Reading and Context: RAW vs RAI and the In Between

It's the age old argument in the 40K community: "Well the rules say this which technically means..." versus "Well technically yes, but there's no way that's what they were intending..."
We've all been there and have likely made both of these arguments when it's been of benefit to us. That's not an indictment on anyone, both arguments have merit and are worthy of consideration, but I want to discuss when it's appropriate to take one stance over another.

We've all been there at one point or another. There's a weird rules interaction that doesn't seem like it should work the way your opponent says it does. The unit entry doesn't make sense with how a rule is written. Contradictory rules, etc.. Warhammer 40K is a complex game and with hundreds of pages of rules covering 2 dozen armies, situations like these arise often. Even the tightest ruleset will have unintended interactions when you have as many variables and moving pieces (no pun intended) as a tabletop wargame. So how should we interpret the rules when situations like these occur?

Times When They Broke Their Own Rules

Let's dive in with some examples. Some of these have been rectified via FAQ/Errata or were simply from a past edition, but they all fall into this conversation in one way or another. So let's take a look at some of the more over the top ones.

1. Celestine and her Doppelgangers: The release of 8th Edition saw a complete rewrite of every unit in the game. While most units transitioned reasonably well as far as rules were concerned, there were naturally some that had some hiccups. Celestine was one of these, for the simple reason that the writers forgot to include "Unique" as part of her rules. This meant that per RAW, you could have as many Celestines in your army as points and detachments would allow. Clearly this was never the intention of the rules team and it was updated via Errata pretty quickly, but it still provided a humorous rules discussion. Disclaimer: I don't know of anyone who actually tried to pull of this list, TOs and gaming groups were pretty quick to laugh this one off. And rightly so.
2. Longstrike and Old One Eye: Examples of special characters who didn't provide their buffs to themselves when clearly they were meant to. This came about early in 8th Edition and was part of the early learning curve related to Keywords. Longstrike has since been updated and I believe that the new Tyranids codex fixed Old One Eye, but still on release these were issues.
3. Longshot Pulse Rifle: Sniper drones are armed with this weapon which is a sniper variant of the standard pulse rifle. The Cadre Fireblade has the Volley Fire rule which states that pulse pistols, carbines and rifles benefit from VF. So does that include the Longshot Pulse Rifle? The faction focus pre-8th Edition seemed to indicate this was the case and was signed off on by GW, but do the rules actually support that?
4. Volley Fire: Another T'au argument, what is the definition of "an additional shot"? Is it a single extra dice roll or is it another attack with the weapon? I'll refrain from sharing my thoughts (shot = dice...oops).
5. Culexus vs Dark Reapers: If you're targeting the Culexus, your weapon WS/BS is 6+. The Dark Reapers always hit on a 3+. Who wins?

These are just a few of the questions I've seen pop up since 8th Edition released and previous editions were just as bad. Assuming we all are operating on a competent level of reading comprehension and are willing to be objective, how do you interpret rules that are seemingly contradictory or wrong?

Rules of Thumb

While the only hard and fast rule for resolving these disputes is to dice off and keep playing, we need a little more if we're intending to play the same rule over and over. For that you need consensus or clarification. Consensus can be something as simple as a house rule. This could even extend to some rules that a group feels are unfair as written. Clarification will come from GW itself or a third party group like the ITC that provides an FAQ or Errata. Ideally, the company that produces the game will provide clarity for how they want their game to be played, and recently GW has been very good about releasing these FAQs in a timely manner (some would argue TOO often but that's a separate issue).

Here are my two rules:
1. Take the most conservative interpretation of the rule that still abides by the rule.
2. Apply Occam's Razor. The simplest solution that adequately answers the question should be used.

If you look through some of the rules debates above, these rules have some easy applications. Celestine is clearly unique and should be played as such. The lack of "Unique" was clearly an oversight so you would play by the rules as intended rather than as written. The others have various applications but when you get down to it, these two rules will generally allow you to arrive at the correct interpretation. Longstrike and OOE can buff themselves. Drones don't explode. Volley Fire gives an extra dice. Culexus vs Dark Reapers is...ok that one had to be FAQ'ed, no easy way around it.

Playing Rules as Written tends to lead to abuses of the rules set in most situations but isn't necessarily a wrong or illegal way to play the game. Let's go back in time to 7th Edition and the age of Death Stars. I feel like it's a safe assumption that Azrael was never intended to be attached to a unit of 90 Fenrisian Wolves to provide his 4++ and FNP from warlord trait to that entire unit. I can't imagine that was something that GW intended, but with formations, allies, and independent character rules as they were, this was entirely within the rule set.

Here's what this all boils down to, RAW and RAI are both valid methods of interpreting the rules so long as there is an objective standard on what the rules are trying to accomplish. The Celestine debate should clearly be played RAI. Death Stars were clearly an issue of RAW. Personally, I'd say that there's a line of demarcation. Competitive play should try to stick to RAW as much as possible so that players have that objective baseline to draw from, while casual play should stick to RAI so as to produce a more fun game and allow for house rulings.

Final Thoughts

Whichever way you may tend to lead on your interpretation of the rules, make sure you go into any game (competitive or casual) with the intent that you're going to have fun. It's part of the social contract we all enter into when we put models on the table and start rolling dice. With that in mind, I refer back to my two rules which sum up to simply using the least abusive interpretation of the rules. Some good ways to get clarification, though, are to look at precedent, FAQs, Errata, and examples from the rulebook.

Precedent: See if there's a similar rule elsewhere that you can use as analogy. As much as some people will want to claim that each situation is unique, there's a lot of overlap. Find a similar case that has a resolution and you'll probably have your answer.

FAQ/Errata: GW provides these on their own webpage for every current publication. Keep the most recent copy handy so that you can refer back to any rules that may have been changed or clarified. Many times I've been in a rules discussion and the other person cites the original version which has since been updated. Don't be stuck in the past.

Examples: These may come from the rulebook or from the designer's commentary or another official source, but GW has long provided examples of how they intend their rules to work. Even if it's just on a basic level.

Bottom line is that this is a game. It's designed to have fun with friends and you should never lose sight of that. Don't sacrifice civility and sportsmanship just so that you can abuse a rules loophole. As with most things, the solution lies in the middle of the two sides. Always try to play the game as it was intended to be played while still utilizing all of the tools at your disposal within the rules themselves. Sometimes you get lucky and have a perfectly legal loophole, enjoy it while it lasts! But if you find yourself playing the "Well technically I can do this, if I do this and this" you may want to take a step back. Anyways, thanks for reading and roll that hard six.

Tau'va