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.

While RaI is completely useless from a gaming standpoint, I've noticed many people have conflicting views on what it actually means.
After all, it is certainly interesting to see other people's views on disagreeing!

A bit torn between choice 1 and choice 3. I believe it's how the author intended them to be played, but I also feel it's a balance between what their abilities should do compared to their points cost.

For example I believe the boarding plank was intended to be used against "Tanks", not vehicles in general, because one's odds to hit most tanks are in fact much lower than the odds to hit a walker, since it's based solely on how fast they moved [and many move very fast] rather than WS, where many walkers are WS3. Tanks also vary greatly on their armour values, whereas walkers rarely breach 12. People often ask "can the walker strike back?", a question I think the author didn't even consider because he thought it would be against tanks.

Other considerations arise too, such as what do you do if you want to boarding plank a walker that's already in assault. Do you do a separate assault with the walker, where it can do nothing, and just get killed, and be unable to fight in its own combat since you resolved "that one" first? Does the ork just strike at his initiative in the combat, but can't be affected by the outcome?

These things are all things I don't think were considered, because it costs only 5 points. The Doom of Malan'tai is another I wonder about, because it costs only 90 points - affecting things inside vehicles is, I think, an ability something that costs significantly more would have.

Anyway, pay no attention to the RAW/RAI of the things I mentioned - those are just examples of why I believe it means what the author intended, and their in-game effects compared to points cost are a way to evaluate what exactly those were.

Wrong Forum - Moving to Dakka Discussions.

Nightwatch wrote:While RaI is completely useless from a gaming standpoint, I've noticed many people have conflicting views on what it actually means.
After all, it is certainly interesting to see other people's views on disagreeing!

Whether anyone admits it or not, HERE is the deal on RAI.

Many, if not most, people thing that RAI stands for "Rules As Intended."

In reality, RAI means "Rules As I think they should be."

If you have 10 different people, you could have 10 different RAI over the same rule.
Which one would be right on "intended?"
CLEARLY, it's far more self-centered than "Intended."


Eric

Lorek wrote:Wrong Forum - Moving to Dakka Discussions.

Sorry, as it pops up here most I thought this might be appropriate.

My big issue with RaI is that every here and there, the rules imply certain things that contradict the fluff, or work against other rules in other codexes.

For example:

Tau bonding knife:

Fluff-wise it would give Tau Fire Caste Members a sort of leadership safeguard, and as such should only be able to be taken by strictly Fire Caste units, no Drones allowed, OR Drones wouldn't count towards the 50%. ICs like the Shas'el with a bonding knife wouldn't confer its abilities to a unit he joined because he technically wouldn't have "bonded" with them, but with someone else.

Game-wise it would give your units a leadership safeguard, much needed in some cases. Here it technically works, if the rule was written with a clear description of what the terms mean.

And then you get to the RaW=RaI problem, where you're telling me my Commander has to marry his drone, because if he doesn't, when a drone is taken out he will get so overcome with grief he might run off the battlefield and not regroup.

Another example:

Ork Deff Rolla:

Fluff-wise you get a big steamroller with sharp bits to kill your enemies.

Game-wise the deff rolla can inflict damage on your opponents, but isn't specifically classified as a weapon and cannot be subject to Weapon Destroyed, part-of-hull-or-not problems, etc.

RaW = RaI gives you problems yet again, as the rules aren't very specific and they leave you scratching your head or yelling for months.

I think it's a mix between Fluff and as Intended by the Author.

Nightwatch wrote:

Ork Deff Rolla:

Fluff-wise you get a big steamroller with sharp bits to kill your enemies.

Game-wise the deff rolla can inflict damage on your opponents, but isn't specifically classified as a weapon and cannot be subject to Weapon Destroyed, part-of-hull-or-not problems, etc.

RaW = RaI gives you problems yet again, as the rules aren't very specific and they leave you scratching your head or yelling for months.

Or having a quick negotiation/agreement with the other player, for enough time to brew a pot of tea and eat some jaffa cakes, to both understand how it's going to be used going forward in your group.

"Deffrolla should be ignored like rams etc but it's actually fairly big, so what i thought was treat it as the footprint of the vehicle, since it does make my burna unit easier to fire, but also means you'll get range sooner and the increase in volume is advantageous to you using templates, what do you reckon?"

"Sounds great, got any kit kats?"

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:

Ork Deff Rolla:

Fluff-wise you get a big steamroller with sharp bits to kill your enemies.

Game-wise the deff rolla can inflict damage on your opponents, but isn't specifically classified as a weapon and cannot be subject to Weapon Destroyed, part-of-hull-or-not problems, etc.

RaW = RaI gives you problems yet again, as the rules aren't very specific and they leave you scratching your head or yelling for months.

Or having a quick negotiation/agreement with the other player, for enough time to brew a pot of tea and eat some jaffa cakes, to both understand how it's going to be used going forward in your group.

"Deffrolla should be ignored like rams etc but it's actually fairly big, so what i thought was treat it as the footprint of the vehicle, since it does make my burna unit easier to fire, but also means you'll get range sooner and the increase in volume is advantageous to you using templates, what do you reckon?"

"Sounds great, got any kit kats?"

Tea and Jaffa cakes?

Round here its beer and trail mix.

jp400 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:

Ork Deff Rolla:

Fluff-wise you get a big steamroller with sharp bits to kill your enemies.

Game-wise the deff rolla can inflict damage on your opponents, but isn't specifically classified as a weapon and cannot be subject to Weapon Destroyed, part-of-hull-or-not problems, etc.

RaW = RaI gives you problems yet again, as the rules aren't very specific and they leave you scratching your head or yelling for months.

Or having a quick negotiation/agreement with the other player, for enough time to brew a pot of tea and eat some jaffa cakes, to both understand how it's going to be used going forward in your group.

"Deffrolla should be ignored like rams etc but it's actually fairly big, so what i thought was treat it as the footprint of the vehicle, since it does make my burna unit easier to fire, but also means you'll get range sooner and the increase in volume is advantageous to you using templates, what do you reckon?"

"Sounds great, got any kit kats?"

Tea and Jaffa cakes?

Round here its beer and trail mix.

And here its snow and ice and.... more snow.
Edit: add sugar to taste.

RAI should definately be appropriately renamed to Rules As INTERPERETED.

Peoples interpretations of the correct rules and there application are allways vastly different, this includes the authors. Whilst he may have written a specific rule and interpreted it's correct use clearly, other peoples takes on it may be very different.

I think so long as this varying interpretation is taken lightheartedly and doesnt blatantly contradict the advantage/disadvantages a rule may be trying to apply then it's all good

Personally (and understand that personal opinion seems to be the crux of the argument here), I see RAI to mean:

'playing an ambiguous/broken RAW situation in a manner that is 'enjoyable' for both parties'. I use the word enjoyable as saying that it benefits both parties would be a blatant lie, and this seems the most appropriate term (yes he killed all my troops, but it was fun-on-a-bun watching them die).

What I mean to say is that these situations, how you play the rules dispute should be the solution that brings about the greatest enjoyment to both parties, and you shouldn't use it to gain an advantage that will make the game crummy or cheesy for either party.

RAI -- Rules that somone wants them to be instead of what they are..

We dont always know what the Author Intended..

We dont know why some rules were wrote as they are.

Fluff/Rules dont mix well.

Usually when there is a RaI argument.. it always comes down to each persons openion on how it is..

Rules as Intended

How one imagines the author intended the rule to be played. It sometimes differs from the RaW. For example, Warp Field on the Doom of Malan'tai. The intention and the RaW don't really agree.