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.

There is a difference, Gwar, between RAI and house rules.
You know full well that monkeys could write clearer rules that GW does. Compensating for a monkey's lack of English skills isn't the same as a house rule.
And as for wanting things to go my own way; I end up arguing for the opponent's side as often as I end up arguing for my own. The only army I actually play is Tau and their rules are reasonably clear (with the exception of those few anal people who claim Target Locks no longer work).


On the other hand, there are sometimes multiple, completely correct interpretations of written text. Put an Anglican and a Catholic in a room with a Bible and see what I mean.

And as I pointed out, that is not a Mathamatical Statement. Under the english Language, it is perfectly fine to say "Reduced by -1" and mean the reduction, much in the same way that a 4+ Cover save that is "improved by +1" doesn't become 5+, it becomes 3+

Trasvi wrote:There is a difference, Gwar, between RAI and house rules.

No, not really.

Trasvi wrote:You know full well that monkeys could write clearer rules that GW does. Compensating for a monkey's lack of English skills isn't the same as a house rule.

Every single post I have had you reply in has been "The RaW is clear but stupid". That IS a house rule, no matter how toy try and disguise it.

Trasvi wrote:And as for wanting things to go my own way; I end up arguing for the opponent's side as often as I end up arguing for my own. The only army I actually play is Tau and their rules are reasonably clear (with the exception of those few anal people who claim Target Locks no longer work).

Not got the Codex to hand, but isn't that the one that requires a Target Priority Test to fire at a different unit? If it is, then yes, it no longer works. Please show me where I can find what a Target Priority test is in the 5th edition Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook and I will concede that they work. If you can't, they don't work. You don't like it, play 4th edition. Also, no offence, but Tau Rules are the POOREST rules I have ever written. Search up on the Whole Battlesuits and Drones from the Armoury Debacale.

Trasvi wrote:On the other hand, there are sometimes multiple, completely correct interpretations of written text. Put an Anglican and a Catholic in a room with a Bible and see what I mean.

They are both wrong? </Shameless "I am Athiest" Plug>

Yes, the target priority one. And yes, it is slowed, and would be extremely happy to pack up against an opponent that didn't let me use Target Locks.
The interpretation of the target lock comes down to the inflection you put on the rules. The idea is that you "take ONE test for the entire unit". Not, "TAKE A TEST and then do stuff". 3rd ed didn't specify how many target priority tests you needed to take and it ended up being a slowed mess, so the 4th ed rules cleared it up and... yeah.

I'm glad you live in england.

Trasvi wrote:I'm glad you live in england.

Is that some sort of threat?

And yes, it is silly as you say, but that is the rules. Just because you do not like it, you can't just say "I'm ignoring it."

As for packing up, good, Just another Win for me and a bye in the tournament.

Gwar! wrote:

Trasvi wrote:There is a difference, Gwar, between RAI and house rules.

No, not really.

Ridiculous statement!
RaI is Rules As Intended - by the writer of the rules.
House-Rules is Rules as me and my friends want to play them.
Although there is often an overlap between what we think the writers meant and how we choose to play, they are not the same.
Sometimes we house-rule that no-one is allowed to field tanks.
Other times we say "Sure, let Striking Scorpions have fleet - see how they do"
We have both allowed and disallowed deff-rollas to hurt vehicles - they can't both be RaI, can they?

BlackSpike wrote:RaI is Rules As Intended - by the writer of the rules.

Did you write the rules? No.
Are you best Friends with the person Who Writes the Rules? Probably Not
Even if you were do you think we would believe you without 97 Verifiable forms of proof and a handwritten letter by the designer and signed and sealed with his own blood? No.

Gwar! wrote:

BlackSpike wrote:RaI is Rules As Intended - by the writer of the rules.

Did you write the rules? No.
Are you best Friends with the person Who Writes the Rules? Probably Not
Even if you were do you think we would believe you without 97 Verifiable forms of proof and a handwritten letter by the designer and signed and sealed with his own blood? No.

Way to miss my point!
If you had continued reading, you would have seen this statement:

BlackSpike wrote:... what we think the writers meant...

As you say, it is impossible to know 100% what RaI is, which is why me and my friends play by "RAW modified by House-Rules"

The flames are growing higher and higher. Let's discuss this like gentlemen. No need to banter insults back and forf now.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The flames are growing higher and higher. Let's discuss this like gentlemen. No need to banter insults back and forf now.

G

Yer ugly.

I'm confused, what use does the Target Priority item have? Or are you citing it as an example of RaI versus RaW from a different edition?

RustyKnight wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The flames are growing higher and higher. Let's discuss this like gentlemen. No need to banter insults back and forf now.

G

Yer ugly.

I'm confused, what use does the Target Priority item have? Or are you citing it as an example of RaI versus RaW from a different edition?

It used to let you target a deperate unit with the model using it so long as they passes a target priority test.

As there are no longer Target Priority tests, it is a non-functional Wargear item

Gwar! wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The flames are growing higher and higher. Let's discuss this like gentlemen. No need to banter insults back and forf now.

G

Yer ugly.

I'm confused, what use does the Target Priority item have? Or are you citing it as an example of RaI versus RaW from a different edition?

It used to let you target a deperate unit with the model using it so long as they passes a target priority test.

As there are no longer Target Priority tests, it is a non-functional Wargear item

Yeah, a decent amount of the Tau wargear uses Target Priority, so it is now useless. My biggest frustration is the Comand and Control node, which gave 12" Ld. bubble for passing target priority tests at either Ld. 9 or 10. Unusable, but man would it be nice if they just said it was a Leadership bubble in general.

Yes I am ugly and want to kiss you all over everywhere and squeeze you too.

The 4th edition wording of the Target Lock specifies the amount of Target Priority checks that you need to take. I can say with 100% certainty that the intention was not "if you pass target priority then you can fire at different units"; it was to clarify the number of checks that you needed to take if multiple models chose different units to fire at. Because it got ugly when you had to take 3-4 target priority tests for a single unit and if a single one of them failed you had to shoot at the closest target.

Hmm whats a stupid RaW vs RaI example....

I write a maths text book. I accidentally make a typo.
1+1 =1
Do you spend the rest of your life (or at least, until i release the next edition of that book) believing that, or do you play it as intended that 1+1 = 2? (it seems Gwar actually does believe 1+1=1 tho)

Also minus minus equals positive is silly in regards to the Monolith.

G

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Nope. That's just what the first line of the rule says. The entire rule says much more than that. If it were that simple there wouldn't be any need for the clarification section, would there?

No, the last part of the rule gives a semi fluff justification for it. Does it say "3 of these shots must be Lasgun Shots?" Does it say "only two models may fire non Lasguns"? No it does not. The Chimera has 5 Fire Points, and can fire 5 of whatever the passengers have, as per the Fire points rules. End of Discussion. Anyone saying otherwise are just trying to cheat.

Firstly, who decides which bit of the rules is just 'fluff'. It's under a special rule heading - it's a rule.

Secondly, this is the POINT of the RAI vs RAW debate, surely. It's all a matter of how strictly you decide to follow the letter of the rules - where do you draw the line.

I know the LETTER of the rules says that 5 models may fire from the top of a Chimera. I believe that having 5 heavy weapons firing is an oversight, and i'd draw the line there. That's how i interpret the rules. Of course, you can stamp your foot and say 'but is SAYS any five models' but i think you'd be being unsportsmanly.

Just the same as the LETTER of the rules says that your Emperor's Champion has non-existent weapons. You can stamp your feet, say it's the letter of the rules and disallow the Digital Weapons and gain yourself a little advantage, or you can accept that it may be an oversight and play the game sensibly.

Here's another one. The new Imperial Guard codex contains rules for a unit called 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' as well as other units such as the 'Leman Russ Punisher' and 'Leman Russ Demolisher'. In the army list, you may take a Leman Russ Squadron for which you can purchase a mix of 'Leman Russ Battle Tank', 'Leman Russ Demolisher' and 'Leman Russ Punisher'.

However, in the army list entry for a Leman Russ Squadron there is no main weapon listed for a 'Leman Russ Battle Tank'. There is a battlecannon listed for something called simply the 'Leman Russ', but this unit doesn't exist anywhere else in the codex. You can't take a unit called simply a 'Leman Russ' as part of a Leman Russ Squadron. STRICT RAW would state that either the 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' has no main weapon, or that every single 'Leman Russ' variant has a battlecannon in addition to any other weaponry.

Of course, if you read it this way, and try and play by this rule, you're a fething idiot. It's just a misunderstanding. It's quite clear what the RAI is. You can (sensibly) choose to believe that the weapons listing for 'Leman Russ' ACTUALLY refers to the 'Leman Russ Battle Tank'. But hey, you can also stamp your foot and insist your opponent remove all the battlecannons from his 'Leman Russ Battle Tanks' if you want, it's RAW after all.

Again, it's all a matter of where you draw the line...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote: Also, no offence, but Tau Rules are the POOREST rules I have ever written.

Unmasked!

Gwar! is Andy Hoare!

(This is probably for the best - I was beginning to think he was Stelek...)

Interestingly, the decision to play 40k by RAW is, itself, a house rule. There's no rule saying you have to play by the rules, in fact there is a rule stating players are encouraged to create house rules as they see fit. In short, the decision to play strictly by RAW is a personal one, and not based on anything.

Now, RAW is not without merits. 99% of the time, the rules explain situations clearly. It is the first, and often the last, source of rulings anybody needs.

Many advocates of strict RAW make three mistakes, however:
1) they overestimate how clear RAW interpretations are. It doesn't take willful ignorance to read many rules in two different ways, and that makes RAW simply not a viable option for every dispute
2) They underestimate the ability to determine RAI. Context, tradition, custom, practice and sheer momentum are all factors that can be used to determine RAI, and while not 100%, when RAW is unclear, you have to use soemthing.
3) They forget that most people, even competitive tournament gamers, want a a fun, elegant rule set. They want an answer that makes the game more fun, not less fun.

I love RAW, in fact I enjoy rules so much I just finished my JD with a concentration in Tax Law. Arguing rules and their interpretations is what I want to do for a living, but no court in any country operates under RAW. I don't think I should hold the 40k rules to a higher standard than courts hold the United States Code.

The problem is IRL, he who holds the Green makes the Rules.

40k doesn't work like that.

Gwar! wrote:The problem is IRL, he who holds the Green makes the Rules.

40k doesn't work like that.

hehe, it doesn't quite work that way IRL, trust me. Money helps, but it can't buy everything.

Often, there's more than one RAW interpretation.

I'm convinced, that often there isn't a RAI, because the dev team didn't conceive the problem.

Remember that the INAT FAQ answers were less than 10 percent RAW. The majority were classified as clarification. RAW sounds really cool and is a great way to twist the rules in your favor. Today many people will immediately surrunder to anything with the term RAW thrown out at them. We should question everything and not accept RAW as a final resolution all the time. Question authority.

G

90% of the IANTFAQ is Rules Changes disguised as Clarifications. It's the only thing that really annoys me about it.

But many says the INAT FAQ is rule query nirvana.

G

Many are happy to have someone give them the answers so they don't have to think about it, regardless of whether that answer is right or wrong.

Kaaihn wrote:Many are happy to have someone give them the answers so they don't have to think about it, regardless of whether that answer is right or wrong.

I think it's more that people want a resolution that is independent of the immediate personal biases that occur in a game. Having a neutral arbiter that addresses the holes in the rules is what attractive about the INAT, not the specific rulings.

I think the INAT FAQ makes for a good starting point, but doesn't have to be the final answer either.

Gwar! wrote:The problem is IRL, he who holds the Green makes the Rules.

40k doesn't work like that.

Oi diss-ugree, oomie.

Like I said, the Guy who has the Green

And don't forget that BoLS now have their own FAQ as well. And it differs from the INAT in several major ways (intermixed squads in particular, but I'm sure there's more). So, now, tournies will have two 'net-worthy' FAQs to choose from, or even a combination of them.

I am really getting sick of FAQs for big tournaments. It's vecoming counter productive. It's basically like a separate set of protocols for each event.

G