocked that people were ignoring the obvious intent and just looking at the text in isolation. By all accounts he didn't make it half-way around the hall before feeling the need to go have a cup of tea away from the people that were abusing his ruleset.

 

Now, this is all second hand so may only have pickings of the truth in it, BUT, it does show how the design team did, and still do tend to approach things.

 

Rik