Method of the +OR+

[Brother Tyler]

My opinion is that there is room for both.

 

It is a simple fact that different playing groups have different levels of tolerance. Some groups play by a more strict RAW approach. Other groups are willing to play with any homegrown rule, no matter how crazy. And then there are numerous levels of variation among other groups in between.

 

I believe that the first solution in any rules discussion here in OR should be a RAW approach.

 

Once that RAW solution is determined, there might be room for developing one or more RAI approaches. As has been pointed out, there is some degree of subjectivity in all solutions, more so with the RAI than the RAW.

 

So if a RAW solution just doesn't seem logical (and that conclusion, too, is subjective), I don't see any problem with players discussing RAI. In some cases there might be a single RAI solution. More often, however, I think that what we'll see is a potential for more than one RAI solution. In these cases, I think that the really important product is well-reasoned discussion on the factors that might go into any potential RAI solution.

 

In theory, the critical discussions and range of army interests here should keep results from being skewed by bias (though we all know there are significant holes there :lol: ).

 

The outcome will be that we will have a RAW solution, and we might have either RAI solutions or RAI elements that players/groups can use to make their own determinations when there are rules disputes. Our efforts here aren't authoritative, but they can definitely be used to help groups resolve issues more quickly.

 

Most of the time RAW is sufficient. Every once in awhile, however, it yields illogical results and we as players might have to rely on some degree of interpretation. Having a (theoretically) objective group develop an interpreted solution is, to me, a bit better than any single individual trying to push their own interpretation (which will probably be viewed as biased). Also, a well-developed set of RAI elements might help GW to FAQ rules or provide revisions in subsequent editions.

 

And if neither the B&C developed RAW or RAI approaches work, players can always flip a coin, have a vote, or whatever other method there is that will yield a quick result so that they can get back to the much more important business of playing.

[maturin]

I think it's worth pointing out the new FAQs just heavily weighted the argument towards Including a good dose of RAI (however you define it). The most obvious example of this I can think of (I'm sure there are more) is the Everliving/WBB answer, where the intention was clear why they included the rule, but made a hash of the actual wording.

[Something Wycked]

I agree, maturin. It appears that the people who object to this line of reasoning do so solely because, no matter how logical and fair our argument may be, we are not GW and any rules interpretations we agree on are completely unofficial house rules until GW clarifies their wording.

 

Brother Tyler, if I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting this modus operandi for the +OR+ :

1. Examine RAW; if clear, this is the solution. A RAI answer or two may be helpful.

2. If RAW is not clear, one or more RAI solutions can be discussed/developed, with an eye towards the solution that seems to be in line with the designer's intent and/or the "rules as fair."

[dswanick]

I agree, maturin. It appears that the people who object to this line of reasoning do so solely because, no matter how logical and fair our argument may be, we are not GW and any rules interpretations we agree on are completely unofficial house rules until GW clarifies their wording.

But isn't that exactly what it is? How do you intend for your logical and fair argument to influence Player 1 in a LGS to concede a rules debate to Player 2 backed by your interpretation?

 

Let me give you an example - Fast Skimmer Transports moving Flat Out:

I think that the rule is pretty clear that if the transport is Immobilized in its own Movement phase the embarked unit is destroyed. But if it is immobilized in the opponent's Shooting phase the unit is not detroyed. This was pretty clearly answered in the previous FAQ, but in my LGS the 40k facilitator is a former GW Store employee and he says he was told by a guy he knows that still works for GW that when a Fast Skimmer Transport moves Flat Out and is destroyed in the Opponent's Shooting phase that the unit inside is destroyed. Thinking that he must not have known about the previous FAQ I showed it to him, and he said it didn't mean anything. In my LGS DE players don't move Flat Out because in my LGS they will lose the unit if the transport is destroyed. The employee in question doesn't consider this a House Rule, he sees it as RAW. So how would any logical and fair argument posted here on this sight sway him? It won't, so in fact any rule interpretation you come up with here is just a completely unofficial house rule.

 

:) Now please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not saying there is no place for RAI solutions. But we all have to be aware of the limits of what is discussed here in the +OR+. We can present all the RAW facts, and cut away any misinterpretations but we still ultimately have no authority to enforce anything in any LGS. The best be can accomplish is arming each other with the best available arguments for a particular interpretation, and realise that any RAI solutions will be debated and settled in the LGS.

[maturin]

I agree with everything you said, dswanick.

 

I think it's all the more reason to consider the various RAI possibilities in our discussions here (in addition to RAW) since the transition from our Ivory Tower forum here to the tabletop is, as you point out, not always smooth. Knowing both sides of the argument is the best preparation to win one.

[Something Wycked]

But isn't that exactly what it is?

Absolutely- to someone who believes in GW writing and only GW writing. To someone who knows that some GW writing needs to be taken with a grain of salt, a logical and fair interpretation of the rules is the only way to play something. EG, Reanimation Protocols/Everliving/Resurrection Orbs. Even though we all knew that the RAW didn't let the abilities work as intended in the slightest, I don't remember anyone saying they were going to enforce the RAW on their Necron opponents. We were going to follow the logical and fair route and allow abilities to work together as RAW would never allow.

 

How do you intend for your logical and fair argument to influence Player 1 in a LGS to concede a rules debate to Player 2 backed by your interpretation?

I wouldn't expect anything about my argument to sway Player 1 who's never heard of the B&C.

 

I would expect Player 2, who reads the B&C, to be able to articulate the essence of the disagreement and why it should be played the way we say it should be played- or: to be able to articulate the essence of the disagreement and why it should be played the way s/he thinks it should be played.

 

We're not here to enforce our will on the whole of the 40k community. :) Even if we wanted to, look how universally the INAT FAQ is used. :) We're here to do the heavy lifting on rules arguments to help people play faster, smoother, more informed and less contentious games.

[Zincite]

I don't contribute here often (Why I'm so late), I'm not versed enough in the rules to do so. But I've come and watched more than once, since this is an enjoyable forum. The debates seen more rarely in the other areas of the board feature here regularly, but (Normally) kept to a minimum of aggression.

 

The way I have always understood it, the +OR+ has and is for helping people to understand the rules, and to "discuss interpretations" of them. Thus, whether it's a newcomer to the game that needs help with movement distances, or a veteran wanting opinions of the latest rule bungling, the +OR+ can help to further knowledge and perception of the rules.

 

RAW and RAI have always puzzled me. People seem to need to be either of the opinion that RAW is solid, just and immovable and that RAI is a maggot corrupting the truth, or that RAI is a free and versatile way of thinking with RAW being a stubborn way of holding out against, again, the truth.

 

I hate Clichés, despise it when something loses its meaning, and I wonder if those two terms have lost just that.

 

Warhammer 40'000 is the basis for a game, and the rulebook itself reminds us of that. It's meant as a system of rules to take your models, so proudly painted and converted, to the tabletop, to game and battle against other armies and gamers, and have a good laugh with them. There may be no excuse for badly written rules, but 40K is never meant to be a solid game. Take the example that comes to me most readily - Jetbikes. What use, really, are Jetbikes? Do they provide an new tactics that must be dealt with, a good advantage, much else? A little, yes, but not much, and not enough to really justify their existence. They are an offshoot of existing rules (Bikes), and only clog the rules up. Had 40K only been about rules, would Jetbikes have been implemented?

 

But they have enough variety from the basic rules that they are different. And they're there, because we like to take our Jetbikes and 'swoosh' them around. Because in implementing them, we now have another type of model to play with. Likewise, does a rulebook that tells you to put it to random chance if you can't find a proper solution, that says to ignore or add things if you don't find them fun enough, tell you that it's designed for much else than being for a good few games with your miniatures?

 

Taking 40K, RAW, is hopeless, as I see it. Yet taking it "As they intended it" is, as others have noted, treading dangerously. With the +OR+ completely RAW, every question would be 'yes' or 'no.' As RAI, nobody would ever agree. :lol:

 

Warhammer 40'000 rules need a healthy dosing of both, interpreting what the rules say, yet applying common sense. Discussions should not be aimed to be won, they should be aimed to peal back the darkness from the light. Sheesh, the definition of 'Discussion' says "debate to reach a decision." :o

 

What will happen to our wonderful debates if we must simply say "This way is always right"?

[Gentlemanloser]

The problem with RAI, is every single one of your interpretations are incorrect.

 

And every single one of mine are correct.

 

So there's no need for a OR (or RAI) forum in the slightest.

 

You're free to disagree with me. But you're wrong.

 

;)

 

 

 

That's why I feel we need to use the unbiased RAW for all rule discussions.

[Zincite]

The problem with RAI, is every single one of your interpretations are incorrect.

 

And every single one of mine are correct.

 

So there's no need for a OR (or RAI) forum in the slightest.

 

You're free to disagree with me. But you're wrong. ;)

When using pure, undiluted 'RAI', yes. When using common sense, discussions can be created. Pure RAW, you can end up with things that shouldn't or couldn't happen. You need both. Don't the rules say a model must be based on what it came with? 'RAW', a Mycetic spore can be any size I want it to be, because it doesn't come with a base.

 

A Mycetic spore on a Titan base would seem to be a rather obvious failing of pure RAW.

 

RAI could come in handy there. Not pure RAI, because that's just as bad, but using it to guide the RAW. Or if you wanted, using the RAW to guide the RAI.

 

Frgrrrfffggfrggrtgr. I get frustrated when people treat rules as rules and not as guidelines. ;)

[Something Wycked]

:) Zincite...

Elizabeth: Wait! You have to take me to shore. According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren...

 

Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!

And Gentleman, you're so good at playing Devil's Advocate ;) "Unbiased RAW" is what we will use- until something happens like Seahawk points out how broken the RAW for RP/EL/RO is.

 

Like Brother Tyler said, in most cases the RAW will be enough. Where the RAW is not enough, then there is room for RAI. :)

[Gentlemanloser]

Pure RAW, you can end up with things that shouldn't or couldn't happen.

 

Yes. GW can write some *awefully* bad rules. :)

 

You need both.

 

No, not for a rules discussion. It simply reaches a point where were go "These rules are broken and need GW to fix them."

 

For playing the game with your mates? Of course. But the OR isn't about playing 40k with your mates. ;)

 

And Gentleman, you're so good at playing Devil's Advocate

 

Had a lot of practice. Not sure if that's a good thing. ;) Sometimes I actually support the other side of the arguement for various reasons. Maybe it's becuase I find the discussion interesting and want to keep it going, or want to understand and work through the other side of the arguement.

 

until something happens like Seahawk points out how broken the RAW for RP/EL/RO is.

 

Well. We all knew *how* it should work, and I'm sure we all played it that way. But the OR topic should have ended with "No, currently you can't use a Res Orb or Phyl. Wait for a FAQ, this is something so silly GW needs to address it."

 

I think a lot of our RAW issues stem from GW tardy and shody FAQ process. Mystics work with the Summoning? Really? I can't actually read the clear rules in the book...

 

Like Brother Tyler said, in most cases the RAW will be enough. Where the RAW is not enough, then there is room for RAI.

 

When RAW isn't enough, my answer is the right one. ;)

 

We should have a Officio GL sub forum, where you can ask me your RAI questions and I'll tell you all how to play it! :)

 

Don't the rules say a model must be based on what it came with? 'RAW', a Mycetic spore can be any size I want it to be, because it doesn't come with a base.

 

A Mycetic spore on a Titan base would seem to be a rather obvious failing of pure RAW.

 

By RAW the Spore has no base, as it's not supplied with one. /shrug

 

GL's RAI: Make the spore out of anything you want, and get your mates to agree to it's size and play you with it. Hey, it's GW failing for not releasing a mini for one of your units! Your mates don't agree, don't use it, modify it until they're happy, or don't play them. (Be careful with the RAW about not modellign for an advantage...)

[Something Wycked]

But the OR isn't about playing 40k with your mates. :D

Here's where we differ :) I believe it is, or should be if it isn't.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm not playing you, you;'re not playing me. How can the OR be a forum about us playing each other?

[Something Wycked]

Neither of us said "the +OR+ is about us playing each other" :) You said "the OR isn't about playing 40k with your mates" - that is, me with my mates and you with your mates. The RAW on that issue is pretty clear and we don't need to inject any RAI :)

 

Discussion threads can conclude with information like this:

 

1) The RAW is generally agreed upon to be unclear, except for +++NAME REDACTED FOR POLITENESS+++ ;)

2) Gentleman presents RAI solution A, which is how his group has always played it.

3) SWycked presents RAI sulution B, which has been crafted during this discussion and he will present it to his gaming group for discussion.

[Gentlemanloser]

:)

 

I'd consider playing you playing a mate.

 

Pendatic I know, but this is my point. :)

 

I play differently when plaiyng my mate (who don't frequent here) than I do when discussing RAW rules questions.

 

The RAW discussion has nothing to do with how I play, or how I intend to play. This is usually discussed with my mates, and we form a mutual agreement.

 

The OR forum isn't to set up the singluar house rules if I were to play you, or Number6, or Val, or anyone else here. It can't be.

 

It's to dicuss the rules unbiasedly, exactly as they are written by GW.

 

And it really shouldn't go any further than that. Anything else is just a house rule between mates, liable to change at a moments notice, depending on situations and players.

 

Far to fluid and malleable. ;)

[Something Wycked]

I disagree. Is the logical & fair way to play Reanimation Protocols/Everliving/Resurrection Orb, prior to the FAQ, "liable to change at a moments notice, depending on situations and players"? I'd hope not. :) And the unbiased, "exactly as they are written by GW" rules completely fell down in that case, too.

 

Nobody has said that we need to provide RAW and RAI for every single rule in the BRB. The only suggestion for including RAI in our discussion is in the instance of RAW not functioning properly, as it did above.

[Gentlemanloser]

Well, unless you stick to the RP RAW, then the RAI would change every time you played a new opponent, and had to sit down and house rule it with them, to an aggreable solution.

 

Far too fluid and malleable. :)

 

Of course, unles you're a TO, and you force everyone to play by your House rules. As every TO does. :)

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I agree with SW - heck if it's not about playing with our mates then this is all pretty much pointless.

 

G :lol:

[Gentlemanloser]

If it's just about playing with your mates, you really need to just discuss the issue with them.

 

They're the only people that matter, or count.

[Something Wycked]

Well, unless you stick to the RP RAW, then the RAI would change every time you played a new opponent, and had to sit down and house rule it with them, to an aggreable solution.

 

Far too fluid and malleable. ;)

Except the RP/EL/RO RAW is broken and doesn't allow those rules to work- not fluid or malleable at all :D And also inherently illogical and unfair to the Necron player. Ergo, broken RAW that needs fixing. We fixed it with RAI very, very easily- just allow it to work. Then GW came in with a FAQ that said (shockingly!) "just allow it to work, goofballs." :lol:

 

If it's just about playing with your mates, you really need to just discuss the issue with them.

And our discussions here in the +OR+ inform those discussions with your mates. B)

[Gentlemanloser]

Yup.

 

But you take the RAW discussion to them and ask thier RAI. :lol:

 

RAI isn't needed here, and only muddies the discussion.

 

My RAI > Your RAI

 

Edit: And the next dude says, nope Rez Orb don't work. Dude after says your EL can't roll if the unit is wiped out. The next dude says.... And so on.

[Something Wycked]

But you take the RAW discussion to them and ask thier RAI. ;)

And you can also take the +OR+ RAI discussion to them for discussion starting points when you ask them their opinion :lol:

 

RAI isn't needed here, and only muddies the discussion.

I would agree if RAI was to be used in all cases, but it isn't. Where rules are clear, there is no need for RAI. Where the rules are unclear, and the waters are already muddied, RAI can bring clarity where it is impossible for RAW to do so.

 

Edit: And the next dude says, nope Rez Orb don't work. Dude after says your EL can't roll if the unit is wiped out.

They were correct by RAW, prior to the sensible application of RAI and now the FAQ. :D

 

I'm having fun addressing all of these objections, Gentleman. How many more ways of stating the same objection do you think you'll come up with? :D

[Gentlemanloser]

Oh I don't think it's different ways. :lol:

 

It's the same objection, with fairly similar examples. :D

 

RAI is biased, personal and utterly subjective. RAW is unbiased, global and objective.

 

I don't think a forum dedicated to unbiased and objective rules is helped/made better, when you include personal and subjective debate to them.

 

It's like oil and water, or chalk and cheese.

 

I do think that RAI discussion is useful, and interesting.

 

But it should have it's own home.

[Something Wycked]

RAI is biased, personal and utterly subjective.

RAI is often unbiased here in the +OR+, though. We have some really good people here :D

 

I don't think a forum dedicated to unbiased and objective rules is helped/made better, when you include personal and subjective debate to them.

Well:

 

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.

:lol:

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

RAW can be biased and subjective as well. I've seen it many times... Take the discussion regarding RP-EL as an example. I don't think any TO I know would go by the RAW some were advocating here. It can be very simple or you can make it as difficult as you want.

 

G ;)