103 replies to this topic

[DarkGuard]

I have no problem with RAW, but what I do have a problem with is when people attempt to exploit every little loophole and badly written rule to gain an advantage, even when the majority are telling them to calm down and stop doing so, giving perfect RAI and RAW explanations as to why they're wrong. I find it personally unethical to exploit little known fallacies in the rules to gain the upper hand. That being said, actual, innocent and interesting RAW debates are often informative, as long as they don't go over the top, which they seem to be doing a lot recently.

[brakkar]

There is one inherent problem with RAW that are obscure. the difference between your interpretation and mine (your's and mine used as example). I wish that this forum could be the all inclusive answer for all 40k issues, but unfortunately that isn't the case.

With that being said, common sense is not always common either and also spells trouble when not agreed on. The simplest method that comes to mind in a dispute is either the lgs or house rules where you are gaming, or a roll off. In addition, there is always a choice whether to play someone or not. Now if I'm in the middle of a battle, I wouldn't just quit, but if i had a significant problem with someone I played against, I might not play against them again.

The easy way is to discuss with your opponent and reach an agreement, or simply roll off.

I do enjoy the discussions here and while I may not agree with everyone else on somethings. I do find their perspectives enlightening and helpful when dealing with others in the course of play.

[Isiah]

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.

Indeed although I see where you're coming from and admire the drive to provide such altruistic rules resolutions, I go back to my point of who would give a damn about what we think or decide? We have no authority and as such whatever we suggest by way of an answer would effectively be a House Rule and thus cannot form part of the OR.

As I said, should we reach the stage of wanting to provide answers, then that should be done elsewhere after the OR has discussed it and decided it's warranted to provide a ruling in that fashion. In that respect, ending unsolved OR discussions with a closing post in a similar vain to the current Grey Area posts would thus form a kick start for the interpretive recommendation discussion to be held elsehwere.

There is already a Perceptorum Callae set up by Ferrata, which has never really been utilised in any meanignful way. Perhaps with some rejigging that is the vehicle for presenting our 'interpretations' to RAW conundrums?

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for sorting out badly written or conflicting rules and offering a 'best policy' RAI solution... but it must be done in the right place.

Cheers
I

Edited by Isiah, 11 January 2012 - 08:47 PM.

[Jehoel]

How about this then, when an +OR+ discussion hits that wall of no clear RAW resolution, the Mods ad-move it to the Perceptorum Callae so that everyone knows that it has reached that point? Plus, I never knew what that sub-forum was for until now.

[Gentlemanloser]

So we have a distinct RAW forum, and then a RAI forum for anything that can't be nailed down with RAW.

[Something Wycked]

It appears that will have to be the case if the community can't get behind the idea of the +OR+ being an all-inclusive source for rules workable and usable on the tabletop. It appears the +OR+ will be purely for RAW, and everything that comes with it, while the Perceptorum Callae, or something similar that hasn't been created yet, becomes a storehouse of solutions that RAW cannot provide.

[Gentlemanloser]

Well, that would be your interpretation of this thread!

[Something Wycked]

Too true. Who knows, the idea may not get any traction at all and we can continue to operate business as usual

[Squirrelloid]

I have some additional principles:

(1) Principle of Identifying the Root Problem:
When a dispute arises as to the intent of the RAW, honest discussion should try to narrow down the debate to the point of mechanics under discussion which causes the dispute. I've had arguments where people would insist white was black, apparently because they could see that granting it was in fact white would make their reading at some other point wrong. Now, its certainly possible to honestly disagree about multiple portions of the rules, but you should try to reach a consensus on what the point(s) of disagreement are. This helps focus the issue and discussion so people stop bringing up extraneous points that have to be (re)dealt with repeatedly and actually have no bearing on the disagreement at hand (which leads to discussions that are even more muddled and increases the improbability of any resolution being reached).

(2) Principle of Distinct Issues:
If there are multiple *separate* points of dispute, they should be *resolved separately* and *without reference to each other*. If some disputes are conditional on the resolution of other disputes, the condition disputed should be resolved first *without reference to the consequence*.

Basically, this is a case of 'just because you don't like what the implications for a separate portion of the rules are, that implication has no bearing on what the rules under discussion are.'

(3) Principle of Grammatical Reading:
Sentences should be read in a manner which makes them grammatically correct, if at least one such reading exists. Notable things to keep in mind:
-Verbs take subjects and objects, just because the same or similar verb can be used to describe multiple things, a particular sentence is only applying a given word to the listed subjects and (as appropriate) objects. Any other subjects or objects are not covered by the RAW.
-Use-Mention distinction affects the grammatical reading of a sentence.
-Parts of a whole are not the whole themselves. "I shook my head" has a remarkably different meaning than "I shook", and neither can be equated to the other.

(4) Principle of Inclusion / Exclusion
Things are only included in a rule if the rule says they are or the rules provide a procedure that permits it. Things that would be included by procedure are only excluded if the rule explicitly disallows those things.
-Consequents of conditionals apply whenever the conditional is met.
-Instanced text applies to all instances of an event. (Ex: The rules for rolling to wound discuss "a hit" as an instance of all hits - you repeat this procedure for each one)

(5) Principle of the RAW as primary
It does not matter how you play or what seems realistic. The only things that matter are what is written. Ignore preconceptions when reading the text, and interpret the text and only the text.

Edited by Squirrelloid, 12 January 2012 - 12:10 AM.

[Hellios]

The problem with RAI, common sense and being fair is that we don't always know what RAI is... Sometimes it is obvious... sometimes it isn't. Common sense may or may not be uncommon but it is also a cultural thing. What is considered common sense in one place may not in another. Again... fairness... fair for who? In the case of the GKs getting +1 or +2 attacks who are we being fair to? Going with the weakest option might be unfair for that player rather than making it fair for the other player...

This forum is about coming to a solid conclusion on a rules query and being able to support that conclusion if you ever need to. If it is not possible to come to a RAW conclusion then at least you know the various arguments which you can then discuss before a game (If you feel it is likely to be an issue.) with your opponent and it is at this stage that people can apply what they believe are the RAI or common sense.

You probably won't get much support if you use the argument "But Hellios the king of the internet and his most regal courtiers at the B&C say this is the RAI!"... Nope talking with your opponent like they were a human being is your best bet... I admit you meet the odd person who only just seems to be human at GW... but try!

[Isiah]

It appears that will have to be the case if the community can't get behind the idea of the +OR+ being an all-inclusive source for rules workable and usable on the tabletop.

Don't be disheartened by us Something Wycked. By definition an all-inclusive source for rules workable and usable then can't be called "+OR+" or things will get confusing I think.

[Something Wycked]

The problem with RAI, common sense and being fair is that we don't always know what RAI is... Sometimes it is obvious... sometimes it isn't. Common sense may or may not be uncommon but it is also a cultural thing. What is considered common sense in one place may not in another. Again... fairness... fair for who? In the case of the GKs getting +1 or +2 attacks who are we being fair to? Going with the weakest option might be unfair for that player rather than making it fair for the other player...

That's why we have a broad selection of +OR+ posters who both have good heads on their shoulders and are culturally diverse, and who also play more than one army so the severity of their bias is limited

This forum is about coming to a solid conclusion on a rules query and being able to support that conclusion if you ever need to. If it is not possible to come to a RAW conclusion then at least you know the various arguments which you can then discuss before a game (If you feel it is likely to be an issue.) with your opponent and it is at this stage that people can apply what they believe are the RAI or common sense.

Exactly. Some issues can come to a solid conclusion, and some cannot. The latter issues can use a bit of discussion, using RAW as the basis, but inserting some "rules as fair/fun" to come to one or more reasonable conclusions.

Nope talking with your opponent like they were a human being is your best bet... I admit you meet the odd person who only just seems to be human at GW... but try!

And that's what these reasonable conclusions are for- to be brought to the gaming table to discuss with your opponent.

By definition an all-inclusive source for rules workable and usable then can't be called "+OR+" or things will get confusing I think.

No more confusing than they already are, with GW denying that there's any such thing as "official rules"

[thade]

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for sorting out badly written or conflicting rules and offering a 'best policy' RAI solution... but it must be done in the right place.

I'm late to this party as I've been travelling for work, but it's been on my mind since SomWyk PM'd me about it this past weekend. For the most part I agree with Isiah, however I would like to make a case that the OR is in fact the right place for the 'best policy' RAI solution.

The OR serves, as I see it, two real purposes.

1. When a rule question is posted, we do our best to drill it down in RAW terms. When the RAW terms fail, we've highlighted a rule that needs an FAQ or re-write by the powers-that-be.

This is, as I read it, Isiah's stance, and it is really at least half of my own. There was a period of time here - perhaps some of you remember - where we had an influx of FAQ and new codex prompted questions, mostly SW and BA-centric if memory serves. Not to mention the Doom of Malen'tai, etc. We had at least a half dozen threads on this board where RAW completely failed to address the issue. Not a month later, we had FAQs published by GW that addressed these very issues head-on. While I'll never get over Smoke preventing Power of the Machine Spirit from firing anymore at least we have answers to those questions. Perhaps it's as foolish as it is unsubstantiated for me to believe there's some GW sleeper that lurks here, picking our topics for FAQ questions, but I don't think I'm the only one.

I do in fact think this forum helps to make the rules better, in the long run.

2. This forum gives workable solutions.

While the OR regulars post some rather complex questions here on rules new and old (giving us all a good few days of verbal tennis) that's not the primary use case. Posters who are completely new to the board, the B&C, or even the game will log in here and post questions. Some of these are easy, as in either a simple "See this paragraph"; others are more complicated but solved issues (insert a wound allocation how-to as needed); still, some are just as frustrating as anything creative the regulars may post for investigation. And while we may enjoy launching into heated and lengthy discussions regarding the right of it, that OP is a new player that really needs a solution to play the game. That's the entire reason they're here.

The Most Important Rule says "If it's not fun, don't do it; if you can't agree, dice off," but that's not always satisfying to a new player. This is especially true when a new player is acclimating to the game, and to a new gaming group, and they see us as an impartial set of advisers. Yes, there are some cases where RAW fails us, but simply leaving it at that on the OR board is a disservice to these kinds of posters. Sometimes RAI is the only way, and they need not only to see that, but to see good examples.

There are in fact some rules that are so well understood that they're not really explained in that little book. The regulars all get them. I'm finally starting to. When people come here for a solution and there is no easy one, it falls to us to share with them "the solution that works for us". They are coming here for advice, after all; not a lecture on how broken the system is, but a vector by which to make the system work as best it can.

Why is this the right place?

Very simply this: the question is here. When new people come to find their answer, this is the place they will come. Putting the RAI-centric answers elsewhere is obfuscation.

EDIT: typo

Edited by thade, 12 January 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[Gentlemanloser]

It's like (personal example only) new GK players coming to the OI and posting a list they want advice on. Ther'es an army list subforum for those posts, and army lists get moved there (and posters get directed there).

I could see the same here.

RAW answers here, and RAI (which could be diverse and personal responses) in a noted subforum.

[Something Wycked]

2. This forum gives workable solutions.

...

Why is this the right place?

Very simply this: the question is here. When new people come to find their answer, this is the place they will come. Putting the RAI-centric answers elsewhere is obfuscation.

Always appreciate your thoughts, thade

[Hiro_Protagonist]

I don't see why people feel that RAI doesn't belong within the +OR+ forum.

The discription of the forum is ":Discuss interpretations of official rules for Warhammer 40,000:".

Interpretation (n) - the act or the result of interpreting

Interpret (vb) - to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

Meaning (n) - the thing one intends to convey esp. by language

If we are to be discussing our interpretations of the rules then in reality were are discussing what is meant/indended, not what is written.

[thade]

...a beautiful RAW interpretation of this board's purpose...

Edited by thade, 14 January 2012 - 06:38 PM.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

...a beautiful RAW interpretation of this board's purpose...

Yes, I saw the irony as I wrote it.

[maturin]

I applaud and agree with thade's comments.

I don't see why we can't have a jolly good time debating RAW as we see it (for days on end even).

I also don't see why we can't say how we think it should be played out on the tabletop.

And I don't see why we can't do both, realizing that the forum is here both to debate RAW, and to provide practical answers for people with questions.

[Black Orange]

I like the OP's suggestion. As a frequent tourney player I can say from experience that not all of the results produced here would be used at major tourneys let alone local events as well. RAW is very important but it doesn't address all issues adequately. You can look to GW FAQa and see that often their answers are not derived by RAW. Sometimes RAW takes a rule from its purest form and results in something not intended. If a quorum can be reached in regards to intent I think that often that's pretty good if those that feel as such do not have some bias.

G

Edited by Black Orange, 16 January 2012 - 04:39 AM.

[dswanick]

I don't see why people feel that RAI doesn't belong within the +OR+ forum.

The discription of the forum is ":Discuss interpretations of official rules for Warhammer 40,000:".

Interpretation (n) - the act or the result of interpreting

Interpret (vb) - to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

Meaning (n) - the thing one intends to convey esp. by language

If we are to be discussing our interpretations of the rules then in reality were are discussing what is meant/indended, not what is written.

Depends. Do you mean RAI = Rules As Interpreted, or RAI = Rules As Intended?
Yes, we all RAI(nterpreted) in the +OR+. Sometimes that is the cause of some of the longests, most hostile arguments in this forum - getting someone to realize that their "It says so in the book" is actually "That's how I read the words printed on the page".
RAI(ntended) has no place in the +OR+ because no one can authoritatively state what the author's intent was for proper function of a rule he wrote other than to read and interpret the words he used in the rules sentences. Yes, sometimes one can discern an intent for how a rule should work based on precident, fluff, and FAQ - but that is by no means absolute.

[thade]

Depends. Do you mean RAI = Rules As Interpreted, or RAI = Rules As Intended?

I don't mean to pick on you here, Dswanick, but I've been thinking on this very point since this thread went up and - given your question here is not a unique one - maybe it's worth dumping more of my incoherence in this thread.

Nobody ever means "Rules as Intended" because that begs this predictable and ultimately meaningless "counter":

Nobody here is psychic. We can never know what the rules writers of 40k actually intend for these rules to mean.

I think we all get that now so there's no reason to ever assume Rules-as-Intended is what's meant. Honestly, even when somebody says "Rules-as-Intended" they really mean "Rules-as-Interpreted" because it's their interpretation of what the authors meant. That's right. When somebody comes out and says "They obviously meant it this way" what they really mean is "This is my interpretation of what they intended."

So, really, they boil down to the same thing. There's little to no value in pointing out any perceived difference as it saves time and post-space just going with it as an interpretation.

[dswanick]

Depends. Do you mean RAI = Rules As Interpreted, or RAI = Rules As Intended?

I don't mean to pick on you here, Dswanick, but I've been thinking on this very point since this thread went up and - given your question here is not a unique one - maybe it's worth dumping more of my incoherence in this thread.

Nobody ever means "Rules as Intended" because that begs this predictable and ultimately meaningless "counter":

Nobody here is psychic. We can never know what the rules writers of 40k actually intend for these rules to mean.

I think we all get that now so there's no reason to ever assume Rules-as-Intended is what's meant. Honestly, even when somebody says "Rules-as-Intended" they really mean "Rules-as-Interpreted" because it's their interpretation of what the authors meant. That's right. When somebody comes out and says "They obviously meant it this way" what they really mean is "This is my interpretation of what they intended."

So, really, they boil down to the same thing. There's little to no value in pointing out any perceived difference as it saves time and post-space just going with it as an interpretation.

Really, thade, really?
Are you going to state that no one ever posts an "it's how the rule is intended to work"? People try to justify intent in a RAW debate all the time citing fluff text and FAQs as evidence of intent.

And just as many people will argue a RAW point endlessly and never be able to admit that they are interpreting the rule one way or the other - As Written, As Intended, or As Interpreted. Look at any thread in this forum which goes over one page of posts, and you will find someone making a post were 1> they state their RAI(nterpretted) as if it's RAW, or 2> they claim a justification based on rule-writers intent as evidenced by X(Fluff, FAQ, etc.). Even Hiro's post to which I was responding cites people arguing intent, although he spelled it "indended".

[thade]

Really, thade, really?

Yes, really. Let me put it as plainly as possible.

Whether somebody honestly believes what they say is the literal intention of the authors or not is irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant.

Calling them out on it only serves to derail. If they honestly believe what they say is the literal intention of the authors, that is their interpretation, plain and simple.

If we skip the part where we tell them "we can never know what they intended as we're not psykers" we're saving time and cutting to the chase; that's all I'm saying here.

[Squirrelloid]

There's a difference between interpreting the text as meaning what it says, and interpreting the text as being in error and concluding something else was meant.

When people claim RAW they are claiming the former.

When people claim RAI they tend to be claiming the latter.

The former is obviously what the +OR+ boards should be about.