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.

RAW is a good thing and I advocate the use of this philosophy BUT I would like to put forth the following question:

Does the use of RAW to intrepret the rules always make sense? Are there cases where RAW simply breaks down and does not make sense? If anyone has any examples to either support this or refute it I am personally am very interested to hear what others have to say. Personally I believe that RAW does break down at times because the people who write the rules are human like everyone else and make mistakes. Should we take advantage of the rules when there appears to be mistake? What other avenues are available to us as players in these situations and how can we resolve these types of issues?

G

one example i can think of is if someone refuses to reroll damage to a venerable dread because the codex says "ask"

(by the way if some one does this smash one of their models and ask if he would like the damage result rerolled)

Green Blow Fly wrote: Personally I believe that RAW does break down at times because the people who write the rules are human like everyone else and make mistakes.

The only reason that's a problem is that the humans in this case don't bother to actually correct those mistakes in any sort of timely fashion.

We should be able to follow RAW... that's what the rules are for.

We can't always do so, because the rules are flawed. If those flawed rules were corrected in FAQs and errata, that wouldn't be a problem. Since they're not, we sometimes have to ignore RAW in order for the game to be playable.

I agree with Insaniak.

5e seems better than 4e in terms of clarity. I hope that's not just because people haven't had time to find all the problems yet.

youbedead wrote:one example i can think of is if someone refuses to reroll damage to a venerable dread because the codex says "ask"

(by the way if some one does this smash one of their models and ask if he would like the damage result rerolled)

Which does not really qualify when you look at the defintion being used for the word "ask".

You Make Da Call seems to be all about trying to find problems with the rules these days. I think they've stood up pretty well, and in my opinion there's only one genuine problem identified with the rules so far: bonus attacks for Power Fists. Most of the problems so far, in my opinion, are the result of people not reading the rules closely and carefully.

I think RAW is not "set in stone",because sometimes we get errata and most of them change the RAW.
So its fine to have a guidance by RAW,but its not a complete set of rules that covers all situations.
We should be able to play the game without the use of RAW for an advantage.
If there is any mistake/failure by the author,then why not tell this GW?

Another "point of view" could be the fact of GW translating their publications into different languages.
After this,the RAW may have changed. Some languages use more than a few words to describe things and sometimes
a translated book wouldn't support a YDMC thread,because the rules are clear and precise there.

Pure RAW is meant to be used with a set of publications of the same edition,so a 5th ed BRB may cause conflict with 4th ed codices.
This will be taken care of when codices get transferred to 5th,but until then we may use also logic and RAI to keep the game going.

Go for RAw = if it makes sense.
debate and play by consent = if RAw would need to play brainless.

Speaking of errata, I think that's pretty easily solved by applying a consistency heuristic, since we can reasonably assume that the rules are consistent within their given scope. I believe that all the errata in the Codex: Orks FAQ was proved and predicted beforehand.

I am a follower of RAW, in general, but sometimes RAW just breaks down.

Dark Angels Rites of Battle state that all Dark Angels units may use the leadership of their Company Master. No Dark Angel unit exists in the Dark Angel Codex. They are all Tactical, Ravenwing, Devastators and so on. Neither of which carries the name "Dark Angel" or are classified as such.

Patently rediculous, but RAW.

I think that RAW tends to win out in cases where the actual intent is not obvious. The most telling point was the infamous "do terminators have terminator armor" debate of 4th edition. RAW says no, but it's amazingly clear that they should, so everybody played that way.

The old chestnut about shooting bolt pistols while "carrying" a rapid fire weapon was tougher, as while it was very likely what RAI was, it was not obvious.

Finally, there are plenty of cases were the intent is basically impossible to tell (powerklaws on shoota nobs) and RAW provides the best framework.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.

RAW works when the rules for a game are as explicit as those in a game like magic, where DCI judges frequently make educated rulings and errata.
there is a consistent focus on making sure the rules are tight to prevent exploits, with errata being frequently published which overrites the ruling on the cards

with warhammer 40k, we are not in such a fortunate position as gamers. often our codexes are filled with blatant typos, ambigous statements, new ground covered that needs a ruling precedent, etc

the different camps look at different rules. and they make assumptions or have opinions which are frequently based on:

do they play the army?
have they recently lost to the specific army or wargear?
do they feel something is overpowered/underpowered?

unfortunately, these make the statements biased, and really hurt the RAW arguement.

on top of that, GW refuses to update FAQ's in a timely manner, and have specifically made a point of not catering to the veteran community, even when specific rules issues are brought to their attention multiple times.

an example to back up my points, would be the controversy over a battlewagon's deffrolla.
regardless of the opinion of power level, there is a roughly even split over weather or not it actually works when you ram another vehicle. dispite numerous debates, GW refuses to clarify the issue. even at the ard boyz, I had to speak with a tournament organizer and cite how the most recent GT ruled it in order to find some sort of precedent to make an educated decision.

so RAW should in theory work, but the publications and rulings are not sufficient to hold the books accountable for the actual rules sets

RAI isn't much better, because then we are just guessing as a group a the meaning of the words. which again only causes trouble and controversy for the reasons I've said.

and the most recent transgression would be the dark angels faq. yes you can use SM wargear if your opponent allows it? this kind of statement is USELESS to tournament organizers. this leaves dark angel players and people who play against them in a rough position. it would not have been too much effort for GW to just give a clear yes or no. any more than it would have been difficult to give a yes or no on the deffrolla

but GW refuses to take those actions.

so I am against RAW until these things change. it only causes arguements and difficulties within playgroups and at tournaments

NaZ

NaZ wrote: so I am against RAW until these things change. it only causes arguements and difficulties within playgroups and at tournaments.

In actuality, RAW is the only type of ruling that doesn't cause disputes. The problem only arises when an issue isn't a RAW/RAI confusion, it's when an issue isn't actually addressed in any way (example: deffrollas and tank shocking.)

The main problem is, the game has to be played RAW. Otherwise we end up with people making up and claim it was the developer's intent, and because none of us are mind-readers, their argument becomes exactly as valid as your RAI opinion. The upswing is that, when games are played completely RAW, everyone knows how every rule will interact with every model because RAW has ironed out the ambiguity. At least it's supposed to. It obviously doesn't in a lot of cases.

The whole point of having a ruleset so we have a common ground of agreeable terms upon which to base the game. If there's too much room for interpretation, or too many points of contention, what's the point of having a predefined ruleset at all? Ambiguity is the enemy of organized play, either competitive or friendly. You shouldn't need to get the 'personal take' of your opponent before every game on a dozen issues, but unfortunately we find ourselves in that situation from time to time.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that RAW is the baseline, and THEN if there's still concern or confusion we can temporarily 'band-aid' the situation with on-the-spot RAI agreements, and move on.

A quick note on common sense: I don't recall where the quote is from, so I'll simply paraphrase and steal credit In an abstract ruleset like 40k, you can't use the 'common sense' argument when discussing the mechanics of giant monstrosities and earth-shattering lasers from the sky. It's already a world of hypothetical fantasy, how we 'think' a particular thing should function is irrelevant.

Nurglitch wrote:Most of the problems so far, in my opinion, are the result of people not reading the rules closely and carefully.

I couldn't agree more. I know the YMDC crowd is precisely the wrong group to make this plea to, but please people, for the love of Gork and Mork, read the whole rulebook, carefully, before playing. I don't want to sound like an ass, and I probably am, but I get really tired of people lacking at least a passable familiarity with the rules. I'm not newbie-bashing whatsoever, I'm perfectly happy with new players who don't know what their doing. I actually really love teaching the game to receptive students, but I'm mostly referring to grognards who didn't bother to keep up with the changes between 4th and 5th edition.

Perfect example would be me having to explain why a fellow tourney-goer's predator, even though it was 'hidden' behind that area terrain consisting of a base and 2 stick trees, isn't getting a cover save. I know it's not what the rules used to be, and I know you're struggling to adapt your play, but we both paid 55 bucks to be here. Don't you think you could flip through the old BRB the night before? And please, if I politely bring up a problem in a match you were very much enjoying 5 minutes ago, don't give me the stink-eye and dock my sports for knowing the game better than you .

Ok, someone put this thread back on it's rails, and watch out. Don't trip over my .

NaZ wrote:the different camps look at different rules. and they make assumptions or have opinions which are frequently based on:

do they play the army?
have they recently lost to the specific army or wargear?
do they feel something is overpowered/underpowered?

Unfortunately, the return arguments are often based on the belief that the original argument was made from one of those positions.

All too often you see YMDC threads where someone pulls out the old 'You're just looking for an advantage for your army' chestnut without bothering to check if the person they're yelling at actually even plays the army in the first place.


Personal bias has no effect on what the rules actually say. Just on how you choose to interpret them when they're unclear.

and the most recent transgression would be the dark angels faq. yes you can use SM wargear if your opponent allows it? this kind of statement is USELESS to tournament organizers.

Luckily for tournament organisers, they also pointed out that the 'default' is to just use the equipment in your own codex.

Which actually very nicely illustrates the other problem that gets incorrectly blamed on RAW: People often simply don't read all of the relevant text, just taking the parts that apply to their argument and claiming that their argument is thus supported by RAW, regardless of what may be said elsewhere or how context may change the meaning.

Not a problem with RAW. Just a problem with how people try to apply it. But because of it, many people frown on RAW for rules disputes, because they see it as something that it isn't.

A lot of casual or narrative players frown on close examination of RAW because they consider it to be rules-lawyering to get an unfair advantage.

Is it considered rules-lawyering to get an unfair advantage if I fire my missile launcher with range 48"? Because that's what it says in the rule book, I'm just going by the RAW here....

Seriously though, the above is conceptually the same as something more obscure and misunderstood. The only difference is the specificity and complexity of the rule. Look up how something works. Do what the rule book says. This may be more or less complicated than the above example. You've been warned......

Green Blow Fly wrote:Personally I believe that RAW does break down at times because the people who write the rules are human like everyone else and make mistakes. Should we take advantage of the rules when there appears to be mistake? What other avenues are available to us as players in these situations and how can we resolve these types of issues?

I think that people sometimes forget why RAW is important. It is not important because we think GW is infallible, or even because we think it is the best or most entertaining way to play the game. People who always follow the RAW exactly, if they have half a brain anyway, do it because it is consistent. There is nothing more important in a set of rules than consistency. Especially while in a tournament setting or playing with people you do not know. Otherwise everyone ends up arguing over who's interpretation or opinion is better suited to the situation. But if you go by the exact letter of the book there will be far fewer arguments. There will still be situations that are ambiguous, but for the most part RAW is best followed for the sheer consistency; the ability to play someone you have never met before and come to the exact same conclusion about the same rule.

Hear, hear, to whocares.

Nurglitch wrote:You Make Da Call seems to be all about trying to find problems with the rules these days. I think they've stood up pretty well, and in my opinion there's only one genuine problem identified with the rules so far: bonus attacks for Power Fists. Most of the problems so far, in my opinion, are the result of people not reading the rules closely and carefully.

May I ask what the problem with power fists is?

I suggest using the search function to look it up, to avoid soiling the thread.

Nurglitch wrote:I suggest using the search function to look it up, to avoid soiling the thread.

I can only assume this is the argument of which you are speaking. I don't see how that would "soil" the thread as it is a clear question about RAW and a good example of how when using RAW the context in which the rules are written is equally important to the exact wording. Words don't mean much without context.

Yes, of course context is important. There are plenty of threads where ignorance of the context leads people to read the text wrongly. The usual problem is people reading rules out of context. The problem identified in that thread was that the text referred to a broader context than just the section on the extra weapon bonus.

The reason that discussing the problem with Power Fists would soil the thread is that it would distract the discussion away from the merits of RAW, which would be a pity because RAW is an obnoxious piece of gamer folklore and needs to be exposed as a bad way of thinking about reading rules.

The problem for RAW and context is that once you bring in context, formatting and diagrams as well as co-text, the rules no longer state exactly what they say, they make a statement according to a particular interpretation.

The Protestant Reformation was caused by overzealous RAWing.

Nurglitch wrote:...because RAW is an obnoxious piece of gamer folklore and needs to be exposed as a bad way of thinking about reading rules.

Yes, heaven forbid that anyone should read the rules in order to determine how to play the game.

Your problem isn't with the interaction between RAW and context. It's that you still maintain a very narrow definition of RAW that suggests that it somehow ignores context... which isn't what RAW is about, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.

RAW is the rules as written. That includes context, because the context is a very large part of what gives the written words meaning in the first place.

Yes, that often results in us having to give our own interpretation. That's not a failing of RAW, it's a failing of loosely written rules that lack adequate clarification.

I am happy to read the responses to my question. I feel that Dakka is the home to many veterans that play the game. In my opinion we should be stewards of the game, not simply a small clique trying to find ways to exploit the hobby for yet another a notch in the W column. We can win through the use of superior tactics and field armies that look beautiful... making others want to play.

G

insaniak wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:...because RAW is an obnoxious piece of gamer folklore and needs to be exposed as a bad way of thinking about reading rules.

Yes, heaven forbid that anyone should read the rules in order to determine how to play the game.

Your problem isn't with the interaction between RAW and context. It's that you still maintain a very narrow definition of RAW that suggests that it somehow ignores context... which isn't what RAW is about, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.

RAW is the rules as written. That includes context, because the context is a very large part of what gives the written words meaning in the first place.

Yes, that often results in us having to give our own interpretation. That's not a failing of RAW, it's a failing of loosely written rules that lack adequate clarification.

You saved me some typing.

And I must wonder what the substitute for RAW is supposed to be? Should we play by rules we simply make up? This works fine for friendly games with people you know, but you run into that nasty problem of consistency with those you don't.

I think the power fist thread is a perfect example of why some people don't like/don't understand RAW. Too many people read the rules with absolutely no mind to context and try to call it RAW. Like the guy who thought that since the chaos codex said that demons could assault after deep striking it applied to the demon codex as well. Thinking that a power fist does not get plus 1 attack for charging or terminator honors or what have you is another misunderstanding of context that people call RAW. It's not RAW. It's poor reading comprehension.

A substitute for RAW? I don't know, good old fashioned close reading? The basic literacy that even secondary students occasionally have?

Here's some of my thoughts on the whole stupid RAI vs RAW debate:

Nurglitch wrote:No, arguing that one has a choice of either arguing for the intention of the law, or for the letter of the law, is a invalid argument, just as all arguments involving a false dilemma are invalid and will yield inconclusive results.

Though you're right that it is in a similar vein to American legal process, that tangled inbred step-child of sophistry and Scholastic legalism.

There is no way of know what might be intended by the expression of a law without knowing how that law was encoded. Likewise, there is no way to express a law or a rule without there being a structure which is described.

Hence some people think that rules are 'intended' to be read a certain way, because evidence concerning the encoding device suggests that way of reading it. And this is true, in a weak and incomplete sense of 'truth', because the writer is using the medium to convey a message. The problem is that this lends itself to confusion about what such a message is about, leading people to confuse the game with the story elements draped over it, and to an infinite regress of second-guessing about what the writers meant when they said what they meant.

Likewise, some people think that rules are to be read 'literally', because evidence concerning the encoding device suggests a way of reading it thought to be non-figurative. Likewise this is true in a weak and incomplete way, because there is a coding device called 'literal'. However, such a purely denotative coding is impossible in a natural language (hence the development of formal languages for mathematics, computer science, etc).

The joke of it being that some people think that the rules are intended to be read in one way instead of another because of how they are written, and what they are written about, and other people think that the rules are to be read literally because they think the rules were intended to be read that way.

What people should be doing, given that the rules are expressed in both a vernacular natural language, a chapter/section/sub-section format, and formalized diagrams, is the following:

1. Decode sentences for English grammar
2. Decode terms for referents
3. Decode properties of sentences
4. Decode diagrams for formal structure
5. Integrate information into retro-engineered game structure
6. Derive conclusions
7. Record quoted sentences, conclusion, and step by step record of process (aka 'proof') deductively attaching Pt.A to PtB.
8. Post for peer review

The funny thing about Power Fists is that it's the other way around, thinking that the text of the rules licenses models armed with Power Fists to get a bonus attack from anything but another Power Fist.... It's the indefinite article. Look it up.

That limit only exists when gaining bonuses from fighting with two close combat weapons. Anything that increases number of raw attacks will apply to powerfists.

Nurglitch wrote:A substitute for RAW? I don't know, good old fashioned close reading? The basic literacy that even secondary students occasionally have?

But that's what RAW is. You read the rules closely and then you apply them. That's it. You don't speculate on what the writers intended, you don't make up rules based on your opinion of how a unit should work according to the latest novel you read. You play the rules as written, and the first step in doing that is reading them. And reading them keeping in mind context. Not intent or implication. Context.

I think the classic RAW argument is the one about drop pods firing on the first turn. If you read the fluff it's pretty clear drop pods were meant to fire the turn they come down. Even in the most recent white dwarf they fire the turn they come down. The writers probably intended them to fire the turn they come down, that's RAI. But the RAW are clear, deep striking vehicles count as going cruising speed and therefor can't fire. If you want to make a house rule with your friends about drop pods shooting the turn they come on, fine. But that's not the RAW so don't try it with people you don't know or at a tournament.

Nurglitch wrote:The funny thing about Power Fists is that it's the other way around, thinking that the text of the rules licenses models armed with Power Fists to get a bonus attack from anything but another Power Fist.... It's the indefinite article. Look it up.

In the thread I read you were arguing that power fists couldn't even get bonus attacks from terminator honors, which is ridiculous. Although maybe you're talking about another discussion, if you are feel free to link it. I have no intention of searching to validate your points anymore. And your conclusion depends on how you use RAW. If you have no understanding of context, you're right. At least what you posted in the thread I linked is. But when you use your critical thinking skills and keep in mind it's in a section about bonus attacks from a second weapon the context clearly dictates this restriction should not be applied to bonus attacks from other sources, such as attack squigs.

I believe that RAW is the only way to support a stance on any unclear topic. If there isn't anything in the RAW about it, give it to the dice gods.

In any case, how many people have actually played someone who used RAW as an exploit when it is clear to most what was intended?

If you read enough threads here you will often see people trying to use the term RAW as a means of rules exploitation.

G