Warhammer FAQ

Just noticed that GW has put up a new FAQ for Warhammer Fantasy Battles. Definately some good clarifications there - for anyone who plays.

I've always been more a RAI player, as opposed to RAW - but it's nice that some of these funny issues are resolved.

Anyway - for those interested...

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2220025_Warhammer_FAQ__PART2_Jan_2009.pdf

RAI?
RAW?

Pardon my ignorance

Oh, sorry.

RAI - Rules as Intended (using common sense when interpretting a rule - IE what the rules means).

RAW - Rules as Written (despite anything you may think is meant in the rule, it must be played EXACTLY as written).

Edit: a quick example can be like a Dwarven Flame Cannon. RAI would assume a FLAME cannon has flaming attacks. RAW would say, as it's not under they're rules, it does not.

Thx for the explaination!

Oh yes, definitely, I would be a RAI player. I checked out the errata. Most of the things are actually the way I understood them.

Lol, yeah I've never really needed a FAQ for Warhammer (it's a nice, simple game. Hmm... much like the ease of Mordheim...). It's just nice to have it down official like so when a player is arguing their interpretation of the rules is more accurate then yours, you can show them politely how wrong they are.

Personally, I've never had an issue with it as I think most gamers out to have a good time are RAI, though perhaps it's the tourney players that live by RAW. Anyway, what do I know?

Ethlorien wrote:

[...] you can show them politely how wrong they are.

LOL. True.

Ethlorien wrote:

I think most gamers [...] are RAI

Yes I agree. However everyone tends to turn a little RAW without noticing at times. Particularily when the battle events are not exactly in one's favour..

I know that this does sometimes happen to me. Suddenly it DOES become vitally important to you that the enemy archer's range falls 1mm short

Eight pages of errata is impressive.