RAW vs RAI

[MC Tic Tac]

RAI (Rules as Intended) Vs RAW (Rules as Written)

Whats your view on each? And Why?

Personally when it comes to big tournaments and competative gaming it should be RAW, (this is what GW say, and Jervis Johnson said in one of his Standard Bearer articles in UK WD) but if I'm playing a friendly game I'm just as happy with RAI for a fun game.

I think the main problem with RAW>RAI people have is when someone uses it to create what could be seen as a unfair advantage that is technically within the rules.

I remember when I played the Card Game UFS, during its infantcy, and how typos, or a misplaced comma would change the card from what it was intended to do, to something more powerful/pool (Same could be said for Magic the Gathering).

Over to you (and keep it clean, no biting and no pinching!)......

[Melissia]

Unless you can get your opponent to buy into your beliefs, RAI is worthless. Arguing for RAI is, essentially, asking your opponent's to play by house rules rather than GW's rules.

[Denzark]

Yes RAW is the only thing enforceable ie in tournaments. However RAI has its place - amongst adult, common sense, non-rules lawyering people. See the Avatar/flame cannon thread!

If I go to a tournament I willingly submit myself to RAW. If I don't I don't have to play with people who can't use their grasp of English (my mother tongue) and some nous to understand what the geeks at GW HQ (in all probability) actually meant to write in their hurry to get a codex out.

[Melissia]

RAI has no place anywhere unless you can get people to buy into the change you want to make. If you can't, then you might as well be asking for your autocannon to have S9, because RAI is worth about the same. It has nothing to do with maturity, insomuch as it simply has more to do with your inability to convince people to discard the rules of the game and play by a different set.

[Commissar Lewis]

I'm rather at a crossroads on this: as Melissia says RAI often can be mistaken as writing in house rules to give one an advantage. Not saying all RAI is this; merely that it can be PERCEIVED as such.

However, I also have a bit of an issue with RAW. I've known some really petty rules-lawyers in my two years or so of playing. Hell, we even call my one friend The Rules Lawyer. Now, it's one thing to make sure everyone is playing fairly and not cheating; it's another to adamantly say that all players must roll for deployment and game type instead of just agreeing on one as a group. It even says you can agree on one in the rulebook; found that out while reading my rulebook on the toilet.

My stance is a bit of 50/50: in friendly games, as the rulebook says, the rules really are not that important. I'm of the mindset that it is a game played by people for FUN. It's not a court case, so getting obstinate or combing over every detail of every rule in my mind is a bit of poor sportsmanship. Of course, this is fine by me in tournaments - when there is a prize on the line, yeah the rules are important there. But for a friendly game, it's a bit ballbusting and ruins the fun.

I guess, in conclusion, both have their pros and cons. RAI can make for a bit more lighthearted games, but can also be an invitation to pull some shady moves. RAW can keep everyone on an even ground, but some people can get really petty about this.

[DarkLink]

Unless you can get your opponent to buy into your beliefs, RAI is worthless. Arguing for RAI is, essentially, asking your opponent's to play by house rules rather than GW's rules.

Right, RAI IS RAW. The difference only exists in the minds of people who think they know better. GW could get better about doing FAQ's, though.

[Cryl]

The issue with RAW not being the same as RAI is that GW are putting together rules for a game not requirements for software. Things, unless written in certain language with exact punctuation and grammar, can always be misinterpreted, the problem is that the specific language required for, say, software requirements (I use this example as I know something about it but there are other equally valid alternatives) is industry specific and unless we expect everyone who plays 40k to understand the difference between "shall" and "will" in the example I gave we're not in a position to use that terminology, nor can we define our own without adding a large glossary of terms to the start of the rulebook.

The issue for GW is that of cost. Would it cost more to have a QA function for rules made up of people who deliberately try to abuse and break them or is it cheaper to release an FAQ?

That's made me think about beta testing for rule sets? I realise that would probably lead to rampant copying of rulesets but it probably wouldn't be a bad plan to have players rip apart new books to, in effect, FAQ them before release... not sure exactly how that would be implemented though.

[Confuddled]

I think the main problem with RAW>RAI people have is when someone uses it to create what could be seen as a unfair advantage that is technically within the rules.

If only it were that simple!


On the one hand, I’ve seen RAW as justification for giving a unit a perceived advantage.

On the other, I’ve also seen RAW being used as justification for LIMITING a unit’s abilities.


The way I see it, biggest problem with the RAW/RAI distinction is that it seems to me to be a false one – RAI/RAI might be a more accurate description (Rules as Intepreted vs. Rules as Interpreted)!

[N0rdicNinja]

%99 of the time I'm playing with friends, so we always play RAI and have some house rules for things we think are bull ****. If something comes up mid game that can't be agreed upon we leave it to the dice gods to figure out then discuss after the game how we'll handle those situations in the future.

[Melissia]

And you think RAI is somehow better? Actually RAI is worse, most of the time people want to do RAI to make their own units stronger.