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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
BCB follows the belief that there always is only one way to read RAW, while there is no way to deduct RAI.

Obviously, reality is never that black and white, so it's just that - a belief.

There is no way to deduce RaI, you can guess, but you can never know. If you allow one rule to be ignored because it is "intended" to do something else, you have to allow ALL rules to be ignored because it is "intended" to do something else. Why is one persons declaration of the RaI less valid than someone elses?

Slippery slope fallacy as usual. How many times do you need that pointing out as a fallacy? Disingenuously misrepresenting arguments and being a bad actor is no way to lend your posts credibility, sorry.

It's not a fallacy when used correctly.

You say "Rule X should be Y". I say "Rule X should be Z". Why is your view more valid than mine?

Not doing this for the 100th time. You double down on fallacies and it’s off topic anyway.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not a fallacy when used correctly.

You say "Rule X should be Y". I say "Rule X should be Z". Why is your view more valid than mine?

No, you're so wrong. Inductive inference is a thing. Just because you don't know which answer is right doesn't mean you don't know which is more likely.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not a fallacy when used correctly.

You say "Rule X should be Y". I say "Rule X should be Z". Why is your view more valid than mine?

No, you're so wrong. Inductive inference is a thing. Just because you don't know which answer is right doesn't mean you don't know which is more likely.

Likely is not a synonym of valid. It doesn't matter if the probability of Y is 0.99 and Z is 0.01, the rules say X, which has a probability of 1.

Only if you incorrectly assume that rules always parse to one meaning. Which is basically the fragile, and clearly wrong, foundation of your belief.

99% of the rime RAW is the correct answer

When it is not

We use inference and RAI. We don't jump to it because it is subjective.

There is certainly a place for it when RAW doesn't work but too many people bring it in to rules threads because they dont like the way the rule is written when the rule functions which clutters the threads and then we end up with this again.



99% of the time RAW is right

There are very few scenarios where the RAW can be interpreted in different ways

Most people doing the interpreting are not interpreting the RAW but not liking what it says so trying to infer what they think it should do

If you do that you are wrong

If RAW were 99% right, this forum would have a lot less posts.

If one reading of RAW leads to an unstable game state, un-intuitive interactions, rules that make no sense, and FAQs that contradict said RAW, while there is an interpretation of the rules that causes none of those problems and matches all the FAQ, RAW is likely to not be the correct answer.

However, whenever you point out such a thing BCB will jump in and claim that you are house-ruling and he now has the inherent right to cheat at will.

 Jidmah wrote:
If RAW were 99% right, this forum would have a lot less posts.

If one reading of RAW leads to an unstable game state, un-intuitive interactions, rules that make no sense, and FAQs that contradict said RAW, while there is an interpretation of the rules that causes none of those problems and matches all the FAQ, RAW is likely to not be the correct answer.

However, whenever you point out such a thing BCB will jump in and claim that you are house-ruling and he now has the inherent right to cheat at will.

No, I am not claiming that at all. I am simply pointing out the fact that it is logically inconsistent to allow one house rule but to not allow all others. There is a difference.

"I'm not claiming that at all!" *claims the exact same thing*

*sighs deeply, waits for a mod*

Welp, I guess we're done here. Same time next week?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, I am not claiming that at all. I am simply pointing out the fact that it is logically inconsistent to allow one house rule but to not allow all others. There is a difference.

It's only logically inconsistent of you assume that every potential house rule proposal is of equal validity. Which is a bit like claiming that if you agree to have ice cream for dinner one night, it's logically inconsistent for me to not agree to eat rocks tomorrow. It's just as much a nonsense claim now as it was the first time you made it and were subsequently corrected on it. Stop derailing threads with it.

 Jidmah wrote:
If RAW were 99% right, this forum would have a lot less posts.

If one reading of RAW leads to an unstable game state, un-intuitive interactions, rules that make no sense, and FAQs that contradict said RAW, while there is an interpretation of the rules that causes none of those problems and matches all the FAQ, RAW is likely to not be the correct answer.

However, whenever you point out such a thing BCB will jump in and claim that you are house-ruling and he now has the inherent right to cheat at will.

Unstable non functioning games state sure RAI is required but they are a rarity

Unintuitive interactions they function so there is no problem and RAI is not required it just confuses the situation but a lot of forum space becomes clouded when its brought in and doesn't need to be

Rules that make no sense - in terms of dont work -RAI - function but don't like -RAW

FAQ contradicting RAW- Evidenced based RAI - We go with the FAQ over the original RAW text as the FAQ provides a statement of GW Intention that is not subjective.

The problem is you conflate situation where there is no cause for RAI with the rare situations there is and thats what clutters the forums

BCP is right but not tactful to make that claim. 90% of RAI arguments are about i dont like the rule or think it should work a different way. Which are fine for house ruling but are essential made up and as such subjective and often in the interpreters interest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, I am not claiming that at all. I am simply pointing out the fact that it is logically inconsistent to allow one house rule but to not allow all others. There is a difference.

It's only logically inconsistent of you assume that every potential house rule proposal is of equal validity. Which is a bit like claiming that if you agree to have ice cream for dinner one night, it's logically inconsistent for me to not agree to eat rocks tomorrow. It's just as much a nonsense claim now as it was the first time you made it and were subsequently corrected on it. Stop derailing threads with it.

Which comes back to the 10% are common tourney rules eg itc

10% are valid as the RAW doesn't work

40% are invalid from a rules perspective as they go against RAW when the rules function

40% have no basis in the rules

the 20% are fine the 80% are the problematic ones the problem many if us have are that people represent the 80% as having merit when they dont - you can play with whatever house rules you want as long as you have fun but don't bring them to a rules forum

U02dah4 wrote:
90% of RAI arguments are about i dont like the rule or think it should work a different way. Which are fine for house ruling but are essential made up and as such subjective and often in the interpreters interest.

I think this is the most concise rationale I've seen on this forum on why we don't use RAI when discussing RAW.

 Stux wrote:
No, you're so wrong. Inductive inference is a thing. Just because you don't know which answer is right doesn't mean you don't know which is more likely.

Yes, inductive reasoning is a valid form of logic. However by nature, conclusion based on inductive reasoning is that of likely probability - a cogent inductive argument can be weak or strong, but never definitive. It is impossible to know whether a conclusion is right, even if it's the most likely conclusion. It is just that - LIKELY.

As U02dah4 argues, players' interest always affects the HIWPI based on RAI of RAW, therefore it is no longer objective, but subjective. Hence, you cannot use RAI to defend a RAW. RAW is RAW and RAI is RAI.

 Jidmah wrote:
If RAW were 99% right, this forum would have a lot less posts.

No, we would have lot less posts if we fully understand that RAI cannot be used in support of RAW.

Because RAI is inherently non-definitive (because its inductive argument), you cannot derive a definite deductive conclusion from it.

Example from google:
P1: 90% human are right handed
P2: John is human
C: John is right handed

Yes, there is 90% probability that John is right handed because he is human, but there is also 10% chance he might be left handed. No definite conclusion can be derived from inductive reasoning.

A single inductive inference in a deductive argument turns the entire argument as whole into inductive argument.

 skchsan wrote:
However by nature, conclusion based on inductive reasoning is that of likely probability - a cogent inductive argument can be weak or strong, but never definitive. It is impossible to know whether a conclusion is right, even if it's the most likely conclusion. It is just that - LIKELY.

You mean like in 8th edition it was impossible to know that you could fire assault weapons after advancing because by RAW you couldn't?

 doctortom wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
However by nature, conclusion based on inductive reasoning is that of likely probability - a cogent inductive argument can be weak or strong, but never definitive. It is impossible to know whether a conclusion is right, even if it's the most likely conclusion. It is just that - LIKELY.

You mean like in 8th edition it was impossible to know that you could fire assault weapons after advancing because by RAW you couldn't?

Right. RAW didn't work in this case because it was impossible to draw a deductive conclusion that is valid and sound. (it was an invalid deductive argument because the conclusion could not be naturally drawn as to be true from the given premises because there were two contradicting premises - 'assault weapons can be fired after advancing' and 'units that advanced cannot be selected to shoot in the shooting phase'). Hence we moved to propose a HIWPI using the RAI.

I would personally argue that claiming 'cannot fire assault weapons after advancing' is in fact another HIWPI, not an actual, pure RAW, because there is a conscious effort to disregard the contradicting latter point and letting the former stand.

RAI can only come into play, as a separate discussion, once RAW is determined to be inconclusive under deductive argument analysis.

99% of RAI vs RAW arguments in this forum arises from group A arguing that their RAI is the RAW, and group B telling group A that what they're claiming is RAI, not RAW , then group A rebutting with claims that it IS the RAW, not RAI.

The remaining 1% is when posters forget to declare their post is HIWPI and people call them out for breaking the rules.

Yeah, no.

Let's do a counter-example, because one is all it takes to prove an absolute statement as yours wrong.

There is a parking lot which looks like this, with letters representing cars and the underscore is an empty slot:

|A|B|_|D|E|F|G|H|J|K|L|

There are two empty spots. Your weird uncle James Workshop sitting next to you tells you should drive into the third slot from the right.
RAW he wants you to ram the car named "J".
RAI he want you to park in the empty parking slot third from the left.

Under the assumption that neither your uncle nor you want to wreck the vehicle, RAI is without doubt the right interpretation.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, no.

Let's do a counter-example, because one is all it takes to prove an absolute statement as yours wrong.

There is a parking lot which looks like this, with letters representing cars and the underscore is an empty slot:

|A|B|_|D|E|F|G|H|J|K|L|

There are two empty spots. Your weird uncle James Workshop sitting next to you tells you should drive into the third slot from the right.
RAW he wants you to ram the car named "J".
RAI he want you to park in the empty parking slot third from the left.

Under the assumption that neither your uncle nor you want to wreck the vehicle, RAI is without doubt the right interpretation.

If there is only 1 empty lot and it was claimed that there were two empty spots, this yields valid, unsound deductive argument because one of the premises is known to be false.

As you've already noted, you've ASSUMED that neither you or your weird uncle want to wreck the vehicle. While your claim MAY be true, your weird uncle may actually could've wanted you to to wreck the vehicle because he's weird.

You cannot transform an assumption into a fact, not to mention your argument again falls into the category of "my RAI is the RAW because my RAI is obviously what the RAW meant". You cannot use RAI to justify RAW because they are incompatible by nature.

No one knows RAI, except the GW rules team. Therefore arguing RAI is pointless, unless you are part of the GW rules team.

 p5freak wrote:
No one knows RAI, except the GW rules team. Therefore arguing RAI is pointless, unless you are part of the GW rules team.

Except for those times when part of the GW rules team has come out and said what the intention is.

Man i'm sorry I brought it up lol.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Man i'm sorry I brought it up lol.

Don't be - it wasn't you.
Starting to think there should be a dedicated, sticky RAW vs RAI thread on this board, just so people have somewhere else to take their derails.

From 'How to have intelligent rules debate'

The Method
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

First, create an argument. The most applicable type of argument to make for the "You Make 'da Call" forum (Fantasy or 40K) is a deductive argument. A deductive argument consists of premises that provide a guarantee of the truth for a conclusion. The premises support the conclusion so strongly that if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
.
.
.
Intent Arguments
While interesting, discussing the "Designers Intent" will never help you in a rules discussion. Why? First, intent of a single designer and what may actually end up in print are never guaranteed to be the same. GW has no policy against routinely changing the same rule back and forth repeatedly. Second, it's impossible to know intent. Unless you've got ESP, or the rules author is in the discussion, you're just guessing at intent. Intent can be very simply refuted with an, "I don't agree", and the conversation ends, as neither side can prove its case for intent.

There is a sticky. People just choose to ignore it.

Indeed. The RAI vs RAW discussion is completely off-topic. Knock it off.