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.

Has anyone, or any group, thought to track the instances where a GW FAQ fell in line with either the RAW or the RAI arguments? It could be a big help if the 40K community could better predict the outcome of a rules argument before the FAQ release. Of course trends over time may have to be considered as well as the factors that influence the decision making (as I do not dare to expect the outcomes to be free from outside influence).

Who out there can be trusted to graph the outcomes of FAQs to see which holds more clout, RAW or RAI?

Since they rarely actually explain where a ruling is based on what they intended, and given that there are often multiple possible interpretations of the RAW, I'm not seeing how this would be possible to track.

I imagine one could tell by reading the contested rule and then reading the context of their answer. That along with mulling through Dakka threads and I believe you could get an accurate view of what influences GW when they take stances on issues. We want to know if strict adherence to grammer, rules of contruction, and texualist analysis is what wins out over the implied intent.

Deuce11 wrote:I imagine one could tell by reading the contested rule and then reading the context of their answer.

Can you? If there are two ways of reading the rule and GW choose one of them, how do you tell whether or not the one they choose was the author's original intent?

Quite simply, we don't. It's not as simple as 'RAW vs RAI'... most of the time, it's more 'one interpetation of RAW vs another interpretation of RAW'... or 'strict wording of the RAW that accidentally breaks the game vs a different interpretation that wasn't what was originally intended but makes the game work and puppies smile again.'

I suppose an interpretation of RAW that does not seem in line with the community's perceived RAI would still be RAW. No?

RAI arguments are circumstantial. RAI does not always hinge on what one can argue the author's intent was. It is usually a construction of logic after evaluating many factors by the community. GK Falcions for example, wouldn't make much sense if they didn't receive the additional +1A. However RAW is strong way of arguing that +1A is not granted. The community has come to a consensus that says, "the intent must be that Falcions grant +1A otherwise what use are they?" Therefore the RAI argument favors +1A for members of a GK unit without any direct proof that the author of the rule wanted this outcome.

I am trying to sum up the bright line rule in one sentence but I am admittedly having trouble. Any takers?

(and if I screwed up the falchions example, i apologize, but it is irrelevent to this thread so please abstain from correcting me)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:... vs a different interpretation that wasn't what was originally intended but makes the game work and puppies smile again.'

And this is why I say it doesn't actually matter what was "originally intended" but instead what the community has agreed should be the intention to better the game.

BTW, thank you Insaniak, for indulging me thus far.

Deuce11 wrote:I suppose an interpretation of RAW that does not seem in line with the community's perceived RAI would still be RAW. No?

RAI arguments are circumstantial. RAI does not always hinge on what one can argue the author's intent was. It is usually a construction of logic after evaluating many factors by the community. GK Falcions for example, wouldn't make much sense if they didn't receive the additional +1A. However RAW is strong way of arguing that +1A is not granted. The community has come to a consensus that says, "the intent must be that Falcions grant +1A otherwise what use are they?" Therefore the RAI argument favors +1A for members of a GK unit without any direct proof that the author of the rule wanted this outcome.

I am trying to sum up the bright line rule in one sentence but I am admittedly having trouble. Any takers?

(and if I screwed up the falchions example, i apologize, but it is irrelevent to this thread so please abstain from correcting me)

Actually the falchion example is quite brilliant, though not in the way you're thinking:
It's one of those cases where there hasn't even been consensus over what IS RAW. Without any arguments about RAI, there has been no large agreement if RAW the falchions are +2 or +1. Some say that since the armoury entry only states that they grant +1A, then, RAW, they grant only +1A. Others though say that the entry states only the additional properties of the falchions and since they are TWO close combat weapons of the same kind then, RAW (referencing the BRB), the falchions grant +2A.

So, as you can see, there's not even agreement on WHAT would be RAW and RAI is even cloudier since nobody can usually know what the writers "intended". Since GW doesn't explain either way, it's simply impossible to decide if one interpretation was RAI, RAW, or neither of them.

While I have no actual data on this, 4E and early 5E definitely felt that GW stuck to the RAW even when it wasn't RAI. For instance, both C:IG and C:BT both had the insert from the 3E/4E core rules about dedicated transports, it wasn't really a codex rule but rather a reiteration of the core rule at the time. When this core rule was changed in 5E, the 5E FAQ actually explicitely stated that these two armies were still bound by the old rule because it was listed in their codex, despite it simply being a reiteration of the core rules at the time which GW had very explicitely changed with 5E.

They have since changed this practice somewhat to be much more RAI.

I think the problem with this is that RAI is not some nebulous thing that can be extrapolated. It is exactly what it says: rules as intended. As intended by the author when he wrote them. Short of asking Matt Ward, there is no way to find out what the RAI actually is. Going with the falchions example, yeah it would make sense that they grant an extra attack for the points. However, we can't assume their intent. There are plenty of wargear pieces that are just there for fun, not cost effective or really ever taken. Would you argue that, for example, possessed marines must function differently RAI just because they aren't worth their points? Of course not.

Bottom line, popular opinion does not equate to RAI.

lledwey wrote:I think the problem with this is that RAI is not some nebulous thing that can be extrapolated. It is exactly what it says: rules as intended. As intended by the author when he wrote them. Short of asking Matt Ward, there is no way to find out what the RAI actually is. Going with the falchions example, yeah it would make sense that they grant an extra attack for the points. However, we can't assume their intent. There are plenty of wargear pieces that are just there for fun, not cost effective or really ever taken. Would you argue that, for example, possessed marines must function differently RAI just because they aren't worth their points? Of course not.

Bottom line, popular opinion does not equate to RAI.

I disagree. RAI is a product of the community as I explained above. The point of figuring out whether the rules lawyers are correct more often the the fluff bunnies, or vice versa, is that then everyone can defer to one mode of thinking when rules questions arise until the FAQ seals the deal. It does not matter if anyone knows what the authors were thinking because we are determining what the intent should be through community discourse.

Bottom line, RAI is precisely popular opinion.

Do you know what intent means? Not to be rude but it doesn't sound like you do. Now if your original idea was to track whether GW usually rules in agreement with the popular opinion or not, that's fine. But the popular opinion is not RAI.

lledwey wrote:Do you know what intent means? Not to be rude but it doesn't sound like you do. Now if your original idea was to track whether GW usually rules in agreement with the popular opinion or not, that's fine. But the popular opinion is not RAI.

Haha yeah, I do. But I am using RAI as a term of art. RAI is its own beast now. Someone assumes that a rule was intended to work a certain way without any knowledge of actual intent. The assumption is based on a myriad of factors found in the context of the rule. This assumption, when pitted against the textualist analysis of the very same rule, is called a RAI argument. This is why I say the author's true, original, intent has no bearing on what RAI can be. Thus, popular opinion is RAI.

Well then I'll just say that I agree it would be interesting to learn the statistics, although like insaniak said it would be very difficult to track. As far as RAI goes, I see where you're coming from, but I still think it is a misnomer.

Deuce11 wrote:Bottom line, RAI is precisely popular opinion.

It's really not.

What you appear to be referring to is Rule as Played, or Rules as Commonly Interpreted, rather than RAI.

I only can think of one off hand because I was quite excited by it. You CANNOT have a vehicle be partially on and partially off the table. The long argument about whether a vehicle is destroyed because it was immobilized by terrain at the edge of the table when it came on from reserve has been answered in favor of RAI.

As for what is RAI, I don't think Deuce means it's "popular opinion" so much as it is what a player thinks is best for the game (most balanced, makes the most logical sense in the case of the above, and so on). It's what a player thinks the author intended because it makes sense.

Right, but shouldnt what was actually intended, you know, by the author, come into consideration? We play the game designed by GW. Even if they think their game should work in a way that we the players disagree with, the intent of the author should be considered, especially in tournament settings where the rules are extremely important.

Edit: the whole "makes sense" thing is the problem. Their rules don't always makes sense, so using that as a way to determine intent isnt always going to get you the real answer.

The problem with that is that no one knows what the author intended. It's like asking if we should consider how strings will affect the outcome of an event. We have no idea how strings do anything, or if they even exist (it's all math unless something new has come up), so it's a pointless question because, while it has relevance, we can't answer it.

Also off hand I can't think of any rules that don't make sense that aren't explicitly written (or even any that are ambiguous). I don't have my book handy so if you could give me some examples that'd be nice.

How about a third option, RAAU. (Rules as agreed upon.) GW does not write rules that are tight enough that either RAW or RAI fanatics will ever agree, and apparently, even the RAI adherents are divided. How about trying to compromise and come up with your own interpretation that makes for a better game? I know, not every tournament organizer will use the same RAAU, but what's wrong with that? If the interpretation for a given tournament is not exactly what you're used to using, just adapt your tactics. Surely that's better than living in a constant state of nerdrage, which is what I'm seeing in this thread.

Someone could always go ask the writers at a Gamesday or something. What I was referring to was examples of "for fun" units, again to be compared to the falchions for GKs. Its hard to say that the author intended the extra attack because of the points cost, because authors put plenty of overcosted, ineffective units in codices. How do we know Ward didn't intend for nobody to use falchions conpetetively and just be a fun aesthetic option. In seriousness, I'm not saying we should ask author for their intent. I'm saying that we can't assume intent based on what we think makes sense. Again I want to reiterate that this is all just squabbling over semantics an the OPs overall idea is still a good thought.