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.

If I'm playing against my brother or mates then we just look at the situation and think about what would happen "realistically". These situations are rare however. But most of the time we look to the rulebook, as there is sometimes a paragraph somewhere else.

If it is a more serious game like a tournament then RAW is the only way because they affect everyone equally. RAW are the rules after all!!

Part of the problem of RAW is that the rules for various codexes are written for a rulebook that is no longer used. This is almost like playing monopoly with a snakes and ladders board. (obviously not as extreme)

RAI is more a case of "How I Think The Rules Should Be So That, In My Opinion, They Make The Most Sense"!!!

I think strict adherance to RAW would only work if the rules were written and consistently given errata at the same rate that MtG is done.

there the interplay of the mechanics is the whole point so a lot more time is invested into this end of the game.

in most situations, we are all stuck with poorly written and poorly proofread codexes and rulebooks.

for any given rule, there are always people on both sides of the arguement. yes it should work no it shouldent. both are usually able to cite passages in the codex or rulebook to defend their opinion.

rarely is there clear consensus.

if we were to go by strict RAW, this shouldn't be possible. multiple interpretations based on a single set of words wouldn't be possible.

but because GW is notorious for leaving things in the grey areas, we are constantly forced to debate the technicalities of the game. this is directly caused by the fact that GW does not care about the tournament and veteran community. they do not believe the rules should be written that tightly.

a perfect example is the dark angles faq. it would not have been difficult to give a clear and concise yes or no to the wargear issue. but instead they danced around it for several paragraphs.

basically, even though it is in their power, they refuse to rule that specifically. leaving it to the whim of tournament organizers. this results in inconsistent rulings on a variety of things, based on the organizer's opinion of power level and rules.

this would be fine if they were all certified judges like the DCI uses, with a certain level of progression required to judge an event of a certain size. but that is not the case for GW tournaments.

hell even at ard boyz, debates were settled between players. at no point did I even see a judge or organizer who could help sort these things out.

so unfortunately, this combination of factors leaves us in the position where we have to look not only at the RAW, but also RAI to figure out what their ultimate goal was. this usually leaves a major percentage of the players unhappy, regardless of how the public ruling works out

NaZ