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.

If it's actually RAW, it, by definition, isn't exploitation.

Dictionary.com:
1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.
3. To advertise; promote.

So RAW can never be used selfishly or to gain the greatest possible advantage? I find that unlikely.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Dictionary.com:
1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.
3. To advertise; promote.

I want to incubate your chest-bursters.

What I meant is that some people use the term RAW as a guise in an attempt to exploit the rules.

G

My favourite examples of RAW abuse are:

1. People demanding to be quoted the text where a rule is stated when most of the rules in the game are only implied (albeit clearly and deductively) from the rules stated in the text. Because, of course, if the rule isn't written, it doesn't exist...

Someday GW will hire a professional technical writer and there will be text to quote for every rule in the game. In the meantime, perhaps in the interest of brevity or creativity, most of the rules in the game are simply a consequence of the few rules stated in the text.

My problem with RAW, to repeat myself from an earlier post, is that writing is supposed to convey the intent of the writer. Clear writing does this with a very low noise to signal ratio. Good writing has an equal noise to signal ratio, but the noise sounds good, and the signal is not beyond our attention span.

I think that's one reason why people unfamiliar with the philosophies of language might invent the dilemma of RAW vs RAI. After all, writing conveys intent, but sometimes people mispeak themselves and convey the wrong intent. But that's not evidence for the conclusion that intention and meaning are somehow independent. That's just evidence that being able to communicate clearly and well is a skill that requires exercise.

This brings me to my second favourite example of RAW abuse:

2. People declaring that a particular reading or interpretation of the text is obvious or clear. After all, , they say, it's the RAW. This sort of argument from superior intellect drives me nuts, particularly given my experiences tutoring arts students in critical thinking and logic.

Remember, arts students that take introductory logic classes are usually there because they weren't good at math, the very sort of step-by-step reasoning involving reproducible results that they are required to exercise with symbolic logic. Incidentally, that why courses in the application of logic are being replaced by courses in critical thinking, the mickey mouse 'no-math' version. Because math is 'hard'.

But the reason these courses are required for students taking philosophy is the same reason carpenters are required to take a shop class in high school, to get the message into their skulls that while eye-balling it may be fun, and some well-trained people can eye-ball things and know exactly where to cut, an objective stanard of measurement is necessary. It is necessary so that people can agree on objective states of affairs and move on.

The point of applying methodical procedures to reading, interpretation, and analysis is to gain the advantage of reproducible and objective results. Just saying "Oh, well, the RAW is clear" and leaving it at that does nothing, particularly where the truth of the matter is of public interest: like in a discussion forum. So you think it's clear. What if you're wrong? How will you know? How will I know?

The problem with the obvious is that it'll encourage you to ignore the evidence, to skip checking your work, and to require people to rely on expertise and trust when the cost of doing so is not mandated. This is a discussion forum about little toy soldiers; we discuss this stuff at our leisure.

I mean, it's nice that things are perfectly clear and obvious to some people, and seem too simple for explanation, but that's not useful for the purposes of getting it right (since nobody's perfect), and making it clear to others.

Anyhoo, pet peeves.

There is no problem with RAW under 99% of circumstances.

my BS3 tau hit on 4+. RAW. No problem.

However there comes certain situations where designers (who are human) leave small holes. Which lead to other small holes, which lead to exploitable rules.

Then the problem comes in if people perceive those holes to be intentional or not, and whether playing through those holes is exploitation. Perhaps not specifically closing the holes implies that they were meant to be left open. Unfortunately, someone who argues against this has no leg to stand on other than 'that seems unfair and unintended'.

I saw a link on here that linked back to a 4th ed discussion on Gets Hot! weapons vs Instant Death. By absolute strict reading the rules implied that Gets Hot was instant death. It was obviously not the intended effect, but, by RAW at its pinnacle, that was what happened. The loophole has since been closed in 5th ed, but it was a good discussion if you can find it.

99% is extremely idealistic.

G

99% of the rules that you follow RAW have no problem.

about 3/4 rules queries at our club are solved in 10 seconds simply by looking at a relevant section of the rulebook or codex.

about 3/4 of the rules queries that take more than 10 seconds to solve take 2 mins to solve by looking at the relevant section of the rulebook.

I like this quote from Lord_Sutekh's sig: "As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely the result of wishful thinking."

Like the person on here a few days ago who wanted to put Bikes into a transport. You had to get down to extreme technicalities; reading that far into the rules wasnt intended. And that is why 'RAW' has a bad name, when people try to jump through hoops to get stuff.

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

G

Forums are not actually playing 40k, the question is have you actually played someone who used rules that were blatently abusive in the name of RAW?

Kilkrazy wrote: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.

I'd kind of agree with that, but I think it depends on the relative gaming experience of the two players. For example, my gaming group have all been at it for a minimum of 5 years. We are aware that as the Rulebook ages, the newer Army Books and Codecies can throw up progressively confusing situations. So, we just have a quick pre-game chat, usually whilst arranging terrain and sorting out our forces about anything we forsee cropping up. If need be, wordings in Codex and Rulebook are compared, and an agreement is reached.

Covering as much as possible at this stage prevents confusing a genuine rules question with rules lawyering, as in my experience, Rules Lawyers wait for the situation to come up, and then argue which ever side of the toss will be most advantageous to them. Now obviously, you cannot discuss every possible combination, as some are overlooked initially and then come to the fore mid-game. And yet the pre-game chat goes a long way here, as you have already established a rational dialogue with your opponent. A good example cropped up in my Fantasy game on Thursday.

I was playing Savage Orcs, Ben was playing Daemons. I position my Warboss on Wyvern to charge and smoosh the unit of Horrors. Then, he plays his trump card, Siren Song, from a Slaaneshi Herald in a neighbouring unit of Daemonettes. Now for the confusing part....

Siren Song is a one use per game ability, which forces a unit which could legally charge the bearer (or the bearers unit) to declare their charge against them, or Flee. However, Frenzy can tend to interfere with this. Why? Frenzied units, to my reading of the rules, are not allowed to declare charges. Instead, the rule states than after all other non-Frenzied units have declared their charges, I must measure to see if any of my Frenzied units are within charge reach of any enemy units. If they are, the unit automatically charges them. If multiple units are potential targets, I may choose which to charge. Furthermore, Frenzy all grants Immune to Psychology, which whilst offering bonuses (no panic, fear, or Terror) prevents me from fleeing enemy charges.

So, the problem occurs in the 2nd turn. I'll spare you the details, and just say we agreed I could not elect to flee, and had to charge the Daemonettes. Not a big problem as the Boss promptly flattend the Champion, and then the Herald, and the nearby unit of Savage Boarboyz stomped the Horrors (literally!) out of existence.

Harkainos wrote:

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

G

Forums are not actually playing 40k, the question is have you actually played someone who used rules that were blatently abusive in the name of RAW?

Obviously if someone is looking for a loophole here they probably intend to use it when they game.

G

Trasvi wrote:However there comes certain situations where designers (who are human) leave small holes. Which lead to other small holes, which lead to exploitable rules.

Ever read the rules on DE Combat Drugs when the Succubus also buys a drug dispenser? I've even had a teacher in English analyze the sentence and come to the conclusion that every sinlge Wych gets to use the dispenser instead of rolling for the squad drugs. Luckily there's no explanation of how this would work (who rolls, who dies etc).

we discuss the rules here because we play the game. It's just that simple really.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Obviously if someone is looking for a loophole here they probably intend to use it when they game.

Or they've seen (or had used against them) a potential loophole and are looking for discussion on whether or not it's correct, so that they can decide how to actually play it in future.

The 'obvious' answer isn't always the correct one.

yes we see this often enough really.

G