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.

This is a question that is prompted by the preponderance of replies in this thread "Including gathering storm characters in detachments" that seemed to want to pursue a RAW approach even though it was patently broken in this scenario, even while an easy and sensible RAI was readily apparent that fixed everything.

For background let me explain for the past 25 years or so I scored my gaming fix from playing PC games and am now just returning to TT games. With PC games the poor beknighted little cpu is solely responsible for execution of game logic and is doomed by its cognitive disablities to the most literal to the point of autism RAW interpretation for everything. When something is broken RAW it throws a fit and the game dies until a human programmer can patch it. One of the draws for me to TT games is that the game logic is processed by human brains and so I thought anytime RAW turns up ambigious or broken then a patch on the fly RAI can be generated by the human brains and the games can continue.

So what do you do as gamers when RAW something is broken?

1 Persist with RAW even if broken.

2 Generate a reasonable RAI / HIWPI

??

In all honesty if the majority of TT gamers are going to default to option 1 then I may as well keep playing PC games and forget TT.

It really depends on the situation. Generally, I prefer strike RAW, but there are cases where this is obviously a blunder on GWs part and RAI makes more sense.

Blue & Brimstone Horrors being able to use Malefic Daemonology is a good recent example.
According to the BRB all Psykers (that are not GKS or Nids) can use Malefic. It does NOT matter if it isn't list on a unit's datasheet, because the BRB automatically grants it. Absence of a rule does not inherently take it away (see any Beast unit and Fleet)
The WoM FAQ corrected this for PINK Horrors by stating that they can only generate from the Change lore, but left out the words "Blue" and "Brimstone"

Therefore, RAW, Blues and Brims should be able to use Malefic.
This is clearly NOT the RAI. HIWPI is that they cannot, but I would not have a valid RAW argument if another player was dead set on using Malefic

The important thing is to be aware of issues like this and discuss them with your opponent, local group, or TO prior to rolling any dice.

-

You won't find an answer to this. There isn't one coherent group of people playing the game. There are many different small groups which have different opinions on how to handle things.
This extends even to game balance as some groups restrict units that can be taken or even manufacturers in the case of forgeworld.

In other words it's a case by case thing that depends on your local group unless it's a tournament. In which case a TO will decide and that's that, whether you like it or not.

This sub-forum serves foremost to determine what RAW actually is. What you do from there is your thing.

Voted 'other'... It depends on the situation, and whether or not the 'broken' RAW leads to issues with actually playing the game.

I voted generate a reasonable RAI. Or, to be more accurate, RAF-Rules As Fun. Because that's what matters in this game.

 insaniak wrote:
Voted 'other'... It depends on the situation, and whether or not the 'broken' RAW leads to issues with actually playing the game.

If it did not lead to issues it would not be broken? By broken I mean actually causing issues with playing the game more than just being unbalanced or whatever but an actual logic fail. Like in the example thread where Bobby G the mostrous creature RAW could potentilaly become a SHVW if taken as a warlord in a household knights detachment, yet does not have AV etc.

Step 1: Entirely misunderstand the point of theoretical debate.
Step 2: Spend hours insulting the intelligence of everyone involved.
Step 3: Create a separate forum upon which to further whine about how dumb everyone is being.

How old are you?

 MattKing wrote:
Step 1: Entirely misunderstand the point of theoretical debate.
Step 2: Spend hours insulting the intelligence of everyone involved.
Step 3: Create a separate forum upon which to further whine about how dumb everyone is being.

How old are you?

How old am I, RAW or RAI?

Look don't get uptight I can see the lulz in pursuing to point of absurdity a broken RAW as "theoretical discussion" but what concerned me was not that. RAI was not given the time of day at all. Also banter may or may not involve some comments or observations that tender skinned sheltered persons may or may not find fatally insulting. Oh well no real harm done.

This forum is for exploring the readiness of gamers for RAI fixes primarily though I could not entirely discount the possibility that humorless toads may die of being perpetually offended in the course of this discussion.

You were being quite offensive. I'm not think-skinned, but using autistic as an insult is just plain rude.

And, to compound it, you're doubling down by insulting people more, rather than saying "Sorry, I went a little too far there."

Suspicion confirmed, poll exists souly for the purpose of pouting. I'll Pick "other" then.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You were being quite offensive. I'm not think-skinned, but using autistic as an insult is just plain rude.

And, to compound it, you're doubling down by insulting people more, rather than saying "Sorry, I went a little too far there."

Sigh. Alright I apologise for hurting anyone's feelings. There better now? Can we go back on topic?

 SolarCross wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You were being quite offensive. I'm not think-skinned, but using autistic as an insult is just plain rude.

And, to compound it, you're doubling down by insulting people more, rather than saying "Sorry, I went a little too far there."

Sigh. Alright I apologise for hurting anyone's feelings. There better now? Can we go back on topic?

That really doesn't seem sincere, but let's give SC the benefit of the doubt. Solar, refrain from insulting people further, and we'll (or at least I'll) just forget your earlier comments.

On topic, I think most people try to stick to RAW as close as they can, but a lot of times, people might not even realize they're off RAW in some cases, because the RAW is so bleeping stupid that their brain just fills in smarter ideas.

 MattKing wrote:
Step 1: Entirely misunderstand the point of theoretical debate.
Step 2: Spend hours insulting the intelligence of everyone involved.
Step 3: Create a separate forum upon which to further whine about how dumb everyone is being.

This is pretty much what I thought. Seems a little pouty. The question asked in this thread is also super vague.

In the context of a an actual game with an actual opponent? I'll speak to that opponent and we'll come up with an answer that is reasonable to both of us. The answer may vary dramatically based on the actual people involved and can change from game to game. Might be decided with a die roll if we can't come to an agreement.

In the context of a rules debate on a forum dedicated to rules debates? RAI is impossible to know short of a conversation with the original rules author, so all arguments normally center around RAW. Each player should make a determination as to how they'd play a broken or ambiguous rule. Event organizers will usually make a decision which many players will take as the community standard.

In other words... the answer to the question is 'depends on the context'.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You were being quite offensive. I'm not think-skinned, but using autistic as an insult is just plain rude.

And, to compound it, you're doubling down by insulting people more, rather than saying "Sorry, I went a little too far there."

Sigh. Alright I apologise for hurting anyone's feelings. There better now? Can we go back on topic?

That really doesn't seem sincere, but let's give SC the benefit of the doubt. Solar, refrain from insulting people further, and we'll (or at least I'll) just forget your earlier comments.

On topic, I think most people try to stick to RAW as close as they can, but a lot of times, people might not even realize they're off RAW in some cases, because the RAW is so bleeping stupid that their brain just fills in smarter ideas.

What I have to be sincere too?!1 Fething heck what chance does that give me?

BTW I took a number of insults without crying or complaining. but whatever..

Yah RAW is where you want to be anytime it is making sense, but my question isn't for those times where it is making sense but for those situations where it is garbage.

Always RAW. RAI is very subjective.

RAW unless the other person requests an adjustment, then something we can both reasonable agree on.

So I voted Other.

I'm fine with rules as intended, provided it's not "rules as it would benefit person X in this one situation specifically."

 SolarCross wrote:

I apologise for hurting anyone's feelings.

I forgive you. I think you get it now.

Casual you agree with your opponent because is within a small group rai if you wish make stuff up play narrative and fluffy

Competitive you go with raw up till the point raw doesn't work because raw is raw wherever you go and only when raw doesnt work you look for an alternative this is because if everywhere has different rules you won't know how your army works in different areas. rai is always subjective and as in the original thread the rai arguments were completely in contradiction to the rules and only deemed rai by the person raising them so you would get massive arguments. Rai I think gw wanted indistructable robot guilliman but they wanted it to be secret and for the players to discover it. This is a valid rai interpretation but not everyone will support it.

In a tournament if it's contentious you ask the to. Do drop pod doors on blood angels block line of sight raw yes because they are not beholden to space marine faq rai absolutely not.

Finally what is broken is often subjective nothing is broken by brimstone or blues having access to malefic the raw works fine but other people may disagree I would argue robo guilliman isn't broken. In the other thread there were consistant arguements and insults from someone who didn't understand the rules that's not broken (but there were other potentially badly written parts. How can we determine what is too broken or just a little badly worded it's subjective so go to raw raw is objective

Kriswall wrote:In the context of a an actual game with an actual opponent? I'll speak to that opponent and we'll come up with an answer that is reasonable to both of us. The answer may vary dramatically based on the actual people involved and can change from game to game. Might be decided with a die roll if we can't come to an agreement.

In the context of a rules debate on a forum dedicated to rules debates? RAI is impossible to know short of a conversation with the original rules author, so all arguments normally center around RAW. Each player should make a determination as to how they'd play a broken or ambiguous rule. Event organizers will usually make a decision which many players will take as the community standard.

In other words... the answer to the question is 'depends on the context'.

Pretty much my stance.

For a game, if I know there might be a problem with a unit's rules, I talk with the Game Organizers before the game to get their take on how it should be run (and to see if I want to even play it). A Game Organizer can be you and your opponent or the TO, doesn't matter since they are the ones setting up the game.

For a forum, I usually stick with RAW, or at least making sure that the RAW is recognized. Most forums represent too diverse a community, both in metas and in nationalities, to stick to anything else but the RAW. Once that is established, I have no problem on working towards a workable HYSPI, so long as it remains recognized as such.

It really depends on the rules, more likely to discuss it with the opponent and just come to a mutual agreement. If it's a proper tournament then it's the TO or whatever judge's call instead.

I tend to not play games with the TFG sort so just talking it out shouldn't ever be a problem.

 n0t_u wrote:
It really depends on the rules, more likely to discuss it with the opponent and just come to a mutual agreement. If it's a proper tournament then it's the TO or whatever judge's call instead.

I tend to not play games with the TFG sort so just talking it out shouldn't ever be a problem.

This is the dichotomy. Casual games - figure something out or worst case scenario, just dice off. Tournament games - usually they have actual rules for any given situation (and if not, God bless those TO's, so you don't have to worry about it)

 luke1705 wrote:
This is the dichotomy. Casual games - figure something out or worst case scenario, just dice off. Tournament games - usually they have actual rules for any given situation (and if not, God bless those TO's, so you don't have to worry about it)

This one of the reasons I keep up here, so I know what are the crazy rules and know what to talk to people about. I can also bring it up with my local TOs that aren't using the ITC ruleset (that has been rather rare).

 SolarCross wrote:
This is a question that is prompted by the preponderance of replies in this thread "Including gathering storm characters in detachments" that seemed to want to pursue a RAW approach even though it was patently broken in this scenario, even while an easy and sensible RAI was readily apparent that fixed everything.

For background let me explain for the past 25 years or so I scored my gaming fix from playing PC games and am now just returning to TT games. With PC games the poor beknighted little cpu is solely responsible for execution of game logic and is doomed by its cognitive disablities to the most literal to the point of autism RAW interpretation for everything. When something is broken RAW it throws a fit and the game dies until a human programmer can patch it. One of the draws for me to TT games is that the game logic is processed by human brains and so I thought anytime RAW turns up ambigious or broken then a patch on the fly RAI can be generated by the human brains and the games can continue.

So what do you do as gamers when RAW something is broken?

1 Persist with RAW even if broken.

2 Generate a reasonable RAI / HIWPI

??

In all honesty if the majority of TT gamers are going to default to option 1 then I may as well keep playing PC games and forget TT.

Fret not. We dakkatards are panicky and bitter when taken on line, but I suspect even the bitterest would roll off.... well.... I would. Its man dolls.

And although my man dolls are better than your man dolls in every respect, it's not THAT important to me. So I voted option 2.

Oh and to address the OP's concern about RAI not even being given the time of day; this section of the forum tends to focus on RAW to try to come to a more definitive solution to whatever while RAI seems to be the more common go to for game in person for the vast majority. Not everyone has the time to debate in depth back and forth how the rules work exactly when they break when they're just trying to play a game.

 n0t_u wrote:
Oh and to address the OP's concern about RAI not even being given the time of day; this section of the forum tends to focus on RAW to try to come to a more definitive solution to whatever while RAI seems to be the more common go to for game in person for the vast majority. Not everyone has the time to debate in depth back and forth how the rules work exactly when they break when they're just trying to play a game.

Very much this. I don't have to worry about having a game against anyone here or being kicked out of tournament by doing research and presenting a case based on the Written Rules.