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.

Hi folks,

As a bit of an experiment, I’ve been thinking about how to resolve disagreements regarding interpretations of RAW. One of the first things I think would need to be determined, are what sources of information are considered acceptable *today*.

Sources I would consider acceptable are...

Rulebook, Codex, Supplement (Campaign Books, White Dwarf), Social Media, FAQ/Errata.

As a general rule, I would prioritize these sources according to date published. More recent is more relevant. Would anyone believe that these are invalid sources, or that there are additional sources that should be considered valid when discussing RAW interpretations?

Would anyone believe there should be a different manner of prioritizing the information?

I would question including social media on there, unless it's specifically verified as coming from a member of the rules team. GW's social media guy has been known to post answers to rules questions in the past - but if they're just coming from him personally rather than someone who actually writes the rules, then they ultimately have no more weight than asking any other gamer.

From facebook :

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Hi folks,
As a bit of an experiment, I’ve been thinking about how to resolve disagreements regarding interpretations of RAW. One of the first things I think would need to be determined, are what sources of information are considered acceptable *today*.
Sources I would consider acceptable are...
Rulebook, Codex, Supplement (Campaign Books, White Dwarf), Social Media, FAQ/Errata.
As a general rule, I would prioritize these sources according to date published. More recent is more relevant. Would anyone believe that these are invalid sources, or that there are additional sources that should be considered valid when discussing RAW interpretations?
Would anyone believe there should be a different manner of prioritizing the information?

The only sources anyone should consider official are: Rulebook, Codex, FAQ/Errata.

Also, maybe the Supplement books (Campaign Books, White Dwarf) If they come directly from the GW rules team.

Social Media is NEVER rules. he Facebook team literally has said " we can’t give you official answers." so there can not be any official answers on the Facebook page ever. (Unless the rules team changes that in the future, but as of now this is correct).

So Yes, I would believe that Facebook is an invalid source for rules.

Social media is never raw its unevidenced RAI


General three strata of evidence Tourney specific - RAW - RAI

TO/Ref - Highest
Tourney pack (if attentending a tournament)/ ETC FAQ etc.

Current FAQ/Errata for the books/ supplements you are using
Other faction faq/erratas as some GW rulings are hidden in faq for factions you may not use.
The codexs and supplements most recent generally but often their is a clarifier on how they interact e.g. replace or supplement
The basic rule book

Then we have
RAI evidenced - YMDC consensus - e.g armour saves meaning armour saves.
RAI personal interpretation - the strat doesnt work as Armour saves are not defined.

Rulebook, Codex, FAQ/Errata.

Anything else is not Rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Rulebook, Codex, FAQ/Errata.

Anything else is not Rules.

No, there are inferred rules too. Like "use a die numbered 1 to 6" and "specific trump's general". That kind of thing.

Index is also rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Rulebook, Codex, FAQ/Errata.

Anything else is not Rules.

White Dwarf disagrees.

And WHC articles like Beta Bolter.

It’s cute you want an exhaustive list but that hot take is not it.

You could possibly create an exhaustive list, but why bother in the first place? Just like the rules themselves, people are generally capable of figuring out what counts as a valid rules source depending on context. Social media is a good example here. Most of the time it's not a great rules source and I'd be sceptical of it as opposed to something like an official FAQ. But if a FB post corrects a rule that 99% of gamers are sure is wrong I'd be inclined to go with that post.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Rulebook, Codex, FAQ/Errata.

Anything else is not Rules.

No, there are inferred rules too. Like "use a die numbered 1 to 6" and "specific trump's general". That kind of thing.

That is English Language Parsing resulting in axioms, not "inferred rules".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
Index is also rules.

A fair point, I generally tend to forget the Indexes even exist. So the Indexes (in whatever form, GW, FW, Chapter Approved or White Dwarf) are also rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Rulebook, Codex, FAQ/Errata.

Anything else is not Rules.

No, there are inferred rules too. Like "use a die numbered 1 to 6" and "specific trump's general". That kind of thing.

That is English Language Parsing resulting in axioms, not "inferred rules".

But there are loads of times we parse using our understanding of the language and you dismiss it as not RAW. Just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Rulebook, Codex, FAQ/Errata.

Anything else is not Rules.

No, there are inferred rules too. Like "use a die numbered 1 to 6" and "specific trump's general". That kind of thing.

That is English Language Parsing resulting in axioms, not "inferred rules".

But there are loads of times we parse using our understanding of the language and you dismiss it as not RAW. Just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Example? "This rule doesn't seem to do anything otherwise" is not parsing the english language. Parsing of the English Language allows us to know that "roll a dice" means "to impel forward a regular cube labeled on each side by a different number of the values one, two, three, four, five and six by causing it to turn over and over on a surface in such a manner that the final resting position is sufficiently random (i.e. its final resting position cannot be calculated from its initial conditions unaided in real time before the regular cube has come to a stop)."

I have many dice that have more or less than 6 sides.

nekooni wrote:
I have many dice that have more or less than 6 sides.

You don't use any dice other than six sided dice in 40k, which is why "roll a dice" means to roll a six sided dice. That's part of the parsing.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Hi folks,

As a bit of an experiment, I’ve been thinking about how to resolve disagreements regarding interpretations of RAW.

Invoke a duel with each side armed with dreadsocks. (That's for the longtime players who remember when dreads were made out of metal).


Rulesooks (includes codices, indices, the main rulebook, the battle primer and other supplements like Vigilis- Forgeworld as well as GW if you're doing FW), FAQS (including things like stepping into a new edition commentary published in the FAQ section), rules for units included with the unit\formation in their box, rules in White Dwarf, rules on Warhammer Community sometimes put some rules out, but these usually also appear elsewhere later. Facebook you might be able to use to argue intent, but isn't official for RAW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I have many dice that have more or less than 6 sides.

You don't use any dice other than six sided dice in 40k, which is why "roll a dice" means to roll a six sided dice. That's part of the parsing.

GW sells D10 for 40k and the rules also use D3.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Rulebook, Codex, FAQ/Errata.

Anything else is not Rules.

No, there are inferred rules too. Like "use a die numbered 1 to 6" and "specific trump's general". That kind of thing.

That is English Language Parsing resulting in axioms, not "inferred rules".

But there are loads of times we parse using our understanding of the language and you dismiss it as not RAW. Just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Example? "This rule doesn't seem to do anything otherwise" is not parsing the english language. Parsing of the English Language allows us to know that "roll a dice" means "to impel forward a regular cube labeled on each side by a different number of the values one, two, three, four, five and six by causing it to turn over and over on a surface in such a manner that the final resting position is sufficiently random (i.e. its final resting position cannot be calculated from its initial conditions unaided in real time before the regular cube has come to a stop)."

I'm just saying that your pure RAW position actually requires a lot of judgement calls in deciding how to parse language. There are very often situations like this.

Essentially though the position you take is not an absolute RAW, because you are still layering your interpretation onto it to an extent. While you might draw the line further to that extreme than others, the point you have chosen is still inherently arbitrary and based on your own common sense. It's of no greater authority than drawing the line somewhere else though.

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I have many dice that have more or less than 6 sides.

You don't use any dice other than six sided dice in 40k, which is why "roll a dice" means to roll a six sided dice. That's part of the parsing.

GW sells D10 for 40k and the rules also use D3.

The basic rules in the battle primer, however, specify using 6 sided dice. It even covers in the battle primer how to roll the D6 to get a D3 result. the D10 isn't covered by basic rules; unless otherwise specified when they're referring to dice they'd be referring to a 6 sided die like they mention in the "Tools of War" section in the basic rules.

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I have many dice that have more or less than 6 sides.

You don't use any dice other than six sided dice in 40k, which is why "roll a dice" means to roll a six sided dice. That's part of the parsing.

GW sells D10 for 40k and the rules also use D3.

The basic rules in the battle primer, however, specify using 6 sided dice. It even covers in the battle primer how to roll the D6 to get a D3 result. the D10 isn't covered by basic rules; unless otherwise specified when they're referring to dice they'd be referring to a 6 sided die like they mention in the "Tools of War" section in the basic rules.

The 'bit' isn't about how many sides the dice have. It's that the rules never state what is on those sides. Maybe my dice have 6s on all 6 sides, rules don't say I can't use it! Common sense, however, does say you can't use it.

 Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I have many dice that have more or less than 6 sides.

You don't use any dice other than six sided dice in 40k, which is why "roll a dice" means to roll a six sided dice. That's part of the parsing.

GW sells D10 for 40k and the rules also use D3.

The basic rules in the battle primer, however, specify using 6 sided dice. It even covers in the battle primer how to roll the D6 to get a D3 result. the D10 isn't covered by basic rules; unless otherwise specified when they're referring to dice they'd be referring to a 6 sided die like they mention in the "Tools of War" section in the basic rules.

The 'bit' isn't about how many sides the dice have. It's that the rules never state what is on those sides. Maybe my dice have 6s on all 6 sides, rules don't say I can't use it! Common sense, however, does say you can't use it.

That's a different issue (and one that I grant they didn't deal with, they assume people are using normal D6's.) As you can tell from Nekooni's comments of GW selling D10 ro 40K and the rules also using D3 that he wasn't referring to the issue of the numbering on the dice at the time.

This is really a side issue, however.

Trying to nudge this back onto the rails, anyone object to treating the most recent source of rules as the most important?

Coincidentally, I have two six-sided die that don't go from 1-6. Instead the sides are labeled 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64. Also have 2 twenty-sides die that only go from 1-10 (twice for each).

Not really relevant to the discussion though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On topic: this is how I look that them.

First priority are FAQs. These provide GW's RAI for the rules, and build upon the rule structure.

Second priority is Errata (including point drops from CA). These "fix" rules to be more in line with what the developers want, and are supposed to help balance the game.

Third priority are the BRB, Codices, and other rulebooks. Can't play the game without them.

That said, in one case I will place the Errata and Rules ahead of FAQs, and that is when an FAQ contradicts the rules in either source. The only instance I can think of for this now is the Volley Fire FAQ. I'm fine with FAQs building upon a rule, or changing how it is interpreted, or even limiting a rule. None of these require rewriting the rule, just explaining "how it should be played". In the Volley Fire instance... well, if they wanted to change it, IMO, they should have used an Errata to do so. It's too drastic a change to be considered clarification, limiting, or building upon. It changes almost everything about how the Ability is used.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Trying to nudge this back onto the rails, anyone object to treating the most recent source of rules as the most important?

How many reports do you want about differences between the printed and electronic versions of books?

If you have two books that disagree, you have to stop and find out why the disagreement exists. If you don’t, you may as well just flip coins.

Yeah, just automatically going with the newest isn't always the 'right' approach, because misprints happen.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, just automatically going with the newest isn't always the 'right' approach, because misprints happen.

That's very generous of you to allow your opponent to take 3ppm point guaranteed order conscripts. I think we can all agree that the codex has a silly misprint where they are 4ppm and fail orders 50% of the time.

Or do you "know" that isn't a misprint, but also "know" some other things are?

While I acknowledge that misprints happen, my understanding of a discussion of RAW does not care about that... a misprint is a judgement of intention. "This wasn't deliberate", which a RAW argument must avoid.

To be clear, I'm not trying to determine if a given rule is correct, only how to determine *how* a RAW argument is crafted. When one discusses the result of a RAW interpretation, how does one get there?

Vague I'm sure, but it's something for me to pass time with.


Regarding what are ostensibly identical sources (book / ebook) with differing text, that would be a case of multiple "right" answers in a RAW argument, as neither would take precedence over the other without a more recent FAQ.

 greatbigtree wrote:
While I acknowledge that misprints happen, my understanding of a discussion of RAW does not care about that... a misprint is a judgement of intention. "This wasn't deliberate", which a RAW argument must avoid.

To be clear, I'm not trying to determine if a given rule is correct, only how to determine *how* a RAW argument is crafted. When one discusses the result of a RAW interpretation, how does one get there?

Vague I'm sure, but it's something for me to pass time with.


Regarding what are ostensibly identical sources (book / ebook) with differing text, that would be a case of multiple "right" answers in a RAW argument, as neither would take precedence over the other without a more recent FAQ.

So you're taking the coward's way out, and want a definition of "rules as written" that can't produce any useful answers?

Because, fundamentally, what you have to accept as true is that you're doing the following:
1. You have a collection of texts, which invariably contain statements that either appear to contradict each other or actually do contradict each other.
2. Make up a system of rules by which you and other people agree to use to figure out how to read and resolve the text described in step one.

Pretending or denying that step two doesn't exist is what makes all of these "rules as written" discussions farcical and very much resemble the sort of useless political debates where terms like "judicial activists" and "constitutional constructivists" get thrown about. More importantly, you end up with the same sort of results as the political debates do--the only really useful metric that anyone can provide for why one approach or set of interpretation rules is better than the other is demonstrating what happens to the game when you apply that interpretation.

One of the more reasonable interpretation schemes involves knowing about the how the rules, FAQs and revisions are written. Willful ignorance of the process, or trying to deny that there are human being involved in the process, is repugnant according to that scheme. On the other hand, claims about the process are only worth the evidence available to substantiate those claims.

This lecture brought to you by the fact that the 40K rule book never, ever, once contains the statement that it is written as a permissive rules set, and never ever once tells you that models are placed on the table with the model side of the base upright. You're left to figure those parts out on your own, guided by things like all of the pictures in the rulebook featuring models placed upright on the table.

Well played! The accusation of cowardice is historically a trigger for me.

But, it also presumes my intention, which has no place in a RAW discussion. So I can just slaugh that off. My intention is to try to find out *how* people craft their RAW arguments, to see if there’s a way to more frequently come to a consensus.

I like to build systems. This is a pastime for me to see if a system can be synthesized that produces repeatable and somewhat predictable resolutions to RAW disagreements.

Or, failing that, to quickly determine “non-singular” correct interpretations of the RAW.

Honestly, I think you're addressing the wrong part of the problem. Differing opinions over RAW are very rarely the result of people disagreeing about which publication they should be looking at. It's far more commonly down to people reading the rules and interpreting their application differently.That's not something you can fix with a hierarchy.