Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Just something that i was wondering. Where did RAW come from? GW makes the rules (all be it not well wrote rules) but nowhere do i see RAW mentioned (i could be mistaken, i've not read EVERYTHING GW published! ). The reason i've posted this in the 40k section is because of point 1 . . . .
1. Is RAW a 40k only thing or does fantasy suffer also?
2. Who came up with it?
3. Is there a point of going to far with RAW, bit like if i said this plastic bottle was a wraith lord in terms of WYSIWYG.
Now I am no historian but to me RAW is an acronym for “Rules As Written,” and is a term used define a method of reading the documentation supplied.
Specifically playing the game using the rules “exactly” as written with little regards as to how it was intended.
Sort of like the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law.
A big problem with using strict RAW is that the parent document may not always be absolutely correct or well enough defined to produce just one valid outcome thus allowing argument and justifying forums like this one to exist.
1. RAW is an affliction that exists everywhere and not just 40K, just ask anyone who is married for advice on this one!
2. I suppose the term came from the legal profession, as they would seem to be the most prevalent users of rules in the modern world.
3. There is of course a point of excess with all things and with the rules I personally use RAW as a progressive step towards how the game should be played and not a definitive end point on all things 40K. WYSIWYG is all about “obviousness” in the game, we all need to assume many, many things in how they function and if there can an established convention laid down before the game then it tends to run much more smoothly.
In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
People also advocate for RAW in fantasy. Fantasy suffers less imo largely because it's in its 7th edition and the rulebook is extremely tight compared to 40K. 4th ed 40k is essentially onlythe second edition of the game as we know it, 2nd to 3rd was a complete rewrite. Ideas like Fantasy players are more sporting or 40k has more kiddies who only want to win are entirely subjective and depend on where you live. Probably the biggest 'RAW' issue in Fantasy is 'clipping' which happens to have a current thread in that forum, and GW actually outright said "It's unsporting to do it" in the official FAQ.
If memory serves it was in fact originally Jervis who proposed it as a solution to rules dilemmas.
The point of RAW is that Warhammer games are abstract strategy games with arbitrary rules. They are not tactical combat simulations aspiring to absolute realism. RAW is meant to say "When the rule book doesn't make any sense, just do what it says anyway if there's a dispute."
An example of 'effective RAW' is the rule that you can never place a blast/template that covers you own models. Sure it's just plain stupid that your model can't fire a flamer at those genestealers because it would also hit your tank, it can't even hurt the tank! But that's what the rulebook says, template can't touch your own model, so we do what it says even if it makes no sense. (and learn to steer our flamers better in the future.)
The 'every sentence must be individually read in the most strictly legal frame of mind' is the obvious conclusion when you propose something to us sorts of people who are predisposed to play warhammer! =)
Trying to build a powder keg?
The thinking behind the so-called RAW over RAI advocates is that it's impossible to know what the rules are 'supposed' to mean, and so rather than argue over what seems like it SHOULD be, the default is that the game is played according to what the rules actually say.
Now, this is not to say that the RAW advocates necessarily play that way. The best solution for a disagreement with regard to rules interpretation or any game-breaking loophole in the rules could very well be to change the rules so that they work better for you. The point is that before the opponents actually talk it out amongst eachother, the only thing we have to go by with regard to understanding how the game will be played is the RAW.
As far as breaking RAW goes, my experience is that it's generally not a problem, and sometimes may even be a necessity. The important thing is that you discuss it before the game if it's going to come up, and reach an equitable solution with your opponent.
Last edited by Moglun; January 15th, 2008 at 17:01. Reason: Added 'default'.
Put the box on the table by the window in the kitchen.
early man with the implementation of writting.2. Who came up with it?You betcha. As said above, man people (like myself0 tha tadvocate for a strict RAW interpretation don't necessarily play that way.3. Is there a point of going to far with RAW, bit like if i said this plastic bottle was a wraith lord in terms of WYSIWYG.
16,000+ of Eldar (only need flyers)
7,000+ of Nids (want heirophant)
6,000+ of Space Marines (need rever titan)
4,400+ of Cygnar (all models for the faction)
1,500+ of Legion (just started)
early man with the implementation of writting.
Mesepotamia, or perhaps Egypt? I tried to find some reference to the earliest written system of game rules, but I failed.
Put the box on the table by the window in the kitchen.