103 replies to this topic

[Something Wycked]

With the blessing of the Moderati, I am opening a discussion on how the +OR+ operates.

Some of our recent rules discussions have become heated (5 locked threads just on the first page of the +OR+ ) and this is really due to the deficiences of RAW. It doesn't always work for everyone. Heck, RAW doesn't always work. See the recent thread on Everliving/Reanimation Protocols. This is not to turn into a GW-rules-writing-bashing thread. That GW's rules are not written to a legal standard is both true and unimportant. See the below quote from Sir Karl Popper:

Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you.

Even judges utilize not just the naked letter of the law, but also the context of the law as a whole and how it relates to related laws, and the intent of the legislators to make their decisions.

Said another way, we've been placing so much emphasis on what the books say that we've forgotten what they mean is the really important part. I am not advocating that the +OR+ become a "house rules" forum, but we're really hamstringing ourselves (and doing a disservice to casual readers of the B&C) if we're forced to say things like the Resurrection Orb flatly does not work for models with Everliving- when clearly it is supposed to work. Are we really going to force Necron opponents to live by the mistaken RAW of their codex? Of course not. We're going to give it to our opponent that the rules of their codex weren't written to a legal standard and allow their wargear to work as intended with their special rules.

Our +OR+ contributors have good heads on their shoulders. Our B&C brothers and sisters do a great job of following the current +OR+ rules of discussing and addressing the pure RAW, while also sneaking comments of what the "rules as fair" really are. I believe that it will be beneficial to all of us if common sense has a place in our +OR+ discussions. RAW, as ever, needs to be the basis for what we discuss or we're just inventing house rules, but I feel that we should be able to offer RAI interpretations. Like thade intelligently bears in his signature:

There are a lot of rules that are so well understood in this game that they forget to make a point of them in the books.

Can we discuss 40k RAW and leave the door open to RAI as well, so we can bring actual played-on-the-tabletop solutions to our rules discussions? Should we open the door to more than RAW in our discussions?

I think so. What do you think?

Edited by Something Wycked, 10 January 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Morollan]

There are so many loopholes in GW rules that without a modicum of common sense and, more importantly, a sense of fair play there would be no point in playing. We can look at various sources within the rules and the codex and usually get a fairly decent indication (i.e. RAI) of what the author had in mind. Whilst this is not definitive, if there is an ambiguity in the rules, it certainly helps steer us in the right direction.

At the end of th day, my only real purpose in the OR forum is to make sure that if someone else tries something dodgy I can put up a decent argument against it. That and passing away the idle hours at work

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I think it's perfectly possible to speak in a manner that cannot be reasonably misunderstood, by which I mean that anyone that misunderstands you has either comprehension issues or some vested interest in deliberately misunderstanding you.

I also think that GW rules are written in a perfectly satisfactory manner and the only issues apparently caused by them are actually caused by mistaken people with less-than-desirable comprehension skills or by people who flat-out want to cheat. I have yet to happen upon a 'rules issue' that cannot be solved by applying the straightforward meaning of the words used in the rule(s) in issue.

[Squirrelloid]

It is one thing to say that something doesn't work as written. If it doesn't work (phylactery for example), but it has rules text, something is obviously wrong.

I think its ok to conclude *in that kind of case only* that something else was intended. _What_ was intended is frequently unknowable (although in that particular case its obvious, but perhaps only in my opinion).

RAI should be a last resort for when the RAW breaks down and presents something totally unworkable that cannot be followed. If we need to invoke RAI, we should be up front about it. "The rule in discussion totally fails to function as written." We should then suggest one or more plausible intended mechanics, and recommend they discuss the issue with their opponent *before play begins* if it is likely to come up in play.

If the RAW works, if its mechanically interpretable and procedurally complete, then there is no basis for RAI. The rules are the rules. Not liking the way the rules are worded is not the same as the rules *not working* as worded.

For example, its pretty clear that the Everliving rules, as worded, penalize characters who have joined a squad, and they must be placed back into coherency with the squad if they succeed on their everliving roll. If this is impossible (squad fell back or was eliminated), they can't be placed and fail to stand back up. Not liking this doesn't make it not true, and there's no basis for deciding the intention of the rule is different than what's actually written.

Basically, RAI should only supplement the rules with the express purpose of making unplayable rules work.

[Gentlemanloser]

I agree with Squirrel here.

When you start playing and say, "well the book states to do it like this, but it's *obvious* they actually intend it to work like this instead", you're making a very slippery slope for yourself, and your gaming group.

If you get to use your Rez Orb, then what do you say to the GK player who bought Digital Weapons for their BC? Do you say "Obviously, the intention couldn't have been to give you an option (one of only 3...) that doesn't work. Well, let's rule that Digital Weapons do this instead...". Or flat out stick with them not doing anything?

Do you know for sure the *intention* of Cleansing Flame is to roll a d6 for every engaged enemy mini, individually? Or is the intention obviously you only roll a single d6, and all enemy minis use that result?

Where does easing the RAW into RAI merge into bais and changing the rules for your own advantage?

RAW on the other hand, is impartial. It can often be wrong, and sometimes even *can't* work. But it's never biased.

[greatcrusade08]

When you start playing and say, "well the book states to do it like this, but it's *obvious* they actually intend it to work like this instead", you're making a very slippery slope for yourself, and your gaming group.

i agree that would be silly, but thats not whats being advocated here.
its not a case of substituting RAW that we dont agree with, its about taking that extra step when RAW amkes no sense, isnt appliable to situations or is in complete disagreement with other rules as written (we call these grey areas)

i also agree that some people can interpret wording to mean different things, we need to inject common sense to prevent the total abuse of interpreting for gain

[Something Wycked]

While true that it can be a slippery slope, I have faith in our B&C brothers and sisters

The Res Orb is clearly broken RAW; it just doesn't work unless we allow it to. Digital Weapons work- they're just redundant. If you pay for Digital Weapons on a GK BC, you still reroll all failed wounds- you're just paying extra to do so. Any other interpretation is a pure house rule.

I don't know for sure the intention for Cleansing Flame was to use a d6 for each engaged enemy mini. But in the context of the rest of the game that's how every other rule in the game works. I've never seen another rule in the game that can affect every model in a unit with a single die. That's very clear to me. This is a perfect case of the RAW being unclear and highly ambiguous, but RAI makes the rule fit neatly into the wider rule set.

One of Squirrel's points is very valid, though: if the RAW works, there's no need for any interpretation or application of RAI. See this thread and this thread for examples. These questions were cut and dry with a simple application of RAW.

But there are obviously cases where RAW alone doesn't solve the problem- see any locked thread in the +OR+ forum

Edited by Something Wycked, 10 January 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[Isiah]

But there are obviously cases where RAW alone doesn't solve the problem- see any locked thread in the +OR+ forum

No, more precisely see the Grey Area topic that deonstrate true unresolved RAW conflict.

Threads here are closed for a lot more than just that the rule(s) can't be resolved .

Cheers
I

[Something Wycked]

Very true, Isiah. Those are the penultimate unresolved RAW conflicts. There just happen to be a lot of rules arguments due to RAW being too ambiguous, lending each arguing side enough leverage to continue the debate, and there's no recourse to fall back on to settle the issue.

That's what I hope to solve with this discussion. In the cases of RAW not providing a solution I believe we can come to an accord over even the most contentious issues through judicious application of common sense, context, and RAI.

[greatcrusade08]

i think we assume incorrectly that common sense is infact... common

its clearly not

[dswanick]

I believe we can come to an accord over even the most contentious issues through judicious application of common sense, context, and RAI.

Here's my problem with this :
RAI - I don't think anyone on this forum can authoritatively declare what the rule writer intended when he wrote the rule. This indeed becomes a slippery slope as mentioned earlier.
common sense - I think everyone here agrees that common sense isn't always very common. Maybe not in the forum users here, but in the larger gaming community.
context - there are many factors which influence context, not the least of which is that this forum has users from all over the world speaking American English, British English, and English (either flavor) As A Second Language. Let me give an example of this:
Take the statement "I can't see under the bonnet, fetch me a torch from the boot.". Without context I, as an American, would likely interpret that statement thus -
bonnet torch boot
With the context that the speaker was British, I might understand that the speaker means "I can't see under the (car) hood, get me a flashlight from the trunk". Unfortunately, GW doesn't give us a glossary of terms and their definitions so we can dispassionately interpret their rules without a clear context.

[Isiah]

The problem as I see it is that if we do fall back on RAI or "common sense" (and I'm not against that at all) then what 'side' or RAI interpretation of a conflicting RAW situation do we fall back on?

In that instance for me the only fallback is the Dice Off (The Most Important Rule) that we should remember is also an item of RAW rule in itself.

[Something Wycked]

The problem as I see it is that if we do fall back on RAI or "common sense" (and I'm not against that at all) then what 'side' or RAI interpretation of a conflicting RAW situation do we fall back on?

I would like to suggest a decision standard similar to that created by GiantKiller who writes The Rules Lawyers blog. For each "canon" he cites at least two cases from the US Supreme Court to show that is how they interpret case law.

The following are the canons as he has created them:

The Plain Language Canon

If the language is plain and unambiguous, and the rule is coherent and consistent with the rest of the rules, use the rule as written.

The Use Context Canon

A rule as written should be interpreted by reference to the meanings of the words themselves and the context in which they are used.

The Drafter's Intent Canon

Where the language of the rule is unclear, or in rare cases where the application of the rule as written will clearly violate GW’s intentions, interpret the rule according to GW’s intent.

The Superfluous Language Canon

Do not interpret a rule in such a way that makes some of the language inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant.

The Avoidance of Conflicts Canon

Do not interpret a rule in such a way that creates more conflicts that it resolves.

The Specific > General Canon

A more specific rule will be given precedence over a more general one.

The Occam's Razor Canon

The interpretation which requires the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one.

The Absurdity and Injustice Canon

Do not interpret a rule in such a way that would create an absurd or unjust or extremely inconvenient result.

The Model's Rights Canon

Do not interpret an ambiguous rule in such a way that would take away a substantial right that has been granted by other rules.

The Flexibility Canon

Older rules must be interpreted as being flexible when new rules and situations arise.

The Inclusion/Exclusion Canon

When GW includes particular language in one place but omits it in another, it does so for a reason.

The Permissive Ruleset Canon

If the rules don’t tell players they can do something, players can’t do it.

The Read Rules Together Canon

When two rules seem to conflict, interpret them in such a way that they both can stand.

I would personally add in another Canon, though I don't have quotations from the Supreme Court to back up my idea the way GiantKiller does. I remember once upon a time GW asked players to interpret unclear rules in the method that grants the lowest amount of power to the user of the rule. So it would look something like this:

The Lowest Power Canon

Pick the interpretation of an unclear rule that affords the player the least amount of power.

Now, with all that said, I'm not sure we really need such a serious and thorough list of "canons" to be used in the interpretation of unclear RAW- but I'm certain it would help assuage the fears of those who believe that we'll be creating a slippery slope to changing the +OR+ to a house rules forum

[JamesI]

Personally, I am of the opinion that in the OR forum, we should do our best to take an ambiguous rule situation and if a clear RAW can not be determined, work within the forum rules to find the RAI that works the best (likely requires the least assumptions or fits the best within rules that are on their own clear). Yes, as generally this involves players opinions, there may not be consensus reached.

In a game situation, then find a solution that doesn't completely suck quickly and move on (this can mean either a dice off, mutual agreement of players or bringing in a 3rd party to rule) but solve it fast.. After the game, time can be spent to determine if the right course was followed but don't let it interrupt a good game.

Edited by JamesI, 10 January 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[SeattleDV8]

Yes indeed or as stated by Culven from Warseer

We debate RaW, not in an attempt to gain an advantage, but rather to better understand the rules as they are written so that problems can be identified, addressed, and possible solutions developed before we get to the game table.

[Squirrelloid]

I am perfectly fine with some of those. However...

Drafter's intent is dodgy. Drafter's intent *according to who?* We don't have a court which has authority to make a ruling based on their understanding of intent. We have two equal parties whose only reference of authority is the rulebook. And courts are specifically endowed with the power to make decisions, and those decisions carry weight and establish law on their own, and the justices of last recourse (supreme court in the US) are always legal scholars who have specifically studied the body of law they rule on. Even tournament organizers do not establish new rules based on their decisions, and TOs rarely receive special training in the rules. Ie, there is no one to interpret intent. At best we can say 'come to a gentlemen's agreement on intent, if necessary'. I don't consider this a valid method for *deciding how a rule works*, because the apparatus simply doesn't exist to handle it. (If GW showed any interest in their rules it might be a different story, but somehow they think they can have competitive play without solid rules or a body to frequently resolve rules questions and make errata on a regular basis. This is foolishness on GWs part, but we have to deal with it.)

Model's Rights - either this is a subset of specific overrides general in the context of the game, or i'm not sure what its supposed to mean. Model's don't have 'rights' as legally construed.

Read rules together - if two rules outright conflict and specific > general doesn't apply, well, i suppose it could happen, but that's really sucky rules writing. I understand how it arises in law - congress doesn't consult lawyers on every little detail. But *one person* bore primary responsibility for 5th edition... Reading laws together is supposed to resolve where different 'authors' had competing intents and the law itself does not address where they conflict. But we're dealing with one author and one intent... (Ok, army books may have different authors, so this could apply in conflicts between army books and in conflicts between army book and base book. But it should never apply to a conflict wholly within a book).

I really dislike the 'lowest power' canon. Its carte blanche for someone to come up with the most limiting 'interpretations' however dodgy of every rule that could possibly impact an opponent and use it to strip game powers from him. Certainly it voids any special abilities that fail as written (see: phylactery), but using it as a canon for decisions also means you can plausibly restrict any rule that you can find any reason - based in the rules or not - to object at all, regardless of how dodgy. I could only possibly be comfortable with this as an argument in favor of an interpretation if it only applied when the area was so grey that *no other canon could possibly suggest an preferred resolution*.

Edited by Squirrelloid, 10 January 2012 - 07:26 PM.

[Something Wycked]

Yes indeed or as stated by Culven from Warseer

We debate RaW, not in an attempt to gain an advantage, but rather to better understand the rules as they are written so that problems can be identified, addressed, and possible solutions developed before we get to the game table.

I really like that, thank you for posting that, Seattle

Drafter's intent is dodgy. Drafter's intent *according to who?*

Well, as an example, it seems fairly clear that the drafter intended for Cleansing Flame to roll d6 per affected enemy model, for Resurrection Orbs to function correctly with Everliving, etc. If the drafter's intent is too unclear, other canons can be invoked.

Read rules together - if two rules outright conflict and specific > general doesn't apply, well, i suppose it could happen, but that's really sucky rules writing.

It happens sometimes. I remember there was a dispute between two friends of mine between a rule that either forced a Morale check or enforced a failed Morale check, and another friend of mine who used a bunch of Fearless troops. One had a rule that automatically passed Morale checks, and the other one had a rule that forced a failed Morale check. Now what? Read them together- try and allow both rules to exist. Example: the automatically-passing troops take an automatically-failing test, and instead just roll a normal test. Where do you find that in the rules? Nowhere. But its probably the most fair application of both players' special rules.

I really dislike the 'lowest power' canon. Its carte blanche for someone to come up with the most limiting 'interpretations' however dodgy of every rule that could possibly impact an opponent and use it to strip game powers from him.

Not the drafter's intent This was for things like those we found in the Grey Knights codex- people arguing that Falchions granted +2 attacks rather than the +1 the special rule listed, and the Dreadknight being Strength 10 with its Nemesis fists- which double Strength for Dreadnoughts but not Dreadknights. (Incidentally, I was wrong on that last one- I figured GW gave the Dreadknight the weapons it had so it would function like a Dreadnought and always be S10 intentionally- I thought it didn't make any sense to give the Dreadknight weapons with special rules that it couldn't use. I wasn't operating on the lowest power canon at that point )

[falldown]

I also have to agree that moving to allow RAI is a bad idea. While I have a personal vested interest in the Rez Orb failrules, RAI does not have a place here. I have seen several threads come down to agree to disagree. RAI in those cases would throw another wrench in the works.

[Chengar Qordath]

I have to agree with most of the folks here that strict RAW needs to be tempered by common sense and fair play. There have been plenty of times when I found a situation that made me think. "Yes, this is strictly according to RAW, but if I ever tried enforcing that interpretation in a friendly game, the game would stop being friendly very quickly."

[Isiah]

The thing is the +OR+ and game play are different things.

Game play means expedient rules answers, or a dice off, that satisfies everyone at the time in order to keep a game going. The OR on the other hand is one removed from game play where more 'theoretical' issues can be thrashed out over several weeks to some kind of conclusion.

In that respect, here, RAW should be king.

The vast majority of rules queries here are very quickly resolved in less than a half-dozen posts (ignoring those that veer into tactics). Those are the quick success.

But for the more protracted ones cascading down through various layers of cannon as shown by Something Wycked's example of GiantKiller's cannon post a bit further up, is one solution, but to me seems overly complex and maybe not necessary. To me in rules discussions if the RAW doesn't work for whatever reason then to a certain extent the OR has just done its job. If a solution can't be found (and that is fairly rare) then it provides a wake up to those who write rules to write them better surely?

It then becomes an issue of providing a "workable" solution or some kind of recommendation. That would probably come down to RAI but I'm not sure that is what the OR is for – and who are we to say anyway and who would take any notice?? But if that needs to be done elsewhere on the B&C within an overall "40k Rules" umbrella that covers the OR and HR forums too and then so be it. But as such shouldn't be part of the OR.

Edited by Isiah, 11 January 2012 - 12:47 AM.
Spelling

[Roland Durendal]

Personally I agree with the intent (and many posters above) who say we need to make this as forum area as much about RAW as possible. Too often, due to wording, personal interpretations, etc. it devolves into "well it 'says' this, but I think the authors 'intended' this." Since none onf us here (as far as I know) were involved in the actual writing of 5th ED or play tested it prior to release, we're grasping at straws when we assume to know what was intended.

Personally, I feel it should be RAW, and only as an extreme last resort should any RAI be entertained, and even then only briefly and with the caveat of "this may make the game go quicker/smoother/more logically if played this way"

[greatcrusade08]

rouble is how do we define RAW?

rules as written hs led to more rules lawyers muddying accepted rules mechanics more than downright badly written rules.. squirelloid is very good at making poor wording into something its not, as several recent topics would suggest.
there is no such thing as rules as written, this isnt the ten commandments, without interpretation many of the written rules wouldnt make sense.

and everyone interprets slightly differently, some do it on purpose to gain benefit

[Something Wycked]

The thing is the +OR+ and game play are different things.

Game play means expedient rules answers, or a dice off, that satisfies everyone at the time in order to keep a game going. The OR on the other hand is one removed from game play where more 'theoretical' issues can be thrashed out over several weeks to some kind of conclusion.

In that respect, here, RAW should be king.

I respect this sentiment, but at the same time why are we discussing rules if not to find a workable way to use them on the tabletop? I value the theoretical discussions as much as anyone else, but the rules we're discussing belong to a table top game. It feels strange to me to not find a practical application of the discussed theory.

If the +OR+ is solely to "thrash" out theoretical issues, then so be it, the +OR+ functions as intended. If the +OR+ is designed to give answers to players who have questions about how rules should be played, then the +OR+ is only half succeeding.

As you note, the simple answers in less than 6 posts are working well, but the long, drawn out threads rarely come to a satisfying conclusion. Either they get locked down for a variety of reasons or the opposing sides just agree to disagree on what the RAW says and walk away from the discussion without a resolution. Interestingly, in some of these lengthy discussions, the posters agree on how the rule should be played on the table top but disagree on the meaning of the RAW.

By expanding the purview of the +OR+ slightly, the latter discussions can end much more satisfactorily; instead of a "no resolution" result, we can present one or more interpretations of RAW such that the thread itself is useful to a broader audience, such as someone who finds the thread via a Google search. They can see that the RAW was hashed out over a few pages and towards the end of the thread there's a list of one or more ways to play the rules in an actual game- options that they can pick from and apply in the way that they see as the most fair, that works best for them and their gaming group.

Edited by Something Wycked, 11 January 2012 - 04:32 PM.

[dswanick]

The thing is the +OR+ and game play are different things.

Game play means expedient rules answers, or a dice off, that satisfies everyone at the time in order to keep a game going. The OR on the other hand is one removed from game play where more 'theoretical' issues can be thrashed out over several weeks to some kind of conclusion.

In that respect, here, RAW should be king.

I respect this sentiment, but at the same time why are we discussing rules if not to find a workable way to use them on the tabletop? I value the theoretical discussions as much as anyone else, but the rules we're discussing belong to a table top game. It feels strange to me to not find a practical application of the discussed theory.

If the +OR+ is solely to "thrash" out theoretical issues, then so be it, the +OR+ functions as intended. If the +OR+ is designed to give answers to players who have questions about how rules should be played, then the +OR+ is only half succeeding.

As you note, the simple answers in less than 6 posts are working well, but the long, drawn out threads rarely come to a satisfying conclusion. Either they get locked down for a variety of reasons or the opposing sides just agree to disagree on what the RAW says and walk away from the discussion without a resolution. Interestingly, in some of these lengthy discussions, the posters agree on how the rule should be played on the table top but disagree on the meaning of the RAW.

By expanding the purview of the +OR+ slightly, the latter discussions can end much more satisfactorily; instead of a "no resolution" result, we can present one or more interpretations of RAW such that the thread itself is useful to a broader audience, such as someone who finds the thread via a Google search. They can see that the RAW was hashed out over a few pages and towards the end of the thread there's a list of one or more ways to play the rules in an actual game- options that they can pick from and apply in the way that they see as the most fair, that works best for them and their gaming group.

OK, so lets imagine for a minute that the +OR+ functions as you envision it - all posts reach a satisfactory conclusion, either determining exactly how RAW works or by finding a reasonable, RAI-inspired group of solutions. You still have to take this back to your group, argue it out for yourself, and House Rule it appropriately. So why reach a conclusion in the +OR+ that isn't Official Rules, but soft RAI, when your group will still have to debate it and may come up with a House Rule completely different from anything proposed in the "soft solutions"?

[Something Wycked]

When said person, with their group, "argues it out" for themselves (because you're right, they will ), said person will be armed with the discussion of the RAW that is backing the "soft solutions." They can present it as "this is how I think we should play it, and this is why." The discussion with their gaming group won't be nearly as long or drawn out as the discussion we have here- unless they have some really stubborn people in their group

I don't know about you, but I discovered that my gaming group was doing a lot of things wrong when I started reading the +OR+ regularly. The +OR+ has been a major help for my friends and I, even in its current format. I believe we can make the +OR+ both even more helpful and less contentious.

So why reach a conclusion in the +OR+ that isn't Official Rules, but soft RAI...

Even GW tells us- officially- that there is no such thing as Official Rules They even say that their FAQ's should be treated with no more emphasis than your own personal house rules.

Obviously, we here in the +OR+ look at it differently, because the FAQs are the words of Designer's Intent. When the FAQ's don't exacerbate the problem with more confusion than clarity