The RAW Paradox! Strict adherence to RAW mandates the use of RAI

[NIGHTBRINGER]

There are a couple of threads currently underway where the classic battle of RAW vs. RAI is being re-fought. I've always been a proponent of the necessity of commonsense and context within warhammer. Others believe in 100% RAW... even when it feels wrong, is against overwhelming contextual evidence and makes little sense. To each their own, but RAW seems widely accepted while RAI carries with it a negative stigma. RAW is looked at as being pure (which is impossible because interpretation is always involved in any type of communication) and RAI is considered to be no better than a simple personal opinion.

Well the prophets have spoken, and the will of the Old Ones must be enacted. RAW must be exposed for what it is, and what better way than to "fight fire with fire". In this case to use RAW to not only justify, but to actually mandate the use of RAI. To begin, what is RAW and RAI...

RAW = Rules as Written

• is the literal meaning of the words, and sentences in the rule books
• viewed as an absolute
  
• independent of context, commonsense, logic, intuition
  
• supposedly devoid of personal opinion
  
• independent of RAI
  
• independent of contextual interpretation

RAI = Rules as Intended

• assumed meaning of a rule is based on logic, commonsense and contextual evidence
• meaning is derived from a collection of relevant evidence
• recognizes when wording is poorly chosen or misconstrued
• requires commonsense to be of any use
• not independent of RAW, RAW is part of the equation
  
• reliant on contextual interpretation

So now the RAW paradox. Let's look at the rules using strictly RAW...

#1 - One rule to rule them all!
I direct you to page 2 of the BRB...

"The Most Important Rule - In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer, there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can't seem to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really close call, and players don't agree on the precise outcome. Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves (in a manner befitting gentlemen, of course)...."

#2 Establishing the pecking order
- According to RAW this rule is the one above all, it is more important than any other rule in the entirety of warhammer. Hence "The Most Important Rule"

#3 Establishing when this rule comes into effect.
-this rule applies anytime:

• a situation is not covered by the rules
• you can't seem to find the right page for a rule
• a judgement of a rule is a really close call and players disagree

#4 Establishing what to do when the Most Important Rule is triggered
-when the Most Important Rule is triggered for any of the reasons listed above, players must...

• be prepared to interpret a rule
• come up with a suitable solution for themselves
• if all else fails perform a dice roll off (this is found in the continuation of the quote I provided above)

#5 The paradox!
So the Most Important Rule comes into play when players disagree and you have a "really close call". Really close call is pretty hard to define, doesn't seem quite so objective as RAW is meant to be. What is meant by close? We are forced to interpret this for ourselves.

Let's assume that we have a "really close call", RAW states that first thing for players to do is to be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a a suitable solution.

So The Most Important rule is triggered when players interpret that it is required, and the rule states that players interpret the rule or create a suitable solution (only when this fails do you resort to a roll off). Guess what ladies and gentlemen... interpretations, creating realistic suitable solutions... this is RAI!!!

So at the end of the day, pure 100% RAW at the highest of levels mandates the use of RAI. Hence there is no such thing as pure RAW because RAW itself dictates the use of RAI. RAW tells us that we can't rely purely on RAW... THE RAW PARADOX!

If after all this you still want to completely ignore RAI (which I am certain some people will)... then go ahead. As the old adage goes: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". But ask yourself why you are doing it? If you look at a rule and think, "I know how it should be played, but RAW says..." maybe you should discuss the actual "intended" meaning of the rule with your opponent. RAI does require a bit of maturity and honesty amongst players (with great power comes great responsibility!), but so does RAW. I've witnessed too many RAW vs RAW flame wars to maintain an sort of delusion of RAW's supposedly objective nature. No communication is free from the shackles of interpretation.

If your friends or gaming group is okay with your stance (RAW, RAI or a combination) then use it and have fun. If you can't agree on it, avoid playing the player... because there is no point in playing unless both you and your opponent are having fun. Please note, that this RAI vs. RAW analysis does not apply to tournament play. There the T.O. sets the rules and makes the judgements... as it should be. T.O.'s are free to interpret the rules any way they see fit. If you disagree, don't play in the tournament.

And as always... have a nice day!

 

[pendrake]

come up with a suitable solution for yourselves (in a manner befitting gentlemen, of course)....

Where is the bit about just roll a D6 each and may the better D6 (and rule interpretation it is defending) win?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Where is the bit about just roll a D6 each and may the better D6 (and rule interpretation it is defending) win?

It continues straight after the quote I provided, part of the same paragraph (page 2 of the BRB).

 

[Slanputin]

Where is the bit about just roll a D6 each and may the better D6 (and rule interpretation it is defending) win?

I've never heard of that rule, at least to my recollection. I'd be hesitant to go with such a thing if it's clear my opponent is pushing an evident self-serving bias

 

[pendrake]

I've never heard of that rule, at least to my recollection. I'd be hesitant to go with such a thing if it's clear my opponent is pushing an evident self-serving bias.

It is the first rule in the book. 50% of the time the self-serving bias he is pushing fails (and the decision of the dice is final for the duration of that game).

I just could not remember if it was still in the 8th edition book. On the other hand the firm that writes these rules is saying that the decision of two lumps of plastic is potentially more worthy than the deliberations of a given veteran player.

 

[Slanputin]

It is the first rule in the book. 50% of the time the self-serving bias he is pushing fails (and the decision of the dice is final for the duration of that game).

I just could not remember if it was still in the 8th edition book. On the other hand the firm that writes these rules is saying that the decision of two lumps of plastic is potentially more worthy than the deliberations of a given veteran player.

I can't remember, you could be right.

As you said, I can't help but think that rolling dice is just an uninformed approach even if it removes bias

 

[spawning of Bob]

"Dance of Delectation:
Any Lizardmen general who scores a hit with the Giant Bow is required to throw their hands in the air and do a little dance. This is a Remains in Play effect that can only be removed by the opposing general recognizing the amazing feat." (from the Stegadon Tactica)

Forsooth, there are some rules which will brook no debate for indeed they are the will of the Old Ones.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I've never heard of that rule, at least to my recollection. I'd be hesitant to go with such a thing if it's clear my opponent is pushing an evident self-serving bias

It is the first rule in the book. 50% of the time the self-serving bias he is pushing fails (and the decision of the dice is final for the duration of that game).

I just could not remember if it was still in the 8th edition book. On the other hand the firm that writes these rules is saying that the decision of two lumps of plastic is potentially more worthy than the deliberations of a given veteran player.

As you said, I can't help but think that rolling dice is just an uninformed approach even if it removes bias

The roll off is designed as a last resort when players can find no way to agree. The rule suggests that players should "be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves" before resorting to a roll off. Its purpose is to create a resolution when no other resolution (other than quitting the game) is available.

Ultimately it can not fully protect the fairness of a game against an opponent with a clear self-serving bias. It will of course only work 50% of the time. Against such an opponent you pretty much have three options...

1. Scrap the game and refuse to play the player; sometimes it just isn't worth the hassle
2. Roll off, and stick with the outcome even if it is a bit unfair
   
3. Roll off, but then continually challenge him/her with a bunch of other rules forcing further roll offs in your favour. This is petty of course... but can be rewarding against a cheat. The purpose is not to save the game, but to slowly annoy and tear away at your opponent until you break him/her psychologically! I had a buddy who did something similar at a tournament to screw with someone who always tried to cheat to gain an unfair advantage. It was hilarious, the guy was so pissed off! Best off all, it was a fully legal solution, so guy could do nothing.

 

[Qupakoco]

I always thought RAI = Rules as Interpreted. Maybe RAW should mean Rules as Wanted, but then there would be no RAW/RAI debate Even though it's written one way and intended another, I interpret it to be something completely better.

When it comes to rule misinterpretations or rules that are contradicting where I can see both sides of the arguement, I heed to the most restrictive.

 

[Lawot]

An excellent piece of thinking, Nightbringer.

My general approach is to go by strict RAW. If an issue is raised in-game, I want us to play very strictly RAW - because we all had access to the same written rules when we created our army lists, but we didn't necessarily all have the same opinion about the rule's intent. That's the problem with RAI - without the game developers there to consult, we don't have any certainties about the intent of any given rule. Sometimes, as you pointed out, playing strictly RAW means discussing it or rolling a D6 for it. When an issue is raised out of game, I like to think through how it would play out RAW, and then decide whether that outcome makes sense in light of context, fluff, balanced gameplay and intent. If there's a situation where we think a rule should be written differently, we bring it up and decide how we're going to play it.

So, for example, even though a strict reading of the rules says that Tiktaq'to can't join a unit of Terradons (characters cannot join units of flyers, BRB 97), one of his rules refers to "his" unit of Terradons. Without the ability to join a unit of Terradons, he doesn't have a unit of Terradons, and therefore the rule never comes into effect and is pointless. So I asked my gaming group, and they agreed to house rule it: Tiktaq'to can join units of Terradons; and we even went a step further to say that units of flyers can be joined by characters mounted on the same kind of creature - i.e. a Brettonnian on a Pegasus can join a unit of Peg Knights, a Skink Chief on a Ripperdactyl can join units of Ripperdactyls.

As long as rules remain balanced enough to play with, and everyone has access to the same rules going into the game, it all works out.

On another occasion I suggested that Cold One Riders should get to carry a magic banner. They nixed that.

 

[Kcibrihp-Esurc]

units of flyers can be joined by characters mounted on the same kind of creature - i.e. a Brettonnian on a Pegasus can join a unit of Peg Knights.

Lol, but according to that rule it's breaking itself, Brettonnian Lords/Heroes ride ROYAL Pegasi, whereas normal Knights ride Pegasi, and they were originally monsters intentionally to prevent them joining units, but it has been FAQed to be Monstrous Creatures, but they still can't join units anyway

 

[airjamy]

This is quite a funny way of looking at things, and i do believe it has merit. Well done .