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.

Arschbombe wrote:YMDC is also about how you would play it (making da call).

Yet for some reason when people say they would play it RaW, it becomes a dick move, while playing it by ignoring the rules isn't.

Gwar! wrote: Yet for some reason when people say they would play it RaW, it becomes a dick move, while playing it by ignoring the rules isn't.

That's because often the RAW gives absurd results and choosing to play it another way makes for a better game for the players involved.

Arschbombe wrote:That's because often the RAW gives absurd results and choosing to play it another way makes for a better game for the players involved.

In your opinion.
In mine, playing the game by the rules, instead of screwing over one of the players with an on the fly house rule, makes for a better game.

@Arschbombe

Only if you don't count FAQs and errata as RAW, which they are.

Gwar! wrote:
In mine, playing the game by the rules, instead of screwing over one of the players with an on the fly house rule, makes for a better game.

Who the hell are you to tell other people how they should play? I can understand your insistence on blindly adhering to the RAW in a game in which you are participating, but you have absolutely no standing to tell others how they should play. Christ on a crutch.

SaintHazard wrote:@Arschbombe

Only if you don't count FAQs and errata as RAW, which they are.

Err, not really. Errata is RAW, but FAQs are (lamentably) semi-official house rules than can be ignored. I don't know anyone who actually does ignore them (gwar might). The RAW crowd says we have to use the words are written because we cannot know the intent behind them. The FAQs, however, point out that the RAW approach quite often contradicts the actual intent.

SaintHazard wrote:@Arschbombe

Only if you don't count FAQs and errata as RAW, which they are.

Actually, only the Errata are, but I'll stop here before insaniak bans me again.

Arschbombe wrote:Who the hell are you to tell other people how they should play? I can understand your insistence on blindly adhering to the RAW in a game in which you are participating, but you have absolutely no standing to tell other how they should play. Christ on a crutch.

Woah Woah Woah! Hold on there sparky. I am not telling people how they should play. You are, in fact, the one doing that. In my world, THE RULES tell you how you should play. In yours, YOU tell them how they should play.

Again, what is up with this notion that following the rules makes you some kind of Monster from the pit of Hades?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

"RAI" is a hideous term which essentially means "I dont like what the rule says because of [insert fluff justification here], so here is what we should play instead" - the trouble is wghat people think is "RAI" can differ wildly, and the justification from fluff can, with a 99.9% probability, be used the other way round (assuming two interpretations, for simplicity). Hence, when a rule is as unambiguous as this one is using RAW makes a load more sense, common or otherwise.

Not even getting into this thread, but RAW can be just as misinterpreted as RAI. For some reason, RAW purists believe that every sentence reads the same, no matter who reads it. This is not the case. Inflection, tone, even where you're from, two people can hear the same phrase completely differently.

To say that you can't have a clue about "RAI", but you can be certain about "RAW" is an oxymoron. By implying what you think about "RAW", you're giving your very own "RAI" interpretation. You're telling me that the RAW says "X". Well, I read "X" differently than you do, so who is right? That's where RAI comes in. RaW purists think about RAI with such disgust and disdain that they give it no merit whatsoever. They take the book at face value, like a Christian that believes that the world was created in 7 days because the Bible says it was. No logic needed.

The same disgust and disdain that you look upon RAI with, nos, is the same that the people who don't believe that the game is a cut-and-dry set of sentences and paragraphs that come together to form rules look upon pure RAW. The rules incorporate people, people who have opinions about how a rule should work and what it was intended to do. You're implying there's no measure of that whatsoever and that's where we (and many other people) disagree.

Gwar! wrote:
Again, what is up with this notion that following the rules makes you some kind of Monster from the pit of Hades?

If the rules were written better there wouldn't be a conflict. But the rules are poorly written and spread out across umpteen codices, supplements, FAQs and the main rulebook. The sad reality is that the rules are a secondary concern for GW and it shows. So strict adherence to RAW can create absurd situations that are off-putting to many players. Insisting on following the letter of the rules to the exclusion of all else like lemmings going over a cliff is what irks people.

Which is a much more polite way to say what I think you were trying to say before.

And that's a fair point.

FlingitNow wrote:

I like how you subtly imply that following the rules makes you a jerk.

No I didn't I implied willfully ignoring the rules to apply RaW made you a jerk...

thats going in my sig.

RAW there is no way the pathfinders take a test to shoot the harlequins, and the changeling doesnt have to take a test to see them.

RaI and fluff bunny argument wise, heres what I put forth. The changeling is a demon of tzeentch, who has reached into the minds of pathfinders so they will redirect their shots. Now the harlequin veil of tears is an active attempt to keep them hidden from their enemies, not their friends. So they wouldnt bother hiding from the pathfinders, and its unlikely they would suddenly realize the snipers behind them are pointing their guns at the harlequins backs.

I mean its a demon of tzeentch seeing through the eyes of a friendly unit, ' these are not the clowns you are looking for' wont get much done here.

Yay. Another thread dragged off track in the same tired old RAW/RAI argument. Well done.