Switch Theme:

What do we think RAW is?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Does the article snippet explain RAW well?
Yes
Mostly yes, but I disagree to a certain degree
Kind of yes, kind of no
Most of this is wrong, but it does have some valid points
No, this is absolutely wrong - this is not what RAW is
TL:DR, I don't care, I don't actually play the game

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





So I found this little snippet from google on explaining what RAW is during another post.

Spoiler:
Q: The term "rules as written" (or RAW) gets thrown about fairly often in RPG circles, especially around D&D. But what does it actually mean?

Is RAW an analysis technique? A playstyle? An entire parallel game system? What key aspects or attributes would allow one to recognize something as RAW or non-RAW?

A:Rules as written is first-and-foremost an approach to understanding the rules text of a system. As an interpretation of the text, it has the following goals:

Accessibility. A rules-as-written interpretation should be one that anyone reading the rules can come to, and so is based solely in the published rules, without injecting any external knowledge that may be unavailable. Examples of external knowledge that are eschewed include developer commentary (unless that commentary is given official rules-status, as in errata), historical precedence (unless that precedence is found within the rules), narrative concerns, balance concerns, or anyone’s idea of “common sense.”

Universality. A rules-as-written interpretation should be one that everyone who reads the rules text and rigorously applies the literal interpretation of that text (even up to or beyond any limits of absurdity) comes to. If the text is irreconcilably ambiguous, then the RAW interpretation would then be a list various possible interpretations based on different interpretations of any ambiguities.

Officiality. A rules-as-written interpretation should endeavor to incorporate the entirety of the “official rules,” as defined by the game’s publisher, with the exception of those tied explicitly to adjudication by any player or players (e.g. a Game Master).

Thus, the ideal RAW understanding of the rules is one which everyone reading the rules will come to, without needing to know anything outside the rules, and that this understanding is, say, “official-compatible.” This ideal is, of course, rarely achieved. Rules text is often ambiguous, some contextual understanding is simply required to understand any language (and English arguably more so than most), and the official rules may explicitly contradict some of the other goals (i.e. Rule 0, enshrining developer commentary as official, and so on).

The purpose of this exercise is not necessarily for play; while someone could blindly adopt RAW interpretations as the rules they will actually use for a game, and thus RAW could be called a “playstyle,” this is really a twisting of the term. For one thing, it tells us nothing about what the style of play will actually be like, which is the sort of thing that a “playstyle” would ordinarily indicate, and for another, in many cases it’s not actually possible (if for no other reason than that RAW is an ideal to pursue rather than a goal to achieve in many cases).

Rather, the purpose is to facilitate communication about the rules. Historically, rules-as-written approaches to understanding the rules became far more prominent with the rise of the Internet, and that is no coincidence. While RAW interpretations are prone to many, many flaws when it comes to actually playing the game, ideally RAW provides a foundational basis of the rules that everyone can at least agree on. This is important when you are talking with people with whom you have never played, and who bring entirely different assumptions, history, and preferences to the discussion, and there is no one with a DM’s authority to decide things between you. That’s when RAW becomes useful. Online, we can’t make any assumptions about how someone else’s DM will rule, so in a sense, RAW is intended as a way of minimizing assumptions that may not be true (and, when the rules are well-written, it serves this function well—but RAW tends to only get a lot of attention when the rules are not well-written and the RAW is surprising).

Compare this to actually sitting at a table, particularly with a stable group that has played together for a long time. Within individual groups, such a drive for “objective” understanding is unnecessary; the goal within a group is to play a fun game, not necessarily to come to some perfect understanding of the rules text. And when the rules as written offer results that are counterintuitive, imbalanced, or just nonfunctional, you have a DM there to adjudicate things.

The language of the rules, interpreted literally, also becomes a vehicle for changing the rules and communicating those changes—in short, RAW provides a way to understand what the rules are and a language for indicating what your houserules are as well. By using the language of RAW to change the rules of the game (particularly those places where the rules of the game are unsatisfactory as written), the goal is to add clarity to one’s game, and avoid miscommunication and the resulting social fallout that can come with it (arguments about what someone said and what that meant, disappointment or frustration when things don’t work as expected, etc.).

This was the most upvoted comment in the rpg.stackexchange (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/104165/what-rpg-concepts-does-rules-as-written-encompass), and I thought it would be interesting to see whether the Dakka community indeed has a twisted view of what RAW means or generally within the accepted norms of how we define RAW.

Comment below for specifics please!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/08 16:33:50


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord






It's a polite enough definition. In my experience RAW serves two purposes:

1) Internet chest thumping to prove how clever you are, because you broke a game, while the other 99.5% of the population simply figured out the intent of the rule and played the game as intended.
2) Abusing poorly worded rules to your advantage, again ignoring the obvious intent of the rule (note the use of the word: obvious) in order to gain an advantage in a game of toy soldiers.

The people who enjoy RAW as a hobby are also why you have three paragraphs of legal and disclaimer scroll on the bottom of every TV commercial.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/10 04:05:36


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?

If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?

It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 17:18:32


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN (117) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 BaconCatBug wrote:
I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?

If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?

It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.

I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 skchsan wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?

If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?

It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.

I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
So answer the question, if we're playing tennis, you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN (117) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




United States

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?

If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?

It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.


You probably don't get this a lot. But I'm a big fan of how literal you take all the rules. It really helps highlight issues with the game and some of the writing. I, of course, ignore all your rulings and try to get as close to RAI as my opponent and I can get, but I still appreciate the effort you put into tracking the RAW issues.

And to answer the question, I think that's what RAW is. It's taking the written word literally, so you can determine if there are any glaring issues and then deciding if it seems reasonable enough to use RAW or if it needs to be houseruled to the likely intended purpose.
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?

If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?

It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.
Don't get me wrong because I find you extremely entertaining but 1. you're extremely snobby when you talk about RAW and 2. you purposely (theoretically, since you don't actually play) drive the rule to its breaking point and scream over others that are proposing RAI workarounds that it's not RAW and that they're breaking the rule. I think you're asking to be castrated at that point.

I think RAW serves as the basis for a discussion regarding the rule (particularly in the case of GW's rule writing its absurd levels of errors) and should not be taken as a literal "you must follow the rule in it's entire literal sense". I mean, technically J-walking is illegal but we all do it anyways because it doesn't make sense to walk all the way to a crosswalk half a mile away to cross a single car width street when there's no car coming.
So answer the question, if we're playing tennis, you make serve that is a fault and I point you out on it, do you accept it or start whining about RaW?


A gross misrepresentation of most of your points. I accept the fault, because that is unambiguous and is part of a set of simple rules we have already agreed to follow. Your absurdist examples, however, disregard the presence of ambiguity in the rules, assuming there is only one possible interpretation of them (yours), and anyone who disagrees is "breaking the rules," as opposed to interpreting them differently than you do.

Also, tennis matches often have referees specifically to call things like faults. Similar to TOs. If you said a serve was a fault, and the ref disagreed, would you say that ref was house-ruling something?
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Norwalk, Connecticut

The problem with BCB's interpretation is just that; it's HIS interpretation of what the rules say. Sometimes GW agrees, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the community backs him up, sometimes they don't. The problem is that no matter what, the person/GW disagreeing with BCB is ALWAYS wrong (in his eyes). So 1 out of 10 times he'll be right, based on GW and community. The other 9 times he's usually voted down (and to him, it's his way or the highway). So if you want awful rules-lawyering and want to be "That Guy"...listen to him. If you want to enjoy the game, read what he says, see if you agree, and move on. See how the rules are played in the area you're playing; that's the way you play. That goes for the big tournaments as well. If BCB says it's "rule A" and Adepticon says "rule B" and you're playing at Adepticon...you'd better be using their interpretation, or you're gonna have a bad time.

RAW is literally "rules as written"; whatever is on the page.

RAI is the interpretation (IE, EVERYTHING BCB writes) of those rules, regardless of what he'd have you believe.

Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.

Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.


Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.  
   
Made in ca
Enginseer with a Wrench






 BaconCatBug wrote:
I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?

If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?

It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.



Except the ball landing in the wrong area beign a fault is the intended result of the rule.
Not letting your opponent use assault weapons after advancing because "ITS NOT RAW!!!!!" is clearly not the intended result of the rule. Why would GW bother to write down this rule and make this class of weapon if it litterally had no purpose? this is the difference.

Youre the bad guy because you refuse to agree (or at least tolerate) how 99% of the playerbase uses rules.



Now im not saying that you dont have a point in that the rules shouldnt be broken like this, and i've used your posts to tell my opponents in real life how "technically this situation isnt legal, how bout that". but never have i applied the obviously not intended result of these broken rules, its more of a fun anecdote to share while smalltalking.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 17:47:39


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





At what point do you think RAW ceases to be RAW?
And how would you define the difference between [Rule text] with [RAW]?

Is rule text synonymous to RAW?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 17:50:56


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 timetowaste85 wrote:
The problem with BCB's interpretation is just that; it's HIS interpretation of what the rules say. Sometimes GW agrees, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the community backs him up, sometimes they don't. The problem is that no matter what, the person/GW disagreeing with BCB is ALWAYS wrong (in his eyes). So 1 out of 10 times he'll be right, based on GW and community. The other 9 times he's usually voted down (and to him, it's his way or the highway). So if you want awful rules-lawyering and want to be "That Guy"...listen to him. If you want to enjoy the game, read what he says, see if you agree, and move on. See how the rules are played in the area you're playing; that's the way you play. That goes for the big tournaments as well. If BCB says it's "rule A" and Adepticon says "rule B" and you're playing at Adepticon...you'd better be using their interpretation, or you're gonna have a bad time.

RAW is literally "rules as written"; whatever is on the page.

RAI is the interpretation (IE, EVERYTHING BCB writes) of those rules, regardless of what he'd have you believe.
My entire reasoning system precludes any interpretation or wishful thinking on my part. I parse the rules exactly as they are written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I just want to play the game by the rules, how does that make me the bad guy in this situation?

If I went to play a game of tennis, and told my opponent "Your serve did not land in the correct area, and is thus a fault", and then my opponent starts screaming about how I am an donkey-cave for following the rules, would that not come off as totally wrong?

It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.



Except the ball landing in the wrong area beign a fault is the intended result of the rule.
Not letting your opponent use assault weapons after advancing because "ITS NOT RAW!!!!!" is clearly not the intended result of the rule. Why would GW bother to write down this rule and make this class of weapon if it litterally had no purpose? this is the difference.

Youre the bad guy because you refuse to agree (or at least tolerate) how 99% of the playerbase uses rules.



Now im not saying that you dont have a point in that the rules shouldnt be broken like this, and i've used your posts to tell my opponents in real life how "technically this situation isnt legal, how bout that". but never have i applied the obviously not intended result of these broken rules, its more of a fun anecdote to share while smalltalking.
If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all? Lack of errata is proof the rule is intended to be the way it is written.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/08 17:50:57


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN (117) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 skchsan wrote:
At what point do you think RAW ceases to be RAW?
And how would you define the difference between [Rule text] with [RAW]?


Definitionally, RAW never ceases to be RAW. It is that it is, and that's all that it can be.

However, the INSTANT someone reads it, their internalization of the rules becomes RAI (Rules As Interpreted). I would go so far as to argue that even an author's reading of the text is an interpretation, and not a Holy Truth.

But then, I'm something of a philosopher, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
My entire reasoning system precludes any interpretation or wishful thinking on my part. I parse the rules exactly as they are written.


Removed, Rule #1 please - BrookM

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/08 19:32:57


 
   
Made in ca
Enginseer with a Wrench






 BaconCatBug wrote:
If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?


because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.

now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.

But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 Octopoid wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
At what point do you think RAW ceases to be RAW?
And how would you define the difference between [Rule text] with [RAW]?


Definitionally, RAW never ceases to be RAW. It is that it is, and that's all that it can be.

However, the INSTANT someone reads it, their internalization of the rules becomes RAI (Rules As Interpreted). I would go so far as to argue that even an author's reading of the text is an interpretation, and not a Holy Truth.

But then, I'm something of a philosopher, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt.
So in a technical sense, can RAW ever be truly "modified"? or is it the texts of the rule (subject to the RAW) that gets modified? To say, is RAW simply the method in which we analyze a text or something tangible or intangible that can be modified through additions of erratas/revisions?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 17:55:19


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






VladimirHerzog wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?


because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.

now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.

But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.

Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".

The edge of the battlefield thing is not a nitpick, it's a fundamental rule that GW should not have forgotten in the first place. The reason 8th edition needs more errata than actual rulebooks is because GW hire bad writers, plain and simple.

I find it hilarious that they decided "we don't need stinking USRs" and then immediately started using USRs and adding in more (FLY, Ignore Wounds, AIRCRAFT, etc).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/08 17:57:40


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN (117) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in ca
Enginseer with a Wrench






 skchsan wrote:
So in a technical sense, can RAW ever be truly "modified"? or is it the texts of the rule that gets modified? To say, is RAW simply the method in which we analyze a text or something tangible or intangible that can be modified through additions of erratas/revisions?


RAW can be updated (FAQs do this) but technically as soon as anyone reads it, it becomes Rule as Interpreted since we are interpreting the RAW and applying it to our games

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 skchsan wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
At what point do you think RAW ceases to be RAW?
And how would you define the difference between [Rule text] with [RAW]?


Definitionally, RAW never ceases to be RAW. It is that it is, and that's all that it can be.

However, the INSTANT someone reads it, their internalization of the rules becomes RAI (Rules As Interpreted). I would go so far as to argue that even an author's reading of the text is an interpretation, and not a Holy Truth.

But then, I'm something of a philosopher, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt.
So in a technical sense, can RAW ever be truly "modified"? or is it the texts of the rule (subject to the RAW) that gets modified? To say, is RAW simply the method in which we analyze a text or something tangible or intangible that can be modified through additions of erratas/revisions?


Hmmmm.... I would have to say, at first blush, that RAW is something intangible that we can only interact with through interpretations. Some interpretations may come closer to RAW than others (i.e. allowing Assault weapons to fire is closer than saying Space Marines have 60 wounds), but in the end, RAW is a pure ideal, wholly unattainable, and only something we strive for, rather than something we can ever have.

Does that help?
   
Made in ca
Enginseer with a Wrench






 BaconCatBug wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?


because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.

now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.

But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.

Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".



no, because your intent is against the rest of the playerbase. No one would let you play with 500 wounds marines, but everyone would let you shoot assault weapons after advancing.
Also , stop bringing up the "crazily buffed stats for my marines " argument, it doesnt prove anything except that youre too stubborn to view other's opinions.

As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
So in a technical sense, can RAW ever be truly "modified"? or is it the texts of the rule that gets modified? To say, is RAW simply the method in which we analyze a text or something tangible or intangible that can be modified through additions of erratas/revisions?


RAW can be updated (FAQs do this) but technically as soon as anyone reads it, it becomes Rule as Interpreted since we are interpreting the RAW and applying it to our games
Yeah it's the rules that get modified, which is then interpreted in a RAW sense, which then becomes RAI, no?

When can we use the term "RAW" in the physical sense as if we were to refer it to some sort of 'baseline interpretation of texts'?

As in, there's clear distinction between the actual physical body of text, and then there is the RAW. Despite, the two gets mingled so often that it's become a pseudo-synonym.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 18:02:46


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






VladimirHerzog wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?


because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.

now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.

But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.

Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".



no, because your intent is against the rest of the playerbase. No one would let you play with 500 wounds marines, but everyone would let you shoot assault weapons after advancing.
Also , stop bringing up the "crazily buffed stats for my marines " argument, it doesnt prove anything except that youre too stubborn to view other's opinions.

As much as "mob mentality" is a bad thing usually, with a game like 40k, you should follow it, assuming you actually want to play instead of bitch about it on forums all day.
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN (117) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".


Wrong. One "intent" cleaves to an area with ambiguity and evidence, if circumstantial, for one interpretation over another, whereas your false-equivalence has no ambiguity and no evidence to support it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.


The rules may not be a democracy. The game we play using them very much is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 18:02:33


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord






BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.

 
   
Made in ca
Enginseer with a Wrench






 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules are not a democracy. Just because a lot of people incorrectly think something doesn't make it so.


Look, man. We clearly disagree on how we view the rules. But i'd rather go with the flow and paly the game rather than spend my time being pedantic about "ACKHUALLY the rules say..".

I agree with you on the fact that the rules are poorly writte, i disagree on the way you communicate this to other players. You dont have force your point of view down everyone's throat, not everything is a contest, you dont have to win every argument.

As many have said before, you should really step back and cut warhammer from your like since it clearly isnt enjoyable for you.

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 BaconCatBug wrote:

[...]
It's not actually difficult to write rules properly, it just costs more than minimum wage and requires a technical writer and an editor.



Thus, the ideal RAW understanding of the rules is one which everyone reading the rules will come to, without needing to know anything outside the rules, and that this understanding is, say, “official-compatible.” This ideal is, of course, rarely achieved. Rules text is often ambiguous, some contextual understanding is simply required to understand any language (and English arguably more so than most), and the official rules may explicitly contradict some of the other goals (i.e. Rule 0, enshrining developer commentary as official, and so on).


If it's not difficult, then why is a valid RAW interpretation so rarely possible (across all tabletop games)?
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Bharring wrote:
If it's not difficult, then why is a valid RAW interpretation so rarely possible (across all tabletop games)?
Because Tabletop games are a niche market, they cannot afford (or claim to not be able to, GW is rolling in piles of money right now, that's what happens when you sell 50 pence of plastic for £100) to hire good writers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 18:14:25


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN (117) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Norwalk, Connecticut

At this point, I'm just grabbing some popcorn and watching BCB vs. the Internet again. Oh, and reporting general trolling from him at this point.

On topic, hopefully one of us (besides BCB) has explained RAW vs RAI well enough to be useful to the OP (and everybody else). Enjoy the game!

Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.

Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.


Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Fun factoid: The MLB rulebook is 184 pages. These are rules for playing Baseball, not for running a league.
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 Elbows wrote:
BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
I have to say though BCB's often overly hunted over (often justified, but that's besides the point), but the points he bring up are real issues requiring further intervention via RAInterpreted in order for the said rule to work in a real game.

This further blurs the practical usage of RAW because RAW is never truly RAW, but once removed RAInterpreted.

Which goes back to the point - is it actually practical for us to call RAW as RAW? Or should it be called something else entirely?
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 skchsan wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
I have to say though BCB's often overly hunted over (often justified, but that's besides the point), but the points he bring up are real issues requiring further intervention via RAInterpreted in order for the said rule to work in a real game.

This further blurs the practical usage of RAW because RAW is never truly RAW, but once removed RAInterpreted.

Which goes back to the point - is it actually practical for us to call RAW as RAW? Or should it be called something else entirely?


I think it's USEFUL to be aware of the ideal we're reaching toward, and RAW is as good a term for that as anything, I suppose. It may not be terribly practical, though.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 BaconCatBug wrote:
Spoiler:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
If the rule was intended to do something, but doesn't, they can errata it. Otherwise why bother issuing errata at all?


because litterally only 1% of the playerbase decides to interpret the rule 100% as written while ignoring intent.

now im not saying that this isnt a problem, the rules should be concrete, i agree with you on this.

But its nitpicking on rules like this that makes FAQ define what the edge of the battlefield is.

Ok, they intended for my Tactical Marines to have 500 wounds each. My "intent" is just as valid as your "intent".

Not at all.

You're confident that they intended Tac Marines to have 500W each. He's confident they intended Tac Marines to have 1W each.
I'm going to play a game with him, not you (regardless of who the Marine player is).

In theory, there is an "Intent" that is simply true - what the producer meant when they wrote it. In practice, knowing it 100% for certain isn't possible. So we must work in approximates. Which leads us to the art of minimizing the approximates to maximize the clarity. And that's an art, not a science. In that art, the "Marines have 500W each" interpretation is nowhere near as valid as "Marines have 1W each".

So his read on the Intent is more valid than yours, but that cannot be proven (only suggested).
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: