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.

The most important rule

Now i wont type this out word for word but i will instead assume you have the BRB and can read it yourselves .

Now reading this GW and the writters freely admit, there will be times when RAW is interpreted differently .

Now i sit on the side of the fence that says to play this game, as it was intended from the very first incarnation of the rules, to the rules as they are today, you require more than just RAW .

Now its a fact that you can play in a tourney with one interpretation of the rule then play in a different tourney with a different interpretation of the same rules.

Tourneys are run by different organizations and if you enter them you abide by their rules , but a fun game which this game is based on (the game is just that, a game ), RAW is not enough without RAI and commonsense you cant play it .

Now YMTC sub forum helps with rules disputes to some degree,but only using RAW is like fighting with both hands tied behind your back and can never fully sort out each and every dispute as the "Most important rule" clearly shows

So i ask my fellow Dakkaites ,do you live and die by RAW or do you play the game using the most important rule ????

The point is more than when discussing the rules, or indeed when critically assessing them, RAW is the principal objective measurement. It's deeply unhelpful that when pointing out a (real or imagined) shortcoming in the rules, somebody who doesn't get this will inevitably say "If you don't like it, change it." (usually accompanied by much hurring and durring about whining and lack of imagination), which does not in fact add anything useful to the discussion.

A mechanism for resolving disputes mid-game is important but the RAW is the game that we're all trying to play.

TMIR, in my opinion, is a horrible solution for solving disputes. Unless you're playing with gits a much better solution is simply this - "when in doubt, take the least advantageous (to yourself) interpretation".

Also, from BrikWars:
"Things You'll Need:

First and most importantly: fun. It seems obvious, but this item is so often bizarrely forgotten by all types of gamers (especially wargamers) that it bears repeating: don't play a game if you don't mean to have fun. And for the love of God make sure you bring enough to share, because it's not all about you."

snakel wrote:The most important rule
Now reading this GW and the writters freely admit, there will be times when RAW is interpreted differently .

Most cases about 'interpreting' RAW differently happen because one side wants the rules to read certain way, usually because it gives them an advantage. Note that this 'intrerpretation' is usually not RAW, even though the person supporting the argument might claim it is.
You can find lot of good examples of this from Necron players from YMDC:
1) Claiming that giving single pistol to Wraith gives it +1 Attacks for having 2 CCW's (both 5e and 6e)
2) Claiming that Anrakyr the Traveller can use MitM while embarked in CBC either in 5e post-FAQ or 6e.
3) Claiming that MSS somehow allows one to use targets psychic powers (ie Activate force weapon) either in 5e or 6e.
Notice: if a reader wants to comment about these 3, first, search YMDC for the relevant threads and read them fully.

Problem about using "The Most Important Rule" is that it allows WAAC players to creatively 'interpret' rules in their favor and then just tell their opponents "we'll roll for it".

snakel wrote:So i ask my fellow Dakkaites ,do you live and die by RAW or do you play the game using the most important rule ????

There's a world of difference in living and dying by RAW and using TMI. I prefer the middle road. When strict RAW is obviously broken, like it is in many 6e instances and it's obvious what the writers meant, then go by RAI.

And then there's the casual play vs competitive play. In casual play, we often break rules. I've allowed opponents to redo their moves if they've made a mistake etc.

As always, best way to solve these kind of issues is to talk to your opponent before game. And in the rare case that there actually are multiple, equally valid interpretations of a rule, one should go for the ruling that offers least advantage for the army one is playing.

Fake-edit: I don't mean that Necron players are the only ones that creatively 'interpret' rules in their favor. They were just the easiest example as Necrons are the only army I could name multiple issues from memory. For example, offhand I only remember the "Crowe can rend with Cleansing Flame" claim for GK.

Scott-S6 wrote:A mechanism for resolving disputes mid-game is important but the RAW is the game that we're all trying to play.

TMIR, in my opinion, is a horrible solution for solving disputes. Unless you're playing with gits a much better solution is simply this - "when in doubt, take the least advantageous (to yourself) interpretation".

Also, from BrikWars:
"Things You'll Need:

First and most importantly: fun. It seems obvious, but this item is so often bizarrely forgotten by all types of gamers (especially wargamers) that it bears repeating: don't play a game if you don't mean to have fun. And for the love of God make sure you bring enough to share, because it's not all about you."

That's my solution as well, but on a tournament level, that probably doesn't work so well. I mean the dispute could be the difference between winning and losing.

The solution in that context is calling a judge.

And hoping he actually knows the rules.

snakel I think you're misinterpreting the way many of the regulars in YMDC work.

We debate strict RAW usually, ignoring intent (unless the rule is just unworkable).

Very few of the regulars always play by the exact RAW. In some cases, sure - I insist on RAW. In many others I use intent and figure out what the rule is supposed to say.

Citing TMIR is the same thing as losing an argument though (in most cases). Once you do that there's no real difference between finishing the game and flipping a coin to determine the winner.

RAW should always be the very last resort if you cannont agree, something like this

Rule: we disagree
RAI: we should try to reach a middle ground
Roll for it: 123 yes, 456 no
and failling all other attempts
RAW

Most WAAC will resort to RAW first then move to RFI, but resorting to RAW all the time does not in itself make you a WAAC gamer.

rigeld2 wrote:snakel I think you're misinterpreting the way many of the regulars in YMDC work.

We debate strict RAW usually, ignoring intent (unless the rule is just unworkable).

Very few of the regulars always play by the exact RAW. In some cases, sure - I insist on RAW. In many others I use intent and figure out what the rule is supposed to say.

Citing TMIR is the same thing as losing an argument though (in most cases). Once you do that there's no real difference between finishing the game and flipping a coin to determine the winner.

I leave the arguing for YMTC this was just my thoughts asking what other people in general do when faced with rules that are to say the least unclear (my opinion )

i will leave the heated debates for YMTC

The internet is not how most people work. If it's obvious that a rule technically says one thing, but clearly means another, then there's no debate - you use your common sense.

Testify wrote:The internet is not how most people work. If it's obvious that a rule technically says one thing, but clearly means another, then there's no debate - you use your common sense.

Yes. Problems really arise when people disagree on what did the designer really mean by writing rule X. There are obviously clear cut cases like Pile-ins and Challenges in 6e, though Pile-ins do have some huge issues about how should we handle models that attack in multiple initiative counts or models who "miss" their initiative counts.
Before GW publishes FAQ, there is neither RAW nor RAI you can properly use to handle these cases.

One should also remember that using "common sense" generally in 40k causes huge amount of issues though, as many of the rules are written certain way because of either game balance or game speed issues, and using "common sense" to discount such rules is recipe for a disaster.

Also, common sense isn't common.

Formosa wrote:RAW should always be the very last resort if you cannont agree, something like this...

I would disagree. RAW, in most situations, is the immediate solution to a rules issue.

People seem to get a little confused as to just what RAW applies to. The rules as written are what is used to play the game. How many shots can a bolter fire? The answer is found in the RAW.

It doesn't just apply to contentious issues. It doesn't apply at all in the way that many try to apply it, which is as a super-literal twisting of the rules to fit a given situation.

The RAW is simply, by very definition, the rules of the game.



Where there is a disagreement on what the rules mean, or on how a given situation works, then certainly you should discuss it with an opponent. But it's only where the RAW is unclear that there should be a need to discuss how you think the game was intended to be played. In most situations, just pointing out the relevant rule in the book is enough to get the game moving again.

As insaniak put it, RAW is not by itself a bad thing. You need it to play the game at all.

That being said, let's face it, GW does not write great rules. It's no secret. Often they are confusing, and in the worst cases, simply break the game with unresolvable situations. I enjoy "purist" RAW arguments on YMDC as I like to see what the actual rules say, even if that may not be the intent behind them. If nothing else it's an interesting intellectual exercise -IF- you can do it without bias.

In actual games, it's a different story. As a game, it's something that is meant to be enjoyable, and pissing off friends over silly rules arguments is not what I consider a good time. It is up to the players to examine what the rules are supposed to be doing and come to a logical conclusion on it. if an agreement can't be reached within a reasonable amoutn of time, roll off and move on.

For tournament play, having a common resource like INAT is valuable so everybody is on the same page even if they don't particularly agree with it.

The bottom line is - you can't play by strict RAW as the game becomes unplayable...and even if you work around that, you'll probably leave a trail of pissed off players behind you.

the problem is the negatice connotations it brings with it, alot of WAAC use it to try and gain advantage (I.E legal cheating), I think this is why alot of people dislike RAW as a first resort, but as always try and sort any obscure rules out before the game.. rather than pop it on then and claim RAW

I live and die by RAW.

Raw is applied to all aspects of the game. It is essentially how we play the game.
How far does an Infantry model move? How many shots does a Boltgun fire? What is the Strength of a Carnifex?
The answers are all found in RAW, and nowhere else.

RAW is RAI. RAI is RAW.

98% of the time we use RAW. Infantry models may move up to 6" per Movement Phase. Models with Ballistic Skill of 4 hit on a roll of 3+. Flamers ignore cover saves. And so on.

98% of the time a literal interpretation of the rules is what the games designers intended. RAW is RAI.
1.5% of the time something doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of the rules. Most often fluff is the main protagonist.
.5% of the time there is a genuine "irresistable force vs. immovable object"-situation. Roll for it.

RAW is how we play the game!

TMIR is a fine addition to the game, but its successful application hinges on one very important fact;
Both players must agree to change the rules.
If that isn't possible.....we use RAW. And that is simply how far TMIR goes.

Formosa wrote:the problem is the negatice connotations it brings with it, alot of WAAC use it to try and gain advantage (I.E legal cheating),

That illustrates perfectly where the problem lies, but not how you think it does.

Those WAAC players you're referring to aren't 'using RAW' to gain an advanatge... the RAW is the rules. What you're referring to is looking for easter eggs, or twisting the rules by using one specific interpretation where multiple interpretations might exist, or twisting the wording to mean something it doesn't.

That's not a problem of RAW. It's a problem of people deliberately misreading the rules to suit themselves.

RAW is the only thing that two players have to go off of when one player thinks it should work one way and another thinks it should work differently. In the case of YMDC, most of the controversial topics end up being one side who thinks something should work one way reciting a single line that taken out of context is literally correct and fits their viewpoint but could be interpreted another way that conforms to the rest of the rules and fluff in a logical manner that requires reading more than a single line of text. In person, two players who have a disagreement will be quoting single lines and it will end up being about the same as TMDC if each player is invested in their interpretation.

RAW is law, but unfortunately the 40k rules aren't written with law in mind. By using conversational English, the writers make the mistake of spreading concepts over sections instead of clearly defining something in it's own context or repeating rules that are redundant between sections. Codexes wouldn't describe a unit fighting in a certain way and then applying rules that obviously work against that descriptive text.

In 6th, if the Challenges section was written like a law it would list all of the relevant combat steps again instead of making off hand remarks about how it is different than a regular combat. A prior editions rules about not firing rapid firing weapons and charging would have clearly stated that firing matters instead of carrying. It would end up being a very dry read, but much more informative and less prone to interpretation to fill in the gaps.

"The Most Important Rule" is just an excuse for sloppy game design.

If the game is well designed, properly tested, and well thought out, then the flavour text that embodies "The Most Important Rule" should manifest itself without having to turn to a page in the book.

Formosa wrote:RAW should always be the very last resort if you cannont agree, something like this

Rule: we disagree
RAI: we should try to reach a middle ground
Roll for it: 123 yes, 456 no
and failling all other attempts
RAW

Most WAAC will resort to RAW first then move to RFI, but resorting to RAW all the time does not in itself make you a WAAC gamer.

How do you disagree on a rule if it is unambiguous? So RAW (=rule as written) comes first.

To illustrate the problem with your order, an example that actually happened in I game I was playing next to:

Situation: Kid1 has a Landraider Crusader with two Hurricane Bolters, resulting in 12 twin-linked shots. Kid2 thinks that's way to many shots, and that you get one twin-linked hurricane bolter.
RAI: Kid2 thinks the landraider has too many shots. Kid1 thinks that the landraider is supposed to have that many shots. Obvious neither gives land.
TMIR: Kid2 wants to roll for it, Kid1 refuses, while reading the rules out loud. Kid2 calls him a rule lawyer. Game ends.

RAW: A land raider crusader has two hurricane bolters. Each consists of three TL-bolters. Each bolter fires two shots, so six bolter fire a total of twelve shots.

So, how was RAW the last resort?

I play most of hobby games as RAW however the writing style for Games Workshop products leaves something to be desired. In that there are so many grammatical and logical, mistakes that cause some rules to be ambiguous to literal interpretation which disallows RAW.

One example of a forced RAI would be in 5th edition’s FNP special rule which states “Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons,…”. The problem is in the conjunction “and”. Every ranged weapon in Warhammer 40k has a discrete AP value and no ranged weapon has two or more, concurrent AP values. The correct conjunction would be “or” which is a logical disjunction. More so the correct logical operator would be an “exclusive or” which would modify the sentence as “Neither can it be used against wounds from either AP1 or AP2, weapons,…” However the writer’s meaning of 5th’s FNP is easy to interpret as either AP1 or AP2, weapons disallow a FNP special roll.

The Hit & Run special rule in 6th edition has an ambiguous meaning which I am not sure which way it should work and there could be others but I have not given the rule book a thorough read yet.

Part of this problem is in the past Games Workshop products tried to be verbose which lead to more unintentional errors but they have gotten better at this in newer products.

Jidmah wrote:

Formosa wrote:RAW should always be the very last resort if you cannont agree, something like this

Rule: we disagree
RAI: we should try to reach a middle ground
Roll for it: 123 yes, 456 no
and failling all other attempts
RAW

Most WAAC will resort to RAW first then move to RFI, but resorting to RAW all the time does not in itself make you a WAAC gamer.

How do you disagree on a rule if it is unambiguous? So RAW (=rule as written) comes first.

To illustrate the problem with your order, an example that actually happened in I game I was playing next to:

Situation: Kid1 has a Landraider Crusader with two Hurricane Bolters, resulting in 12 twin-linked shots. Kid2 thinks that's way to many shots, and that you get one twin-linked hurricane bolter.
RAI: Kid2 thinks the landraider has too many shots. Kid1 thinks that the landraider is supposed to have that many shots. Obvious neither gives land.
TMIR: Kid2 wants to roll for it, Kid1 refuses, while reading the rules out loud. Kid2 calls him a rule lawyer. Game ends.

RAW: A land raider crusader has two hurricane bolters. Each consists of three TL-bolters. Each bolter fires two shots, so six bolter fire a total of twelve shots.

So, how was RAW the last resort?

its cases as simple as this, you are correct good sir, its the more complicated ones that you should discuss before hand to save the game being bogged down or to stop a WAAC from trying to pull a fast one, when i play fantasy i always
go through each of my units and explain what it is and what it does and runes it may have and explain how they work, then show them the book and discuss any fuzzy rules.

For example, Dwarf cannons can fire magical attacks, the skaven storm banner says all units that dont use BS must roll 4+ to fire except magical missiles, the dwarf cannon technically fire magical missiles, so we discussed and decided it must have mean the Type "Magic missile" but it wasnt very clear to us at the time, this saved what could have been an arguement later on in the game.

But mainly what im trying to say is

1: be reasonable
2: be polite
3: try to come to a friendly agreement

but most WAAC people do not behave in this way, this is why RAW has a bad name

Well, as someone who runs a club, we usually get the 3 or 4 "rules guys" together. We look at RAW and if it's clear, we go there. But if someone is trying to manipulate a minor grammatical oddity for something we feel violates RAI, we go RAI enlou of an FAQ.

Of course, how do you determine what RAI is?

Fafnir wrote:Of course, how do you determine what RAI is?

sometimes its obvious, sometimes its not, just one of those things

Formosa wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Of course, how do you determine what RAI is?

sometimes its obvious, sometimes its not, just one of those things

I would suggest that it is impossible to assert "RAI" as you and others would suggest it to be. When GW publishes a ruleset, they publish it after being edited and assured of its quality (supposedly). Because of that, it should be assumed that, until an errata is made, or some form of public statement on the part of GW (Hah!), that all information in the codex is written as it is intended to be.

RAI as held up by some parts of the community has no basis in anything. There's nothing wrong with house-ruling things, but calling it "rules as intended" is wrong.

Yeah, what people tend to present as RAI is actually 'Rules as I think they intended' rather than 'Rules as actually intended.'


There are the occasional rare situations where GW specifically tell us what they meant a given rule to do (sometimes combined with a 'That's not what we actually wrote, though... Oops...') but the rest of the time it's really just coming down to personal opinion as to what makes the most sense.