Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
..., rai exists and is very clear sometimes, sometimes its not, that's where raw comes in, .

What about those situations where the RAI is clear, but where GW have told us to play it as written anyway?


That's the real problem - lack of consistency. We've had cases in the past where the RAW has differed from the RAI, and GW have fixed it with errata. We've had other cases where GW have issued an FAQ pointing out how it is 'supposed' to be played regardless of what it says. And we've had cases where they've said to just play it as written, even though that's not what was originally intended.

And that's not even including all the situations where the problem isn't actually RAW vs RAI at all, but simply two people reading a rule different ways and being unable to agree on what the RAW and/or the RAI actually is to begin with.


Ultimately, what we call 'RAI' is only ever a best guess as to what we thought the writer probably intended... we're still left making a judgement call as to whether or not it's actually the best way to actually play it on a case by case basis.

Where gw makes a ruling I will treat it like any house rule or rule in the rulebook, a good example of this is when they (through utter idiocy) removed the option of a thunder hammer and storm shield on dw sarges, I, and every single tourny and group in my area totally disregarded that part of the faq, as it both broke rai, raw and common sense through poor editing, other places may vary of course, I call this the house rule edition simply because we must use all this raw, rai crap to get a workable game sometimes, house ruling a bad errata is just as acceptable aswell but that's a different conversation.

Another example, blood angels, we just brought them in line with codex marines in terms of dreads and terminator costs, as people here are unwilling to wait for gw to get around to it, and we know they will, as space marines, dark angels have been adjusted, space wolves and blood angels will too eventually, that's rai right there, it's retroactively done as the intent changed, which I believe is what your asking about.

I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that DW sergeants being unable to upgrade was against RAI,given that they've had a similar limitation previously...

Edit - ignore the previous limitation bit. Was misremembering the 3rd ed codex. The question stands, though. On what evidence are you basing the assumption that the codex writer didn't fully intend to limit the sergeant to his signature gear?

 Formosa wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
..., rai exists and is very clear sometimes, sometimes its not, that's where raw comes in, .

What about those situations where the RAI is clear, but where GW have told us to play it as written anyway?


That's the real problem - lack of consistency. We've had cases in the past where the RAW has differed from the RAI, and GW have fixed it with errata. We've had other cases where GW have issued an FAQ pointing out how it is 'supposed' to be played regardless of what it says. And we've had cases where they've said to just play it as written, even though that's not what was originally intended.

And that's not even including all the situations where the problem isn't actually RAW vs RAI at all, but simply two people reading a rule different ways and being unable to agree on what the RAW and/or the RAI actually is to begin with.


Ultimately, what we call 'RAI' is only ever a best guess as to what we thought the writer probably intended... we're still left making a judgement call as to whether or not it's actually the best way to actually play it on a case by case basis.

Where gw makes a ruling I will treat it like any house rule or rule in the rulebook, a good example of this is when they (through utter idiocy) removed the option of a thunder hammer and storm shield on dw sarges, I, and every single tourny and group in my area totally disregarded that part of the faq, as it both broke rai, raw and common sense through poor editing, other places may vary of course, I call this the house rule edition simply because we must use all this raw, rai crap to get a workable game sometimes, house ruling a bad errata is just as acceptable aswell but that's a different conversation.

Another example, blood angels, we just brought them in line with codex marines in terms of dreads and terminator costs, as people here are unwilling to wait for gw to get around to it, and we know they will, as space marines, dark angels have been adjusted, space wolves and blood angels will too eventually, that's rai right there, it's retroactively done as the intent changed, which I believe is what your asking about.

The other way to view it, of course, is that you let you BA players cheat. 35 pt terminators and 4 attack dreadnoughts don't exist in the BA codex. It is illegal for BA to field them.

The Most Important Rule prevents it from being 'cheating' if it is something both players agree too.

The fact is GW is MASSIVELY inconsistent in how they write rules. You can't just ask yourself "What would be most realistic?" or "what would be simplest?" as there's no consistent benchmark to use. You often can't ask yourself "what is more fair?" because that's often difficult to ascertain too. Often you can go looking at similar wordings in other parts of the rules to try and figure out what they might have meant, but then you're faced with lots of areas where GW hasn't used consistent wording or terminology (sometimes they use the same word twice in the same sentence to mean 2 different things and we are left trying to untangle what they meant).

There's far too many times where the RAW aren't clear enough to play by and the RAI aren't obvious (or one person thinks they are obvious in one way and the other player disagrees and you get an argument ).

 insaniak wrote:
I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that DW sergeants being unable to upgrade was against RAI,given that they've had a similar limitation previously...

Edit - ignore the previous limitation bit. Was misremembering the 3rd ed codex. The question stands, though. On what evidence are you basing the assumption that the codex writer didn't fully intend to limit the sergeant to his signature gear?

because it was erratered several times before, they had the ability to take the option in the codex, then they tried to fix an issue but by fixing it they indirectly made that option illegal, it was a clear snafu and I've never heard or met anyone who thought otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
..., rai exists and is very clear sometimes, sometimes its not, that's where raw comes in, .

What about those situations where the RAI is clear, but where GW have told us to play it as written anyway?


That's the real problem - lack of consistency. We've had cases in the past where the RAW has differed from the RAI, and GW have fixed it with errata. We've had other cases where GW have issued an FAQ pointing out how it is 'supposed' to be played regardless of what it says. And we've had cases where they've said to just play it as written, even though that's not what was originally intended.

And that's not even including all the situations where the problem isn't actually RAW vs RAI at all, but simply two people reading a rule different ways and being unable to agree on what the RAW and/or the RAI actually is to begin with.


Ultimately, what we call 'RAI' is only ever a best guess as to what we thought the writer probably intended... we're still left making a judgement call as to whether or not it's actually the best way to actually play it on a case by case basis.

Where gw makes a ruling I will treat it like any house rule or rule in the rulebook, a good example of this is when they (through utter idiocy) removed the option of a thunder hammer and storm shield on dw sarges, I, and every single tourny and group in my area totally disregarded that part of the faq, as it both broke rai, raw and common sense through poor editing, other places may vary of course, I call this the house rule edition simply because we must use all this raw, rai crap to get a workable game sometimes, house ruling a bad errata is just as acceptable aswell but that's a different conversation.

Another example, blood angels, we just brought them in line with codex marines in terms of dreads and terminator costs, as people here are unwilling to wait for gw to get around to it, and we know they will, as space marines, dark angels have been adjusted, space wolves and blood angels will too eventually, that's rai right there, it's retroactively done as the intent changed, which I believe is what your asking about.

The other way to view it, of course, is that you let you BA players cheat. 35 pt terminators and 4 attack dreadnoughts don't exist in the BA codex. It is illegal for BA to field them.

So I have to force people to use the old rules that will be brought in line at some point anyway and for no points increase in every other case? No, that's just me being a douche, it's like when dark angels had all the old 4th equipment and the newer marine codex came out, everyone just allowed the newer rules to take precedence, then it was faqed, since now gw can't be arsed to do it, we do it ourselves until they either release the new book (with the free upgrades) or an faq, good luck waiting for that eh.

 Formosa wrote:
..., then they tried to fix an issue but by fixing it they indirectly made that option illegal, ...

See, that's the point, though. You're seeing it as an accidental change, rather than a deliberate one.

But you're just guessing. The fact that something was allowed previously is no basis for establishing what should or shouldn't be allowed now. If they change a rule to remove an option, then you're going to need some actual evidence that this was an accident to convince people that it was anything other than a deliberate change.

So I have to force people to use the old rules that will be brought in line at some point anyway and for no points increase in every other case?

You shouldn't need to 'force' anyone, no.

I've encountered very few players over the years who had any real issue with playing their codex as is, even when other codexes had already been updated... and those who did have an issue with it generally seemed to want to be able to apply points drops or extra options but (oddly enough) not any extra limitations or negative changes that might have also come in the newer publication.

It's just a side-effect of the rotating release schedule. Blood Angels are not Ultramarines, and I see no problem at all with them having different points costs for the same gear, just as I saw no problem in older codexes with different units paying different points for the same gear depending on their battlefield role.

it's like when dark angels had all the old 4th equipment and the newer marine codex came out, everyone just allowed the newer rules to take precedence, .

I don't recall encountering anyone who did that. Around here, Dark Angels players used the Dark Angels codex.

Martel732 wrote:
The other way to view it, of course, is that you let you BA players cheat. 35 pt terminators and 4 attack dreadnoughts don't exist in the BA codex. It is illegal for BA to field them.

Playing by an agreed-upon house rule isn't even CLOSE to cheating.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The other way to view it, of course, is that you let you BA players cheat. 35 pt terminators and 4 attack dreadnoughts don't exist in the BA codex. It is illegal for BA to field them.

Playing by an agreed-upon house rule isn't even CLOSE to cheating.

It's just hard to go on the road with your house rules.

Well, yes... That's why they're called 'house' rules...

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
..., then they tried to fix an issue but by fixing it they indirectly made that option illegal, ...

See, that's the point, though. You're seeing it as an accidental change, rather than a deliberate one.

But you're just guessing. The fact that something was allowed previously is no basis for establishing what should or shouldn't be allowed now. If they change a rule to remove an option, then you're going to need some actual evidence that this was an accident to convince people that it was anything other than a deliberate change.

So I have to force people to use the old rules that will be brought in line at some point anyway and for no points increase in every other case?

You shouldn't need to 'force' anyone, no.

I've encountered very few players over the years who had any real issue with playing their codex as is, even when other codexes had already been updated... and those who did have an issue with it generally seemed to want to be able to apply points drops or extra options but (oddly enough) not any extra limitations or negative changes that might have also come in the newer publication.

It's just a side-effect of the rotating release schedule. Blood Angels are not Ultramarines, and I see no problem at all with them having different points costs for the same gear, just as I saw no problem in older codexes with different units paying different points for the same gear depending on their battlefield role.

it's like when dark angels had all the old 4th equipment and the newer marine codex came out, everyone just allowed the newer rules to take precedence, .

I don't recall encountering anyone who did that. Around here, Dark Angels players used the Dark Angels codex.

3rd allowed it, 4th allowed it, then faq tried to fix another issue and indirectly caused the issue, 5th allowed it, 6th allows it, so yes it was clear at the time it was a snafu, and now with hindsight it is still very clear it was a snafu, what makes you think it wasn't?

You anecdotal evidence is no different to mine, and no more valid, if your group and yourself only allow raw to the detriment of your players, then that's fine if it works for them and you, we're different. And yes we would also apply the new limitations and detriments, since we have done so we have seen more blood angel armies turn up to our tourneys, this is a good thing as it adds variety.

As to your last point, sorry I don't believe you, any 4th dark angel player I have ever met ALWAYS asked permission to use the updated storm shields, typhoons, and cyclone rules, and it wasn't just them, It got so bad back then that people (both online and here) just said to use the most up to date rules for the weapon or wargear, as it was years between updates. Then the faq came out and they no longer needed permission to do so, so that's another clear indication of pre empting what was going to happen anyway, just not waiting for gw.

You may not like it, but thankfully you are not running gw (although you'd probably do a better job), and not in charge of how people choose to play, neither am I, but if you came here, you'd have to abide by how we rule things, and I would of course offer you the same courtesy.

 Formosa wrote:
3rd allowed it, 4th allowed it, then faq tried to fix another issue and indirectly caused the issue, 5th allowed it, 6th allows it, so yes it was clear at the time it was a snafu, and now with hindsight it is still very clear it was a snafu, what makes you think it wasn't?

The fact hat the FAQ wasn't corrected?

They've published incorrect FAQs, or changed their minds on FAQ responses in the past. If they don't, there is no particular reason to assume that there is an error.

Stuff changes from edition to edition.

You anecdotal evidence is no different to mine, and no more valid, if your group and yourself only allow raw to the detriment of your players,...

I wasn't suggesting that my opinion was any more valid than anyone else's. Nor was I saying that I only allow RAW.

However, the general consensus everywhere I've ever played, and in the vast majority of discussion online, has always been that each codex is a standalone entity, and you should only take rules from one codex for another if the rules specifically tell you to do so.

If your group does differently, that's entirely up to you. But it is not, from my experience, anything like the generally accepted practice that you seem to think it to be.

As to your last point, sorry I don't believe you,...

That's your prerogative, of course. I'm not generally in the practice of lying about a game of toy soldiers, however.

 Anpu42 wrote:
It looks like I am with a lot of the others.
1] RAW unless the rule has issues
2] RAI when we have to make a decision
3] Make a House rule if needed.

I haven't really ever gotten to play as yet, but I was just reading the rulebook last night because I want to start soon and this is pretty much what the first few pages explain in no uncertain terms.

I believe the above is the absolute proper way to play.

Martel732 wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The other way to view it, of course, is that you let you BA players cheat. 35 pt terminators and 4 attack dreadnoughts don't exist in the BA codex. It is illegal for BA to field them.

Playing by an agreed-upon house rule isn't even CLOSE to cheating.

It's just hard to go on the road with your house rules.

So? That doesn't make it cheating.

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
3rd allowed it, 4th allowed it, then faq tried to fix another issue and indirectly caused the issue, 5th allowed it, 6th allows it, so yes it was clear at the time it was a snafu, and now with hindsight it is still very clear it was a snafu, what makes you think it wasn't?

The fact hat the FAQ wasn't corrected?

They've published incorrect FAQs, or changed their minds on FAQ responses in the past. If they don't, there is no particular reason to assume that there is an error.

Stuff changes from edition to edition.

You anecdotal evidence is no different to mine, and no more valid, if your group and yourself only allow raw to the detriment of your players,...

I wasn't suggesting that my opinion was any more valid than anyone else's. Nor was I saying that I only allow RAW.

However, the general consensus everywhere I've ever played, and in the vast majority of discussion online, has always been that each codex is a standalone entity, and you should only take rules from one codex for another if the rules specifically tell you to do so.

If your group does differently, that's entirely up to you. But it is not, from my experience, anything like the generally accepted practice that you seem to think it to be.

As to your last point, sorry I don't believe you,...

That's your prerogative, of course. I'm not generally in the practice of lying about a game of toy soldiers, however.

To your first point, you'll surely remember that was the start of when they began to drop faqing things also the dark angels codex by that point was in the pipe line, so they didn't bother, they've done that in the past too as you'll remember. And lo and behold they fixed the issue in the next book, so we have pre existing evidence of the way something should work, evidence of the rule being fixed in the codexs that came after, the only red herring is one faq, that's reason enough to assume it was a snafu, gw not fixing a cock up is not evidence that it wasn't a cock up, case in point the psychic phase as others have pointed out, however evidence that an issue that has only ever occurred once and never again is a clear indication that it was not the intent, and never was.

As to your second point, my apologies I thought that's what you were saying, and yes house rules are far more common than you believe, infact I'd say a vast majority of players do similar to what I'm suggesting, they take no part in tourneys and play at home, schools or with there mates, custom characters, editing rules that don't work etc. Bear in mind that dakka is a minority of the community, an important one no doubt, but still a minority.

To your third point, I find it dubious simply because I travelled around to a lot of flgs back then due to work, and the same thing would be seen whenever I encountered a dark angels player, whilst it didn't occur in your community as you say, it did in a lot of other places, circumstantial I understand, but the Internet community at the time mirrored this too, that's why I find it hard to believe that you never encountered it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It looks like I am with a lot of the others.
1] RAW unless the rule has issues
2] RAI when we have to make a decision
3] Make a House rule if needed.

I haven't really ever gotten to play as yet, but I was just reading the rulebook last night because I want to start soon and this is pretty much what the first few pages explain in no uncertain terms.

I believe the above is the absolute proper way to play.

Then you are wrong, pure and simple, it is one way to play, but not the only one, raw has its place, but so does rai, and so do house rules to repair a system that doesn't work, open up to alternative ways of playing as not everyone is the same.

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It looks like I am with a lot of the others.
1] RAW unless the rule has issues
2] RAI when we have to make a decision
3] Make a House rule if needed.

I haven't really ever gotten to play as yet, but I was just reading the rulebook last night because I want to start soon and this is pretty much what the first few pages explain in no uncertain terms.

I believe the above is the absolute proper way to play.

Then you are wrong, pure and simple, it is one way to play, but not the only one, raw has its place, but so does rai, and so do house rules to repair a system that doesn't work, open up to alternative ways of playing as not everyone is the same.

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It looks like I am with a lot of the others.
1] RAW unless the rule has issues
2] RAI when we have to make a decision
3] Make a House rule if needed.

I haven't really ever gotten to play as yet, but I was just reading the rulebook last night because I want to start soon and this is pretty much what the first few pages explain in no uncertain terms.

I believe the above is the absolute proper way to play.

Then you are wrong, pure and simple, it is one way to play, but not the only one, raw has its place, but so does rai, and so do house rules to repair a system that doesn't work, open up to alternative ways of playing as not everyone is the same.

Isn't that... pretty much exactly what the above says? If the rule is fine use it, if it's not fine try and play as intended, if that doesn't work then work something else out?

I'm referring to raw first, discussion with your opponent should come first, as raw first can leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, I should have been clear, sorry.

Infact I didn't mention it at all reading back on that, so that's as unclear as it gets :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway I'm going to leave the conversation now as I feel that I am taking up too much of the thread with my opinions haha, have fun

 Formosa wrote:
To your third point, I find it dubious simply because I travelled around to a lot of flgs back then due to work, and the same thing would be seen whenever I encountered a dark angels player, whilst it didn't occur in your community as you say, it did in a lot of other places, circumstantial I understand, but the Internet community at the time mirrored this too, that's why I find it hard to believe that you never encountered it..

See, I never saw this in the internet community either, and I was active on a number of different forums back then. 'Borrowing' updated gear from other codexes really didn't become a thing until GW started adding the updates to the FAQs (and it only lasted until GW reverted back to treating each codex as a separate entity.

However, we're clearly just both remembering this period differently, so there's probably not much to be gained by continuing the go back and forth on it.

RAW, and after that discussion with my opponent.
Even the term "RAI" is monumentally arrogant, because the implication is that "My interpretation of this situation is How It Was Meant To Be and I am on the same wavelength as the designer so all alternative interpretations are moot"

My attitude to RAI is as it has always been: A games designer's entire job is to convert their intention into clearly written rules in such a way that anyone reading those rules will translate them in the same way the designer envisioned.

If you're in a situation where the RAI doesn't match the RAW, the games designer is not competent. If the games designer is incompetent, then why should I give a damn what their "intent" was? 40K is a game.

Games are based on rules, not on trying to divine the meaning the designer was attempting to convey. Nobody plays chess and thinks "Well, the rules say a pawn can take a piece diagonally and take its place, but I really believe that they should be able to move into the space behind the piece they're taking, that's the way it works in Checkers, so the rules in Chess are are a misprint"

RAW wherever you can, otherwise discuss with your opponent (which is, technically, RAW in itself). RAI never

RAI as much as two people can possibly agree.

I'm going to play devils advocate here and defend GW (just for fun).

99% of the time, when I have to look up a rule (which happens a lot every game) I can read the entry and it is pretty straight forward what you have to do, or how something works/is played.

I would have to say its actually pretty rare that I have to have a rolloff with an opponent.

40K wouldn't be as popular as it is if new players couldn't pickup the rule book, a codex and some models and easily learn how to play.

Now I agree there are quite a few places where RAW breaks the game...BUT if reading the rules without a RAW lawyer perspective, just as a regular player, you really don't notice or stumble into them that much

 TheSilo wrote:


RAW sounds like a great idea until another guy's understanding of RAW conflicts with your own. RAW opens the door to an infinite amount of rules-lawyering, which is why the rules proliferation in 40k is so problematic.

"RAI sounds like a great idea until another guy's understanding of RAI conflicts with your own. RAI opens the door to an infinite amount of rules-lawyering, which is why the rules proliferation in 40k is so problematic."

Isn't that as big a problem?

Been playing "Rules as Preferred" (or whatever) since I started in 6th, amazed it took till now for the rest of the playerbase to clue on.

Also enough of the "its not RAI without a telepath" crap. We get it. Nobody is clever for pointing out the obvious fact that it is impossible to *know* what the designers were smoking thinking when they designed those rules.

RAW is a pure internet phenomenon. 99% of the time, in an actual game, people will play RAI. People talking to others in person would much rather agree to use common sense rather than the rules GW provides them with. In real life, trying to shove your rulebook in your opponent's face just isn't a good way to have an enjoyable game...or...any social contact. At all.

Rule Lawyers, such as myself, will gladly tell you of the many ways Rule as Written causes the game to breaks if you give us half a chance and a good few hours to ramble over our most favourite of breaks.
All because Game Workshop designed this game around the concept that 'an agreement between players is worth more then Rules...' or at least that is the excuse they use instead of giving us functioning Game Mechanics.

Pick an established tournament FAQ like ITC or ATC and use it where applicable.

 Sigvatr wrote:
99% of the time, in an actual game, people will play RAI. People talking to others in person would much rather agree to use common sense ...

These two statements are saying completely different things.


From my experience, most players prefer to stick to RAW except where it leads to silliness. And even there, everyone has different opinions on which silly rules are in need of changing, and which silly rules should just be accepted as a part of the overall silliness of the game. A certain amount of give-and-take is required.

Where people run into trouble isn't with preferring one approach to the game over another. It's with being unwilling to compromise when the guy across the table turns out to have a different viewpoint.

I follow the idea that first of all, the rules work. In any argument where one side leads to the game breaking, that side is inherently wrong. In any argument where one side follows the rules as written without conflicts popping up, that side is inherently correct. In the case where a rule just does not work, gaining a popular consensus will suffice.

Which is to say, I follow the "Rules as Practical".

SJ

 gummyofallbears wrote:
Hello Dakka, posting this is probably quite a bad idea.

How do you play 40k/believe it should be played, either RAW or RAI and why?

I myself basically only play RAW, unless there is something that NEEDS a consensus. Just because that is how the rules are written, so that is how they should be played. Simple.

so what is your opinion and why, and remember, be civil.

happy wargaming,

-Mikey

I use to argue RAI alot until resently. Now I know it is always RAW, seeing the direction current Admin for GW is going, it's clear that they want to break the tourney scene and change game to only home town/Beer and pretzels games amongst close friends. With close friends normally you can find happy agreements on how to solve problems. With no clearily defined rules to govern how you play, going to a tourney or even a new LFGS just to meet and play new opponents becomes problematic. The system GW wants breaks down in those situations and can even create bad blood environments.

 insaniak wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
99% of the time, in an actual game, people will play RAI. People talking to others in person would much rather agree to use common sense ...

These two statements are saying completely different things.


From my experience, most players prefer to stick to RAW except where it leads to silliness.

This is what I was getting at. The whole "RAW" term sees no use outside of internet discussions where people stand by ridiculous and downright silly rules interpretations, claiming they're "RAW". Naturally, everyone plays by the rules as written, else you couldn't play at all, rules gotta come from somewhere after all