cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

General discussion about Warhammer Fantasy Battles
GOD
Warboss
Warboss
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:50 am
Contact:

cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby GOD » Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:58 am

So what do you think the cause of this shift that started towards the end of 7th?
GT Record
Tides of War 2009 "Best Composition"
Best in the West 2010 "Best Overall"
SoCal Slaughter 2009 "2nd Best General"
Tides of War 2010 "Best General"

G=Greater
O=omnipotent
D=Deity
SkavenInAZ
Hordemaster
Hordemaster
Posts: 1078
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:29 pm
Contact:

Re: cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby SkavenInAZ » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:00 pm

There's no way to argue RAI correctly, currently. You can only read what is there. In 7th edition, there was a body of work and prior trends to follow to know kinda what GW was doing. We no longer have that. This is the reinvention of the wheel.
chrisIronBrow
Warchief
Warchief
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:13 pm
Contact:

Re: cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby chrisIronBrow » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:29 pm

HinesDawg wrote:There's no way to argue RAI correctly, currently. You can only read what is there. In 7th edition, there was a body of work and prior trends to follow to know kinda what GW was doing. We no longer have that. This is the reinvention of the wheel.


I have to agree. 8th is an entirely new game. It feels wrong to assume GW still meant to do things the same as they used too. Additionally, Without statements from the rules designers Every Rules "intent" argument is always biased.
User avatar
BrandonPHX
Warboss
Warboss
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:34 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby BrandonPHX » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:19 pm

RAI is an emotional and illogical way to decide how a rule works. No one has any basis, on which to say, "I know how GW intended this rule to be played", unless you're one of the game designers or John Edward.
Phoenix Area Wargames Society
Warmachine/Hordes - Skorne, Mercenaries
Warhammer - High-Elves, Lizardmen
40k - Space Marines
SkavenInAZ
Hordemaster
Hordemaster
Posts: 1078
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:29 pm
Contact:

Re: cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby SkavenInAZ » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:21 pm

BrandonPHX wrote:RAI is an emotional and illogical way to decide how a rule works. No one has any basis, on which to say, "I know how GW intended this rule to be played", unless you're one of the game designers or John Edward.


I wouldn't go this far as there are times (occasionally) where GW has left us clues/hints on how things are designed to be played.. there just aren't any of those for 8th yet as all the Army Books are still 7th ed and there's nothing out there but the BRB/LRB and the FAQs
User avatar
BrandonPHX
Warboss
Warboss
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:34 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby BrandonPHX » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:54 pm

HinesDawg wrote:I wouldn't go this far as there are times (occasionally) where GW has left us clues/hints on how things are designed to be played.. there just aren't any of those for 8th yet as all the Army Books are still 7th ed and there's nothing out there but the BRB/LRB and the FAQs


Wouldn't you say in most of those cases, you are looking for how GW defined some core mechanic of the game and applying to a similar situation? I do that sometimes, I wouldn't really called that RAI though. When I hear people talk about RAI, I always think of "spirit of the game" type arguments.

A good example of the above in 7th, was a VC player tried to argue that if I didn't kill a unit and the character that was part of the unit, then he could ION the unit back. There was nothing in the ION rules that mentioned that, but there was a ruling in an FAQ that said when the unit a character was with dies, the character is no longer apart of the new. From that, you could infer that the VC player couldn't ION those back, because the character was no longer in a unit. I guess I don't think of that as being RAI though.
Phoenix Area Wargames Society
Warmachine/Hordes - Skorne, Mercenaries
Warhammer - High-Elves, Lizardmen
40k - Space Marines
GOD
Warboss
Warboss
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:50 am
Contact:

Re: cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby GOD » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:56 pm

Let me break it down a little further. What about situations where the intent of the rule is clear but because every possible example of the rule is not spelled out people resort to RAW.

Couple of examples. (These are not direct quotes of the rules)

When a unit or model takes a characteristic test use the highest stat. In the book it gives the example of units of calvalry. RAI is saying that units with more than one characteristic IE units of calvalry and chariots. Now this isn't RAI in the made up sense because that's how I feel, it's RAI in the sense that GW specificly gives that as an example. Where as RAW says well because GW didn't say that I can't use my characters superior stat than I must be able to.

A second one is monsters and handlers not being able to use the handlers leadership. The rules say that the handlers are ignored for all intents and purposes and to count only the monster it self. RAI is talking about for purposes of measuring shooting, chargin, magic and other measurement based things. RAW is saying that the handlers don't exsist and therefore hydra's are ld5 all the time and hellcannons are ld 4 all the time.
GT Record
Tides of War 2009 "Best Composition"
Best in the West 2010 "Best Overall"
SoCal Slaughter 2009 "2nd Best General"
Tides of War 2010 "Best General"

G=Greater
O=omnipotent
D=Deity
GOD
Warboss
Warboss
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:50 am
Contact:

Re: cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby GOD » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:59 pm

Also just so yall know when I'm talking about RAW I'm talking about extreme RAW aka because it doesn't say I can't I must be able to.
GT Record
Tides of War 2009 "Best Composition"
Best in the West 2010 "Best Overall"
SoCal Slaughter 2009 "2nd Best General"
Tides of War 2010 "Best General"

G=Greater
O=omnipotent
D=Deity
User avatar
BrandonPHX
Warboss
Warboss
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:34 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby BrandonPHX » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:12 pm

Those are both cases where I'd use RAW, because no one can say what the real intent is, other than GW. Both are also cases of rules that NEED an FAQ. Until they are though, I'd say you should play RAW
Phoenix Area Wargames Society
Warmachine/Hordes - Skorne, Mercenaries
Warhammer - High-Elves, Lizardmen
40k - Space Marines
SkavenInAZ
Hordemaster
Hordemaster
Posts: 1078
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:29 pm
Contact:

Re: cause of the recent switch from rai to raw

Postby SkavenInAZ » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:36 pm

Honestly it's just good English, which is the only thing we can go off of without further documentation. I submit for evidence the following.

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic. ... ilit=kadon

Read through my arguments on there (I'm Sethra). Based off of the way GW wrote the spell, the argument I presented made sense. Only by reading the rules as they wrote it could I have come to my summation. Everyone else thought they knew what GW had intended -- but because of how they wrote the rule, they were wrong.

In this case, the issue was that GW wrote ToK as an exclusive list, meaning that they listed off things that did NOT work. Because they wrote it this way, anything they didn't list DID work. GW does this regularly in their ruleswriting. However, these times are the only times you can do this. You can't just generally say "well, it doesn't say I can't shoot S10 lasers from my guys!" just because it doesn't say you can't. The lists of rules are inclusive -- meaning they include all you can do -- and anything not listed you can't.

This is why the specific example you listed off -- using a hero's S or I for PoS/PSoX/DB -- works. Because GW didn't write the rules for Characteristic tests in an inclusive format (listing off what is allowed) or an exclusive format (telling us what isn't allowed) but rather just gave us an example of one way it works -- which is why it's just the giant cluster**** that it is. Had they followed this list format, the question would never be a question. This is GW's giant problem with rules writing -- they can't follow a set format to make this easier on us.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests