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.

I brought up the dictionary definition, wouldn't think that'd be against da forum rules. However I was using it to justify the fallacious naming of the phenomenon identified as "RAI".

In fact the tenets have provided a suitable alternative for 'RAI', namely HYWPI.

In fact the tenets have provided a suitable alternative for 'RAI', namely HYWPI.

No HYWPI is different to RaI. HYWPI is basically how you would house rule something, so going by what most people on this thread have written RaW is more similar to HYWPI for them than RaI. RaI is the rules designed by GW by definition. The game I play is the one GW designed. You may play something different for instance you probably play what they wrote down where the rules have no intelligent design they are merely an accident of print. I play a game that was designed by GWs design team, they tell me the rules through the rulebook but as with any form of communication it is not perfect. But fortunately I can generally work out what they meant. I am sometimes wrong and FaQs clear this up if my opponent disagrees with my interpretation we come to agreement, compromise or dice off. In the game I play models without eyes can shoot. Hiveguard can hurt midels out of LoS. FMCs have relentless and smash.

But if you want to play a game without intelligent design where the above rules don't exist go ahead. But that game is not Warhammer 40,000.

Except throughout this you havent stated how you can prove RAI, either

It is just your guess. It isnt "the rules", it is waht you are guessing the rules are - and there is a lot of disagreement on that. See: half the threads which devolve into that bickering.

RAW has a lot less guess work involved in it

Except throughout this you havent stated how you can prove RAI, either

It is just your guess. It isnt "the rules", it is waht you are guessing the rules are - and there is a lot of disagreement on that. See: half the threads which devolve into that bickering.

RAW has a lot less guess work involved in it

I agree with everything you've said Nos. I have also illustrated it is impossible to prove anything. So burden of absolute proof is inherently unfair as no rules will stand up to that.

There are almost as many threads bickering about RaW as RaI. It is about aim. Do you aim to play the rules GW designed or what they wrote down? RaW is a great tool to interpret the rules and it has a good level of consistency and in most cases has 1 right answer. However it doesn't always have a right answer and it can often lead to ludicrous laws. I don't know anyone that would play that models without eyes can't shoot or assault. Would you play it that way? Do you think it is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is not the RaI?

Ignore RAI, just agree 'HYWPI' with the oppoment. RAI is unknowable and an unarguable position due to it's non existent basis in reality.

Actually Goedel proved that first, so dont take allthe credit.

We are not arguing absolute proof when talking RAW, however even your position must agree that claiming "breaking the rule" is equivalent to "breaking RAI" is a really poor position - whcih is what you are doing. Because there is no single "RAI" (fluff being used to justify both sides of any argument, and sometimes introducing a 3rd, as a really simple example) you cannot make that equivalence.

There is more bickering about RAI than RAW, mainly because half the RAW arguments one "side" isnt actually arguing RAW, theyre arguing what they THINK they are saying, influenced by the background or their perception of wha tthe designers want

What was the RAI over Deffrolla and ramming in 5th edition? Pre FAQ. The RAW was very clear, but every argument devolved into imagined "RAI" within a few posts.

Your arugment that RAI is superior to RAW is flawed at its heart, because there IS no single RAI, however there is only ONE RAW answer, even if the answer is "the rule does not specify sufficiently"

Ignore the rules , just agree 'HYWPI' with the oppoment. The rules are unknowable and an unarguable position due to it's non existent basis in reality.

Is that really what you mean? Why would you ignore the rules? Likewise RaW is just as unknowable as I've illustrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually Goedel proved that first, so dont take allthe credit.

We are not arguing absolute proof when talking RAW, however even your position must agree that claiming "breaking the rule" is equivalent to "breaking RAI" is a really poor position - whcih is what you are doing. Because there is no single "RAI" (fluff being used to justify both sides of any argument, and sometimes introducing a 3rd, as a really simple example) you cannot make that equivalence.

There is more bickering about RAI than RAW, mainly because half the RAW arguments one "side" isnt actually arguing RAW, theyre arguing what they THINK they are saying, influenced by the background or their perception of wha tthe designers want

What was the RAI over Deffrolla and ramming in 5th edition? Pre FAQ. The RAW was very clear, but every argument devolved into imagined "RAI" within a few posts.

Your arugment that RAI is superior to RAW is flawed at its heart, because there IS no single RAI, however there is only ONE RAW answer, even if the answer is "the rule does not specify sufficiently"

Sorry not trying to take credit.

You say there are multiples RaIs but that isn't the case. Just like with your example that most RaW arguments one side is arguing RaW the other side is merely arguing what they think is RaW. The same is true of RaI. Before the FaQ for the dethrolla what many believed to be RaI wasn't RaI. Yes people get RaI wrong more often than they get RaW wrong. The intent of the rule is just as singular as it is for RaW. This is because mist people equate RaI with hYWPI but they are not the same thing. RaI is the rule as designed by the design team. RaW is one method for interpreting that from the rule book.

Again I ask you do you believe the rules where created intelligently by GW or do you believe they were created by accident during the process of the book being printed?

Nope, there are multiple arguable RAI, and often no way to actually discern the actual RAI. At ;east, without walking up to the studio and asking.

I ask you this: do you think the Wrote the rules that they Intended intelligently, or did they have some ideas for rules but instead wrote something else entirely differently?

The rules as written is our best point to determine a consistent set of playable rules, whereas "RAI" is an argue fest.

Nightscythes and explosions - the RAW was clear, the RAI side had two diamtetrically opposed but equally valid arguments. There was no way to determine a winner.

Whilst there is no doubt a time and a place for this somewhat metaphysical discussion, I don't think this is it.

So let's drop this particular tangent now please.

Further such posts will be treated as spam.

Yeah this is off the original topic. Nos, blaggard etc if you want to continue the conversation I started a new thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/522727.page#5535451

 FlingitNow wrote:

Deathreaper wrote: 1) please spell hallucinating correctly.

2) Are you really saying that I am hallucinating?

3) Can you please follow the tenets of the forum and give us a Page and Graph where it says what you claim, because I have given page numbers that support my claim.

4) If you have to resort to breaking the forum rules your argument is automatically invalid.

5) everyone, but you, agrees that the page I referenced says they are T4, you are the one that is reading it incorrectly.

Deathreaper

1) I'm dislexic sorry.

2) yes prove otherwise

3) it is the same page numbers you quoted

4) I haven't

5) so is RaW a vote? You said it was absolute. Which is it?

We can figure out what the rules read (if we are willing to use common sense) we can not always determine what RaW because as you state it can be ambiguous as to what a rule does or means. Which is your argument against RaI. As illustrated above you can't even prove a Space Marine is T4, without having to assume we are not all Hallucinating.

1 Spellcheck is our friend.
2 What? I have to prove I am not hallucinating? Do you not realize how silly you sound right now?
3 Those Page references do not say that marines are T10, please try again.
4 You broke this forum rule: (5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions.)
RAW is a vote? who said that? All I said is that the pages referenced absolutely say that SM'a are T4. Everyone reads those pages and agrees that it says T4, except for you that says T10, which of course is incorrect.

Yes, you can. /thread.

Stop feeding Fling, please. The FAQ is out and no correction, so we can all assume it's kosher.