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.

Hello Dakka, posting this is probably quite a bad idea.

How do you play 40k/believe it should be played, either RAW or RAI and why?

I myself basically only play RAW, unless there is something that NEEDS a consensus. Just because that is how the rules are written, so that is how they should be played. Simple.

so what is your opinion and why, and remember, be civil.

happy wargaming,

-Mikey

I prefer RAI since 40k, RAW, doesn't function properly.

Definitely RAI.

You can't play 40K completely RAW because otherwise the game would be more broken than it is now (Psychic Phase being unplayable as an example).

Neither.

I prefer to play RAIP... or 'Rules As I Prefer'...

Playing straight RAW doesn't work, because GW believe that hiring editors and fixing mistakes are things that happen to other people...

Playing RAI doesn't work unless you have one of the studio guys on hand to ask him how everything is supposed to work. There is simply no other way of knowing what was intended, or where a written rule differs from the original intention.

So the only way to play currently is to just play whatever works for you and your opponent.

I prefer to follow a set guide myself

I first go with rai, usually it's quite simple see what the intent of a rule is (for example that 2++ loth thing people are debating over in ymdc)
If rai is not clear we attempt raw, if the raw is either a blatant exploit, or simply doesn't work (as above with loth) we move on to.
Changing the rule by consensus, this is the house rule edition gents, so don't be afraid of this.

Most players play not by Rules as Intended or Rules as Written, but by 'How I was taught to play by my friends.'

Not only are Game Workshop so incompetent that their Rules as Written are impossible to follow, some sections of the Rulebook are actually missing Game Mechanics entirely! The vast majority of players do not even know this has occurred because their initial foray into the game did not include trying to 'parser' the Rules like a computer would. Instead, they learned the game by listening to their friends explaining how you completed a set of actions. I fear this is how Game Workshop deliberately designed their system, as they do seem to believe 'word of mouth between friends' is more important then Rules written on paper....

The Rulebook is something you keep on hand in case a specific Rule dispute occurs, not something you actually obey to play the game.

 insaniak wrote:
Neither.

I prefer to play RAIP... or 'Rules As I Prefer'...

Playing straight RAW doesn't work, because GW believe that hiring editors and fixing mistakes are things that happen to other people...

Playing RAI doesn't work unless you have one of the studio guys on hand to ask him how everything is supposed to work. There is simply no other way of knowing what was intended, or where a written rule differs from the original intention.

So the only way to play currently is to just play whatever works for you and your opponent.

This, so much this. I usually play as it is written unless what is written is stupid and then I change it to function that I feel is most fun for all parties.

 insaniak wrote:
Neither.

I prefer to play RAIP... or 'Rules As I Prefer'...

Playing straight RAW doesn't work, because GW believe that hiring editors and fixing mistakes are things that happen to other people...

Playing RAI doesn't work unless you have one of the studio guys on hand to ask him how everything is supposed to work. There is simply no other way of knowing what was intended, or where a written rule differs from the original intention.

So the only way to play currently is to just play whatever works for you and your opponent.

I'd totally be behind this, if it weren't for the unfortunate enunciation of the acronym.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'd totally be behind this, if it weren't for the unfortunate enunciation of the acronym.

"rules as preferred"

fixed

I play to the rules as written, up to the point where they break down. Then, with the agreement of my opponent, we muddle though with some sort of rules-as-intended solution.

 insaniak wrote:
Neither.

I prefer to play RAIP... or 'Rules As I Prefer'...

Playing straight RAW doesn't work, because GW believe that hiring editors and fixing mistakes are things that happen to other people...

Playing RAI doesn't work unless you have one of the studio guys on hand to ask him how everything is supposed to work. There is simply no other way of knowing what was intended, or where a written rule differs from the original intention.

So the only way to play currently is to just play whatever works for you and your opponent.

Pretty much this. I don't know why people harp on about RAI when most the time we have no idea what was intended, especially when there's multiple contradicting possibilities.

RAW, unless there's a conflict. I'm pretty easy going, so if there's a conflict, we try and confer or dice it out.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I prefer RAI since 40k, RAW, doesn't function properly.

How do you know what a RAI is in the case of a rule, when GW gives 0 indications on what they are thinking?

Makumba wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I prefer RAI since 40k, RAW, doesn't function properly.

How do you know what a RAI is in the case of a rule, when GW gives 0 indications on what they are thinking?

Rai, loth has a 2++ available

Raw, loth cannot use the ability due to ed change and implementation of psy phase and hasn't been updated yet.

Rai is clear as it gets, raw is not required, the raw crowd seem to perpetuate this myth (that is utter crap) that you somehow have to bee in the mind of the design team to get the rai of a rule, total nonsense, a space marine can move 6", so move 6", that's rai sorted, and raw, easy, but these people who abuse the term raw with turn something that is abundantly clear (for example the 3hq rw formation) and try to enforce there way of playing, which simply doesn't work.

A lot of raw nuts need to learn that pure raw doesn't work, it's just as bad as pure rai and cheating in some cases, use raw, rai and discuss with your local group any rules issues.

 Formosa wrote:
A lot of raw nuts need to learn that pure raw doesn't work,...

I doubt that there are very many at all who need to learn that. Most will freely acknowledge that the rules as written are non-functional or lead to unexpected results in certain situations.

Where the disagreements come in is with exactly where to draw the lines between 'RAW that is silly, but intended to work as written', 'RAW that is silly, but could be intended to work multiple possible ways' and 'RAW that is silly and clearly not meant to be played that way'.

Everybody draws those lines in different places. Sure, you can point to Space Marine movement and make a reasonably sound guess that moving 6" is both the RAI and the RAW. But what about the intention behind the introduction to the Psychic Phase section? Or cases where the RAW turned out different to what they originally intended, but GW have said to play it as written anyway?

RAW for "The Most Important Rule" as written on page 10 of the rulebook. Always.

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
A lot of raw nuts need to learn that pure raw doesn't work,...

I doubt that there are very many at all who need to learn that. Most will freely acknowledge that the rules as written are non-functional or lead to unexpected results in certain situations.

Where the disagreements come in is with exactly where to draw the lines between 'RAW that is silly, but intended to work as written', 'RAW that is silly, but could be intended to work multiple possible ways' and 'RAW that is silly and clearly not meant to be played that way'.

Everybody draws those lines in different places. Sure, you can point to Space Marine movement and make a reasonably sound guess that moving 6" is both the RAI and the RAW. But what about the intention behind the introduction to the Psychic Phase section? Or cases where the RAW turned out different to what they originally intended, but GW have said to play it as written anyway?

I see what your saying and I don't inherently disagree, the psychic phase is a whole heap of mess and was implemented very poorly, this is mainly due to gw not bothering to do its research as it apes the worst magic phase design that fantasy ever had, and gw are far too lazy to fix the issue so of course they'd say "just play it anyway and have fun" it doesn't occur to them it seems that they are preventing what they claim to be promoting, by causing arguments, but I digress.

I'm talking quite specifically of those people who adhere to raw when it is very clear what the intent is and do so to prevent certain rules working or to gain advantage.

It looks like I am with a lot of the others.
1] RAW unless the rule has issues
2] RAI when we have to make a decision
3] Make a House rule if needed.

 Anpu42 wrote:
It looks like I am with a lot of the others.
1] RAW unless the rule has issues
2] RAI when we have to make a decision
3] Make a House rule if needed.

That's how we do here as well

No one plays straight RAW. No one.

 Jimsolo wrote:
No one plays straight RAW. No one.

I tried it once. Once.

I just use the ETC FAQ so I don't have to worry about it.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
No one plays straight RAW. No one.

I tried it once. Once.

RAW sounds like a great idea until another guy's understanding of RAW conflicts with your own. RAW opens the door to an infinite amount of rules-lawyering, which is why the rules proliferation in 40k is so problematic.

"I issue orders at the start of my turn, I order my guard blob to Bring it Down, and the order requires them to immediately make a shooting attack. Your Imperial Knights align their shields at the start of the shooting phase, but it's my turn so my action goes first, I get to shoot at you without your shields."

"Commissar Yarrick has the senior officer rule and the chain of command rule, so your army has a senior officer, so Yarrick can't be your warlord by definition."

"Your defensive grenades only negate the +1A usually associated with charging, but my guys have rage so they still get their +2A."

RAW makes the game unplayable and nonsensical.

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
A lot of raw nuts need to learn that pure raw doesn't work,...

I doubt that there are very many at all who need to learn that. Most will freely acknowledge that the rules as written are non-functional or lead to unexpected results in certain situations.

Where the disagreements come in is with exactly where to draw the lines between 'RAW that is silly, but intended to work as written', 'RAW that is silly, but could be intended to work multiple possible ways' and 'RAW that is silly and clearly not meant to be played that way'.

Everybody draws those lines in different places. Sure, you can point to Space Marine movement and make a reasonably sound guess that moving 6" is both the RAI and the RAW. But what about the intention behind the introduction to the Psychic Phase section? Or cases where the RAW turned out different to what they originally intended, but GW have said to play it as written anyway?

I mostly see "RAI" as a lazy non-argument, there might be some obvious cases where the intended rule is clear (like a rule that exists yet has no effect due to poor wording). There's also a lot of times it's not clear. One of the most glaringly obvious ones to me is whether your opponent gains a cover save when you shoot through another unit, but that unit doesn't offer 25% coverage. To me it's not obvious what they meant, it seems to me they obviously had SOMETHING in mind because they waste a paragraph waffling on about it, but never actually reach a wording that is conclusive.

It's not that I think RAW is a good idea, it's that I think "RAI" is just silly, people should just be honest and call it "how I would play it" instead of guessing at what the so-called game designers mean.

More to the point, there is no RAI without a telepath involved.

Again not true, rai is blatantly clear sometimes and should be used as a tool so to speak, especially when raw causes game breaking results.

To use the above example of the ion shield and orders, I'd allow the ion shield as that is clearly what it's intended to do and not some raw interpretation that takes advantage of poorly written rules.

Call it hiwpi if you like, or house rules, I don't really mind, just as raw abusers should admit they are bending the rules to cheat or gain unfair advantage.

Another example of raw nonsense is aos, Bell and fate Weaver, they even tell you that a 13 is cheating and they are having a laugh, the rai is clear, but raw abusers just see it as a way to gain advantage.

 Formosa wrote:
Again not true, rai is blatantly clear sometimes and should be used as a tool so to speak, especially when raw causes game breaking results.

To use the above example of the ion shield and orders, I'd allow the ion shield as that is clearly what it's intended to do and not some raw interpretation that takes advantage of poorly written rules.

Call it hiwpi if you like, or house rules, I don't really mind, just as raw abusers should admit they are bending the rules to cheat or gain unfair advantage.

Another example of raw nonsense is aos, Bell and fate Weaver, they even tell you that a 13 is cheating and they are having a laugh, the rai is clear, but raw abusers just see it as a way to gain advantage.

That may be true for some, but this is the problem with poorly edited rules. All we truly know is that GW sent to press. Everything else is speculation. So I stand by my statement that there is no such thing as RAI.

Say it as much as you like, it doesn't make it true lol, rai exists and is very clear sometimes, sometimes its not, that's where raw comes in, only idiots limit the tools they can use haha and no I'm not calling you an idiot.

Exactly. RAI is, basically, an agreed-upon interpretation, but without the guy who actually wrote the rules standing there to tell you what they meant by those words, that's all it is.

However, as noted, RAW sometimes leads to situations where things simply will not work.

In the case of the Ion Shield? Perhaps it is intended that the Knight is to declare, in its own shooting phase, what side it's protecting, against incoming fire the next turn. Thus, it is intended that anyone going before the Knight can get its shots off before the shield goes up in their faces.

(Note that I don't actually play that way, it's just an example of interpretation).

 Formosa wrote:
..., rai exists and is very clear sometimes, sometimes its not, that's where raw comes in, .

What about those situations where the RAI is clear, but where GW have told us to play it as written anyway?


That's the real problem - lack of consistency. We've had cases in the past where the RAW has differed from the RAI, and GW have fixed it with errata. We've had other cases where GW have issued an FAQ pointing out how it is 'supposed' to be played regardless of what it says. And we've had cases where they've said to just play it as written, even though that's not what was originally intended.

And that's not even including all the situations where the problem isn't actually RAW vs RAI at all, but simply two people reading a rule different ways and being unable to agree on what the RAW and/or the RAI actually is to begin with.


Ultimately, what we call 'RAI' is only ever a best guess as to what we thought the writer probably intended... we're still left making a judgement call as to whether or not it's actually the best way to actually play it on a case by case basis.