What do we think RAW is?

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.

**Grimtuff**

the_scotsman wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Crimson wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Yet no one except you cares! The convention is that you can shoot with assault weapons after advancing, and you can turn into a pretzel trying to claim that this is not the case, and it will not change a thing.
Convention as decided by whom? If I claim it's "convention" that I can disembark after moving my Land Raider, and disagreeing makes you a rules lawyer, does that make it so?

If everyone agrees with you, it does. But they won't.
So everyone (that is, literally everyone) must agree in order for it to be convention.

I do not agree you can select a unit to fire after advancing, even if the unit has assault weapons.

Therefore, it is not convention that a unit may fire assault weapons after advancing. Q.E.D.

Earlier in this discussion you said you took the Tau warlord trait Exemplar of the Montka on your commander, which reads

"Your warlord can advance and still shoot as if it had not Advanced this turn"

I assume you treat this as permission for just that model to advance and fire its weapons. However you choose to ignore the Viorla sept trait Strike Fast, which reads

"In addition, models with this tenet do not suffer the penalty to their hit rolls for advancing and firing assault weapons."

Nah, GW don't know their own rules. That's why they gave DG a useless army trait too... /s

**Apple fox**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Apple fox wrote:

Maybe at this point Dakka Needs a post with the most common RaI for rules that pop up. Something players can be directed to when they need common rules so it does not need to be a battle for RaW vs Rai right off the gate. I think most players could understand if a rule was explained as not working, and here is the most common, or few most common ways to deal with it.
It would at least deal with some of the confusion if it could be done.

This is what most of us are arguing for, indirectly. As i said earlier, when someone has a rules question the best answer is giving them the actual ruling (BCB-level of RAW) and explaining how it is actually played in most games (using tournaments as a basis for the definition of "most" in this case).

The problem with this thread is that someone wants RAW RAWRARWAWRAWRAWRARAWR only to be a thing in a conversation that most other participants are mostly in accord.

As much as i love the drama, i'm pretty sure the question has been answered since many pages in and at this point we're just repeating over and over the same arguments (valid for both sides).
This thread should be locked.

I am thinking more a post or document with common answers already. Or at least decent thoughts to it. Probably impossible without GW Putting in some effort here.

Since i know that most people i have had to do any sort of rulings for, will not even post on a forum anywhere. They will read something if they can find it, but wont post if needed.
Its what GW should be doing with there Faqs and eratta, but i think really the players just have to try to do it at this point.

**skchsan**

Octopoid wrote:
MattKing wrote:
Wasn't every point of this addresses around page 3 or so? How long are we going to circle this? Is anyone even reading each others posts anymore?

I feel like several of us are having a nice conversation...

Agreed.

@MattKing, I'm sorry but closing a thread rests solely on the discretion of the MOD, not when you think the thread is done. If you feel like the thread has run its course, you're more than welcome to not join us.

Apple fox wrote:
...Its what GW should be doing with there Faqs and eratta, but i think really the players just have to try to do it at this point.

Right. I feel like GW isn;t really owning up to their responsibilities as the game designer and lazily telling the players to "make it work."

8th at best is currently literally a general guideline for playing. "Hey guys, so here are some basic guidelines we thought would help you guys get going. There are a lot of holes, and we can kind of patch things up as we go, but for the most part, you should try it out and tailor it to your own liking!"

Out of curiosity - if those who voted for 'no' are actually participating in this discussion, how do you define RAW?

**happy_inquisitor**

skchsan wrote:
Right. I feel like GW isn;t really owning up to their responsibilities as the game designer and lazily telling the players to "make it work."

8th at best is currently literally a general guideline for playing. "Hey guys, so here are some basic guidelines we thought would help you guys get going. There are a lot of holes, and we can kind of patch things up as we go, but for the most part, you should try it out and tailor it to your own liking!"

Out of curiosity - if those who voted for 'no' are actually participating in this discussion, how do you define RAW?

I feel like GW have long since put their cards on the table that they are interested in How You Would Play It and that is what their rulebook and FAQs are designed to support. There is no false advertising here, this is plainly and openly what they say that they are producing. If you wanted it to be something else then I don't quite know what to say; I'd love my washes to be actual literal talent in a bottle but they are not and it's not the fault of the manufacturer that it does not meet an unrealistic expectation.

Personally I consider RAW to be a textual analysis approach to understanding the rules. By contrast I regard HYWPI as a dynamic understanding of how the rule plays. For those who have ever studied software engineering there is a strong parallel to the distinction between static analysis (such as formal inspections) and dynamic analysis (testing carried out on running software). Static analysis has value in software engineering but given a choice between using software that had been reviewed and software that had been tested I would always choose[1] the one which has been tested.

[1] Assuming that my intention is to run the software. If instead my intention was to use the source code as a teaching or learning aid then it might be better to buy the one which was subject to review rather than testing. Context and intention are important.

**greatbigtree**

I would say that what most people refer to as RAW is actually the process of translating the "RAW" to in-game mechanics, while attempting to avoid the use of "Intention" as part of an argument.

While one can argue that this rule or that rule isn't "Intended" to perform a function, if you take the literal meaning of the words and then translate them to game mechanics, it can create what seem like unintended consequences.

While in most cases, resorting to an argument over "RAW", and the process that entails, isn't necessary, if two people can't agree on an outcome and they'd prefer to avoid rolling off, then arguing about RAW can be worthwhile.

Not for everyone, not all the time, but there are situations (such as tournaments) where there are incentives to win beyond bragging rights. In those situations, being able to determine a logical solution, regardless of sensibility, has value. That's where I'd feel the process of determining the most accurate interpretation of the RAW is valuable.

EDIT: I'll point out, that some people like to argue simply for the joy of arguing. Pitting one's wits against another, trying to outthink / outfox the other. My Grandfather and I share that trait, and will argue over anything just to try to beat the other. No anger, maybe a little heat if we get invested, but we enjoy "mental wrestling". Arguing about the interpretations of RAW can be fun in and of itself.

**happy_inquisitor**

greatbigtree wrote:

Not for everyone, not all the time, but there are situations (such as tournaments) where there are incentives to win beyond bragging rights. In those situations, being able to determine a logical solution, regardless of sensibility, has value. That's where I'd feel the process of determining the most accurate interpretation of the RAW is valuable.

Pretty much every tournament I have ever been to substituted "call a judge" for the "dice off" part of the usual resolution process after an amicable agreement could not be found. I would be pretty astonished if there was a tournament which had anything other than that as its approach. It hardly ever happens any more, I have not had a judge at a table even once in 8th edition.

The judge may or may not be guided by RAW but they are almost never going to go down the hyper-literalist route that we sometimes see on forums. Good luck trying to get a judge at a tournament to rule that models with assault weapons cannot shoot them after advancing.

**greatbigtree**

Not something I’m advocating, to be clear.

I have rarely participated in Tournaments. Mostly with friends in garages and basements, a few pickup games.

I find that taking a couple minutes to consider a RAW approach to a rule lets me know about rules to talk about with unfamiliar opponents. If something is unclear, but likely to come up in a game, I prefer to discuss ahead. If we can’t come to consensus via RAI, I have RAW to fall back on. Or in the case that I disagree with the RAW result, but my opponent agrees, I’d generally acquiesce to the RAW interpretation.

**insaniak**

greatbigtree wrote:
.
I find that taking a couple minutes to consider a RAW approach to a rule lets me know about rules to talk about with unfamiliar opponents. If something is unclear, but likely to come up in a game, I prefer to discuss ahead. If we can’t come to consensus via RAI, I have RAW to fall back on. Or in the case that I disagree with the RAW result, but my opponent agrees, I’d generally acquiesce to the RAW interpretation.

This is pretty much in a nutshell why YMDC has generally focused on a RAW approach in the past, at least to find an initial answer to a rules issue. Finding what the rules actually say gives you a starting point for figuring out how to actuality play it, rather than being the end in itself.

**happy_inquisitor**

greatbigtree wrote:
Not something I’m advocating, to be clear.

I have rarely participated in Tournaments. Mostly with friends in garages and basements, a few pickup games.

I find that taking a couple minutes to consider a RAW approach to a rule lets me know about rules to talk about with unfamiliar opponents. If something is unclear, but likely to come up in a game, I prefer to discuss ahead. If we can’t come to consensus via RAI, I have RAW to fall back on. Or in the case that I disagree with the RAW result, but my opponent agrees, I’d generally acquiesce to the RAW interpretation.

By all means read through the relevant rule carefully and that will sort out most misunderstandings. If it does not then try to agree something that works in the game. If you cannot do that then the thing NOT to do is get into some big discussion over how the text should be analysed. At this point you just quickly call over a judge, explain that you can't quite agree on a thing and then just accept the judgement made. Even if it is wrong

Honestly I have not needed a judge once in 8th edition.

**Galas**

BCB, when you play in Tabletop Simulator, you (Or your opponents) don't shoot with Assault weapons after advancing?

I mean. I know by RAW the assault weapons don't work. But do you apply that to your games?

**TwinPoleTheory**

Galas wrote:
BCB, when you play in Tabletop Simulator, you (Or your opponents) don't shoot with Assault weapons after advancing?

I mean. I know by RAW the assault weapons don't work. But do you apply that to your games?

You know the answer to this question.

There's lots of stupid RAW in the FAQ. They tried to fix Rubrics and made their problems worse if you read the two rulings together. The unit counts as a psyker, even without the psyker, but you can take MW from perils off the squad, which means that every Rubric you remove is exploding for D3 MW on everything within 6". I suspect we're all pretty sure that wasn't their intent, but that's what they wrote, so now, if you roll well enough (bad enough?) you could potentially have 3 Rubrics blow up for 3D3 MW to everything within 6".

The list goes on and on, it's like one designer wrote the answer to one question, another designer wrote the answer to another one and they never spoke to each other at any point in the process.

**Galas**

Actually I don't because he avoids answering that.

He'll just answer "I play the game by his rules, I don't like to house rule it" but then I really can't believe he nor his opponents shoot their assault weapons after advancing.

**the_scotsman**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Galas wrote:
BCB, when you play in Tabletop Simulator, you (Or your opponents) don't shoot with Assault weapons after advancing?

I mean. I know by RAW the assault weapons don't work. But do you apply that to your games?

You know the answer to this question.

There's lots of stupid RAW in the FAQ. They tried to fix Rubrics and made their problems worse if you read the two rulings together. The unit counts as a psyker, even without the psyker, but you can take MW from perils off the squad, which means that every Rubric you remove is exploding for D3 MW on everything within 6". I suspect we're all pretty sure that wasn't their intent, but that's what they wrote, so now, if you roll well enough (bad enough?) you could potentially have 3 Rubrics blow up for 3D3 MW to everything within 6".

The list goes on and on, it's like one designer wrote the answer to one question, another designer wrote the answer to another one and they never spoke to each other at any point in the process.

I thought perils was worded as "if the caster dies"? And the aspiring sorc is the only one who knows the spells?

**Wunzlez**

Elbows wrote:
skchsan wrote:
Elbows wrote:
BCB is essentially highlighting my first point in the first response to this thread. His position is not about gaming. He doesn't even play 40K, he's just here to "feel" special and better than the rest of the community who actually plays the game. It has nothing to do with bettering the game. I would imagine (and I'm probably correct) he's never once compiled a polite or logical email and sent it to GW with actual technical editing or suggestions. This is a selfish, chest-thumping endeavor with no aim at bettering the community, the game or the experience of players. This is why BCB has become a bit of a meme here.
I have to say though BCB's often overly hunted over (often justified, but that's besides the point), but the points he bring up are real issues requiring further intervention via RAInterpreted in order for the said rule to work in a real game.

This further blurs the practical usage of RAW because RAW is never truly RAW, but once removed RAInterpreted.

Which goes back to the point - is it actually practical for us to call RAW as RAW? Or should it be called something else entirely?

As a game designer myself, I can easily point fingers at GW. Their writing is quite poor and they lack a style book, and definitely don't invest in technical editing. However, even with cleaned up and technically proficient writing, no wargame will ever feature 100% correct rules...because a reader or consumer is always able to go one step deeper in the "well, what do they mean by..." zone.

This is akin to the old study where someone was able to make an obnoxiously lengthy document on how to assemble a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. This was done for entertainment value, but it highlighted how much we take for granted using simple instructions. Even with cleaned up rules writing, if GW wanted a 100% RAW correct document, the rulebook could be 3,400 pages. There becomes a finite point where any rules writer or instructional writer must surrender to the common sense of the consumer and go on faith that they are a functioning and literate adult capable of parsing out the general purpose of the statement.

If I say "take a slice of bread and put peanut butter on one side"...this is understandable to an average adult, right?

What I didn't say was:

1) Using your hands and fingers obtain the package of bread.
2) Grip the package of bread in one hand, careful not to crush the contents - apply only the pressure needed to hold the package securely without deforming the contents' physical shape and structure
3) Manipulate the twist-tie using two of your fingers until it becomes free from the bag and falls to the counter top
4) Manipulate the package so that the open end is upward and you can physically reach into the package using one of your hands.
5) Using the muscle control in your hand, and several fingers, carefully pick one slice of bread between your fingers, careful again not to crush it
6) Using an upward motion extract the single slice of bread from the package and place it carefully on a provided plate
etc.

It's a absurd example, and I would have missed 1,000 additional steps you could apply in that same time...but it highlights how crazy any instruction could become. As someone who playtests a ton of games, I've never seen a perfectly written game...ever. GW is at the lower end of the spectrum from the stuff I've read and playtested, but the intent is almost always clear and playing the game without hiccups is possible and reasonable.

This is pretty much the issue, well put.

It's similar to how reality is essentially infinitely complex and we are limited in our perception of it, so we create categorical, abstract, understandings that work better for our interpretation. It's why the Planck is the smallest unit of measurement in our definition, anything smaller and it becomes functionally meaningless to us and enters into quantum areas.

All activity and decision making is based on the limitation of the available information and an intuitive assumption. You cannot remove that issue without removing human beings from the context.

So RAW and RAI have to meet in an often unsatisfying middle, because these games are social and the social element is complex and prone to unforeseen outliers and exceptions.

The purpose of rationality is to demonstrate the limits of rationality. And taking logic to it's extremes proves extremely illogical.

**Karol**

1) Using your hands and fingers obtain the package of bread.
2) Grip the package of bread in one hand, careful not to crush the contents - apply only the pressure needed to hold the package securely without deforming the contents' physical shape and structure
3) Manipulate the twist-tie using two of your fingers until it becomes free from the bag and falls to the counter top
4) Manipulate the package so that the open end is upward and you can physically reach into the package using one of your hands.
5) Using the muscle control in your hand, and several fingers, carefully pick one slice of bread between your fingers, careful again not to crush it
6) Using an upward motion extract the single slice of bread from the package and place it carefully on a provided plate
etc.

Looks like a polish military description of how to use a military ration.

All it lacks is a lenghty definition of what a hand and what a spoon is.

**Wayniac**

Again though the issue is the community ultimately determines what RAW is. Even if something can be construed as RAW (the silly Assault weapon thing for example) if nobody plays it that way, then the meaning has been changed regardless of if it's technically RAW or not.

**Kdash**

insaniak wrote:
Kdash wrote:
We then also have the issues of each community, at store/house/club level around the world has their own house rules in place.

Is that an issue, though? If my gaming group plays a rule one way, and your gaming group on the other side of the planet plays that same rule a different way... what impact does that have?

The only time it's potentially an issue is if someone plays in multiple venues that rule things differently. For the most part, that's just tournament players, and tournaments having their own house rules is hardly something unique to 40K, or gaming.

Bit of a delayed response (busy weekend) but…

Generally, I’d say no, it isn’t an issue at club/store/shed/dining room table level. However, the game has now branched out beyond these mediums with the rise in popularity of events. The other weekend I was at the GW team event at Warhammer World, and there were teams from all over the UK there playing. Each had their own mini-metas and individual house rules. We never really had any issues or misunderstandings, but, the potential is there.

Now, take into consideration the London Grand Tournament that I’m at in September. Not only is it drawing people from all over the UK, but people are also coming from Europe and the US. Each player will have their own club “biases” and “expectations” when they attend, and there will almost certainly be some disagreement on what means what, or how something works between players.

This of course, does not really affect local community groups as they have their own understanding and rules-built overtime with everyone involved. But, as others have said, just because one group plays something in a certain way, doesn’t mean it is actually the “correct” way to play something, and it unfortunately catches people out. The issue lies solely with the original rules.

That said, I’d say the vast majority of players around the world generally play the same way, with only small differences to rules and interpretations, so, majority disagreements aren’t massively common – or at least ones that can’t be amicably resolved.

**VladimirHerzog**

Kdash wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Kdash wrote:
We then also have the issues of each community, at store/house/club level around the world has their own house rules in place.

Is that an issue, though? If my gaming group plays a rule one way, and your gaming group on the other side of the planet plays that same rule a different way... what impact does that have?

The only time it's potentially an issue is if someone plays in multiple venues that rule things differently. For the most part, that's just tournament players, and tournaments having their own house rules is hardly something unique to 40K, or gaming.

Bit of a delayed response (busy weekend) but…

Generally, I’d say no, it isn’t an issue at club/store/shed/dining room table level. However, the game has now branched out beyond these mediums with the rise in popularity of events. The other weekend I was at the GW team event at Warhammer World, and there were teams from all over the UK there playing. Each had their own mini-metas and individual house rules. We never really had any issues or misunderstandings, but, the potential is there.

Now, take into consideration the London Grand Tournament that I’m at in September. Not only is it drawing people from all over the UK, but people are also coming from Europe and the US. Each player will have their own club “biases” and “expectations” when they attend, and there will almost certainly be some disagreement on what means what, or how something works between players.

This of course, does not really affect local community groups as they have their own understanding and rules-built overtime with everyone involved. But, as others have said, just because one group plays something in a certain way, doesn’t mean it is actually the “correct” way to play something, and it unfortunately catches people out. The issue lies solely with the original rules.

That said, I’d say the vast majority of players around the world generally play the same way, with only small differences to rules and interpretations, so, majority disagreements aren’t massively common – or at least ones that can’t be amicably resolved.

This is a big part of the game.
In my opinion, as long as you make it clear that the way to play the game you are suggesting is how you play it in your playgroup it is valid information. (talking about posting in YMDC).

**Kdash**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Kdash wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Kdash wrote:
We then also have the issues of each community, at store/house/club level around the world has their own house rules in place.

Is that an issue, though? If my gaming group plays a rule one way, and your gaming group on the other side of the planet plays that same rule a different way... what impact does that have?

The only time it's potentially an issue is if someone plays in multiple venues that rule things differently. For the most part, that's just tournament players, and tournaments having their own house rules is hardly something unique to 40K, or gaming.

Bit of a delayed response (busy weekend) but…

Generally, I’d say no, it isn’t an issue at club/store/shed/dining room table level. However, the game has now branched out beyond these mediums with the rise in popularity of events. The other weekend I was at the GW team event at Warhammer World, and there were teams from all over the UK there playing. Each had their own mini-metas and individual house rules. We never really had any issues or misunderstandings, but, the potential is there.

Now, take into consideration the London Grand Tournament that I’m at in September. Not only is it drawing people from all over the UK, but people are also coming from Europe and the US. Each player will have their own club “biases” and “expectations” when they attend, and there will almost certainly be some disagreement on what means what, or how something works between players.

This of course, does not really affect local community groups as they have their own understanding and rules-built overtime with everyone involved. But, as others have said, just because one group plays something in a certain way, doesn’t mean it is actually the “correct” way to play something, and it unfortunately catches people out. The issue lies solely with the original rules.

That said, I’d say the vast majority of players around the world generally play the same way, with only small differences to rules and interpretations, so, majority disagreements aren’t massively common – or at least ones that can’t be amicably resolved.

This is a big part of the game.
In my opinion, as long as you make it clear that the way to play the game you are suggesting is how you play it in your playgroup it is valid information. (talking about posting in YMDC).

Oh I agree, however, it then means you have 2 valid opinions for the same interaction – and if both of valid, which one “wins”? I’m all for having a “dice off” in friendly situations, but, it doesn’t solve the issue when/if it happens again next game with a different player.

Sure, it’d work for experienced players and flexible players, but, newer players aren’t going to have a clue what’s going on, and older players or more “fixed” players will feel put out each time they lose the roll off.

I guess, my overall point is, that, this situation doesn’t need to exist in the first place, and the only reason why we’ve having this entire discussion in this thread is because it’s been allowed to exist since day 1.

The main aim of a game of 40k is to have fun (and crush your enemies into plastic dust

), but if you said to me in a theoretical game, that the way me and my play group have been playing a rule for 2 years is wrong because your play group plays it another way, and then I lose based on a dice roll and my army is setup around said interaction, (I wouldn’t be stupid enough to do this myself, but, people do, do this) and then I go on to lose the game because of it, then I’d probably feel really put out because of it and it would feel unjust – rightly or wrongly so. It is unfortunately part of human nature – especially in competitive environments. #reallylongawkwardsentence

I guess I’m just in the naive/optimistic camp where, when there is an issue and a solution, I’d apply the solution to fix the issue once and for all, rather than twiddle my thumbs.

**VladimirHerzog**

Kdash wrote:

This is a big part of the game.
In my opinion, as long as you make it clear that the way to play the game you are suggesting is how you play it in your playgroup it is valid information. (talking about posting in YMDC).

Oh I agree, however, it then means you have 2 valid opinions for the same interaction – and if both of valid, which one “wins”? I’m all for having a “dice off” in friendly situations, but, it doesn’t solve the issue when/if it happens again next game with a different player.

Sure, it’d work for experienced players and flexible players, but, newer players aren’t going to have a clue what’s going on, and older players or more “fixed” players will feel put out each time they lose the roll off.

I guess, my overall point is, that, this situation doesn’t need to exist in the first place, and the only reason why we’ve having this entire discussion in this thread is because it’s been allowed to exist since day 1.

The main aim of a game of 40k is to have fun (and crush your enemies into plastic dust ), but if you said to me in a theoretical game, that the way me and my play group have been playing a rule for 2 years is wrong because your play group plays it another way, and then I lose based on a dice roll and my army is setup around said interaction, (I wouldn’t be stupid enough to do this myself, but, people do, do this) and then I go on to lose the game because of it, then I’d probably feel really put out because of it and it would feel unjust – rightly or wrongly so. It is unfortunately part of human nature – especially in competitive environments. #reallylongawkwardsentence

I guess I’m just in the naive/optimistic camp where, when there is an issue and a solution, I’d apply the solution to fix the issue once and for all, rather than twiddle my thumbs.

Exactly, this whole issue of RAW vs RAI wouldnt be a thing if the game had properly defined rules (something akin to MTG's rules). As it stands, the rules parsing requires critical thinking and some guessing. Maybe BCB is right and assault weren't intended to function and for as far as we know, there is no way to be certain until GW officially adresses this rule.

Thats why i think that giving multiple different interpretation of a rule and then figuring out which one makes more sense is the only way to truly figure out how the game works.

in tournaments however, i feel like it is the TO's job to clearly outline all their rule's interpretation beforehand (in a perfect world). the problem is that theres so many rules that writing the fixes for a ll of them as an unofficial party wouldnt be possible. I quite like how ITC has redefined some rules and the documentation for them is accessible. But theres many smaller interactions that are not defined. A player that plays in a group that doesnt let assault function showing up to a tournament and assuming that this the norm is a totally possible thing that would suck for both parties involved since the following argument wuold slow down the game and require the intervention of a judge/TO.

**Dysartes**

Kdash wrote:
Now, take into consideration the London Grand Tournament that I’m at in September. Not only is it drawing people from all over the UK, but people are also coming from Europe and the US. Each player will have their own club “biases” and “expectations” when they attend, and there will almost certainly be some disagreement on what means what, or how something works between players.

Hang on - Styrofoam Block: The Tournament is running again?

Have they given any evidence that they've learned from last year's car wreck?

**Kdash**

Dysartes wrote:
Kdash wrote:
Now, take into consideration the London Grand Tournament that I’m at in September. Not only is it drawing people from all over the UK, but people are also coming from Europe and the US. Each player will have their own club “biases” and “expectations” when they attend, and there will almost certainly be some disagreement on what means what, or how something works between players.

Hang on - Styrofoam Block: The Tournament is running again?

Have they given any evidence that they've learned from last year's car wreck?

Lol. Well, supposedly, but, as last year was the first year for me i decided i'd give them one chance to prove their promises. If it's the same again this year then i won't bother at all in the future. Sounds promising from the terrain deals they supposedly have though, but, we'll have to wait and see.

**JohnHwangDD**

insaniak wrote:
greatbigtree wrote:
.
I find that taking a couple minutes to consider a RAW approach to a rule lets me know about rules to talk about with unfamiliar opponents. If something is unclear, but likely to come up in a game, I prefer to discuss ahead. If we can’t come to consensus via RAI, I have RAW to fall back on. Or in the case that I disagree with the RAW result, but my opponent agrees, I’d generally acquiesce to the RAW interpretation.

This is pretty much in a nutshell why YMDC has generally focused on a RAW approach in the past, at least to find an initial answer to a rules issue.

The main reason we go with RAW (unless it's obviously nonsensical), is because actual RAI is generally unavailable until GW themselves deign to discuss something or publish a FAQ. In those rare cases where the designer actually states their intent, then RAI > RAW.

**Karol**

But isn't it sometime confusing when it is non official. I remember how SW players were 100% sure that fix to CA is a week away, just because someone from GW said that Thunder Wolves stormshields are going to be 2pts.

non official stuff can be a real slippery slope, as rules fixing goes, because it can devolved in to what ever I think is right is right, and GW just haven't yet shown their intentions.

I mean pre CA the GW article about Grey Knights that paladins and purifires are going to be seen more often. then they got no changes in the CA, so are Grey Knigh players to do changes to those units themself, considering GWs intention was to make those units better?

**Slipspace**

Karol wrote:
But isn't it sometime confusing when it is non official. I remember how SW players were 100% sure that fix to CA is a week away, just because someone from GW said that Thunder Wolves stormshields are going to be 2pts.

non official stuff can be a real slippery slope, as rules fixing goes, because it can devolved in to what ever I think is right is right, and GW just haven't yet shown their intentions.

I mean pre CA the GW article about Grey Knights that paladins and purifires are going to be seen more often. then they got no changes in the CA, so are Grey Knigh players to do changes to those units themself, considering GWs intention was to make those units better?

We're not talking about rumours and wishlisting here. We're talking about situations where the rules as written are genuinely unclear or flat-out stupid (as is the case with assault weapons). Points costs are about balance rather than rules, so they're definitely not part of the discussion either.

This illustrates why slippery slope arguments are often flawed too. The slope is rarely steep enough in these debates that anything is possible and in 99% of cases when discussing flaws in the RAW there's a consensus that can be reached that doesn't involve hyperbole like 500 wound Space Marines or "I'll pay whatever I want for my Grey Knights because GW said they were making them better".

**Karol**

It wasn't a rumour though. A GW employee posted that SW players should be happy that TWC shields are going down in points. Now of course we could say that a GW employe is not GW, but then we may as well be throwing the whole intent thing out of the wind, because unless it is an official GW errata or FAQ, anything could be called skewed personal wish listing of a single person, even if they happen to work for GW.

Plus I was not talking about RAW, but RAI. There seem to be an argument for RAI, that GW shows their intent in articles, stuff on their page or Facebook, or said by people working for GW, and by working I mean working on design, not someone cleaning a store after it gets closed. IMO it is a shaky argument, because while sometimes one could point at an article, and say it was common sense that a rule should be under a RAI interpretation, you also have times where GW people say one thing and then their official errata say another. Or worse they say two different things about two different rules with the same wording. It makes the RAW interpretation safer. Can't argue with RAW, even if it may be stupid. Am sure there is a ton of laws and rules that are stupid that people have to follow in any country on this planet.

**PoorGravitasHandling**

Along the lines of the PB&J comment earlier: If you've played a game (and I believe this applies to any fething game with dice) where the rules say "roll a dice" and you allowed the dice to stop rolling, you played RAI. All the pictures in the world can show that dice stationary but RAW, nothing permits or dictates that it stop.

There are no RAW's in the minds of humans. There's just RAI (intended or interpreted, pick your poison).

**Lance845**

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Along the lines of the PB&J comment earlier: If you've played a game (and I believe this applies to any fething game with dice) where the rules say "roll a dice" and you allowed the dice to stop rolling, you played RAI. All the pictures in the world can show that dice stationary but RAW, nothing permits or dictates that it stop.

There are no RAW's in the minds of humans. There's just RAI (intended or interpreted, pick your poison).

I want people to remember this post when in the future they give bcb gak for being super litteral and taking small arguments to mountains out of mole hill extremes.

Removed - BrookM

**Octopoid**

Lance845 wrote:
PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Along the lines of the PB&J comment earlier: If you've played a game (and I believe this applies to any fething game with dice) where the rules say "roll a dice" and you allowed the dice to stop rolling, you played RAI. All the pictures in the world can show that dice stationary but RAW, nothing permits or dictates that it stop.

There are no RAW's in the minds of humans. There's just RAI (intended or interpreted, pick your poison).

I want people to remember this post when in the future they give bcb gak for being super litteral and taking small arguments to mountains out of mole hill extremes.

Removed - BrookM

It's actually basically the same point BCB makes from time to time. The rules DON'T say a six-sided die has to be numbered 1-6, or that it has to stop rolling, or that it can't be weighted, or what-have-you. It's a point that RAW is not and cannot be the be-all and end-all of playing the game, because even RAW makes assumptions based on language.

**PoorGravitasHandling**

If it wasn't clear, I'm arguing that straight RAW is only ever useful when the RAW is clearly written AND not conflicting with the design of other rules.

The RAW interpretation of assault weapons is worth as much as the RAW interpretation of dice rolling.