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.

Reading a lot of these rules questions as well as well different peoples interpretations of the rules. Leads me to discover their failing grasp of grammatica, ; it also leads me to believe either we are raising a nation of strict literal logisticians, or which is the argument I favor that people argue a point or rule literally when it would benefit them or with bias, not looking at the intended nature of the law or wording but instead conferring their own bias onto the writing.


This subject comes up in U.S. law as well, and generally the "spirit" of the law is taken as intended not the literal writing. It's the reason we have judges they interpret laws.


So, why this disparaging trend toward a literal interpretation of the rules?

I'll go ahead and represent my feelings that rules in essence and absentia of a GW employee or writer of said instruction ; is that the rule should be taken as intended not as written or interpreted by strict gramatica.

Defining the intention is another argument all together.


My first point of argument and only substantive evidence is found in the first part of the rule book.

Warhammer 40,000 is an involving game , with many different armies , weapons and possibilities. In a game of this size and complexity there are bound to be situations w here a particular situation lies outside these rules, often when unusual models interact ....
The most important rule is that the rules aren't that important!

I lean toward the figuratively as well as interpretive side of things and not literal as no one can apply literal logic to every day occurences. It is only through our understanding of subtlety that we interact and communicate with each other with in society.

Again society would be a deadly place for the literalist. As our societies basic function of communication lies with in subtetly and figuratively thinking as well as interpretation I believe these values also have a basic application to our involvement and interpretation of documents.


I feel I am also agreed by the enforcement of GW by the rules interpration of a figurative and spirit nature of how the rules are written.


So, what side of the fence are you on

Rules as Written
Rules as Intended

Please respond if you will and why?

Rules as written.

Because, how are we suposed to know what was intended unless it is written somewhere. And, once it it written somewhere, it becomes rules as written.

Here are a couple of examples:

When the new Chaos codex first came out, Lash of Submission threw a lot of people into conniptions. Can you bunch models up? Can you change formations?

The Rules as Written group pretty much figured it out. It says you get to move them, you get to move them, following the normal movement rules (maintain coherency, can more up-to, and so on).

The rules as intended camp said that it couldn't possibly have been intended that way, and that obviously if you used it that way, it would invalidate too many armies.

Guess what - FAQ came out, and it turns out that the designers had intended it that way, because they clarified it. Everyone who was making claims about what wasn't intended got it wrong.

Example 2: Nobs with powerklaws. To those of us who speak English, it seemed obvious that a nob in a shoota boy squad could have a powerklaw. Some people argued that couldn't have been intentional because the shoota boy unit would be too good that way. FAQ, again, clarrified it, and again, people who claimed to know what was intended were wrong.

Unless you are the designer, you cannot possibly know what is intended. You do not have that knowledge. Any guess you make is exactly that, a guess. And, generally biased by what army you play, or how you believe the game should work.

That's not a basis for figuring anything out. If they wrote it in a way they didn't intend, they will, eventually, FAQ it, or rewrite it. Otherwise, we're not mindreaders, we have no idea what they intended, and cannot use such assumptions as a basis of adjudication.

I totally agree with Rules as Intended. I am extremely frustrated with people who continue to push RAW in the face of obviously unintended and absurd results. A little common sense in the application of a rule will go far. At the end of the day this is only a game.

As far as the issue of bias is concerned, I've found, more often than not, that those who push RAW are the ones that are looking for an unfair advantage through the misapplication of a rule as a result of a strained literal reading that flies in the face of how similar rules work in the game. If you're looking at the intent of the games developers, which despite assertions to the contrary, can be done (just like it is done every day with legislative intent in the courtroom) by examining precedent and similar rules with an eye toward practical application, bias plays a much smaller roll--application of RAW is often agenda driven for the purpose of creating an unintended advantage. If you doubt this, just look at the majority of the posts in this section--people pointing out a discrepancy in the language and asserting how it can be taken advantage of by a wily player.

Brice

BBeale wrote:I totally agree with Rules as Intended. I am extremely frustrated with people who continue to push RAW in the face of obviously unintended and absurd results. A little common sense in the application of a rule will go far. At the end of the day this is only a game.

As far as the issue of bias is concerned, I've found, more often than not, that those who push RAW are the ones that are looking for an unfair advantage through the misapplication of a rule as a result of a strained literal reading that flies in the face of how similar rules work in the game. If you're looking at the intent of the games developers, which despite assertions to the contrary, can be done (just like it is done every day with legislative intent in the courtroom) by examining precedent and similar rules with an eye toward practical application, bias plays a much smaller roll--application of RAW is often agenda driven for the purpose of creating an unintended advantage. If you doubt this, just look at the majority of the posts in this section--people pointing out a discrepancy in the language and asserting how it can be taken advantage of by a wily player.

Brice

I'll tell you what, come back and let us know when you play more than two people who have used ( a correct) reading of the RAW to an unfair advantage. It has been my experience that RAW fanatics never actually play the absurd interperatations that come up. However, there HAVE been several times when a correct understanding of what the rules say allowed an informed and fair discussion (and decision!) of how to handle odd and uncovered situations.

Don't make the mistake of confusing a love of debate, for a love of jackassery.

Redbeard wrote:Rules as written.

Because, how are we suposed to know what was intended unless it is written somewhere. And, once it it written somewhere, it becomes rules as written.

I honestly can't see how we can play it any other way. GW constantly changes rules from their precedent, often in ways that make no sense based on what a unit did "before". Shotguns, for example. 2nd edition shotguns had options for S4 ammo. Then it disappeared. Then it came back again, but only for Space Marines. Likewise smoke launchers, storm shields, and Power of the Machine Spirit. Depending on which codex you are reading, they all have completely different attributes. Chaos Marine Chaos Demons can assault off the Deep Strike. Codex: Daemons Chaos Daemons can't. But Veteran assault marines can assault off the deep strike, because they have specialized training. But Chaos assault marines with the exact same equipment can't; even though they've been alive for ten thousand years they just...didn't...figure...it...out. There is so much internal discontinuity that you can't possibly argue the rules based on what you "know" about 40k because it changes every couple years. Remember when Eldar had unique rules based on their craft worlds? They don't now. Remember when Salamanders were just black guys in power armor? They're now coal-black red-eyed daemonic looking monster dudes. Veteran White Scars are no better at riding motorcycles than practically-untrained Scout initiates, while Tyranid bio-titans used to be able to claim cover saves from a palm tree, and fire warriors were able to shoot underneath a devilfish.

Wordings change, intents change, and fundamental rules change. Arguing based on precedence only has merit when that which has preceded has existed to this day relatively unchanged.

I can't vote unless there is a "Depends on the situation" option.

I'm in favor of the Rules As Intended. Remember that there is a clear declaration of Intent here - that you play a fun game for both players. That means that neither Rules As Written in a flawed game nor Calvinball will meet the Intent of the rules in most cases.

The greatest problems with Rules As Written are that languages can be vague at times, and other times unintentionally specific.

The greatest problem with Rules As Intended is that Intention is not often clear for those of us that can't read minds.

In matters beyond simple game mechanics, we sometimes have the privilege of learning about the Intent of a rule. A fine case in point is the pursuit of Constitutional Law. When examining the U.S. Constitution it is almost mandatory to have an understanding of the historical context of their formation - if not an outright familiarity with the Federalist Papers. One of the greatest condemnations of the "Living Document" theory of Constitutional Law is that it relies on a combination of Appeals to Emotion and manipulation of Rules As Written with linguistic drift while it completely ignores Rules As Intended despite the extensive availability of documents of intent and clarification from the times in which the various clauses and amendments were written.

As John Adams wrote, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. "

In other words, there is no written system of rules that will ever work adequately if the people trying to function under them are a bunch of gits.

I agree with the above statement and add though that really when looking at the rules most people are unable to put aside bias , everyone is bias its why we have judges to be unbiased.I think it is important when interpreting a rule to take a step back and say " Is this to my advantage, or disadvantage, does this benefit me over another player".


It's not being clever or strategic to abuse a intended rule. A perfect example of this would be people who say that you can as an oppenent use a Locator Beacon that your opponent has. As written then yes. Flat out if interpreted literally not only will this rule allow your oppenent to use it but any one.


I think this argument really shows the fundamental flaws in interpreting a literal explanation.

At times and viewing the rules, they are intentionally left vague to a degree as if they are specific they may out rite exclude more situations.


It's by being in this realm of unspecific specific rules writing that allows you to apply the rules to specific situations. I think this is important to remember. GW cannot write a rule to cover every nuanced situation and when encountering it the number 1 rule of 40k that the rules don't matter come in to play.


For instance, disagreeing with your opponent on cover saves. You could be very specific in this and state clearly that even though the unit is in cover you do not believe it to be adequately so.


There are numerous situations like these.

Which is why I believe the rules are a "general" guideline in playing the game.

Rules as Wretarded or Rules as Idiocy.

Tough call.

Here's somewhere to start figuring it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language

It will be close. The problem is that RAW players usually have an advantage over RAI players IMHO. This is because RAW players usually look at every rule and think of ideas of using it to thier advantage. Then when they play a RAI player SURPRISE, this is what it SAYS. The "This is what it MEANS" player's arguement will not have much of a leg to stand on at that point. For the record I voted RAW.

Doctor Thunder wrote:I can't vote unless there is a "Depends on the situation" option.

QFT



I also think some of the difficulties come from wording in codex built for 4th edition, rules changed in 5th edition, and its tough to read RAW from some of these codex, sometimes working RAW makes sense, sometimes it doesn't.

For example, say you play against a Tyranid Player, and they spend points for Symbiote Rippers are you going to go by RAW, which doesn't have any effect on the game at all because it has not been FAQed, and outnumbering no longer has an effect in an assault per 5th ed rules. Are you going to RAI this biomorph? If so, how can you RAI since outnumbering was taking out. Obviously there should be some effect, since you have paid points for this option.

Until it get a FAQ, or until a new codex comes out, you really should play RAW, and it shouldn't have an effect, but you should let your opponent have some sort of effect from it because you want to be a good sport, and just let him fix it for the next game.

Definitely missing at least one option in that poll.

I'll quite happily argue RAW in rules discussions... because arguing RAI is impossible. The only way you'll generally ever know that the rule as written doesn't work as intended is if it's stated as such in an FAQ... in which case it's still RAW.

In actual gameplay, I'll play RAW combined with whatever modifications I and my opponent feel like making at the time, or with whatever houserules we have in normal use. If we don't like the way a given rule works, it makes no difference whatsoever whether it's RAW or RAI, we'll change it and play how we want.

RAW all the way.


RAI is impossible to play unless you wrote the book.


Btw you can't really use RAW to your advantage, because that is what the rule does!

If anything RAI is used for advantage.

Drop pod case:
By RAW I can use your locator beacons. (It's allowed until GW does a FAQ to do away with it, if they do)
RAI player cries cheese and claims GW didn't intend for them to work like that.

Now here I see a RAW player following the rules that GW outlined for there advantage (using rules to your advantage is not bad. Otherwise you would have to call cheese on cover save rules and such), and a RAI trying to interpret the rules for his own gain. (So player A can't deep strike near him without scattering)

Since it has been asked for I'll add Depends on the situation. I will argue to the statement that to argue the interpretation or intent of a document it is not needed to have the author of said document.



Here is my whole point, it is laid out pretty clearly in the first explanation of the game and of the rules that they do not really matter and if players have a different interpretation they should roll off if possible. If you go to GWs site they even have a flow chart of how to properly solve rules problems. One of the key issues is compromise between player and a establishment of your own rules.


I think a lot of people have this general literal interpretation of the rules based upon their own biased. No one is unbiased myself included. Whether a person is invested is another issue. In any instance of a game being played both players are gain and loss beneficiaries.


What does that mean, it means when playing a game or participating in a event, you have some emotional, financial, et cetera invested in it and cannot realistically make a unbiased decision. It is why we have independent councils and judges for interpretations of law.


The drop pod entry is a perfect example, I play marines, I agree RAW allows interpretation that your opponent could interpret that they may use your locator beacon, now was this the intention of the writer. No, absolutely not. I will present before previous rulings such as against Necrons, etc... as well as rules generally being very specific if they affect both armies.


The investment is though that is that beneficial to me? Yes, it is a fair interpretation , Yes. No one is going to argue that not only in a logical but also flavor wise and fluff wise purpose Space MArines use something that other armies can easily tap into and use for their advantage against Marines.

Rules as written. The majority of arguments for RAW are based on the simple claim "It doesn't say I can't do it!". It is my belief that if the rules don't say you CAN do it, then you CAN'T. Granted, it's obvious that the people who wrote the 40K rules aren't the sharpest pencils in the box, but trying to guess what they intended is pointless and too open to weasely trickery.

According to RAW, if i take Chem Inhalers for my guard, all of my Tanks and Sentinels must also pay for chem inhalers.
Obviously that is not intended, seeing as vehicles don't need to take Ld tests, so chem inhalers don't have any effect.

Last edition, by the strictest letter of the rules, 'Gets Hot' caused instant death to guardsmen. Obviously not intended (as it was changed in this edition an no longer occurs), and no-one i ever met ever played it like that.

As was said above, sometimes words can't quite be specific enough. Sometimes they're far too specific. And we all know that GW can't even be consistent between two sides of the same page.

Overall, following the strict RAW in odd situations goes against a lot of the spirit of the game. Reading through the rulebook there many situations where the designers indicate you should just do what makes the most sense, or roll a D6, to keep the game flowing.

RAI for me.

Timmah wrote:Drop pod case:
By RAW I can use your locator beacons. (It's allowed until GW does a FAQ to do away with it, if they do)
RAI player cries cheese and claims GW didn't intend for them to work like that.

Now here I see a RAW player following the rules that GW outlined for there advantage (using rules to your advantage is not bad. Otherwise you would have to call cheese on cover save rules and such), and a RAI trying to interpret the rules for his own gain. (So player A can't deep strike near him without scattering)

Most rules are fine to use RAW. It's only in a very small number of cases that there's even an argument. I'd have to vote 'depends on the situation', since most of the time RAW is absolutely fine. But if there's any ambiguity at all, or something seems really weird, myself and my opponent will TRY to figure out the intention of the rules as best we can.

The above IS an example of bending RAW to your advantage. We all know that, RAW, you can use your opponent's Locator Beacon. But we can also make a fair point that this is a typo - nothing like this appears anywhere else in the game. You're not using a rule to your advantage (like cover saves), you're using the ABSENCE of a clear rule to your advantage. I think it's quite obvious that this is a loophole, not an intended effect. So i would cry cheese on anyone attempting to use it.

Of course, there's a huge difference between knowing what you can get away with, and actually DOING it. A lot of the arguments on dakka would never really be put into practise...

I voted RAI, There was a thread a few weeks back on the space wolf storm caller power. Now the crux was that the models protected by the power counted as being in cover, the problem was it's an old book, so it says that 'as such they strike at I10 and have a 5+ cover save'.

So rules as written you have the second bit, RAI they're in cover so cover rules apply.

I think with RAI it's probably best to discuss things with your opponent prior if there's any areas like this, if you come to an agreement great, if not then i guess you RAW it. But I'd talk stuff through first.

HEY! What happened to my sheep option?!


baaaaaaaaahhhh....

Depends on the situation.

If my opponent wants to play Rules as Wretarded (thanks Nurglitch, ), I'll call it a game and give him a win ( I'm a firm believer in conceding if the game isn't fun for both of us (most important rule). If my opponent's idea of fun is a merciless crushing victory - that's a free win to him. I'll go off and have a beer and wait for my next game.)
- Yes, I've done this in tournament and not been disqualified. Maybe we had more civilised TOs, I don't know.

If we can't agree on the interpretation, and can come to - if not a mutually beneficial, at least one that is not mutually detrimental - ruling, then it becomes a club 'house rule'.

Well the difference between them is that the RaI player looks at it and thinks, "Too strong/weak, must be an error" without proof. The RaW player looks at it and thinks "Strong/weak, better note that down for future use." with evidence.

Really, the RaI are just like RaW, except without proof. The RaW is the closest to RaI you get.

Pika_power wrote:Well the difference between them is that the RaI player looks at it and thinks, "Too strong/weak, must be an error" without proof. The RaW player looks at it and thinks "Strong/weak, better note that down for future use." with evidence.

Really, the RaI are just like RaW, except without proof. The RaW is the closest to RaI you get.

Truth

RaW is largely a load of nonsense in my experience.

Good example? Invocation of Nehek. Now, RaW, at no point does it specifically state the spell can be cast into combat, that much seems true.

However, you read the relevant rules, and then the spell, and suddenly, it is clear you can indeed. Why?

The Rulebook does not offer a specific phrase to allow casting into combat, and Invocation of Nehek has an example of the spell being resolved in a post-charge combat. Ergo, RAI was correct.

RaW is far too open to abuse, as people will RaW specifcally what they need to 'prove' their dodgy interpretation, whereas someone who does RaI properly will see what was intended, and then seek out all the necessary rules to prove so.

RaW = Short term and blinkered.
RaI = Long term and in depth.

Btw you can't really use RAW to your advantage, because that is what the rule does!

the whole drop pod situation and mystics.
nuff said.

I can sit there and make a list of RAW, for instance. If I take a literal approach where in the rulebook Space marine or otherwise does it say I may not take more than one transport. The wording as written for space marine tactical.May select a Rhino or Razorback. If the squad numbers ten models, may take drop pod. These are two seperate complete sentences. Having noun verb and not prepositional.

It's only by looking beyond this and interpreting the intention of this that we have an understanding of it. As before you have to in several instances take a interpretive view of the rules and I believe this is how they are written intentionally as to cover ever exact situation would be probably exhaustive effort and near impossible.


PS adding sheep option

The problem of RAW versus RAI only comes up in the face of ambiguity and/or absurd results in the application of the rules. That said, applying RAW in those cases adds nothing, and it only seems to promote a culture of rules-lawyering. The best way to determine how a rule was meant to be applied is to 1) look at the results of the application and 2) look to how similar rules have been applied. If the results are broken, unbalanced, over-powered, under-priced, or just unfair, it is a safe bet that this isn't how the rule was intended to be applied. Likewise, if similar rules are applied differently, then it is a safe bet that this isn't how the rule was intended to be applied. There is no reason why common sense should not be applied to the rules instead of blind devotion to RAW. Not to mention, more often than not rules are FAQed in accordance with RAI and not RAW.

Brice

BBeale wrote:
If the results are broken, unbalanced, over-powered, under-priced, or just unfair, it is a safe bet that this isn't how the rule was intended to be applied.

This is not the GW I know. Broken, unbalanced, overpowered, underprices and just-unfair is par for the course with them.

Your logic falls apart when confronted with history. Time and again, the RAI crowd has pushed this mentality ("it can't be the way it's written, that would be unfair") and time and again, the FAQs have come out and flat-out said, yes, that is what they meant.

You do not know what they intended. And, you (collectively) keep getting it wrong when you try to guess. How many failures does it take before you realize that maybe they do know what they intended, and maybe what they intended is unfair, unbalanced and stupid, but that's GW rules design...

Nice to see you catching all the fish with a single net there....

Not all the RAI will agree on what is intended, and sometimes a rule should be RAW, as that is the only interpretation.

But overall, RAW has the bigger flaws, as it depends entirely upon who is doing the reading, and how they have interpreted (perverted?) the meaning to suit their own needs....

I'd have to look at the actual facts printed by GW and look at their interpretations of rules in order to give a clearer distinction and examples of times rules have leaned toward RAW vs. RAI .


Disallowing grammatical corrections, I think it will show that GW does indeed lean toward intention than written.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But overall, RAW has the bigger flaws, as it depends entirely upon who is doing the reading, and how they have interpreted (perverted?) the meaning to suit their own needs....

By definition, RAW is the literal reading, not an interpretation...So who does the reading has no bearing on what the actual RAW is.

That being said, RAI is generally a shorthand for 'I don't want to play by that rule, and you're a bad person if you do'.