Should we always use RAW over RAI? I would love to hear peoples honest opinions and examples to demonstrate when RAI just makes more sense.

G

Modquisition NOTE:
Flaming on this thread will be dealt with harshly. It is not a right or wrong thread. If it is kept polite I will keep open, if not it will be closed and transgressors will be violated.

Yes. I don't care what you think RaI is, IMO, the RaI is ALWAYS the same as the RaW, and my version of RaI is just as valid as your RaI, but luckaly my RaW is more valid than your RaI

If you're ever in any kind of argument over RAW vs. RAI, it's not really an argument. You have to play RAW. But, if you and your opponent both agree that something is wonky, and want to play it how you think it makes sense, you're more than welcome to.

Deffgob wrote:If you're ever in any kind of argument over RAW vs. RAI, it's not really an argument. You have to play RAW. But, if you and your opponent both agree that something is wonky, and want to play it how you think it makes sense, you're more than welcome to.

That is actually RaW as well (RaW #1 is Ignore RaW if you both want).

I'm quite happy to play by RAI... if you can find some way of showing what it actually is.


Otherwise, it's RAW except where agreed otherwise. I'm happy to ignore RAW when it results in a patently silly situation... assuming that my opponent agrees.

I've not actually come across one of these "Omg the RaW is so stoopid" situations. Can someone actually give me an example?

As a personal example, last edition GW ruled that the Attack Squig should be represented by a seperately based model, despite the fact that the only model they had with an Attack Squig had the thing sculpted onto the Ork's arm.

By the time that ruling was made, I already had a Stormboyz Nob with an Attack Squig riding on his jump pack... so left it that way, and just explained my reasoning to opponents before the game. I would have been happy to simply leave the squig off his wargear if anybody had a problem with it... Nobody did.

Ok, if this seems a bit specific, that's because it is
The rules for gaining a cover save from shooting through a unit say that is it blocks LOS or if it comes between 2 bases. So, when talking about flying models (say 2 Dreffcoptaz) if you could see under then, the area above each base would not confer a cover save, but the gap between them would.
I think this is stupid, and play it that if you are firing over the base of a flying unit, it gives a cover save. (what sparked the conversation was shooting under a devilfish, where the base is large enough to matter)

Deff, that is incorrect. You do NOT get a Cover save for shooting through bases at ALL. You get a Cover save if 50% of the unit is obscured by anything, including but not limited to intervening models.

Well then, I misread, or someone mis-quoted.
C'est la vie.

Gwar! wrote:Deff, that is incorrect. You do NOT get a Cover save for shooting through bases at ALL.

Um... yes you do...

Page 22, "Exceptions" - 3rd bullet point.
"... or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer."


I would say that the space above the flight base still counts as a part of the space between the models, though... The flight stem, after all, is a part of the model, and the space above the base is between that model's flight stem and the next model's stem.

I think a lot of the weird RAW situations have been cleaned up, but probably the best historical example is the days from 3rd edition when there was no evidence that terminators wore terminator armor.

It made a difference because there was a rule that said models in terminator armor got a 5++ save, but there was no rule that said terminators wore terminator armor, so some Dakkaites pointed out that there was no sound RAW argument that terminators got a 5++ save.

Ppl called us rules lawyers, but in the subsequent SM codex, the rulesmongers started stating what kinds of armor different models were wearing for the first time.

As already stated, the strength of RAW is that it makes it possible for everybody to agree on what the rules say without having to resort to individual opinions (which is what RAI depends on). How you decide to play the game is not the same as the question of what the rules actually say.

By RAW Blood Angel rhinos have neither firing points nor access points and their terminator cyclone missile launcher does nothing as it has no stats.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Deff, that is incorrect. You do NOT get a Cover save for shooting through bases at ALL.

Um... yes you do...

Page 22, "Exceptions" - 3rd bullet point.
"... or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer."


I would say that the space above the flight base still counts as a part of the space between the models, though... The flight stem, after all, is a part of the model, and the space above the base is between that model's flight stem and the next model's stem.

-Facepalm- I was thinking about vehicles, who don't get it automatically but have to be 50% obscured. My bad

Anybody that would say a terminator does not wear terminator when you look at the model is a rules lawyer. These are the kind of situations that have given RAW a black eye. Would you seriously suggest they are wearing atrificer armor?

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FAQs are often the designers explaining the RAI.

G

If RAW is glaringly and blatantly obvious, like in the case of Nemesis Force Weapons being able to kill Eternal Warriors while normal Force Weapons can't kill Eternal Warriors, then RAW wins.

If it's an ambiguous situation, like a Librarian Gating out of close combat and homing in on a Locator beacon, then RAW still usually takes precedent. Usually there's a more correct interpretation, although the less correct one can garner a lot of kicking and screaming.

If it's a totally bogus situation like deploying from a Valkyrie, Shrike infiltrating a unit, or starting a unit in a non-dedicated transport, then suddenly RAI is necessary.

sourclams wrote:If it's a totally bogus situation like deploying from a Valkyrie, Shrike infiltrating a unit, or starting a unit in a non-dedicated transport, then suddenly RAI is necessary.

It's not RAI that's necessary there... it's a house rule.

While we can sometimes assume the RAI are a given, it's still at best a guess based on what we think makes the most sense.

We can assume that models are supposed to be able to disembark from a Valkyrie... but we stil have to guess how that actually works, and create our own house rule that says that the way we think it should work is how it will work in our own games.

That's not playing by RAI.

Eh, semantics. The rules are written in a way that suggests very strongly something is possible (Shrike, infiltrate) but to do so would actually be against the rules. Call it RAI, houserule, whatever, we're adding onto the literal ruleset.

sourclams wrote:Eh, semantics. The rules are written in a way that suggests very strongly something is possible (Shrike, infiltrate) but to do so would actually be against the rules. Call it RAI, houserule, whatever, we're adding onto the literal ruleset.

Hmm? I was under the impression that Shrike gave a Unit Infiltrate so it could outflank. Oddly enough, that is both RaW and by extension RaI (otherwise they would not have written the rule as it was written).

Gwar! wrote:Yes. I don't care what you think RaI is, IMO, the RaI is ALWAYS the same as the RaW, and my version of RaI is just as valid as your RaI, but luckaly my RaW is more valid than your RaI

So if I have a codex that states (gonna use space marines for the example but not a true quote from the codex):


"All Space Merine's have the fearless special rule from the warhammer 40k rulebook."


Firstly according to RAW not a single model in my Codex has fearless unless they post an errata, and secondly there is no such thing in the rules as a special rule. Only a universal special rule. If you think this is just a spell error and a mistake Gwar!, then you are following RAI since you believe that is was only a spell error and a mistake. It's very clear RAI so that you would barely tell, but it's still a form of RAI (IMO anyways seeing as I'm quite often mistaken or wrong )

(This whole concept I wrote is basically a joke though it does have some truth to it.)


-Orkishly

orkishlyorkish wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes. I don't care what you think RaI is, IMO, the RaI is ALWAYS the same as the RaW, and my version of RaI is just as valid as your RaI, but luckaly my RaW is more valid than your RaI

So if I have a codex that states (gonna use space marines for the example but not a true quote from the codex):


"All Space Merine's have the fearless special rule from the warhammer 40k rulebook."


Firstly according to RAW not a single model in my Codex has fearless unless they post an errata, and secondly there is no such thing in the rules as a special rule. Only a universal special rule. If you think this is just a spell error and a mistake Gwar!, then you are following RAI since you believe that is was only a spell error and a mistake. It's very clear RAI so that you would barely tell, but it's still a form of RAI (IMO anyways seeing as I'm quite often mistaken or wrong )

(This whole concept I wrote is basically a joke though it does have some truth to it.)


-Orkishly

Honestly, you want my Opinion? I would play it RaW, no, none of your Units are "Space Merine's", so they won't get fearless. Now, granted GW HAVE been rather quick on Spelling Errors in the past, but that's no excuse. But yes, you can Scream "It's a typo" in my face as much as you want, but until GW fix it, that's how the game is played. It's not MY fault GW don't issue Errata in a timely manner is it?

Wait a minute, that actually leads me to a very good example!
In the SM codex the Chapter Champion has Digital lasers listed in his wargear. Digital lasers do not, and have never existed. But digital weapons is an actual upgrade, and it can be reasonably assumed that that is what he is supposed to have.

Deffgob wrote:Wait a minute, that actually leads me to a very good example!
In the SM codex the Chapter Champion has Digital lasers listed in his wargear. Digital lasers do not, and have never existed. But digital weapons is an actual upgrade, and it can be reasonably assumed that that is what he is supposed to have.

A very good example.

However, GW have NOT issued any sort of Errata or Correction, so unfortunately you play it as them having no effect.
However, In this case it is pretty clear it is a Typo, so I may be inclined to let it slide If I am in a Good Mood or you bring me some Rum.
Any other time you Play RaW. No Exceptions.

Again, don't hate me because GW can't write for gak, I just play by the rules.

And for what it's worth, I respect you for it. I just choose to be a bit more lenient.

sourclams wrote:Eh, semantics. The rules are written in a way that suggests very strongly something is possible (Shrike, infiltrate) but to do so would actually be against the rules. Call it RAI, houserule, whatever, we're adding onto the literal ruleset.

Not just semantics. They're very different things.

The Rules as Intended are the rules as the writers intended them to be played, regardless of what they actually wrote.

A house rule is not the RAI, unless you actually know what the RAI is and adopt that as your house rule.

Guessing what the RAI might be does not make it RAI. It just makes it your guess as to what the intention might have been.

Deffgob wrote:And for what it's worth, I respect you for it. I just choose to be a bit more lenient.

-Shrug- In reality we use the INATFAQ where I am, and for the most Part I accept that as Official as it gets, More so than GW's own P***water attempts at Erratas/FAQ's. The only issue I have with it are the large number of Rules Changes disguised as Clarifications, but thats just my Anal nature kicking in.

insaniak wrote:

sourclams wrote:Eh, semantics. The rules are written in a way that suggests very strongly something is possible (Shrike, infiltrate) but to do so would actually be against the rules. Call it RAI, houserule, whatever, we're adding onto the literal ruleset.

Not just semantics. They're very different things.

The Rules as Intended are the rules as the writers intended them to be played, regardless of what they actually wrote.

A house rule is not the RAI, unless you actually know what the RAI is and adopt that as your house rule.

Guessing what the RAI might be does not make it RAI. It just makes it your guess as to what the intention might have been.

Exactly. Until I get Cavatore or Jervis coming to me in person with a note sealed in Blood, don't even dare to try and claim "This is RaI".

And if Jervis ever DID come to me I'd kick him in the nuts and threaten more if he ever went near a codex ever again.

RAW by default, always. There is no necessity for a house rule unless you have a true conflict in a situation, and there are actually very few of those.

I'm not interested in us guessing what the writer actually intended. If you want to play a custom game with changed rules for some reason, you (my opponent) are always welcome to ask me before the game for my agreement. I generally have no objection to custom rules that just change the method of something. If you are looking for a one sided power boost and using your opinion on RAI as your justification, my answer will probably be no.

Another great example of RAW gone haywire, was last edition's rapid fire weapons. Just owning a RF weapon even if you shot a bolt pistol in the shooting phase prevented assaulting. This was FAQ by GW, once someone let them know of how they wrote it.

Or, this and last editions writing about IC. They should not be able to benefit from *any* special rules at all from other units. But, we all think that a mad dok would probably help out the Warboss or an apothecary help his commander. So, even the INAT FAQ ruled that special rules does not include special rules given by gear.

Gwar! wrote:I've not actually come across one of these "Omg the RaW is so stoopid" situations. Can someone actually give me an example?

How about Monoliths gaining an attack when ever they get a weapon destroyed result?



I am sure you play RAI...

Clthomps wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I've not actually come across one of these "Omg the RaW is so stoopid" situations. Can someone actually give me an example?

How about Monoliths gaining an attack when ever they get a weapon destroyed result?



I am sure you play RAI...

Lolwut? Explain THAT one?

Edit: Yeah I just read the Rule. That isn't unclear RaW, that's someone trying to apply English to a mathematical Statement. It is clear that it is -1 to the Attacks, not -1(-1). Also, compare it to the Wording for Improving Armour Saves by +1. It doesn't turn a 4+ into a 5+, it turns it into a 3+. Same thing.

lol. That's more of an interpretation abuse thing than Raw vs RAI, the monolith rules says something to the effect of "When it suffers a weeapon destroyed, subtract -1 from the shots it fires." Technically, that's a double negative and you would have to add 1. It's like how the Barbed Strangler says that it can only cause penetrating hits against a vehicle with the open-topped rule, therefore it is incapable of glancing opentopped vehicles but is more than welcome to pen a LR.

There are plenty of instances where the RAW gives us 2 possible ways something could work depending on how we interpret things like the language. I play RAW, but in these situations you pretty much have to try to guess what the RAI is.

Gwar! wrote:I've not actually come across one of these "Omg the RaW is so stoopid" situations. Can someone actually give me an example?

EDIT: Nevermind about the Blood Angels transports, they fixed that.

EDIT AGAIN: I just looked at the FAQ! They said they fixed it, but they lied... Blood Angel Transports are reverse deathtraps! They Bllod Angels can only disembark if you blow up the vehicle - and if you do and they make their pinning check, they take no consequences for not having an exit (look closely at the Trapped rule for vehicles).

If I Lash a unit within 2" of an Independent character that can neither join nor lead squads, what happens? He Automatically joins a squad within 2", but he can't join the squad. He shouldn't be there - yet he is....

RAI can only come into play where the rules have nothing to say on a subject.

For example, the rule book doesn't actually say that you can deploy inside a transport. It implies it (with the rule on dedicated transports) but it's not stated. How many people play that you cannot start deployed in a transport (except from reserves)?

Or, as mentioned above, the blood angels rhino. I'm pretty sure that it was supposed to have access points but nothing is mentioned.


As for wonky rules, I used to be a big proponent of RAI over RAI to overcome wonky situations but once I stopped trusting what other people told me their codexs said these wonky situations pretty much vanished.

Corum wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I've not actually come across one of these "Omg the RaW is so stoopid" situations. Can someone actually give me an example?

EDIT: Nevermind about the Blood Angels transports, they fixed that.

If I Lash a unit within 2" of an Independent character that can neither join nor lead squads, what happens? He Automatically joins a squad within 2", but he can't join the squad. He shouldn't be there - yet he is....

Wow... This is crystal clear:

Page 48 wrote:If a character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it.

Nothing in the Lash Rules say the placement of the enemy models can break that rule, so it cannot.

But wait, there's MOAR!

Page 48 wrote:An independent character may not join or leave a unit during the Shooting and Assault phases - once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is too late to join in or duck out!

So even if he COULD join the unit, he does not join it until the next movement phase, as Lash is used in the Shooting.

But please, keep trying to find these "Unclear" Situations, I find it refreshing to debunk them.

Gwar! wrote:

Corum wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I've not actually come across one of these "Omg the RaW is so stoopid" situations. Can someone actually give me an example?

EDIT: Nevermind about the Blood Angels transports, they fixed that.

If I Lash a unit within 2" of an Independent character that can neither join nor lead squads, what happens? He Automatically joins a squad within 2", but he can't join the squad. He shouldn't be there - yet he is....

Wow... This is crystal clear:

Page 48 wrote:If a character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it.

Nothing in the Lash Rules say the placement of the enemy models can break that rule, so it cannot.

But wait, there's MOAR!

Page 48 wrote:An independent character may not join or leave a unit during the Shooting and Assault phases - once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is too late to join in or duck out!

So even if he COULD join the unit, he does not join it until the next movement phase, as Lash is used in the Shooting.

But please, keep trying to find these "Unclear" Situations, I find it refreshing to debunk them.

Using the above then, I have a greater daemon more than 2" apart from another marine squad. The marine squad charges the enemy. Then the daemon charges. So far, so good. The combat ends in a draw, so everyone stays where they are. Now it's my turn. In my movement phase, I see the captain is within 2" of a squad, but did not join the unit in the previous movement phase. He can't move, since he's locked, and neither can they. What happens then?


P.S. The Lash says "Victims may not be moved off the table, into impassable terrain, or within 1" of enemy models." don't see anything in there about not moving near a friendly squad.

P.P.S. Notcied you didn't approach the Blood Angel thing? Any answer there?

Corum wrote:Using the above then, I have a greater daemon more than 2" apart from another marine squad. The marine squad charges the enemy. Then the daemon charges. So far, so good. The combat ends in a draw, so everyone stays where they are. Now it's my turn. In my movement phase, I see the captain is within 2" of a squad, but did not join the unit in the previous movement phase. He can't move, since he's locked, and neither can they. What happens then?

So what, are you talking about a Greater Daemon or a Captain here? In either Case, if they have the IC rule then they do not join the unit in the movement phase, because he he is locked in combat.

Again, Page 48:An independent character may not join or leave a unit while ether he or the unit is locked in combat or falling back.

For reference, the Greater Daemon does not have the IC rule so while he can move to within 2", he wont ever join them.

Corum wrote:P.S. The Lash says "Victims may not be moved off the table, into impassable terrain, or within 1" of enemy models." don't see anything in there about not moving near a friendly squad.

I already pointed out the relevant rules. That is NOT an exhaustive list. The restriction I showed you is from the rulebook. Nothing in the Lash's rules says you may ignore that rule, so you cannot. And it is an academic point anyway since he cannot join the squad outside the movement phase, and in the next movement phase you then just move him to be more than 2" away, since they only join at the end of the movement phase.

Corum wrote:P.P.S. Notcied you didn't approach the Blood Angel thing? Any answer there?

Because you said never mind and then edited your post to make it look like I was avoiding it. But since I am above taking offence at a deliberate attack on my character, I shall answer. Does the Blood Angel Codex say they have Access Points? If they don't, then they don't. You don't like it, Blame GW. Not my problem if they Don't write the rules properly.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:There are plenty of instances where the RAW gives us 2 possible ways something could work depending on how we interpret things like the language. I play RAW, but in these situations you pretty much have to try to guess what the RAI is.

This is exactly the point that is often ignored on this, and many other forums.

The issue is that what constitutes the 'RAW' in many situations varies greatly between two people as language is not a perfect science like mathematics.

So if you approach a game intending to play the 'RAW' be aware that you are really attempting to play the 'RAW as you interpret them'. If you don't take this fact into consideration and work to amicably resolve the differences of interpretation that you and your opponent have then be aware that it is you who is causing the issue, not your opponent who you believe is 'not playing by the RAW'.

In addition, there are many situations where the best the 'RAW' can logically provide is that there is no clear answer. In these cases, RAI is exactly what is used by every player. You throw out what you think the designers intended (or should have intended) with the unclear/incomplete rule and if your opponent believes the same thing you move right along as if this is what the 'RAW' actually say.

I think the issue with the NFW and EW it's clear that by RAI we know that the designer had no idea about the latter, and this should be taken into consideration.

G

Gwar! wrote:

Deffgob wrote:Wait a minute, that actually leads me to a very good example!
In the SM codex the Chapter Champion has Digital lasers listed in his wargear. Digital lasers do not, and have never existed. But digital weapons is an actual upgrade, and it can be reasonably assumed that that is what he is supposed to have.

A very good example.

However, GW have NOT issued any sort of Errata or Correction, so unfortunately you play it as them having no effect.
However, In this case it is pretty clear it is a Typo, so I may be inclined to let it slide If I am in a Good Mood or you bring me some Rum.
Any other time you Play RaW. No Exceptions.

Again, don't hate me because GW can't write for gak, I just play by the rules.

This IS the nature of the question (apart from some more WC-themed PLAY BY RAW AT ALL TIMES threads) really, and the cruz of the argument. I'd argue that declining someone's use of Digital Weapons in this situation, while completely RAW (I understand your logic, Gwar) would be completely unreasonable as a player.

If I as playing against someone who 'refused' the use of Digital Lasers as Digital Weapons, I would pack up and leave. That simple.

Now, there are some other situations that are more 'proveable' by RAW, but that I would consider 'rules exploitation' if someone was to actually use them. Such as IG Heavy Weapon Squad in someone else's Chimera firing three lascannons out of the top hatch. It's RAW, but i wouldn't play by it. Having said that, I'd have a problem playing against maxed nob bikers, too. I know it's in the rules, but I'd consider you a tool for using it....

Of course, people are welcome to cry 'play by the rules' and exploit all these loopholes and situations so that they can win their toy soldier games, playing exactly by the letter (even the misspelled letter) of the rules, even if the situation is patently unfair. These people are NOT the sort of people I wish to play against.

At the end of the day, everyone is free to choose which rules they play with, and who they play with. They're not wrong or right for choosing x instead of y. It's only a game, etc etc etc...

Urm... Why are you considering Firing Heavy Weapons out of a Chimera an "Exploit"?
If that's an Exploit then my Devastator Marines in the Tactical Squads Rhino are exploiting by Firing their Lascannons out of the top hatch too.
That is by far one of the silliest things I have seen someone get annoyed about in a long time.

RAW for some is RAI for others. It's like the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther claimed that the Bible should be made available to the common folks so they would not have to depend on the Priest ability to read Latin. Luther was certain that everyone would read the Bible and take away the same meaning-----OOOOOOPS. Mind you, some people are just thick.

yakface wrote:

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:There are plenty of instances where the RAW gives us 2 possible ways something could work depending on how we interpret things like the language. I play RAW, but in these situations you pretty much have to try to guess what the RAI is.

This is exactly the point that is often ignored on this, and many other forums.

The issue is that what constitutes the 'RAW' in many situations varies greatly between two people as language is not a perfect science like mathematics.

So if you approach a game intending to play the 'RAW' be aware that you are really attempting to play the 'RAW as you interpret them'. If you don't take this fact into consideration and work to amicably resolve the differences of interpretation that you and your opponent have then be aware that it is you who is causing the issue, not your opponent who you believe is 'not playing by the RAW'.

While there is much validity to this, it should also be pointed out that the majority (from my experience) of misinterpretations of RAW comes from three things.

1. Not a strong enough understanding of the language. While language is not an exact science, I have not come across any instances where there was no clear answer because of equally valid language application rules. I have absolutely zero interest in having a discussion with someone on language structure and rules, ever. Thankfully sentence structure is not a common problem. One example of it though is the teleport homers, and what choose applies to in the sentence based on language structure rules.

2. Throwback thinking. I see more rules misconceptions from people that have played steadily across multiple editions by far than in new players, or players that took a long break. Some people have a preconceived notion of how something works because it has worked that way for multiple editions, and just can't wrap their head around it working different now, no matter how clear the RAW is. This is very common where I play.

3. Confusion about the mechanics of the rules themselves. If you think every player has even heard of the term "permissive ruleset", let alone understands it, you would be wrong. Not understanding the mechanics of the rules framework will absolutely lead to some wacky 'interpretations' of rules. Any rules disagreement stemming from this needs to be diced off if you can't agree. You simply can't declare someone wrong because they are using the rules wrong when there is no guidance whatsoever in the book to tell them to use them in this way. It is a logical extrapolation that many players simply don't see, and won't accept your explanation that to them seems pulled out of thin air.

If you don't like dicing off on things that to you are completely clear rules, don't play with people that use the rules differently than you. Don't get offended if someone turns you down for a game though because you use the rules differently from them.

I know I'm kind of late on this one, but no one else mentioned it, so I guess I will. The only time an independant character that cannot join a squad is disallowed from being within 2" of it is at the end of the movement phase. You can move him that close with lash, he just won't give a damn.

Kaaihn wrote:
2. Throwback thinking. I see more rules misconceptions from people that have played steadily across multiple editions by far than in new players, or players that took a long break. Some people have a preconceived notion of how something works because it has worked that way for multiple editions, and just can't wrap their head around it working different now, no matter how clear the RAW is. This is very common where I play.

lol. When I 1st started playing, I read and reread the entire 4e rulebook only to have 5e come out half a year later. You wouldn't believe the number of times I was wrong about rules because I remembered what I learned 1st as opposed to what was right.

yakface wrote:

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:There are plenty of instances where the RAW gives us 2 possible ways something could work depending on how we interpret things like the language. I play RAW, but in these situations you pretty much have to try to guess what the RAI is.

This is exactly the point that is often ignored on this, and many other forums.

The issue is that what constitutes the 'RAW' in many situations varies greatly between two people as language is not a perfect science like mathematics.

So if you approach a game intending to play the 'RAW' be aware that you are really attempting to play the 'RAW as you interpret them'. If you don't take this fact into consideration and work to amicably resolve the differences of interpretation that you and your opponent have then be aware that it is you who is causing the issue, not your opponent who you believe is 'not playing by the RAW'.

In addition, there are many situations where the best the 'RAW' can logically provide is that there is no clear answer. In these cases, RAI is exactly what is used by every player. You throw out what you think the designers intended (or should have intended) with the unclear/incomplete rule and if your opponent believes the same thing you move right along as if this is what the 'RAW' actually say.

That may be the most rational and true explanation of why there is not such thing as "perfect RAW" and is the reason that GW always takes the standpoint of "who cares, just play what you want."

I think this is why things like the INAT FAQ are so critical when trying to take a game deliberatly written NOT to be played competitively, and playing it competitively.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think the issue with the NFW and EW it's clear that by RAI we know that the designer had no idea about the latter, and this should be taken into consideration.

G

I think the intent is quite clear, given that immune to ID things existed before EW ever appeared, and force weapons still slew them outright.

You also have written intent in the 5th ed rulebook: where your codex contradicts the BRB, your codex wins.

So, you have RAW and RAI perfectly 100% fully and unutterably in agreement. Houserule it if you want, just acknowledge it as such.

what had immunity to instant death prior to EW beside possibly a special character. Clarity of vision can only be acheived in a zero polluted environment. We can filter out the garbage through sheer force of will. Let the enemy break themslves upon the rocky beaches.

G

Gwar! wrote:

Deffgob wrote:Wait a minute, that actually leads me to a very good example!
In the SM codex the Chapter Champion has Digital lasers listed in his wargear. Digital lasers do not, and have never existed. But digital weapons is an actual upgrade, and it can be reasonably assumed that that is what he is supposed to have.

A very good example.

However, GW have NOT issued any sort of Errata or Correction, so unfortunately you play it as them having no effect.
However, In this case it is pretty clear it is a Typo, so I may be inclined to let it slide If I am in a Good Mood or you bring me some Rum.
Any other time you Play RaW. No Exceptions.

Again, don't hate me because GW can't write for gak, I just play by the rules.

Gwar! I don't think I'll ever hate you
I might get annoyed at you sometimes though (or most of the time )
Time to go look for an example in the codex's to find something like my example of spaze mariens!





-Orkishly

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think the issue with the NFW and EW it's clear that by RAI we know that the designer had no idea about the latter, and this should be taken into consideration.

G

I've been following this thread waiting for this to come out.

Predictable.

Wow what restraint on your part. I am truly impressed.

G

Isnt it though?

When I saw this thread I too was expecting the whole nemesis force weapon thing to come up...despite my opinion on the matter it deserves a full explanation from both sides. Have at it boys!

Each "weapon destroyed" result inflicted on the Monolith reduces the number of shots at each target by -1.

To reduce something by -1 is to add one. By RAW you gain attacks. RAW = Poop

Also, compare it to the Wording for Improving Armour Saves by +1. It doesn't turn a 4+ into a 5+, it turns it into a 3+. Same thing.

This is not true because:


Main Entry:
im·prove
Pronunciation:
\im-ˈprüv\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
im·proved; im·prov·ing
Etymology:
Middle English improuen, emprouen, from Anglo-French emprouer to make profit from, from French en- + pru, prou advantage, from Late Latin prode — more at proud
Date:
circa 1529
transitive verb
1archaic : employ, use
2 a: to enhance in value or quality : make better b: to increase the value of (land or property) by making it more useful for humans (as by cultivation or the erection of buildings) c: to grade and drain (a road) and apply surfacing material other than pavement
3: to use to good purpose
intransitive verb
1: to advance or make progress in what is desirable
2: to make useful additions or amendments


using the definition of improve you would never gain a worse armor save.

the INAT FAQ addresses many rules by clarification rather than strict RAW. I citing this as an example that in a large gaming environment a lot of people are willing to abide by decisions that are not always RAW. To me the best solution is both players agree to a solution that they both come away from the game not feeling cheated. Adepticon has walking judges that know the rules very well and work with both players when a rule is in question. I was very happy with their approach this year.

G

Gwar! wrote:I've not actually come across one of these "Omg the RaW is so stoopid" situations. Can someone actually give me an example?

dumplingman wrote:Hey I was just reading the eldar codex and taking a look at banshee masks and was wondering if the mask allows them to strike at their conferred I 10 when assaulting through cover.
page 31 "Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10 and negates any I bonus conferred by cover or grenades."

This is clearly a RAW is so stoopid point. Since its 100% clear that the RAI is that the Banshees always strike 1st. But they have outdated RAW.

Green Blow Fly wrote:what had immunity to instant death prior to EW beside possibly a special character. Clarity of vision can only be acheived in a zero polluted environment. We can filter out the garbage through sheer force of will. Let the enemy break themslves upon the rocky beaches.

G

As I mentioned in the other thread, Nids in synapse range. Read any forum rules queries from that period and every month someone would say "do force weapons insta-gib my nids?" with the correct, 100% undisputed answer being YES. Immunity to ID has been around a LONG time.

So we have the situation: Force Weapons in DH have their own, specific rules for how they work. These rules are consistent with 2 generations of main rulebook, but noth this one. That, however, does not matter, as this rulebook explicitly tells us that where the codex has their own version of something you use the codex version.

If you want to deny DH their Force Weapon codex rules on the basis the rulebook has been updated, then you also need to do the same for assault cannons etc. You also must ackowledge this is a hosuerule that gores against both RAW and RAI.7

Does this now make sense? Your insistence that it is somehow RaI that DH follow the main rulebook is just incorrect, sorry.

Gwar! wrote:Urm... Why are you considering Firing Heavy Weapons out of a Chimera an "Exploit"?
If that's an Exploit then my Devastator Marines in the Tactical Squads Rhino are exploiting by Firing their Lascannons out of the top hatch too.
That is by far one of the silliest things I have seen someone get annoyed about in a long time.

Aplogies Gwar - didn't clarify myself enough here. There's another thread going about this but I'll summarise.

The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera. The same then explains that, in reality, this represents several of the guard squad inside it firing the hull-mounted lasguns affixed to the side of the Chimera.

So a standard guard squad may well fire it's heavy weapon, special weapon, and a few lasguns. Completely reasonable, and I can certainly see how the squad could do this. But it seems that you could also put a heavy weapon squad inside the Chimera, and fire three lascannons from the top hatch. Which I'd consider taking the piss, to be honest, because of the way the rule is clarified. Rhinos on the other hand, don't have hull-mounted bolters, and five fire points to 'represent' them...

The argument currently going on says

Side 1 - The rule clarification says that many of the squad are firing lasguns. This must be taken into account, so you can't fire five hotshots, or three lascannons, or three mortars. Several should be lasguns. What constitutes several is up to the players agreeing...

Side 2 - The clarification part of the is just 'fluff' and doesn't count, and so we can ignore it and fire whatever we want out of the top hatch.

ArbitorIan wrote:The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera.

I'll stop you there.

Don't stop now when you are on a roll !



G

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera.

I'll stop you there.

Nope. That's just what the first line of the rule says. The entire rule says much more than that. If it were that simple there wouldn't be any need for the clarification section, would there?

ArbitorIan wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera.

I'll stop you there.

Nope. That's just what the first line of the rule says. The entire rule says much more than that. If it were that simple there wouldn't be any need for the clarification section, would there?

Unless the clarification is simply reiterating that you don't use the modeled-on lasguns at all any more.

I try to play RaW. There's times it's not clear. Then I default to the INAT FAQ. Beyond that, I think you try to take the 'most sporting' interpretation (aka 'the least advantageous'), unless the other guy is being a total TFG, then I think you fight him on it.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera.

I'll stop you there.

Nope. That's just what the first line of the rule says. The entire rule says much more than that. If it were that simple there wouldn't be any need for the clarification section, would there?

No, the last part of the rule gives a semi fluff justification for it. Does it say "3 of these shots must be Lasgun Shots?" Does it say "only two models may fire non Lasguns"? No it does not. The Chimera has 5 Fire Points, and can fire 5 of whatever the passengers have, as per the Fire points rules. End of Discussion. Anyone saying otherwise are just trying to cheat.

I think everyone knows where I stand on the NFW. I don't see any reason for further discussion as we all know each others positions. I am enjoying this thread and see it as very positive... No mud slinging and name calling... very nice indeed.

G

I play the way that makes the game win for me. WOOOOOOOO. Unfortunately this is how most people are and remain; regardless of whether is RAI or RAW people will usually have some bias when a rule affects them; so in effect if all play this way then things balance out as you have two hopefully equal arguments.

Hollismason wrote:I play the way that makes the game win for me. WOOOOOOOO. Unfortunately this is how most people are and remain; regardless of whether is RAI or RAW people will usually have some bias when a rule affects them; so in effect if all play this way then things balance out as you have two hopefully equal arguments.

Luckily enough, there are some people who are objective enough to not be swayed by it. These people are called "Dark Angel Players who use the Dark Angel Codex"

That's just the way it is people are going to argue for themselves and in their own favor to how it benefits them most of the time.

Two types of people grow old in the world. Crusty old bastichs (RAW) and happy old people who others like to spend time with (RAI).

Lemartes wrote:Two types of people grow old in the world. Crusty old bastichs (RAW) and happy old people who others like to spend time with (RAI).

Uh-huh. Nice to see a beneficial contribtution to the thread.

RaI has problems in that it is highly subjective. Maybe I think GW's intent was to have infantry on Valk's be unable to deploy normally (unless deploying onto a cliff/ruin). How is that any less valid than the idea that troops can disembark normally? At least with RaW, we have a somewhat objective set of guidelines, not an opinion pissing contest.

RustyKnight wrote:At least with RaW, we have a somewhat objective set of guidelines, not an opinion pissing contest.

Are you kidding? That happens more with RaW than anything else (I mean, Look at God Of War, a Massive pissing Contest over RaW there)

Just because I want to make sure this thread goes to 10 pages.

I always play RAW when it is clear, that is why Deffrollas don't inflict D6 S10 hits when ramming vehicles.

Uh-huh. Nice to see a beneficial contribtution to the thread.

Why thank you for seeing the benefit as you have probably seen this argument before RAW vs. RAI like I have since the inception of DAKKA were it goes on and on and devolves into a pissing contest and the threads eventually get locked. Your response is also a classical RAW personality type BTW.

If you use the grav chute on a guard gunship it says if any model can't deploy the entire squad is destroyed... They all have to take a DT... a strict RAW interpretation would say that if any fail their DT then the entire squad is destroyed as well.

G

There are various situations where the rules are either unclear or even impractical and it is better to play by a sensible interpretation than the strict letter of RAW.

The 4e AP1 vs SMF shows that when 95% of the players have misunderstood the RAW and are playing it differently, even GW cave in and use an FAQ to instate the incorrect RAI as the way it should be played.

Gwar! wrote:

sourclams wrote:Eh, semantics. The rules are written in a way that suggests very strongly something is possible (Shrike, infiltrate) but to do so would actually be against the rules. Call it RAI, houserule, whatever, we're adding onto the literal ruleset.

Hmm? I was under the impression that Shrike gave a Unit Infiltrate so it could outflank. Oddly enough, that is both RaW and by extension RaI (otherwise they would not have written the rule as it was written).

Granted, Gwar, this assumes a high-level on competency on the part of GW...something I think we both agree they lack when writing rules (otherwise we would never have the need for FAQs or Errata).

Green Blow Fly wrote:If you use the grav chute on a guard gunship it says if any model can't deploy the entire squad is destroyed... They all have to take a DT... a strict RAW interpretation would say that if any fail their DT then the entire squad is destroyed as well.

G

Incorrect. The very Fact they are taking DT tests shows they have deployed.

I kinda agree with that GW aren't exactly masters of writing rules. But with the scope of the game I'm not really surprised since there is no way to keep everything perfect with new releases, new versions, new codexes, etc. To expect full 100% perfection in the product is like thinking that the $100 car for sale is in perfect condition. There are going to be bumps and parts that are breaking down and you can only fix one thing at a time (actually with GW speed its more like 1 part a year).

I think to go completely with one side or the other in the RaW VS RaI debate is absolutely crazy. You need a bit of both to get the most of the game without making one or both players go completely out of their minds when something does comes up. People that are pure RaW come off as know-it-offs that must prove they are always right while pure RaI come off as crazy cheaters to some.

Now if we all could just find that group of players that all think exactly the same way and all have the exact same opinion then we all could hold hands and rejoice, but that would be boring through so at least be civil and polite about it and let our models do all the fighitng.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:If you use the grav chute on a guard gunship it says if any model can't deploy the entire squad is destroyed... They all have to take a DT... a strict RAW interpretation would say that if any fail their DT then the entire squad is destroyed as well.

G

Incorrect. The very Fact they are taking DT tests shows they have deployed.

Incorrect. The RAW can be read both ways.

Kilkrazy wrote:The 4e AP1 vs SMF shows that when 95% of the players have misunderstood the RAW and are playing it differently, even GW cave in and use an FAQ to instate the incorrect RAI as the way it should be played.

Either I was playing differently to 95% of people and didn't know it or I question whether your RAW interpretation of this may have been incorrect.

My take was always The AP 1 causes glancing hits to penetrate, but the rules said "This can be still be reduced back to a glancing hit due to the target being obscured, (see Obscured Targets and Glancing Hits)" then when you refer to this section it says "A vehicle moving especially fast or behind cover [...] The exact circumstances are detailed later." Then on the following page it does on to detail the skimmers moving fast rule, which would mean the SMF rule is one of the things that can still revert AP1 to a glance.

I suppose I'm just shocked at the possibility that everyone else was playing the other way but nobody in my local group ever encountered it.

What else is there for RAW wackiness...

If you tie the dice for rolling for first turn twice the game cannot go on, as you cannot reroll a reroll.

Your opponent doesn't have to reroll the damage result for Venerable Dreadnoughts, as the rules only give the dreadnought's owner the ability to ask them to reroll it. (Actually, since 40k is a permissive ruleset, they're not allowed to reroll the dice, even if they want to.)

As already mentioned, Monoliths gaining attacks with Weapon Destroyed results.

Feel no Pain never working, as you can never take an armor save against a wound that you have already attempted to save and failed.

Absolutely everything can be contested with a dice off, which makes the entire ruleset invalid.

FNP is specifically not a save, either cover, inv or armour. Sorry you're just wrong there and havent read the rule you claim doesnt work.

You may not take FnP against wounds that you are never allowed an armor save against. You may never take an armor save against a wound you have already attempted to save and failed. Thus, you never get FnP.

I never said FnP was a save.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Your opponent doesn't have to reroll the damage result for Venerable Dreadnoughts, as the rules only give the dreadnought's owner the ability to ask them to reroll it. (Actually, since 40k is a permissive ruleset, they're not allowed to reroll the dice, even if they want to.)

Not if it is a Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnought.

Orkeosaurus wrote:What else is there for RAW wackiness...

If you tie the dice for rolling for first turn twice the game cannot go on, as you cannot reroll a reroll.

Your opponent doesn't have to reroll the damage result for Venerable Dreadnoughts, as the rules only give the dreadnought's owner the ability to ask them to reroll it. (Actually, since 40k is a permissive ruleset, they're not allowed to reroll the dice, even if they want to.)

As already mentioned, Monoliths gaining attacks with Weapon Destroyed results.

Feel no Pain never working, as you can never take an armor save against a wound that you have already attempted to save and failed.

Absolutely everything can be contested with a dice off, which makes the entire ruleset invalid.

Nice. Let me buy you a beer. I'm on Bell's Oberon tonight.

Gwar! wrote:Not if it is a Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnought.

Either way; when a Space Wolf asks you to do something, you do it!

The ultramarine Ultramarines have no such luck.

olympia wrote:Nice. Let me buy you a beer. I'm on Bell's Oberon tonight.

I don't know what that is, but sure!

Lemartes wrote:

Uh-huh. Nice to see a beneficial contribtution to the thread.

Why thank you for seeing the benefit as you have probably seen this argument before RAW vs. RAI like I have since the inception of DAKKA were it goes on and on and devolves into a pissing contest and the threads eventually get locked. Your response is also a classical RAW personality type BTW.

So, because it may eventually get locked, we should all just start insulting each other? "classical RAW personality type"? What? I tend to go RaI if the RaW are unclear.

All this just goes to support RAI and shows RAW is not all that it's cracked up to be. In the end being a good sport is the most important.

G

Obviously you go with RAW if clear. (ie there is only one logical conclusion to be derived from the rles)
If unclear (ie both sides have a valid and logical argument that they can back up with other rules or examples, or applying the strict letter of the rules makes no sense) then RAI.
If you both disagree on RAI then... FAQ/Errata, TO, or dice off.

At least, that's me.
I find sportsmanship points tend to go to the person who values RAI over nitpicking semantics of RAW. And I will happily leave a game if my enjoyment of the game is being ruined by an opponent who is being childish about rules resolutions.

Trasvi wrote:Obviously you go with RAW if clear. (ie there is only one logical conclusion to be derived from the rles)
If unclear (ie both sides have a valid and logical argument that they can back up with other rules or examples, or applying the strict letter of the rules makes no sense) then RAI.
If you both disagree on RAI then... FAQ/Errata, TO, or dice off.

At least, that's me.
I find sportsmanship points tend to go to the person who values RAI over nitpicking semantics of RAW. And I will happily leave a game if my enjoyment of the game is being ruined by an opponent who is being childish about rules resolutions.

This.

Obviously you want to be as close to the rules as possible, otherwise a sense of anarchy is instilled. However there comes a point in every rules discussion where reason and logic is not meted out evenly between people and there's no way to convince the brick wall of your opinion. Hence ask a judge/dice off.

Its important to remember that we're all playing a game here, and the goal of the game is to win. The point is to have fun.

And some people have fun by playing the actual game and not trying to make a house rule every time something doesn't go their way.

RAW, the Necron Monolith's Flux Arc is reduced by -1 each time it suffers a weapon destroyed result. When you reduce something by a negative (resulting in a double negative), you actually add something to it. I am pretty sure everybody will agree the Monolith should not get -more- powerful after you get some weapon destroyed results on it.

There is a difference, Gwar, between RAI and house rules.
You know full well that monkeys could write clearer rules that GW does. Compensating for a monkey's lack of English skills isn't the same as a house rule.
And as for wanting things to go my own way; I end up arguing for the opponent's side as often as I end up arguing for my own. The only army I actually play is Tau and their rules are reasonably clear (with the exception of those few anal people who claim Target Locks no longer work).


On the other hand, there are sometimes multiple, completely correct interpretations of written text. Put an Anglican and a Catholic in a room with a Bible and see what I mean.

And as I pointed out, that is not a Mathamatical Statement. Under the english Language, it is perfectly fine to say "Reduced by -1" and mean the reduction, much in the same way that a 4+ Cover save that is "improved by +1" doesn't become 5+, it becomes 3+

Trasvi wrote:There is a difference, Gwar, between RAI and house rules.

No, not really.

Trasvi wrote:You know full well that monkeys could write clearer rules that GW does. Compensating for a monkey's lack of English skills isn't the same as a house rule.

Every single post I have had you reply in has been "The RaW is clear but stupid". That IS a house rule, no matter how toy try and disguise it.

Trasvi wrote:And as for wanting things to go my own way; I end up arguing for the opponent's side as often as I end up arguing for my own. The only army I actually play is Tau and their rules are reasonably clear (with the exception of those few anal people who claim Target Locks no longer work).

Not got the Codex to hand, but isn't that the one that requires a Target Priority Test to fire at a different unit? If it is, then yes, it no longer works. Please show me where I can find what a Target Priority test is in the 5th edition Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook and I will concede that they work. If you can't, they don't work. You don't like it, play 4th edition. Also, no offence, but Tau Rules are the POOREST rules I have ever written. Search up on the Whole Battlesuits and Drones from the Armoury Debacale.

Trasvi wrote:On the other hand, there are sometimes multiple, completely correct interpretations of written text. Put an Anglican and a Catholic in a room with a Bible and see what I mean.

They are both wrong? </Shameless "I am Athiest" Plug>

Yes, the target priority one. And yes, it is slowed, and would be extremely happy to pack up against an opponent that didn't let me use Target Locks.
The interpretation of the target lock comes down to the inflection you put on the rules. The idea is that you "take ONE test for the entire unit". Not, "TAKE A TEST and then do stuff". 3rd ed didn't specify how many target priority tests you needed to take and it ended up being a slowed mess, so the 4th ed rules cleared it up and... yeah.

I'm glad you live in england.

Trasvi wrote:I'm glad you live in england.

Is that some sort of threat?

And yes, it is silly as you say, but that is the rules. Just because you do not like it, you can't just say "I'm ignoring it."

As for packing up, good, Just another Win for me and a bye in the tournament.

Gwar! wrote:

Trasvi wrote:There is a difference, Gwar, between RAI and house rules.

No, not really.

Ridiculous statement!
RaI is Rules As Intended - by the writer of the rules.
House-Rules is Rules as me and my friends want to play them.
Although there is often an overlap between what we think the writers meant and how we choose to play, they are not the same.
Sometimes we house-rule that no-one is allowed to field tanks.
Other times we say "Sure, let Striking Scorpions have fleet - see how they do"
We have both allowed and disallowed deff-rollas to hurt vehicles - they can't both be RaI, can they?

BlackSpike wrote:RaI is Rules As Intended - by the writer of the rules.

Did you write the rules? No.
Are you best Friends with the person Who Writes the Rules? Probably Not
Even if you were do you think we would believe you without 97 Verifiable forms of proof and a handwritten letter by the designer and signed and sealed with his own blood? No.

Gwar! wrote:

BlackSpike wrote:RaI is Rules As Intended - by the writer of the rules.

Did you write the rules? No.
Are you best Friends with the person Who Writes the Rules? Probably Not
Even if you were do you think we would believe you without 97 Verifiable forms of proof and a handwritten letter by the designer and signed and sealed with his own blood? No.

Way to miss my point!
If you had continued reading, you would have seen this statement:

BlackSpike wrote:... what we think the writers meant...

As you say, it is impossible to know 100% what RaI is, which is why me and my friends play by "RAW modified by House-Rules"

The flames are growing higher and higher. Let's discuss this like gentlemen. No need to banter insults back and forf now.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The flames are growing higher and higher. Let's discuss this like gentlemen. No need to banter insults back and forf now.

G

Yer ugly.

I'm confused, what use does the Target Priority item have? Or are you citing it as an example of RaI versus RaW from a different edition?

RustyKnight wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The flames are growing higher and higher. Let's discuss this like gentlemen. No need to banter insults back and forf now.

G

Yer ugly.

I'm confused, what use does the Target Priority item have? Or are you citing it as an example of RaI versus RaW from a different edition?

It used to let you target a deperate unit with the model using it so long as they passes a target priority test.

As there are no longer Target Priority tests, it is a non-functional Wargear item

Gwar! wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The flames are growing higher and higher. Let's discuss this like gentlemen. No need to banter insults back and forf now.

G

Yer ugly.

I'm confused, what use does the Target Priority item have? Or are you citing it as an example of RaI versus RaW from a different edition?

It used to let you target a deperate unit with the model using it so long as they passes a target priority test.

As there are no longer Target Priority tests, it is a non-functional Wargear item

Yeah, a decent amount of the Tau wargear uses Target Priority, so it is now useless. My biggest frustration is the Comand and Control node, which gave 12" Ld. bubble for passing target priority tests at either Ld. 9 or 10. Unusable, but man would it be nice if they just said it was a Leadership bubble in general.

Yes I am ugly and want to kiss you all over everywhere and squeeze you too.

The 4th edition wording of the Target Lock specifies the amount of Target Priority checks that you need to take. I can say with 100% certainty that the intention was not "if you pass target priority then you can fire at different units"; it was to clarify the number of checks that you needed to take if multiple models chose different units to fire at. Because it got ugly when you had to take 3-4 target priority tests for a single unit and if a single one of them failed you had to shoot at the closest target.

Hmm whats a stupid RaW vs RaI example....

I write a maths text book. I accidentally make a typo.
1+1 =1
Do you spend the rest of your life (or at least, until i release the next edition of that book) believing that, or do you play it as intended that 1+1 = 2? (it seems Gwar actually does believe 1+1=1 tho)

Also minus minus equals positive is silly in regards to the Monolith.

G

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Nope. That's just what the first line of the rule says. The entire rule says much more than that. If it were that simple there wouldn't be any need for the clarification section, would there?

No, the last part of the rule gives a semi fluff justification for it. Does it say "3 of these shots must be Lasgun Shots?" Does it say "only two models may fire non Lasguns"? No it does not. The Chimera has 5 Fire Points, and can fire 5 of whatever the passengers have, as per the Fire points rules. End of Discussion. Anyone saying otherwise are just trying to cheat.

Firstly, who decides which bit of the rules is just 'fluff'. It's under a special rule heading - it's a rule.

Secondly, this is the POINT of the RAI vs RAW debate, surely. It's all a matter of how strictly you decide to follow the letter of the rules - where do you draw the line.

I know the LETTER of the rules says that 5 models may fire from the top of a Chimera. I believe that having 5 heavy weapons firing is an oversight, and i'd draw the line there. That's how i interpret the rules. Of course, you can stamp your foot and say 'but is SAYS any five models' but i think you'd be being unsportsmanly.

Just the same as the LETTER of the rules says that your Emperor's Champion has non-existent weapons. You can stamp your feet, say it's the letter of the rules and disallow the Digital Weapons and gain yourself a little advantage, or you can accept that it may be an oversight and play the game sensibly.

Here's another one. The new Imperial Guard codex contains rules for a unit called 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' as well as other units such as the 'Leman Russ Punisher' and 'Leman Russ Demolisher'. In the army list, you may take a Leman Russ Squadron for which you can purchase a mix of 'Leman Russ Battle Tank', 'Leman Russ Demolisher' and 'Leman Russ Punisher'.

However, in the army list entry for a Leman Russ Squadron there is no main weapon listed for a 'Leman Russ Battle Tank'. There is a battlecannon listed for something called simply the 'Leman Russ', but this unit doesn't exist anywhere else in the codex. You can't take a unit called simply a 'Leman Russ' as part of a Leman Russ Squadron. STRICT RAW would state that either the 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' has no main weapon, or that every single 'Leman Russ' variant has a battlecannon in addition to any other weaponry.

Of course, if you read it this way, and try and play by this rule, you're a fething idiot. It's just a misunderstanding. It's quite clear what the RAI is. You can (sensibly) choose to believe that the weapons listing for 'Leman Russ' ACTUALLY refers to the 'Leman Russ Battle Tank'. But hey, you can also stamp your foot and insist your opponent remove all the battlecannons from his 'Leman Russ Battle Tanks' if you want, it's RAW after all.

Again, it's all a matter of where you draw the line...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote: Also, no offence, but Tau Rules are the POOREST rules I have ever written.

Unmasked!

Gwar! is Andy Hoare!

(This is probably for the best - I was beginning to think he was Stelek...)

Interestingly, the decision to play 40k by RAW is, itself, a house rule. There's no rule saying you have to play by the rules, in fact there is a rule stating players are encouraged to create house rules as they see fit. In short, the decision to play strictly by RAW is a personal one, and not based on anything.

Now, RAW is not without merits. 99% of the time, the rules explain situations clearly. It is the first, and often the last, source of rulings anybody needs.

Many advocates of strict RAW make three mistakes, however:
1) they overestimate how clear RAW interpretations are. It doesn't take willful ignorance to read many rules in two different ways, and that makes RAW simply not a viable option for every dispute
2) They underestimate the ability to determine RAI. Context, tradition, custom, practice and sheer momentum are all factors that can be used to determine RAI, and while not 100%, when RAW is unclear, you have to use soemthing.
3) They forget that most people, even competitive tournament gamers, want a a fun, elegant rule set. They want an answer that makes the game more fun, not less fun.

I love RAW, in fact I enjoy rules so much I just finished my JD with a concentration in Tax Law. Arguing rules and their interpretations is what I want to do for a living, but no court in any country operates under RAW. I don't think I should hold the 40k rules to a higher standard than courts hold the United States Code.

The problem is IRL, he who holds the Green makes the Rules.

40k doesn't work like that.

Gwar! wrote:The problem is IRL, he who holds the Green makes the Rules.

40k doesn't work like that.

hehe, it doesn't quite work that way IRL, trust me. Money helps, but it can't buy everything.

Often, there's more than one RAW interpretation.

I'm convinced, that often there isn't a RAI, because the dev team didn't conceive the problem.

Remember that the INAT FAQ answers were less than 10 percent RAW. The majority were classified as clarification. RAW sounds really cool and is a great way to twist the rules in your favor. Today many people will immediately surrunder to anything with the term RAW thrown out at them. We should question everything and not accept RAW as a final resolution all the time. Question authority.

G

90% of the IANTFAQ is Rules Changes disguised as Clarifications. It's the only thing that really annoys me about it.

But many says the INAT FAQ is rule query nirvana.

G

Many are happy to have someone give them the answers so they don't have to think about it, regardless of whether that answer is right or wrong.

Kaaihn wrote:Many are happy to have someone give them the answers so they don't have to think about it, regardless of whether that answer is right or wrong.

I think it's more that people want a resolution that is independent of the immediate personal biases that occur in a game. Having a neutral arbiter that addresses the holes in the rules is what attractive about the INAT, not the specific rulings.

I think the INAT FAQ makes for a good starting point, but doesn't have to be the final answer either.

Gwar! wrote:The problem is IRL, he who holds the Green makes the Rules.

40k doesn't work like that.

Oi diss-ugree, oomie.

Like I said, the Guy who has the Green

And don't forget that BoLS now have their own FAQ as well. And it differs from the INAT in several major ways (intermixed squads in particular, but I'm sure there's more). So, now, tournies will have two 'net-worthy' FAQs to choose from, or even a combination of them.

I am really getting sick of FAQs for big tournaments. It's vecoming counter productive. It's basically like a separate set of protocols for each event.

G