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.

I suspect that some people are taking RAI to mean 'Rules as I think makes the most sense' rather than what it actually means.

Because I quite frankly can't see any way possible to play the game entirely by either RAW or RAI. RAW leads to silliness in certain situations, although often that's just a result of poor reading or ignoring context. And RAI is by and large a mystery.

All you have left is the way that I (and I suspect most people) actually play, which is to use the rules as written combined with your own idea of what makes the most sense and/or what will be the most fun at the time.

It's hard to interpret the definitive statements made when measuring distance from models etc.. What defines cover is another subjective rule meaning it takes a interpretation by both players interpreting what cover is and what saves it allows.


Here are some bad examples and although mildy strawman argument I thought they were funny


RAI

On the back of the Space Marine codex and I believe others it states, You must possess a copy of Warhammer 40,000 in order to use the contents of this book.

Well obviously it just means none of this gak will make sense without the rulebook.


RAW

If you do not possess physically a copy of the Warhammer 40,000 you may not play Space Marines.

I agree it takes a measure of RAW and RAI in order to play the game, but you cannot be a strict literalist and RAI should take precedence over RAW.

Rules as Written. Despite certain conflict of word interpretation. This is a game after all. I can't imagine playing chess and expecting to play RAI.

"What do you mean my king can't move as a knight? It was obviously intended for him to be able to do so, since he's able to move in every other direction!"

I think Insaniak makes an excellent point in his post.

Rymafyr,

No one is saying RAI means making rules out of whole cloth. Obviously, you play by the written rule. The question is how do you handle ambiguity and absurdity in the rules--Do you play by RAW even though the reading may be strained or the results absurd, or do you attempt to go beyond the letter of the rule and reach a conclusion at to what was actually meant despite the odd wording.

Brice

RAI to me is fine, but is in no way the path to follow. I prefer RAW but will play RAI if my opponent wishes, so long as his intent isnt outlandish. Which happens about 1/4 of the time. RAI from my experiance is someone saying I dont like the way you play, this is the way I play and if you dont like you must be a power gamer.

My interpretation of rules settled in a gentlemanly manner is a round a bout of fisticuffs.

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

This is a pretty funny claim to make. Most words in English have several possible meanings and there is usually a number of equally
valid ways to apply those meanings to any particular rule. A good example is the argument over God of War and No Retreat. Both sides insist (quite correctly) that they are arguing the rules as written, but they have diametrically opposed understandings.

Of course the GoW/NR debate also points up the problem with RaI, which is that intent can be pretty hard to work out. It's a real shame GW have made it so difficult to ask questions of the game developers; it would greatly assist the issue of FAQs to provide a clear version of 'how the game should be played'. That said the rulebook itself covers this issue and provides a number of ways mature players can resolve a lack of clarity to their mutual satisfaction.

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'.

That's a pretty arrogant position to take. Both sides in one of these arguments has view on how the rules should function and wants everyone else to adopt that view. Both sides (at least in these internet debates) frequently start throwing around moral arguments in the hope that this will shame the other side into changing.

Odd how it never works.

It isn't odd. The whole RAI vs RAW argument is a bizarre false dilemma that should be ignored by literate persons.

It's bizarre because there are actual legitimate unresolved problems in the philosophy of language, and whether a set of written rules should be resolved literally or as intended isn't one of them.

I generally play RAI though if I run into a rules ______ I will give it as good as they try to lay it on me.

BAAA

I ruled with RAW. but with a caveat

being an ork player, I could easily point out atleast 6 more likely upwards of a dozen of things that are in desperate needing of an updated faq. these issues have been documented and reported to GW and yet they refuse to adjust the rules.

even issues that come up in tournament,varry from game to game or organizer to organizer

this has NO synergy with the RAW ideal, that the books as written should be heald as gospel when trying to figure out the rules.

RAW should work.. but then again its not like the rules are clear enough for that opinion shold e valid anyway

Nurglitch wrote:It isn't odd. The whole RAI vs RAW argument is a bizarre false dilemma that should be ignored by literate person.

It's bizarre because there are actual legitimate unresolved problems in the philosophy of language, and whether a set of written rules should be resolved literally or as intended isn't one of them.

It's not a issue of cognitive science , a exploration of language and how it affects our ability to think and formulate thought. It's a issue I believe in similar vein to what you find in the American Justice system when examining law , many lawyers argue intent of a law, many argue as it is written.


It's a valid argument as to whether you should argue intention of a law or letter of the law.


edit:

It's interesting that the poll really is almost even with "swing" votes being in the Depends on the Situation Category.

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

BBeale wrote:Rymafyr,

No one is saying RAI means making rules out of whole cloth. Obviously, you play by the written rule. The question is how do you handle ambiguity and absurdity in the rules--Do you play by RAW even though the reading may be strained or the results absurd, or do you attempt to go beyond the letter of the rule and reach a conclusion at to what was actually meant despite the odd wording.

Brice

Yeah, I understood that. I've seen too many people claiming RAI and doing things similiar to my ludicrous example both while playing the game and while reading these forums. I'm not discounting that trying to understand the rules as they are intended is a worthless pursuit. However it is a dangerous pursuit when a person fails to consider 'context' and 'like examples' for a rules set or isn't aware of all of the rules. (I'm not saying I know all the rules mind you.) First and foremost our experience w/ any game is RAW and for the majority of actions in a game like this, RAW is all that is needed. Here's an easy example: Troop units (Models strictly on foot and barring any special rules that may apply to that unit) can move up to 6 inches in the movement phase. It's clear cut and I'd be surprised if someone tried to argue a different point. (Though I'm sure someone is going to go...'But what about...' in the following posts)

Nurglitch's post previous says it all I think...though I'm going to have to take an asprin now that he's made my brain hurt.

Hollismason wrote:
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.

But we don't have judges to interpret the rules for us so how can RAI be of any use? Intent is too subjective without some kind of guidance. Did the authors intend to nerf the Necron gauss weapon by not letting glancing hits destroy a vehicle or was that a slip up and just forgot that Necrons are suppose to p0wn anything with armor as intended in their codex?

Playing by RAW at least give a firmer foundation to discuss/debate/argue a rule. Intent requires common supposition not immediately identified.

I suspect a lot of players do not learn the RAW because they pick the game up by playing with friends who already know it.

That way, errors may be introduced owing to causes such as familiarity with previous and out of date editions.

However, once set in their ways, players take exception to other players who want to do things a different way.

I think people are confusing the term RAI with Make gak up. It's not make gak up

Let's use the Shrike example.

It's basically a catch 22 because of the rules. ICs join squads upon deployment.

1. Independent Characters may begin the game with a unit by being deployed in coherency with them.

2. A unit without infiltrate has to either A. Be deployed during normal deployment or B. Kept in Reserve which happens before deployment.

3. Shrike is not part of that unit when it is being deployed, he is part of that unit once they are deployed he may be deployed with them and at the start of the game he may be considered part of that unit.

4. You can't deploy a squad that does not have infiltrate during the infiltrate as it is not a infiltrator. The squad only gains infiltrator when shrike joins it.

5. It is joined by shrike when it is deployed. They gain infiltrate when shrike is part of the unit.

6. The unit has to be deployed during normal deployment because at the time it does not have infiltrate because shrike is not with the unit.

You can't place Shrike , then place the squad and say they are together because during deployment a squad has to be set up in your deployment zone.

Infiltrators are set up last. If Shrike is set up before that squad then they dont have infiltrate.


Basically the only way to give a squad infiltrate with shrike is to set them up normally within your deployment then place shrike to join them.


It's a horrible horrible example of a catch 22;


Now the intention is that the Squad should have infiltrate, if it wasn't don't you think it would say Shrike allows a squad to outflank not infiltrate, but because of the way the rules are written he can't. He can start in reserve with them and outflank, but there is no way to place that squad during the infiltration phase because they do not have the ability till shrike is with the unit and he does not give that to them until he joins them.


The intention of this was to allow shrike to infiltrate a unit, not just allow outflank or it would say that.

Hollismason wrote:Now the intention is that the Squad should have infiltrate,

And that's a prime example of why playing RAI doesn't work... You have absolutely no way of knowing that. You simply think that it's the way it should work.

That's not RAI. That's Rules as you think they should work.

if it wasn't don't you think it would say Shrike allows a squad to outflank not infiltrate,

That would be pointless, since the outflank rule specifically only affects units witht he Scouts or Infiltrate special rule.

So granting a unit joined to Shrike only the outflank rule (which is counter-intuitive anyway, since outflank is a mission special rule rather than a USR) would be akin to giving Stormboyz Waaagh!... It simply wouldn't actually do anything.

The intention of this was to allow shrike to infiltrate a unit, not just allow outflank or it would say that.

It's certainly possible that the intention was to allow Shrike to join a unit pre-game and infiltrate with them.
It's equally possible that the intention was simply to give the unit Infiltrate for the sole purpose of allowing them access to the outflank rule, given all the complaints last edition about first turn assaults.

So which do you use, if you're playing by RAI?

Well, let's look at another character one that does specifically state the outflank.


Khan's ability is that units lose the ability of Combat Tactics and gain outflank. (Let's not get off on a tangent but you can argue this as written as a useless ability I'll add it at the end).


Shrike and his squad benefit from the infiltrate special rule.


Interesting wording there in one case it is specifically mentioned that a squad outflanks and the other instance by RAW does the same thing.


Now this book was written by the same author why in once instance does he use Outflank and in another state infiltrate why not say Shrike and models in his squad gain outflank.

It's a interesting choice of words. I think that the intention was that Shrike should give a squad infilitrate such as Cato Sicarius giving it to one Tactical Squad this ability.


So I believe the intention of the author was for Shrike to allow full use of the infiltrate rule otherwise I believe it would have been written Shrike and his unit may outflank.

edit:

The whole Khan thing, Outflank is not a Universal Special Rule, it is a addendum to units with the ability of Scout and Infiltrate. As written in the first paragraph of Outflank. During the deployment players may declare that units with the 'scout' or 'infiltrate' special rules are attempting to outflank the enemy.

As written, Khans ability does nothing to units that do not have the scout or infiltrate special rule, as Outflank is a separate entry in Mission special rules only applying to units that have scout or infiltrate. None of these units have scout or infiltrate so they cannot take benefit of outflank.

Again Outflank is not a special universal rule. It s a rule for Scouts and Infiltrators in the Mission Special Rules.

Now I know the intention of this is that your units may outflank, but by a RAW they can't because they do not have scout or infiltrate. The rule cannot be said to apply except to scouts and infiltrators, so reading that During Deployment players may declare that units with the scout or infiltrate special rules are attempting to outflank the enemy . Now we have to both agree that interpretation would be this rule only applies to squads with scout and infiltrate. Nowhere in Khans rules does it say a unit may gain or act as if it were. It just states they gain Outflank which is a entry not a universal special rule.

So through a RAW Khan's ability does nothing for any unit in the army except those that already have the ability.


In fact this is a perfect example of a player having to interpret what they are saying as it's completely unclear, it jhust says they gain outflank which is not actually a Universal Special rule, but a entry in Mission Special Rules apply to scouts and infiltrators.

I go RAW, mostly. I have been known to go with a "house" rule for RAI, just for fun.

I have heard some interpretation, such as the machine spirit in 4th ed. It was said, "Well, since it fires a weapon on it's own, it *should* be able to fire at someone else." Too much of this goes in to always go by RAI.

I am OK with RAW.

I am also OK with "Players and Tournament Organizers have the final authority and responsibility vis a vis the rules, not GW."

RAW unless people have come to a pretty good consensus otherwise. What people should these be? Us. Dakka. BOLS. TB&C. etc.

I would say RAW, unless it obviously goes against RAI. IE: Terminators don't wear terminator armor (4th ed)

I think the real misunderstanding here is in how RAI is applied. Everyone starts with RAW. Sometimes there are in game effects, which when the rules are applied literally, lead to absurd results. This is when we should look to RAI in an effort to avoid effects that are unbalancing. Unfortunately, there seems to be a very vocal segment of the community who object to this extra level of analysis, even in the face of obvious absurdity. The problem is that RAI has been mischaracterized in this thread, and others, as supplanting RAW instead of supplementing it. At the end of the day, if you act mature and apply common sense to the rules in an adult manner, these issue can be dealt with without leaving anyone feeling like they just got violated by a lictor.

Brice

I don't think that this can be as simple as black and white (RAW / RAI), but is more of a situational argument. In most cases it will be and should be RAW as what is written should be law. However, there are times where RAW are vague and unclear (more often than it should be) and you just have to use your best judgment as to what the rules should be. Normal RAW will win, but there is no way you can say RAW or RAI for every single discrepancy in every codex and rulebook.

In a friendly game I go by Rules as Interpreted by My Opponent (however wrong they are), in a tournament game I go by Rules as Interpreted by the Judge (however wrong they are).

BBeale wrote: Sometimes there are in game effects, which when the rules are applied literally, lead to absurd results.

Like the rule that units that are designed to go out and capture objectives from the enemy (assault squads, terminators, and similar) can't actually capture an objective.

Those units are still fine for capturing objectives. You just need Troops to hold the objectives.

Of course, Deathwing Terminators can both take and hold objectives. Go Team Dark Angel! /-\

They can only deny objectives, they can't capture them.

I think the bigest problem is that the rules writers are writing RAI not RAW.

Let me explain what I mean. Jervis has publicly said that they don't playtest extreme builds and that during playtesting, the dev. team don't use FAQ's because everyone 'knows' how to play.

This is, of course, extremely sloppy and leads to the following problem:

Designer A is writing a new codex and comes up with a 'great' new rule. He plays a few games against his mates in the studio to get a feel for how it works, what issues there are and how powerful it is (so he can cost it).
BUT - because he doesn't exhaustively and scientifically test it against every unit from every army and study how it interacts with every previous game rule, he writes down how he INTENDS it to be used, based on a limited sample.
This means that the rule will work fine - but ONLY in those cases.

Now, the book is published and is thrown to the masses. People study it and find situations where the RAW are now unclear (thanks to the failure of proper testing). We don't know what the writer intended, so we ask GW for clarification.
An FAQ (may) appear at some indeterminate point...


What SHOULD happen for every new rule is that it should be cross-referrenced with each previously existing rule by the designer to look for loopholes and strange interactions.
After the designer is happy, the new rule needs checking by other people in the most extreme situations they can devise. Any problems need highlighting and fixing.
Finally, the wording must be checked by someone who understands English grammar to ensure there is no ambiguity in what is written.

At this point RAW and RAI meet in perfect harmony beneath little fluffy clouds, with bunny rabbits and....

I'm sorry, time for the medication again

insaniak wrote:I suspect that some people are taking RAI to mean 'Rules as I think makes the most sense' rather than what it actually means.

Because I quite frankly can't see any way possible to play the game entirely by either RAW or RAI. RAW leads to silliness in certain situations, although often that's just a result of poor reading or ignoring context. And RAI is by and large a mystery.

All you have left is the way that I (and I suspect most people) actually play, which is to use the rules as written combined with your own idea of what makes the most sense and/or what will be the most fun at the time.

Totally agree here.

I think most people have a pre-conceived idea of what RAW is and what RAI is. To people in the RAW camp, RAI seems to mean "ignore the rules, those IG Shotguns are obviously S4" while the RAI types seem to think that RAW is "ignore common sense, you obviously can't assault out of an open topped vehicle if you have the Fleet special rule" (as the new FAQ suggests, by bad RAW wording).

I suspect that most people play the game using the rules, but will make concessions for things that are just plain silly or are ambiguous.

Think back to v4: did anyone actually play the "Heavy Weapons guy with a pistol can fire his Heavy twice at 12" range" rule, even though it was RAW?

Didn't think so.