Continuing a tangent on another thread. So people believe that the rules were created accidentally when GW wrote them down I believe they were designed by GW. So is intentionally breaking the rules designed by GW cheating?

Quoting nosferatu's last post:

Nope, there are multiple arguable RAI, and often no way to actually discern the actual RAI. At ;east, without walking up to the studio and asking.

There are multiple arguably RaW. If you can't work out RaI without going into the design studio to ask you have to create a house rule. As I've stated multiple times. Just as you do when you can't determine RaW.

I ask you this: do you think the Wrote the rules that they Intended intelligently, or did they have some ideas for rules but instead wrote something else entirely differently?

Do you think they write every rule perfectly? Because that is what you are suggesting here. They write the rules as best they can to attempt to clearly communicate their ideas to us the reader. They however don't always do this perfectly?

The rules as written is our best point to determine a consistent set of playable rules, whereas "RAI" is an argue fest.

Granted RaW has more consistency and is a great fallback position and a great tool to settle conflict.

Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

A because someone disagrees with you on how it's intended, you've labeled them a cheater. Without even a discussion.

That's what I disagree with you on. You have just as much evidence on intent as they do, and yet they're cheating and you have an angelic halo.

 shamikebab wrote:
Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

Exalted.

As above, if you cant work it out either by yourself or with your opponent agree with them how you both want to proceed, roll a die if needed.

The rules are a means for 2 people to agree on how to play a game. If you break the agreed rules then you are cheating. If you agree to modify the rules as written or intended by GW, then you are playing a different game and are not cheating. In my view its all down to making sure the rules for a specific game are agreed to and clear for both parties.

The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

I refuse to answer the question in your title because of the bias with which you have sought to frame the discussion at hand when starting this thread.

note: obviously when I say it's never breaking the rules, I assume no alternate rules have been pre-discussed and agreed on by both parties.

 shamikebab wrote:
Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

We're on the same page here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

A because someone disagrees with you on how it's intended, you've labeled them a cheater. Without even a discussion.

That's what I disagree with you on. You have just as much evidence on intent as they do, and yet they're cheating and you have an angelic halo.

I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.

Like for instance some one not letting their opponent shoot or assault with their Wraithlord.

Deliberately breaking the Rules is obviously cheating since you broke the rules.

However, arguing the interpretation of RAW is not.

RAI is not breaking the rules but is a consent between you and your opponent to play a game in a certain way,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.

Like for instance some one not letting their opponent shoot or assault with their Wraithlord.

It's not cheating if they follow RAW,
RAI is just your own interpretation & assumption.

The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

No RaW by its very definition is an interpretation of the rules as designed by GW (RaI). Unless your not playing the game that was intelligently designed by GW.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

Wrong breaking the rules as designed by GW is breaking the rules. If you do not know the RaI then you are not cheating if you break them.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

No RaW by its very definition is an interpretation of the rules as designed by GW (RaI). Unless your not playing the game that was intelligently designed by GW.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

Wrong breaking the rules as designed by GW is breaking the rules. If you do not know the RaI then you are not cheating if you break them.

Lol, following rules is breaking rules.

Who knows what is RAI?

RAI is just your own interpretation & assumption.

No RaI is the Design teams intent. My interpretation of RaI is my own interpretation and assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lol, following rules is breaking rules.

I've never stated following RaI is breaking rules...

 shamikebab wrote:
Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

^This^

Or simply don't play against them if you can't agree by any means.

/endthread

 Drunkspleen wrote:
The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

I refuse to answer the question in your title because of the bias with which you have sought to frame the discussion at hand when starting this thread.

note: obviously when I say it's never breaking the rules, I assume no alternate rules have been pre-discussed and agreed on by both parties.

So, by your logic,

Never bring a Tau Bomber,

Because always playing as RAW it cannot EVER manifest a bomb to drop?

RAW are great guidelines, but coming to an agreement with your opponent is the best way to maintain a fun game.

GoliothOnline wrote:
So, by your logic,

Never bring a Tau Bomber,

Because always playing as RAW it cannot EVER manifest a bomb to drop?

RAW are great guidelines, but coming to an agreement with your opponent is the best way to maintain a fun game.

Using the phrase "by your logic" and putting words in other people's mouths is a bad way to have a discussion.

If you had instead asked me you would have learned I totally agree, there are situations where the RAW leaves something to be desired and you should discuss with your opponent and try to come to an agreement.

All I'm saying is it's inaccurate to label your opponent a cheater when he says "no, you don't start with a bomb" he's not cheating, he's just following the rules as they clearly appear, he may be being unpleasant given the ridiculousness of that situation, but he is not, nor will he ever be, cheating for insisting on that.

All I'm saying is it's inaccurate to label your opponent a cheater when he says "no, you don't start with a bomb" he's not cheating, he's just following the RaI as they clearly appear, he may be being unpleasant given the ridiculousness of that situation, but he is not, nor will he ever be, cheating for insisting on that.

But he would be cheating... He's not following the RaI as they clearly appear as you claim. He's doing quite the opposite.

Remember that RaI, The Rules and RaD (rules as designed) are all interchangeable phrases. Unless you don't believe the rules are what GW designed?

 FlingitNow wrote:

RAI is just your own interpretation & assumption.

No RaI is the Design teams intent. My interpretation of RaI is my own interpretation and assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lol, following rules is breaking rules.

I've never stated following RaI is breaking rules...

RAI = Rules as Intended unless you are part of the design team you will never know what the actual RAI is.
That's why they do FAQs.
this game plays by RAW not by RAI.
RAI is situational when RAW does not work/ambiguous.

If someone is strictly playing by the way the rules were written it's not breaking the rules nor is it cheating.

@Fling

It appears you want to label anyone who disagrees with you as a cheater. This thread really has no purpose.

 FlingitNow wrote:

All I'm saying is it's inaccurate to label your opponent a cheater when he says "no, you don't start with a bomb" he's not cheating, he's just following the RaI as they clearly appear, he may be being unpleasant given the ridiculousness of that situation, but he is not, nor will he ever be, cheating for insisting on that.

But he would be cheating... He's not following the RaI as they clearly appear as you claim. He's doing quite the opposite.

Remember that RaI, The Rules and RaD (rules as designed) are all interchangeable phrases. Unless you don't believe the rules are what GW designed?

No, he's not following the rules as you believe they were intended. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (and by that I mean you would have to actually visit me, and bring identification) that you are in fact the author of the various Warhammer 40K rulebooks, you cannot tell me what the authors intent actually is.

GoliothOnline wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

I refuse to answer the question in your title because of the bias with which you have sought to frame the discussion at hand when starting this thread.

note: obviously when I say it's never breaking the rules, I assume no alternate rules have been pre-discussed and agreed on by both parties.

So, by your logic,

Never bring a Tau Bomber,

Because always playing as RAW it cannot EVER manifest a bomb to drop?

RAW are great guidelines, but coming to an agreement with your opponent is the best way to maintain a fun game.

Yes, those are the rules. However, as mentioned you would then agree with your opponent that the rules in this case are not sufficient. Anyone that refuses to agree this....well, frankly you shouldn't be playing with them.

It appears you you want to label anyone who disagrees with as a cheater. This thread really has no purpose.

No people are free to disagree with my interpretations of RaI. Disagreeing with someone elses interpretation of RaI is nit cheating. Deliberately breaking what you know is RaI is cheating.

RAI = Rules as Intended unless you are part of the design team you will never know what the actual RAI is. That's why they do FAQs. this game plays by RAW not by RAI. RAI is situational when RAW does not work/ambiguous.

This argument has already been debunked. You weren't in that thread so here's why it is irrelevant. Yes we can't 100% prove RaI, but the same is true for RaW. So having that as your reason to not follow RaI means you'd also have to not follow RaW.

Also please tell me how you think the rules were created? Because by saying the RaI =/= The Rules you're saying you don't believe the rules are what GW designed. If this is the case ow do you think the rules were created?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Deliberately breaking what you know is RaI is cheating.

Technically true, except none of us can ever 100% know whether our RAI is the same as GW's RAI. The only way to cheat is to ignore RAW (unless otherwise agreed through house rules)

No, he's not following the rules as you believe they were intended. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (and by that I mean you would have to actually visit me, and bring identification) that you are in fact the author of the various Warhammer 40K rulebooks, you cannot tell me what the authors intent actually is.

Going down the 100% proof route. Well then you can't prove RaW either, so if that's the route we're going down then no rules at all exist. It is impossible to know or prove anything 100%.

Why can't you prove RAW? RAW is exactly what it says in the book, it's black and white.

If there are points when it's not clear then you roll for it as stated in the rulebook.

 FlingitNow wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

A because someone disagrees with you on how it's intended, you've labeled them a cheater. Without even a discussion.

That's what I disagree with you on. You have just as much evidence on intent as they do, and yet they're cheating and you have an angelic halo.

I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.

Like for instance some one not letting their opponent shoot or assault with their Wraithlord.

I quoted you saying that in an ambiguous situation (because it is ambiguous) anyone who disagrees is a cheater. There's no way to "know" that the RAI is different from the RAW. You keep saying there is, but there isn't. You can make good assumptions based on other rules, etc. but I would not have called someone who wanted to drop 100% of their DW on turn one a cheater before the new FAQ - it was overall ambiguous even if I thought it was clear.

Way to editorialize the title in order to frame the debate before it is even started...

Fling, your positions are untennable. You cannot claim to know the intentions of the design team. All we are left with are the words on the page, the Rules as Written. Intention can come into the debate before a game when trying to work out edge cases, but in the end the rules written on the page in front of us (and FAQs) are the only firm assertations we have as to the intent of those who design the rules. Though I am sure you would rather claim we are hallucinating and Space Marines are all T10 as you did in the last thread.

Finally, calling someone a cheater is about the worst you can do in a friendly or comptetitive game. It has nothing but negative connotation. Calling someone a cheater for having a different interpretation of the rules than you do is even worse because you claim the moral imperative on your ideas and completely dismiss theirs.

FlingitNow, which means do you use to determine the intent of the rules beyond the words written in the rule-book?

Is breaking the law illegal?

What is the value of posting this thread?

I quoted you saying that in an ambiguous situation (because it is ambiguous) anyone who disagrees is a cheater. There's no way to "know" that the RAI is different from the RAW. You keep saying there is, but there isn't. You can make good assumptions based on other rules, etc. but I would not have called someone who wanted to drop 100% of their DW on turn one a cheater before the new FAQ - it was overall ambiguous even if I thought it was clear.

Cool then I was wrong to accuse someone of cheating for interpreting that rule in the way they are if you genuinely believe the rule is ambiguous. I actually thought the opposite was the case for DWA but wouldn't call anyone a cheat whichever direction they thought was correct. It was one of those genuinely ambiguous rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
FlingitNow, which means do you use to determine the intent of the rules beyond the words written in the rule-book?

If someone asks you "can you tell me the time?" Do you respond with "yes" and wonder why he doesn't find that helpful?

I work out RaI by reading the text, then I engage my brain and often it is straight forward.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If someone asks you "can you tell me the time?" Do you respond with "yes" and wonder why he doesn't find that helpful?.

No I respond with "Yes" and know exactly why he doesn't find it helpful. If he wants to know the time he should ask what the time is. It is similar to "Can I go to the bathroom?" and "May I go to the bathroom?". One is asking permission, the other is asking if the person is physically capable.

How do you know why he doesn't find it helpful? You've answered his question.

lol,
ok determine this for me then:
roses are red.
What am I trying to say?
What am I intended to say?

 FlingitNow wrote:

I quoted you saying that in an ambiguous situation (because it is ambiguous) anyone who disagrees is a cheater. There's no way to "know" that the RAI is different from the RAW. You keep saying there is, but there isn't. You can make good assumptions based on other rules, etc. but I would not have called someone who wanted to drop 100% of their DW on turn one a cheater before the new FAQ - it was overall ambiguous even if I thought it was clear.

Cool then I was wrong to accuse someone of cheating for interpreting that rule in the way they are if you genuinely believe the rule is ambiguous. I actually thought the opposite was the case for DWA but wouldn't call anyone a cheat whichever direction they thought was correct. It was one of those genuinely ambiguous rules.

So you're saying that you can't know intent? And that saying someone is cheating because they disagree on intent is foolish?
Good, we agree then.

If someone asks you "can you tell me the time?" Do you respond with "yes" and wonder why he doesn't find that helpful?

I work out RaI by reading the text, then I engage my brain and often it is straight forward.

Ah, so close.
Often it is not. Your assertion notwithstanding.

Rigeld I agree you can't always know intent, surely you agree the same for RaW? Even if RaW is more know able and more consistent than peoples interpretation of RaI.

If RaI is not clear? Well we have a well defined solution to that. So why is that ever a problem?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld I agree you can't always know intent, surely you agree the same for RaW? Even if RaW is more know able and more consistent than peoples interpretation of RaI.

No, it's always absolutely clear what words are written on a page. Your interpretation might not agree with mine but that doesn't change what's Written.
And before you do so, resorting to "Hallucinations!" is a farce and immediately means you concede the point.

If RaI is not clear? Well we have a well defined solution to that. So why is that ever a problem?

I don't know. You're the one calling people cheaters if they don't follow your interpretation of "The Rules".

No, it's always absolutely clear what words are written on a page. Your interpretation might not agree with mine but that doesn't change what's Written. And before you do so, resorting to "Hallucinations!" is a farce and immediately means you concede the point.

So you're throwing out hallucinations as a possibly because you say so. No who's making things up? Whilst at the same time claiming RaW is always clear. Well how about the Death Ray before FaQ. RaI was clear but both interpretations were valid in RaW. Let alone the numerous RaW debates from this forum?

So again Rigeld I'll ask you how you think the rules are created?

It specifically says in the rulebook to roll for it if the RAW is not clear.

 FlingitNow wrote:

No, it's always absolutely clear what words are written on a page. Your interpretation might not agree with mine but that doesn't change what's Written. And before you do so, resorting to "Hallucinations!" is a farce and immediately means you concede the point.

So you're throwing out hallucinations as a possibly because you say so. No who's making things up? Whilst at the same time claiming RaW is always clear. Well how about the Death Ray before FaQ. RaI was clear but both interpretations were valid in RaW. Let alone the numerous RaW debates from this forum?

So again Rigeld I'll ask you how you think the rules are created?

Death Ray was a RAW that was contradicting to another RAW.
No one knew what the RAI was so people argued about RAI.
Who would have known whether or not the Beam could hit a flier or not? Ans: Nobody.

Because agreeing to some axioms makes debate possible.

If you do not agree on the additive identity "0" then 1+1 doesnt always equal 2. We do agree on it so we can o somthing useful.

I think you are under a misunderstanding as to what RaI means in actuality when it is discuussed in these threads: it ALWAYS means "rules as *I believe* they are intended", because your position is one surmounted on belief, as opposed to one available as objective fact - whcih is RAW

Your aergument remains complete bunk, and will do in every thread you pollute with it. Your claim you can "know" RAI is not even close to being provable.

Was talking about whether it could hit a flyer. I was talking about how many models where hit from a unit under the line.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Was talking about whether it could hit a flyer. I was talking about how many models where hit from a unit under the line.

Actually, that one was clear. It took actually reading the words to understand it though.

And I'm not "throwing anything out". A common understanding requires both parties to speak the same language, to be reading the same language, and have no other issues that would impede the discussion.
Insisting that I must account for someone that is hallucinating is farcical and borderline trolling. And it has nothing to do with saying that people who disagree with you are cheaters.

Rigeld I am not stating that people who disagree with my interpretation of RaI are cheating. You are claiming that knowing RaI is impossible. But if you claim that then the same is also true of RaW.

Here's the break down. We both agree deliberately breaking the rules is cheating (obviously not counting where you and your opponent have agreed a house rule).

I therefore state that deliberately breaking RaI is cheating.

Because:

Premise 1: deliberately breaking the rules is cheating.
Premise 2: The rules are what GW designed (known as RaI)

If you disagree with Premise 2. Please tell me what parts are incorrect.

No one knows what was GW's intention when designing the rules period.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld I am not stating that people who disagree with my interpretation of RaI are cheating. You are claiming that knowing RaI is impossible. But if you claim that then the same is also true of RaW.

Here's the break down. We both agree deliberately breaking the rules is cheating (obviously not counting where you and your opponent have agreed a house rule).

I therefore state that deliberately breaking RaI is cheating.

Because:

Premise 1: deliberately breaking the rules is cheating.
Premise 2: The rules are what GW designed (known as RaI)

If you disagree with Premise 2. Please tell me what parts are incorrect.

You (as in you, FlingitNow) do not and cannot know, for a fact, what GW intended.
And you did state that in the other thread (that I quoted here) that people who disagreed with your interpretation of intent were cheaters.

And no, it's not a double standard to say that RAW is knowable and RAI is not. A certain basis of assumption is required to exist. Such discussions of assumption are irrelevant when it comes to text on a page.

 Happyjew wrote:
No I respond with "Yes" and know exactly why he doesn't find it helpful.

So, to translate that back to rules terms, you know exactly what the RaI is, you just don't care, because they should've written the rules better.

 Makutsu wrote:
No one knows what was GW's intention when designing the rules period.

I'm sorry, but that's bunk. There are plenty of cases where the RaI is abundantly clear and the RaW is absent, contradictory, or ambiguous. Certainly there are also cases where RaI is unclear, but to claim that you can never figure out the RaI is silly.

So you decide what counts as knowable and what doesn't?

Notice you haven't disagreed with either of my premises. Is that you conceding your side of the argument?

Pyrian wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No I respond with "Yes" and know exactly why he doesn't find it helpful.

So, to translate that back to rules terms, you know exactly what the RaI is, you just don't care, because they should've written the rules better.

 Makutsu wrote:
No one knows what was GW's intention when designing the rules period.

I'm sorry, but that's bunk. There are plenty of cases where the RaI is abundantly clear and the RaW is absent, contradictory, or ambiguous. Certainly there are also cases where RaI is unclear, but to claim that you can never figure out the RaI is silly.

RAI could be clear but that still doesn't mean it's the official rules. Hence needs a FAQ.
And breaking that would be cheating which is what the OP is trying to say.
Which breaking RAI is not cheating since no one has a confirmation as whether or not that rule is actually RAI or not.

On the other hand when RAW is clear, breaking that would be cheating.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So you decide what counts as knowable and what doesn't?

No, some things are factually knowable and some are not. Words on a page are factually knowable. What someone meant to write is not unless you are that person.

Notice you haven't disagreed with either of my premises. Is that you conceding your side of the argument?

I didn't respond because I disagree with your phrasing. I intended that to be clear by what I wrote but I obviously didn't make it clear.
Surely you should've recognized my intent and your lack of doing so was meant in the most callous and rude way possible.
Or maybe - just maybe - intent isn't as clear as you're pretending it is and vilifying someone for disagreeing with you isn't the right thing to do.

Pyrian wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No I respond with "Yes" and know exactly why he doesn't find it helpful.

So, to translate that back to rules terms, you know exactly what the RaI is, you just don't care, because they should've written the rules better..

Not always. Perhaps the person in question really was curious if I could tell them the time. Maybe they want to see if I can read a clock. I don't claim to know what RAI is. For all know GWs intent is that models without eyes cannot shoot or assault. For all I know GWs intent is that a unit completely out of sight from a firing unit can still have wounds allocated to it from a scattered blast. I do not claim to know what RAI is and call other people cheaters because they disagree with my interpretation of the RAW.

Fling - you dont understand the diference between belief and fact

You can have a belief as to what RAI is, you can factually know RAW. The two are not the same, despite your assertions otherwise

Your argument is entirely self defeating, yet you dont see it.

Not always. Perhaps the person in question really was curious if I could tell them the time. Maybe they want to see if I can read a clock. I don't claim to know what RAI is.

Its posts like this that illustrate why the Hallucination argument is equivalent for the know able nature of RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Not always. Perhaps the person in question really was curious if I could tell them the time. Maybe they want to see if I can read a clock. I don't claim to know what RAI is.

Its posts like this that illustrate why the Hallucination argument is equivalent for the know able nature of RaW.

It's really not comparable at all.
And still not a valid stance to accuse people of cheating on.

No Nos you can not know RaW anymore than you can know RaI. As illustrated and previously proven.

Do you disagree with either of the premises above. If not then you have to concede.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So Rigeld disagree with either premise (reword them if you want, to what you think they should be) or concede.

Deliberately breaking the rules as they're written is cheating. This would include ignoring official FAQs but does not include anything changed by a house rule.

Edit: and no - your farcical reference to hallucination isn't proof of anything aside from your refusal to accept that calling someone who disagrees with you a cheater is wrong.

And it's amusing that you ignored my intent and only read the words I typed. That must mean you only have evil intent.

@Fling

I concede. Please stop. You win. You are the greatest. You know all the rules.

Deliberately breaking the rules as they're written is cheating.

So you're saying Rules as written = the rules correct?

Edit: and no - your farcical reference to hallucination isn't proof of anything aside from your refusal to accept that calling someone who disagrees with you a cheater is wrong.

No I've accepted that. The farcical reference to hallucination is no more farcical than not being able to know that Wraithlords are intended to be allowed shoot and assault.

FIN back for more abuse after his defeat by the DA FAQ. What exactly are you flinging?

This entire thread is a lesson in why "Intent" cannot be determined without a doubt by anyone other than the original person.

RAW (rules as written) are the rules, yes. Generally they are clear and concise and there is no room to argue.

When the rules as written are unclear or ambiguous we go to RAI.

RAI (rules as intended) is debated when RAW is ambiguous or unclear. However, the "intent" in this case is mere speculation and personal opinion. Without the original authors say, we do not know without a question what they truly intended the rule, as written, to mean.

For anyone to contend that RAI is absolute is to contend that they know the original writers intent wholeheartedly. Unless you are the original writer (or have explicit word from the original writer) you cannot know this, as proven many times over by FAQ's and Errata that have gone entirely against what people thought was the "obvious" intention.

However, to answer Flingitnow's original "question" (phrased in an impossible to argue manner); Yes, "deliberately breaking the rules" is cheating.

 FlingitNow wrote:
No Nos you can not know RaW anymore than you can know RaI. As illustrated and previously proven.

Not at all.

Eg:

What if, hypothetically, the design team wrote:

"A model may only move up to 6 inches"

But meant to write:

"An Infantry model may only move up to 6 inches".

Rules as Written, any model can only move up to 6" in this scenario. It's a fact, it says so right there.

Rules as Intended (which we are unable to know at this point) would be that this limitation was only meant for Infantry models.

This would require an FAQ to clarify and therefore, show us what was intended. Until then however, the Rules as Written would be that any model could only move 6", no?

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
No Nos you can not know RaW anymore than you can know RaI. As illustrated and previously proven.

Not at all.

Eg:

What if, hypothetically, the design team wrote:

"A model may only move up to 6 inches"

But meant to write:

"An Infantry model may only move up to 6 inches".

Rules as Written, any model can only move up to 6" in this scenario. It's a fact, it says so right there.

Rules as Intended (which we are unable to know at this point) would be that this limitation was only meant for Infantry models.

This would require an FAQ to clarify and therefore, show us what was intended. Until then however, the Rules as Written would be that any model could only move 6", no?

Iranna.

Better example - firing a Gun Emplacement. Pre-FAQ, any model in base contact could fire the Gun. Apparently that was not the intent as GW clarified it to be non-vehicle models.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Deliberately breaking the rules as they're written is cheating.

So you're saying Rules as written = the rules correct?

I see you deliberately edited out all the qualifiers I spent time typing. It's cool - if you need to do that to make a point I understand. Your point will be completely invalid but I understand.

Edit: and no - your farcical reference to hallucination isn't proof of anything aside from your refusal to accept that calling someone who disagrees with you a cheater is wrong.

No I've accepted that. The farcical reference to hallucination is no more farcical than not being able to know that Wraithlords are intended to be allowed shoot and assault.

Wraithlords being able to shoot and assault is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.
You cannot guarantee intent. I'd put money on them intending Wraithlords to shoot and assault, but I wouldn't claim "That's not fair!" if I was wrong.

Good players try to stay clear of "grey" areas of rules in order to be able to play and not indulge in lively debate.

Bad rules writing can still get you stuck in grey even when trying to avoid it. The wound pool only able to apply to models "in range" with bolters and say a lascannon (or worse, multiple flamers) is still making things fun.

"Cheating" would only be a label if someone agreed to a set of rules of play and try to get around them by not informing the other player or performing actions contrary to rules the other player is not aware of.

I personally like to beat people within the framework of rules or it stops being a game and more an exercise is sadism.

Another example ir anna is FMCs with "relentless smash" rather than relentless and smash separated by a comma. It goes both ways.

Some times intent is unclear (as in your example) sometimes it is clear (as in mine). The same is true for RaW.

Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wraithlords being able to shoot and assault is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

That were are not all Hallucinating is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Another example ir anna is FMCs with "relentless smash" rather than relentless and smash separated by a comma. It goes both ways.

Some times intent is unclear (as in your example) sometimes it is clear (as in mine). The same is true for RaW.

Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

lol, troll post.
But to answer you.
RAW is what is written not how the rules were created.

Apparently you are a psychic now and can read minds of authors of all these complicated books

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed. That's the fault of the design team. It's also not particularly relevant.

Wraithlords being able to shoot and assault is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

That were are not all Hallucinating is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

So no defense for your selective editing? I'll pretend there's an apology in there somewhere - I'm sure you intended one.

And no, I am factually not hallucinating right now. It's not an assumption.

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed. That's the fault of the design team. It's also not particularly relevant.

Wraithlords being able to shoot and assault is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

That were are not all Hallucinating is an assumption. It's an assumption with a lot of "power" behind it but it's still an assumption. It could be turned on it's head by new information.

So no defense for your selective editing? I'll pretend there's an apology in there somewhere - I'm sure you intended one.

And no, I am factually not hallucinating right now. It's not an assumption.

Maybe if we "hallucinate" that FIN is apologizing it might actually happen?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Another example ir anna is FMCs with "relentless smash" rather than relentless and smash separated by a comma. It goes both ways.

Some times intent is unclear (as in your example) sometimes it is clear (as in mine). The same is true for RaW.

Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

I'm confused by your rebuttal, it seems to only be furthering my point.

You pointed out the issue of "relentless smash". I would say, in terms of Rules as Written, that this obviously does not exist and therefore, has no effect.

However, as Nos pointed out, I would believe that they meant for a comma to be there and discuss this with my opponent before the game. That's not to say I am the great omniscient rules developer of Games Workshop, it's how I believe it should be. On the other hand, if my opponent wished to play it Rules as Written, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on because it's exactly what's written. Effectively, I'm asking to change the rules.

Note the use of the word "change" not "break" as one implies a collaborative decision and the other is pejorative.

The point is, the RAW can never be unclear - only your interpretation of them.

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Another example ir anna is FMCs with "relentless smash" rather than relentless and smash separated by a comma. It goes both ways.

Some times intent is unclear (as in your example) sometimes it is clear (as in mine). The same is true for RaW.

Again I ask those that think RaW= The rules to tell me how the rules where created. Because if that is your stance the rules are not what the design team designed.

I'm confused by your rebuttal, it seems to only be furthering my point.

You pointed out the issue of "relentless smash". I would say, in terms of Rules as Written, that this obviously does not exist and therefore, has no effect.

However, as Nos pointed out, I would believe that they meant for a comma to be there and discuss this with my opponent before the game. That's not to say I am the great omniscient rules developer of Games Workshop, it's how I believe it should be. On the other hand, if my opponent wished to play it Rules as Written, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on because it's exactly what's written. Effectively, I'm asking to change the rules.

Note the use of the word "change" not "break" as one implies a collaborative decision and the other is pejorative.

The point is, the RAW can never be unclear - only your interpretation of them.

Iranna.

Agree with everything else except RAW could be unclear in the case of contradiction.

He clearly just selects what he likes and then somehow twists the argument into some uncomprehendable state and give it back at us with no progress of discussion what so ever.

We use the rules for relentless smash on pg. 62 of the rule book. For every smash attack that causes an unsaved wound they get another smash attack. Is my rulebook the only one with that section?

Page 62 of my rulebook contains data for various grenades.

But maybe I'm just hallucinating.

Not sure about you but my 62 has grenades.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Page 62 of my rulebook contains data for various grenades.

But maybe I'm just hallucinating.

That might be a side effect of the hallucinogen grenades...

 Happyjew wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Page 62 of my rulebook contains data for various grenades.

But maybe I'm just hallucinating.

That might be a side effect of the hallucinogen grenades...

This thread is over. Happyjew has won.

I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.



Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by the rules as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing the rules. What is changing the rules as detailed in your books if not cheating?

I completely understand that GW's rules writing is EXTREMELY poor leading to a lot of situations requiring some alteration to make any sense (Your example for instance) you're still altering the rules. Which is, in essence, cheating.

From wrote:
I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.



Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by the rules as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing the rules. What is changing the rules as detailed in your books if not cheating?

I completely understand that GW's rules writing is EXTREMELY poor leading to a lot of situations requiring some alteration to make any sense (Your example for instance) you're still altering the rules. Which is, in essence, cheating.

QFT. And Exalted.

The page 62 maybe different I am using the Latvian rule book.

Seriously? Why are we having this discussion?

RAI: How the writers want a rule to work.
RAW: How the rule is actually written.
Houserules: How your group decides to play a rule.

In most cases RAI = RAW = Houserule!

Cheating is when you break a rule that you agreed on to follow.
If I follow a houserule that is different from RAW/RAI that is not cheating.

Kangodo wrote:
Seriously? Why are we having this discussion?

Because it would seem that Fling is of the opinion that people who follow RaW are Cheating.

Iranna.

Can anyone else confirm Relentless Swooping Smash rules from the Latvian codex?

tgf wrote:
Can anyone else confirm Relentless Swooping Smash rules from the Latvian codex?

Jā, es varu.

Es esmu tik foršs.

Iranna.

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed.

So who designed those rules? Who or what created them?

If your rules aren't what GW designed then how on earth is that Warhammer 40000? This is the problem with your stance. That you are fundamentally nit playing the game GW designed. Which is ok but you should not be doing this without your opponents consent. Otherwise that is cheating.

 FlingitNow wrote:

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed.

So who designed those rules? Who or what created them?

If your rules aren't what GW designed then how on earth is that Warhammer 40000? This is the problem with your stance. That you are fundamentally nit playing the game GW designed. Which is ok but you should not be doing this without your opponents consent. Otherwise that is cheating.

No, I'm playing the game that the designers wrote. I don't pretend to know what they intended the rules to say beyond what's written - to presume I could is to presume that I'm better than them at their job.
And while I probably could write clearer rules I'm too lazy to do so, so I do other things for a living (like write code, write documentation, etc).

I'm playing by what the GW designers wrote. You're asserting that I should play by what the GW designers meant in your opinion and to do otherwise is cheating.
That kind of thinking is so wrong it's amazing you are able to type it out. There's no "problem" with my stance - I can back up everything I've talked about RAW wise. You have to pretend you know what the designers are thinking which, unless you're omniscient, is literally impossible.

edit: Also, again with your selective editing. I'd appreciate it if you didn't leave out half of my point when responding.

This thread is very odd.

There is no way one could possibly state that "deliberately breaking the rules" is anything but "cheating" - the definitions of the words make this impossible.

However, once one starts to mess with the definitions of the words we can bend this to mean lots of things. Throw in some ambiguity in what the rules are, and you remove the necessary capacity to "deliberately break the rules" since the term rules is defined as an unknown.

You can't deliberately break rules when you don't know what they are.

If you start pulling out "well the codex meant this, event though it says that" you are putting ambiguity in the rules making the intent impossible to form.

Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by RaI as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing RaI.. What is changing the RaI as detailed in your books if not cheating?

How can following RaI be changing RaI? Did that even make sense when you typed it?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by RaI as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing RaI.. What is changing the RaI as detailed in your books if not cheating?

How can following RaI be changing RaI? Did that even make sense when you typed it?

I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

Rigeld: I left out what wasn't relevant and your full post is still there for everyone to see. I'm not intending to change what you've said.

Still with the repeatedly de bunked RaW is knowable RaI isn't argument. Which is still not even relevant. Even if we accept that premise, it still does change who designed the game.

So (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe the rules are not inteligently designed by anyone to created at random by the process of turning the designed rules into written ones?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Doing something allowed by RAW is abiding by RaI as laid out in front of you. While RAI may "clearly" be different to you — you're changing RaI.. What is changing the RaI as detailed in your books if not cheating?

How can following RaI be changing RaI? Did that even make sense when you typed it?

Seriously... you just completely edited his post in your quote to make him look bad, then called him on his wording THAT YOU CHANGED.

What the hell is this thread...

Is deliberately breaking the rules cheating

It is defined by dictionary.com as "to violate rules or regulations"

So yes, yes it is cheating. How the feth would it not be cheating? Why the feth would you even ask this question? And more importantly, why the feth has the testament to autism that is this thread popped up in response?

 FlingitNow wrote:

In some cases the rules might not be what the design team designed.

So who designed those rules? Who or what created them?

If your rules aren't what GW designed then how on earth is that Warhammer 40000? This is the problem with your stance. That you are fundamentally nit playing the game GW designed. Which is ok but you should not be doing this without your opponents consent. Otherwise that is cheating.

Nope, the problem with your stance is that you have an issue: you cannot tell "belief" from "fact"

RAW is factual. RAI, as in your OPINION or BELIEF as to what they intend, is just that - opinion or belief.

I am playing the game they wrote, by the rules they wrote. You arent.

I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable. Yes sometimes playing by the rules is not playing by RaW. Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld: I left out what wasn't relevant and your full post is still there for everyone to see. I'm not intending to change what you've said.

What you intended and what happened are two different things. Funny thing that. Also, you literally changed what someone else said to make them look silly. Reported.

Still with the repeatedly de bunked RaW is knowable RaI isn't argument.

It hasn't ever been debunked. Ever. Except by your farcical hallucination example.

Which is still not even relevant. Even if we accept that premise, it still does change who designed the game.

I'll assume you mean "doesn't".

So (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe the rules are not inteligently designed by anyone to created at random by the process of turning the designed rules into written ones?

No, that's not correct at all. You keep trying to force that opinion on me and I've corrected you many times. I'm done.

You've shown no willingness to have a friendly debate - you've edited quotes to change phrasing, you've flat out changed someone's post and then said "Did that even make sense when you typed it" (which it couldn't have, because he didn't type it), you bring up existential possibilities that have nothing to do with reality, and you accuse anyone who thinks differently from you of cheating.

Good day, sir.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld: I left out what wasn't relevant and your full post is still there for everyone to see. I'm not intending to change what you've said.

Still with the repeatedly de bunked RaW is knowable RaI isn't argument. Which is still not even relevant. Even if we accept that premise, it still does change who designed the game.

So (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe the rules are not inteligently designed by anyone to created at random by the process of turning the designed rules into written ones?

Nope, you keep *asserting* it is debunked. It isnt.

Your argument is, however, as bunk as it was to begin with. You are also now not only selectively quoting but deliberately altering quotes. That is beyond usual troll behaviour.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable. Yes sometimes playing by the rules is not playing by RaW. Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.

They are not interchangeable. You're the only one asserting that - please don't pretend it's fact when it's the exact thing that's being discussed.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable. Yes sometimes playing by the rules is not playing by RaW. Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.

No, they are not interchangeable. Reported.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable. Yes sometimes playing by the rules is not playing by RaW. Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.

You exactly changed what I wrote to suit your point. When, in fact, I was speaking about "the rules" as the rules as written in the book you purchased to play the game.

But that's cool, edit my post and claim that's what I wrote. I'm quite sure you do the exact same thing with 40k — inserting your own intent where it doesn't belong.

Please do not deliberately misquote other Dakkanauts. It is deceptive and rude. Thanks!

Yes.

What you intended and what happened are two different things. Funny thing that. Also, you literally changed what someone else said to make them look silly. Reported.

It wasn't to make them look silly it was pointing out what they had said.

It hasn't ever been debunked. Ever. Except by your farcical hallucination example.

So it hasn't been be bunked except when it was de bunked.

I'll assume you mean "doesn't".

Wow how did you work out what I meant when I wrote something incorrectly? Surely this is an impossible ability by your argument so far.

No, that's not correct at all. You keep trying to force that opinion on me and I've corrected you many times. I'm done.

So how do you think the rules are created. You say they are not what the design team designed. So how are they created? Who's ideas are they? You repeatedly refuse to state this. Which just illustrates how bizarre your definition of the rules and how they are created is.

To be honest I'm shocked anyone thinks the rules aren't what GW designed.

 FlingitNow wrote:

What you intended and what happened are two different things. Funny thing that. Also, you literally changed what someone else said to make them look silly. Reported.

It wasn't to make them look silly it was pointing out what they had said.

.. Incorrectly as it was not what was said. Merely your interpretation.

It hasn't ever been debunked. Ever. Except by your farcical hallucination example.

So it hasn't been be bunked except when it was de bunked.

It has not been debunked. You think you have, but in fact, you have not.

I'll assume you mean "doesn't".

Wow how did you work out what I meant when I wrote something incorrectly? Surely this is an impossible ability by your argument so far.

Notice he said he will "assume" and does not assert that is, in fact, what you mean. There is the crux of the argument. Assuming an interpretation =/= the actual intention. You could, very well have, intended to say "does". We do not know, but only assume. That is the definition of RAI. An assumption, based on fact (RAW) but that could very well be incorrect, and only the person who wrote the statement in the first place knows for sure.

No, that's not correct at all. You keep trying to force that opinion on me and I've corrected you many times. I'm done.

So how do you think the rules are created. You say they are not what the design team designed. So how are they created? Who's ideas are they? You repeatedly refuse to state this. Which just illustrates how bizarre your definition of the rules and how they are created is.

To be honest I'm shocked anyone thinks the rules aren't what GW designed.

They are what GW designed. That does not mean that every rule stated in the book is written and interpreted in a way that was *intended*. In those cases, logic ensues and we assume what was intended. However, as I have pointed out, what we assume was intended is NOT always the case. Just because *we* think it is clear, does not make it so. Only the person(s) who wrote the rule know their true intention.

Asking "who created the rules" over and over again is irrelevant. The rules are as written. In some (or many) cases, those rules are written poorly and the true intent of them is not clear. This is where RAI, or rather *our assumption and interpretation of what the designer was intending* comes in. RAI is not necessarily correct. Ergo, RAI must be house ruled and is therefore not actually GW rules until those who created them state otherwise.

"Deliberately breaking the rules" and "cheating" aren't equivalent, anyway. The dictionary widget suggests cheating is "acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage." You can break the rules without doing it dishonestly, unfairly or in order to gain an advantage. So no, deliberately breaking the rules is not cheating. You can deliberately break the rules in order to cheat, but they are not the same thing.

Is anyone actually taking this thread seriously? This entire argument is so bizarre that I'm beginning to think I'm in the Twilight Zone... Following the rules is now apparently cheating, up is down, the sky is pink'... Next someone will say Crisis suits can take 3 of the same weapon... oh wait... :-)

 FlingitNow wrote:

What you intended and what happened are two different things. Funny thing that. Also, you literally changed what someone else said to make them look silly. Reported.

It wasn't to make them look silly it was pointing out what they had said.

That's a lie. You're the only one who thinks that "the rules" and RAI are equivalent. Pushing that view on others is dishonest.

It hasn't ever been debunked. Ever. Except by your farcical hallucination example.

So it hasn't been be bunked except when it was de bunked.

Guys stop feeding him!

Pyrian wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No I respond with "Yes" and know exactly why he doesn't find it helpful.

So, to translate that back to rules terms, you know exactly what the RaI is, you just don't care, because they should've written the rules better.

 Makutsu wrote:
No one knows what was GW's intention when designing the rules period.

I'm sorry, but that's bunk. There are plenty of cases where the RaI is abundantly clear and the RaW is absent, contradictory, or ambiguous. Certainly there are also cases where RaI is unclear, but to claim that you can never figure out the RaI is silly.

This would be an acceptable argument, if gw had not set RaI on it's ear with some of their faq rulings.

I mean, there were/are rules as written that were/are unplayable and it was obvious what the intent was. Then we would come to find out thru a faq that we had no clue what gw's intent actually was because they would rule something completely outside of RaI, let alone RaW.

So let's put the egos aside. While it may be 'obvious' to some, it is absolutely foolish to think that intent is the same as written.

Where this game and gw is concerned, it's not even close at times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld I am not stating that people who disagree with my interpretation of RaI are cheating. You are claiming that knowing RaI is impossible. But if you claim that then the same is also true of RaW.

Here's the break down. We both agree deliberately breaking the rules is cheating (obviously not counting where you and your opponent have agreed a house rule).

I therefore state that deliberately breaking RaI is cheating.

Because:

Premise 1: deliberately breaking the rules is cheating.
Premise 2: The rules are what GW designed (known as RaI)

If you disagree with Premise 2. Please tell me what parts are incorrect.

Because gw has created faq's that have completely gone against rai, then turned around and reversed their ruling 3 months later that ingnored their original faq, raw and rai.

This is not a hallucination, me being a 'cheater' or anything else. This is a documented fact!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld: I left out what wasn't relevant and your full post is still there for everyone to see. I'm not intending to change what you've said.

But you did. By design and intent.

Because according to you, that goes hand in hand.

One would have to conclude, based on your argument, you are cheating to win this debate.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So how do you think the rules are created. You say they are not what the design team designed. So how are they created? Who's ideas are they? You repeatedly refuse to state this. Which just illustrates how bizarre your definition of the rules and how they are created is.

To be honest I'm shocked anyone thinks the rules aren't what GW designed.

I'm shocked if you honestly don't understand the point that you are deliberately misrepresenting.

To put it really simplisticly:

If I intend to write 'You can not have a cookie' but I actually write 'You can have a cookie', and then I post that on the kitchen bulletin board as my Kitchen Rule #1, then despite that fact that I am the designer of the Kitchen Rules, the rule as it currently exists is not at all what I intended it to be.


Because of the fairly loose writing style of Games Workshop's games, this sort of thing happens from time to time. In some cases, (such as the previous Rapid Fire rules where you were technically only forbidden from charging after shooting if your weapon intended to assault somebody) it's easy to tell when what they wrote isn't what they meant. In other cases, not so easy, and all we have to go on is personal opinion as to what they probably meant, until they get around to FAQing it... if they ever do.

But until they do, all we ultimately have to base our games on is the written rule. RAI is not 'the rules'... it's 'the rules as they were intended to be'. There is absolutely no guarantee, ever, that what was intended is what actually made it onto the page, or that what was intended when the rule was written is how the studio currently feel it should be played.

The rules are what is written in the rulebook. That's what a rulebook is.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.

If there were any truth to your argument, it would not be 'often', it would be 100% true. Every. Single. Time.

You can play 40k how ever you want. It is only breaking a rule when both players don't agree on the way you are playing. Cheating only happens when you break the rules for your advantage.

For example: Before the game my opponent informs me his list is 1501 pts. He could not cut it down to 1500. I agree that it is okay and we play. No rules are broken and he is not cheating. Against another opponent, I ask to see his list he clearly has 1501 pts worth of models. Because I was not informed about this beforehand and did not say it is okay, he is clearly cheating.

Now not all issues are this simple but it is the same thing. If you feel something about your army is RAI bring it up before the match and have everyone agree on it. Jotww did not effect jet pack units in 5th and RAI it should not in 6th because they can jet pack out of a hole in the earth. RAW jet pack infantry are infantry and effected by things that effect infantry so they can be hit by jotww. It is not cheating if you bring this up before the game and both agree jet pack infantry is not effected. It is cheating if your opponent targets your jet pack infantry with jotww and you say it doesn't work.

 lambsandlions wrote:
For example: Before the game my opponent informs me his list is 1501 pts. He could not cut it down to 1500.

Because his codex only contains a single unit, and that unit has a base cost of 1501 points...?

 insaniak wrote:

 lambsandlions wrote:
For example: Before the game my opponent informs me his list is 1501 pts. He could not cut it down to 1500.

Because his codex only contains a single unit, and that unit has a base cost of 1501 points...?

Nope. HQ - 501 pts (base), Troop 1 - 500 pts (base), Troop 2 - 500 pts (base).

 insaniak wrote:

 lambsandlions wrote:
For example: Before the game my opponent informs me his list is 1501 pts. He could not cut it down to 1500.

Because his codex only contains a single unit, and that unit has a base cost of 1501 points...?

Yes great example of RAW vs RAI. It was obvious that the intent on the example was that the player's list was 1 point over and did not want to cut anything from his list. But the way it was written was he was physically unable to construct an army with less than 1500pts.

Just reposting this since it is one of the best posts I have read on Dakka and seems to apply to this thread.

 yakface wrote:

With that said, there is also another incorrect assertion being made that is the notion that there is one 'correct' RAW interpretation of the rules and any deviation from this is just 'house rules'. There are surely such things as house rules (where people willingly choose to change the rules for their games), but that should *not* be confused with a nebulous situation being answered in a way that you don't personally agree with.

The myth of 'RAW' stems from the fact that some people incorrectly believe that language is like mathematics and there is one true way to interpret it. When in reality, language by its very nature has multiple interpretations and meanings that can be studied and argued over. Words often have multiple meanings...sometimes these words are defined within the framework of the game, but even then there can be situations where it is unclear whether the author is using that word in context of its game-defined meaning or one of its other 'real world' definitions. Similarly, the meaning of a sentence or paragraph can change dramatically based on simple grammatical changes, its placement in a paragraph, the paragraph's placement within the page, etc. All those meanings only exist in so much as any group of people can agree to see them that way, and that includes the author of the writing themselves.

For example, a tiny proportion of gamers can read a passage and say: 'this is the RIGHT way to play based on what this passage says', but if 95% of other gamers don't read that passage the same way it doesn't matter how correct that 5% says their reading is or how much they stamp their feet on the floor, they generally aren't going to get to play like that. And the same principles apply to the authors of the text as well. Often we argue about the grammatical intricacies of a sentence acting as though the author is a robot who understands the golden rules of grammar perfectly and never makes mistakes. But again the reality is that authors are people to, who have different levels of understanding about grammar just like we all do, and of course sometimes they just make mistakes.

This is likely evidenced by the amount of FAQ answers by GW (not 'errata' or 'amendments') that seem to go against what many people perceive to be the RAW. Clearly to the author of the text (or at least to the author of the FAQ) the RAW do not seem to match the RAW that many of us interpret the text to be. The one, stone-cold truth is that nobody plays by the 'RAW' because there is no such thing as the 'RAW'...only the rules that people happen to interpret the same. The more clear and simple rules are, the more likely they are to be interpreted the same by different people. The more complex and confusing they are, the more likely they are to be interpreted differently by different people.

The Deathwing Assault situation is not a case where the people writing the Adepticon FAQ decided to say: 'how can we create a house rule?' It IS a nebulous situation that has been submitted to be answered because it is nebulous. If you were to take a poll asking people how they think it should be played (if one hasn't already been created), I'm sure you would find a fairly big divide because it is nebulous.

Even if you happen to think the RAW on a particular issue are crystal clear, if there is any kind of sizable divide on players reading the rules on how it is supposed to be played (I'd personally say that if at least 20-25% of players interpret a rule differently then its probably not that clear), then you can rest assured that the 'RAW' are *not* clear in this case, in that they don't provide a clear definitive way to play that everyone can agree on.

That is a good and very applicable post. I felt like that was part of the OP's point for a while - that there is no one true RAW because the language is subjective, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to follow it slavishly and say that anyone who does so is cheating or making house rules (though perhaps that is off base here, as even if people on YMDC are happy to argue that you can't shoot with no eyes I don't think anyone would play it that way).

Given puma713's reposting of yakface's excellent statement, this thread ought to be locked for no other reason than it couldn't possibly serve any additional purpose is being around.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I apologies and will correct my typo.


I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable.

I highlighted the relevent part here. You have this backwards. RAI, are *NOT* "The Rules," they are people's interpretations of the rules, or "How I would Play it." These are unofficial.
RAW, or the rules how they are written, *ARE* "The Rules." The final say, the have all end all and be all of "The Rules" are the words printed in the rule book, codices, and FAQs.

The perfect example (and someone brought it up earlier in the thread) is the quad gun. RAW in the BRB states that any model in base contact with the quad gun may fire it. While it was apparent that they mean any infantry model, the rules did not specify that. If someone had their rhino touching the quad gun, they could ABSOLUTELY have said rhino fire the quad gun, and they would ABSOLUTELY NOT be cheating. The rules were written in black and white, plain as day. Now, because that was not their intent, the added the addendum that only non-vehicle models may fire the gun in the most recent BRB FAQ.

This is the part you are missing here. Only what is WRITTEN matters. RAW are "The Rules" of the game. Even if you believe that the intent of the authors is clear, nothing matters until it is WRITTEN into the rules.

 Cheesedoodler wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I apologies and will correct my typo.


I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable.

I highlighted the relevent part here. You have this backwards. RAI, are *NOT* "The Rules," they are people's interpretations of the rules, or "How I would Play it." These are unofficial.
RAW, or the rules how they are written, *ARE* "The Rules." The final say, the have all end all and be all of "The Rules" are the words printed in the rule book, codices, and FAQs.

The perfect example (and someone brought it up earlier in the thread) is the quad gun. RAW in the BRB states that any model in base contact with the quad gun may fire it. While it was apparent that they mean any infantry model, the rules did not specify that. If someone had their rhino touching the quad gun, they could ABSOLUTELY have said rhino fire the quad gun, and they would ABSOLUTELY NOT be cheating. The rules were written in black and white, plain as day. Now, because that was not their intent, the added the addendum that only non-vehicle models may fire the gun in the most recent BRB FAQ.

This is the part you are missing here. Only what is WRITTEN matters. RAW are "The Rules" of the game. Even if you believe that the intent of the authors is clear, nothing matters until it is WRITTEN into the rules.

I disagree. In the situation above Rhino on quad gun the intent is quite obvious. Now, if the intent is obvious to both players yet a side wants to do it anyway this is the very definition of cheating. If it is debatable then it is a different matter.

cheating
Verb

1. Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: "she cheats at cards".
2. Deceive or trick.

The rules are not always perfect and sometimes theres valid oposing interpretations to those. Here we debate RAW, which is fine, sometimes we agree with interpretations, sometimes we do not. But all that matters is how we decide to play when we come to the table.

If I intend to write 'You can not have a cookie' but I actually write 'You can have a cookie', and then I post that on the kitchen bulletin board as my Kitchen Rule #1, then despite that fact that I am the designer of the Kitchen Rules, the rule as it currently exists is not at all what I intended it to be.

No the rule is you can't have a cookie. However you'd have little recourse against anyone who broke it because there was no reasonable way for them to know that. Interesting if that was a law I could still be prosecuted for taking a cookie.

But until they do, all we ultimately have to base our games on is the written rule. RAI is not 'the rules'... it's 'the rules as they were intended to be'. There is absolutely no guarantee, ever, that what was intended is what actually made it onto the page, or that what was intended when the rule was written is how the studio currently feel it should be played.

I agree with the paragraph before this but not your conclusion here. Whilst I agree that what makes it onto the page is often not was intended this does not change that intention.

Because gw has created faq's that have completely gone against rai, then turned around and reversed their ruling 3 months later that ingnored their original faq, raw and rai.

What does this tell us? It tells us they make mistakes in their FaQs. It also tells me you don't understand the difference between RaI and your interpretation if RaI. Every FAQ tells us RaI but sometimes that RaI is something we couldn or didn't work out.

With that said, there is also another incorrect assertion being made that is the notion that there is one 'correct' RAW interpretation of the rules and any deviation from this is just 'house rules'. There are surely such things as house rules (where people willingly choose to change the rules for their games), but that should *not* be confused witha nebulous situation being answered in a way that you don't personally agree with.

The myth of 'RAW' stems from the fact that some people incorrectly believe that language is like mathematics and there is one true way to interpret it. When in reality, language by its very nature has multiple interpretations and meanings that can be studied and argued over. Words often have multiple meanings...sometimes these words are defined within the framework of the game,but even then there can be situations where it is unclear whether the author is using that word in context of its game-defined meaning or one of its other 'real world' definitions. Similarly, the meaning of asentence or paragraph can change dramatically based on simple grammatical changes, its placement in a paragraph, the paragraph's placement within the page, etc. All those meanings only exist in so much as any group of people can agree to see them that way, and that includes the author of the writing themselves.

For example, a tiny proportion of gamers can read apassage and say: 'this is the RIGHT way to play based on what this passage says', but if 95% of other gamers don't read that passage the same way it doesn't matter how correct that 5% says their reading is or how much they stamp their feet on the floor, they generally aren't going to get to play like that. Andthe same principles apply to the authors of the text as well. Often we argue about the grammatical intricacies of asentence acting as though the author is arobot who understands the golden rules of grammar perfectly and never makes mistakes. But again the reality is that authors are people to, who have different levels of understanding about grammar just like we all do, and of course sometimes they just make mistakes.

This is likely evidenced by the amount of FAQ answers by GW (not 'errata' or 'amendments') that seem to go against what many people perceive to be the RAW. Clearly tothe author of the text (or at least to the author of the FAQ) the RAW do not seem to match the RAW that many of us interpret the text to be. The one, stone-cold truth is that nobody plays by the 'RAW' because there is no such thing as the 'RAW'...only the rules that people happen to interpret the same. The more clear and simple rules are,the more likely they are to be interpreted the same by different people. The more complex and confusing they are, the more likely they are to be interpreted differently by different people.

The Deathwing Assault situation is not a case where the people writing the Adepticon FAQ decided to say: 'how can we create a house rule?' It IS a nebulous situation that has been submitted to be answered because it is nebulous. If you were to take a poll asking people how they think it should be played (if one hasn't already been created), I'm sure you would find a fairly big divide because it is nebulous.

Even if you happen to think the RAW on a particular issue are crystal clear, if there is any kind of sizable divide on players reading the rules on how it is supposed to be played (I'd personally say that if at least 20-25% of players interpret a rule differently then its probably not that clear), then you can rest assured that the 'RAW' are *not* clear in this case, in that they don't provide a clear definitive way to play that everyone can agree on.

QFT

Fling - no you couldnt. Well, they could prosecute, but you could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that they broke the rules. BEcause they didnt.

Your belief is not the same as fact. You appear to be blind to that.

Fling - no you couldnt. Well, they could prosecute, but you could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that they broke the rules. BEcause they didnt.

Actually I would need to prove is they took a cookie. He couldn't even use the defence of not knowing because ignorance of the law is no defence. Though granted the law would have to have been agreed by the people to be no taking cookies, but whether it was written down as that or not is irrelevant in law.

I assume, from the above, you have no training in law.

Yes, the spirit of the law can be used in some cases, however ni this case there was no way to know the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law was NOT broken, a prosecution would NOT succeed.

Have you worked out yet that you can only assume RAI whereas with RAW you can know? Or is the difference between "knowing" and "assuming" somethin you are unaware of?

 shamikebab wrote:
Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

Simply this.No more,no less.

reported

 FlingitNow wrote:
No the rule is you can't have a cookie. However you'd have little recourse against anyone who broke it because there was no reasonable way for them to know that.

Well then you've lost me, because so far this entire thread has seemed to be about the fact that you feel that it is unreasonable for people to not know when what GW wrote doesn't match what you think they meant.

Let me give you a better example of note:

The new Tau flyer with the bomb, it doesnt say it have a bomb in its wargear and people went butts over head on how it cant do a bombing run because it says so in the wargear, it does however have the generator and it was another butts over head discussion wereever this was THE weapon or not ( as a weapon its told in the introduction that every weapon have enough ammo to start with to last the game, unless otherwise specified )

So its obvious that the RAI is that you can start with a bomb, and make a new one on a 2+, however will it be breaking the rules by actually allowing it to bomb, or is it so important that this bomber is in essence useless to its owner?

As for "breaking" the rules, i will class this example rather as "playing another game than your oppoment", basically if you dont agree to the rule, you two are basically not playing the same game and thus its why we have TOs to make sure everyone playing the same game.

As for actually breaking the rules, its hiding dice throws, going over point limits, using weapons you dont have in your list, and generally lying of stats and special rules is more considered as cheating rather than the previous example which is a disagreement on the set of rules.

In some cases the intent is pretty obvious (Wraithlords shooting, the Tau bomber) and in those cases following the literal RAW isnt the right way to play.

That's not what Fling is saying. He's saying that RAI is always knowable and playing anything but his interpretation is cheating.

MarkyMark wrote:

 shamikebab wrote:
Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

Exalted.

As above, if you cant work it out either by yourself or with your opponent agree with them how you both want to proceed, roll a die if needed.

This.

When you play a game of 40k, you so so by using the rules as presented in the rulebook. For the vast majority of the rules, it is clear what the rules mean, and what they intend because they are written in good english.
You cannot go far wrong if you follow the rules as written, because, assuming both you and your opponent can read, you can both read the same rule, and assuming the rule is well written, you will both read the same meaning. This is the fundamental basis of the game, you both follow the rules as written.

Where differences of opinion usually arise is when the rules are not well written and cause confusion. in these cases you usually discuss with your oponent before the game what you both think the intent of the rules is, and if you cannot reach a consensus, you roll off.
A problem usually arises when one player is determined they are 'right' and their opponent is wrong, in which case conflict arises, and this is usually the case where the rules as written, and the rules as intended, are ambiguous and not clear.

One example that springs to mind is the Death ray on the Doom Scythe. The rules in the necron codex state i can fire the beam 'anywhere' within 12 inches, the rules in the BRB state that you can only shoot within LOS. The Fluff for the doomscythe states that the death ray is turret mounted, but in the model it is quite obviously a fixed weapon.
Obviously there are multiple interpretations of how the Death Ray works in game, but these interpretations are based on an individuals own reading of the rules, and therefore their own interpretations of how the weapon was intended to be fired.

Another example would be (necrons again) the relationship between royal court members attached to units, and their relationship to the units they are in and to the ghost arks repair barge rule.
The rules are a very grey area because you have to know if the character becomes scoring, does he become a member of the unit, do the rules for characters leading units then apply to him, does he count as an upgrade? and so forth. Since the rules are not clear, we are forced to interpret them to the best of our ability, and in this case, since the rules as written are badly written, it becomes a case of how i think the rules were intended to be written, versus how you think they were intended to be written. in this case, both interpretations (they are, or are not, members of the unit, and so count, or do not count, as members of the unit for all purposes) have a firm basis in the rules because i can reference arguments from the BRB for both sides. What is not clear is the intent.

With all rules, whether well written or badly written, only the person or persons who wrote the rules know what they intended. In most cases the meaning and intent are one and the same:

'Models move up to 6" in the movement phase.'
BRB pg 10

It is clear my models can be moved up to 6 inches in the movement phase, i can move them less, but i cant move them more, unless they have special rules that are an exception (exceptions, pg 9)

when a rule is badly written (Death Ray, Repair barge, Tau Bomber) several players can form a different opinion of how the rule works, and this is the fundamental problem with badly written rules, because no-one except the guy who wrote the rules knows what they intended the rules to do. it may be clear to you how you think the rules work, but someone else may come to an entirely different conclusion with the same rule, and the same references.
This is the problem with RAW versus RAI, and why RAW is favoured over RAI. RAI is only generally used when the RAW obviously don't work, and RAI are just personal opinions of how you think the rules were intended to be written.

rigeld2 wrote:
In some cases the intent is pretty obvious (Wraithlords shooting, the Tau bomber) and in those cases following the literal RAW isnt the right way to play.

That's not what Fling is saying. He's saying that RAI is always knowable and playing anything but his interpretation is cheating.

THis.

RAI is, by definition, unknowable, as it is something you have to assume. You can be pretty sure of what you think they meant, but unless you ARE the designer you cannot KNOW RAI. Unless Flign is claiming to be *all* of the design studio, making a claim that you can "know" RAI is, strictly, a lie.

Whereas you can KNOW the written rules, even if by knowing you realise they are perhaps not what the person wanted to express.

None of this alters that Flings absurd premise that breaking RAI is cheating (as they have claimed RAI == rules, we'll go with that to prove their absurdity) is just that - absurd.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Whereas you can KNOW the written rules,...

...with the caveat expressed so eloquently by Yakface that everyone's interpretation of those written rules may differ. What you 'know' may not be what he next guy 'knows'.

Which is exactly where so many of the arguments over RAW come from.

The Deathwing assault rule was a hotly contested RAI... this alone proves that RAI are in no way THE RULES.

RAW are the only rules you can 100% follow. sometimes these rules are unclear and you must agree with an opponent or roll off.. which is also RAW.

I think that RAI, made by rational and sensible people, usually are the correct assumption. My entire career field, engineering, is founded about following written technical codes for various fields of study (ASHRAE, NEC, etc.) and then using your best judgement in interpretation and applying them. There are courses, subject matter experts and panels, but sometimes, you're making a sound technical judgement.

I know on a great deal of these "rules debates" that stem on Dakka are proliferated usually by one individual trying to gain an advantage (or destroy someone elses advantage they don't like) and it getting shot down. BUT then you have this crowd possy up and say "Well, you'll never know what they thought, vis a vis play it broken, etc."

Well, I'm sorry, but that's a load of hogwash. Use your brain, make a valid assumption and move on. Bouncing flying monstrous creatures, necron flyers and the dudes inside, etc. I'm not a fortune teller, but I called 'em. Being halfway reasonable without going to the fallacy of "Oh, we'd never know their intent so, therefore, play this thing in an asinine way and let's argue about for 20 pages." We all play 40K and probably a lot of other games. We may have been through multiple rules renditions, rewrites, codecis, etc. You can make a pretty sound judgement and move on. And yes, I have packed up my little army men and stopped playing games because people want to stamp their feet on stupid rules matters.

(And yes, there are some just poorly blasted rules that require a dice off or house rule until a FAQ, but more often then not, the FAQ is written with such a forehead slapping tone or simply "No," or "Yes," that you can FEEL the author rolling their eyes out of their sockets. Be realistic.)

 TheKbob wrote:
Well, I'm sorry, but that's a load of hogwash. Use your brain, make a valid assumption and move on. Bouncing flying monstrous creatures, necron flyers and the dudes inside, etc. I'm not a fortune teller, but I called 'em.

Cool story bro. Swarms and ID? Warphead ruling being flip-flopped? SitW being flip flopped? Did you call those?

Could you try not to talk down to people who enjoy debating rules for just a minute? That'd be great.

I think that we all understand the idea of RAI and we all prob use a lot of RAI

the argument here is that some people think RAI are the same as RAW. which they simply are not.

rigeld2 wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Well, I'm sorry, but that's a load of hogwash. Use your brain, make a valid assumption and move on. Bouncing flying monstrous creatures, necron flyers and the dudes inside, etc. I'm not a fortune teller, but I called 'em.

Cool story bro. Swarms and ID? Warphead ruling being flip-flopped? SitW being flip flopped? Did you call those?

Could you try not to talk down to people who enjoy debating rules for just a minute? That'd be great.

Enjoy debating? Sure. Enjoy. Being asinine to the T. No? And if you imply my tone as talking down to you, I suppose that's your take on it. I'm just surprised (but not really) when some of these debates go on for 20 pages when the obvious answer is already stated, but you have folks debating for "debates sake," bringing up the thought "We'd never know what they intended!" Then it gets FAQ'd and they slither away.

I gave examples of pretty clear cut ones. The latter two I have know idea what you're talking about, the former; nuke some bugs. I don't really care how'd that play out, either way, the swarm will die super fast, just now determines "how fast". The reason why that probably isn't FAQ'd yet it is being play tested. I could see it going either way, but really, given the amount of swarms seen... yah know, all those rippers!... it's not a big deal. Dice off on those hard to call ones and press forward (which I stated in my last post). Didn't realized this just got FAQ'd. Neat. Didn't really care either way on that one.

As with my technical judgement I have to make, you gather the facts, make an educated call, employ said strategy and observe. If you make the wrong call, correct. More often than not, you're either able to tell one of two things: A) you chose wrong because it's straight BROKE, B) it doesn't cause a major impact in either way, shrug it off and move on.

This saves a super long forum post about nothing but people getting their behinds hurt, excessive moderation and nothing in result.

EDIT: Seen folks walk from tournaments, too, based on "internet" calls. One actually said FMC bounced. Saw daemons players look across at one another going "Are you serious?!" Great that was announced AFTER everyone had already registered and paid. Good times!

That's not what Fling is saying. He's saying that RAI is always knowable and playing anything but his interpretation is cheating.

So who's deliberately mis representing now? I repeatedly said that often the RaI is unknowable, in fact I illustrated that nothing is truly know able. I've never said that playing something other than my interpretation is cheating. I've said that deliberately breaking what you believe to be the RaI is cheating. For instance I was convinced the RaI for Crisis suits was if you bought 2 weapons you paid the 2nd cost and got a twin linked one. Other people were convinced (correctly) that this rule was just clarifying what that 2nd point cost was for. Thus if I had a suit with 2 singular plasma rifles Id have trying to cheat. But another player would not have been.

What you and nos and insaniak are saying is that because
RaW is absolute and know able it is the rules and what GW designed is not. As I and Yakface (via a quote) have illustrated is that RaW is neither singular nor knowable. RaI on the other hand is singular but even less know able. However RaI is by definition the game that GW designed. If you agree to play an opponent in 40000 that is what you are agreeing to play. So if you think the RaI is completely unknowable for all rules you'll have to tell your opponent this and agree how to proceed (for instance following RaW in all cases or changing it as you both agree).

But if you disagree with RaI = The Rules you are disagreeing that the GW design team designed the rules. Which begs the question (which none of you have answered) who the shell do you think created the rules? An inanimate object? Or were they created simply by chance.

 TheKbob wrote:
I know on a great deal of these "rules debates" that stem on Dakka are proliferated usually by one individual trying to gain an advantage (or destroy someone elses advantage they don't like) and it getting shot down.

They're really not. From my experience (and I've been hanging around this form for more than 10 years now) those rules debates are most often the result of one individual who is unsure of how a rule works, and peopel subsequently disagreeing on what the specific wording actually means.

It's really easy to assume that people arguing for a ruling that you disagree with are just looking for some advantage for themselves, but that's not usually the case.

Use your brain, make a valid assumption and move on.

Which is great for keeping the game moving when you are standing at the table, but somewhat misses the point of rules discussions. The whole point of this forum is to help people to understand the rules of the game better... which makes them better equipped to make those 'valid assumptions'.

Bouncing flying monstrous creatures, necron flyers and the dudes inside, etc. I'm not a fortune teller, but I called 'em.

Good for you? There have been any number of other grey areas over the years where GW have ruled against what seemed like the most sensible approach. And plenty of others where they have ruled one way to begin with, and then changed their minds later.

It's not always as simple as going for the result that makes the most sense to you. If only because it's just as likely that your next opponent will think that a different answer is the one that makes the most sense.

 FlingitNow wrote:

That's not what Fling is saying. He's saying that RAI is always knowable and playing anything but his interpretation is cheating.

So who's deliberately mis representing now? I repeatedly said that often the RaI is unknowable, in fact I illustrated that nothing is truly know able. I've never said that playing something other than my interpretation is cheating. I've said that deliberately breaking what you believe to be the RaI is cheating. For instance I was convinced the RaI for Crisis suits was if you bought 2 weapons you paid the 2nd cost and got a twin linked one. Other people were convinced (correctly) that this rule was just clarifying what that 2nd point cost was for. Thus if I had a suit with 2 singular plasma rifles Id have trying to cheat. But another player would not have been.

What you and nos and insaniak are saying is that because
RaW is absolute and know able it is the rules and what GW designed is not. As I and Yakface (via a quote) have illustrated is that RaW is neither singular nor knowable. RaI on the other hand is singular but even less know able. However RaI is by definition the game that GW designed. If you agree to play an opponent in 40000 that is what you are agreeing to play. So if you think the RaI is completely unknowable for all rules you'll have to tell your opponent this and agree how to proceed (for instance following RaW in all cases or changing it as you both agree).

But if you disagree with RaI = The Rules you are disagreeing that the GW design team designed the rules. Which begs the question (which none of you have answered) who the shell do you think created the rules? An inanimate object? Or were they created simply by chance.

Having just read Ayn Rand and all this talk about "unknowable" stuff is kind of unnerving.

It's a plastic army men game. Knowing the rules is quite easy. Making sound and reasonable decisions on rules disputes is also capable given experience and a solid foundation in the fundamentals (i.e. those rules you know). Logic and reason are things to be used. Also, the ability to admit mistakes is good too. However, sometimes GW doesn't like using it's own foundations/history and FAQ things outta left field, sorry Tyranids, Eldar, DA...

Also, Imotek's lightning hits flyers. Finally, clarification on that in the "no duh" category.

And you have valid points Insaniak. However, I think these arguements negatively impact a person's ability rationalize, versus nurture. And they do devolve into arguments or a moderation staff wouldn't be necessary. Yea, GW makes some dumb calls that leave a lot of us head scratching, but more often than not, they make the one founded within the logic of their gaming convention/current ruleset.

I'm not always right, but when people base their decisions on either "I feel..." or "We can never know the intent!" you know you're no longer rationally discussing a situation. My assumptions are either "dice off" for those super vague ones, or point out facts. Then if there is still a disagreement, I weight how big of a game breaking issue the disagreement is and move on. Having all my dudes spill out from a nightscythe and taking S10 hits was a big one for me. Imotek being able to hit flyers has been another. Pick and choose your battles, I suppose.

 FlingitNow wrote:
What you and nos and insaniak are saying is that because
RaW is absolute and know able it is the rules and what GW designed is not.

I don't recall having ever said that.

As I and Yakface (via a quote) have illustrated is that RaW is neither singular nor knowable.

Yeah, that's not what Yakface was saying, either. The quoted post was stating that RAW is not always singular, yes. But knowable? Of course it is. You know what the RAW is by reading the text. It's just that someone else may have a different RAW based on their reading of the text.

All he is saying is that RAW may be different to everybody, not that it's impossible to know what the RAW is.

RaI on the other hand is singular but even less know able. However RaI is by definition the game that GW designed.

Which doesn't make it the game as they currently intend it to be played.

That is defined by the rulebook and the FAQs.

But if you disagree with RaI = The Rules you are disagreeing that the GW design team designed the rules.

No you're not. You're disagree that what they wrote was exactly what they intended.

Which begs the question (which none of you have answered) who the shell do you think created the rules?

Nobody has answered it because it's a logical fallacy that you created yourself by choosing your own narrow definition of 'the rules'.

Nobody is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules don't always match what was intended.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I know on a great deal of these "rules debates" that stem on Dakka are proliferated usually by one individual trying to gain an advantage (or destroy someone elses advantage they don't like) and it getting shot down.

They're really not. From my experience (and I've been hanging around this form for more than 10 years now) those rules debates are most often the result of one individual who is unsure of how a rule works, and peopel subsequently disagreeing on what the specific wording actually means.

It's really easy to assume that people arguing for a ruling that you disagree with are just looking for some advantage for themselves, but that's not usually the case.

I have to agree. I find the best way to know the rules is to know what landmines are currently in the rules and be able to articulate the ambiguity or the multiple positions. By knowing the hotspots and being able to identify them, I can look at an opponent's army and say 'so how do you expect this specific rule to work?' where we can ask a judge pre-game or come to an agreement or roll-off before models are moved.

I define cheating not when someone plays a rule wrong, or there is a disagreement, but when the disagreement has been resolved, either by agreement, dice-roll, 3rd party, FAQ or Judge... and then the person who now *KNOWS* how the rule needs to be resolved for that game/event moving forward, for them to quickly change back to an alternate ruling or interpretation as soon as they can get away with it.

Example: A necron air force player tries to use 180 degree vertical fire arcs at a tourney. He gets away with it for game 1. Game 2 there is a disagreement where a judge intervenes, explains how fire arcs work and how this tourney enforces it, the rest of game 2 is played with the correct fire arcs. Game 3 happens, the Necron player is back to 180 degree vertical fire arcs and placing models and shooting based upon that. His opponent doesn't call him on it, but the person KNOWS BETTER and was given direction by a judge how the rule needs to be played for that event.

That is cheating. There is knowledge and intent behind it. A Good sport should take this education on how a rule works they were misplaying and address it moving forward. If they run into another point of view, they should strive to clarify whenever they use said rule int he future, not to exploit, but to head off issues.

nkelsch wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I know on a great deal of these "rules debates" that stem on Dakka are proliferated usually by one individual trying to gain an advantage (or destroy someone elses advantage they don't like) and it getting shot down.

They're really not. From my experience (and I've been hanging around this form for more than 10 years now) those rules debates are most often the result of one individual who is unsure of how a rule works, and peopel subsequently disagreeing on what the specific wording actually means.

It's really easy to assume that people arguing for a ruling that you disagree with are just looking for some advantage for themselves, but that's not usually the case.

I have to agree. I find the best way to know the rules is to know what landmines are currently in the rules and be able to articulate the ambiguity or the multiple positions. By knowing the hotspots and being able to identify them, I can look at an opponent's army and say 'so how do you expect this specific rule to work?' where we can ask a judge pre-game or come to an agreement or roll-off before models are moved.

I define cheating not when someone plays a rule wrong, or there is a disagreement, but when the disagreement has been resolved, either by agreement, dice-roll, 3rd party, FAQ or Judge... and then the person who now *KNOWS* how the rule needs to be resolved for that game/event moving forward, for them to quickly change back to an alternate ruling or interpretation as soon as they can get away with it.

I definately agree from the "know thy enemy" stand point on hot topic rules debates. I'm just asking they stay civil and the folks who do agree with a specific outcome, but throw up their hands and say "we can never know!" because we aren't the writers should be chastised or stop providing their input as it only contributes FUD; it clouds a rational conclusion that a community can come to versus lengthy tirades that lead into strawmen, personal attacks, and general frivalty.

Trust me, just by knowing the broken rules from Dakka has made my competitive game better. And that I do appreciate.

 TheKbob wrote:
I'm not always right, but when people base their decisions on either "I feel..." or "We can never know the intent!" you know you're no longer rationally discussing a situation. My assumptions are either "dice off" for those super vague ones, or point out facts. Then if there is still a disagreement, I weight how big of a game breaking issue the disagreement is and move on. Having all my dudes spill out from a nightscythe and taking S10 hits was a big one for me. Imotek being able to hit flyers has been another. Pick and choose your battles, I suppose.

Why? It's much better than claiming we do know their intent.
How can you say that you are rationally discussing a situation when you are guessing(!) to how the writers feel about a rule?
Example: With the Swarm and ID-blast rulings, both 'sides' thought that their interpretation of the rule was how the writers intended it.

All we can do in a discussion is to use facts and the exact wording of things.
And when rules happen to break each other or if a situation isn't explained in rules, than we need a FAQ.

And this is a rules-discussion, we can't just "roll of" on a forum.
YMDC is where you come to AFTER you settled it with a "roll of" or before you play a game.

FlingitNow wrote:

What you and nos and insaniak are saying is that because
RaW is absolute and know able it is the rules and what GW designed is not.

No, we are saying that is how they have currently intended the rules to be, because that is what they wrote. Or are you stating they just randomly wrote words on a page that happened to form a ruleset? They intended to write those words, and they intended the to have that meaning. That is the rational approach.

But if you disagree with RaI = The Rules you are disagreeing that the GW design team designed the rules.

No we're not. We're saying YOU cannot KNOW RAI. "RAI" is a best guess on what they intended, and is different for everyone

Did you call SitW? No? Guess your RAI argument is bunk and can be safely ignored.

Which begs the question (which none of you have answered) who the shell do you think created the rules? An inanimate object? Or were they created simply by chance.

Of course noone has answered your fallacious argument. The reasoning why is self evident.
Yet you are claiming that they didnt intend to write the words down that they did. Are you claiming they thought of arule, and then randomly spewed rules onto a piece of paper?

The KBob - thanks for using the phrase "slithering away". Do you understand why people may think youre talking down to them?

Shadows in the Warp - first it didnt work against models embarked in a vehicle, then it did. What was your "call" there? Where was the "obvious" RAI? That was an example where we truly DIDNT know their intent after the first ruling -as noone expected that answer. Not a single thread was raised asking if it worked inside a vehicle. Then the FAQ dropped and that "best guess" was wrong - until they suddenly changed their mind again.

Necron flyers - both sides had equaly valid RAI arguments, and only one RAW argument could be made. GW then changed the written rules to something else.

You have used good arguments for resolving issues in a game. You have made a crap argument for why rules should not be discussed on this forum in the manner they are. Some rules ARE worthy of a 20 page thread (and some arent), and it is dishonest to claim you *know* the RAI, unless you are the designer of the game - you cannot know, but guess. As an engineer you should appreciate where precision is important, no?

No, we are saying that is how they have currently intended the rules to be, because that is what they wrote. Or are you stating they just randomly wrote words on a page that happened to form a ruleset? They intended to write those words, and they intended the to have that meaning. That is the rational approach.

Did you really mean that nos? So here you're no longer arguing RaI =/= The Rules your actually claiming RaI = RaW = The Rules, by stating that the exact meaning of what they wrote is what they intended it to mean. Many many FaQs would point to this not being the case. But I am glad you are finally admitting RaI = The rules, but to try to say that RaW = RaI is baffling.

No we're not. We're saying YOU cannot KNOW RAI. "RAI" is a best guess on what they intended, and is different for everyone

This sounds like you're implying I personally can't know RaI? I agree in general someone can't know RaI absolutely but the same is true of RaW. At least RaI is singular where as with RaW there are multiple answers. Whilst we will often disagree what the RaI for a given rule is this doesn't stop RaI being the rule. Which is what you are claiming.

Did you call SitW? No? Guess your RAI argument is bunk and can be safely ignored.

So because I didn't get RaI right on a rule therefore RaI =/= The Rules. Did your RaW argument get that one right too? Remember a FaQ can't change the rules by definition it just answers questions on them (errata changes rules), that is the RaW on a FaQ. The whole RaW = The Rules argument defeats itself as soon as a FaQ rules against RaW.

No you're not. You're disagree that what they wrote was exactly what they intended.

So you're saying the rules were created by accident and not by intelligent design. Yes? That the intentions, ideas that they designed are not the rules. But what was written down is the rules?

Nobody is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules don't always match what was intended.

No one is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules aren't what GW designed? That is what you are saying. The rules that the Design team thought up and agreed on are not the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The whole RaW = The Rules argument defeats itself as soon as a FaQ rules against RaW.

Have you forgotten Yakface's post already...?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So you're saying the rules were created by accident and not by intelligent design. Yes?

No, he's saying that the rules were written by people who don't always clearly write what they actually mean.

That the intentions, ideas that they designed are not the rules. But what was written down is the rules?

This, however, is correct. Regardless of what they intended, the rulebook contains the rules of the game. Once again, that's what a rulebook is.

No one is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules aren't what GW designed? That is what you are saying. The rules that the Design team thought up and agreed on are not the rules.

Why is that so hard to accept?

If the written text doesn't match the original intent... then the written text doesn't match the original intent.

Where is the issue here?

Have you forgotten Yakface's post already...?

Good point though the comment written was more against Nos' definition of RaW (that it is singular, the same for everyone and there is no arguments with it).

Why is that so hard to accept?

If the written text doesn't match the original intent... then the written text doesn't match the original intent.

Where is the issue here?

The issue is that you don't agree that the rules GW designed are the rules. At which point we are at an impasse. I am talking about 40000 a game designed bt GW. You are talking about a game that is not designed by GW so of course we're talking cross purposes.

This has got really entertaining tbh.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You are talking about a game that is not designed by GW ...

You keep saying this, but I have no idea where you are getting it from. Of course the game was designed by games workshop. That doesn't mean though that every rule that made it into the rulebook turned out exactly as they intended.

A rule not working as intended doesn't change who designed the game. It just means that they wrote a rule badly.


Maybe part of the problem you're running up against in this thread is that it's not really clear just what you hope to achieve with this discussion. Even if you do miraculously convince everyone that RAI is the true and correct version of the rules regardless of what is written in the rulebook... What then?

FlingitNow wrote:

No, we are saying that is how they have currently intended the rules to be, because that is what they wrote. Or are you stating they just randomly wrote words on a page that happened to form a ruleset? They intended to write those words, and they intended the to have that meaning. That is the rational approach.

Did you really mean that nos? So here you're no longer arguing RaI =/= The Rules your actually claiming RaI = RaW = The Rules, by stating that the exact meaning of what they wrote is what they intended it to mean. Many many FaQs would point to this not being the case. But I am glad you are finally admitting RaI = The rules, but to try to say that RaW = RaI is baffling.

I am claiming that RAW expresses their intent as to the rules, and literally IS the rules because that is the definition of the Rulebook - it contains The Rules. Or are you saying The Rules are not cotnained in the Rulebook under the heading "THE RULES"? Because the rules disagree with you there. You are claiming that the written rule is somehow NOT the intent of the designer expressed on paper, and that they just randomly wrote a set of words down rather than what they meant to write.

Again: the *rational* approach is to take the position that a rulebook containing a section called THE RULES contains "the rules" of the game as the designers and writers of these written rules intended them to appear. That is the most rational basis for understanding the ruleset.

Blindly claiming these are not "RAI" because of some personal interprettion of what you think they meant to write (which you still claim is some universal "RAI", but it isnt - it is personal to YOUR beliefs onthe rules) instead of what they did write is irrational.

FlingitNow wrote:

No we're not. We're saying YOU cannot KNOW RAI. "RAI" is a best guess on what they intended, and is different for everyone

This sounds like you're implying I personally can't know RaI?

Yes, that is exactly what I have claimed, and not implied, multiple times now. I guess you have only just connected what I intended to write with what I have actually written all these times.

You, as you are NOT the design studio, cannot know what they intended, you can only guess or have a belief.

FlingitNow wrote:I agree in general someone can't know RaI absolutely

You cannot know RAI *at all*. Ever. Unless and until you prove you are the design studio, entire, YOU personally can only ever GUESS what they intended.

Can it be an educated, informed guess? Yes. Does that mean you suddenly "know" what they intended? No, because that is a barrier your "Intent" approach can never cross, because you are reliant NOT upon the concrete, written word but your own, personal guess as to what they meant to put instead of what they actually DID put down.

This element is unarguable, and is where your entire argument is destroyed. You refuse to see this, however.

FlingitNow wrote:but the same is true of RaW.

Incorrect, as RAW has a factual, knowable basis. Unlike RAI. Or are you claiming that you are the design studio, and can therefore KNOW what the writer meant to put? Can you please admit you are NOT the design studio, so you can put this absurd fiction of "knowing" their intention to rest?

FlingitNow wrote:At least RaI is singular

Provably false, as the many, many, many, many arguments about RAI on here have shown. Because you CANNOT "know" the actual RAI, when YOU say RAI you MEAN to say "Rules as I believe they were Intended". I pointed out this conceptual problem you have a few pages back, and you never acknowledged it. Funny that.

Night scythes taking damage - 2 sides for RAI, both had reason to infer what they did, even using printed, canon material to support. Your argument is, again, invalidated.

FlingitNow wrote:where as with RaW there are multiple answers. Whilst we will often disagree what the RaI for a given rule is this doesn't stop RaI being the rule. Which is what you are claiming.

No, I am claiming that "THE RULES" are those Written in the Rulebook. Because that is what GW have expressly told us is the case. Your argument is that we should IGNORE this direction and make something else up out of thin air instead. I refute that that is a sensible position to take as a basis for a determination of how to play th e game.

FlingitNow wrote:

Did you call SitW? No? Guess your RAI argument is bunk and can be safely ignored.

So because I didn't get RaI right on a rule therefore RaI =/= The Rules. Did your RaW argument get that one right too?

I am saying YOU cannot know "RAI" so therefore any argument YOU Make based off "RAI" is bunk. The RAW *did* get that right, as the written rules agreed with the second FAQ. The first FAQ changed the rules.

FlingitNow wrote:Remember a FaQ can't change the rules by definition it just answers questions on them (errata changes rules),

Seriously, you're making THAT tired, debunked, absurd argument here? Really?

The FAQ for SitW had a Yes or No answer. It went from NO to YES. By definition one of those must have been a change to the rules. Out of Range change recently is a change to the rules.

FlingitNow wrote:that is the RaW on a FaQ. The whole RaW = The Rules argument defeats itself as soon as a FaQ rules against RaW.

Again, you are assuming that the design studio is incapable of altering their ideas on how rules should operate, based on new information. You are assuming a fixed, holistic view on all rules interactions ever, that can never be altered - a prime "I". This is clearly false.

FlingitNow wrote:

No you're not. You're disagree that what they wrote was exactly what they intended.

So you're saying the rules were created by accident and not by intelligent design. Yes? That the intentions, ideas that they designed are not the rules. But what was written down is the rules?

What they wrote down are by definition the rules. Have you opened your Rulebook, and looked at the section entitled "THE RULES" at all? THat is the express function of a rulebook - to convey the rules to the user.

Your first absurd question will not be answered, as you are incapable of debating honestly. You cannot, honestly, derive that conclusion from what I wrote. Retract your assertion and apologise

FlingitNow wrote:

Nobody is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules don't always match what was intended.

No one is arguing that GW designed the rules. Just that the rules aren't what GW designed? That is what you are saying. The rules that the Design team thought up and agreed on are not the rules.

I am arguing that the way they expressed the rules in written form, in the section entitled "THE RULES", in the rulebook you bought in order to know the rules written for this game, may not be the way they originally intended the rules to be expressed. It is, however, the rules they designed and wrote down.

You are done.

Yes, the rules were made in their minds.
But they are written on paper!

I can read paper, can you read minds?

Kangodo wrote:
Yes, the rules were made in their minds.
But they are written on paper!

I can read paper, can you read minds?

I can. Regardless of if I may.

The thing is that you have a large rulebook with a FAQ to boot, to make things to forward you can presume they go by the same way as the rest of the rulebook is going.

Thats where you can draw a reasonable RAI out of without having to go the whole "you dont know what he think" type of arguments... actually yes you can, you have a whole rulebook and the FAQ to learn about their way of thinking and you take similar rules and presume its going the same direction.

Ofcourse at times it might be wrong, but this is what you have until you hit a wall noone can answer on.

 FlingitNow wrote:

That's not what Fling is saying. He's saying that RAI is always knowable and playing anything but his interpretation is cheating.

So who's deliberately mis representing now? I repeatedly said that often the RaI is unknowable, in fact I illustrated that nothing is truly know able. I've never said that playing something other than my interpretation is cheating. I've said that deliberately breaking what you believe to be the RaI is cheating. For instance I was convinced the RaI for Crisis suits was if you bought 2 weapons you paid the 2nd cost and got a twin linked one. Other people were convinced (correctly) that this rule was just clarifying what that 2nd point cost was for. Thus if I had a suit with 2 singular plasma rifles Id have trying to cheat. But another player would not have been.

And yet...

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

So because someone disagrees with you on what's "pretty clear" you decide they're cheating.
I've misrepresented nothing.

At this point I'm wondering whether FlingitNow is unable to get his point across or simply refuses to back down until he "wins" the argument.

Ever since I've been playing WH40k, GW has FAQed pretty clear as well as completely ambiguous rules, both according to what most people saw as common sense, as well as completely opposite directions. Anyone who claims to know the intent of anything GW wrote is delusional. Even 100% clear rules have been FAQed to work completely differently, in a way no one would have expected.

Someone claiming that your tau bomber can't drop bombs is both a bad sportsman and someone you shouldn't play anymore. But he is not a cheater, because he hasn't broken any rules.

The intent of a bomber being able to drop bombs seems obvious - but there are a lot more rules around that don't work as their author intended when writing them, namely all those that got broken/altered when 6th hit. If I suddenly start shooting with Ol' Zogwort again, taking 4+ KFF saves for my vehicles (there is written evidence of Phil Kelly himself doing so) and charging with Snikrot when coming from reserves, then I'm the cheater. Not the guy asking me to play by the rules as written.

Dracoknight wrote:
The thing is that you have a large rulebook with a FAQ to boot, to make things to forward you can presume they go by the same way as the rest of the rulebook is going.

That would be true if GW showed any interest in being consistent with their FAQ rulings...

When 6th edition was released, there was absolutely no reason within the rules as given to assume that a vehicle that became immobilised without suffering a glancing or penetrating hit would lose a hull point.

Then GW released an FAQ that explained that failing a dangerous terrain roll meant becoming immobilised, and that this included losing a hull point. Which gives us a clear precedent, no? We should assume that they intended us to take a hull point off whenever a vehicle is immobilised, for the sake of consistency, surely?

Fast forward past much wailing and gnashing of teeth over what this meant for drop pods to the current FAQ, where GW have ruled that becoming immobilised without suffering a hit does not, in fact, remove a hull point... except for when running into terrain, which still stands for no apparent reason.


How about special rules and transports? The rules make it quite clear that if a unit is in a transport, you measure ranges for things that affect that unit from and to the transport vehicle. Except now we have a slowly growing number of things that rather arbitrarily don't affect units in transports, or aren't measured from the vehicle. And at least one example of something that did affect units in transports, and then didn't, and now does again. How exactly do you establish a precedent there?

We can only ever guess at RAI... and even if we guess right, there's still no guarantee that GW will actually go with that RAI if they ever issue a ruling on how it should be played. After the mess of 4th edition where they just made up rulings on the fly with no reference to anything else that was already in place (most infamously where they ruled on whether or not bikers could get the +1 CCW bonus in close combat on an army by army basis, completely arbitrarily) followed by 5th edition where they actually stated that where the RAW differed from what had been originally intended they would go with the RAW to keep things less confusing... and then followed through with that about half of the time, we come to 6th edition were they have shown rather conclusively that they have no compunction about changing rules at the drop of a hat. Was it originally intended that LoS should apply to the nearest model but somehow the message was garbled? Or did they change their minds afterwards? And if the latter, and RAI is 'the rules' then should we ignore the errata and keep playing it as per the rulebook?

Probably not. What we probably should do when we want to establish what the rules of the game are, rather than trying to imagine what the writer might have been thinking of when he wrote the rules, is just read them.

 Jidmah wrote:
At this point I'm wondering whether FlingitNow is unable to get his point across or simply refuses to back down until he "wins" the argument.

It could be one of several things I think;

a) Fling is misconstruing "RAI" to mean "Rules as Games Workshop Writers Intended" and not "Rules as we THINK Games Workshop Writers intended" (ie: RAI is apparently a GW or universal convention and not something made by the players to discuss and debate interpretations of rules as written), in which case, RAI would, in fact, be the rules. However RAI *is* a player convention and not the rules. "the rules" are what is written in the book. the *presumed* intent is discussed through RAW and RAI on these forums.

b) Fling's *intent* is unclear, and as has been pointed out nobody can know the authors intent without being the author (and this would prove that statement beyond a doubt if this is the case)

c) Fling is intentionally obtuse, in which case, successful troll is successful

d) Fling is actually obtuse, in which case everyone is banging their head against a brick wall pointlessly.

theres always going to be those funky rules people ignore or alter because it makes no sense or is very confusing. But if you dont discuss it before hand, yes it is cheating.

My local meta treats challenges separate from the rest of the combat, even though the rules say they happen simo. Reason being, it is very confusing sometimes whats going on and its VERY rare that the non-challenge units will wipe the other out before the challenging character strikes his blows, thus gaining morale support rerolls.
Totally against rules, but it makes the game go much easier/smoother/faster/whatever. But if i did that with a random person they'd go "Wait wtf you doing?"

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is that you don't agree that the rules GW designed are the rules. At which point we are at an impasse. I am talking about 40000 a game designed bt GW. You are talking about a game that is not designed by GW so of course we're talking cross purposes.

Wait..
So this big book called "Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook" with sections called 'The Rules' does not contain the rules for the game they designed?
I always knew GW was conning me with their products, but I would never guess they'd ask 60 Euro for a rulebook that does not contain the rules for the game I am playing.

FlingitNow called it guys, throw your rulebooks away! They do not explain the rules for the game they designed.

Dracoknight wrote:
The thing is that you have a large rulebook with a FAQ to boot, to make things to forward you can presume they go by the same way as the rest of the rulebook is going.

Thats where you can draw a reasonable RAI out of without having to go the whole "you dont know what he think" type of arguments... actually yes you can, you have a whole rulebook and the FAQ to learn about their way of thinking and you take similar rules and presume its going the same direction.

Ofcourse at times it might be wrong, but this is what you have until you hit a wall noone can answer on.

Which would work if GW as at *all* consistent on their rulings. You have the flip flow rulings, such as the furious charge working with counter attack and then not rule, shadow in the warp, then you have the totally unexpected rules - nids cannot use emplaced weapons, the changes to out of range, etc, and the downright bizarre ones (falchions not gaining +2A as the rules state, but only +1, making them really not worth their points, as a simple explanation)

So no, you can only make a *guess* as to what they mean, and even that guess will have a high failure rate. Hence you truly cannot "know" RAI, ever.

This is something Fling is seemingly incapable of understanding or acknowledging.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dracoknight wrote:
The thing is that you have a large rulebook with a FAQ to boot, to make things to forward you can presume they go by the same way as the rest of the rulebook is going.

Which would work if GW as at *all* consistent on their rulings.

Or even giving rulings on some things that people argue about. For example, it took until the 6th edition Eldar FAQ to make Banshee Masks work against terrain again. People had a couple editions worth of fighting over whether they worked or not - on one hand they were obviously intended to work but new rules had made them not work as they were written. And there was the rulebook FAQ where you were told that wargear etc that didn't work in the new edition just didn't work then.

I'm pretty tired of this now. You know what my responses will be to your tired arguments. Keep believing the, rules to Warhammer 40000 aren't what the design team designed. Keep believing that there's nothing wrong with intentionally breaking the rules as designed by GW. Keep believing that RaW is know able even though it has been proven to not be the case. I'm done.

Thank god.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm pretty tired of this now. You know what my responses will be to your tired arguments. Keep believing the, rules to Warhammer 40000 aren't what the design team designed. Keep believing that there's nothing wrong with intentionally breaking the rules as designed by GW. Keep believing that RaW is know able even though it has been proven to not be the case. I'm done.

Well, at least you're consistent.

You didn't bother to answer my question on just what you expected this thread to achieve, from which, along with your continued misinterpretation of the opposing points, can only lead me to conclude that all you wanted was to rile people up. Which was certainly a productive use of everyone's time...