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.

lol. That's more of an interpretation abuse thing than Raw vs RAI, the monolith rules says something to the effect of "When it suffers a weeapon destroyed, subtract -1 from the shots it fires." Technically, that's a double negative and you would have to add 1. It's like how the Barbed Strangler says that it can only cause penetrating hits against a vehicle with the open-topped rule, therefore it is incapable of glancing opentopped vehicles but is more than welcome to pen a LR.

There are plenty of instances where the RAW gives us 2 possible ways something could work depending on how we interpret things like the language. I play RAW, but in these situations you pretty much have to try to guess what the RAI is.

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?

EDIT: Nevermind about the Blood Angels transports, they fixed that.

EDIT AGAIN: I just looked at the FAQ! They said they fixed it, but they lied... Blood Angel Transports are reverse deathtraps! They Bllod Angels can only disembark if you blow up the vehicle - and if you do and they make their pinning check, they take no consequences for not having an exit (look closely at the Trapped rule for vehicles).

If I Lash a unit within 2" of an Independent character that can neither join nor lead squads, what happens? He Automatically joins a squad within 2", but he can't join the squad. He shouldn't be there - yet he is....

RAI can only come into play where the rules have nothing to say on a subject.

For example, the rule book doesn't actually say that you can deploy inside a transport. It implies it (with the rule on dedicated transports) but it's not stated. How many people play that you cannot start deployed in a transport (except from reserves)?

Or, as mentioned above, the blood angels rhino. I'm pretty sure that it was supposed to have access points but nothing is mentioned.


As for wonky rules, I used to be a big proponent of RAI over RAI to overcome wonky situations but once I stopped trusting what other people told me their codexs said these wonky situations pretty much vanished.

Corum 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?

EDIT: Nevermind about the Blood Angels transports, they fixed that.

If I Lash a unit within 2" of an Independent character that can neither join nor lead squads, what happens? He Automatically joins a squad within 2", but he can't join the squad. He shouldn't be there - yet he is....

Wow... This is crystal clear:

Page 48 wrote:If a character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it.

Nothing in the Lash Rules say the placement of the enemy models can break that rule, so it cannot.

But wait, there's MOAR!

Page 48 wrote:An independent character may not join or leave a unit during the Shooting and Assault phases - once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is too late to join in or duck out!

So even if he COULD join the unit, he does not join it until the next movement phase, as Lash is used in the Shooting.

But please, keep trying to find these "Unclear" Situations, I find it refreshing to debunk them.

Gwar! wrote:

Corum 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?

EDIT: Nevermind about the Blood Angels transports, they fixed that.

If I Lash a unit within 2" of an Independent character that can neither join nor lead squads, what happens? He Automatically joins a squad within 2", but he can't join the squad. He shouldn't be there - yet he is....

Wow... This is crystal clear:

Page 48 wrote:If a character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it.

Nothing in the Lash Rules say the placement of the enemy models can break that rule, so it cannot.

But wait, there's MOAR!

Page 48 wrote:An independent character may not join or leave a unit during the Shooting and Assault phases - once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is too late to join in or duck out!

So even if he COULD join the unit, he does not join it until the next movement phase, as Lash is used in the Shooting.

But please, keep trying to find these "Unclear" Situations, I find it refreshing to debunk them.

Using the above then, I have a greater daemon more than 2" apart from another marine squad. The marine squad charges the enemy. Then the daemon charges. So far, so good. The combat ends in a draw, so everyone stays where they are. Now it's my turn. In my movement phase, I see the captain is within 2" of a squad, but did not join the unit in the previous movement phase. He can't move, since he's locked, and neither can they. What happens then?


P.S. The Lash says "Victims may not be moved off the table, into impassable terrain, or within 1" of enemy models." don't see anything in there about not moving near a friendly squad.

P.P.S. Notcied you didn't approach the Blood Angel thing? Any answer there?

Corum wrote:Using the above then, I have a greater daemon more than 2" apart from another marine squad. The marine squad charges the enemy. Then the daemon charges. So far, so good. The combat ends in a draw, so everyone stays where they are. Now it's my turn. In my movement phase, I see the captain is within 2" of a squad, but did not join the unit in the previous movement phase. He can't move, since he's locked, and neither can they. What happens then?

So what, are you talking about a Greater Daemon or a Captain here? In either Case, if they have the IC rule then they do not join the unit in the movement phase, because he he is locked in combat.

Again, Page 48:An independent character may not join or leave a unit while ether he or the unit is locked in combat or falling back.

For reference, the Greater Daemon does not have the IC rule so while he can move to within 2", he wont ever join them.

Corum wrote:P.S. The Lash says "Victims may not be moved off the table, into impassable terrain, or within 1" of enemy models." don't see anything in there about not moving near a friendly squad.

I already pointed out the relevant rules. That is NOT an exhaustive list. The restriction I showed you is from the rulebook. Nothing in the Lash's rules says you may ignore that rule, so you cannot. And it is an academic point anyway since he cannot join the squad outside the movement phase, and in the next movement phase you then just move him to be more than 2" away, since they only join at the end of the movement phase.

Corum wrote:P.P.S. Notcied you didn't approach the Blood Angel thing? Any answer there?

Because you said never mind and then edited your post to make it look like I was avoiding it. But since I am above taking offence at a deliberate attack on my character, I shall answer. Does the Blood Angel Codex say they have Access Points? If they don't, then they don't. You don't like it, Blame GW. Not my problem if they Don't write the rules properly.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:There are plenty of instances where the RAW gives us 2 possible ways something could work depending on how we interpret things like the language. I play RAW, but in these situations you pretty much have to try to guess what the RAI is.

This is exactly the point that is often ignored on this, and many other forums.

The issue is that what constitutes the 'RAW' in many situations varies greatly between two people as language is not a perfect science like mathematics.

So if you approach a game intending to play the 'RAW' be aware that you are really attempting to play the 'RAW as you interpret them'. If you don't take this fact into consideration and work to amicably resolve the differences of interpretation that you and your opponent have then be aware that it is you who is causing the issue, not your opponent who you believe is 'not playing by the RAW'.

In addition, there are many situations where the best the 'RAW' can logically provide is that there is no clear answer. In these cases, RAI is exactly what is used by every player. You throw out what you think the designers intended (or should have intended) with the unclear/incomplete rule and if your opponent believes the same thing you move right along as if this is what the 'RAW' actually say.

I think the issue with the NFW and EW it's clear that by RAI we know that the designer had no idea about the latter, and this should be taken into consideration.

G

Gwar! wrote:

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.

This IS the nature of the question (apart from some more WC-themed PLAY BY RAW AT ALL TIMES threads) really, and the cruz of the argument. I'd argue that declining someone's use of Digital Weapons in this situation, while completely RAW (I understand your logic, Gwar) would be completely unreasonable as a player.

If I as playing against someone who 'refused' the use of Digital Lasers as Digital Weapons, I would pack up and leave. That simple.

Now, there are some other situations that are more 'proveable' by RAW, but that I would consider 'rules exploitation' if someone was to actually use them. Such as IG Heavy Weapon Squad in someone else's Chimera firing three lascannons out of the top hatch. It's RAW, but i wouldn't play by it. Having said that, I'd have a problem playing against maxed nob bikers, too. I know it's in the rules, but I'd consider you a tool for using it....

Of course, people are welcome to cry 'play by the rules' and exploit all these loopholes and situations so that they can win their toy soldier games, playing exactly by the letter (even the misspelled letter) of the rules, even if the situation is patently unfair. These people are NOT the sort of people I wish to play against.

At the end of the day, everyone is free to choose which rules they play with, and who they play with. They're not wrong or right for choosing x instead of y. It's only a game, etc etc etc...

Urm... Why are you considering Firing Heavy Weapons out of a Chimera an "Exploit"?
If that's an Exploit then my Devastator Marines in the Tactical Squads Rhino are exploiting by Firing their Lascannons out of the top hatch too.
That is by far one of the silliest things I have seen someone get annoyed about in a long time.

RAW for some is RAI for others. It's like the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther claimed that the Bible should be made available to the common folks so they would not have to depend on the Priest ability to read Latin. Luther was certain that everyone would read the Bible and take away the same meaning-----OOOOOOPS. Mind you, some people are just thick.

yakface wrote:

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:There are plenty of instances where the RAW gives us 2 possible ways something could work depending on how we interpret things like the language. I play RAW, but in these situations you pretty much have to try to guess what the RAI is.

This is exactly the point that is often ignored on this, and many other forums.

The issue is that what constitutes the 'RAW' in many situations varies greatly between two people as language is not a perfect science like mathematics.

So if you approach a game intending to play the 'RAW' be aware that you are really attempting to play the 'RAW as you interpret them'. If you don't take this fact into consideration and work to amicably resolve the differences of interpretation that you and your opponent have then be aware that it is you who is causing the issue, not your opponent who you believe is 'not playing by the RAW'.

While there is much validity to this, it should also be pointed out that the majority (from my experience) of misinterpretations of RAW comes from three things.

1. Not a strong enough understanding of the language. While language is not an exact science, I have not come across any instances where there was no clear answer because of equally valid language application rules. I have absolutely zero interest in having a discussion with someone on language structure and rules, ever. Thankfully sentence structure is not a common problem. One example of it though is the teleport homers, and what choose applies to in the sentence based on language structure rules.

2. Throwback thinking. I see more rules misconceptions from people that have played steadily across multiple editions by far than in new players, or players that took a long break. Some people have a preconceived notion of how something works because it has worked that way for multiple editions, and just can't wrap their head around it working different now, no matter how clear the RAW is. This is very common where I play.

3. Confusion about the mechanics of the rules themselves. If you think every player has even heard of the term "permissive ruleset", let alone understands it, you would be wrong. Not understanding the mechanics of the rules framework will absolutely lead to some wacky 'interpretations' of rules. Any rules disagreement stemming from this needs to be diced off if you can't agree. You simply can't declare someone wrong because they are using the rules wrong when there is no guidance whatsoever in the book to tell them to use them in this way. It is a logical extrapolation that many players simply don't see, and won't accept your explanation that to them seems pulled out of thin air.

If you don't like dicing off on things that to you are completely clear rules, don't play with people that use the rules differently than you. Don't get offended if someone turns you down for a game though because you use the rules differently from them.

I know I'm kind of late on this one, but no one else mentioned it, so I guess I will. The only time an independant character that cannot join a squad is disallowed from being within 2" of it is at the end of the movement phase. You can move him that close with lash, he just won't give a damn.

Kaaihn wrote:
2. Throwback thinking. I see more rules misconceptions from people that have played steadily across multiple editions by far than in new players, or players that took a long break. Some people have a preconceived notion of how something works because it has worked that way for multiple editions, and just can't wrap their head around it working different now, no matter how clear the RAW is. This is very common where I play.

lol. When I 1st started playing, I read and reread the entire 4e rulebook only to have 5e come out half a year later. You wouldn't believe the number of times I was wrong about rules because I remembered what I learned 1st as opposed to what was right.

yakface wrote:

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:There are plenty of instances where the RAW gives us 2 possible ways something could work depending on how we interpret things like the language. I play RAW, but in these situations you pretty much have to try to guess what the RAI is.

This is exactly the point that is often ignored on this, and many other forums.

The issue is that what constitutes the 'RAW' in many situations varies greatly between two people as language is not a perfect science like mathematics.

So if you approach a game intending to play the 'RAW' be aware that you are really attempting to play the 'RAW as you interpret them'. If you don't take this fact into consideration and work to amicably resolve the differences of interpretation that you and your opponent have then be aware that it is you who is causing the issue, not your opponent who you believe is 'not playing by the RAW'.

In addition, there are many situations where the best the 'RAW' can logically provide is that there is no clear answer. In these cases, RAI is exactly what is used by every player. You throw out what you think the designers intended (or should have intended) with the unclear/incomplete rule and if your opponent believes the same thing you move right along as if this is what the 'RAW' actually say.

That may be the most rational and true explanation of why there is not such thing as "perfect RAW" and is the reason that GW always takes the standpoint of "who cares, just play what you want."

I think this is why things like the INAT FAQ are so critical when trying to take a game deliberatly written NOT to be played competitively, and playing it competitively.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think the issue with the NFW and EW it's clear that by RAI we know that the designer had no idea about the latter, and this should be taken into consideration.

G

I think the intent is quite clear, given that immune to ID things existed before EW ever appeared, and force weapons still slew them outright.

You also have written intent in the 5th ed rulebook: where your codex contradicts the BRB, your codex wins.

So, you have RAW and RAI perfectly 100% fully and unutterably in agreement. Houserule it if you want, just acknowledge it as such.

what had immunity to instant death prior to EW beside possibly a special character. Clarity of vision can only be acheived in a zero polluted environment. We can filter out the garbage through sheer force of will. Let the enemy break themslves upon the rocky beaches.

G

Gwar! wrote:

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.

Gwar! I don't think I'll ever hate you
I might get annoyed at you sometimes though (or most of the time )
Time to go look for an example in the codex's to find something like my example of spaze mariens!





-Orkishly

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think the issue with the NFW and EW it's clear that by RAI we know that the designer had no idea about the latter, and this should be taken into consideration.

G

I've been following this thread waiting for this to come out.

Predictable.

Wow what restraint on your part. I am truly impressed.

G

Isnt it though?

When I saw this thread I too was expecting the whole nemesis force weapon thing to come up...despite my opinion on the matter it deserves a full explanation from both sides. Have at it boys!

Each "weapon destroyed" result inflicted on the Monolith reduces the number of shots at each target by -1.

To reduce something by -1 is to add one. By RAW you gain attacks. RAW = Poop

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.

This is not true because:


Main Entry:
im·prove
Pronunciation:
\im-ˈprüv\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
im·proved; im·prov·ing
Etymology:
Middle English improuen, emprouen, from Anglo-French emprouer to make profit from, from French en- + pru, prou advantage, from Late Latin prode — more at proud
Date:
circa 1529
transitive verb
1archaic : employ, use
2 a: to enhance in value or quality : make better b: to increase the value of (land or property) by making it more useful for humans (as by cultivation or the erection of buildings) c: to grade and drain (a road) and apply surfacing material other than pavement
3: to use to good purpose
intransitive verb
1: to advance or make progress in what is desirable
2: to make useful additions or amendments


using the definition of improve you would never gain a worse armor save.

the INAT FAQ addresses many rules by clarification rather than strict RAW. I citing this as an example that in a large gaming environment a lot of people are willing to abide by decisions that are not always RAW. To me the best solution is both players agree to a solution that they both come away from the game not feeling cheated. Adepticon has walking judges that know the rules very well and work with both players when a rule is in question. I was very happy with their approach this year.

G

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?

dumplingman wrote:Hey I was just reading the eldar codex and taking a look at banshee masks and was wondering if the mask allows them to strike at their conferred I 10 when assaulting through cover.
page 31 "Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10 and negates any I bonus conferred by cover or grenades."

This is clearly a RAW is so stoopid point. Since its 100% clear that the RAI is that the Banshees always strike 1st. But they have outdated RAW.

Green Blow Fly wrote:what had immunity to instant death prior to EW beside possibly a special character. Clarity of vision can only be acheived in a zero polluted environment. We can filter out the garbage through sheer force of will. Let the enemy break themslves upon the rocky beaches.

G

As I mentioned in the other thread, Nids in synapse range. Read any forum rules queries from that period and every month someone would say "do force weapons insta-gib my nids?" with the correct, 100% undisputed answer being YES. Immunity to ID has been around a LONG time.

So we have the situation: Force Weapons in DH have their own, specific rules for how they work. These rules are consistent with 2 generations of main rulebook, but noth this one. That, however, does not matter, as this rulebook explicitly tells us that where the codex has their own version of something you use the codex version.

If you want to deny DH their Force Weapon codex rules on the basis the rulebook has been updated, then you also need to do the same for assault cannons etc. You also must ackowledge this is a hosuerule that gores against both RAW and RAI.7

Does this now make sense? Your insistence that it is somehow RaI that DH follow the main rulebook is just incorrect, sorry.

Gwar! wrote:Urm... Why are you considering Firing Heavy Weapons out of a Chimera an "Exploit"?
If that's an Exploit then my Devastator Marines in the Tactical Squads Rhino are exploiting by Firing their Lascannons out of the top hatch too.
That is by far one of the silliest things I have seen someone get annoyed about in a long time.

Aplogies Gwar - didn't clarify myself enough here. There's another thread going about this but I'll summarise.

The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera. The same then explains that, in reality, this represents several of the guard squad inside it firing the hull-mounted lasguns affixed to the side of the Chimera.

So a standard guard squad may well fire it's heavy weapon, special weapon, and a few lasguns. Completely reasonable, and I can certainly see how the squad could do this. But it seems that you could also put a heavy weapon squad inside the Chimera, and fire three lascannons from the top hatch. Which I'd consider taking the piss, to be honest, because of the way the rule is clarified. Rhinos on the other hand, don't have hull-mounted bolters, and five fire points to 'represent' them...

The argument currently going on says

Side 1 - The rule clarification says that many of the squad are firing lasguns. This must be taken into account, so you can't fire five hotshots, or three lascannons, or three mortars. Several should be lasguns. What constitutes several is up to the players agreeing...

Side 2 - The clarification part of the is just 'fluff' and doesn't count, and so we can ignore it and fire whatever we want out of the top hatch.

ArbitorIan wrote:The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera.

I'll stop you there.

Don't stop now when you are on a roll !



G

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:The rule says five models fire from the top hatch of a chimera.

I'll stop you there.

Nope. That's just what the first line of the rule says. The entire rule says much more than that. If it were that simple there wouldn't be any need for the clarification section, would there?