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

There are two competing camps on the Internet with regard to reading the rules. Some people say that the rules are to be interpreted via the intentions of the designers. Others say that the rules are to be take literally. Some other people, not in any particular camp, have noticed that both of these approaches have fatal problems.

If the rules are to be interpreted via the intentions of the designers, how are we to know what their intentions are? Since we, the fans, aren't the designers or telepaths reading the minds of the designers, we don't really know what they intended. So reference to the 'designer's intentions' becomes shorthand for: 'what I think the designer's intentions were' and the camp is rightly ridiculed for reading Rules as Imagined.

If the rules are to be taken literally, that is the words on the page mean what they say, how are we to know that they say what we think they say? That's the problem with a natural language such as English: differently constructed sentences can mean the same thing, and the same sentence can be used to express different meanings. Reference to the rules as they are written is both superfluous and question begging. Written rules are always decoded from the text that expresses them. Hence if the written rules are to be interpreted as written (rather than what, spoken?) it is question begging with regard to interpretation to say that they mean what they say when what they say is in question. And if we take these rules literally, such that they say what they mean and mean what they say, then such an interpretation is semantically invalid (truth is not preserved) because it confuses a sentence with one of four possible parts it can be decomposed into.

But where the RAW camp has its gross misunderstanding of interpretation and semantics, at least it has a one-up on the RAI camp on an important point: That sentences are interpreted according to some schema. Given the uncertain status of the designer's intentions it cannot be that schema. Unfortunately the alternative given by the RAW camp, the symbols (or terms) and grammar of the sentences so expressed, is not a complete interpretative schema (one that is semantically valid and thus truth-preserving).

In order to correctly interpret a set of rules, and particularly an informally (and even badly) written set of rules, one must take the indicative sentences in question and decompose them into their respective elements: symbols, grammar, deductive apparatus, and semantic model. The symbols or terms are arranged by the grammar into aggregate terms, relations between terms, and references to the things the rules are about. Think of it like an exploded view exposing the inner workings of a sentence.

These inner views can then be compared and contrasted to see which ones agree or disagree, and which of those have undergone semantically valid decomposition (and thus can undergo semantically valid composition). The exploded sentences that have undergone semantically valid decomposition and whose decompositions still disagree means that there is genuine vagueness to the expression of the rule. This is no tragedy because it means that we can search all of the other sentences at hand for the same sort of sentence that expresses its rules clearly and without vagueness, and reiterate the components that make that sentence clear into the vague sentences. This addition will either allow those vague sentences to remain vague, or make them clear. If they remain vague then run another search, add another component, and so on, until either the rule is made clear or all possible additions from existing examples of clarity are exhausted. This indicates not that the sentence itself is vague, just that it is not well-defined (and thus clear) within the set of sentences composing the section (or chapter or book, etc) and an additional sentence is required to provide the context in which it can be well-defined.

Notice then that correctly interpreting a set of rules not only allows us to identify what is a truth-preserving interpretation and what is not, and distinguish between what is well-defined and what is vague, but also a method for identifying legitimate shortcomings in the set of sentences expressing the rules of a game and fixing it.

I notice the thread got removed from Warseer...Something about the thread getting started by a troll...

Yes, I was banned from Warseer when I noticed a large number of forum infractions that I alerted the moderators to being dismissed. When I consulted the Helpdesk to ask how I could distinguish posts that broke the rules from those that merely seemed to, I was banned for trolling, flaming, and not following forum rules. Basically they don't like reasonable discussion over on Warseer and they particularly don't like people that try to use that site as a forum for reasonable discussion. They treat constructive criticism as flaming, the methods of constructive argument as trolling, and so on. Which is a pity because despite 99% of that forum, 1% of the posters were both willing and able, and that made it good.

Given the expected response on Warseer, I thought I might see how reasonable adults like those posting on Dakkadakka might address this argument.

I think you should a mix between RAW and RAI.

- G

Why do you think that?

Read the Flames of War rules.

The designers put their thoughts (intent) into the rules, seperated from the RAW.

They are also available to answer questions and reliably update the FAQ.

Smaller company, does a far better job making new/good/balanced rules and keeping them updated.

If they go Sci-Fi, I dunno...

Oh Warseers a bunch of twits. So is 40konline, and pretty much every place but Dakka.

Why I don't post there. lol

Hey Nurglitch, good question (if a little flooged to death )

IMHO, there is no answer other than play it the way you like with friends, play it the way they tell you in GW organised events. RAW vs RAI is a moot sort of question. The designers at GW have certainly left 'room for interpretation with incorrect grammar and wording', but as they have to consilidate something like 10 Codicies in one streamlined game, there are bound to be errors.
That being said, 'exploding' sentences to see the component parts, in an effort to ascertain the intent, is a pointless excercise; With the English language, which is one of the most difficult to learn in the world, there are too many variables due to 'context' alone.

The only time it is an issue is if I was playing with somebody who told me that they had thier own rules based on 'RAI', and were not interested in any sort of proof in the book(s). You would only get 1 game out of me in that case anyway....

Stelek: Yes, there are plenty of examples of rules being written so that false dilemmas like RAI vs RAW are avoided. The problems with these approaches were covered in the first few days of every course on introductory logic and critical thinking that I ever took or TA'd for, but since not everyone takes these pre-university level courses (despite that they're usually offered at the first year university level) the general public seems to be unaware of this. In particular the game world seems unaware of this, although Rules as Interpreted when notes on an interpretation are supplied seems to be good enough for the target audience of the industry.

akira5665: The dead horses of civilization must be ritually flogged from time to time if we are to avoid invasion by little barbarians who don't know any better. As I said Rules as Interpreted when notes on an interpretation are supplied seems to be good enough, and so are Rules as Interpreted when people can agree on their own interpretation. That said, the get-you-by agreement is fine for the middle of a game but over the course of several games with different people it can get tiresome constantly checking to see what rules you're going to play by that day. Hence it helps if there is a way of solving rules disputes rather than putting them off for convenience.

Exploding an indicative sentence into its constituent grammar, terms, deductive apparatus, and semantic model is hardly pointless. It's how the study of logical systems, such as those of games, proceeds. Doing so to divine 'intent' is certainly useless, but the point isn't to divine intent but to establish the meaning of what is printed on the page. That sentences do not always (or even often) mean what we intended them to mean is a dead issue, semantically speaking. Such luminaries as Hilary Putnam and Jacques Derrida put that to rest years ago, even if it still gets dug up from time to time as a practice pinata for philosophy undergraduates (and the occasional unfortunate graduate...).

Essentially what you're doing when you decompose a sentence into its parts is rather like decomposing a swiss watch into its component parts, or anything into its component parts: you learn not only what parts are involved, but how they are put together. If a sentence about some rule is properly composed in English, you will find English terms, English grammar, some logical structure (often a conditional), and referents citing that rule. The context is quite simple: the game description that conveys the logical operations entailed by playing the game so described (aka: 'all of the sentences at hand'). So really, it's not what you might expect.

Nurglitch, it certainly seems you know your stuff when it comes to language/sematics!

A Graduate in Philosophy or such? Nice one mate. Unfortunately I do not have the skill-set to compete/converse in a situation like this! So whilst I will say thanks for the question and info, I would not want to waste your time with my 2 cents worth!

Not being sarcastic at all, I just cannot for the life of me add anything useful to this thread. I will however, keep watching.

@ Nurglitch- Keep asking these hard questions mate, they keep the Brain-juices flowing! Thanks.

It would be a non-issue if GW put out frequent answers to questions and ambiguities that popped up through....FAQ's! It seems the the only solution is to take matters into our own hands with the creation of something similar to the DireWolf FAQ for fantasy.

The YakFaq makes a pretty exhaustive stab at it, and is fairly consistant with the USGT and Adepticon FAQ's. If we all use the YakFAQ, everything would be peachy keen!

Unfortunately, the response I always get to these kind of discussions with my local group is a slack-jawed "Huh?" and a 1000 yard stare that makes me want to find a mirror to see if I just sprouted a third eye, or if my head turned around backwards.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think you should a mix between RAW and RAI.

- G

This is correct: you should default to RAW unless it is ambiguous. At that point you should decide with your opponent what the rules that are unclear are trying to accomplish.

RAW ends up with Chaos marines who cannot charge after firing bolt pistols because they carry bolters although the description talks about the hail of fire from the weapon they would not be shooting. RAW ends up with SM termies with no terminator armor although other marine chapter's termie squads are.

RAW also requires someone that made their difficult terrain test only move the distance rolled even if they don't enter the terrain. This is explained in a way that makes logical sense, the troops were too cautious. There is no exception for troops that are fearless because it is a game play mechanic.

Basically it becomes a mix or it is unplayable either way since RAW kills the game if absolute and RAI kills the game as the opponents bicker over why the rules should even be used when it doesn't match the fluff of their army.

I find that most (if not all) so-called problems with RaW are the result of assuming to much on the part of the reader, but that's to be expected when rules are measured in column inches. Text must be cut to fit the book, rather than the other way around.

That said stuff like Chaos Space Marines being unable to use their pistols because they are carrying rapid fire weapons is clear even when taken literally: the weapon entries describe the use of weapon types. Where Chaos Space Marines are using pistols instead of rapid fire weapons, the rules for rapid fire weapons are ignored, and the unit can assault that turn.

One would think this was obvious do to how each weapon entry described the conditions and effects of use. But people making the mistake of RaW often leave out important relations between terms, and it's not unusual for that mistake to generalize to leaving out important relations between blocks of text. The layout of the rulebook is just as relevant as the text and the relation between the components of text. Layout is information too, although many people often simply treat it as indexical rather than as semantically substantive (which it is).

Likewise with the Terminators. GW has learned their lesson, at least, and we notice in the newer codicies that GW is not relying on players to connect the dots anymore. In the Blood Angels Codex the Terminators get an explicit armour save, an explicit invulnerable save, implicit terminator honours, and an explicit deep strike, and an explicit terminator armour entry on wargear. All those slices and a pie too. I would say it's a wonder that some clever person hasn't yet attempted to claim whatever bonus they imagine accrues from having two suits of terminator armour.

Something similar happens with Fabius Bile and Chaos Space Marines in Bile's Chaos Codex army list entry. Bile can enhance Chaos Space Marine squads. The Chaos Space Marine entry of Codex Chaos Space Marine is called "Chaos Space Marines" while the Codex itself refers to chaos space marines in general. But as no textual explanation repetitively waste space, some people have decided it is ambiguous.

RAW is there, so everyone plays the same game. In tournament there are either house rules by the organizer or pure RAW. No RAI in competetive gaming, judges might be an exception, but then every participant must follow those rules.

Frieldly games may be played with RAI, as long as everyone accepts it.

Note:
RAI is always what you think the designer might intend, wich might differ from what he really thought when writing the rules. For example - look at the Chaos Rhino...maybe Gav wants you to be able to shoot out of the fire point with your full squad. *lol*

Well, that's sort of my point: RAI doesn't work and RAW doesn't work either. They're both non-starters when you want to get everyone agreed on the same game.

I'm not sure why there can not be some sort of middle ground. I am a RAW player myself, however this does not mean that I apply that 100% of the time no matter the outcome. When play RAW there are problems with the game that come up that are obviously not as the game is intended to be played however a literal reading of the rules states that is the case. In this instance I play RAI, but it must be a case of obvious conflict. I will provide three examples(note I would not like this to be a discussion of these three instances, but rather of the rules as a whole):

1. Can swooping hawks deekstrike and skyleap in the same turn. I say yes as the rules do not say that you can not and there has not been a clear official statement stating one way or the other. In this case it could be RAW or RAI so it should be RAW.

2. A Necron lord veils a unit of warriors that he is not a member of to a different location on the table. He is placed in the center of the unit and they form 1 ring around him. Each warrior is in base contact with him. In the opposing players turn a literal reading of the rules states he can not make an assault on the unit of warriors as there is a model less than 1 inch away that he is not engaging. This is obviously a case where RAI needs to be employed.

3. A necron lord veils a unit of warriors that he is with to a different location on the table. The warriors drift to close to the opposing player and the warriors are unable to complete the first ring. The remaining warrior models are placed considered killed. However because there is no clarification for how they died (removed from the table, insta-killed, just generically killed) they are allowed to make a will-be-back roll in a subsequent turn. In this case there is again no statement either way, however it could be interpreted as RAW or RAI so RAW must take precedence.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if there is a way that RAW can be played that makes sense then that should always be employed. We should only use RAI when there is an obvious case of something just not working at all.

I hope I haven't rambled on to much or anything.

Cogito

PS. I do have a graduate degree in philosophy.

Yeah, graduate degrees in philosophy are a dime a dozen these days (good thing I suppose). What was your area of specialization? What areas of interest?

What I'm saying is that a middle ground between wrong and wronger is still lousy. While turning a dichotomy into a continuum is a traditional philosophical move in cases of false dilemmas, it doesn't help when the false dilemma in question is not merely two ends of a spectrum set in artificial opposition to each other, but two methods of interpretation that do not exhaust the list of method available, and of which neither semantically valid (why don't I just say 'truth-preserving' instead). Instead I'm pointing out that we have available the means to apply a truth-preserving system of interpreting the rules. Maybe 'false dilemma' doesn't quite describe what happens when one has A or B or C yet the argument proceeds as something like: not A therefore B.... Call it a suppressed premise perhaps?

Think of it like this: You have a toolkit. This toolkit comes with a couple of shoddy tools that work for some tasks in a pinch, but not for others. But the toolkit also comes with a tool that is well-made and easily applied to all of the tasks that the rest of the toolkit might accomplish if the stars align just right.

Instead of applying RAW and RAI ad hoc and in a time consuming way, I'm suggesting that employing a bit of formal rigour. While initially arduous, especially since cherry-picking problem cases won't be as productive as doing all the rules, the time spent on the Internet will make for more time to game, reduce time and effect wasted in arguments and pre-game discussions of rule interpretations, and basically let people stop bickering about problems with the rules and get on with solving them.

Motivationally speaking I'm proposing this because it does entail a bit of work, but done rightly such that any person's contributions are as good as anothers (provided peer review) the workload on the individuals should be minimal. As for carrying it out, a wiki would be best for the finished results obtained by work on this rules forum. Essentially we'd build up a 40k trouble-shooting document, like an FAQ, but one that explains how the answer was obtained so that if some rule has yet to be covered then it can be worked out.

I like RAW but it can be exploited by rules lawyers just as much as RAI. There are instance where RAW breaks down and then RAI can really help.

- G

@ Nurglitch.

Ok then, far too cranial. so here goes...

"Da rok is too big for da hole. Hit rock on head till smaller...hurr hurr."

GBF said-I like RAW but it can be exploited by rules lawyers just as much as RAI. There are instance where RAW breaks down and then RAI can really help.

Need we go on after such a succinct answer? No.

(snip!)

Anyhow, I tend to fall into the RAW camp, barring a clear and fatal contradiction. At least, with RAW, there is some semblance of consistency and limitation, despite the occasional contradiction. And I think that there are fewer contradictions that there were previously, particularly as the rules are being streamlined for 5th Edition.

I find the assumption of an unstated Intent is very dangerous, particularly as different players assign different Intents to the same Rule. Only when you have unambiguous Designer Notes that annotate the Rule can you properly ascertain the relationship between the Rule and its Intent.

I think it would be exceptionally helpful if the Designers were to provide more detailed information with each Codex or Army Book release, covering changes in particular.

Regardless of your feelings about other forums, please refrain from any further 'forum bashing' here on Dakka.

The only thing such attacks can do is to splinter the gaming community and promote unneeded hostility, neither of which are useful to anyone.

Cogito wrote:1. Can swooping hawks deekstrike and skyleap in the same turn.

2. A Necron lord veils a unit of warriors that he is not a member of to a different location on the table. He is placed in the center of the unit and they form 1 ring around him. Each warrior is in base contact with him. In the opposing players turn a literal reading of the rules states he can not make an assault on the unit of warriors as there is a model less than 1 inch away that he is not engaging.

3. A necron lord veils a unit of warriors that he is with to a different location on the table. The warriors drift to close to the opposing player and the warriors are unable to complete the first ring. The remaining warrior models are placed considered killed. However because there is no clarification for how they died (removed from the table, insta-killed, just generically killed) they are allowed to make a will-be-back roll in a subsequent turn.

These are nice examples. Let me take a stab:

1. YES. The rules say the Hawks can DS. The rules say they can Skyleap. Neither places any restriction upon the other, and each is an non-dependent atomic action. The comparision point I would suggest might be Fleet of Foot and Assault Moves, whereby each provides extra movement provided certain criteria are met, but neither is dependent upon the other.

2. NO. At a minimum, the player can engage 1 charging model exactly aligned with the model in contact with the Lord, because minimum bases are exactly 1" in diameter. Therefore, with the restriction that no models may be on smaller bases, contact is still possible. Further, in the case of an IC ending his movement in coherency of the friendly unit, I believe one may claim, by de facto definition, that he is part of that unit. This is reinforced further if using the "official" GW measuring sticks for which 1" is redefined as exactly 25.00mm instead of 25.40mm.

3. NO. I believe that WBB rolls are only taken for models on the tabletop, and those models were never placed. If the precondition of models having been killed and placed on their sides was never met, then you cannot test. OTOH, if the model(s) were placed and *then* instantly killed, then I would agree that the Necron would have to test WBB for the model(s). In any case, this is merely highlights further why the old Codices need to be redone as streamlined books. If (when) WBB becomes FNP, the DS problem away as a rules issue.

I think you missed the point. The point was I was providing examples were there was an obvious problem that neither the big rule book nor the codex addressed.

In the 2nd example there is an obvious case of saying 'this is not what was meant.' No one can reasonably make a case where the rules were intended to play like this.

In the 1st and 3rd issue there is an arguement that can be made either way. As such you have to go with a literal interpretation of the reading.

This could be applied to the problem with Terminators and Terminator Armor. Is there a reasonable explanation for why Terminators would not be wearing Terminator Armor? I do not believe so(and, no, I do not think 'their luggage got sent to LAX instead of the battle field' counts as a explanation). In this sense you use RAI.

I'm saying you should only use RAW when there are reasonable arguments either way.

Cogito

Nurglitch, I like your core concept. It's not something that's entirely foreign to these boards. Posters like Flavius Infernus have applied formal analysis to discussions like these before.

Unfortunately it does seem to sometimes boil down to ambiguity. A significant portion of the rules are written with such imprecision that even a careful and educated dissection is unable to obtain a clear answer.

I think there are two primary obstacles to your proposal. First, the unfortunate scarcity of people who have received (or retained) training in formal logic and semantic analysis, and second, the degree to which this kind of analysis may resemble work, and thus be unattractive as an adjunct to our hobby activities.

That said, I do hope you find some takers, as I'd love to see what you come up with.

These kind of arguments prove that you cannot go completely RAW or RAI. Rules lawyers will use both to gain the upper hand when playing. Only by working mutually together with your opponent can issues smoothly be resolved. It is the people who must win at all costs who ruin it for everyone.

- G

What?

RAW should always be the method you use for solving any arguement. The only reason we occasionally use RAI in 40k is because the writers are nitwits.

The "Rules Lawyers can still abuse the rules" arguement is absurd for any game but 40k. Why? Because they have a well written rule set.

Cogito wrote:I think you missed the point. The point was I was providing examples were there was an obvious problem that neither the big rule book nor the codex addressed.

In the 2nd example there is an obvious case of saying 'this is not what was meant.' No one can reasonably make a case where the rules were intended to play like this.

In the 1st and 3rd issue there is an arguement that can be made either way. As such you have to go with a literal interpretation of the reading.

Oh, I understand your point, but I don't see what the issue is.

In the 1st example, there doesn't appear to be any problem from a RAW or RAI standpoint. You just follow the rules. If there were an intent otherwise, it should have been stated. Using my counter-example by example: "If a unit Fleets, it may NOT make an Assault Move".

I'm not sure there is a RAW defect with the 2nd example, but I don't have my Codices handy. I'll take a look tonight.

The 2nd and 3rd tie to an old Codex that should be replaced.

To the extent that there are clear RAW failings, then RAI might be helpful. But I see no RAW failings so RAI isn't needed.

The problem with the example concerning passing within 1 inch of an enemy model you are not assaulting resolves around the fact that the base size is 25mm and 1 inch is 25.4mm. If the enemy models are base to base you can not touch their base without being within 1 inch of the 'unit' you are not engaging.

I think you are agreeing with me, you just don't think my examples pertain to what we are talking about. It might be the case that you are confusing the examples somewhat.

Also remember I am saying that RAW should be applied in 1 and 3.

Cogito

Mannahnin: Thanks, but the core concept is explaining how to go about analyzing rules properly rather than the semantically invalid methods that people seem so hung up on. Part of the analysis, and hence the motivation for it, is that it is also a procedure for ironing out the imprecision and wooliness.

Right now the real task seems to be convincing people to stop talking about RAW and RAI and start talking about something that actually works. That's the primary obstacle.

People don't need much background in methods of formal logic to do this, and I'd want to leave formal notation out of it and stick to codified natural language. There's nobody here who isn't capable.

It's really the motivation that's at issue here. If people don't want to keep going over the same old unresolvable RAW vs RAI arguments then that's their choice, albeit an odd one if they want to solve the problems and get on with their gaming. A stitch in time saves nine or somesuch. A productive argument that takes half an hour is better than hours of circular bickering (particularly when both sides are wrong, in which case neither side of an argument should be convinced of the other's argument!).

Take painting for example. I don't particularly like painting. It's too much like work for me to enjoy it. But plenty of people enjoy it and our hobby would be poorer without them. Taking the time to paint, however dull doing so may be, improves the game experience overall.

Similarly knowing the rules is work. It's too much work for too many people trying to play the game. Worse still some people make a separate hobby out of it (rules lawyers), or abuse the rules in order to satisfy their own egos (WAAC). Knowing the rules should contribute to people's enjoyment of the hobby, so people can get on with playing with each other and not playing with the rules. Taking the time to get the rules right (interpreting them correctly and fixing bugs), dull as it may be, improves our game experience threefold:

(1) Less time looking things up, arguing, or rolling dice means more time playing, and playing fairly and properly.

(2) Using a semantically valid method of rules interpretation means that rules lawyers can't twist the rules and WAAC gamers can't abuse them.

(3) Allows players to play 'out-of-the-box', so to speak, by preventing differences in opinion from blooming into arguments and hence into mere bickering. There's still the risk that your opponent will not have bothered to learn the rules, or isn't interested in a fair game, but between reasonable adults problems are either solved before they become problems, or simply become grist for a problem-solving method.

And like gaming, painting, modelling, and making army lists there may be some learning that slips in under the radar. Mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers long ago devised a solution to that problem: beer.

There are many problems with RAW. As I saw yakface point out in another thread the SW rule Old and Wise for their venerable dreadnaught states the dreadnaught must reroll the dice. I have seen people try to enforce this type of occurence in RAW and even worse... but I will not scare you more.

- G