RAW vs RAI

[TheMuphinMan]

Do you believe rules should be taken verbatim or should the players try to guess what the writers meant the rules to be?

Examples of rules that should be RAI rather than RAW

Missile attacks: The rules just says the model needs LoS to the unit you are firing at and the unit needs to be within range. Going by RAW, a model with a 8" ranged weapon could shoot a unit on the other side of a wall as long as a single model from that unit is visible even if the visible model is over 32" away as long as one of the models it can't see is within 8".

Skaven Skyre/Pestilens Allegiance: Going by RAW, both of these allegiances are impossible to use in matched play because they technically don't have access to any battleline. The allegiance is listed as "skaven skyre" while the acolytes and stormfiends are listed as just battleline-if "skyre" allegiance and likewise with plaguemonks and censorbearers for "pestilens" vs "skaven pestilens". Also the Verminlord corruptor lacks the "skaven" keyword so you'd need to ally him as a "masterclan" unit technically for a "skaven pestilens" list.

While these ones are more obvious, they set a precedent for going by interpretations rather than RAW which could cause some problems

[Fluttershy]

RAW + FAQ is my way to go, i don't like RAI, it's fishy

 

[Overread]

Rules as Written is generally the way most things should go - so long as the person is not clutching at straws to try and twist what is written into something that isn't quite the same thing

 

Rules as Intended is an issue because its based not upon what is written but upon what might be intended upon by the rule. The issue is that no two people will always interpret things the same way and as such can leave itself open to a whole host of various interpretations that can cause more confusion than just following a Rule as written, even if it sounds somewhat daft.

 

Of course writing into GW to inform them or query regarding odd rulings or where the rules are not clear helps too - the more that do it hte more chance GW will look at it and fix it in an FAQ/Errata. 

 

[Greyshadow]

Is the rule clear? Then Rules as Written. Not clear? Then fall back on Rules as Intended to try and resolve the problem.

[angrycontra]

Generally (even if I don't like the extreme RAW reading) I think rules should still be played using RAW instead of RAI. However... there are cases where I honestly think people just go too far with their rule reading to the point of ruining game for others. That skaven example in the op (btw not accusing op for having or not having that opinion) is just the kind of bullcrap that makes me want to slap anyone even suggesting that I couldn't play my army because the keywords do not match. Same with that argument that I've seen where people say stuff like: "You can't use verminlord corruptor in skaven pestilens army because he is not skaven". Like please, really? Is that something that is even worth anyone's time to argue about? How does that knowledge improve game for anyone? Gw just happened to accidentally put this model in skaven pestilens battletome, they just accidentally placed it under skaven pestilens allegiance units in ghb? Sometimes, use of basic common sense is allowed.

I will say one last thing about RAI. There are cases where one can interpret RAW very differently. Bad use of wording or well, the lack of skaven keyword as shown above can cause some problems. During those moments I personally would go with what GW clearly intended from the rule (like the whole pestilens allegiance thing, it is 100% obvious to everyone (or it should be) that corruptor is part of the allegiance and plague monks/censer bearers are battleline in pestilens army). Granted, GW's intentions aren't always clear to begin with (as was shown in the ghb18 skyre allegiance abilities before faq).

[BaldoBeardo]

Biggest problem with RAW is bad wording/editing. One of the noticeable changes in AoS over the last couple of years is the rewording of abilities so that there is a common phrasing and that words mean what they actually mean. RAW is what should be followed, and that's getting easier.

Biggest problem with RAI is that it requires knowing the intent. Which you *cannot* do. So it gets replaced with assumptions that will always be tinged with 'feel' or your experience. So it's actually RAA - rules as assumed.

After all, the important intent is that of the designers - and they're the ones who can do something about it!

So yeah, RAW. When something looks honky, flag it to the designers for an FAQ or errata.

[Arkiham]

RAI is a fallacy people use to justify something they cannot justify in the rule book.

 

RAW is the only thing that matters. 

"well that rule  says that but it doesnt really mean that it means what i want it to mean in the particular circumstance to suit my needs and this is why i think it means what i say it does even though i have no real evidence to back this up "