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.

This thread is an attempt to see how people, generally, feel about how much interpretation should be allowed in the rules. This is not an attempt to start a flame war. It is about gathering opinions and gauging perspectives on how best to play the game that we all enjoy.

Option A: Strict RAW
Under this option, no interpretation, beyond the rules of Standard American or BBC English, is ever allowed. Under this interpretation, for example: both markerlight target designators and battlesuit target locks do nothing, the former because they are not listed in Tau wargear, and the latter because there is no such thing as a target priority test.

Option B: Strict RAI
Under this option, interpretations may be made beyond the RAW, but only what appears to be negligence on the part of GW that renders aspects of the rules nonsensical. Under this option, for example: Imperial Guard Frag Grenades function as Assault Grenades, because there are no rules for "Frag Grenades" in the BRB, Phoenix Lords grant powers to their squads, despite not being labeled "Exarchs," and the (pre-FAQ) Doom of Malan'Tai has an invulnerable save, because if it didn't, there would be no reason for it to list the "Warp Field" power in its bestiary entry.

Option C: RAI
Under this option, rules changes that make sense might be acceptable, despite there being no basis for the in the RAW. Under this option, Chaos Terminators may always fire Rapid Fire weapons as if stationary, boltguns with hellfire rounds might be allowed to reroll to-wound rolls against targets of toughness 4 or lower (see rules for poisoned weapons, because the boltgun is S4), and chaos dreadnoughts only have four attacks if they have two CCWs.

I chose B, as I tend to stick as close to RAW as possible, but baring what appear to be errors. My group rarely uses houserules and only interpret the rules when they are unclear and then we stick ti RAI as much as we can.

I chose B, but I also stick to RAW as much as is possible, while keeping the game fun.

Also, the "Don't be a dick" rule is always in effect.

B just seems to work best all around.

B.

Playing by strict RAW is just plain silly in some instances.

MekanobSamael wrote:Option C: RAI
Under this option, rules changes that make sense might be acceptable, despite there being no basis for the in the RAW. Under this option, Chaos Terminators may always fire Rapid Fire weapons as if stationary, boltguns with hellfire rounds might be allowed to reroll to-wound rolls against targets of toughness 4 or lower (see rules for poisoned weapons, because the boltgun is S4), and chaos dreadnoughts only have four attacks if they have two CCWs.

this, i think, never knew that about chaos terminators always thought they had relentless like the not as cool looking ones, however hellfire rounds don't reroll since they have no strength value and says count as str 1 against armour, and as for the dreadnought yeah it should be like that.

i stick to RAW as much as possible but when it throws a spanner in the works it's ok what did the designers have in mind.

edit; damn got the wrong one i think, i think i want option B, mods anyway i can change my vote?

I think that when there is any question in RAI, RAW should be foremost.

Option A where possible.

In a situation where the RaW is either non-existent or unclear, then you can house rule it to the best of your ability.

The poll is missing an option D: The rules are just a framework, and will be altered at will to please the players.


I doubt it would get many votes on the forums, but it would likely be a not too uncommon approach in people playing largely at home with a static group.



For myself, B with a leaning towards C on occasion and the odd rules change made on the fly because it fits the moment would probably sum it up best.

I voted A, because even strict RAI can often times favor the more clever player, and give an advantage purely out of a meta-game involving outwitting your opponent; which I do not like.

Of course sometimes RaW will be unclear, and at that point you need to house rule it.

I would like the answer to be A but there are simply too many situations where the rules have no answer.

Can't vote on this. RAI is too open to interpretation that it directly leads to abuse by the most persuasive player, and strict RAW simply contains too many errors and may lead to unfair advantages for the player who does not know the rules 100%. I'd vote lenient RAW (well-meaning errors are perfectly fine, and when RAW is a bit unclear you'll agree on what makes most sense).

I voted B, as that's how I would like to PLAY a game.

I have a long running thread (which I really need to update) with a list of all the rules you have to follow if you really want to use option A - it's not pretty...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278461.page

However, for the purpose of threads where people are trying to establish what the rules are (i.e, a lot of the threads in YMDC) then it's A every time.

To me A is the best option.
However after years of writing rules for military exercises I want to point out one simple fact, if the BRB and the Codicies were written properly by people who understood what they were doing these polls would not be needed because there woould be no need for the endless RAW vs RAI debate.
Alas they are what they are so we are stuck with these debate, and the endless hassles during games because of differing interpretations.

G12

I use B, treating sloppy wording as hard and fast rules gets silly pretty quickly. The problem with wide-open ROI is that people won't just clarify obvious oversights (IG frag grenades are clearly supposed to have some effect), but will make up an 'intent' and then some rules. For example, I've seen someone declare that the 'intent' of the simple rules for basing is that all models should be a standard sized base and that standard size is whatever the latest model uses, even though that is directly opposite the written rule, GW has no problem making standard base sizes (they do it in fantasy), and the clear intent of the brief basing rule is 'if you assemble your guys out of the box they came in, you're fine'.

I like B
Some of the wording in older books is incompatible with the wording in newer books, so pure linguistical differences make for too much nitpicking. We aren't playing Magic cards here where exact wording is the whole point of the game. GW does write kind of ambiguously from time to time, because they are more concerned with ideas and imagination than worried about TFG interpreting specific wording to his advantage. This counts out choice A as it is too rigid. Too many games go to the rules lawyers exploiting loopholes that are obviously against the spirit of the game.

choice C is too up to interpretation, and I have had many many games where I see people trying to outsmart the other guy in exactly the opposite way as the rules lawyers; As if the rules only apply to them when it is to their advantage, when it is not, it can be reinterpreted. This is a shrewd and witty low cunning way to play, but I have found that people who are too lax on the rules tend to only be lax on the rules when it applies to them.

That leaves B, the 'use some common sense and don't be a dick' middle ground.

I choose D. INAT FAQ

VoxDei wrote:I choose D. INAT FAQ

So you use an unofficial FAQ that has nothing to do with GW whatsoever, as an official source for rules?

That's comforting.

Yes i do. It is usually much easier to get people to agree to it. And i don't have to make up 101 personal houserules to make up for the confusion in RAW. You can't use strict RAW because it breaks a number of things and causes arguments on so many other things. RAI causes arguments on everything else since everyone's RAI is going to be biase to their own army.

INAT FAQ i've found is one of the best RAI's i can find. It's well laid out and fairly unbiased as these things come (granted i haven't read most of the armys but i haven't heard anyone say otherwise about their army).

Using GW's FAQ's is about as usefull as using strict RAW (see first paragraph). You may disagree with some of their rulings (as i disagree with a few) but if you agree to use it then it will greatly cut down on any arguments during a game.

Lots of people use the INAT FAQ because it is better than the GW stuff.

If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.

Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of people use the INAT FAQ because it is better than the GW stuff.

If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.

Irony, Definition: Kilkrazy.

The INAT FAQ doesn't address any of the issues caused or "solved" by the GW FAQs.

SHOULD they be? They should be updated by GW quickly through the easily available means of the internet to alleviate misunderstandings.

They are, unfortunately, not.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of people use the INAT FAQ because it is better than the GW stuff.

If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.

Irony, Definition: Kilkrazy.

The INAT FAQ doesn't address any of the issues caused or "solved" by the GW FAQs.

Show me a better one and I'll look into using it. As is I don't have the time (or the knowledge) to make my own and I don't feel like spending 6 hours a game (slight exaggeration...but only slight sometimes) arguing RAW rules with opponents when I could be playing the game. If i feel like arguing rules I'll just come here and do it on the forums.

VoxDei wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of people use the INAT FAQ because it is better than the GW stuff.

If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.

Irony, Definition: Kilkrazy.

The INAT FAQ doesn't address any of the issues caused or "solved" by the GW FAQs.

Show me a better one and I'll look into using it. As is I don't have the time (or the knowledge) to make my own and I don't feel like spending 6 hours a game (slight exaggeration...but only slight sometimes) arguing RAW rules with opponents when I could be playing the game. If i feel like arguing rules I'll just come here and do it on the forums.

I can point to 3 better ones for 3 armies at present...

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of people use the INAT FAQ because it is better than the GW stuff.

If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.

Irony, Definition: Kilkrazy.

The INAT FAQ doesn't address any of the issues caused or "solved" by the GW FAQs.

Show me a better one and I'll look into using it. As is I don't have the time (or the knowledge) to make my own and I don't feel like spending 6 hours a game (slight exaggeration...but only slight sometimes) arguing RAW rules with opponents when I could be playing the game. If i feel like arguing rules I'll just come here and do it on the forums.

I can point to 3 better ones for 3 armies at present...

I assure you you can't.

Anyway, the INAT is a great way to have a standardized set of guidelines to use no matter where you play or who you're playing with. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. It's better by a long shot than arguing RAW vs. RAI for the umpteenth time.

Monster Rain wrote: I assure you you can't.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/296151.page

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote: I assure you you can't.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/296151.page

Three words:

Gauntlets of Ultramar. Nothing in the INAT is as goofy as that particular ruling that you made.

With all due respect, of course.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote: I assure you you can't.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/296151.page

Three words:

Gauntlets of Ultramar. Nothing in the INAT is as goofy as that particular ruling that you made.

With all due respect, of course.

Huh? I haven't made any ruling regardings the Gauntlets of Ultramar...

Say, did you just needlessly bash my FAQs without even reading them? What a Shock!

Hmm...

I may have been mistaken. Must have been something else.

My bad, dude. Sorry.

Please, by all means, Download Gwar's FAQs. They taste just like chicken.

RAW should be used to the point where it no longer allows units/models to function 'as intended' (i.e. markerlights not working). Apart from that, exceptions could be made when you feel that something just doesn't make any sense (psycannons ignoring the acrobatic invuln of Harlies for instance). That's about all I would feel comfortable with.