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.

Continuing a tangent on another thread. So people believe that the rules were created accidentally when GW wrote them down I believe they were designed by GW. So is intentionally breaking the rules designed by GW cheating?

Quoting nosferatu's last post:

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.

There are multiple arguably RaW. If you can't work out RaI without going into the design studio to ask you have to create a house rule. As I've stated multiple times. Just as you do when you can't determine RaW.

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?

Do you think they write every rule perfectly? Because that is what you are suggesting here. They write the rules as best they can to attempt to clearly communicate their ideas to us the reader. They however don't always do this perfectly?

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

Granted RaW has more consistency and is a great fallback position and a great tool to settle conflict.

Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

A because someone disagrees with you on how it's intended, you've labeled them a cheater. Without even a discussion.

That's what I disagree with you on. You have just as much evidence on intent as they do, and yet they're cheating and you have an angelic halo.

 shamikebab wrote:
Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

Exalted.

As above, if you cant work it out either by yourself or with your opponent agree with them how you both want to proceed, roll a die if needed.

The rules are a means for 2 people to agree on how to play a game. If you break the agreed rules then you are cheating. If you agree to modify the rules as written or intended by GW, then you are playing a different game and are not cheating. In my view its all down to making sure the rules for a specific game are agreed to and clear for both parties.

The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

I refuse to answer the question in your title because of the bias with which you have sought to frame the discussion at hand when starting this thread.

note: obviously when I say it's never breaking the rules, I assume no alternate rules have been pre-discussed and agreed on by both parties.

 shamikebab wrote:
Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

We're on the same page here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

A because someone disagrees with you on how it's intended, you've labeled them a cheater. Without even a discussion.

That's what I disagree with you on. You have just as much evidence on intent as they do, and yet they're cheating and you have an angelic halo.

I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.

Like for instance some one not letting their opponent shoot or assault with their Wraithlord.

Deliberately breaking the Rules is obviously cheating since you broke the rules.

However, arguing the interpretation of RAW is not.

RAI is not breaking the rules but is a consent between you and your opponent to play a game in a certain way,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.

Like for instance some one not letting their opponent shoot or assault with their Wraithlord.

It's not cheating if they follow RAW,
RAI is just your own interpretation & assumption.

The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

No RaW by its very definition is an interpretation of the rules as designed by GW (RaI). Unless your not playing the game that was intelligently designed by GW.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

Wrong breaking the rules as designed by GW is breaking the rules. If you do not know the RaI then you are not cheating if you break them.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

No RaW by its very definition is an interpretation of the rules as designed by GW (RaI). Unless your not playing the game that was intelligently designed by GW.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

Wrong breaking the rules as designed by GW is breaking the rules. If you do not know the RaI then you are not cheating if you break them.

Lol, following rules is breaking rules.

Who knows what is RAI?

RAI is just your own interpretation & assumption.

No RaI is the Design teams intent. My interpretation of RaI is my own interpretation and assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lol, following rules is breaking rules.

I've never stated following RaI is breaking rules...

 shamikebab wrote:
Deliberately breaking the rules is of course cheating.

If the rules are ambiguous (or you believe they are not written as intended) then you can attempt to come to an agreement with your opponent, or agree to roll on it.

^This^

Or simply don't play against them if you can't agree by any means.

/endthread

 Drunkspleen wrote:
The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

I refuse to answer the question in your title because of the bias with which you have sought to frame the discussion at hand when starting this thread.

note: obviously when I say it's never breaking the rules, I assume no alternate rules have been pre-discussed and agreed on by both parties.

So, by your logic,

Never bring a Tau Bomber,

Because always playing as RAW it cannot EVER manifest a bomb to drop?

RAW are great guidelines, but coming to an agreement with your opponent is the best way to maintain a fun game.

GoliothOnline wrote:
So, by your logic,

Never bring a Tau Bomber,

Because always playing as RAW it cannot EVER manifest a bomb to drop?

RAW are great guidelines, but coming to an agreement with your opponent is the best way to maintain a fun game.

Using the phrase "by your logic" and putting words in other people's mouths is a bad way to have a discussion.

If you had instead asked me you would have learned I totally agree, there are situations where the RAW leaves something to be desired and you should discuss with your opponent and try to come to an agreement.

All I'm saying is it's inaccurate to label your opponent a cheater when he says "no, you don't start with a bomb" he's not cheating, he's just following the rules as they clearly appear, he may be being unpleasant given the ridiculousness of that situation, but he is not, nor will he ever be, cheating for insisting on that.

All I'm saying is it's inaccurate to label your opponent a cheater when he says "no, you don't start with a bomb" he's not cheating, he's just following the RaI as they clearly appear, he may be being unpleasant given the ridiculousness of that situation, but he is not, nor will he ever be, cheating for insisting on that.

But he would be cheating... He's not following the RaI as they clearly appear as you claim. He's doing quite the opposite.

Remember that RaI, The Rules and RaD (rules as designed) are all interchangeable phrases. Unless you don't believe the rules are what GW designed?

 FlingitNow wrote:

RAI is just your own interpretation & assumption.

No RaI is the Design teams intent. My interpretation of RaI is my own interpretation and assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lol, following rules is breaking rules.

I've never stated following RaI is breaking rules...

RAI = Rules as Intended unless you are part of the design team you will never know what the actual RAI is.
That's why they do FAQs.
this game plays by RAW not by RAI.
RAI is situational when RAW does not work/ambiguous.

If someone is strictly playing by the way the rules were written it's not breaking the rules nor is it cheating.

@Fling

It appears you want to label anyone who disagrees with you as a cheater. This thread really has no purpose.

 FlingitNow wrote:

All I'm saying is it's inaccurate to label your opponent a cheater when he says "no, you don't start with a bomb" he's not cheating, he's just following the RaI as they clearly appear, he may be being unpleasant given the ridiculousness of that situation, but he is not, nor will he ever be, cheating for insisting on that.

But he would be cheating... He's not following the RaI as they clearly appear as you claim. He's doing quite the opposite.

Remember that RaI, The Rules and RaD (rules as designed) are all interchangeable phrases. Unless you don't believe the rules are what GW designed?

No, he's not following the rules as you believe they were intended. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (and by that I mean you would have to actually visit me, and bring identification) that you are in fact the author of the various Warhammer 40K rulebooks, you cannot tell me what the authors intent actually is.

GoliothOnline wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
The RAW is by it's very definition a form of the rules, it is the rules as they appear in plain text with no inferences applied, merely parsing.

Following RAW will never be "breaking the rules" because it is, by it's very nature, following the rules in front of you.

I refuse to answer the question in your title because of the bias with which you have sought to frame the discussion at hand when starting this thread.

note: obviously when I say it's never breaking the rules, I assume no alternate rules have been pre-discussed and agreed on by both parties.

So, by your logic,

Never bring a Tau Bomber,

Because always playing as RAW it cannot EVER manifest a bomb to drop?

RAW are great guidelines, but coming to an agreement with your opponent is the best way to maintain a fun game.

Yes, those are the rules. However, as mentioned you would then agree with your opponent that the rules in this case are not sufficient. Anyone that refuses to agree this....well, frankly you shouldn't be playing with them.

It appears you you want to label anyone who disagrees with as a cheater. This thread really has no purpose.

No people are free to disagree with my interpretations of RaI. Disagreeing with someone elses interpretation of RaI is nit cheating. Deliberately breaking what you know is RaI is cheating.

RAI = Rules as Intended unless you are part of the design team you will never know what the actual RAI is. That's why they do FAQs. this game plays by RAW not by RAI. RAI is situational when RAW does not work/ambiguous.

This argument has already been debunked. You weren't in that thread so here's why it is irrelevant. Yes we can't 100% prove RaI, but the same is true for RaW. So having that as your reason to not follow RaI means you'd also have to not follow RaW.

Also please tell me how you think the rules were created? Because by saying the RaI =/= The Rules you're saying you don't believe the rules are what GW designed. If this is the case ow do you think the rules were created?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Deliberately breaking what you know is RaI is cheating.

Technically true, except none of us can ever 100% know whether our RAI is the same as GW's RAI. The only way to cheat is to ignore RAW (unless otherwise agreed through house rules)

No, he's not following the rules as you believe they were intended. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (and by that I mean you would have to actually visit me, and bring identification) that you are in fact the author of the various Warhammer 40K rulebooks, you cannot tell me what the authors intent actually is.

Going down the 100% proof route. Well then you can't prove RaW either, so if that's the route we're going down then no rules at all exist. It is impossible to know or prove anything 100%.

Why can't you prove RAW? RAW is exactly what it says in the book, it's black and white.

If there are points when it's not clear then you roll for it as stated in the rulebook.

 FlingitNow wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

A because someone disagrees with you on how it's intended, you've labeled them a cheater. Without even a discussion.

That's what I disagree with you on. You have just as much evidence on intent as they do, and yet they're cheating and you have an angelic halo.

I'm not saying anyone that disagrees with me is cheating. I just said that people think it is ok to cheat if what they are doing is allowed by RaW even if they know the RaI is different.

Like for instance some one not letting their opponent shoot or assault with their Wraithlord.

I quoted you saying that in an ambiguous situation (because it is ambiguous) anyone who disagrees is a cheater. There's no way to "know" that the RAI is different from the RAW. You keep saying there is, but there isn't. You can make good assumptions based on other rules, etc. but I would not have called someone who wanted to drop 100% of their DW on turn one a cheater before the new FAQ - it was overall ambiguous even if I thought it was clear.

Way to editorialize the title in order to frame the debate before it is even started...

Fling, your positions are untennable. You cannot claim to know the intentions of the design team. All we are left with are the words on the page, the Rules as Written. Intention can come into the debate before a game when trying to work out edge cases, but in the end the rules written on the page in front of us (and FAQs) are the only firm assertations we have as to the intent of those who design the rules. Though I am sure you would rather claim we are hallucinating and Space Marines are all T10 as you did in the last thread.

Finally, calling someone a cheater is about the worst you can do in a friendly or comptetitive game. It has nothing but negative connotation. Calling someone a cheater for having a different interpretation of the rules than you do is even worse because you claim the moral imperative on your ideas and completely dismiss theirs.

FlingitNow, which means do you use to determine the intent of the rules beyond the words written in the rule-book?

Is breaking the law illegal?

What is the value of posting this thread?

I quoted you saying that in an ambiguous situation (because it is ambiguous) anyone who disagrees is a cheater. There's no way to "know" that the RAI is different from the RAW. You keep saying there is, but there isn't. You can make good assumptions based on other rules, etc. but I would not have called someone who wanted to drop 100% of their DW on turn one a cheater before the new FAQ - it was overall ambiguous even if I thought it was clear.

Cool then I was wrong to accuse someone of cheating for interpreting that rule in the way they are if you genuinely believe the rule is ambiguous. I actually thought the opposite was the case for DWA but wouldn't call anyone a cheat whichever direction they thought was correct. It was one of those genuinely ambiguous rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
FlingitNow, which means do you use to determine the intent of the rules beyond the words written in the rule-book?

If someone asks you "can you tell me the time?" Do you respond with "yes" and wonder why he doesn't find that helpful?

I work out RaI by reading the text, then I engage my brain and often it is straight forward.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If someone asks you "can you tell me the time?" Do you respond with "yes" and wonder why he doesn't find that helpful?.

No I respond with "Yes" and know exactly why he doesn't find it helpful. If he wants to know the time he should ask what the time is. It is similar to "Can I go to the bathroom?" and "May I go to the bathroom?". One is asking permission, the other is asking if the person is physically capable.