|
Post by avatarofbugman on Nov 23, 2017 19:25:11 GMT
I know what the rule actually says, I was just saying that it does allow reasonable interpretation in. Also, if something fires as something else, then it follows all the rules of that secondary item, not just part. AB entries do not refer to only certain pages. Nothing said so far actually goes against the hell cannon following all of the firing rules of a stone thrower, which includes a free pivot. You have interpreted the AB rules beyond what is written.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Nov 24, 2017 2:02:02 GMT
I sense a slight build-up of negative chi in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Nov 24, 2017 2:42:15 GMT
I'm not aiming to be negative, I'm just unconvinced. Fvon makes good statements most of the time, and I see where he is in most cases, but I don't see this one in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Nov 24, 2017 4:55:49 GMT
I sense a slight build-up of negative chi in this thread. Hard to see, the dark side is... no wait... there it is... RAW vs RAI flame war! As long as things don't escalate to personal attacks, things are good!
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Nov 24, 2017 7:32:23 GMT
So NIGHTBRINGER you choose to ignore this part of the rules or do you say hellcanon has both troop types? “War machines are very powerful and can vary greatly in form and function. For simplicity and sanity, we therefore divide a war machine’s rules into two parts. The first part of rules pertains to the rules for the war machine troop type – essentially its chassis and crew – which apply to all war machines. The second part consists of the rules for how each specific type war machine fires (and how it slaughters your foe).” Excerpt From WARHAMMER RULEBOOK Games Workshop Ltd This material may be protected by copyright.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Nov 24, 2017 11:36:38 GMT
eight pages of RAI vs RAW? it's almost like the good old days! I agree with everyone. Which obviously doesn't solve anything. Perhaps it's time to send for Matt Ward This! Yeah, I'm with you on this. I kinda stopped paying attention a while back. While it's great to clarify how you'll play a certain rule/model, by this point in a discussion, everyone has made up their mind as to which side of the discussion they fall on and how they prefer to play it. There really is not point in trying to change someone's mind after this much discussion. Only hurt feelings can come out of it at this point.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Nov 24, 2017 15:02:15 GMT
So NIGHTBRINGER you choose to ignore this part of the rules or do you say hellcanon has both troop types? “War machines are very powerful and can vary greatly in form and function. For simplicity and sanity, we therefore divide a war machine’s rules into two parts. The first part of rules pertains to the rules for the war machine troop type – essentially its chassis and crew – which apply to all war machines. The second part consists of the rules for how each specific type war machine fires (and how it slaughters your foe).” Nobody is debating the hellcannon's troop type, it is a monster. I haven't read one post in the entire thread that questions that point. As for your rule quotation, I am not ignoring, but as I've pointed out the Hellcannon fires as a stone thrower, meaning it uses ALL the firing rules pertaining to a firing a stone thrower. The rule you referenced above actually outlines my point. To fire a stone thrower you must use the general rules for firing warmachines and the rules for the specific type of war machine (in this case a stone thrower). So while the hellcannon is a monster, it fires as a warmachine (specifically a stone thrower).
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Nov 24, 2017 15:21:03 GMT
Yeah, I'm with you on this. I kinda stopped paying attention a while back. While it's great to clarify how you'll play a certain rule/model, by this point in a discussion, everyone has made up their mind as to which side of the discussion they fall on and how they prefer to play it. There really is not point in trying to change someone's mind after this much discussion. Only hurt feelings can come out of it at this point. You are right of course. At this point virtually no new facts or lines of reasoning are available to either side. Unless someone is still sitting on the fence in regards to the topic, no one is going to be convinced of the other side's interpretation (which sadly is the case in nearly all these rules debates). So we are left with the following: - in the grand scheme of things, it all makes little difference as none of us is likely to play a game against each other
- the RAW Paradox remains unbroken
- hurt feelings should be avoided!
- fortunately as this is only a virtual discussion, no one can attempt to bludgeon the other with said (pewter) hellcannon
- this has devolved into a war of attrition
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Nov 24, 2017 15:26:37 GMT
everyone has made up their mind as to which side of the discussion they fall on and how they prefer to play it. I think this applies to both sides: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtovzvPz7uo
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 30, 2017 17:52:45 GMT
• the RAW Paradox remains unbroken The RAW paradox was broken from the start. If it has not been refuted so far, then, as far as I am concerned, that is just because no-one ever bothered to state the obvious. As I pointed out before, your argument falls flat from the very beginning, with your definition of RAW/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 Seriously? Let us see if we can improve that: RAW - Start with the premise that, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, the written rules reflect the intent of the writer. RAW=RAI, unless proven otherwise. - Apply a close reading of the rules to interpret the meaning of the rules. - Read these rules in their actual con- text. - Use the game registry of the game to interpret the meaning. - Use logic (in the strict sense of the word. - Give verbatim quotes of all the relevant rules to support their interpretation. - If they find written evidence to the contrary, change their position. RAI - Start with the premise that the writers are generally incapable to express their intent. - Assume their intent is the intent of the writer - Apply a superficial reading of the rules to divine that intent and then try to shoehorn the rules into that alleged intent. - Bring in irrelevant “context”: fluff, tradition, expediency, real life… - Conflate the game registry and the general meaning of a term - Use syllogisms, other logical fallacies, and non sequiturs. - Do not or very selectively quote the actual rule. - Ignore any written evidence to the contrary as irrelevant, because it does reflect the alleged intent. See what I did there? So now to your “RAW paradox” – which is not a paradox, but rather a paragon of faulty reasoning. Here is the Most Important Rule in full (one cannot fail to notice your selective quotation): - “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). If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply far the remainder of the game - on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides. Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.”
So, the MIR is quite irrelevant to the question RAW-RAI (one way or the other), as it applies to an actual game. A gaming table is not the place for in-depth rules discussions, whether you apply RAW or RAI. The MIR is there to prevent wasting valuable gaming time arguing. But as the MIR points out (in the part you left out): “Once the game is over, you can happily continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.” And those rules discussions outside a game (like on the internet), where you have ample time to find the right page and argue at length would ideally lead to a common understanding, which will reduce the need to invoke the MIR in a game. Every reading of any text involves interpretation. Being “prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution” is as much RAW as it is RAI, as is easily shown by the following simple example. Some years ago, the question arose on warhammer-empire,com whether “Drain Magic” could remove “Plague of Rust.” Now everyone automatically read in the DM rules: “[the effects] of all other spells [on the target unit] immediately come to an end," until I pointed out that one could also read: “the effects of [all other spells on the target unit] immediately come to an end." Both interpretations are RAW, but since the one opens a can of worms and the other does not, the latter is a more suitable solution. No need to involve RAI here at all. I am not sure what you mean by “realistic” but that is not in the MIR anyway, but something you added. I cannot but conclude: paradox praecox.
|
|
|
Post by frozenfood on Dec 2, 2017 7:04:22 GMT
paradox praecox...happens to the best of us. It's normal. Best to wait fifteen minutes and play another game.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Dec 2, 2017 13:47:23 GMT
Lol. Words to live by!
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Dec 2, 2017 20:33:08 GMT
• the RAW Paradox remains unbroken The RAW paradox was broken from the start. If it has not been refuted so far, then, as far as I am concerned, that is just because no-one ever bothered to state the obvious. As I pointed out before, your argument falls flat from the very beginning, with your definition of RAW/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 Seriously? Let us see if we can improve that: RAW - Start with the premise that, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, the written rules reflect the intent of the writer. RAW=RAI, unless proven otherwise. - Apply a close reading of the rules to interpret the meaning of the rules. - Read these rules in their actual con- text. - Use the game registry of the game to interpret the meaning. - Use logic (in the strict sense of the word. - Give verbatim quotes of all the relevant rules to support their interpretation. - If they find written evidence to the contrary, change their position. RAI - Start with the premise that the writers are generally incapable to express their intent. - Assume their intent is the intent of the writer - Apply a superficial reading of the rules to divine that intent and then try to shoehorn the rules into that alleged intent. - Bring in irrelevant “context”: fluff, tradition, expediency, real life… - Conflate the game registry and the general meaning of a term - Use syllogisms, other logical fallacies, and non sequiturs. - Do not or very selectively quote the actual rule. - Ignore any written evidence to the contrary as irrelevant, because it does reflect the alleged intent. See what I did there? You state: " Seriously? Let us see if we can improve that:" Evidently you can not improve upon it, or at the very least your current attempt fell massively short. You state: "See what I did there?" Am I to assume that your breakdowns of RAW/RAI are a parody of my own or is that your legitimate breakdown? Assuming your points are not satirical in nature, your opinion of RAI seems to very inaccurate. In regards to the writers not being able to express their intent, for the most part that is untrue. Usually, the game flows smoothly and there exists no issues. However when disagreements on rules do arise, it is often the situation that the writers were not able to clearly express their intent (either that or the player(s) are making misinterpretations or are being purposefully deceptive to gain an edge). This is not necessarily a knock on the writers, Warhammer is a very complex game with a huge set of rules that have been written by multiple authors across multiple years. Additionally, some players are deliberately attempting to gain an unfair advantage by trying to exploit something that could have been written more decisively. You then state that RAI practitioners only superficially read the rules and only selectively quote the rules. What are you basing this off of? The first part of RAI is in fact RAW, and it is only when RAW fails that commonsense is applied to the situation. Your accusations that RAI players don't read the rules beyond a superficial level is absolutely baseless. I agree that fluff has nothing to do within the context of a rules debate, however that is not a utilized tactic of a RAI practitioner. And what does real life have to do with anything? While it is fair enough to use a real life example as an analogy to make a point (in the context of making meaning clear), real life is not used as justification to an interpretation of a rule. It just feels like you are attributing things to RAI on a whim. You state: "Assume their intent is the intent of the writer" While the goal is ascertain the intentions of the writer (as is the case with RAW as well), it is not the case that a RAI player states that his/her intention is that of the authors. The goal of RAI is to look at all evidence and apply some commonsense to the situation where needed. RAI always starts off with RAW, but when that solution results in a situation that is blatantly not in the spirit of the game, then contextual evidence based on the game as a whole must be brought to bear on the situation. For example let's take a look at the Lizardmen special character Tiktaq'to: Tiktaq'to is a Lizardmen special character that has a flying mount (a Terradon) From the BRB we know that characters cannot join flying units (in this case a unit of Terradons). "Unless otherwise stated, a character cannot join a unit of monsters (too much danger of being stood on), a unit of flyers (too many ill-disciplined wings buffeting the sky), a unit of chariots (too much danger of being run over), a unit of swarms (too much chance of being eaten) or a war machine (too much danger of being obliterated)." (emphasis mine, BRB p. 97) As the rules are written, there is no rule reference that specifically states that Tiktaq'to is exempt from the restrictions described above. So according to RAW he cannot join a unit of Terradons. However, Tiktaq'to does have a special rule called "Mask of Heavens" which states " All Terradon's in Tiktaq'to's unit use his Weapon Skill instead of their own. In addition, enemy units suffer an additional -1 To Hit penalty when shooting Tiktaq'to and his unit" (emphasis mine, LM army book p. 58). By the written words of the rule, this rule does not state that he can join a unit of Terradons (nor is there any other rule that does so), as a result a strict RAW interpretation would disallow Tiktaq'to from joining a unit of Terradons. Enter RAI. Anyone with even a shred of commonsense and a functional brain would see that the RAW interpretation is clearly incorrect, not the intention of the rules and against the spirit of the game. While it is not often the case, sometimes there are rules that are error-ed in such a way that an deep literal interpretation falls short (as in the example above). The only time I have an issue with RAW is when its application results in a situation that clearly feels wrong. I understand the risk of justifying the use of "commonsense" or "things feeling wrong" as it opens up the game to abuse. As a stated in the RAW paradox, the application of RAI does require maturity and honesty among players. However, in my personal experience (admittedly anecdotal evidence), it is typically the RAW player that is trying to game the system. We've probably all heard the term "rules lawyer"; which typically refers to a player that is trying to exploit the wording of rules to cheat his/her opponent. These are typically the type of people that no one wants to play against or interact with. I find that 9 times out of 10, it is RAW that is employed in this endeavor and not RAI. It is often the RAW player that is the problematic one (which is not to say that all or even the majority of RAW players fall into this category). In short, you have provided no real evidence to counter my definitions of RAW or RAI. And if your own presented definitions are to be taken at face value, they are vastly inferior to what I proposed.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Dec 2, 2017 21:16:44 GMT
So now to your “RAW paradox” – which is not a paradox, but rather a paragon of faulty reasoning. Here is the Most Important Rule in full (one cannot fail to notice your selective quotation): - “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). If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply far the remainder of the game - on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides. Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.”
So, the MIR is quite irrelevant to the question RAW-RAI (one way or the other), as it applies to an actual game. A gaming table is not the place for in-depth rules discussions, whether you apply RAW or RAI. The MIR is there to prevent wasting valuable gaming time arguing. But as the MIR points out (in the part you left out): “Once the game is over, you can happily continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.” And those rules discussions outside a game (like on the internet), where you have ample time to find the right page and argue at length would ideally lead to a common understanding, which will reduce the need to invoke the MIR in a game. First off, in reference to your claim of my selective quotation, I quoted the section of the rules I felt relevant to the topic. Furthermore I ended my quotation with a "..." indicating that the rule does continue on from there. In conjunction with the page number which I also cited, all the necessary evidence was readily available to those reading my post. There is no misdirection on my part. The rest of the rule simply outlines what to do in the event that both a RAW and RAI approach have failed, specifically dice roll off (essentially a coin toss). That remaining (previously unquoted) section does not have bearing on the RAW Paradox, which still holds that RAW mandates the use of RAI. But if you want to look at the bigger picture, the MIR mandates that RAW yields to RAI, and only when that fails do you let chance decide the outcome. So the reason I didn't provide the entire passage in my quotation is because it had no bearing on my point (either for or against), this is the same reason you may have also noticed that I didn't quote the entirety of the remaining 500+ page BRB. The distinction of when the MIR is applied (in game), is meaningless. All rules are applied within an actual game and are completely irrelevant outside of it. In actual fact, rules debates do occur in game and it is at this time when they matter the most (because something (however little) is actually at stake). However, let's take your argument at face value, the MIR is not relevant to discussions outside of the game, so both RAW and RAI are in effect, however, once the game starts the MIR kicks in during disagreements and RAW gives way to RAI. So the RAW paradox still holds. The MIR just ensures that the regurgitation of points and counterpoints eventually comes to an end so the actual game can be played. As for your assertion that rules discussions outside of the game (like on the internet) will decrease the frequency of in-game MIR invocations; when have debates on the internet solved anything? At best they allow you sharpen up your own rationale and at worst they lead to flame wars. Look at this thread for example, 9 pages in and everyone is still pretty much sticking to their guns. You still believe that my interpretation is incorrect and I still feel the same about yours. Can someone's opinion change via an internet rules discussion? Sure, but it is exceedingly rare. I've only witnessed it a handful of times (in both directions). That said, if properly executed they can still be fun and hence their existence is justified.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Dec 2, 2017 21:41:35 GMT
Every reading of any text involves interpretation. Being “prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution” is as much RAW as it is RAI, as is easily shown by the following simple example. Some years ago, the question arose on warhammer-empire,com whether “Drain Magic” could remove “Plague of Rust.” Now everyone automatically read in the DM rules: “[the effects] of all other spells [on the target unit] immediately come to an end," until I pointed out that one could also read: “the effects of [all other spells on the target unit] immediately come to an end." Both interpretations are RAW, but since the one opens a can of worms and the other does not, the latter is a more suitable solution. No need to involve RAI here at all. I am not sure what you mean by “realistic” but that is not in the MIR anyway, but something you added. I cannot but conclude: paradox praecox. Sorry to say that coming up with a "suitable solution" is very much a hallmark feature of RAI. RAW is much more rigid and doesn't allow for any commonsense. A suitable solution is one where the game operates smoothly and dare I say it as intended (refer to my Tiktaq'to example two posts back). Now while agree that the reading of any text requires interpretation (which I actually point out in the RAW paradox), that only helps dispel the notion that RAW is objective while only RAI is subjective (they are both subjective!). But furthermore, RAI allows a rule to be interpreted against the entirety to the game; and can give consideration to how the game was meant to be played. In cases where a RAW rules lawyer aims to to exploit a poorly worded rule, RAI intuition kicks and prevents it. As far as evidence goes, I'll present yours. In the example you provided above, it was RAI that allowed the proper decision to be made. As you stated, both were RAW definitions. So as a result RAW left you in a deadlock. It was application of the larger context of the game (something that cannot directly be rule quoted, and hence RAI not RAW) that allowed you to recognize the the pitfalls of one interpretation and select the other one. When you say "one opens up a can of worms and the other does not", that is RAI thinking. You cannot directly quote rules which constitute the idea of the "can of worms" you speak of (meaning, while you can quote rules in support of it, you can't quote rules that directly state it). As a RAI practitioner, that rules discrepancy was a non-issue right from the start. I am simply endowed with a greater variety of tools in my thinking and can move past it quickly, accurately and efficiently. So while you conclude: paradox praecox; I conclude " And still..." (UFC reference)
|
|