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.

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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um... yes you do...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

Um... yes you do...

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


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

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

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

G


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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not playing by RAI.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


-Orkishly

orkishlyorkish wrote:

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

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


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


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

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


-Orkishly

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

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

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

A very good example.

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

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

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

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

Not just semantics. They're very different things.

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

Not just semantics. They're very different things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



I am sure you play RAI...

Clthomps wrote:

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

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



I am sure you play RAI...

Lolwut? Explain THAT one?

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