Writing a good set of wargame rules is a complex and tricky affair. Most rulesets go through several rewrites due to the nature of the written word versus intent of the author. Hence, the authors of most good rulesets have a lot of independent play testers play the rules as they are written and provide feedback so they can be revised and clarified before going to the printer.

Even though the playtesting and revisions have taken place, some questions may still arise due to the interpretation of the reader. Hence,most rules follow a similar format no matter who the author or publisher may be. We have to look at those formats from one system to another to help decide the intent of the author if they are not able or willing to clarify the question.

Reading and interpreting rules is something that needs to be done with an open mind. If one person reads a rule differently than another, then it needs to be discussed rationally and if a consensus isn't agreed upon,a mediator needs to make a ruling. The best mediator is always the author as their intent for the rule is what matters!

Unfortunately some people wants to play RAW rather than RAI.

And sometimes even the author will give an answer that just completely contradicts the rule as intended.

Unfortunately some people wants to play RAW rather than RAI.

And sometimes even the author will give an answer that just completely contradicts the rule as intended.

What other systems do you play and/or have you played?

I'm currently using FOG, DBA, FOW, wings of Glory WWII, and Ronin. I've used WOTR, HOTT, BKC, Battlefront:WWII and Battleground WWII a lot before the current rules. I've played with Fire and Fury, Shako, Bolt Action, Johnnie Reb, Age of Reason and Crossfire. My son plays WH40K and FOG:Napoleonic so I've learned a lot of both of those sets. Plus I have an entire collection of rules that I've read, tried and set aside as not fitting the bill!

The most irritating issue I've had with an author was a game that was so broken, that after he finished all the corrections, rather than making the changes public, he called it a "second edition" and reprinted a new book for sale! Those of that had bought the first edition were left out in the cold and had to buy another book if we wanted to keep using his system! Needless to say we switched to a better system!

Unfortunately some people wants to play RAW rather than RAI.

And sometimes even the author will give an answer that just completely contradicts the rule as intended.

... isn't the "intent" in RAI what the author intends? If so, how can the author rule against it? If the author gives a ruling, can it be concidered anythg but his/her intent? I realy don't follow the logic here.

The problem with RAI is that we have no way of knowing what the author intended (unless he/she comuicates that intend in some other place then the rules), we only know the rules as writen and so thats what we should play by... imho.

I have playef moatly GW games like 40k, fantasy, blood bowl, mordheim, spacehulk and a lot of board games.

If an author writes up something he might word it so it communicates a clear intent. But this might not be what the author i tended. Sometimes it is not easy to get your origi al idea down on paper. Also rule sets often have more than one author and the rules end up different than intended by one author.

I'm confused here. What was the point again? Somthing about x wing rules? Or just a philosophic discussion?

Playing by RAI is seldom a good idea, because you can at best only guess what the intention is. You can start to interpret rules based on existing rules, but RAW is pretty much always the safe way to play.

Writing a good set of game rules is more than just a complex and tricky affair. The written word sometimes fails to convey the intent. And having more than one author complicates the issue further. As a game designer myself, the one thing I always work to avoid is having players have to 'assume' anything. Any time an assumption comes into the equation, misinterpreting usually follows. The X-Wing team have done a good job of this, leaving very little doubt as to how the game is supposed to work and play. A phrase that GW rule authors use way too much, is: "it is assumed...". It's good to see that FFG only use the word once in their rulebook. They've worked to avoid assumptions also.

A player should be able to look at the rules of any given game and be able to come to a conclusion that this is the way this rule works. No "ifs, buts or maybes". There shouldn't be any "I think it would maybe work like this" sort of speculation. If you read a rule and are left wondering how that works, then it's not written properly. That being said, it is extremely difficult to get every rule writing correct the first time. But something players shouldn't try to do is guess at the intent of the author. This only leads to the Dark Side.

RAI = Rules As Iwantthemtobeplayed.

There is no intent. You don't know the designer's intent. I don't know the designer's intent. When someone invokes "Intent" it's never the designer's intent - it's the player's.

At best, RAI is the height of arrogance, projecting your preferences for the game onto the designers. At worst, it's a club to force people to let you cheat because you just don't like the rules.

RAI = Rules As Iwantthemtobeplayed.

There is no intent. You don't know the designer's intent. I don't know the designer's intent. When someone invokes "Intent" it's never the designer's intent - it's the player's.

At best, RAI is the height of arrogance, projecting your preferences for the game onto the designers. At worst, it's a club to force people to let you cheat because you just don't like the rules.

That is SO correct. It comes down to assuming you know what the game designer was thinking, and there's only one person that could ever know that, and that's the designer.