Is deliberately breaking the Rules cheating?

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.

**rigeld2**

FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld: I left out what wasn't relevant and your full post is still there for everyone to see. I'm not intending to change what you've said.

What you intended and what happened are two different things. Funny thing that. Also, you literally changed what someone else said to make them look silly. Reported.

Still with the repeatedly de bunked RaW is knowable RaI isn't argument.

It hasn't ever been debunked. Ever. Except by your farcical hallucination example.

Which is still not even relevant. Even if we accept that premise, it still does change who designed the game.

I'll assume you mean "doesn't".

So (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe the rules are not inteligently designed by anyone to created at random by the process of turning the designed rules into written ones?

No, that's not correct at all. You keep trying to force that opinion on me and I've corrected you many times. I'm done.

You've shown no willingness to have a friendly debate - you've edited quotes to change phrasing, you've flat out changed someone's post and then said "Did that even make sense when you typed it" (which it couldn't have, because he didn't type it), you bring up existential possibilities that have nothing to do with reality, and you accuse anyone who thinks differently from you of cheating.

Good day, sir.

**nosferatu1001**

FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld: I left out what wasn't relevant and your full post is still there for everyone to see. I'm not intending to change what you've said.

Still with the repeatedly de bunked RaW is knowable RaI isn't argument. Which is still not even relevant. Even if we accept that premise, it still does change who designed the game.

So (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe the rules are not inteligently designed by anyone to created at random by the process of turning the designed rules into written ones?

Nope, you keep *asserting* it is debunked. It isnt.

Your argument is, however, as bunk as it was to begin with. You are also now not only selectively quoting but deliberately altering quotes. That is beyond usual troll behaviour.

**rigeld2**

FlingitNow wrote:
I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable. Yes sometimes playing by the rules is not playing by RaW. Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.

They are not interchangeable. You're the only one asserting that - please don't pretend it's fact when it's the exact thing that's being discussed.

**nosferatu1001**

FlingitNow wrote:
I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable. Yes sometimes playing by the rules is not playing by RaW. Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.

No, they are not interchangeable. Reported.

**From**

FlingitNow wrote:
I apologies and will correct my typo.

Let me reiterate here. You're altering RAW.

Edit: Oh, excuse me. You intentionally misquoted me and altered what I wrote. No need for editing, that was you inserting a typo into what I wrote. Very classy of your sir.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable. Yes sometimes playing by the rules is not playing by RaW. Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.

You exactly changed what I wrote to suit your point. When, in fact, I was speaking about "the rules" as the rules as written in the book you purchased to play the game.

But that's cool, edit my post and claim that's what I wrote. I'm quite sure you do the exact same thing with 40k — inserting your own intent where it doesn't belong.

**Manchu**

Please do not deliberately misquote other Dakkanauts. It is deceptive and rude. Thanks!

**rogersss**

Yes.

**FlingitNow**

What you intended and what happened are two different things. Funny thing that. Also, you literally changed what someone else said to make them look silly. Reported.

It wasn't to make them look silly it was pointing out what they had said.

It hasn't ever been debunked. Ever. Except by your farcical hallucination example.

So it hasn't been be bunked except when it was de bunked.

I'll assume you mean "doesn't".

Wow how did you work out what I meant when I wrote something incorrectly? Surely this is an impossible ability by your argument so far.

No, that's not correct at all. You keep trying to force that opinion on me and I've corrected you many times. I'm done.

So how do you think the rules are created. You say they are not what the design team designed. So how are they created? Who's ideas are they? You repeatedly refuse to state this. Which just illustrates how bizarre your definition of the rules and how they are created is.

To be honest I'm shocked anyone thinks the rules aren't what GW designed.

**Rorschach9**

FlingitNow wrote:
What you intended and what happened are two different things. Funny thing that. Also, you literally changed what someone else said to make them look silly. Reported.

It wasn't to make them look silly it was pointing out what they had said.

.. Incorrectly as it was not what was said. Merely your interpretation.

It hasn't ever been debunked. Ever. Except by your farcical hallucination example.

So it hasn't been be bunked except when it was de bunked.

It has not been debunked. You think you have, but in fact, you have not.

I'll assume you mean "doesn't".

Wow how did you work out what I meant when I wrote something incorrectly? Surely this is an impossible ability by your argument so far.

Notice he said he will "assume" and does not assert that is, in fact, what you mean. There is the crux of the argument. Assuming an interpretation =/= the actual intention. You could, very well have, intended to say "does". We do not know, but only assume. That is the definition of RAI. An assumption, based on fact (RAW) but that could very well be incorrect, and only the person who wrote the statement in the first place knows for sure.

No, that's not correct at all. You keep trying to force that opinion on me and I've corrected you many times. I'm done.

So how do you think the rules are created. You say they are not what the design team designed. So how are they created? Who's ideas are they? You repeatedly refuse to state this. Which just illustrates how bizarre your definition of the rules and how they are created is.

To be honest I'm shocked anyone thinks the rules aren't what GW designed.

They are what GW designed. That does not mean that every rule stated in the book is written and interpreted in a way that was *intended*. In those cases, logic ensues and we assume what was intended. However, as I have pointed out, what we assume was intended is NOT always the case. Just because *we* think it is clear, does not make it so. Only the person(s) who wrote the rule know their true intention.

Asking "who created the rules" over and over again is irrelevant. The rules are as written. In some (or many) cases, those rules are written poorly and the true intent of them is not clear. This is where RAI, or rather *our assumption and interpretation of what the designer was intending* comes in. RAI is not necessarily correct. Ergo, RAI must be house ruled and is therefore not actually GW rules until those who created them state otherwise.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

"Deliberately breaking the rules" and "cheating" aren't equivalent, anyway. The dictionary widget suggests cheating is "acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage." You can break the rules without doing it dishonestly, unfairly or in order to gain an advantage. So no, deliberately breaking the rules is not cheating. You can deliberately break the rules in order to cheat, but they are not the same thing.

**Beast**

Is anyone actually taking this thread seriously? This entire argument is so bizarre that I'm beginning to think I'm in the Twilight Zone... Following the rules is now apparently cheating, up is down, the sky is pink'... Next someone will say Crisis suits can take 3 of the same weapon... oh wait... :-)

**rigeld2**

FlingitNow wrote:
What you intended and what happened are two different things. Funny thing that. Also, you literally changed what someone else said to make them look silly. Reported.

It wasn't to make them look silly it was pointing out what they had said.

That's a lie. You're the only one who thinks that "the rules" and RAI are equivalent. Pushing that view on others is dishonest.

It hasn't ever been debunked. Ever. Except by your farcical hallucination example.

So it hasn't been be bunked except when it was de bunked.

**Makutsu**

Guys stop feeding him!

**imweasel**

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.

This would be an acceptable argument, if gw had not set RaI on it's ear with some of their faq rulings.

I mean, there were/are rules as written that were/are unplayable and it was obvious what the intent was. Then we would come to find out thru a faq that we had no clue what gw's intent actually was because they would rule something completely outside of RaI, let alone RaW.

So let's put the egos aside. While it may be 'obvious' to some, it is absolutely foolish to think that intent is the same as written.

Where this game and gw is concerned, it's not even close at times.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Because gw has created faq's that have completely gone against rai, then turned around and reversed their ruling 3 months later that ingnored their original faq, raw and rai.

This is not a hallucination, me being a 'cheater' or anything else. This is a documented fact!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld: I left out what wasn't relevant and your full post is still there for everyone to see. I'm not intending to change what you've said.

But you did. By design and intent.

Because according to you, that goes hand in hand.

One would have to conclude, based on your argument, you are cheating to win this debate.

**insaniak**

FlingitNow wrote:
So how do you think the rules are created. You say they are not what the design team designed. So how are they created? Who's ideas are they? You repeatedly refuse to state this. Which just illustrates how bizarre your definition of the rules and how they are created is.

To be honest I'm shocked anyone thinks the rules aren't what GW designed.

I'm shocked if you honestly don't understand the point that you are deliberately misrepresenting.

To put it really simplisticly:

If I intend to write 'You can not have a cookie' but I actually write 'You can have a cookie', and then I post that on the kitchen bulletin board as my Kitchen Rule #1, then despite that fact that I am the designer of the Kitchen Rules, the rule as it currently exists is not at all what I intended it to be.

Because of the fairly loose writing style of Games Workshop's games, this sort of thing happens from time to time. In some cases, (such as the previous Rapid Fire rules where you were technically only forbidden from charging after shooting if your weapon intended to assault somebody) it's easy to tell when what they wrote isn't what they meant. In other cases, not so easy, and all we have to go on is personal opinion as to what they probably meant, until they get around to FAQing it... if they ever do.

But until they do, all we ultimately have to base our games on is the written rule. RAI is not 'the rules'... it's 'the rules as they were intended to be'. There is absolutely no guarantee, ever, that what was intended is what actually made it onto the page, or that what was intended when the rule was written is how the studio currently feel it should be played.

The rules are what is written in the rulebook. That's what a rulebook is.

**imweasel**

FlingitNow wrote:
Often the FaQ confirm this to be the case.

If there were any truth to your argument, it would not be 'often', it would be 100% true. Every. Single. Time.

**lambsandlions**

You can play 40k how ever you want. It is only breaking a rule when both players don't agree on the way you are playing. Cheating only happens when you break the rules for your advantage.

For example: Before the game my opponent informs me his list is 1501 pts. He could not cut it down to 1500. I agree that it is okay and we play. No rules are broken and he is not cheating. Against another opponent, I ask to see his list he clearly has 1501 pts worth of models. Because I was not informed about this beforehand and did not say it is okay, he is clearly cheating.

Now not all issues are this simple but it is the same thing. If you feel something about your army is RAI bring it up before the match and have everyone agree on it. Jotww did not effect jet pack units in 5th and RAI it should not in 6th because they can jet pack out of a hole in the earth. RAW jet pack infantry are infantry and effected by things that effect infantry so they can be hit by jotww. It is not cheating if you bring this up before the game and both agree jet pack infantry is not effected. It is cheating if your opponent targets your jet pack infantry with jotww and you say it doesn't work.

**insaniak**

lambsandlions wrote:
For example: Before the game my opponent informs me his list is 1501 pts. He could not cut it down to 1500.

Because his codex only contains a single unit, and that unit has a base cost of 1501 points...?

**Happyjew**

insaniak wrote:
lambsandlions wrote:
For example: Before the game my opponent informs me his list is 1501 pts. He could not cut it down to 1500.

Because his codex only contains a single unit, and that unit has a base cost of 1501 points...?

Nope. HQ - 501 pts (base), Troop 1 - 500 pts (base), Troop 2 - 500 pts (base).

**lambsandlions**

insaniak wrote:
lambsandlions wrote:
For example: Before the game my opponent informs me his list is 1501 pts. He could not cut it down to 1500.

Because his codex only contains a single unit, and that unit has a base cost of 1501 points...?

Yes great example of RAW vs RAI. It was obvious that the intent on the example was that the player's list was 1 point over and did not want to cut anything from his list. But the way it was written was he was physically unable to construct an army with less than 1500pts.

**puma713**

Just reposting this since it is one of the best posts I have read on Dakka and seems to apply to this thread.

yakface wrote:

With that said, there is also another incorrect assertion being made that is the notion that there is one 'correct' RAW interpretation of the rules and any deviation from this is just 'house rules'. There are surely such things as house rules (where people willingly choose to change the rules for their games), but that should *not* be confused with a nebulous situation being answered in a way that you don't personally agree with.

The myth of 'RAW' stems from the fact that some people incorrectly believe that language is like mathematics and there is one true way to interpret it. When in reality, language by its very nature has multiple interpretations and meanings that can be studied and argued over. Words often have multiple meanings...sometimes these words are defined within the framework of the game, but even then there can be situations where it is unclear whether the author is using that word in context of its game-defined meaning or one of its other 'real world' definitions. Similarly, the meaning of a sentence or paragraph can change dramatically based on simple grammatical changes, its placement in a paragraph, the paragraph's placement within the page, etc. All those meanings only exist in so much as any group of people can agree to see them that way, and that includes the author of the writing themselves.

For example, a tiny proportion of gamers can read a passage and say: 'this is the RIGHT way to play based on what this passage says', but if 95% of other gamers don't read that passage the same way it doesn't matter how correct that 5% says their reading is or how much they stamp their feet on the floor, they generally aren't going to get to play like that. And the same principles apply to the authors of the text as well. Often we argue about the grammatical intricacies of a sentence acting as though the author is a robot who understands the golden rules of grammar perfectly and never makes mistakes. But again the reality is that authors are people to, who have different levels of understanding about grammar just like we all do, and of course sometimes they just make mistakes.

This is likely evidenced by the amount of FAQ answers by GW (not 'errata' or 'amendments') that seem to go against what many people perceive to be the RAW. Clearly to the author of the text (or at least to the author of the FAQ) the RAW do not seem to match the RAW that many of us interpret the text to be. The one, stone-cold truth is that nobody plays by the 'RAW' because there is no such thing as the 'RAW'...only the rules that people happen to interpret the same. The more clear and simple rules are, the more likely they are to be interpreted the same by different people. The more complex and confusing they are, the more likely they are to be interpreted differently by different people.

The Deathwing Assault situation is not a case where the people writing the Adepticon FAQ decided to say: 'how can we create a house rule?' It IS a nebulous situation that has been submitted to be answered because it is nebulous. If you were to take a poll asking people how they think it should be played (if one hasn't already been created), I'm sure you would find a fairly big divide because it is nebulous.

Even if you happen to think the RAW on a particular issue are crystal clear, if there is any kind of sizable divide on players reading the rules on how it is supposed to be played (I'd personally say that if at least 20-25% of players interpret a rule differently then its probably not that clear), then you can rest assured that the 'RAW' are *not* clear in this case, in that they don't provide a clear definitive way to play that everyone can agree on.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

That is a good and very applicable post. I felt like that was part of the OP's point for a while - that there is no one true RAW because the language is subjective, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to follow it slavishly and say that anyone who does so is cheating or making house rules (though perhaps that is off base here, as even if people on YMDC are happy to argue that you can't shoot with no eyes I don't think anyone would play it that way).

**clively**

Given puma713's reposting of yakface's excellent statement, this thread ought to be locked for no other reason than it couldn't possibly serve any additional purpose is being around.

**Cheesedoodler**

FlingitNow wrote:
I apologies and will correct my typo.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable.

I highlighted the relevent part here. You have this backwards. RAI, are *NOT* "The Rules," they are people's interpretations of the rules, or "How I would Play it." These are unofficial.
RAW, or the rules how they are written, *ARE* "The Rules." The final say, the have all end all and be all of "The Rules" are the words printed in the rule book, codices, and FAQs.

The perfect example (and someone brought it up earlier in the thread) is the quad gun. RAW in the BRB states that any model in base contact with the quad gun may fire it. While it was apparent that they mean any infantry model, the rules did not specify that. If someone had their rhino touching the quad gun, they could ABSOLUTELY have said rhino fire the quad gun, and they would ABSOLUTELY NOT be cheating. The rules were written in black and white, plain as day. Now, because that was not their intent, the added the addendum that only non-vehicle models may fire the gun in the most recent BRB FAQ.

This is the part you are missing here. Only what is WRITTEN matters. RAW are "The Rules" of the game. Even if you believe that the intent of the authors is clear, nothing matters until it is WRITTEN into the rules.

**Nem**

Cheesedoodler wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
I apologies and will correct my typo.

I actually didn't change what you wrote as the terms "RaI" and "the rules" are interchangeable.

I highlighted the relevent part here. You have this backwards. RAI, are *NOT* "The Rules," they are people's interpretations of the rules, or "How I would Play it." These are unofficial.
RAW, or the rules how they are written, *ARE* "The Rules." The final say, the have all end all and be all of "The Rules" are the words printed in the rule book, codices, and FAQs.

The perfect example (and someone brought it up earlier in the thread) is the quad gun. RAW in the BRB states that any model in base contact with the quad gun may fire it. While it was apparent that they mean any infantry model, the rules did not specify that. If someone had their rhino touching the quad gun, they could ABSOLUTELY have said rhino fire the quad gun, and they would ABSOLUTELY NOT be cheating. The rules were written in black and white, plain as day. Now, because that was not their intent, the added the addendum that only non-vehicle models may fire the gun in the most recent BRB FAQ.

This is the part you are missing here. Only what is WRITTEN matters. RAW are "The Rules" of the game. Even if you believe that the intent of the authors is clear, nothing matters until it is WRITTEN into the rules.

I disagree. In the situation above Rhino on quad gun the intent is quite obvious. Now, if the intent is obvious to both players yet a side wants to do it anyway this is the very definition of cheating. If it is debatable then it is a different matter.

cheating
Verb

1. Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: "she cheats at cards".
2. Deceive or trick.

The rules are not always perfect and sometimes theres valid oposing interpretations to those. Here we debate RAW, which is fine, sometimes we agree with interpretations, sometimes we do not. But all that matters is how we decide to play when we come to the table.

**FlingitNow**

If I intend to write 'You can not have a cookie' but I actually write 'You can have a cookie', and then I post that on the kitchen bulletin board as my Kitchen Rule #1, then despite that fact that I am the designer of the Kitchen Rules, the rule as it currently exists is not at all what I intended it to be.

No the rule is you can't have a cookie. However you'd have little recourse against anyone who broke it because there was no reasonable way for them to know that. Interesting if that was a law I could still be prosecuted for taking a cookie.

But until they do, all we ultimately have to base our games on is the written rule. RAI is not 'the rules'... it's 'the rules as they were intended to be'. There is absolutely no guarantee, ever, that what was intended is what actually made it onto the page, or that what was intended when the rule was written is how the studio currently feel it should be played.

I agree with the paragraph before this but not your conclusion here. Whilst I agree that what makes it onto the page is often not was intended this does not change that intention.

Because gw has created faq's that have completely gone against rai, then turned around and reversed their ruling 3 months later that ingnored their original faq, raw and rai.

What does this tell us? It tells us they make mistakes in their FaQs. It also tells me you don't understand the difference between RaI and your interpretation if RaI. Every FAQ tells us RaI but sometimes that RaI is something we couldn or didn't work out.

With that said, there is also another incorrect assertion being made that is the notion that there is one 'correct' RAW interpretation of the rules and any deviation from this is just 'house rules'. There are surely such things as house rules (where people willingly choose to change the rules for their games), but that should *not* be confused witha nebulous situation being answered in a way that you don't personally agree with.

The myth of 'RAW' stems from the fact that some people incorrectly believe that language is like mathematics and there is one true way to interpret it. When in reality, language by its very nature has multiple interpretations and meanings that can be studied and argued over. Words often have multiple meanings...sometimes these words are defined within the framework of the game,but even then there can be situations where it is unclear whether the author is using that word in context of its game-defined meaning or one of its other 'real world' definitions. Similarly, the meaning of asentence or paragraph can change dramatically based on simple grammatical changes, its placement in a paragraph, the paragraph's placement within the page, etc. All those meanings only exist in so much as any group of people can agree to see them that way, and that includes the author of the writing themselves.

For example, a tiny proportion of gamers can read apassage and say: 'this is the RIGHT way to play based on what this passage says', but if 95% of other gamers don't read that passage the same way it doesn't matter how correct that 5% says their reading is or how much they stamp their feet on the floor, they generally aren't going to get to play like that. Andthe same principles apply to the authors of the text as well. Often we argue about the grammatical intricacies of asentence acting as though the author is arobot who understands the golden rules of grammar perfectly and never makes mistakes. But again the reality is that authors are people to, who have different levels of understanding about grammar just like we all do, and of course sometimes they just make mistakes.

This is likely evidenced by the amount of FAQ answers by GW (not 'errata' or 'amendments') that seem to go against what many people perceive to be the RAW. Clearly tothe author of the text (or at least to the author of the FAQ) the RAW do not seem to match the RAW that many of us interpret the text to be. The one, stone-cold truth is that nobody plays by the 'RAW' because there is no such thing as the 'RAW'...only the rules that people happen to interpret the same. The more clear and simple rules are,the more likely they are to be interpreted the same by different people. The more complex and confusing they are, the more likely they are to be interpreted differently by different people.

The Deathwing Assault situation is not a case where the people writing the Adepticon FAQ decided to say: 'how can we create a house rule?' It IS a nebulous situation that has been submitted to be answered because it is nebulous. If you were to take a poll asking people how they think it should be played (if one hasn't already been created), I'm sure you would find a fairly big divide because it is nebulous.

Even if you happen to think the RAW on a particular issue are crystal clear, if there is any kind of sizable divide on players reading the rules on how it is supposed to be played (I'd personally say that if at least 20-25% of players interpret a rule differently then its probably not that clear), then you can rest assured that the 'RAW' are *not* clear in this case, in that they don't provide a clear definitive way to play that everyone can agree on.

QFT

**nosferatu1001**

Fling - no you couldnt. Well, they could prosecute, but you could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that they broke the rules. BEcause they didnt.

Your belief is not the same as fact. You appear to be blind to that.

**FlingitNow**

Fling - no you couldnt. Well, they could prosecute, but you could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that they broke the rules. BEcause they didnt.

Actually I would need to prove is they took a cookie. He couldn't even use the defence of not knowing because ignorance of the law is no defence. Though granted the law would have to have been agreed by the people to be no taking cookies, but whether it was written down as that or not is irrelevant in law.

**nosferatu1001**

I assume, from the above, you have no training in law.

Yes, the spirit of the law can be used in some cases, however ni this case there was no way to know the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law was NOT broken, a prosecution would NOT succeed.

Have you worked out yet that you can only assume RAI whereas with RAW you can know? Or is the difference between "knowing" and "assuming" somethin you are unaware of?

**Pedro Kantor**

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.

Simply this.No more,no less.