PDA

View Full Version : Question on RAW philosophy



Talakeal
2022-08-08, 01:18 PM
I was discussing the Lord of the Rings game the other day and came into a situation where both my model (Shelob) and his model (A felbeast) were told that they could ignore obstacles. The fluff was different, one because of wings the other because of the ability to walk on walls, but the rules were exactly the same.

My opponent was playing with a very restrictive view of what "ignoring" and obstacle meant for me, saying it makes no sense for a spider to simply "phase through" terrain features. Then when I wanted him to abide by the same restrictions, he said that was ridiculous, why would he be bothered by an obstacle when he is soaring through the sky above?

Now, this is a tabletop game without a human GM to make judgement calls, so in this case all there is is RAW and agreed upon house rules.

My thinking is that if the RAW of two abilities is worded exactly the same, they function exactly on the tabletop, but I have always been a RAI kind of guy, so I am curious about how the RAW lawyers on here would play out that situation.

ShedShadow
2022-08-08, 01:41 PM
For all games some level of abstraction is included. If both abilities boil down to 'ignore terrain' then they should do just that.

RAW= you both ignore the terrain, regardless of circumstance
RAI = The flier ignores the terrain, but the spider does not when faced with, for example, water. Otherwise the spider ignores terrain.

I also think that a list with exceptions to your 'ignore terrain' ability would be exceptionally (DAAAH) long.

-no trees higher than x
- no shrubberies with thorns
- not when poison ivy in 15 ft.
- not while being watched
- not when you haven't slept
- not when you are missing one or more legs
- not while carrying a heavy load
- not while being stabbed
- not when the webbing is magical
- etc.

You get the gist. My take would be: RAW

Thrudd
2022-08-08, 02:04 PM
In GM-less board games, I think RAW is much more important. Sure, all the players can agree on a certain interpretation of a rule, but if that interpretation begs further mechanical elaboration or even invention, it is probably a mistake for that particular TTG. If a rule interpretation obviously throws off the balance designed by the game (to the point where one player's tools are distinctly inferior to another's), it's probably not a good interpretation. Verisimilitude always takes a back seat to game balance in a competitive, GM-less game.

If it says "ignore obstacles", and the game makes no mechanical distinctions or exceptions for various types of obstacles, then it is clearly meant to be universal. If there is another piece in the game that only avoids some specific obstacles, then clearly Shelob is meant to avoid all of them. I'm thinking your friend was arguing from bad faith to get an unfair advantage on you.

Besides, your friend's reasoning is flawed. A spider doesn't avoid obstacles because she's "phasing through things", she has eight giant legs that lets her crawl over and around all sorts of things with great agility.

animorte
2022-08-08, 02:16 PM
In GM-less board games, I think RAW is much more important. Sure, all the players can agree on a certain interpretation of a rule, but if that interpretation begs further mechanical elaboration or even invention, it is probably a mistake for that particular TTG. If a rule interpretation obviously throws off the balance designed by the game (to the point where one player's tools are distinctly inferior to another's), it's probably not a good interpretation. Verisimilitude always takes a back seat to game balance in a competitive, GM-less game.

And then there's GM-less TTGs that are cooperative instead. This creates another dimension worth taking into account.

Thrudd
2022-08-08, 02:46 PM
And then there's GM-less TTGs that are cooperative instead. This creates another dimension worth taking into account.

True. In that case, you'd need to examine where the balance of the game lies, what role is this piece supposed to be filling. It still doesn't mean you should choose verisimilitude over RAW game balance. I'm quite sure the intended effect of the rule could be determined from reading the rules, unless this is a poorly written and designed game.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-08, 02:46 PM
And then there's GM-less TTGs that are cooperative instead. This creates another dimension worth taking into account. Are you thinking about the board game Pandemic? I sure am. :smallsmile:

Talakeal
2022-08-08, 02:52 PM
If it says "ignore obstacles", and the game makes no mechanical distinctions or exceptions for various types of obstacles, then it is clearly meant to be universal. If there is another piece in the game that only avoids some specific obstacles, then clearly Shelob is meant to avoid all of them. I'm thinking your friend was arguing from bad faith to get an unfair advantage on you.

Besides, your friend's reasoning is flawed. A spider doesn't avoid obstacles because she's "phasing through things", she has eight giant legs that lets her crawl over and around all sorts of things with great agility.

To be fair, like 90% of the people I have played against insist that this can’t be RAI because the idea of a spider ignoring a solid obstacle is just too alien to them, while in their mind fliers are “soaring through the sky” even though they need to land at the end of each turn and can then be attacked in close combat.

Its just, nobody can agree on what the RAI is there, so we are stuck with them attempting to argue that RAW is that they can both “ignore obstacles” but some models ignore more obstacles than others.

Easy e
2022-08-08, 03:11 PM
It is pretty clear the RAW is that both models ignore terrain.

I would argue that the RAI is also that both models simply ignore terrain.

The designers did not want this model impacted by terrain.

Thrudd
2022-08-08, 03:12 PM
To be fair, like 90% of the people I have played against insist that this can’t be RAI because the idea of a spider ignoring a solid obstacle is just too alien to them, while in their mind fliers are “soaring through the sky” even though they need to land at the end of each turn and can then be attacked in close combat.

Its just, nobody can agree on what the RAI is there, so we are stuck with them attempting to argue that RAW is that they can both “ignore obstacles” but some models ignore more obstacles than others.

How does the game distinguish between different obstacles? If it doesn't, then RAI is obvious. Are there pieces that only ignore certain types of obstacles? If there are, then the RAI is obvious.

I think they may be taking the word "ignore" much too literally. I imagine the effect of ignoring the obstacle is that it doesn't reduce your rate of movement, right? Not that the creature is literally not touching the obstacle- but that they move just as quickly in spite of it. It makes perfect sense for a giant spider, relative to a lot of other terrestrial creatures.

Also- Maybe Shelob is meant to be taking the underground tunnels that Tolkien says crisscross Middle Earth, from the time of its creation, in addition to having spider legs. Ungoliant and her children have many "secret ways" in the dark places of the earth.

Talakeal
2022-08-08, 04:06 PM
How does the game distinguish between different obstacles? If it doesn't, then RAI is obvious. Are there pieces that only ignore certain types of obstacles? If there are, then the RAI is obvious.

I think they may be taking the word "ignore" much too literally. I imagine the effect of ignoring the obstacle is that it doesn't reduce your rate of movement, right? Not that the creature is literally not touching the obstacle- but that they move just as quickly in spite of it. It makes perfect sense for a giant spider, relative to a lot of other terrestrial creatures.

Also- Maybe Shelob is meant to be taking the underground tunnels that Tolkien says crisscross Middle Earth, from the time of its creation, in addition to having spider legs. Ungoliant and her children have many "secret ways" in the dark places of the earth.

There are models that only ignore certain types of terrain, elves ignores woodlands and the watcher in the water ignores water, for example.

Obstacles are vertical terrain; if they are less than half your height you automatically cross them, if they are more than half height but less than full height they must be jumped, and if they are more than your height you must climb. Jumping and climbing both require tests and have slightly different rules.

Flyers, giant spiders, and ghostly models are all told to "ignore obstacles" with no more clarification of what that means.

The vast majority of people I play against say that spiders must still jump or climb obstacles, they just do it automatically without a roll. So, for example, if you wanted to cross a wall that was 6'' tall and 3'' across, most people play it that the ghost or the felbeast would spend 3'' of movement to cross it, while Shelob would spend either 9'' or 15'' (3 across, 6 up, and then maybe 6 down again).

My argument has always been, if that is RAI, they should errata the RAW from "Shelob ignores obstacles" to "Shelob automatically passes all jump and climb tests". Which I would be fine with, what I don't like is different resolutions for the same rule because it hurts some people's verisimilitude.

Black Jester
2022-08-08, 04:29 PM
The fetishization of the rules is pretty much always detrimental to the experience of playing the game. It has been pushed a lot by game authors, because of course they want to be considered as important and have their work taking the central stage, but usually that is motivated by ego-stroking, not actual quality. Game rules, especially in an RPG, are never more than guidelines and are always only as binding as you want them to be. This has happened in contrast to the older games' idealization of the Dungeon Master as the central figure of the game. The reason is easy: the original RPG creators, like Arneson, Gygax and most of the first generation enthusiasts were playes and game masters first, enjoying the game and trying to publish their best ideas. The more professional, second and third generation products are way more inspired by marketing concerns than by playability, and are usually written by more professional, but a lot less enthusiastic authors.

So, in my experience, players who are mostly inspired by actual gaming experience are usually more interested in local or even individual solutions, either provided by the GM or as a collective decision by the table, for the table. Sometimes for reasons as banal as speed: when it takes five minutes to look up a semi-obscure rule, but only 30 seconds to make up a split decision that fits the situation, you have just wasted everybody's time.

My personal position is probably not going to be very popular, but I stand by it: When a game rule indicates an action that is clearly idiotic and antagonistic to the spirit of a fun game or insulting to the intelligence of the plyers, you are not just allowed to break it, you are obligated to do so. Rules should serve the game, not vice versa.

However, it is bad form to choose paper after seeing rock, so to speak. As a gamemaster, you should grant a lot of leeway to your players, and be strict towards yourself. I think it is downright revolting if gamemasters cheat, either by fudging dice results or by changing the locales to negate the player's decisions (also known as the "quantum ogre effect").

Thrudd
2022-08-08, 04:34 PM
There are models that only ignore certain types of terrain, elves ignores woodlands and the watcher in the water ignores water, for example.

Obstacles are vertical terrain; if they are less than half your height you automatically cross them, if they are more than half height but less than full height they must be jumped, and if they are more than your height you must climb. Jumping and climbing both require tests and have slightly different rules.

Flyers, giant spiders, and ghostly models are all told to "ignore obstacles" with no more clarification of what that means.

The vast majority of people I play against say that spiders must still jump or climb obstacles, they just do it automatically without a roll. So, for example, if you wanted to cross a wall that was 6'' tall and 3'' across, most people play it that the ghost or the felbeast would spend 3'' of movement to cross it, while Shelob would spend either 9'' or 15'' (3 across, 6 up, and then maybe 6 down again).

My argument has always been, if that is RAI, they should errata the RAW from "Shelob ignores obstacles" to "Shelob automatically passes all jump and climb tests". Which I would be fine with, what I don't like is different resolutions for the same rule because it hurts some people's verisimilitude.

I'd agree with you, not that that helps you at all. I'm guessing this is the GW battle game? Especially since it's a competitive game, there would need to be errata before you treat that differently. Either everyone who ignores obstacles has to count the height in their movement (it takes time/movement to fly upwards, afterall, doesn't it?), or nobody does. If they have a hard time picturing what's happening when Shelob ignores a wall, describe that she moves over it so quickly and effortlessly that it takes no more time than someone walking past it. I find that completely believable. She's a giant f'ing supernatural spider.

Swift movement is described as climbing over things with ease in flavor text, but says explicitly "ignore all obstacles except water features and gaps". So I can see the climbing argument, except for the fact that it would have been very easy to write "automatically passes climb checks" instead of "ignores all obstacles" if that's how they meant it to work. Has anyone tried to contact GW about an official rules clarification? Does GW not have official forums anymore?

Talakeal
2022-08-08, 05:12 PM
I'd agree with you, not that that helps you at all. I'm guessing this is the GW battle game? Especially since it's a competitive game, there would need to be errata before you treat that differently. Either everyone who ignores obstacles has to count the height in their movement (it takes time/movement to fly upwards, afterall, doesn't it?), or nobody does. If they have a hard time picturing what's happening when Shelob ignores a wall, describe that she moves over it so quickly and effortlessly that it takes no more time than someone walking past it. I find that completely believable. She's a giant f'ing supernatural spider.

Swift movement is described as climbing over things with ease in flavor text, but says explicitly "ignore all obstacles except water features and gaps". So I can see the climbing argument, except for the fact that it would have been very easy to write "automatically passes climb checks" instead of "ignores all obstacles" if that's how they meant it to work. Has anyone tried to contact GW about an official rules clarification? Does GW not have official forums anymore?

Agree with everything you said there.

GW doesn’t have official forums, because they feel that the excessive negativity that forums breed is bad for their image.

I did e-mail their FAQ department and got a one word response telling me my interpretation was wrong, but not which of my many opponent’s interpretations was correct, so its just more fuel for the argument mill.

I have argued about this particular rule endlessly both online and in person, not really meaning to start it up again here, more just wondering about general RAW lawyering procedure.

animorte
2022-08-08, 06:19 PM
Are you thinking about the board game Pandemic? I sure am. :smallsmile:

Absolutely that’s one of them! There’s so many! That’s actually probably what we have a greater collection of than anything else, cooperative TTGs.

Thrudd
2022-08-08, 06:31 PM
Agree with everything you said there.

GW doesn’t have official forums, because they feel that the excessive negativity that forums breed is bad for their image.

I did e-mail their FAQ department and got a one word response telling me my interpretation was wrong, but not which of my many opponent’s interpretations was correct, so its just more fuel for the argument mill.

I have argued about this particular rule endlessly both online and in person, not really meaning to start it up again here, more just wondering about general RAW lawyering procedure.

lol lawyering procedure...I mean, tabletop battle games are a whole different beast than RPGs, in terms of the purpose of rules and how one ought to "lawyer" them. But lawyering, in general, requires careful reading of the wording of the rules and finding firm definitions of all associated terms. A well written game will clearly define all terms which have mechanical effect.

I'm not really a fan of how loosey goosey GW is about some of their rulings in general, where they just say "use common sense", especially as a way to contradict what is actually written. Common sense doesn't mean anything, and many people's "common sense" about some things is actually factually wrong. I guess if it isn't some sort of official tournament, it isn't that big of a deal- but still, it's frustrating if you've bought the miniatures- which, of course, you aren't supposed to be able to use as proxies for other things if you change your mind about your army composition - and then people tell you that it is a much less effective piece than the rules make it out to be.

The written rule here is clear. If any house rules or errata are to be used, that needs to be stated up front, preferably before you even decide the composition of your army. Also, significantly diminishing a unit's utility should be accompanied by a reduction in cost. I would argue that, unless they give you a chance to rework your army, then they shouldn't insist on using anything other than RAW.

Pauly
2022-08-09, 12:16 AM
Standard wargaming convention is that you measure the distance by the path the figure actually moves. Some rules will also include the distance turned, other rules allow free turning. “Ignores terrain” is poorly worded and should better be listed as “ignores terrain penalties”, but expecting clarity and precise language from GW is a long shot.

From the examples in the thread.
Shelob’s path will be horizontal distance plus up and down the wall. Many rules ignore the “go down” part if it is reasonable to assume a jump.
A fellbeast will fly using a pythagorean path.
A ghost’s path will pass through the wall.

Vahnavoi
2022-08-09, 04:32 AM
If the rules for the two models are worded the same, the straightforward interpretation is that the two models are meant to function the same. There really ought to be no room for confusion there.

The argument from fictional details matters not. This is an abstract rule, such rules are used when game designers don't want to be bogged down by such details. The mechanic does not care about how or why the model ignores terrain, and neither should your opponent.

If your opponent insists, it's case of "the rules are stupid and ought to be changed". Since the rules ARE clear, this is grounds for stopping to play with such an opponent and consider them to have forfeited the match. Alternatively, if you are sympathetic to their cause, you may agree to change the rules to match their interpretation. If you are not sympathetic but wish to continue playing anyway, refer to rules for resolving player conflict. The typical rule for wargames without a referee is that players roll a die and the game follows interpretation of the winner of that roll for the rest of the match. If your opponent refuses to agree to such a compromise, stop playing with that opponent and consider them to have forfeited that match.

Quertus
2022-08-09, 08:38 AM
I come to RPGs from a wargaming background. So, to me, the rules are the physics.

If you start trying to change the rules to match your personal vision of the world… be prepared for people to tell you just how illogical and faulty your personal vision of the world is (ie, as @Thrudd pointed out, fliers who land at the end of every turn should be paying the “climb” movement equally to wall-crawlers (unless you want to break out the Pythagorean theorem in the middle of elf games)).

Oh,

Standard wargaming convention is that you measure the distance by the path the figure actually moves. Some rules will also include the distance turned, other rules allow free turning. “Ignores terrain” is poorly worded and should better be listed as “ignores terrain penalties”, but expecting clarity and precise language from GW is a long shot.

From the examples in the thread.
Shelob’s path will be horizontal distance plus up and down the wall. Many rules ignore the “go down” part if it is reasonable to assume a jump.
A fellbeast will fly using a pythagorean path.
A ghost’s path will pass through the wall.

Maybe you *do* want to break out the Pythagorean theorem after all.

Easy e
2022-08-09, 09:28 AM
Go to the "You Make the Call" board on Dakka Dakka to discuss this, and you will get a lot of discussion.

On second thought, this is for the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game (MESBG) so you might get to only half a page.



I am not sure how the rules RAW could be any clearer. They both "Ignore Terrain" which means the effects or special rules for terrain do not apply. The designer intended that neither model would have to alter their movement rate to get past any terrain related obstacles.

However, traditionally in a GW game, the way to resolve a dispute like this is to dice for it.

However, my resolution is much simpler (but not easier), if you can not agree on how to proceed, you need different friends to play games with. After all, wargames are cooperative competition games. The point is to have fun for all players. If one person decides to not cooperate and make the game unfun, a game can not be played to determine a winner. You have to be cooperative before you can be competitive.

Jay R
2022-08-09, 11:59 AM
The issue here is much bigger than terrain.

If the players eventually agree, that's great. But when the players cannot agree about the rules, one of the following results will occur:
1. They will all agree to accept a ruling from somebody else (a GM or referee whether you call it that or not)
2. They are all willing to talk about it, and then go with a majority opinion even while they continue to disagree*,
3. All the players but one agree to consider other people’s opinions, so that one player’s opinion always wins (until and unless the rest get tired of being dictated to and quit the game), or
4. They cannot reach a ruling they will all accept, and the game stops.

* In two-player games, there is no majority opinion, so this option doesn't exist.

In sports, there is always one official who can make a final ruling. Everyone has to agree to accept that that official’s word is final, even when they know the official is wrong, or the game couldn’t be played.

An essential skill to play a continuing game – any game – is willingness to sometimes lose the rules discussion.

Talakeal
2022-08-09, 01:05 PM
The issue here is much bigger than terrain.

If the players eventually agree, that's great. But when the players cannot agree about the rules, one of the following results will occur:
1. They will all agree to accept a ruling from somebody else (a GM or referee whether you call it that or not)
2. They are all willing to talk about it, and then go with a majority opinion even while they continue to disagree*,
3. All the players but one agree to consider other people’s opinions, so that one player’s opinion always wins (until and unless the rest get tired of being dictated to and quit the game), or
4. They cannot reach a ruling they will all accept, and the game stops.

* In two-player games, there is no majority opinion, so this option doesn't exist.

In sports, there is always one official who can make a final ruling. Everyone has to agree to accept that that official’s word is final, even when they know the official is wrong, or the game couldn’t be played.

An essential skill to play a continuing game – any game – is willingness to sometimes lose the rules discussion.

In this case, I am willing to go by my opponents interpretation, but it has to be applied consistently. I don’t think its unreasonable for me to want to be playing by the same rules as my opponent even if their model looks like a pterodactyl and mine looks like a spider.



I come to RPGs from a wargaming background. So, to me, the rules are the physics.

If you start trying to change the rules to match your personal vision of the world… be prepared for people to tell you just how illogical and faulty your personal vision of the world is (ie, as @Thrudd pointed out, fliers who land at the end of every turn should be paying the “climb” movement equally to wall-crawlers (unless you want to break out the Pythagorean theorem in the middle of elf games)).

Oh,


Maybe you *do* want to break out the Pythagorean theorem after all.

As I said, I am fine with whatever interpretation they want to play by, but it needs to be enforced the same across the board.


Standard wargaming convention is that you measure the distance by the path the figure actually moves. Some rules will also include the distance turned, other rules allow free turning. “Ignores terrain” is poorly worded and should better be listed as “ignores terrain penalties”, but expecting clarity and precise language from GW is a long shot.

From the examples in the thread.
Shelob’s path will be horizontal distance plus up and down the wall. Many rules ignore the “go down” part if it is reasonable to assume a jump.
A fellbeast will fly using a pythagorean path.
A ghost’s path will pass through the wall.

Now see, I have never seen anyone who is even willing to compromise and go by a pythagorean path, which I suppose goes to show that what GW calls common sense really isn’t.

I have always been told that flyers ignore terrain completely because they are not actually on the battlefield but soaring in the sky above it. Of course, nobody has even tried to explain to me how they do this yet still interact normally with the other models that are so far below them.

icefractal
2022-08-09, 02:42 PM
Is this the same group you play TTRPGs with? Because my impression from prior threads is that they're interested in RAW and/or IC logic entirely to the extent it makes them win. Ie. they're not going to be arguing in good faith because the point is to give them the advantage - if they were the spider and you were the ghost, they'd likely be arguing for the two working exactly the same.

Easy e
2022-08-09, 02:59 PM
@icefractal - I was wondering the same thing. If it is, I determined long ago that T needs a new group of game friends.

Thrudd
2022-08-09, 03:09 PM
The argument, next time it comes up, could be presented like this: The wording of both abilities is identical: "ignore obstacles". Movement rules and obstacle rules do not make distinction between flyers and spiders. Neither of the piece's specific rules describe how their movement past obstacles should be measured. Therefore, by the book, both move in the same manner. Since the rules are not specific enough about how to "ignore obstacles", it can be jointly agreed that they either must both account for vertical movement or not, and still be "by the book".

However, if both models are to use different methods for measuring their movement, this is a house rule in contradiction of the text and must be agreed on by all parties before it is adopted (or abide by the die roll to decide if you can't agree). Maybe flyers get to measure their movement diagonally into the air, up to the height of the object to be cleared, and spiders will measure the vertical height of surfaces they climb- this will still give flyers some advantage, but not so much that maybe you'd want to bother changing the point cost.

Regardless, there is no rules-legal leg to stand on in demanding that the same ability means different things to different pieces.

Talakeal
2022-08-09, 03:49 PM
Is this the same group you play TTRPGs with? Because my impression from prior threads is that they're interested in RAW and/or IC logic entirely to the extent it makes them win. Ie. they're not going to be arguing in good faith because the point is to give them the advantage - if they were the spider and you were the ghost, they'd likely be arguing for the two working exactly the same.

Only one of my friends, Brian, is in both gaming groups, and I was eventually able to bring him around to my way of thinking.

Honestly, i was never an issue until I read a Reddit threat where someone had an issue with Shelob being trapped behind sign posts which, even though she ignores, her opponent insisted that she couldn't cross because she had to climb up one side and then down the other and had insufficient movement to do so in one turn (and also ruled that she couldn't end her movement climbing, which is a whole 'nother can of worms). I showed it to my gaming group as an example of ridiculous online rules lawyers, but to my surprise they all took his side and insisted I had been cheating all of these years by simply measuring distance displaced.

I have since had several nasty fights over it not only with my gaming group, but PUGs at the GW store, and several online communities I am part of.


The argument, next time it comes up, could be presented like this: The wording of both abilities is identical: "ignore obstacles". Movement rules and obstacle rules do not make distinction between flyers and spiders. Neither of the piece's specific rules describe how their movement past obstacles should be measured. Therefore, by the book, both move in the same manner. Since the rules are not specific enough about how to "ignore obstacles", it can be jointly agreed that they either must both account for vertical movement or not, and still be "by the book".

However, if both models are to use different methods for measuring their movement, this is a house rule in contradiction of the text and must be agreed on by all parties before it is adopted (or abide by the die roll to decide if you can't agree). Maybe flyers get to measure their movement diagonally into the air, up to the height of the object to be cleared, and spiders will measure the vertical height of surfaces they climb- this will still give flyers some advantage, but not so much that maybe you'd want to bother changing the point cost.

Regardless, there is no rules-legal leg to stand on in demanding that the same ability means different things to different pieces.

That is pretty much my argument.

Most of the time people then resort to name calling and tell me that I am clearly illiterate / stupid / or arguing in bad faith to win. Their justification then devolves into me being a win at all costs rules lawyer who ignores common sense OR reading the illustrative text as rules text, eg: "Shelob can ignore terrain because she can climb any surface at any angle" and the felbeast "ignores terrain because it flies over woods, buildings, and so on" clearly showing that the author intended the "ignore terrain" part to work differently.

Edit: Oh, and I have had several people accuse me of lying to get my way because the book doesn't literally say flyers "ignore obstacles" it says flyers ignore "all terrain" of which obstacles are only one sort.

Pauly
2022-08-09, 03:59 PM
Only one of my friends, Brian, is in both gaming groups, and I was eventually able to bring him around to my way of thinking.

Honestly, i was never an issue until I read a Reddit threat where someone had an issue with Shelob being trapped behind sign posts which, even though she ignores, her opponent insisted that she couldn't cross because she had to climb up one side and then down the other and had insufficient movement to do so in one turn (and also ruled that she couldn't end her movement climbing, which is a whole 'nother can of worms). I showed it to my gaming group as an example of ridiculous online rules lawyers, but to my surprise they all took his side and insisted I had been cheating all of these years by simply measuring distance displaced.

I have since had several nasty fights over it not only with my gaming group, but PUGs at the GW store, and several online communities I am part of.



That is pretty much my argument.

Most of the time people then resort to name calling and tell me that I am clearly illiterate / stupid / or arguing in bad faith to win. Their justification then devolves into me being a win at all costs rules lawyer who ignores common sense OR reading the illustrative text as rules text, eg: "Shelob can ignore terrain because she can climb any surface at any angle" and the felbeast "ignores terrain because it flies over woods, buildings, and so on" clearly showing that the author intended the "ignore terrain" part to work differently.

In the rules for movement and measuring distance does it say:
- you measure from start spot to end spot; or
- you measure along the path of movement?
GW rules often have examples using vertical movement.

This also has a lot to do with the discrepancy between figure scale, terrain scale and ground scale. GW games get into a lot of trouble with geometry because they insist their is no scaling and that what is on the table is a true representation.
The other problem is that GW writes its rules in a way that to find the answer to one question you often have to search for multiple pages over multiple books.

Talakeal
2022-08-09, 04:27 PM
In the rules for movement and measuring distance does it say:
- you measure from start spot to end spot; or
- you measure along the path of movement?
GW rules often have examples using vertical movement.

This also has a lot to do with the discrepancy between figure scale, terrain scale and ground scale. GW games get into a lot of trouble with geometry because they insist their is no scaling and that what is on the table is a true representation.
The other problem is that GW writes its rules in a way that to find the answer to one question you often have to search for multiple pages over multiple books.

You measure along the path of movement. It has no examples of vertical movement that I am aware of.

Some people play vertical movement as displacement, some as path, and others as ignoring height entirely and only looking at movement in the X and Y axis. AFAICT there is no consensus, but most people follow a different procedure for different models according to what their mind views as "common sense".

Quertus
2022-08-09, 04:42 PM
The fetishization of the rules is pretty much always detrimental to the experience of playing the game. It has been pushed a lot by game authors, because of course they want to be considered as important and have their work taking the central stage, but usually that is motivated by ego-stroking, not actual quality. Game rules, especially in an RPG, are never more than guidelines and are always only as binding as you want them to be. This has happened in contrast to the older games' idealization of the Dungeon Master as the central figure of the game. The reason is easy: the original RPG creators, like Arneson, Gygax and most of the first generation enthusiasts were playes and game masters first, enjoying the game and trying to publish their best ideas. The more professional, second and third generation products are way more inspired by marketing concerns than by playability, and are usually written by more professional, but a lot less enthusiastic authors.

So, in my experience, players who are mostly inspired by actual gaming experience are usually more interested in local or even individual solutions, either provided by the GM or as a collective decision by the table, for the table. Sometimes for reasons as banal as speed: when it takes five minutes to look up a semi-obscure rule, but only 30 seconds to make up a split decision that fits the situation, you have just wasted everybody's time.

My personal position is probably not going to be very popular, but I stand by it: When a game rule indicates an action that is clearly idiotic and antagonistic to the spirit of a fun game or insulting to the intelligence of the plyers, you are not just allowed to break it, you are obligated to do so. Rules should serve the game, not vice versa.

However, it is bad form to choose paper after seeing rock, so to speak. As a gamemaster, you should grant a lot of leeway to your players, and be strict towards yourself. I think it is downright revolting if gamemasters cheat, either by fudging dice results or by changing the locales to negate the player's decisions (also known as the "quantum ogre effect").

Well, we have some common ground on that last paragraph, where I agree that “favoring the players / PCs” is a good practice, especially in the “they already played Rock” scenario, but otherwise we hold almost diametrically opposed positions. This sounds like fun!

I come from a wargaming background. (And card games, and board games, and…). The idea that playing by the rules instead of “bang you’re dead!” “No I’m not!” being somehow detrimental to game play, when it is, in fact, quite literally, the game, is baffling.

“But Quertus,” you say, “that’s not what I said at all. That’s a straw man.”

Ok, fair. That’s more explaining where I’m coming from than responding to you. How’s this, then: the idea that someone spending 30 seconds quoting the rules is somehow worse than someone spending 30 seconds making something arbitrary up is baffling.

“But Quertus,” you say, “I said 30 seconds to make a decision vs 5 minutes to look something up”.

Well, yes, you did. And so let’s discuss why that’s terrible.

First off, if anyone bothered to know the rules, it probably wouldn’t take them 5 minutes to use the rules when the GM was ignorant of the rules.

Second, if the GM is only going to spend 30 seconds thinking about the consequences of adding a new rule to a complex game - one so complex that no one in the group actually knows the rule in question? Please tell me I don’t need to point to examples of Talakeal’s players (or even this thread!) or HiSHE episodes for the potential for this to wreck the play experience to be obvious.

Then there’s the issue of consistency. Which is the player more likely to be able to remember and utilize accurately: the GM’s 20 pages of unwritten house rules, or the rules that they’ve put the effort into looking up?

“But Quertus”, you say, “the GM could always write those house rules down.”

Yeah, they could. And, as much fun as this might be to debate, I’ll actually concede the point that written rules that the group has been involved in the creation of are more likely to be remembered than written rules in a rule book that nobody knew in the first place.

However, that still leaves two problems.

First, if I know how a knight moves (2&1, ignore obstacles), but the GM doesn’t, and responds to their own ignorance by making up rules whereby you roll and apply a formula to determine how far the knight moves in each potential vector *this turn*, I know that I’ll still remember the “correct” rule, whereas it’s dubious whether or not I’ll remember the GM’s silly house rule.

And then, when it’s brought up to the GM that “protecting pieces” is kinda a thing that’s supposed to be viable, and they add more rules about how a Knight can individually “lock in” their movement for any vector wherein they are currently protecting a piece? Yeah, this complex, not thought through because they only spent 30 seconds on it rule is ultimately harder to work with than the original. So even the player (or GM!) who didn’t know the rule to begin with would find it easier to remember and use the actual rule than the grafted and patched “I couldn’t be bothered to look it up or think it through” 30-seconds knee-jerk response and pursuant cascade of fixes to the fix that this method produces.

If you’re not spending more time making something up than you would spend looking up the actual rules, you’re probably doing something wrong.

And when I’ve got 6 GMs all running that game? If they all follow RAW, that’s one set of rules to learn. If they all make house rules? That’s 7. Even if they were all equally easy, which do you think is easier to learn, 1 set of rules, or 7?

And the second problem is, a new player coming into the game doesn’t have the benefit of having learned the house rules with you over the years.

And, I just gotta say, IME, people are much more enthusiastic about learning one set of real rules, and playing in a game that makes sense, than playing Calvin ball with Talakeal’s players.

Now, I know I said we had common ground in the last paragraph, but I think I’ve gotta agree with a lot of the sentiment in the next to last paragraph, too. Kinda.

So, I agree with the… sentiment? of the 2nd to last paragraph, that, if a rule isn’t fun, maybe you should optimize fun? However… like… all the kids I’ve seen “playing Pokémon”? They’ve all just ignored that complicated, unfun “mana” thing, and just let their Pokémon do all their moves for free.

Much like the ignorant GM under discussion, they’ve never actually understood or played with the actual rules to actually make that evaluation, any more than the GM who spent 30 seconds on a “ruling” has evaluated the effects of said rule.

So, I agree in theory, and I agree with the sentiment, but I suspect our implementations will look, well, nearly diametrically opposed. Even if I do have a habit of ignoring inconvenient linguistic differences, and use “strategy” and “tactics” or “plot” and “story” interchangeably. :smallwink:

Quertus
2022-08-09, 04:54 PM
Edit: Oh, and I have had several people accuse me of lying to get my way because the book doesn't literally say flyers "ignore obstacles" it says flyers ignore "all terrain" of which obstacles are only one sort.

I was just about to join the chorus of, “it sounds like they’re arguing in bad faith”, until I read this bit.

Can anyone quote me the relevant bits here? If fliers and spiders actually have different rules, then, uh, they have different rules, and the exact text of each rule (and all supporting / references rules, like the definitions of “terrain” and “obstacles”) matters.

Talakeal
2022-08-09, 05:14 PM
I was just about to join the chorus of, “it sounds like they’re arguing in bad faith”, until I read this bit.

Can anyone quote me the relevant bits here? If fliers and spiders actually have different rules, then, uh, they have different rules, and the exact text of each rule (and all supporting / references rules, like the definitions of “terrain” and “obstacles”) matters.

Obstacles are a type of terrain. All terrain in this game is divided into one of two types, difficult terrain (which is horizontal) and obstacles (which are vertical).

The argument that this is disingenuous reads to me like saying a guy who is “immune to all weapons” and a guy who is “immune to knives” will react differently when stabbed by a knife.

The exact quotes of the two rules in question are:

"This model may ignore all intervening models and terrain as it moves - flying over buildings, woods, and so on."

and

"A model with this special rule can climb on any surface, regardless of angle. They can therefore move at all full speed over any type of difficult terrain and ignore all obstacles except for water features and gaps..."


I quoted the entire sections for context, relevant parts in bold.

Edit: So I was going to give an exact quote about how obstacles are a type of terrain, but the book doesn't really have it. It has a section titled terrain, a paragraph of fluff, and then three sub sections called "open ground" "difficult terrain" and "obstacles" which describe how each of the three behave. One is clearly meant to infer that that all terrain falls into one of these three types (or really, two types as open ground is just the default tabletop with no special rules) but I suppose the book never explicitly says that obstacles are a type of terrain; but if you are going for that level of pedantry then I suppose I win because the fel beast says nothing about being able to ignore obstacles, only the nebulous and undefined concept of "all terrain".

Thrudd
2022-08-09, 06:12 PM
You measure along the path of movement. It has no examples of vertical movement that I am aware of.

Some people play vertical movement as displacement, some as path, and others as ignoring height entirely and only looking at movement in the X and Y axis. AFAICT there is no consensus, but most people follow a different procedure for different models according to what their mind views as "common sense".

Here's how I'm reading it, looking into the rulebooks. not that it matters, but I can't stop thinking about it-

On vertical movement:

Jumping does not account for vertical distance (though this can only be done up to head height). Jumping "represents vaulting (or in the case of Hobbits, a type of mad scrambling) to get across an obstacle." So if Hobbits can "mad scramble" over things for no movement cost, why wouldn't spiders be described as doing that? Not a strong argument, since it only says "Hobbits" - but still...

Climbing implies but doesn't specifically state that vertical movement is counted, since there are situations where a single turn's movement is not enough to reach the top of a surface. It also specifically says you can end the turn mid-climb, you just leave the piece at the bottom and mark how far it has climbed with a die or something.(rules manual pg 30, "climbing very tall structures")

Ladders and ropes do require spending movement, lending to the interpretation the same should be assumed in other climbs.

models descend their own height without expending movement, but need to make climb checks for longer distances, again implying it would count against movement as per the "very tall structures" rule. This implies you wouldn't count the entire surface height, only the distance greater than head height.

Since jumping (which you can do over something head height or less) costs no movement, and dropping your head height costs no movement, it stands to reason that up to head-height shouldn't count against movement in the climb. So If the surface is 1" over the model's head, it costs 1" of movement to climb up it.

So far, climbing does require some inches of movement.

however, none of this explains what "ignore" means for the spiders' "ignore obstacles" ability. A possibly pertinent example of the use of "ignore" in the descending rules section says, in relation to moving downwards up to one's height: "the distance the model moves downwards is ignored for working out how far the model has moved that phase."
In this case "ignored" means a number of vertical inches aren't counted.

So, "ignores obstacles" could very well be interpreted to mean not counting those inches against movement at all, as it does in the situation above, verisimilitude be-damned. The Special Rules for Swift Movement describe the model as "can climb on any surface, regardless of angle. they can therefore move at full speed over any difficult terrain and ignore all obstacles except water features and gaps..." - but the special movement rules in the entry for the various spiders themselves in the army sourcebook leave out the bit about climbing and starts with the moving over terrain and ignoring obstacles sentence. Are these meant to be the same special ability? It seems so, what else but a spider could be described climbing in the way described by "Swift Movement" ability? GW failed here in a most unprofessional manner.

They do the same thing with the flyers, as well, except even the verbiage is different between the rules manual and the army book. Fell Beasts can "fly over the top of any models and terrain without penalty" in the army book. What is the normal "penalty" for going over an obstacle? Is counting the distance of a climb a "penalty"? It's not described that way in the climb section, it's just costs normal movement (beyond head height), unlike difficult terrain, which is described as imposing a "penalty" of double movement cost. You could interpret this as meaning you should count vertical movement for flying in some way- it's a part of moving normally.

In the rules manual, the "fly" special ability says "may ignore all intervening models and terrain as it moves- flying over buildings, woods and so on." no mention of "penalties", and adds the word "ignore". So this could mean no vertical height counted, by the rationale above.

What's the conclusion?
GW really should errata all this - but it's obvious they don't care enough to even put out a single FAQ entry to clear up this thing that people are definitely arguing about all over the place. It's the same as it's always been with everything other than WH and 40K. I was only ever seriously into Blood Bowl, which has very little rules ambiguity, so never really ran into having to debate a whole lot.

Without sufficient official guidance, I'd go for a middle ground verisimilitude. Flyers measure distance at an angle into the air to get to the height they need to clear obstacles and models, and have to end on a surface they can balance on. Spiders measure vertical height as they climb (above head height), can climb normally unscalable surfaces, and can stop on a vertical surface in mid-climb (as can any model). edit: oh, and no climb check for spiders, automatically get best result.

Pauly
2022-08-09, 08:59 PM
To build on Thrudd’s excellent post.

I have played on 3 tables that the “ignores terrain” and “ignores obstacles” = horizontal distance teleportation interpretation might have issues with.

1) A mines of Moria table, using Warhammer Quest terrain with solid rock intervening between the tunnels and caverns. Does “ignore terrain/obstacles” mean that the figure can go through solid rock to get to an adjacent tunnel or cavern?

2) A Mount Doom table, featuring a lava river with bridges and crossing points. The table rule was that any figure moving in the lava was automatically killed. Is a spider that “ignores obstacles” able to ignore the lava river because it isn’t a water obstacle or gap?

3) A 8’ x 6’ Minas Tirith table made of 2’ x 3’ sections set out in a U shape where each section of the table added about 2 inches in elevation to represent the 7 tiers of Minas Tirith and vertical cliffs separating the adjacent levels in the “U”. So the ground level was adjacent to the highest level and there was a vertical difference of about 15” between the two table sections. Can a Spider on map board 1 just travel 6” horizontally onto map board 8 and ignore the 15” of elevation difference?

Talakeal
2022-08-09, 11:10 PM
To build on Thrudd’s excellent post.

I have played on 3 tables that the “ignores terrain” and “ignores obstacles” = horizontal distance teleportation interpretation might have issues with.

1) A mines of Moria table, using Warhammer Quest terrain with solid rock intervening between the tunnels and caverns. Does “ignore terrain/obstacles” mean that the figure can go through solid rock to get to an adjacent tunnel or cavern?

2) A Mount Doom table, featuring a lava river with bridges and crossing points. The table rule was that any figure moving in the lava was automatically killed. Is a spider that “ignores obstacles” able to ignore the lava river because it isn’t a water obstacle or gap?

3) A 8’ x 6’ Minas Tirith table made of 2’ x 3’ sections set out in a U shape where each section of the table added about 2 inches in elevation to represent the 7 tiers of Minas Tirith and vertical cliffs separating the adjacent levels in the “U”. So the ground level was adjacent to the highest level and there was a vertical difference of about 15” between the two table sections. Can a Spider on map board 1 just travel 6” horizontally onto map board 8 and ignore the 15” of elevation difference?

I would say all three of those would require house rules.

IMO #1 would be impassible to fliers and spiders and 2 would count as a water feature. Number three is going to be a weird situation for everyone involved; there isn’t really a good way to handle it, I guess the best solution would be to require fliers or people climbing the walls to spend multiple turns doing so?

Thrudd
2022-08-10, 12:45 AM
To build on Thrudd’s excellent post.

I have played on 3 tables that the “ignores terrain” and “ignores obstacles” = horizontal distance teleportation interpretation might have issues with.

1) A mines of Moria table, using Warhammer Quest terrain with solid rock intervening between the tunnels and caverns. Does “ignore terrain/obstacles” mean that the figure can go through solid rock to get to an adjacent tunnel or cavern?

2) A Mount Doom table, featuring a lava river with bridges and crossing points. The table rule was that any figure moving in the lava was automatically killed. Is a spider that “ignores obstacles” able to ignore the lava river because it isn’t a water obstacle or gap?

3) A 8’ x 6’ Minas Tirith table made of 2’ x 3’ sections set out in a U shape where each section of the table added about 2 inches in elevation to represent the 7 tiers of Minas Tirith and vertical cliffs separating the adjacent levels in the “U”. So the ground level was adjacent to the highest level and there was a vertical difference of about 15” between the two table sections. Can a Spider on map board 1 just travel 6” horizontally onto map board 8 and ignore the 15” of elevation difference?

Yes, interpreting it as teleporting would need to be seen as a mistake, regardless. Obviously, the piece is moving through space - at most, what you'd be ignoring is counting the vertical movement normally required to get over things. On a map with enclosed tunnels, there's no way to go over the tunnel walls. I don't think anybody would get confused about that one.

The lava river is equally something that shouldn't confuse anyone, it's clearly a terrain feature of the same sort as a water feature or gap that would need to be jumped over by the spider.

In the third one, you're describing someone who is climbing up the "prow" of the mountain that starts in the first tier and goes right to the top? It does beg credulity that either a flyer or climber could ascend that height in a single turn, but it's not your typical sort of map and would need special attention to clarifying rules about moving vertically.

Pauly
2022-08-10, 06:15 AM
Yes, interpreting it as teleporting would need to be seen as a mistake, regardless. Obviously, the piece is moving through space - at most, what you'd be ignoring is counting the vertical movement normally required to get over things. On a map with enclosed tunnels, there's no way to go over the tunnel walls. I don't think anybody would get confused about that one.

The lava river is equally something that shouldn't confuse anyone, it's clearly a terrain feature of the same sort as a water feature or gap that would need to be jumped over by the spider.

In the third one, you're describing someone who is climbing up the "prow" of the mountain that starts in the first tier and goes right to the top? It does beg credulity that either a flyer or climber could ascend that height in a single turn, but it's not your typical sort of map and would need special attention to clarifying rules about moving vertically.

The point of the first 2 examples isn’t to suggest there would be confusion, just to show there are reasonable limits as to what “ignores terrain” means. However I have met people who would, if it was favorable to them, stand on RAW as saying that spiders can ignore solid rock and lava rivers because spiders “ignore terrain” except water features and gaps.

As for 3, it was a WW2 Monte Cassino map that was repurposed, so yeah very far from a typical map. It could be configured as 16’ x 3’ or 8’ x 6’. In the 8’ x 6’ configuration:
1,2,3,4
8,7,6,5
everyone who played on it used the marker to count as flying/climbing as per the climbing tall structures rules with no confusion. I can’t remember anyone trying to go from 1 to 8, buy a lot of players had a go at 6 to 3, which was 7” (6” in elevation plus 1” for a wall).

Cluedrew
2022-08-10, 07:36 AM
Funnily enough my style for interpreting rules is actually very different in the context of a role-playing game vs. a war game.

In a war game I want consistency, ease of use, tactically interesting abilities and don't really care if the mechanics and fiction match 1-to-1. It is framing, and ideally will be interesting in its own right and also reflect the game underneath. But the core of the game are the tactical decisions and I don't want to have to stop the game to measure every piece of terrain to know how my units interact with it. That is starting to bleed into ease of use, I'm not going to go into all the details, but that is the high level view.

In a role playing game though, the mechanics and fiction matching are kind of the point. I still want consistency and ease of use (and occasionally "tactically interesting") but that isn't the core concept any more. Getting into the world is much more important and so I will spend more time in details like that. Only so much more but still. Also I am much more content with a character reaching an terrain piece and not being sure if they can climb it or not.

So I think I would agree with you in this case, but that doesn't really apply to role-playing games.

Talakeal
2022-08-10, 09:14 AM
Funnily enough my style for interpreting rules is actually very different in the context of a role-playing game vs. a war game.

In a war game I want consistency, ease of use, tactically interesting abilities and don't really care if the mechanics and fiction match 1-to-1. It is framing, and ideally will be interesting in its own right and also reflect the game underneath. But the core of the game are the tactical decisions and I don't want to have to stop the game to measure every piece of terrain to know how my units interact with it. That is starting to bleed into ease of use, I'm not going to go into all the details, but that is the high level view.

In a role playing game though, the mechanics and fiction matching are kind of the point. I still want consistency and ease of use (and occasionally "tactically interesting") but that isn't the core concept any more. Getting into the world is much more important and so I will spend more time in details like that. Only so much more but still. Also I am much more content with a character reaching an terrain piece and not being sure if they can climb it or not.

So I think I would agree with you in this case, but that doesn't really apply to role-playing games.

I personally agree. I am now a big RAW guy, but I know a lot of people here are, so I thought I would bring the question to this forum.

RPGs are collaborative and have a human arbiter in the form of the GM, it is a lot easier to go with fluff over rules than in a competitive war-game without a referee.


The point of the first 2 examples isn’t to suggest there would be confusion, just to show there are reasonable limits as to what “ignores terrain” means. However I have met people who would, if it was favorable to them, stand on RAW as saying that spiders can ignore solid rock and lava rivers because spiders “ignore terrain” except water features and gaps.

Its not that I have a problem with reasonable limits per se, its more the applying limits to some models and not others.

Although in those examples, I don't think it quite works. Cave walls are not an obstacle, nor is a lava flow, so the rules don't really apply here. I would not allow spiders to cross lava, and I would not allow anything to go inside the walls in a cave, which is less terrain than "not part of the board".

Batcathat
2022-08-10, 10:49 AM
Funnily enough my style for interpreting rules is actually very different in the context of a role-playing game vs. a war game.

In a war game I want consistency, ease of use, tactically interesting abilities and don't really care if the mechanics and fiction match 1-to-1. It is framing, and ideally will be interesting in its own right and also reflect the game underneath. But the core of the game are the tactical decisions and I don't want to have to stop the game to measure every piece of terrain to know how my units interact with it. That is starting to bleed into ease of use, I'm not going to go into all the details, but that is the high level view.

In a role playing game though, the mechanics and fiction matching are kind of the point. I still want consistency and ease of use (and occasionally "tactically interesting") but that isn't the core concept any more. Getting into the world is much more important and so I will spend more time in details like that. Only so much more but still. Also I am much more content with a character reaching an terrain piece and not being sure if they can climb it or not.

So I think I would agree with you in this case, but that doesn't really apply to role-playing games.

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly my view as well. I can be quite the RAW rules lawyer in board games, but in RPGs I'm much more about what makes sense in the world.

Quertus
2022-08-10, 01:15 PM
So, by strict RAW, “obstacles” are not “terrain”, and are thus not avoided by fliers? :smallconfused: By common sense, fliers pay per Pythagoras? Have I got the valid camps right?

Ghosts should be able to pass through cave walls.

The fluff should match the crunch. When both are written and edited by beings lacking the necessary skills, I can see how they’d want to pawn their thinking off on their consumers. This is, obviously, unacceptable.

In either a war game or an RPG, my response is to avoid house rules if at all possible. To keep things consistent across tables, and consistent with a (theoretical or actual) tournament setting, in a war game, the rules are the rules. In an RPG, “like this world unless noted otherwise” - well, this “stupid” rule is clearly a “noted otherwise”, a place that the reality in which the RPG takes place differs from our world. Put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

House rules are only for those things which absolutely cannot be tolerated, and must be torn down. Like the Wall of the Faithless (kudos to 5e for “tear down that wall” responsiveness!). Any lesser evil can run for President for all I care. (What office was G running for?)

Talakeal
2022-08-10, 02:08 PM
So, by strict RAW, “obstacles” are not “terrain”, and are thus not avoided by fliers? :smallconfused: By common sense, fliers pay per Pythagoras? Have I got the valid camps right?[/SIZE]

Obstacles are a type of terrain by any good faith reading of RAW.

My point is that Shelob is told to "ignore obstacles" and that felbeasts are told to "ignore terrain" of which obstacles are a sort, so that they should interact with obstacles in the exact same way.

But, most people argue that since shelob is climbing and the felbeast is flying, the felbeasts ability to ignore obstacles should be significantly better than Shelob's despite no RAW indication that they behave differently.

As to exactly what limitations people want to put on Shelob or the Felbeast, or how the move should be measured, there are almost as many camps as there are players as the rules are no real help.

Pauly
2022-08-10, 08:19 PM
Obstacles are a type of terrain by any good faith reading of RAW.

My point is that Shelob is told to "ignore obstacles" and that felbeasts are told to "ignore terrain" of which obstacles are a sort, so that they should interact with obstacles in the exact same way.

But, most people argue that since shelob is climbing and the felbeast is flying, the felbeasts ability to ignore obstacles should be significantly better than Shelob's despite no RAW indication that they behave differently.

As to exactly what limitations people want to put on Shelob or the Felbeast, or how the move should be measured, there are almost as many camps as there are players as the rules are no real help.

This is where “the exception proves the rule”. Which is often a misunderstood concept. For example when I was a young pup and learning to drive the speed limit was 60 kmh in built up areas (defined by the presence of street lights) and 80 kph in non-built up areas except in areas where speed signs indicated it was different. It was the exceptions that proved the limit was. If the police wanted to charge you for driving at 70 kph in a non built up area they had to prove there was a sign posting a lower limit.

In the RAW the exceptions to vertical movement counting as movement are
- (1) jumping over a head height (1” for man sized figures) obstacle
- (2) jumping down from head height.
By listing the exceptions and being silent about other situations indicates clearly that vertical movement is counted the same as regular movement. The rules have stated where vertical movement is to be treated as different from regular movement. In the absence of other exceptions then vertical movement should be treated the same as horizontal movement.

Jay R
2022-08-11, 08:41 AM
In this case, I am willing to go by my opponents interpretation, but it has to be applied consistently. I don’t think its unreasonable for me to want to be playing by the same rules as my opponent even if their model looks like a pterodactyl and mine looks like a spider.

This is semantically the same as "I am willing to go by my opponents interpretation, but not by what his interpretation really is."


Obstacles are a type of terrain by any good faith reading of RAW.

Obstacles are not terrain, by any good faith reading of the English language.

The house, fence, box, wagon, etc. are obstacles. The dirt or rock or marsh they are standing on is terrain.

A flyer can ignore both. A climber can climb over obstacles, but the terrain can still affect him (with a grease spell or tar or some such).

Thrudd
2022-08-11, 09:35 AM
This is semantically the same as "I am willing to go by my opponents interpretation, but not by what his interpretation really is."



Obstacles are not terrain, by any good faith reading of the English language.

The house, fence, box, wagon, etc. are obstacles. The dirt or rock or marsh they are standing on is terrain.

A flyer can ignore both. A climber can climb over obstacles, but the terrain can still affect him (with a grease spell or tar or some such).

In the rules of this game, "obstacles" is a sub-heading under "terrain". When you say you are putting terrain on the table, that includes the hills and walls and buildings (which are called obstacles by the rules) as well as the trees and piles of rubble, etc. We know obstacles (like buildings) are considered terrain for flyers, because the ability says the "ignore terrain- flying over buildings, woods..."

The rules say the spider can climb on any surface, moves at full speed over difficult terrain (which is rubble, underbrush, marshy ground, etc.) and "ignore any obstacles", all separate parts of their "swift movement" special ability. The flavor text of the ability is that they are "climbing over rocks and scaling walls with ease"- but the mechanics says "ignore all obstacles except water features and gaps". This is where the confusion lies, and it is the fault of the rules writers, plain and simple. It isn't at all clear what "ignore all obstacles" means in practice. Both flyers and spiders get to ignore obstacles (ie buildings, walls, etc). If they still have to spend movement to climb the wall, in what way can that be said to be "ignoring" the wall?

What is a good faith reading of the English word "ignore"? Normal English interpretation of the word "ignore" would imply that you treat the thing as though it isn't there. how does a climbing spider do that? I don't know, but that's what they wrote in the rules. One would have to presume that it is climbing super fast. Both flyers and spiders are described as "ignoring" various parts of the terrain. How can one assume that the word "ignore", in relation to obstacles, means something different depending on which ability it is? If it's supposed to be adjudicated differently in swift movement vs. flight, the rules fail to specify how. That's what this whole RAW thing is about. It is actually fully on the players to interpret what to do.

HunterOfJello
2022-08-11, 10:02 AM
How far down the Read As Written rabbit hole does your friend want to go?

Shelob isn't just some big spider monster.
Shelob is a half giant spider/ half primordial demonspawn, and the greatest offspring of Ungoliant.
https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Ungoliant

Ungoliant was a primordial who emerged from Darkness itself, the only being in creation to wield Unlight, and a powerful ally to Melchor (a.k.a. Morgoth, super devil, Sauron's big boss). Ungoliant worked alongside Melchor and drank all the sap from the two World Trees. This plunged the entire world into literal darkness and forced the descended gods/ sorta archangels to create the sun and moon. (Also starting the entire chain of events in the Silmarrillion.)

Ungoliant is known for the incredible feat of escaping the attacks of Valar (sorta descended gods/archangels) and the pursuit of the hunters of Oromë, god of the hunt. (They were probably Maiar, sorta angels.)

Ungoliant also turned against Melchor after growing gigantic from the World Trees' sap and gems Melchor gave her. She trapped him in he webs of unlight and potentially could have killed him, but Melchor's balrogs heard his cries of pain and saved him by tearing apart the webs with their leashes of fire. Afterwards, Melchor told his balrogs to not even both pursuing Ungoliant.


tl;dr
Shelob can't fly, but it could be one of the best mortal beings in existence at maneuvering and escaping pursuit.
She's half primordial demonspawn, not a silly big spider.

Quertus
2022-08-11, 11:14 AM
Obstacles are a type of terrain by any good faith reading of RAW.

Um, no. Two reserved words only have the relationship, if any, explicitly given them by the rules. That’s how RAW works.

For example,



In the rules of this game, "obstacles" is a sub-heading under "terrain".

That’s nice, but it’s insufficient. After all, “character movement” or “measuring path from center of model” could be sub-headings under “terrain” without character movement or path measurement being types of terrain, right? :smallamused:

So, to understand RAW, one must be very, dare I say, pedantic regarding the exact wording of the rules, and not simply assume things that are not stated.

So, is there anything in the rules that clearly, unambiguously states that obstacles are a type of terrain? If not, then, by RAW, they are their own, distinct reserved word, their own unrelated thing.

Talakeal
2022-08-11, 11:18 AM
In the rules of this game, "obstacles" is a sub-heading under "terrain". When you say you are putting terrain on the table, that includes the hills and walls and buildings (which are called obstacles by the rules) as well as the trees and piles of rubble, etc. We know obstacles (like buildings) are considered terrain for flyers, because the ability says the "ignore terrain- flying over buildings, woods..."

The rules say the spider can climb on any surface, moves at full speed over difficult terrain (which is rubble, underbrush, marshy ground, etc.) and "ignore any obstacles", all separate parts of their "swift movement" special ability. The flavor text of the ability is that they are "climbing over rocks and scaling walls with ease"- but the mechanics says "ignore all obstacles except water features and gaps". This is where the confusion lies, and it is the fault of the rules writers, plain and simple. It isn't at all clear what "ignore all obstacles" means in practice. Both flyers and spiders get to ignore obstacles (ie buildings, walls, etc). If they still have to spend movement to climb the wall, in what way can that be said to be "ignoring" the wall?

What is a good faith reading of the English word "ignore"? Normal English interpretation of the word "ignore" would imply that you treat the thing as though it isn't there. how does a climbing spider do that? I don't know, but that's what they wrote in the rules. One would have to presume that it is climbing super fast. Both flyers and spiders are described as "ignoring" various parts of the terrain. How can one assume that the word "ignore", in relation to obstacles, means something different depending on which ability it is? If it's supposed to be adjudicated differently in swift movement vs. flight, the rules fail to specify how. That's what this whole RAW thing is about. It is actually fully on the players to interpret what to do.

This pretty much sums it up.


This is semantically the same as "I am willing to go by my opponents interpretation, but not by what his interpretation really is."

It is more like "I am willing to play by any consistent interpretation of the rules."

The rules give no guidance on what "ignore obstacles" means; my opponent is free to decide how they want to run that rule, and I will go along with it so long as it applies to both players equally.


Obstacles are not terrain, by any good faith reading of the English language.

The house, fence, box, wagon, etc. are obstacles. The dirt or rock or marsh they are standing on is terrain.

A flyer can ignore both. A climber can climb over obstacles, but the terrain can still affect him (with a grease spell or tar or some such).

I don't think there is any good faith reading of the LoTR rules where obstacles are not counted as terrain as they are described in the terrain section.

However, if that were the case (which I don't think it is) it would actually advantage me as Shelob specifies she ignores obstacles, why the felbeast does not and instead is described as ignoring "all terrain".


This is where “the exception proves the rule”. Which is often a misunderstood concept. For example when I was a young pup and learning to drive the speed limit was 60 kmh in built up areas (defined by the presence of street lights) and 80 kph in non-built up areas except in areas where speed signs indicated it was different. It was the exceptions that proved the limit was. If the police wanted to charge you for driving at 70 kph in a non built up area they had to prove there was a sign posting a lower limit.

In the RAW the exceptions to vertical movement counting as movement are
- (1) jumping over a head height (1” for man sized figures) obstacle
- (2) jumping down from head height.
By listing the exceptions and being silent about other situations indicates clearly that vertical movement is counted the same as regular movement. The rules have stated where vertical movement is to be treated as different from regular movement. In the absence of other exceptions then vertical movement should be treated the same as horizontal movement.

That's close, but I don't quite agree with you.

Your speed limit example needs some understanding of a baseline. Without any context, I would assume an area without a posted sign had no speed limit whatsoever going solely by the "exception proves the rule".

As I have said repeatedly, if you want to count vertical movement, that's fine, but you need to do it consistently. The vast majority of the players base does NOT count vertical movement for flying creatures, but insists on doing so for other things which ignore terrain. It's the double standard that I don't like.

You also get into weird situations about HOW you measure vertical movement. For example, take a model walking up a staircase; if you simply measure the distance displaced it is a fairly simple matter of holding a ruler at an angle. But a stricter reading would require you to measure and add up the vertical and horizontal distance of each step, which is both a giant pain in the butt to do and results in a much shorter overall movement. Again, if that is the way you want to play I am fine with that (although I think its a waste of out time) but not if you demand that I do it but give yourself pass to ignore such restrictive and painstaking measurements.


Um, no. Two reserved words only have the relationship, if any, explicitly given them by the rules. That’s how RAW works.

For example,




That’s nice, but it’s insufficient. After all, “character movement” or “measuring path from center of model” could be sub-headings under “terrain” without character movement or path measurement being types of terrain, right? :smallamused:

So, to understand RAW, one must be very, dare I say, pedantic regarding the exact wording of the rules, and not simply assume things that are not stated.

So, is there anything in the rules that clearly, unambiguously states that obstacles are a type of terrain? If not, then, by RAW, they are their own, distinct reserved word, their own unrelated thing.

While that interpretation does favor me, I think I would be laughed away from any table where I tried it.

IMO I think there comes a point in rules lawyering where you just have to make some base assumptions. For example, few rulebooks actually define the plain english words they use, or bother to tell players what a dice is or how to roll one or define the mathematical meanings of the symbols on their faces.

Thrudd
2022-08-11, 06:21 PM
I decided to dip into the Age of Sigmar rules to see how GW words things in a game that they actually care about.

For flying, it says "it can pass across models and terrain as if they were not there when it makes any type of move. any vertical distance up or down is ignored when measuring a flying model's move."

I checked for spider creatures in AoS, I found the "Arachnarok Spider". Here's what it says- "Wall Crawler: (flavor text)...can skitter up and down vertical surfaces as if they were flat ground. When this model makes a move, it can pass across terrain features in the same manner as a model that can fly."

I have no idea why the GW FAQ people you contacted wouldn't point you to how they rule these things in their other fantasy game with flyers and spiders...

Talakeal, I think you should show this to your next opponents, as evidence of what GW intends for these rules features. I'd say, you're fully vindicated.

Quertus
2022-08-12, 10:56 AM
While that interpretation does favor me, I think I would be laughed away from any table where I tried it.

IMO I think there comes a point in rules lawyering where you just have to make some base assumptions. For example, few rulebooks actually define the plain english words they use, or bother to tell players what a dice is or how to roll one or define the mathematical meanings of the symbols on their faces.

Any table that would laugh you away for that argument should be directed to the story of Mendel and his peas, informed that they lack the mental capacity / temperament / whatever to discuss RAW, and that their uninformed opinions will henceforth be ignored.

No, seriously - laughing at you for being able to think critically, while putting forth “interpretations” as stupid as the ones they gave you? That combination pretty clearly disqualifies them from having value in a serious RAW discussion. Since your thread title asks about the philosophy of RAW, that seems pretty germane.

Whereas their behavior seems more like “trying to seize an unfair advantage”; ie, the morons who give the noble profession of Rules Lawyer a bad name. :smallwink:

Thankfully,

I decided to dip into the Age of Sigmar rules to see how GW words things in a game that they actually care about.

For flying, it says "it can pass across models and terrain as if they were not there when it makes any type of move. any vertical distance up or down is ignored when measuring a flying model's move."

I checked for spider creatures in AoS, I found the "Arachnarok Spider". Here's what it says- "Wall Crawler: (flavor text)...can skitter up and down vertical surfaces as if they were flat ground. When this model makes a move, it can pass across terrain features in the same manner as a model that can fly."

I have no idea why the GW FAQ people you contacted wouldn't point you to how they rule these things in their other fantasy game with flyers and spiders...

Talakeal, I think you should show this to your next opponents, as evidence of what GW intends for these rules features. I'd say, you're fully vindicated.

It looks like even a broken clock like GW can do something right occasionally, and provide a clear answer to your question, no advanced degrees in English, Critical Thinking, or Rules Lawyering required.

Do you still care to discuss more about the philosophy of RAW, or is getting your question answered sufficient to /thread?

Talakeal
2022-08-12, 03:43 PM
It looks like even a broken clock like GW can do something right occasionally, and provide a clear answer to your question, no advanced degrees in English, Critical Thinking, or Rules Lawyering required.

Do you still care to discuss more about the philosophy of RAW, or is getting your question answered sufficient to /thread?

Age of Sigmar is a different game with a different author. I doubt anyone is going to let me apply that ruling just because they share a publisher.

Thrudd
2022-08-12, 06:10 PM
Well, the rule battle may be over with the update to the FAQ this month.

"Q: Does a model with the Swift Movement special rule still
measure the vertical distance when moving over obstacles?
(p.107)
A: Yes."

However, they did not actually update the Swift Movement entry in the errata section, so RAW still actually says "ignore all obstacles"- but they have seemingly contradicted that with their FAQ answer. So maybe the RAW question isn't fully answered, because there's nothing addressing whether flying should measure vertical movement, and you can still argue that this must mean they intend flyers to do the same. Or maybe they just forgot to do the errata. But you might want to think about planning your army and tactics assuming that the game designers agree with your opponents - flyers are supposed to be that much better than spiders.

Talakeal
2022-08-12, 07:13 PM
Well, the rule battle may be over with the update to the FAQ this month.

"Q: Does a model with the Swift Movement special rule still
measure the vertical distance when moving over obstacles?
(p.107)
A: Yes."

However, they did not actually update the Swift Movement entry in the errata section, so RAW still actually says "ignore all obstacles"- but they have seemingly contradicted that with their FAQ answer. So maybe the RAW question isn't fully answered, because there's nothing addressing whether flying should measure vertical movement, and you can still argue that this must mean they intend flyers to do the same. Or maybe they just forgot to do the errata. But you might want to think about planning your army and tactics assuming that the game designers agree with your opponents - flyers are supposed to be that much better than spiders.

That's actually my question in there; although they edited it down from a page long explanation of why the rule makes no sense and needs an errata and listing out all the ambiguities and issues with the RAW to a one sentence question with a one word answer that doesn't really help anything.

But yeah, all the FAQ does is encourage me to be demand limitations on flyers rather than playing a simpler and more straightforward game where we both just ignore obstacles like the rules say.

Thrudd
2022-08-12, 07:28 PM
That's actually my question in there; although they edited it down from a page long explanation of why the rule makes no sense and needs an errata and listing out all the ambiguities and issues with the RAW to a one sentence question with a one word answer that doesn't really help anything.

But yeah, all the FAQ does is encourage me to be demand limitations on flyers rather than playing a simpler and more straightforward game where we both just ignore obstacles like the rules say.

Maybe they're like robots, they can only answer exactly what you ask, and can't think to apply the answer to this question to other relevant abilities (nor do they read/understand lengthy arguments) lol. So now we have to ask specifically: "when a model is able to "ignore terrain/obstacles", does it count vertical movement required to overcome those obstacles?" Then they will be forced to rule on both flyers and spiders, and will realize they need to change the actual wording of the abilities if they mean two different things.

Telok
2022-08-13, 12:31 AM
Maybe they're like robots, they can only answer exactly what you ask, and can't think to apply the answer to this question to other relevant abilities (nor do they read/understand lengthy arguments) lol.

Ooh, chat-bot customer service. Evil! I'll have to write that down for my next game. If you feel like you're being psychically cussed out by strangers in a few months/early next year, you'll know why.

RazorChain
2022-08-13, 05:57 PM
The GM is there to make rulings in a RPG but when playing a boardgame against an opponent it becomes more important to follow RAW. I mean how the chess pieces move follows strict rules that aren't based on whim.


It's like in D&D 5e where you get disadvantage shooting creatures that are lying prone, but what happens if you are flying above the target? According to RAW you should still have disadvantage but I would rule otherwise.

HidesHisEyes
2022-08-15, 08:37 PM
I was discussing the Lord of the Rings game the other day and came into a situation where both my model (Shelob) and his model (A felbeast) were told that they could ignore obstacles. The fluff was different, one because of wings the other because of the ability to walk on walls, but the rules were exactly the same.

My opponent was playing with a very restrictive view of what "ignoring" and obstacle meant for me, saying it makes no sense for a spider to simply "phase through" terrain features. Then when I wanted him to abide by the same restrictions, he said that was ridiculous, why would he be bothered by an obstacle when he is soaring through the sky above?

Now, this is a tabletop game without a human GM to make judgement calls, so in this case all there is is RAW and agreed upon house rules.

My thinking is that if the RAW of two abilities is worded exactly the same, they function exactly on the tabletop, but I have always been a RAI kind of guy, so I am curious about how the RAW lawyers on here would play out that situation.

If it’s a board game rather than an rpg I’d say your friend was being unreasonable and should have accepted what the rules said.

In an rpg it’s different because there has to be some mutually agreed function that exists before any rules come into play, so even if you intend on playing strictly RAW you’re still unavoidably making judgement calls about when a rule applies to a situation.