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.

So, do you think that every Imperial Guard player should be allowed to fire five plasma/melta/flamer weapons from the front turret hatch of Chimeras? Because that's what RAW says they have to do. Rule says top hatch; that is the highest hatch on the vehicle.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
RAW is most often used by TFG.

If following the rules makes me a TFG in your group, I would never want to play with your group.

Using exploits and insisting on details is TFG. Wanting to follow the rules normally is not.

You're on the internet now. Don't expect people to have any sense of subtlty whatsoever. A while ago someone was saying that they got to roll for reserves during their opponent's turn because "the rules said so".
I would agree though. The phrase "I'm only following the rules" is only ever used by some WAAC trying to exploit them.

Note that someone who breaks the rules is a cheat. A WAAC player is not a cheat, or he wouldn't be allowed to play at all. The existance of WAAC/TFG as phrases justify their own existance.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
So, do you think that every Imperial Guard player should be allowed to fire five plasma/melta/flamer weapons from the front turret hatch of Chimeras? Because that's what RAW says they have to do. Rule says top hatch; that is the highest hatch on the vehicle.

Sure, GW has stupidly never clarified which of the hatches on any vehicle is actually the Fire Point. So any of the hatches can be used, which does make sense. If I got a better shot out of the turret then i'll take the shot.

 Testify wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
RAW is most often used by TFG.

If following the rules makes me a TFG in your group, I would never want to play with your group.

Using exploits and insisting on details is TFG. Wanting to follow the rules normally is not.

You're on the internet now. Don't expect people to have any sense of subtlty whatsoever. A while ago someone was saying that they got to roll for reserves during their opponent's turn because "the rules said so".
I would agree though. The phrase "I'm only following the rules" is only ever used by some WAAC trying to exploit them.

In all fairness, that topic was the most fun I've had with 6th edition.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
So, do you think that every Imperial Guard player should be allowed to fire five plasma/melta/flamer weapons from the front turret hatch of Chimeras? Because that's what RAW says they have to do. Rule says top hatch; that is the highest hatch on the vehicle.

No, that's what one interpretation of the RAW says that they have to do.

 insaniak wrote:
No, that's what one interpretation of the RAW says that they have to do.

Well, I don't think there's any other way to interpret the word 'top'.

It's the hatch furthest from the bottom. The highest one on the model. So you'd measure range and draw LOS from the turret hatch, RAW. And if you placed the model on an incline so that the rear hatch was at the top, then that would be the hatch you'd use.

I remember there being a debate a long while ago about Valkyries being used to contest or claim objectives. Since they were, due to their flight stand, more than 3" (or whatever the distance was) from the objective, they could never contest/claim. And also never deploy troops, since they couldn't be placed within 2" of an exit point.

Some bright spark came up with the idea of modelling the exit hatch to be open, so troops could deploy within 2" of it (the hatch being part of the exit point) and tipping the model as if it were banking, so one wing would be closer to the ground and so able to contest/claim objectives.

 Kaldor wrote:
Well, I don't think there's any other way to interpret the word 'top'.

When you're talking about the passengers firing from a top hatch on a vehicle that has a large top hatch over the passenger compartment, and a small cupola hatch in the turret, there is most definitely another way to interpret it.

'Top' does not automatically mean 'highest'... Context matters.

I remember there being a debate a long while ago about Valkyries being used to contest or claim objectives. Since they were, due to their flight stand, more than 3" (or whatever the distance was) from the objective, they could never contest/claim. And also never deploy troops, since they couldn't be placed within 2" of an exit point.

And until GW FAQd it, that was a legitimate issue with the rules.

Some bright spark came up with the idea of modelling the exit hatch to be open, so troops could deploy within 2" of it (the hatch being part of the exit point) and tipping the model as if it were banking, so one wing would be closer to the ground and so able to contest/claim objectives.

The hatch thing was blatantly against the rules, and tipping the model over that far causes all sorts of other issues, so I'm not really seeing the problem. Neither are issues with players abusing RAW.


Edit - Although in retrospect, that's actually a really good illustration of where misconceptions about 'RAW' come from. People see interpretations of the rules that they think are dodgy, and are talked into believing that those interpretations are supported by a specific reading of the rules... when in actual fact they aren't.

Certainly there are rules that can be read multiple ways... but a lot of the stuff that I come across online is far more based on misreading or misunderstanding the rules than from legitimate interpretation of the RAW.

 insaniak wrote:
When you're talking about the passengers firing from a top hatch on a vehicle that has a large top hatch over the passenger compartment, and a small cupola hatch in the turret, there is most definitely another way to interpret it.

'Top' does not automatically mean 'highest'... Context matters.

I really don't think there is. The rules state you use the 'top' hatch. Top is defined as, well, the top. The highest hatch. The one at the top.

I remember there being a debate a long while ago about Valkyries being used to contest or claim objectives. Since they were, due to their flight stand, more than 3" (or whatever the distance was) from the objective, they could never contest/claim. And also never deploy troops, since they couldn't be placed within 2" of an exit point.

And until GW FAQd it, that was a legitimate issue with the rules.

Yeah, it was, which is kinda the point. It was obviously stupid to insist that the Valkyrie couldn't deploy it's troops, or claim/contest objectives but according to the RAW, it was how it should be played.

The RAW is not always right.

 Kaldor wrote:
I really don't think there is. The rules state you use the 'top' hatch. Top is defined as, well, the top. The highest hatch. The one at the top.

The hatch in the roof of the transport is the top hatch. When the rules lack a specific definition, we fall back on common usage, and the interpretation that makes the most sense in the context given. In that light, assuming that the top hatch is the top hatch rather than the cupola hatch is clearly the more sensible interpretation. Arguing that the cupola hatch is the only correct RAW interpretation is false, and futile, since internet hyperbole aside most players are going to go for the more sensible interpretation here.

Yeah, it was, which is kinda the point. It was obviously stupid to insist that the Valkyrie couldn't deploy it's troops, or claim/contest objectives but according to the RAW, it was how it should be played.

More correctly, it was obviously stupid that the Valkyrie couldn't deploy troops... but until GW altered the rules there was no way provided within the RAW to do so other than by parking it beside a tall piece of terrain.

Again, this is nothing to do with people abusing RAW... it was simply a hole in the rules.

 insaniak wrote:
The hatch in the roof of the transport is the top hatch. When the rules lack a specific definition, we fall back on common usage, and the interpretation that makes the most sense in the context given. In that light, assuming that the top hatch is the top hatch rather than the cupola hatch is clearly the more sensible interpretation. Arguing that the cupola hatch is the only correct RAW interpretation is false, and futile, since internet hyperbole aside most players are going to go for the more sensible interpretation here.

I'm sorry, but that is the point.

The top hatch is the top hatch. The one at the top. Not the one that makes the most sense, or the one we think it should be. That (that it would be the sensible one) would be what the rules intended, but it's not what is written in the rules.

The point is, it's an example of where people need to play it RAI, not RAW.

 Kaldor wrote:
The top hatch is the top hatch. The one at the top. Not the one that makes the most sense, or the one we think it should be. ...

Where a given statement has multiple possible interpretations, the most sensible one is, oddly enough, the most sensible one to use.


You can insist all you want that the top hatch has to be the highest one on the model, it won't make it the only correct interpretation.

The point is, it's an example of where people need to play it RAI, not RAW.

 insaniak wrote:
Where a given statement has multiple possible interpretations, the most sensible one is, oddly enough, the most sensible one to use.

I agree, but there is only one way to interpret the word 'top'.

It's not 'the one on the top of the vehicle that makes the most sense, the big one over the troop compartment'.

It says the 'top hatch'. There can be only one.

You can insist all you want that the top hatch has to be the highest one on the model, it won't make it the only correct interpretation.

Is there another meaning to the word 'top' that I'm not aware of?

We all know what GW intended, but that isn't what they wrote.

 insaniak wrote:
No, it's not. It's an example that people like to hold up as an example of bad RAW, when what it really is is an example of a rule that has a couple of different possible interpretations which people like to ignore because that makes it a less interesting example.

Doesn't matter. It's still perfectly RAW to say the tiny little top-top (if that's what you wanna call it) hatch is the top hatch. Even if you read it in the way that there can be several top hatches (a top of the hull and a top of the turret) it doesn't change the fact that the turret top hatch is a top hatch which makes it a perfectly fine RAW argument, and one that proves just fine that sometimes you have to use RAI.

You can't claim that the top of the turret isn't RAW. It's right there in the rules. And there are many readings that are just as stupid, but perfectly RAW and can't be argued with unless you pull out RAI.
And that's why a TFG will claim RAW at every turn, finding all of the rules that are able to bend from what others consider normal usage.

RAW, a vindicare assassin breaks the armour on both the IC he was shooting at and the hero that jumped infront of him to take the bullet with a LOS! Weird? Yes. Stupid? I'd say so. RAW? Perfectly.

 Kaldor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Where a given statement has multiple possible interpretations, the most sensible one is, oddly enough, the most sensible one to use.

I agree, but there is only one way to interpret the word 'top'.

It's not 'the one on the top of the vehicle that makes the most sense, the big one over the troop compartment'.

It says the 'top hatch'. There can be only one.

You can insist all you want that the top hatch has to be the highest one on the model, it won't make it the only correct interpretation.

Is there another meaning to the word 'top' that I'm not aware of?

We all know what GW intended, but that isn't what they wrote.

I almost don't want to jump into this, however, I feel it should be brought up. Top, doesn't always mean a physical placement. Top, can also be metaphorical. Say, the top hatch could be interpreted as the best hatch (Best being the most useful one at the time), since top and best are sometimes interchangeable.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this is the way it should be, just stating that it can be something that should be considered when you start arguing RAI vs RAW. You have no real idea what is intended. Maybe they did intend to state that top meant best. Maybe they thought it was clear it meant top as in the physical point. Maybe they meant top surface. Maybe they meant top as in currant location, or the overall top of the model. There is no possible way you could tell me 100% what they mean.

 Kaldor wrote:
It's not 'the one on the top of the vehicle that makes the most sense, the big one over the troop compartment'.

Of course it is. Because that's the vehicle's top hatch.

RAW isn't just about taking the written word and applying the most literal possible meaning to it regardless of context. Those written words are supposed to convey a meaning, and that meaning relies on the context in which they are presented.

Yes, the top hatch being the top-most hatch is one literal meaning of the words in question. But assuming that the top hatch is the one on top of the tank is equally valid... and of the two, is the one that best fits the context, since it is patently absurd for 5 guys to squeeze out of the cupola hatch to fire their weapons.

Is there another meaning to the word 'top' that I'm not aware of?

A child's spinning toy? A shirt? To kill someone? Excellent? Best?

It's not about the meaning of the word 'top'... it's about the meaning of the entire statement, taken in context. So when it refers to the top hatch, it means the top hatch, not the cupola hatch.

GW wrote exactly what they meant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:
You can't claim that the top of the turret isn't RAW.

I wasn't. I was claiming that it's only one way to read the rules, and not the one that makes the most sense...


Since this appears to be veering rather off-topic, I will state once again: I am not saying that there are no rules that aren't badly written, nor that there are no rules that can't be deliberately interpreted in a way that seems a little peculiar... What all this started out as was simply pointing out that 'RAW' is not in itself a bad thing. The RAW is the game. People twisting the rules is a problem with people twisting the rules, not a fundamental aspect of RAW.

There's this weird compulsion online to apply the term in a way that doesn't actually fit, to somehow equate following the rules of the game (the RAW) to playing like a git...

 insaniak wrote:

GW wrote exactly what they meant.

 Purifier wrote:
You can't claim that the top of the turret isn't RAW.

I wasn't. I was claiming that it's only one way to read the rules, and not the one that makes the most sense...

And that's exactly what RAI is. That's my whole argument. Who are YOU to interpret what they meant? Unless you are the FAQ, your interpretation, no matter how much sense it makes, is RAI unless it is the ONLY interpretation we can get out of it.

 insaniak wrote:
There's this weird compulsion online to apply the term in a way that doesn't actually fit, to somehow equate following the rules of the game (the RAW) to playing like a git...

I don't think that's QAI (quote as intended) but your QAW reading of it. See, i think the intention of the quote that RAW players are TFG is that people that wave the RAW banner in your face when claiming something stupid (like that you can use the top of the turret) which is a perfectly fine RAW argument, are TFG.

See how Intended and Written differ?

 Amanax wrote:
I almost don't want to jump into this, however, I feel it should be brought up. Top, doesn't always mean a physical placement. Top, can also be metaphorical. Say, the top hatch could be interpreted as the best hatch (Best being the most useful one at the time), since top and best are sometimes interchangeable.

Ooh, good call. So I get to pick whichever hatch I want!

 insaniak wrote:
But assuming that the top hatch is the one on top of the tank is equally valid.

I don't see how you can make that argument. It's not the top hatch. Objectively, it just isn't. There is one higher up. The top floor of the building is the one at the top. The top rung of the ladder is the one at the top. The top step is the one at the top.

There is no possible way to interpret the top hatch as being the second hatch from the top.

There's two hatches, and one is higher than the other. The highest one is the top hatch. You don't get to take your pick.

Similarly, if the vehicle parked it's nose down a hill, leaving it's rear sticking up in the air, the rear hatch would be the top hatch.

 Purifier wrote:
Who are YOU to interpret what they meant?

Someone who would rather play the game than find creative ways to break it.

Unless you are the FAQ, your interpretation, no matter how much sense it makes, is RAI unless it is the ONLY interpretation we can get out of it.

My interpretation can only be RAI by accident, since I didn't write the rules and have no idea what the guy who did write them intended when he did so.

My interpretation is the interpretation of what is written on the page that I feel makes the most sense. Which makes it RAW. It might not be the only possible interpretation of the RAW (I believe I already said that several times) but it is RAW.

 insaniak wrote:
My interpretation can only be RAI by accident, since I didn't write the rules and have no idea what the guy who did write them intended when he did so.

That's not how we use the RAI abbreviation. That's not even what we use it for. If it was, then it would be a USELESS abbreviation, for it is quite obvious that RAI readings are only best guesses, since most of us don't know the guys over at GW. What you are talking about is what we call RAI.

 insaniak wrote:
what is written on the page that I feel makes the most sense.

Yep, that's RAI.
You are just stubbornly hanging on to your flawed argument.

There are two top hatches, top is the side of the vehicle that faces up normally. Ergo RAW either hatch would suffice. Common sense would dictate which one of the two would be more appropriate though.

Four could pop out of the big hatch, while the last guy pops out of the turret hatch thinking he'll get a better view. It may just be slightly ambiguous in order to allow creative freedom like that, just without the foresight required to stop some guy who seems to have cloned the three stooges for his entire force.

 Purifier wrote:
That's not how we use the RAI abbreviation. That's not even what we use it for. If it was, then it would be a USELESS abbreviation, for it is quite obvious that RAI readings are only best guesses, since most of us don't know the guys over at GW. What you are talking about is what we call RAI.

I'm not sure who the 'we' is that you're referring to, but that's exactly what it means.

 insaniak wrote:
what is written on the page that I feel makes the most sense.

Yep, that's RAI.
You are just stubbornly hanging on to your flawed argument.

If you're going to claim that choosing a given interpretation of the RAW as the most sensible one is RAI, then every application of the rules is RAI, since there is no way to apply the written word without interpretation.

RAI, as commonly applied in rules debates, is where we ignore what the rules seem to be saying in favour of how we believe the writer intended the rules work. This is not always the same as ignoring one given interpretation in favour of another that makes more sense... either of those interpretations can be RAW, so long as they fit what is written on the page.

RAI is not simply 'how I think the game should be played'. It's how we think it was intended to be played. Hence the 'Intended' in the acronym.

 insaniak wrote:
RAI is not simply 'how I think the game should be played'. It's how we think it was intended to be played. Hence the 'Intended' in the acronym.

Out of the reading that we get to use the top hatch of the turret or the reading that you get to use only the top hatch at the back of the vehicle do you think is the intended reading? ohhh, and there comes the I in RAI!

Because here's the thing: YOUR reading is ignoring a part of what it says RAW. Even if I agree that you can read it as either of the hatches, it's YOUR opinion that ONLY the lower of the top hatches is viable. How is that RAW?

 Purifier wrote:
Out of the reading that we get to use the top hatch of the turret or the reading that you get to use only the top hatch at the back of the vehicle do you think is the intended reading? ohhh, and there comes the I in RAI!

What you appear to be missing, is that RAI and RAW aren't mutually exclusive...

Because here's the thing: YOUR reading is ignoring a part of what it says RAW. Even if I agree that you can read it as either of the hatches, it's YOUR opinion that ONLY the lower of the top hatches is viable. How is that RAW?

It's RAW because it's what I think the rules as written mean.
I believe that it's also RAI... but that's secondary to the fact that it's how I read the rules, since I tend to put more weight in how I feel the game works better than in how I think the game was intended to work.

 insaniak wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Out of the reading that we get to use the top hatch of the turret or the reading that you get to use only the top hatch at the back of the vehicle do you think is the intended reading? ohhh, and there comes the I in RAI!

What you appear to be missing, is that RAI and RAW aren't mutually exclusive...

Because here's the thing: YOUR reading is ignoring a part of what it says RAW. Even if I agree that you can read it as either of the hatches, it's YOUR opinion that ONLY the lower of the top hatches is viable. How is that RAW?

It's RAW because it's what I think the rules as written mean.
I believe that it's also RAI... but that's secondary to the fact that it's how I read the rules, since I tend to put more weight in how I feel the game works better than in how I think the game was intended to work.

So you're reading a "rule as I see fit" and claiming it RAW then.
you're picking and choosing and then calling it RAW. It's like if you only read half a sentence, leave out the rest and go "It's RAW, because it's what it says in the book" except reading the rest of the sentence would have changed the RAW of it.

And of course they aren't mutually exclusive. In an ideal world RAI and RAW would be the exact same thing. We only use the RAI abbreviation where we believe they are not in sync.

 Purifier wrote:
So you're reading a "rule as I see fit" and claiming it RAW then.

Yes, of course I am. Establishing the meaning of a piece of written text ultimately comes down to personal interpretation. So, for me, the RAW is whatever I take the text to mean. You may get a different meaning out of it... and for you, that is RAW.

In most cases, where the rule is clearly written, those interpretations will be the same or similar enough to not matter. In others, we'll disagree as to what the rules mean. That doesn't in itself make either of our interpretations any less RAW... it just makes them different interpretations of the RAW.

you're picking and choosing and then calling it RAW. It's like if you only read half a sentence, leave out the rest and go "It's RAW, because it's what it says in the book" except reading the rest of the sentence would have changed the RAW of it.

Yes, it's exactly like that, aside from how it's nothing at all like that. In fact, that would be pretty much the exact opposite of what I do, and is in fact exactly what I was pointing out was wrong with Kaldor's insistence that the rules hinge entirely on one specific dictionary meaning of the word 'top'...

If we've gotten this far into a discussion and you've still so completely misconstrued what I'm talking about, I'm thinking there's not much more to be gained here.

 insaniak wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
So you're reading a "rule as I see fit" and claiming it RAW then.

Yes, of course I am. Establishing the meaning of a piece of written text ultimately comes down to personal interpretation.

Not if it's a well written rule.

If you're told to roll to hit, you consult the to hit chart. That's not peronal interpretation of the chart, you see the value needed and know. There's no personal interpretation needed. That's RAW. You can't say 'well, I interperate my BS 4 really gets a 2+ to hit', becase it's right there.

When you're told the top hatch of a Chimera is a fire point, common sense for people who know how tanks work knows it's the large hatch on top of the chassis. People who don't know might interperate that as a supply hatch, and the turret hatch as the top hatch for a fire point. It has a gun on it afterall. That's RAI, you need to know what the designer intended as the top hatch, since there are actually two.

 insaniak wrote:

Yes, it's exactly like that, aside from how it's nothing at all like that. In fact, that would be pretty much the exact opposite of what I do, and is in fact exactly what I was pointing out was wrong with Kaldor's insistence that the rules hinge entirely on one specific dictionary meaning of the word 'top'..

Well, you've completely ignored my argument each time I've made it: With Kaldor's definition, it leaves no room for your definition. But your definition leaves room for Kaldor's definition. Because you can't argue that your "top" is "more top" than his "top". You can however argue that it's equally "top" by a more ambiguous reading of the word.

Which means your definition doesn't exclude his definition. Yet you still choose to do so by not letting people use the turret top hatch, with naught but your opinion of how the game should be played to support it. That's your idea of the RAI. That's not a reading of RAW, that's just stubborn refusal to acknowledge something that is there.

 Kaldor wrote:
There is no possible way to interpret the top hatch as being the second hatch from the top.

The domed hatch on a tank turret isn't called a hatch. It's called a cupola.
Therefore it's not the top hatch.
Therefore, by RAW, you're wrong.

 -Loki- wrote:
If you're told to roll to hit, you consult the to hit chart. That's not peronal interpretation of the chart, you see the value needed and know. There's no personal interpretation needed. That's RAW. You can't say 'well, I interperate my BS 4 really gets a 2+ to hit', becase it's right there.

There's still personal interpretation there... it's just that the meaning is clear enough that the vast majority of people will interpret it the same way...

When you're told the top hatch of a Chimera is a fire point, common sense for people who know how tanks work knows it's the large hatch on top of the chassis. People who don't know might interperate that as a supply hatch, and the turret hatch as the top hatch for a fire point. It has a gun on it afterall. That's RAI, you need to know what the designer intended as the top hatch, since there are actually two.

There are two separate issues there.

Yes, we can guess that using the big hatch is the RAI... but that's only a guess, based on what seems right. And it's completely independant of whether or not it is also RAW.

 Purifier wrote:
... Yet you still choose to do so by not letting people use the turret top hatch, ...

Do I? When did that happen?

But even assuming it did...

...with naught but your opinion of how the game should be played to support it. That's your idea of the RAI. That's not a reading of RAW, that's just stubborn refusal to acknowledge something that is there.

You mean aside from the part back up the thread a ways where I acknowledged that Kaldor's interpretation was one way to read the rules? That stubborn refusal?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
There is no possible way to interpret the top hatch as being the second hatch from the top.

The domed hatch on a tank turret isn't called a hatch. It's called a cupola.
Therefore it's not the top hatch.
Therefore, by RAW, you're wrong.

No, it's called a cupola roof, which can or cannot have a hatch, as the case may be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

You mean aside from the part back up the thread a ways where I acknowledged that Kaldor's interpretation was one way to read the rules? That stubborn refusal?

The stubborn refusal to realise it's a RAI reading you're doing.

Otherwise, by your definition, every reading of the book in part or in full is a RAW reading just by virtue of someone understanding it that way.
That would make the whole usage of RAW and RAI pointless.

Everyone I have seen talking about "RAW readings" does so as a way of saying "yes, that's stupid, but if you're taking it letter by letter (RAW) then yes, that's allowed"