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.

How do you know why he doesn't find it helpful? You've answered his question.

lol,
ok determine this for me then:
roses are red.
What am I trying to say?
What am I intended to say?

 FlingitNow wrote:

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.

So you're saying that you can't know intent? And that saying someone is cheating because they disagree on intent is foolish?
Good, we agree then.

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.

Ah, so close.
Often it is not. Your assertion notwithstanding.

Rigeld I agree you can't always know intent, surely you agree the same for RaW? Even if RaW is more know able and more consistent than peoples interpretation of RaI.

If RaI is not clear? Well we have a well defined solution to that. So why is that ever a problem?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld I agree you can't always know intent, surely you agree the same for RaW? Even if RaW is more know able and more consistent than peoples interpretation of RaI.

No, it's always absolutely clear what words are written on a page. Your interpretation might not agree with mine but that doesn't change what's Written.
And before you do so, resorting to "Hallucinations!" is a farce and immediately means you concede the point.

If RaI is not clear? Well we have a well defined solution to that. So why is that ever a problem?

I don't know. You're the one calling people cheaters if they don't follow your interpretation of "The Rules".

No, it's always absolutely clear what words are written on a page. Your interpretation might not agree with mine but that doesn't change what's Written. And before you do so, resorting to "Hallucinations!" is a farce and immediately means you concede the point.

So you're throwing out hallucinations as a possibly because you say so. No who's making things up? Whilst at the same time claiming RaW is always clear. Well how about the Death Ray before FaQ. RaI was clear but both interpretations were valid in RaW. Let alone the numerous RaW debates from this forum?

So again Rigeld I'll ask you how you think the rules are created?

It specifically says in the rulebook to roll for it if the RAW is not clear.

 FlingitNow wrote:

No, it's always absolutely clear what words are written on a page. Your interpretation might not agree with mine but that doesn't change what's Written. And before you do so, resorting to "Hallucinations!" is a farce and immediately means you concede the point.

So you're throwing out hallucinations as a possibly because you say so. No who's making things up? Whilst at the same time claiming RaW is always clear. Well how about the Death Ray before FaQ. RaI was clear but both interpretations were valid in RaW. Let alone the numerous RaW debates from this forum?

So again Rigeld I'll ask you how you think the rules are created?

Death Ray was a RAW that was contradicting to another RAW.
No one knew what the RAI was so people argued about RAI.
Who would have known whether or not the Beam could hit a flier or not? Ans: Nobody.

Because agreeing to some axioms makes debate possible.

If you do not agree on the additive identity "0" then 1+1 doesnt always equal 2. We do agree on it so we can o somthing useful.

I think you are under a misunderstanding as to what RaI means in actuality when it is discuussed in these threads: it ALWAYS means "rules as *I believe* they are intended", because your position is one surmounted on belief, as opposed to one available as objective fact - whcih is RAW

Your aergument remains complete bunk, and will do in every thread you pollute with it. Your claim you can "know" RAI is not even close to being provable.

Was talking about whether it could hit a flyer. I was talking about how many models where hit from a unit under the line.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Was talking about whether it could hit a flyer. I was talking about how many models where hit from a unit under the line.

Actually, that one was clear. It took actually reading the words to understand it though.

And I'm not "throwing anything out". A common understanding requires both parties to speak the same language, to be reading the same language, and have no other issues that would impede the discussion.
Insisting that I must account for someone that is hallucinating is farcical and borderline trolling. And it has nothing to do with saying that people who disagree with you are cheaters.

Rigeld I am not stating that people who disagree with my interpretation of RaI are cheating. You are claiming that knowing RaI is impossible. But if you claim that then the same is also true of RaW.

Here's the break down. We both agree deliberately breaking the rules is cheating (obviously not counting where you and your opponent have agreed a house rule).

I therefore state that deliberately breaking RaI is cheating.

Because:

Premise 1: deliberately breaking the rules is cheating.
Premise 2: The rules are what GW designed (known as RaI)

If you disagree with Premise 2. Please tell me what parts are incorrect.

No one knows what was GW's intention when designing the rules period.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld I am not stating that people who disagree with my interpretation of RaI are cheating. You are claiming that knowing RaI is impossible. But if you claim that then the same is also true of RaW.

Here's the break down. We both agree deliberately breaking the rules is cheating (obviously not counting where you and your opponent have agreed a house rule).

I therefore state that deliberately breaking RaI is cheating.

Because:

Premise 1: deliberately breaking the rules is cheating.
Premise 2: The rules are what GW designed (known as RaI)

If you disagree with Premise 2. Please tell me what parts are incorrect.

You (as in you, FlingitNow) do not and cannot know, for a fact, what GW intended.
And you did state that in the other thread (that I quoted here) that people who disagreed with your interpretation of intent were cheaters.

And no, it's not a double standard to say that RAW is knowable and RAI is not. A certain basis of assumption is required to exist. Such discussions of assumption are irrelevant when it comes to text on a page.

 Happyjew wrote:
No I respond with "Yes" and know exactly why he doesn't find it helpful.

So, to translate that back to rules terms, you know exactly what the RaI is, you just don't care, because they should've written the rules better.

 Makutsu wrote:
No one knows what was GW's intention when designing the rules period.

I'm sorry, but that's bunk. There are plenty of cases where the RaI is abundantly clear and the RaW is absent, contradictory, or ambiguous. Certainly there are also cases where RaI is unclear, but to claim that you can never figure out the RaI is silly.

So you decide what counts as knowable and what doesn't?

Notice you haven't disagreed with either of my premises. Is that you conceding your side of the argument?

Pyrian wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No I respond with "Yes" and know exactly why he doesn't find it helpful.

So, to translate that back to rules terms, you know exactly what the RaI is, you just don't care, because they should've written the rules better.

 Makutsu wrote:
No one knows what was GW's intention when designing the rules period.

I'm sorry, but that's bunk. There are plenty of cases where the RaI is abundantly clear and the RaW is absent, contradictory, or ambiguous. Certainly there are also cases where RaI is unclear, but to claim that you can never figure out the RaI is silly.

RAI could be clear but that still doesn't mean it's the official rules. Hence needs a FAQ.
And breaking that would be cheating which is what the OP is trying to say.
Which breaking RAI is not cheating since no one has a confirmation as whether or not that rule is actually RAI or not.

On the other hand when RAW is clear, breaking that would be cheating.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So you decide what counts as knowable and what doesn't?

No, some things are factually knowable and some are not. Words on a page are factually knowable. What someone meant to write is not unless you are that person.

Notice you haven't disagreed with either of my premises. Is that you conceding your side of the argument?

I didn't respond because I disagree with your phrasing. I intended that to be clear by what I wrote but I obviously didn't make it clear.
Surely you should've recognized my intent and your lack of doing so was meant in the most callous and rude way possible.
Or maybe - just maybe - intent isn't as clear as you're pretending it is and vilifying someone for disagreeing with you isn't the right thing to do.

Pyrian wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No I respond with "Yes" and know exactly why he doesn't find it helpful.

So, to translate that back to rules terms, you know exactly what the RaI is, you just don't care, because they should've written the rules better..

Not always. Perhaps the person in question really was curious if I could tell them the time. Maybe they want to see if I can read a clock. I don't claim to know what RAI is. For all know GWs intent is that models without eyes cannot shoot or assault. For all I know GWs intent is that a unit completely out of sight from a firing unit can still have wounds allocated to it from a scattered blast. I do not claim to know what RAI is and call other people cheaters because they disagree with my interpretation of the RAW.

Fling - you dont understand the diference between belief and fact

You can have a belief as to what RAI is, you can factually know RAW. The two are not the same, despite your assertions otherwise

Your argument is entirely self defeating, yet you dont see it.

Not always. Perhaps the person in question really was curious if I could tell them the time. Maybe they want to see if I can read a clock. I don't claim to know what RAI is.

Its posts like this that illustrate why the Hallucination argument is equivalent for the know able nature of RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Not always. Perhaps the person in question really was curious if I could tell them the time. Maybe they want to see if I can read a clock. I don't claim to know what RAI is.

Its posts like this that illustrate why the Hallucination argument is equivalent for the know able nature of RaW.

It's really not comparable at all.
And still not a valid stance to accuse people of cheating on.

No Nos you can not know RaW anymore than you can know RaI. As illustrated and previously proven.

Do you disagree with either of the premises above. If not then you have to concede.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So Rigeld disagree with either premise (reword them if you want, to what you think they should be) or concede.

Deliberately breaking the rules as they're written is cheating. This would include ignoring official FAQs but does not include anything changed by a house rule.

Edit: and no - your farcical reference to hallucination isn't proof of anything aside from your refusal to accept that calling someone who disagrees with you a cheater is wrong.

And it's amusing that you ignored my intent and only read the words I typed. That must mean you only have evil intent.

@Fling

I concede. Please stop. You win. You are the greatest. You know all the rules.

Deliberately breaking the rules as they're written is cheating.

So you're saying Rules as written = the rules correct?

Edit: and no - your farcical reference to hallucination isn't proof of anything aside from your refusal to accept that calling someone who disagrees with you a cheater is wrong.

No I've accepted that. The farcical reference to hallucination is no more farcical than not being able to know that Wraithlords are intended to be allowed shoot and assault.

FIN back for more abuse after his defeat by the DA FAQ. What exactly are you flinging?

This entire thread is a lesson in why "Intent" cannot be determined without a doubt by anyone other than the original person.

RAW (rules as written) are the rules, yes. Generally they are clear and concise and there is no room to argue.

When the rules as written are unclear or ambiguous we go to RAI.

RAI (rules as intended) is debated when RAW is ambiguous or unclear. However, the "intent" in this case is mere speculation and personal opinion. Without the original authors say, we do not know without a question what they truly intended the rule, as written, to mean.

For anyone to contend that RAI is absolute is to contend that they know the original writers intent wholeheartedly. Unless you are the original writer (or have explicit word from the original writer) you cannot know this, as proven many times over by FAQ's and Errata that have gone entirely against what people thought was the "obvious" intention.

However, to answer Flingitnow's original "question" (phrased in an impossible to argue manner); Yes, "deliberately breaking the rules" is cheating.

 FlingitNow wrote:
No Nos you can not know RaW anymore than you can know RaI. As illustrated and previously proven.

Not at all.

Eg:

What if, hypothetically, the design team wrote:

"A model may only move up to 6 inches"

But meant to write:

"An Infantry model may only move up to 6 inches".

Rules as Written, any model can only move up to 6" in this scenario. It's a fact, it says so right there.

Rules as Intended (which we are unable to know at this point) would be that this limitation was only meant for Infantry models.

This would require an FAQ to clarify and therefore, show us what was intended. Until then however, the Rules as Written would be that any model could only move 6", no?

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
No Nos you can not know RaW anymore than you can know RaI. As illustrated and previously proven.

Not at all.

Eg:

What if, hypothetically, the design team wrote:

"A model may only move up to 6 inches"

But meant to write:

"An Infantry model may only move up to 6 inches".

Rules as Written, any model can only move up to 6" in this scenario. It's a fact, it says so right there.

Rules as Intended (which we are unable to know at this point) would be that this limitation was only meant for Infantry models.

This would require an FAQ to clarify and therefore, show us what was intended. Until then however, the Rules as Written would be that any model could only move 6", no?

Iranna.

Better example - firing a Gun Emplacement. Pre-FAQ, any model in base contact could fire the Gun. Apparently that was not the intent as GW clarified it to be non-vehicle models.