Dreadknight Doomfists

[Tynskel]

Be careful what you say: that's actually RAI. Being bloody strict with the rules and only the rules is RAW, monkeying with tolerances between rules is RAI's sled.

Actually, no. You are interpreting the RAW to mean this.

In this statement:
The statement about 'the walker' is about the model carrying the DCCW. This is a RAW interpretation. The tolerances for the rules may not be as tight as your tolerances, but this is still RAW.


A RAI interpretation would be that Dreadknights use them as powerfists, which is in the description, not rules, of the Doomfists.

[wkz]

....
....
....
....
Get your RAW and RAI definition correct, Mr T.

There is a reason why it is called Rules as WRITTEN. The statement about 'the walker' is about the model carrying the DCCW, and that is as WRITTEN. Because it is WRITTEN black and white as "walker", thus the Dreadknight cannot use DCCWs. Because it is WRITTEN in black and white somewhere in the game.

There is no tolerances to monkey around when you're talking about RAW. If it is WRITTEN, you follow. If it is not WRITTEN you don't. There is no "shift off to the left of the rules a bit..." in RAW. We follow what is written to the absolute letter if we're following that, no more, no less...


... Which is sometimes stupid, which is why Rules as INTENDED is sometimes used. Rules as INTENDED is the version which will strain against the rules on paper. It will use past Codex/Rulebook rules and trends, fluff articles and online discussions, and adapt rules to fit that in the current day. It will even break the rules outright in certain areas if it is necessary to conform to the INTENTION of the rules.

Rhinos not having doors? Add that bit in. Doom 'o M not a Zonetrope? Allow Warpfield on him too. The absolute rule as written not working as (perceived) INTENTION? Then use RAI to fix it by monkeying with the absolute limits of the rules to fix it: DCCW on a monster? Well, make it a walker with regards to the DCCW.

RAW player: Oh ma ma mia!! That's not Rules as WRITTEN!! Its completely wrong!!
RAI player: But I think it is Rules as INTENDED, thus I shift the rules a bit to make the units work.
Ye' average friendly player (whether competitive or otherwise): Ok, it seems alright. Lets agree to that and play.

[Gir]

Wkz, I think you're completely missing that point that one sentence can easily have 2 very different meaning. This is where the play in RAW is.

[wkz]

Wkz, I think you're completely missing that point that one sentence can easily have 2 very different meaning. This is where the play in RAW is.

...
True, dat.
Note that I said what I did because "monkeying with tolerances" can imply "making the rules say what they (almost) do not say", instead of "here's 2 choices of interpretation from one sentence as written. Choose".

[Tynskel]

...
True, dat.
Note that I said what I did because "monkeying with tolerances" can imply "making the rules say what they (almost) do not say", instead of "here's 2 choices of interpretation from one sentence as written. Choose".

Hah, so you were interpreting what I was saying differently than how I interpret what I said.

[wkz]

Hah, so you were interpreting what I was saying differently than how I interpret what I said.

True, but then again you did the classic GW mistake: not realizing what you wrote can be having 2 or more different interpretations

[Tynskel]

True, but then again you did the classic GW mistake: not realizing what you wrote can be having 2 or more different interpretations

No, I knew it had multiple meanings.
But you'll find almost everything has multiple meanings, all dependent on the scope of the reference frame.