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.

All rules are made up.

And yes, RAW arguments are (probably?) this naive literalism that you refer to. It is not common sense, nor is it necessarily sensible. It is abstract, and devoid of "sense". You must effectively forget everything you know about the outside world and focus only on what is written.

Which is why it is, in my experience, seldom strictly adhered to while people play. However, it is useful to determine how to resolve a dispute when both sides say, "But it makes sense to do it this way", due to the impartial nature and ignoring of what makes "sense" to either side.

Which is why there is no dismissing what one considers "explanation" text in a RAW argument. One does not get to say, "It doesn't specify the intention to change the rules so this doesn't count", because everything written is treated as accurate. If the "explanation" text describes a RF 1 gun as getting 2 shots at long range while under the effect of Volley Fire then no matter what the original rules say and "intention" of the writer to not invalidate something... it changes to become the new way of doing things.

Again, RAW arguments are abstract ideas. They do not care for the practical application of the rules that are determined, only that the meaning of the rules are accurately understood by those discussing. In order to do that, limitations are (arbitrarily) imposed on how to resolve the conflicts, much as BEDMAS is an arbitrary set of rules on how to resolve math problems. There is a "right" way to solve math problems and there is a "right" way to resolve RAW problems.

What I'm trying to describe to the Audience is that RAW isn't how you need to play a rule, nor how you think a rule should work, nor many things that in the "real world" would work. It is a system to settle disputes between two equally valid views on the "Intention" of a rule.

Ironically, when RAW arguments result in a stalemate where the content of the rules can be validly interpreted in multiple ways (mostly due to English not being the most well defined language) then RAI can often be used between two players to resolve how to proceed. "Just because you can argue RAW to a stalemate doesn't mean you should" sort of idea.

This isn't an attempt to tell people they're wrong when they play the game in a way that doesn't strictly adhere to RAW arguments. Frankly, the game will break down if you do that. It is just a process to resolve a situation when two people effectively say, "It works this way because I say so."

 greatbigtree wrote:
All rules are made up.

And yes, RAW arguments are (probably?) this naive literalism that you refer to. It is not common sense, nor is it necessarily sensible. It is abstract, and devoid of "sense". You must effectively forget everything you know about the outside world and focus only on what is written.

Which is why it is, in my experience, seldom strictly adhered to while people play. However, it is useful to determine how to resolve a dispute when both sides say, "But it makes sense to do it this way", due to the impartial nature and ignoring of what makes "sense" to either side.

Which is why there is no dismissing what one considers "explanation" text in a RAW argument. One does not get to say, "It doesn't specify the intention to change the rules so this doesn't count", because everything written is treated as accurate. If the "explanation" text describes a RF 1 gun as getting 2 shots at long range while under the effect of Volley Fire then no matter what the original rules say and "intention" of the writer to not invalidate something... it changes to become the new way of doing things.

Again, RAW arguments are abstract ideas. They do not care for the practical application of the rules that are determined, only that the meaning of the rules are accurately understood by those discussing. In order to do that, limitations are (arbitrarily) imposed on how to resolve the conflicts, much as BEDMAS is an arbitrary set of rules on how to resolve math problems. There is a "right" way to solve math problems and there is a "right" way to resolve RAW problems.

What I'm trying to describe to the Audience is that RAW isn't how you need to play a rule, nor how you think a rule should work, nor many things that in the "real world" would work. It is a system to settle disputes between two equally valid views on the "Intention" of a rule.

Ironically, when RAW arguments result in a stalemate where the content of the rules can be validly interpreted in multiple ways (mostly due to English not being the most well defined language) then RAI can often be used between two players to resolve how to proceed. "Just because you can argue RAW to a stalemate doesn't mean you should" sort of idea.

This isn't an attempt to tell people they're wrong when they play the game in a way that doesn't strictly adhere to RAW arguments. Frankly, the game will break down if you do that. It is just a process to resolve a situation when two people effectively say, "It works this way because I say so."

Whether or not it is a rule to begin with is the question I am debating. I am postulating that it is not. This is not a question of intent, its an objective question about language and on whether or not it follows grammatical syntax making it a rule. The answer is quite clearly NO.
Then we have a question of whether or not a rule being introduced follows format of rules presentation, again this not a subject thought of intent, this an objective look at how rules are presented to us in this game. The answer again, is quite clearly NO.
The keyword in RAW is RULE and this is clearly NOT presented as a RULE, grammatically or formatically .
How can something that wasn't written as a rule, be considered a rule ? RAW or otherwise ?

and again, fine, if you want to take it as word for word what is written then do that !
stop inferring what is intended by it and then do what this new rule literally tells you to do.

MAKE A NOTE of pulse riffles having to hit rolls at max range in some strange undefined context and move on with no actual game-state change. If you want to claim RAW then stop ignoring some words and re-arranging the sentence. you'll need to figure out a way to remove the word "note" and the missing variables of context (i.e. they didn't give us all the details of the example game presented). The sentence is not "pulse rifle get 2 to hit rolls with the cardre fireblade ability" so stop pretending that is what is written down as RAW... because that is not what is word for word written.

So unless you acknowledge this, as a RAW statement, is non-sense in terms of a rule (via what the actual words say and not what you think it is implying), or you are not playing RAW because by doing that you need to butcher the actual words into a sentence that does make it a rule. Again, you do not get to have it both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This literally a question on whether or not you can string together the sentence to even be a rule. not a question of whether or not the rule make sense.
Like you keep saying "RAW does not care for the practical application of the rules that are determined"
So unfortunately, with out some heavy RAI the words as written do not say what you want them to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

(mostly due to English not being the most well defined language)

Go look at some language style guides ... the English language is very well defined (albeit from multiple approaches)... then find me any style guide that makes that statement, in the context of its entire FaQ entry, a rule (The grammar is just not their to make it into what you seem to want it to be.). (p.s. their is such thing as grammatical context as well in syntax, this is why we do not get to ignore the fact that it is accompanied by an entire entry [i.e. Fred is going to the store. HE likes to run] grammar does not work if you do not have the context of which it was written because when we are parsing out statements we often have to check what was previously written to understand the piece of writing as a whole.)
Now I can go on for days about this,,, but really,,,, just read the entry,,, can you seriously tell me the you don't think this sounds like a statement for clarity, not some postulation of a new rule (sure sure, it doesn't mater what you think the intent is,, hence the syntax rules I am pointing out,, but seriously, flavor text is not rules and we know that, no one has to tell us that, its obvious by its grammatical and contextual syntax ... this is no different)

No, you're just simply refusing to accept the definition of RAW as used in these discussions (which greatbigtree explained well) and continuing your crusade to make people understand RAI is the RAW.

The main takeaway is that you're misusing the term "RAW".

To try a different track, the question posed in the thread title disqualifies an answer from impacting a RAW argument.

In order to determine if text is example / reminder text, one must assign "intention" to part of the rules. Whether that makes "sense" in a grammatical or paragraph construction way, it is still assigning intention to part of the written rule in order to discard or validate it. That goes against the RAW argument procedure and purpose. All available rules text is valid, and treated as deliberate.

The only qualifying element in whether or not words can be used in a RAW argument is whether or not the words are present in a rules document.

From there, ignoring all outside influence, one must determine how the words written translate to the game state. In particular, how does the description impact the game mechanics.

Now, playing by strict RAW is not a requirement. You don't get a medal for it. Nobody comes along in 5 years with a certificate of authenticity for doing so. One does not NEED to use the results of a RAW argument in their gaming. There is nothing BINDING about the results of a RAW argument.

Another point at which the question invalidates itself, regarding RAW purposes, is asking if part of the rules are "regarded". All parts of the rules are regarded, as a requirement for a RAW argument.

So a RAW argument is a *tool* for determining how to play, and is most useful when two opinions differ as to the Intent of a rule, and both have logical reasons for doing so. RAW then removes intent, and attempts to determine what is said as literally as possible. There are situations where this process can lead to equally valid interpretations of the written rule, which then requires the parties involved to then attempt to determine which is *most correct* based on all other evidence. One is not required to use a tool that is available, but sometimes it's handy.

If both players can't resolve this way, then the rules state to roll off with a d6... but I've only encountered this situation a couple of times in-game.

lol, you guys do the same thing with my posts as you do with the rules.
You focus in on one part and ignore it as whole then arrange it in a way that you want to see it.
By ignoring key points brought up, you are able to continue with this circular argument by choosing not to acknowledge what you do not like.

Seriously, do you think everything written in the BRB is a "rule"

"The only qualifying element in whether or not words can be used in a RAW argument is whether or not the words are present in a rules document.
"
do you honestly believe the flavor text is RAW ?

this has nothing to do with "intention" it has to do with what is and isn't a rule for us to even begin reading RAW from. And there ARE objective ways to do this. Which you choose to ignore because of your circular argument.

"you're just simply refusing to accept the definition of RAW as used in these discussions"
Read my posts,
what you have presented as a definition, over and over and over again is that "if its written in a rule document it is RAW" When no where, in logic, in the game, in game design, in other games, or even grammar is this true. And as 40k is a "permissive" game as you keep pointing out. Where does it give you permission to say "every word in a rules document is RAW"

Where are the game losses for not showing up with your armor on and your bolt gun loaded ?

Again this isn't about interpreting whether or not a rule is "intended" to be a certain way. It is about objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule in the first place. You can not apply RAW to a non-rule. just like you do not apply RAW to flavor text.

And second, you guys still havn't addressed the fact that if this was RAW you can't act on the rule when following it word for word due to it not being written in a way that presents a regulation, it is presented as non-sense from a rules perspective.

 Type40 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
To harken this back to a more... legal body of rules, there are two main bodies of law to my understanding:
-In common law bodies, answers to previous questions are laws (precedent)
-In non-common law bodies, answers to previous questions are not laws

Court cases in common law bodies (at least in the US) are always questions. In order to be a court case, there must be a disagreement about something. This disagreement must be between two parties (and actually matter). The court then hears the case and picks an answer.

(Note: Juries decide "facts", like "Did this happen?". Judges decide interpretations of law, like "What must now legally happen?". In this conversation, we're talking about questioning rules, not questioning events - so findings of law matter, not findings of fact.)

When it's the law itself that's disagreed upon, a judge provides an answer to the question ("Are non-slaver states required to return escaped slaves to slaver states" in Dread Scott, for instance).

The judge(s) make a decision, then publish that decision. That decision is now law.

In those cases, the answers to asked questions (frequently or otherwise) are, themselves, rules (laws).

The premise of this thread can be rewritten as:
"Is 40k a common-law rulesset"? If so, FAQs are binding (precedent). If not, FAQs are not binding.

Note that the UK is a Common Law country, like the US. And Common Law is a culture thing. So absent specification otherwise, a rulesset based in UK culture would most likely be Common Law-based.

Are there any FAQs that explicitly reference other FAQs?

This is completely unrelated.

No one is talking about whether or not the answer is raw. We are talking about whether not the informal text used to describe the answer is law. Especially when it postulates a new rule completely unrelated to the question.

For example:
Q:
Is murder legal?
A:no (if a person steals a spoon and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder)

The question is about if what is in brackets a law. Does the explication text count as law, especially if it references something that doesn't exists... Let's assume there are currently no questions or laws established about stealing... Does this answer make stealing illegal or is this example text used as informal explication that is poorly referenced due to not doing proper research... It's nonrule text and not some embedded convoluted attempt at tacking on new rules.

In a common law rulesset, if the question were:

Q: Is murder legal?

And the Court's opinion were:
A: No. If a person steals a spool and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder.

Then "Is murder legal? No." is law. So is "If a person steals a spool and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder." Any proceedings subject to that opinion can now use that statement as law.

But two invalid arguments arise from this.

The first is that "The court didn't decide that murder was illegal in all cases - so if you steal a *fork*...". The argument is that the ruling is narrow. In the US system, at least, rulings are often noteworthy for how narrow or broad it is - which is to say, how widely it applies. For instance, in the 'State v Green', SCOTUS held very broadly that the 1st Amendment didn't mean actions aren't necessarily illegal just because you're celebrating your religion. By being broad, it means this ruling applies to any time a religious action breaks an otherwise-legal statute. Converesely, in the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS held very narrowly that, based on a pair of statutes, a closely-held private organization cannot be forced to do something in violation of their religion where the government has an easy way to accommodate their religion while accomplishing the goals of the legislation (note - the 1st Amendment was not part of this ruling).

In the Green case, cases that have very little to do with the original case or specific scenario are still affected by that finidng (although I think Smith would be more relevant). In the Hobby Lobby case, cases have to be almost identical to it for that finding to matter.

An example following an explicit ruling is not a narrowing of the ruling - it's showing some cases where it applies, not all. An explanation of a ruling will typically also not narrow the ruling, but in theory can.

The other invalid argument is severability. If the answer is "No. [additional text]", what happens when [additional text] is wrong? For example, consider "No. I think that that's a bad idea." What happens when the author later thinks it's a good idea? Absent further action, nothing. The ruling is still "No.". They may, in the future, produce a new ruling - "Yes. It's not a bad idea." - that would be a new rule.

Bharring wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
To harken this back to a more... legal body of rules, there are two main bodies of law to my understanding:
-In common law bodies, answers to previous questions are laws (precedent)
-In non-common law bodies, answers to previous questions are not laws

Court cases in common law bodies (at least in the US) are always questions. In order to be a court case, there must be a disagreement about something. This disagreement must be between two parties (and actually matter). The court then hears the case and picks an answer.

(Note: Juries decide "facts", like "Did this happen?". Judges decide interpretations of law, like "What must now legally happen?". In this conversation, we're talking about questioning rules, not questioning events - so findings of law matter, not findings of fact.)

When it's the law itself that's disagreed upon, a judge provides an answer to the question ("Are non-slaver states required to return escaped slaves to slaver states" in Dread Scott, for instance).

The judge(s) make a decision, then publish that decision. That decision is now law.

In those cases, the answers to asked questions (frequently or otherwise) are, themselves, rules (laws).

The premise of this thread can be rewritten as:
"Is 40k a common-law rulesset"? If so, FAQs are binding (precedent). If not, FAQs are not binding.

Note that the UK is a Common Law country, like the US. And Common Law is a culture thing. So absent specification otherwise, a rulesset based in UK culture would most likely be Common Law-based.

Are there any FAQs that explicitly reference other FAQs?

This is completely unrelated.

No one is talking about whether or not the answer is raw. We are talking about whether not the informal text used to describe the answer is law. Especially when it postulates a new rule completely unrelated to the question.

For example:
Q:
Is murder legal?
A:no (if a person steals a spoon and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder)

The question is about if what is in brackets a law. Does the explication text count as law, especially if it references something that doesn't exists... Let's assume there are currently no questions or laws established about stealing... Does this answer make stealing illegal or is this example text used as informal explication that is poorly referenced due to not doing proper research... It's nonrule text and not some embedded convoluted attempt at tacking on new rules.

In a common law rulesset, if the question were:

Q: Is murder legal?

And the Court's opinion were:
A: No. If a person steals a spool and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder.

Then "Is murder legal? No." is law. So is "If a person steals a spool and stabs someone with it, they will go to jail for stealing and murder." Any proceedings subject to that opinion can now use that statement as law.

But two invalid arguments arise from this.

The first is that "The court didn't decide that murder was illegal in all cases - so if you steal a *fork*...". The argument is that the ruling is narrow. In the US system, at least, rulings are often noteworthy for how narrow or broad it is - which is to say, how widely it applies. For instance, in the 'State v Green', SCOTUS held very broadly that the 1st Amendment didn't mean actions aren't necessarily legal just because you're celebrating your religion. By being broad, it means this ruling applies to any time a religious action breaks an otherwise-legal statute. Converesely, in the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS held very narrowly that, based on a pair of statutes, a closely-held private organization cannot be forced to do something in violation of their religion where the government has an easy way to accommodate their religion while accomplishing the goals of the legislation (note - the 1st Amendment was not part of this ruling).

In the Green case, cases that have very little to do with the original case or specific scenario are still affected by that finidng (although I think Smith would be more relevant). In the Hobby Lobby case, cases have to be almost identical to it for that finding to matter.

An example following an explicit ruling is not a narrowing of the ruling - it's showing some cases where it applies, not all. An explanation of a ruling will typically also not narrow the ruling, but in theory can.

The other invalid argument is severability. If the answer is "No. [additional text]", what happens when [additional text] is wrong? For example, consider "No. I think that that's a bad idea." What happens when the author later thinks it's a good idea? Absent further action, nothing. The ruling is still "No.". They may, in the future, produce a new ruling - "Yes. It's not a bad idea." - that would be a new rule.

Ok then we are now implying then that the Cadre fireblade ability ONLY applies to pulse rifles that shoot twice... (because of its narrow range defined within the explanation of the answer)
damn,,, with this logic you cant use the ability at all...

You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".

RAW =! gameplay rule

Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"

Yes, if the example text is contained in the rule document, it is terribly hard to hand-wave that stuff away.
Eventually however, people need to condense these things into concise bullet-points.
It is really interesting to take those clear little points and organize them (I do in Excel), it is like a new game system, the stuff just flows when you remove the "fluff".

You could say this thread is more an argument that if you have what appears to be a clear statement of the rule and then the loose language explanation changes things, which would you pick/decide to use?
Some may just lose patience and decide something on the spot or roll-off and move-on.
I like competitive play, part of the "fun" is to utterly play within the rules in clever ways and it really destroys that fun when some rules are so unclear/grey-zone you do not want to go near them if you can help it to avoid argument (some may pick them to GET arguments).

I find at the end of the day, if you are able to put your finger on a rule quickly you can typically move-on.
Leaning on long winded explanations will slow down the game and would not be sustainable.

I bet if GW had to write rules that had a direct impact on their income, they would be the clearest reading rules you have ever seen.

 skchsan wrote:
You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".

RAW =! gameplay rule

Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"

I am pretty sure RAW means RULE AS WRITTEN

but if you can show me a citation of where any official anything says it means "As per written" I will concede. (maybe we should change the acronym to APW?)

Its pretty clear that the word RULE encompasses RULES not flavor text and not explanations ,,, they are not rules.

I think you're conflating "Every subset of text in the rule is, itself, a rule" with "Every statement in the rule is, itself, a rule".

Lets fall back to a more formal laguange: Math.

Define (a, b) to be (5, 10).

We can say:

[a+b = 15] and [a-b = -5] and [b-a = 5].

Consider that the rule.
You can use that rule to say:
[a+b = 15] or
[a-b = -5] or
[b-a = 5] or even
[a-b = -(b-a)] if you're feeling fancy.

Or any other similar subset - where each equation is taken intact (or acted upon by a legal transformation).

But that rule doesn't say:
[b = 1]
Despite that being literal text within the rule.

Likewise, when reading the rule of

It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.

We can say:
[It means the player can make one more hit roll for each model.]
or
[Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two hit rolls unless the target is within half range]
or
[Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a Rapid Fire weapon) [...] unless the target is within half range, in which case it would make three hit rolls.]
or even
[pulse rifle is a Rapid Fire Weapon]

But we can't say [a model with a pulse rifle make(s) two hit rolls] unqualified. That's taking terms out of context.

It's the same reason we can't say [Note a Rapid Fire weapon would make three hit rolls] - it requires transformations (even as simple as just extracting what you want). You're just taking things out of context.

It's similar to saying stuff like the bible says "Give me all your money". Those words all exist in the Bible, certainly even in binding phrases, even in that order - but that's certainly not what it says.

Except this isn't [a+b=15]

this is more akin to [a=15 [because we have 15 apples]]
as the syntax changes from defining to explanation.

In the realm of math we have defining statements only. but here we have defining statements and explanation statements.
a=5
b=10
[a+b=15] //(NOTE, A represents 5 apples and B represents 10 oranges)

The question at hand represents the following problem
a=5
b=10
[b+c=20] //(NOTE, a + b represents 16 fruit)

does this extra note change the defining features of either the equation or the initial definitions of the variables ? or is it a poorly written piece of explanation.

I know if I ran the equation through my code it wouldn't care about the out of syntax explanation [well, it would care about it, but that's why explanations are written as // comments]. It would only care about what was hard defined as rules according to proper formatting and proper syntax. there rest are just comments used for explanation,,, and poorly I might add.
We arn't computers though and we are capable of recognizing explanations v.s. commands/rules without the need of special markers like "//". Even though this example actually starts with a obvious one for us to recognize ... i.e. the word "note"

p.s.
citation for this in the context of 40k or rules design
"Every subset of text in the rule is, itself, a rule" with "Every statement in the rule is, itself, a rule"

 Type40 wrote:

Spoiler:

 skchsan wrote:
You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".

RAW =! gameplay rule

Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"

I am pretty sure RAW means RULE AS WRITTEN

Yeeeeessssss.

 Type40 wrote:
but if you can show me a citation of where any official anything says it means "As per written" I will concede. (maybe we should change the acronym to APW?)

There is no official rule source on how to interpret the rule. That's why we have these discussions to arrive at the most sensible reading of the RAW, which we refer to as the RAI. Even if there was an official rule on how to interpret the rule, that rule in itself would be liable for being open to multiple interpretation!

 Type40 wrote:
Its pretty clear that the word RULE encompasses RULES not flavor text and not explanations ,,, they are not rules.

And again, this is an opinion on the methodology of interpreting the rule. You are making a conscious decision that flavor texts and explanations are not rules because [REASONS].

You are claiming that the term "RAW" refers to the most sensible reading of the text as written, when in fact, it refers to the methodology of reading the rule at its face value, non-sensical or not!

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Spoiler:

 skchsan wrote:
You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".

RAW =! gameplay rule

Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"

I am pretty sure RAW means RULE AS WRITTEN

Yeeeeessssss.

 Type40 wrote:
but if you can show me a citation of where any official anything says it means "As per written" I will concede. (maybe we should change the acronym to APW?)

There is no official rule source on how to interpret the rule. That's why we have these discussions to arrive at the most sensible reading of the RAW, which we refer to as the RAI. Even if there was an official rule on how to interpret the rule, that rule in itself would be liable for being open to multiple interpretation!

 Type40 wrote:
Its pretty clear that the word RULE encompasses RULES not flavor text and not explanations ,,, they are not rules.

And again, this is an opinion on the methodology of interpreting the rule. You are making a conscious decision that flavor texts and explanations are not rules because [REASONS].

You are claiming that the term "RAW" refers to the most sensible reading of the text as written, when in fact, it refers to the methodology of reading the rule at its face value, non-sensical or not!

No I am claiming RAW means RULES AS WRITTEN
NOT words as written,
NOT text as written
NOT AS PER WRITTEN

Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"

But RULES as written .

Are you really unable to see the difference between flavor text and rules ? I can try and explain to you how syntax works all day long , but if you really can't figure this out for your self I do not know how to help you. The word RULE means something pretty specific... I am not sure how you think fluff, flavor and explanations are "rules" ...
How do you not get what your saying is ridiculous ?

go ahead and define the word RULE to me ?

p.s. for some reason, with out any form of logic, reasoning, or use of definition you are making the conscious decision to define the word rule as "all writing."

I don't care how sensibly you or I read the text. I care about reading the RULES the way they were written because RAW refers to RULES and not the entire text.

 Type40 wrote:

Spoiler:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
You are insistent upon splitting hair on what the definition of "rule" encompasses, and yet continuously refer to RAW as to mean a body of rule made sensible through "objectively understanding what is presented to us as a rule".

RAW =! gameplay rule

Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"

I am pretty sure RAW means RULE AS WRITTEN

Yeeeeessssss.

 Type40 wrote:
but if you can show me a citation of where any official anything says it means "As per written" I will concede. (maybe we should change the acronym to APW?)

There is no official rule source on how to interpret the rule. That's why we have these discussions to arrive at the most sensible reading of the RAW, which we refer to as the RAI. Even if there was an official rule on how to interpret the rule, that rule in itself would be liable for being open to multiple interpretation!

 Type40 wrote:
Its pretty clear that the word RULE encompasses RULES not flavor text and not explanations ,,, they are not rules.

And again, this is an opinion on the methodology of interpreting the rule. You are making a conscious decision that flavor texts and explanations are not rules because [REASONS].

You are claiming that the term "RAW" refers to the most sensible reading of the text as written, when in fact, it refers to the methodology of reading the rule at its face value, non-sensical or not!

No I am claiming RAW means RULES AS WRITTEN
NOT words as written,
NOT text as written
NOT AS PER WRITTEN

Think of "RAW" as to mean "As per written"

But RULES as written .

Are you really unable to see the difference between flavor text and rules ? I can try and explain to you how syntax works all day long , but if you really can't figure this out for your self I do not know how to help you. The word RULE means something pretty specific... I am not sure how you think fluff, flavor and explanations are "rules" ...
How do you not get what your saying is ridiculous ?

go ahead and define the word RULE to me ?

Ok, try thinking of the term RAW as a singular specific noun called [Rules as written]. I believe you're thinking of it as [Rules] that are [as written].

We are not trying to discount your understanding of what "rules" encompass. We're simply trying to help you understand the terminology used in these discussions because we've all been there where we mix up RAI and RAW and the discussion spirals out of control.

Ok, try thinking of the term RAW as a singular specific noun called [Rules as written]. I believe you're thinking of it as [Rules] that are [as written].

YES
YES I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT!!!
you are getting closer !!!!!!

Why would you think of RAW as some singular noun called [Rules as written][with its own personal definition], IT LITERALLY MEANS : Rules As Written !!!!!!

Show me what precedence ANYWHERE that provides a new definition for RAW as a singular noun, or that it isn't literally what the acronym stands for !!
If you can find me that citation , I concede.

Do you really think that RAW is some fancy proto-noun that has its own meaning ?
And who are you with the authority to postulate the definition for this ?
Do you have some citation that the entire game design / gaming community has never heard of ?

This is big news ! we need to get you on a plane to Essen and make sure your new term is coined and gets out to the public ! Its a revolution in gaming, we will never think of RAW the same way again ! Gone are the days of using it as an acronym, these are new days, these are the days where it means something completely different ! It now means "Everything written in a document."
You know this may get confusing for all the people who have been using this term for the past 45 years but we are coining it into a singular noun anyways,,, but I am sure if we are vigilant enough it will happen. (some of this is sarcasm)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dude, I am not new to the world of gaming, I have been playing RPGs, table top war games, board games, and TCGs for 20 years.

I have a clear understanding of the term RAW and RAI.
What is abundantly clear now is that you (and anyone who seems to agree with your proto-term of RAW) does not.

 Type40 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ok, try thinking of the term RAW as a singular specific noun called [Rules as written]. I believe you're thinking of it as [Rules] that are [as written].

YES
YES I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT!!!
you are getting closer !!!!!!

Why would you think of RAW as some singular noun called [Rules as written], IT LITERALLY MEANS : Rules As Written !!!!!!

It's the convention we use in these forums when discussing the rule. I'm glad we're finally starting to get on the same page!

 Type40 wrote:
Show me what precedence ANYWHERE provides a new definition for RAW that isn't literally what the acronym stands for !!
If you can find me that citation , I concede.

Do you really think that RAW is some fancy proto-noun that has its own meaning ?
And who are you with the authority to postulate the definition for this ?
Do you have some citation that the entire game design / gaming community has never heard of ?

It isn't a new definition, it's a convention describing that certain methodology employed when discussing the rules; No I don't particularly find it a fancy proto-noun but it is a convenient short hand; I don't have an authority - I don't think anyone does, but it's a commonly used shorthand!; I'm sure many of us here understands what RAW is but its a convention so I'm not sure whether it's defined in a dictionary the way we use it in the forums.

 Type40 wrote:
This is big news ! we need to get you on a plane to Essen and make sure your new term is coined and gets out to the public ! Its a revolution in gaming, we will never think of RAW the same way again ! Gone are the days of using it as an acronym, these are new days, these are the days where it means something completely different ! It now means "Everything written in a document."
You know this may get confusing for all the people who have been using this term for the past 45 years but we are coining it into a singular noun anyways,,, but I am sure if we are vigilant enough it will happen. (some of this is sarcasm)

Ah, the sarcasm is well appreciated (totally sarcastic )

Do you now see that this entire discussion isn't actually about what a specific rule says, but in actuality the validity of the short hand we use in the forum? (Hence not really YMDC appropriate)

This is what Stux noted in his second reply!

If this is how this entire forum sees the term RAW
Then clearly this entire forum has no idea what the term actually means.

Unfortunately though, based on the results of the poll, this is divided. (and likely because so many people here use the term incorrectly)

So I'll re-ask my question only to the people who do understand the way the rest of the world uses the term RAW.
so we can actually have a rules discussion and determine a method for understanding what is and isn't presented as a rule.

My apologies for thinking a large community of people use a term properly.

and my apologies to for those who think this belongs in YMDC instead of a rules question because they can't fathom that their personalized term that no one else in any other game, forum or community uses might not be correct and thus making a question like this a relevant rules question.

Seriously, I had no idea this would be the conversation I would be having with people when posting this question. Debating on whether or not RAW refereed to rules v.s. all the words ever written lol.
no wonder this community can't agree on anything. Ridiculous.

 Type40 wrote:
If this is how this entire forum sees the term RAW
Then clearly this entire forum has no idea what the term actually means.

Unfortunately though, based on the results of the poll, this is divided. (and likely because so many people here use the term incorrectly)

So I'll re-ask my question only to the people who do understand the way the rest of the world uses the term RAW.
so we can actually have a rules discussion and determine a method for understanding what is and isn't presented as a rule.

My apologies for thinking a large community of people use a term properly.

and my apologies to for those who think this belongs in YMDC instead of a rules question because they can't fathom that their personalized term that no one else in any other game, forum or community uses might not be correct and thus making a question like this a relevant rules question.

Seriously, I had no idea this would be the conversation I would be having with people when posting this question. Debating on whether or not RAW refereed to rules v.s. all the words ever written lol.
no wonder this community can't agree on anything. Ridiculous.

Lol. Welcome to Dakka.

In this case, I think it may be important to ask an admin to pin a listing of terms to this forum. This way we can avoid the enevitable situation of someone coming to this forum who expects to get legit rules questions answered and getting told incorrect information.

If a long established term has been redifined here so that some forum members can make sure they get their own way, new members and outsiders should be aware of this before they think they have come to a place where people can answer questions correctly.

For a comunity that seems to claim they are so concerned with following the rules correctly and that seems intent on using citations to substantiate arguments. I find it strange that you guys would change the meaning of a term like Raw without regards for what the acronym actually stands for and without a citation or precedent to substantiate that change...

It's really too bad because many people do come here for advice, usually the top result of a 40k rules search on google. i feel bad that they won't get acurrate information.

 Type40 wrote:
In this case, I think it may be important to ask an admin to pin a listing of terms to this forum. This way we can avoid the enevitable situation of someone coming to this forum who expects to get legit rules questions answered and getting told incorrect information.

If a long established term has been redifined here so that some forum members can make sure they get their own way, new members and outsiders should be aware of this before they think they have come to a place where people can answer questions correctly.

For a comunity that seems to claim they are so concerned with following the rules correctly and that seems intent on using citations to substantiate arguments. I find it strange that you guys would change the meaning of a term like Raw without regards for what the acronym actually stands for and without a citation or precedent to substantiate that change...

It's really too bad because many people do come here for advice, usually the top result of a 40k rules search on google. i feel bad that they won't get acurrate information.

Unfortunately this isn't so because you're arguing for your views that 'reminder/example texts' explicitly included in a FAQ, an officially sanctioned rules source, should be excluded in the RAW reading of the text. As mentioned, this is an opinion and everyone else is entitled to their own. No one is right or wrong here and anyone can claim you're right or wrong because you're asking your opinion to be critiqued.

 Type40 wrote:
If this is how this entire forum sees the term RAW
Then clearly this entire forum has no idea what the term actually means.

"It's not me, it's all of you."

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
If this is how this entire forum sees the term RAW
Then clearly this entire forum has no idea what the term actually means.

"It's not me, it's all of you."

Lol,

no thats not what I am saying
It is a defined term, which people are arguing is defined differently here and without any substantiation, citation or reasoning to why.
People are literally saying it doesn't stand for "Rules As Written" but rather it stands for "As per written" or "all text written"
People are literally saying that flavor and fluff are "Rules As Written."

I can post a citation even ?
DnD wiki
"Rules as written in the D&D game refers to the rules that WoTC publishes. In a wider sense it means the rules of the game being played. Rules as written is used to distinguish these from both house rules and what may have been intended that the rules were to be, such as a reference in a blurb to an ability that the class in question does not actually get or that is being used incorrectly. "

I can find many more,

can you provide a citation for your guys new interpretation of a proto-noun RAW in the context of 40k ?

Unfortunately this isn't so because you're arguing for your views that 'reminder/example texts' explicitly included in a FAQ, an officially sanctioned rules source, should be excluded in the RAW reading of the text. As mentioned, this is an opinion and everyone else is entitled to their own. No one is right or wrong here and anyone can claim you're right or wrong because you're asking your opinion to be critiqued.

This isn't even about my position on the thread topic any more ...
This is about the fact that you are trying to assert that RAW does not stand for "rules as written."

My position on the thread topic can only be debated with a person who actually uses the term RAW as ,,,, well what it is written as, rules as written. If people have decided it no longer means that ,,, well I can't take those people seriously.

Seriously, trying to take an attitude where you are saying flavor text is RAW is so far out of ball park, or trying to take the attitude that RAW does not stand for Rules As Written but its actually not an acronym but a noun that means something completely different ?
Are you seriously trying to say that we have an entire forum of people here who accept that RAW does not mean "rules as written" but it means something else ?

It's really not that hard to see that this is illogical, I can't be the only person on this forum who thinks flavor and fluff are not RAW.
I can't be the only one on this forum that understands RAW stands for the statement "Rules as Written"
I can't be the only one on this forum that does not think that RaW is somehow its own noun with its own definition that differs from the definition of the statement "Rules as written".

This isn't even me implying that people think this... All of this has been directly said to me ?
Look through the posts. Whether you think my stance on the subject of this thread is correct or not, are you really going to sit there and tell me that RAW is not an acronym for "rules as written" ? are you really going to try and hold the stance that it is its own proto-noun that means "All that is Written" or "As per Written" ?
Are you really going to tell me that flavor text and fluff are RAW.

Is that really what is happening here ?

 Type40 wrote:
Seriously, trying to take an attitude where you are saying flavor text is RAW is so far out of ball park, or trying to take the attitude that RAW does not stand for Rules As Written but its actually not an acronym but a noun that means something completely different ?

That false equivalence and strawmanning was on you where you brought up that "get ready for war" text. We merely entertained you with the idea that as far as RAW goes, all text is fair game.

 Type40 wrote:
It's really not that hard to see that this is illogical, I can't be the only person on this forum who thinks flavor and fluff are not RAW.
I can't be the only one on this forum that understands RAW stands for the statement "Rules as Written"
I can't be the only one on this forum that does not think that RaW is somehow its own noun with its own definition that differs from the definition of the statement "Rules as written".

You're the one that's limiting & defining what a "rule" is as per your definition of it's structure, format, and formality (which you go on to break).

 Type40 wrote:
This isn't even me implying that people think this... All of this has been directly said to me ?
Look through the posts. Whether you think my stance on the subject of this thread is correct or not, are you really going to sit there and tell me that RAW is not an acronym for "rules as written" ? are you really going to try and hold the stance that it is its own proto-noun that means "All that is Written" or "As per Written" ?
Are you really going to tell me that flavor text and fluff are RAW.

Again, strawmanning gets you nowhere, especially when you're the one that's imposing your definition of what a rule is. You don't get to decide that reminder/example text cannot be construed as RAW under the premises that it doesn't fit your criteria/definition of what a rule is because that's not RAW.

It's ridiculous... Your not even treating the term Raw as it is a rule as written.

 Type40 wrote:
It's ridiculous... Your not even treating the term Raw as it is a rule as written.

You're currently treating the term "rules as written" as "the obvious interpretation of the written text that fits the criteria of what I define as rules".

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Seriously, trying to take an attitude where you are saying flavor text is RAW is so far out of ball park, or trying to take the attitude that RAW does not stand for Rules As Written but its actually not an acronym but a noun that means something completely different ?

That false equivalence and strawmanning was on you where you brought up that "get ready for war" text. We merely entertained you with the idea that as far as RAW goes, all text is fair game.

 Type40 wrote:
It's really not that hard to see that this is illogical, I can't be the only person on this forum who thinks flavor and fluff are not RAW.
I can't be the only one on this forum that understands RAW stands for the statement "Rules as Written"
I can't be the only one on this forum that does not think that RaW is somehow its own noun with its own definition that differs from the definition of the statement "Rules as written".

You're the one that's limiting & defining what a "rule" is as per your definition of it's structure, format, and formality (which you go on to break).

 Type40 wrote:
This isn't even me implying that people think this... All of this has been directly said to me ?
Look through the posts. Whether you think my stance on the subject of this thread is correct or not, are you really going to sit there and tell me that RAW is not an acronym for "rules as written" ? are you really going to try and hold the stance that it is its own proto-noun that means "All that is Written" or "As per Written" ?
Are you really going to tell me that flavor text and fluff are RAW.

Again, strawmanning gets you nowhere, especially when you're the one that's imposing your definition of what a rule is. You don't get to decide that reminder/example text cannot be construed as RAW under the premises that it doesn't fit your criteria/definition of what a rule is because that's not RAW.

I would hardly call demonstrating where another part of a rules document does not present rules as strawmaning. Especially when my argument is literally "not all of a rules document is rules" . Learn what a strawman argument actually is.

What I can do, and what I am trying to do is have a conversation about how to determine the difference between a presented rule and a piece of explication text. I was halted due to the fact that some people are claiming all text is a rule... This is fundamentally untrue. So I demonstrated that by bringing up flavor text. But somehow people maintained their position to I fact include flavor text.

Some people can't fathom that Raw might only refer to what the designers present as rules. I presented my point to show the absurdity in that.

An absurd assertation warents an absurd counter point.

Don't lecture me on debate terminologies if you don't know what it actually means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
It's ridiculous... Your not even treating the term Raw as it is a rule as written.

You're currently treating the term "rules as written" as "the obvious interpretation of the written text that fits the criteria of what I define as rules".

No I am interpreting it as "Rules as written" as in what is objectively a rule, is in fact written. Can you not figure out there is a difference between a regulatory statement and an explintory one?

Go to your room v.s.
Rooms are a place with four walls.

It's not complicated stuff folks, your smarter then this.

The initial question was about explanation / reminder text... not fluff or flavour text.

Explanation / reminder text is part of the Rules as Written. The answer to the topic is that yes, these parts of the rules apply in a RAW discussion. No proto-noun. They are neither fluff, nor flavour.

In the Tau example, the extra shot is neither a case of fluff or flavour. It describes how to resolve the rule. It then gives an example that conflicts with the original rule. As the most recent version of a specific rule, it now updates the RAW.

One can ignore previous conflicting information ie: limiting the extra shot to short range.

This does not change the definition of “Rules as Written”. The argument you present is that example text does not qualify as a “Rule” to adhere to. That does not hold up in an argument regarding the RAW, because your argument requires the belief that that part of the more modern text be ignored in favour of the original text. You’ve presented reasons to do that, and they’re valid real-world reasons. But they hold no merit in a RAW discussion because it needs one to assume the change is unintentional.

I recognize that you’re creating valid real-world arguments to validate your perspective. But like BEDMAS in math, your beliefs and opinions on order of operations don’t matter. There is an accepted format to resolve the problem.

There is an accepted format (though uncoded, to the best of my knowledge) for resolving RAW arguments and your reasoning does not follow that. It does not mean your resolution is invalid, or that it is wrong. It just isn’t the method of resolving a RAW disagreement that is used here, or anywhere I’ve been.

It isn’t personal, though I expect it may feel like it. It likely seems “unfair”, that we assign an arbitrary means of determining the correct RAW resolution. It is the local custom, if that is balming in any way.

I hope this helps to explain the reason that the responses here have tended towards allowing, specifically, example and reminder text in RAW arguments.

But to understand the difference in a game like this, that uses complex language, we first need to understand format and syntax within the game. This isn't about how to see the intention of a rule.. It's how to see what is regulatory and what is explanatory. And it's not even that hard, we are smart people who should be able to figure that out in a single read through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
The initial question was about explanation / reminder text... not fluff or flavour text.

Explanation / reminder text is part of the Rules as Written. The answer to the topic is that yes, these parts of the rules apply in a RAW discussion. No proto-noun. They are neither fluff, nor flavour.

In the Tau example, the extra shot is neither a case of fluff or flavour. It describes how to resolve the rule. It then gives an example that conflicts with the original rule. As the most recent version of a specific rule, it now updates the RAW.


One can ignore previous conflicting information ie: limiting the extra shot to short range.

This does not change the definition of “Rules as Written”. The argument you present is that example text does not qualify as a “Rule” to adhere to. That does not hold up in an argument regarding the RAW, because your argument requires the belief that that part of the more modern text be ignored in favour of the original text. You’ve presented reasons to do that, and they’re valid real-world reasons. But they hold no merit in a RAW discussion because it needs one to assume the change is unintentional.

I recognize that you’re creating valid real-world arguments to validate your perspective. But like BEDMAS in math, your beliefs and opinions on order of operations don’t matter. There is an accepted format to resolve the problem.

There is an accepted format (though uncoded, to the best of my knowledge) for resolving RAW arguments and your reasoning does not follow that. It does not mean your resolution is invalid, or that it is wrong. It just isn’t the method of resolving a RAW disagreement that is used here, or anywhere I’ve been.

It isn’t personal, though I expect it may feel like it. It likely seems “unfair”, that we assign an arbitrary means of determining the correct RAW resolution. It is the local custom, if that is balming in any way.

I hope this helps to explain the reason that the responses here have tended towards allowing, specifically, example and reminder text in RAW arguments.

You know what, it's fine, if I ever run into a tfg who wants the extra shot... I'll make them follow it word for word. They don't get to make the shot but they can definitely make a note of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, thank you greatbigtree for bringing this discussion back on topic. It is ridiculous to be arguing about whether or not RAW actually means rules as written.

 Type40 wrote:

BTW, thank you greatbigtree for bringing this discussion back on topic. It is ridiculous to be arguing about whether or not RAW actually means rules as written.

You're the one who led the topic astray noting that it isn't even about the original topic anymore