There woz a great editorial in the latest WD by a lawyer who is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against rules lawyering and gave some great examples to support his case. Basically he woz saying RAW is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be interpreted because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never support RAW anymore.

I highly encourage everyone here to read it!

Uh, we already have two topics going on the matter.  One in News & Rumors andf one in Dakka Discussions.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=6&tpage=2&view=topic&postid=47049#52383

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=7&postid=51646&view=topic

Popular, huh.

Man, where is the rolly-eyed smiley when you really need him?

Oh, wait, there he is. And look, he brought some friends too.

First it was 'nades and now "woz"?

And I swear I saw "'Nadoes" out there somewhere recently...

The pain...

Frankly, if his examples seemed like good examples to you, then you probably shouldn't ever be debating rules.

You can't teach a monkey calculus. But the monkey will never know he doesn't get it.

I hate the RAW and rules-lawyers as well. That's why from now on my Fire Warriors are going to Rapid Fire to 15". If anyone argues it's against the RAW, I'll make them take a D6 test on it.

To Mr. Stonedogs:

"My assault cannons rend on 5's and 6's, because it just feels right."

 

Forget that; I feel that my assault cannons should still have the 2nd ed. profile. Str. 8, D10 wounds, up to 9 shots, baby! And anyone who tries to correct me is a rules-lawyering bastard who's trying to ruin my fun, and is focused too heavily on the rules and not enough on my fun!

Well it is okay for you to feel that way but probably you are going to have a hard time finding anyone to play... coz you are a cheater.

Cheater because it is against RAW, or Cheater because it is against your opinion?

The former forces you to recant your original statement, as you must enforce RAW.
The later doesn't matter, because your opponents opinion is just as valid as yours.

This is why RAW exists, BloodyT. Without it the game degenerates into nothing more than a pissing match.

I'm just wondering why any attention was given to this post. You guys took the flamebait and now he's supposedly calling someone a cheater, like the kettle/pot-black thing.

Well it is okay for you to feel that way but probably you are going to have a hard time finding anyone to play... coz you are a cheater.

Prove it. It's YMDC after all.

 

Wow, I took much longer than I thought - again.  BlueLoki, you are obviously daft and undeserving of his comments because he's a god, which means he has no reason to stoop to your fallible human logic which is the basis for RAW.  I guess that puts me in the same boat and I should remove my statement.

No... don't get the wrong impression. RAW is a great thing as long as we use common sense as well. I agree with the lawyer who wrote the article that no rule system is perfect and they are all open to interpretation. We can use RAW to see what exactly the written rule states then go from there. So for me RAW is a starting point but not necessarily the finish line.

It's common sense that my assault cannons rend on 5's and 6's. 

Duh.  

And a good rules system is not open to interpretation. You don't get alot of arguments in Chess that rooks move diaginally because it's a great example of a rules system that is properly written.

Chess is a much simpler game than Warhammer 40k so it only makes sense that its rules are easy to understand, plus it is a game that has been around for a long time with no new editions I can remember in my lifetime. I think it is illogical to compare the rules for chess and 40k.

Posted By BloodyT on 03/27/2006 12:25 PM
Chess is a much simpler game than Warhammer 40k so it only makes sense that its rules are easy to understand, plus it is a game that has been around for a long time with no new editions I can remember in my lifetime. I think it is illogical to compare the rules for chess and 40k.

Simplicity isn't what makes the rules clear, the clear rules makeit simple. Even warhammer could have very clear rules if they were written in a more consistent fashion.

Simplicity is what makes the rules clear.

Who cares?

All I know is that my marines have 2+ saves and 4 wounds when I play this joker, as that's common sense.

It's like playing 40k with Erich von Daniken.  People who liked that editorial should also pick up a copy of Chariots of the Gods too; it's more of the "it's right because my opinions are just as valid as any 'facts' that you can produce".

You have no basis to support your claim. No one will accept what you are saying unless they are a complete novice to the game. That is called talking junk. :S

And there's no basis to read the rules any way other than the way they're written. Thus, RAW wins.

T, the point is, if you take even the slightest detour from what is written in black and white, you open the rules wide for abuse by anyone. Since you are then playing with "Intent" in mind, anyone can claim that anything is legal because of designers "intent".

How do you know that it is not their "intent" that all bolters are rending?
How do you know that it is not their "intent" that drop pods can be targeted using mystics?

Both of these statements have the same amount of worth in the eyes of the rules, neither are supported. Yet, some will claim that the second is the designers intent while the first is not. If you open the door to the second statement, you also open the door for the first.

Yes it is rediculous, but the point is that the only way to realistically play using anything other than the RAW is to play with a group of people composed ENTIRELY of players that share and agree with your EXACT opinions. To do otherwise is to force your opinions on another player who may not agree with them.

Such a group is a rare find, and if you have found one, then we are happy for you. But, the rest of us must play by the RAW as closely as possible, deviating only when the rules become so broken that they are unplayable.

I disagree blue loki. I think it's pretty easy to see, in most cases, what the intent of the deisgners was. What that article was doing was not only making a call for common sense, but a call for maturity in general among players. Maturity meaning someone isn't going to try and call "intent" to get rending bolters, etc. It means people will rationally look at the rules and anything that isn't perfectly clear they will make their best judgment on it, using maturity amongst all involved. If there is still a disagreement, then roll a die on it and leave it be there. Personally I won't play a rules lawyer that obviously goes against the intent of the game, they are violating the most important rule of all, HAVE FUN. Yes, contrary to some people's opinion it's possible to have fun without strictly using RAW (and all it's flaws) and completely abandoning common sense. I know maturity is really a lot to ask of some people but I've been fortunate enough to find opponents that are. Yeah there's always some rules confusion but we always resolve it in a quick and easy manner and of the 3 stores I play at all of them will basically laugh out anyone that tries to defy common sense and obvious intent. The article used the example of the psycannons with bikes invulnerable save. This was a great example to use to show what the intent was.

Ed - I respect your abilities tactically and you seem to be able to make extremely effective armies, but man I honestly cannot say I know a less mature poster on this board. Is there ever a time that you do NOT insult someone you don't agree with? Is there ever a time you don't resort immediately to thick sarcasm? Seriously man, just respnd and refute, you don't need to insult, it really detracts form your posts.

"And there's no basis to read the rules any way other than the way they're written. Thus, RAW wins."

That would exist only in a world where there are no questions regarding the rules. However not even RAW always works as is clearly evident by the many heated discussions here in this forum. We interpret the rules here everyday and sometimes there is no sure answer as to wot is the right answer.

That would exist only in a world where there are no questions regarding the rules. However not even RAW always works as is clearly evident by the many heated discussions here in this forum. We interpret the rules here everyday and sometimes there is no sure answer as to wot is the right answer.

...Because there are no errata or clarifications. Head over to a CCG site sometime and practically everything's answered by something from the latest addenda packet; anything that is not is working as intended until later clarified. Even PP or Battlefront makes these packets. Now, would you rather carry around a, say, 50-100 page document with all the clarifications for the game as-is or have the chance of a rules argument cropping up in at least half the games you play outside of your local crowd?

 

\/\/\/ I bet Iorek's jealous because somebody told him his turbo-boosted bikes had no save from psycannons and he didn't have the luxury of this article to back him up. (So what? You know it's true.) \/\/\/

When the RAW fails, of course you'll have to make your own interpretation, but that's not what we're talking about here.  We're talking about people ignoring what IS written because they're magical fairies that can read the minds of the designers, even going back in time.

-=Edit=- This is a response to BloodyT, not Stonefox.

Posted By flyins on 03/27/2006 3:12 PM
I think it's pretty easy to see, in most cases, what the intent of the deisgners was.

 

I strongly disagree. I think it is incredibly hard for players to argee on what the designers intent was much of the time, especially since 40k appeals to such a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Players who have been in the game for several editions have a much different view of what designer intent is than newer players, yet the newer players are not biased by memories of previous editions and the "good ole days".

Issues such as "Why are they called Scouts if they aren't Scouts" come to mind. Was it the designers intent for Marnies Scouts to have the "Scouts" rule? To some it is clearly NO, as the rule is not included in their profile, but to others it is clearly YES, as the word "Scout" appears in the unit's name.

Another example is shooting at incoming Drop Pods. The fluff says no, but the rules might say yes depending on the reader's opinion of the Drop pod/Deep strike relationship.

And of course, there is the ever-present First-striking Doom Siren Power Fist combo. The unofficial FAQ that cleared up the argument was removed from the GW site. Was it the designer's intent to remove the FAQ because they realized they had made an error, or are they really working on a new official FAQ, making their intent to keep the change yet confuse the players?

How about Twin-linked Tyranid weapons?
Line-of-fire vs Line-of-sight for removing casualties from Ordnance Barrage?
6 Venerable Dreadnought lists?
Inquisitors insta-kill themselves when they roll Perils of the Warp?
SOB Faith countering non-counterable psychic effects?
Does every psychic power have to roll to hit?
Using your enemy's teleport homer?
Do bikes require one hand to drive?
Does the maximum range of Rapid fire weapons change if you double tap for casualty removal purposes?

I have heard all sorts of "designer's intent" arguments for both sides of each of these questions. You cannot expect anyone to agree with your own personal view of common sense, designer's intent, etc. on any of these without first having a conversation about it. To expect such is to invite a very heated debate mid-game. Everybody has an opinion as to what designer's intent is, but in the end each of those opinions is ONLY an opinion, and is no more correct or valid than anyone else's.

Example: I think it IS the designers intent that you can use your enemy's teleport homer. The thing is broadcasting a signal. Why wouldn't the enemy be able to unscramble and lock onto it? It makes sense. But I will not play it that way, because the rulebook is a bit hazy on the subject of its efect on the enemy list. So, instead I play it by the RAW as closely as possible while taking the least advantageous position. I.E. if my opponent wants to use mine, go ahead, but I won't use his until its FAQed.

In the end, if you find yourself adamant about an iffy-at-best issue, it might be you who is in error. Its usually the ones who are looking to exploit loop-holes that fail to keep an open mind on the subject. Most of the time, you should be able to accept your opponents opinion on a debatable matter until it can be researched later. Be a good sport, let him have his way, and look it up and hash it out after the game. On the rare occasion that an opponents list is built around one of these iffy "intent" arguments, then you know that just might be facing a true jerk. In that instance, simply refuse to play him and move on, or better yet, cream him dispite the loop-hole.

Playing by the RAW *should* remove all assumption from the game. That, of course, is what claiming "designer's intent" is, an assumption. You are assuming that you know what the designer had in mind when he wrote the rule. Unfortunately it is impossible to actually play the game strictly by the RAW, but playing as close to it as possible is the most fair way to run the game.

If you and you opponent agree on certain assumptions, then by all means use them, thats called a house rule. But, don't force your assumptions and opinions on someone else, its rude.

No Iorek, that is what you are talking about. People asks rules mainly for one of two reasons... they have a legitimate question, legitimate being they truly are unsure... the other reason is to manipulate the rules for an advantage that was not intended, such as Doomfist. The author of the editorial was addressing type two.

T, you are right. But you still don't know that the Doom Fist was not intended. It probably was not (it would be wicked nasty), but you cannot say for certain without an official FAQ on the subject.

See, this is what I mean about assuming intent, the Doom Fist is a prime example.

Unofficial FAQ makes Doom Siren work like it did under 2nd printing, striking at initiative. Removal of said FAQ reinstates Doom Siren to 3rd printing rules, making it always strike first.
Was the intent to retract the change made by the FAQ? If not, why remove the FAQ before the official FAQ is released? Why was it changed so drastically in the first place?

If you attempt to answer any of these questions with a definitive answer, then you are forcing your assumption on everyone else. Because, no matter how logical you assumption is, you have no proof that your opinion is the actual truth.

All things are taken in faith.

Playing by the RAW *should* remove all assumption from the game.

We all know it doesn't even remotely, this is evidenced by the debates on this forum alone. Playing by RAW, with all it's flaws and obvious errors, does nothing any better than playing with some obvious agreed upon assumptions. You invite just as many arguments that way, and in my opinion look awful silly in some cases where the RAW is devoid of common sense.

Would you prefer to sap all fun from a game by bringing a complete list of debated topics and then sit down and choose the ruling you will use for that game from that list? Hell you're going to add at least 30 minutes of pre-game discussion that way, and might end up pissing off an opponent before you've even played. If and when a debatable topic comes up in a game each "side" should make their case, politely and calmly. If the other does not agree to your reasoning roll a die to decide and then move on. Makes for a quick game, good sportsmanship, and fun.

To expect such is to invite a very heated debate mid-game.

Not if it's handled maturely. If in the event you still have someone that gets all hot under the collar then at least you know of a person not to play again. Situations that are handled maturely by mature players should never result in heated arguments, just open discussisons. It doens't mean you necessarily agree, but that you respect the other person's opinion, make a decision based on a die roll if needed, and proceed on with the fun!

Everybody has an opinion as to what designer's intent is, but in the end each of those opinions is ONLY an opinion, and is no more correct or valid than anyone else's.

Absolutely I agree, but the RAW is not even close to being "hard, fast, and clear". Again it's nothing that can't be handled by mature people.

On the rare occasion that an opponents list is built around one of these iffy "intent" arguments, then you know that just might be facing a true jerk. In that instance, simply refuse to play him and move on, or better yet, cream him dispite the loop-hole.

I agree here as well. Creating a list around something that is known to be a contraversial ruling is not being a good sport at all. Of course I don't assume every person that does that is intending to try and expose a loophole, they may be a new player that just thought he had the right ruling. I admit that's a rare case, but I'm just trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

If you and you opponent agree on certain assumptions, then by all means use them, thats called a house rule. But, don't force your assumptions and opinions on someone else, its rude.

Everyone has "house" rules. This is proven by your statement above that playing strictly by the RAW is impossible. There MUST be some level of assumption and house rules in place to actually play a successful game. I'm certiainly not advocated forcing someone to play to my interpretations of intent, that's been one of my major points here from the start. If there's a disagreement, then just roll on it. Quick, simple resolution. If it doesn't go in your favor, then you better be mature enough to deal with it and move on.

If you attempt to answer any of these questions with a definitive answer, then you are forcing your assumption on everyone else. Because, no matter how logical you assumption is, you have no proof that your opinion is the actual truth.

I think most mature people are not so "forceful" when they state their case.  I don't think a mature player tries to "force" anything on other players.  They state their case and why.  The other person does as well.  If they both still disagree then a die is rolled and that determines the ruling.  If someone is still upset after this then they are NOT a mture and reasonable player, and thusly I wouldn't play them again.  I think too many people forget it's a freaking GAME. 

flyins, you seem like a very reasonable person.

Unfortunately, a fair number of less reasonable people do play this game. Some of them turn up at tournaments, where I lack the luxury of choosing not to play them. And, in the heat of the moment, even reasonable, "mature" people can begin to grow a bit disgruntled; Centurian99 has the perfect example of why this could occur, courtesy of one Adepticon opponent. (I won't spoil his story, but oi!)

We have precisely ONE tool to use to determine what the rules are: the rule book(s). The books, in turn, have words. Words have meanings. If GW wanted their rules to be much better than they are, they could be - a competent technical writer (or, in my case, a patent writer) could take what they've tossed us, create a set of defined game terms, and remove at least 75% of the rules issues. But until GW is willing to pay my hourly rate for the work (I'd estimate about 50 hours for a truly top-notch job, with extensive cross-checking), I'm not going to do it.

The "why" is simple: anything I do to fix their rules is just a house rule. And, for a game that just drew 300+ games into a single hall on a single day from across the entire country, a house rule doesn't cut it.

All I know is, if I hear my opponent use the words "common sense" or "intent" in his rules argument he's going to have a very, very unfun time trying to convince me that my terminators don't have jumppacks and my powerfists don't go at initiative order.

After all, that's just common sense.

Well now we get into the creation of a whole new stereotype of gamer. The "argue till I get a d6" gamer.

See you have your Rule Lawyers and your blatant cheaters. You have your Proxyists and now we have the arm chair lawyers.

Arm chair lawyers are being created by this entire article, claiming to know intent and arguing until they can get a "d6" ruling on a situation in a game.

To me I would rather play against a blatant cheater, because then you can disprove what they are saying, the armchair lawyer is too lazy to actually attempt to prove a point by looking in the rule so they say "let's d6 it".

Bah I say. I'd play with any of you guys anytime, even Anderton.

can i hire a rules lawyer ? i need help with this.

its my contention that by RAW, a squad embarked in a transport are all 1 unit. the vehilcle is an upgrade to said unit... yes ?

so on my turn i nominate to shoot at said unit (embarked in their vehicle) it blows up, and now i can assault them, because you are allowed to assault the unit you shot at.

most people argue that its not allowed becasue its always been played that you can do it. but 4th edition RAW allows its, unless i missed something.

You missed something.

But open a new thread, you hijacker.

All I know is, if I hear my opponent use the words "common sense" or "intent" in his rules argument he's going to have a very, very unfun time trying to convince me that my terminators don't have jumppacks and my powerfists don't go at initiative order.

After all, that's just common sense.

No, it's just being immature and pissy. You're obviously unwilling to admit there is possibly any other intent than what you have decided is the intent (as we've proven before there is ALWAYS some level of assumption even when using strict RAW).

If you were willing to accept the obvious proof (this forum being enough proof) that there are some unclear rules can be interpreted more than one way then there would be no problem. The "examples" you try to add in above are not examples of unclear rulings (other than the Doom Siren Powerfist, which if I'm not mistaken you do not play anyway).

Unfortunately, a fair number of less reasonable people do play this game.

Sadly yes, but I've found many many more that are perfectly reasonable.

Some of them turn up at tournaments, where I lack the luxury of choosing not to play them. And, in the heat of the moment, even reasonable, "mature" people can begin to grow a bit disgruntled

Personally I hold that if you're going to get angry about it at all, then it's ceased to be a game to you and then you need to re-evaluate if you should even be playing or not. In a tournament, you go with the ruling of the judges (or whatever they are called) and move on. If you're the one trying to use an army based on a contraversial rule, well we've discussed that above. If your opponent is and they get the ruling on their side, then beat them anyway. If you don't beat them, shake hands gracefully at the end and politely voice your opinion on the ruling with the judge afterwards.

Arm chair lawyers are being created by this entire article, claiming to know intent and arguing until they can get a "d6" ruling on a situation in a game.

To me I would rather play against a blatant cheater, because then you can disprove what they are saying, the armchair lawyer is too lazy to actually attempt to prove a point by looking in the rule so they say "let's d6 it".

I'm sorry you make that assessment about me, it's quote inaccurate. I never said to not know the rules. I never said to not use the rules in defending your "side" of the disagreement. I never said I was "too lazy" to look up and know a rule. What I did say is if there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules then each state your case concisely. If both sides are unwilling to cede then the quickest resolution is to use a die roll and move on. Makes for quick game flow, avoids argument, and settles the issue. Of course, as I said before, this relies on mature players.

"The most important rule about playing games of Warhammer 40,000 is to have fun! Now while having fun may often be gained by mercilessly crushing your opponent's forces, never ever forget that you are BOTH there to have fun. Whenever you play a game, you and your opponent are basically agreeing to duel according to a set of fairly abstract rules, with a theoretical ground scale, using representative forces and a thousand other subtle agreements that go together to make it work.

The battle itself is a shared experience and great entertainment for both sides if they are both willing to make it so. No one particularly enjoys playing a game with someone who is overwrought, irascible and generally mean, or who only plays to win at all costs. That kind of player soon has difficulty finding opponents because they simply aren't much fun to game against. So the most important rule is to play nice and treat your opponent with the respect you would wish to get back from them so that you both have a (sic) enjoyable and exciting game. If you can do that AND mercilessly crush their forces at the same time, then you really are a winner."

BGB

Personally I hold that if you're going to get angry about it at all, then it's ceased to be a game to you and then you need to re-evaluate if you should even be playing or not. In a tournament, you go with the ruling of the judges (or whatever they are called) and move on. If you're the one trying to use an army based on a contraversial rule, well we've discussed that above. If your opponent is and they get the ruling on their side, then beat them anyway. If you don't beat them, shake hands gracefully at the end and politely voice your opinion on the ruling with the judge afterwards.

You seem like a nice and reasonable person, but this for me betrays a lack of understanding of competition and its effect on people. The exact same psychological and phsysiological factors which make competition exciting and fun are the ones that will make it easier for you to become angry or stressed if your opponent seems to be trying to pull a fast one.

If the game draws in 300+ people from across the country, there will inevitably be confusion and conflicts between people's varying understandings of the rules. Is it better to try to play by the rules as best we can, or to allow your opponent a d6 roll even if the rule is clear?

The Psycannon example was well covered in the Discussions thread, IMO. By the RAW, Psycannons ignore bike saves when bikes turbo boost. By fluff/logic, I think this makes sense- a guy driving 100mph (or even kph) who gets psychically assaulted with a machinegun is probably more vulnerable than most, with very likely deadly consequences. From a game balance perspective, it makes sense to me that there is at least ONE way to shoot and wound that damn 2+ save chaos lord on a bike. From the "designer's intent" argument, when Pete Haines wrote on the GW message boards that it did indeed work that way, well, that seems pretty solid.

Yet your perspective is exactly the opposite, despite a clear understanding of exactly what the RAW says.

I'm sorry you make that assessment about me, it's quote inaccurate. I never said to not know the rules. I never said to not use the rules in defending your "side" of the disagreement. I never said I was "too lazy" to look up and know a rule. What I did say is if there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules then each state your case concisely. If both sides are unwilling to cede then the quickest resolution is to use a die roll and move on. Makes for quick game flow, avoids argument, and settles the issue. Of course, as I said before, this relies on mature players.

I think you are taking a comment personally which was never directed at you. He was pointing out that there are potentially wider consequences to this article, in that both cretins and nice-but-misguided people may use it as reason to believe they have a leg to stand on when asking that a d6 decide whether their opinion trumps the rules even when they are clear. And that by sanctioning this approach when used between nice people, he gives cretins cover in which to pretend that they are actually just nice but misguided people when they try this tactic in a rules disagreement.

A couple quick points:

<?  

?How can Common Sense be used to interpret rules?

I agree that RAW states the psycannon kills 3+ boosting bikes dead.  But this does feel wrong to me.  It doesn?t feel wrong because it is ?unrealistic? or any such thing.  It feels wrong because:

 

a)      Boosting is supposed to make a bike MORE difficult to hit, it is, as we say, a ?buff?

b)      Normally a psycannon would have a hard time killing a bike.

c)      Why, when buffed, is the model actually worse off?

 

Does anyone actually believe that GW wrote the rule and thought?you know, we?d really preserve game balance if psycannons could stop speeding bikes, lets word it this way.  I doubt it.  I think what really happened was that it was an accident, not intent, but when pressed GW read the rules, said ?yep, that?s what it says, yer right?um, yes, we meant to do that.?

 

?Designing an army around a known debatable rule.?

This is definitely uncool and bad sportsmanship in my opinion.  When I design tourney or league lists I try to NOT use such issues when possible, so that I can avoid these situations.  It is VERY frustrating to be on the other side of this, and I actually had this done to me in the last game of 40k I played (fall ?05).  Since then, I?ve taken a break from 40k and won?t play for awhile.  Yep, it was that bad.  The biggest problem I had was that the RAW crowd was all in agreement on it, but every one of them said ?it?s almost certainly wrong, but by the rules as written he can do it.? 

 

It was at that point I decided that I had either progressed to a level so competitive that 40k rules were just not written well enough to support it, or I had just grown too frustrated with debating the 40k rule set with folks.  So I needed a break.

 

?What the heck is my point??

The point is that people that push the line know they are pushing it.  I don?t understand why some folks feel the need to push it so hard.  My opponent in the above example KNEW what he was doing was debatable; he even said he?d NEVER do it in a tourney, but he felt he could do it in the venue we were playing.  So he intentionally mis-used RAW to build a stronger list. 

 

My point is that if you want to be thought of as a friendly gamer who is fun to play against, you want to build lists and read the rules as balanced as possible.

 

If you want to build a list around a startling discovery you found on page 85 of your codex  along with what you read on paragraph 3 on page 10 of the rule book and  when combined with the ?clarification? on the 8^th post on the 5^th thread of page 6 of the eye-of-terror forums, well go for it.  But expect 3 things: Arguments, Wins (because your opponent will stop caring about ½ way through the game), and more and more difficulty finding opponents over time.

Beautifully put Russ.

Posted By flyins on 03/28/2006 10:24 AM

Arm chair lawyers are being created by this entire article, claiming to know intent and arguing until they can get a "d6" ruling on a situation in a game.

To me I would rather play against a blatant cheater, because then you can disprove what they are saying, the armchair lawyer is too lazy to actually attempt to prove a point by looking in the rule so they say "let's d6 it".

I'm sorry you make that assessment about me, it's quote inaccurate. I never said to not know the rules. I never said to not use the rules in defending your "side" of the disagreement. I never said I was "too lazy" to look up and know a rule. What I did say is if there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules then each state your case concisely. If both sides are unwilling to cede then the quickest resolution is to use a die roll and move on. Makes for quick game flow, avoids argument, and settles the issue. Of course, as I said before, this relies on mature players.

I'm sorry Flyins, but when did I say that YOU were the target of my comment? I was making a general statement about what I feel the effects of the article in WD is going to create. I never once said that you are any part of my statement. Please refrain from assuming that I would single you or anyone else out without specifically stating that I am doing so. You could've saved yourself a whole paragraph of typing and ending said paragraph with a ridiculous hidden insult.

Does anyone actually believe that GW wrote the rule and thought?you know, we?d really preserve game balance if psycannons could stop speeding bikes, lets word it this way. I doubt it. I think what really happened was that it was an accident, not intent, but when pressed GW read the rules, said ?yep, that?s what it says, yer right?um, yes, we meant to do that.?

I have no doubt thats what GW INTENDED.

BUT

I'm not willing to conceed it until GW puts it in a FAQ. Its rewarding bad behavior on GW's part. If they want the psycannon rules to say it, THEY need to get off their lazy butt and do so. If their so intent on laying claim to the idea that they, GW are the porche of miniature gaming, then they need to SHOW ME that in their product.

Their sloppy "good enough" ethic belays their intent. Hire a real editor for god sakes....

As long as Psycannons ignore a save due to dodging things with lightning reflexes, I see no problem with them popping a bike that's moving really fast.

You have no basis to support your claim. No one will accept what you are saying unless they are a complete novice to the game. That is called talking junk.

Precisely. Just like the "Rules Lawyers are bad" article. It's junk.

"There woz a great editorial in the latest WD by a lawyer who is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against rules lawyering and gave some great examples to support his case. Basically he woz saying RAW is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be interpreted because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never support RAW anymore."

Translation:

There [was] a [largley pointless] editorial in the latest WD by [someone who says he is] a lawyer who [says he] is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against [following the rules] and gave some [flawed] examples to [derail] his case. Basically he [was] saying [playing by the rules] is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be [skewed to whatever you feel like at the time] because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never [play by the rules] anymore.

BYE

There [was] a [largley pointless] editorial in the latest WD by [someone who says he is] a lawyer who [says he] is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against [following the rules] and gave some [flawed] examples to [derail] his case. Basically he [was] saying [playing by the rules] is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be [skewed to whatever you feel like at the time] because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never [play by the rules] anymore.

Sigged, you magnificent cynical bastard!

Playing RAW is impossible. You cannot play RAW period, simply because the Rules as currently written still need some opinion based interpretation. Until GW writes a clear Rulebook, no one can possibly play RAW without contradiction.

I so love the people who argue that RAW is the only way when it really does not exist.

This is the dumbest argument ever.

You can play RAW when the rules are clear. The fact that some rules are ambiguously explained does not mean that everyone can argue with any bit of rules they don't like.

I'm sorry Flyins, but when did I say that YOU were the target of my comment? I was making a general statement about what I feel the effects of the article in WD is going to create. I never once said that you are any part of my statement. Please refrain from assuming that I would single you or anyone else out without specifically stating that I am doing so. You could've saved yourself a whole paragraph of typing and ending said paragraph with a ridiculous hidden insult.

Being that your post directly addressed talking about rolling a d6, something I stated several times in multiple posts, it was a fair assessment that you were responding to me. If not, then I apologize for mistaking what appeared to be a direct response to me by any rational person.

I in no way made any insult attempt at you. If I were to insult you, I'd come right out and say it. Subtlety can be left to politics. Please refrain from assuming insult were none is present, my comments on maturity were stated several times before as well. Please feel free to actually read the entire topic if you don't know what I'm referring to. Thanks.

There [was] a [largley pointless] editorial in the latest WD by [someone who says he is] a lawyer who [says he] is a member of Dakka Dakka. He was totally against [following the rules] and gave some [flawed] examples to [derail] his case. Basically he [was] saying [playing by the rules] is total rubbish and that rules are meant to be [skewed to whatever you feel like at the time] because they are never perfect. This was very refreshing for me and from now on I will never [play by the rules] anymore.

Garbage, plain and simple.  We've already spoken above (again if you actually read the entire topic) that it is impossible to play STRICTLY by RAW.  There must be SOME level of assumption of intent to actually get through a game at all.  Your assertion that the writer of the article doesn't want to play by the rules is childish and inaccurate at best.  Saying he suggests one can "skew the rules to whatever you feel like at the time" is as well.  Try a rational, mature argument for once.  I know that's rare on dakka, but please, try.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I would take you a lot more seriously if you did. 

I in no way made any insult attempt at you. If I were to insult you, I'd come right out and say it. Subtlety can be left to politics. Please refrain from assuming insult were none is present

Now you know where I am coming from.

No reasonable need to assume I was referring directly to you, just like there is no reasonable need to assume you were insulting...

see my point?

"Your assertion that the writer of the article doesn't want to play by the rules is childish and inaccurate at best."

The writer of the article very clearly states he doesn't want to play by the rules himself, as evidenced by his claim that he's going to take an armor save with a turbo boosted bike.

Try a rational, mature argument for once.  I know that's rare on dakka, but please, try.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I would take you a lot more seriously if you did.

<?

Now flyins, that's hardly fair.  There are LOTS of rational arguments on Dakka.  Rational arguments by HBMC...on the other hand. ;-)

Let's just say that if you assume all the article writter's statements about his career, gaming history, and association with Dakka are true, you'd be a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">LOT</st1:place> closter to the truth than if you assumed they were false.

Let's pick appart HBMC's comments as he picked appart the article author's.  It seems only fair:

[largely pointless] - Clearly not true.  The point of an editorial is to foster debate on an issue.  Here at Dakka there are no less than 3 threads debating the topic, as I?m sure there are elsewhere.  Since there is debate, the editorial had a point.

 [someone who says he is] a lawyer - He says he is a lawyer because he is.  I know him.

[says he] is a member of Dakka Dakka ? again, he says it because he is.

[flawed] examples to [derail] his case ? How flawed these example are is also debatable because there is discussion about them.  If they are debatable, then they support his argument that the RaW can be interpreted different ways.  Who better than a lawyer to understand that individuals can interpret the exact same language different ways?

[playing by the rules] is total rubbish ? No, that is not what the article says.  The article attempts to illustrate that no mater the writing some interpretation is always required.  BTW, HBMC, I?m fairly certain that you?ve stated elsewhere that you play by house rules with your friends.  So your group has already discovered that playing RaW is not possible?have they not?

[skewed to whatever you feel like at the time] ? The point was that anyone can attempt this, no matter how the rules are written, and without common sense and courtesy, it will occur. 

 

Now here is something that happened just recently and I found very funny. One of the playtesters told a group in my area recently that the development team was aware of the psycannon situation with turbo boosting as soon as the new rule was developed. Wot he said woz the developers felt turbo boosting is cowardly so the Space Marines deserve no armor save when they speed their bikes. This positively proves there is no way anyone can rightly say what is the true intent of a game designer.

Even better the unofficial FAQ on GW's own forums says he gets no save.

BloodyT said: "Wot he said woz the developers felt turbo boosting is cowardly so the Space Marines deserve no armor save when they speed their bikes. This positively proves there is no way anyone can rightly say what is the true intent of a game designer."

Wow.

Just, wow.

Since HBMC did a great a job on translating the last one from BloodyT, can we get him to work on this one too?

I lost a lot of respect when I heard that. Still I love the game. :-) Know wot I mean?

OT but I think wot and woz have vaulted to the top of the "internet shorthand that makes jeff red and shaky with rage" list

Now you know where I am coming from.

No reasonable need to assume I was referring directly to you, just like there is no reasonable need to assume you were insulting...

see my point?

Being that your post directly addressed talking about rolling a d6, something I stated several times in multiple posts, it was a fair assessment that you were responding to me.

Enough said there.

The writer of the article very clearly states he doesn't want to play by the rules himself, as evidenced by his claim that he's going to take an armor save with a turbo boosted bike.

That is to eliminate anything else the author said in the article. This is not good practice in a debate. I once saw an ad for the Bose Wave radio. In the ad they quoted a notable audio magazine and the review they gave it. The quote read, "The best sound I've ever heard.." The actual FULL quote from the magazine was "The best sound I've ever heard next to my $2 headphones." I would hold that it's not a good idea to take out one piece or sentence of an argument and leave nothing else of the offered opinion intact.

Now flyins, that's hardly fair. There are LOTS of rational arguments on Dakka. Rational arguments by HBMC...on the other hand. ;-)

See someone toss out grand sarcasm and/or insults in a post once or rarely I can forgive. See them repeat the behavior over and over, I tend to ignore that opinion.

Now here is something that happened just recently and I found very funny. One of the playtesters told a group in my area recently that the development team was aware of the psycannon situation with turbo boosting as soon as the new rule was developed. Wot he said woz the developers felt turbo boosting is cowardly so the Space Marines deserve no armor save when they speed their bikes. This positively proves there is no way anyone can rightly say what is the true intent of a game designer.

Everyone "knows a guy who knows a guy" or "knows one the developers themselves" or "knows someone inside at GW but I can't say who" or etc., etc.

If I paid attention to everyone who said they knew the latest rumors from the inside source I would be waiting at my local GW shop for the new DA, BA, Ork, and Necron codexes and new models to come out.

It sounds like you know some peops that are really in the know!

The writer of the article very clearly states he doesn't want to play by the rules himself, as evidenced by his claim that he's going to take an armor save with a turbo boosted bike.

That is to eliminate anything else the author said in the article. This is not good practice in a debate. I once saw an ad for the Bose Wave radio. In the ad they quoted a notable audio magazine and the review they gave it. The quote read, "The best sound I've ever heard.." The actual FULL quote from the magazine was "The best sound I've ever heard next to my $2 headphones." I would hold that it's not a good idea to take out one piece or sentence of an argument and leave nothing else of the offered opinion intact.

So are you saying the author didn't say he thinks you should make a person D6 it if you want to take an armor save with a turbo boosting bike?

He either did or he didn't say he wanted to do it. Clearly he did, and clearly that is against the rules (and incidentally, the designer's intent).

Which is why the author is full of pooop.

clearly that is against the rules

It's not clearly against the official rules. Because we debated it here for quite some before there was any kind of ruling from GW. And GW's ruling was unofficial.

So, by your logic Ed, since your statement was untrue, are you now full of poop? ;-)

Now you know where I am coming from.

No reasonable need to assume I was referring directly to you, just like there is no reasonable need to assume you were insulting...

see my point?


Being that your post directly addressed talking about rolling a d6, something I stated several times in multiple posts, it was a fair assessment that you were responding to me.


Enough said there.

Now you are just being petty and down right ridiculous. If you read the WHOLE POST you would see that I directly related it to the ARTICLE and not to any one person. Here's the quote as it is posted in my original reply.

Arm chair lawyers are being created by this entire article

 

So you can see where your "fair assessment" is indeed nothing more than an assumption based off of you deciding to read my reply half-assed and take the offense from it.

And since you seem fit to keep bringing this crap back up I will restate what you said that was insulting towards me... (just to keep this whole charade going)

I'm sorry you make that assessment about me, it's quote inaccurate. I never said to not know the rules. I never said to not use the rules in defending your "side" of the disagreement. I never said I was "too lazy" to look up and know a rule. What I did say is if there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules then each state your case concisely. If both sides are unwilling to cede then the quickest resolution is to use a die roll and move on. Makes for quick game flow, avoids argument, and settles the issue. Of course, as I said before, this relies on mature players

So as you can see, had you not ASSUMED that I directed my reply to you personally, then you would not have felt the need to insult me.

But since this is really getting slowed and unecessary why don't you just admit you were wrong to take what I had to say about the ARTICLE as a personal attack against you, which you were.

Now with that over I suppose we can get back to the thread? You know about the ARTICLE and not about poor flyins and poor DaIronGob who both can't seem to just let this misunderstanding die?

Posted By RussWakelin on 03/30/2006 1:44 PM

clearly that is against the rules

It's not clearly against the official rules. Because we debated it here for quite some before there was any kind of ruling from GW. And GW's ruling was unofficial.

So, by your logic Ed, since your statement was untrue, are you now full of poop? ;-)

The fact that it wasn't immediately clear what the rules said doesn't change the fact that they are not ambiguous on this point. We debated it because it wasn't obvious that what the rule was.

But now that it's been examined, it's very, very clear what the rules say, and he knows that. Yet he still calls for the D6.

Hence he's this guy:

In reguards to the bike vs psycannon example, I believe the problem is that GW went the wrong way to buff it while turboboosting. When i think of an invurnable save, i think of energy fields, the light of the Emperor shining down, or something to those affects.

IMO, a better rule for bikes is when turboboosting is to have anyone taking a shot at them reduce their BS by 1 or 2, to represent that they are harder to hit. Under the curent rules, a bike jetting down the field 20 inchs away is just as hard to hit as the side of a Land Raider 10 inchs away. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that logic?

both arguments raise relevant points, and it is the fault of the game designers that it is this way. Playing as per RAW is impossible in 40k as the rules are not written in a clear consistent manner so to play purely by RAW creates contradictions. A degree of common sense is essential to play, however, playing based on what you think the designer's intent was is impossible as everyone's opinion will be different.
Neither method works perfectly, hence debates like this, a balance must be found, with RAW being adhered to as much as possible with common sense and a rational mind set coming into play when RAW fails. GW is perfectly aware of this situation caused by sloppy rules editing, hence the whole "roll a d6 to decide" idea. Unfortunately this doesn't work in a competitive environment where every man and his dog thinks he is right.

As a result, that's why i don't play in tournaments. Thanks GW!
Taking the game that seriously would give me a headache.

Darkchild

If there was an agreed list of unclear points, tournament organisers could provide house rulings on them in the sign-up pack.

"If there was an agreed list of unclear points, tournament organisers could provide house rulings on them in the sign-up pack."

There are far too many unfortunately.

"If there was an agreed list of unclear points, tournament organisers could provide house rulings on them in the sign-up pack."
There are far too many unfortunately.

Good News! There is such a list: http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=15&postid=46258&view=topic

Yes BloodyT and that's part of my point as well (I think from my original post). Is it more fun and quicker to discuss all 8000 unclear points prior to a game or just go with the game and d6 it if needed?

To everyone,

Maybe we here in Dakka could write up the entire printable list with all options. Put check boxes next to them so we can mark off our "answers" and then bring that to our games so our opponents can sign off on it.

Remember everyone, just because the ruling may not involve the amries used you still must have a check off on it, because that ruling could be used as precedent for another ruling. Gotta have a signature on all of them! That should make for a fun game!

Flyins, writing as a moderator you are out of line. It was clear in DaIronGob's original post that he was making a broader point, not insulting you personally. You misinterpreted his comments and escalated the situation with your indirect dig at his (and others') maturity. Keep arguing on this line and I will delete more of your posts.

Unethical players who argue the rules to gain advantage have been a problem for many years. It is widely known among competitive gamers that GW's "d6" solution is often manipulated by said unethical gamers to try to break the rules on a 50/50 chance even after the rule which prevents whatever shadiness they are trying has been explained to them. DaIronGob was speculating that this article could have the negative effect of causing more people to try this, including both cheaters and nice-but-misguided people, to everyone's detriment.

Obviously you cannot discuss every ambiguous rule beforehand, but neither will a d6 usually be the best solution. If you can find the appropriate rule with reasonable speed and show it to your opponent, he should have the grace to back down and play by the rules. I have done so on several occasions. Only if the rules are unclear can a d6 be a reasonable compromise, but only unreasonable people will try to claim that it should be the first resort.

Flyins, writing as a moderator you are out of line. It was clear in DaIronGob's original post that he was making a broader point, not insulting you personally. You misinterpreted his comments and escalated the situation with your indirect dig at his (and others') maturity. Keep arguing on this line and I will delete more of your posts.

Clear to you, not clear to me.

Out of line? Ridiculous. Delete that if you want, we'll both know why you did.  The idea of what you let others post without even batting an eye and say I'm out of line is a joke.

It takes 2 to argue a line.

My "dig" at maturity had nothing to do with DaIronGob whatsoever. AGAIN, I've stated my views on maturity from the start in this thread. I'm shocked that one can think DaIronGob's post was not directed at me but then say that comment was directed at him. Silliness.

Russ, just because there's a debate on something doesn't mean it isn't clear.

P1: "In the following enemy Shooting phase, treat the bike's Armour Save as being an Invulnerable Save, to represent the difficulty of hitting such fast-moving targets."
P2: Psycannons ignore invulnerable saves.
C: Psycannons ignore a bike's save when it turbo-boosts.

Raef chose a poor example, damaging his argument badly. Mentioning his lord on a bike makes it even worse, because right now it appears to many people that he is trying to argue against a clear rule to gain personal advantage. You and I know him, and know this is not the case, but he shot himself in the foot a couple of times in his article. But it still rightly makes people concerned (as DaIronGob's post made clear) that Raef may be reinforcing or spreading a very bad behavior found among some GW gamers.

Clear to you, not clear to me.

Out of line? Ridiculous. Delete that if you want, we'll both know why you did. The idea of what you let others post without even batting an eye and say I'm out of line is a joke.

It takes 2 to argue a line.

My "dig" at maturity had nothing to do with DaIronGob whatsoever. AGAIN, I've stated my views on maturity from the start in this thread. I'm shocked that one can think DaIronGob's post was not directed at me but then say that comment was directed at him. Silliness.

Flyins, I will let this post stand on the principle of giving you enough rope to hang yourself.

The reason I deleted your post was because you were flaming another poster.  You started the insults, and despite multiple people pointing out that you were most likely misinterpreting DaIronGob's comments, and he himself explaining to you that his comments were not directed at you personally, you refused to see your error and either apologize for your error or even let the subject drop.

You started out "nice but misguided". You're quickly moving on to being seen as neither. CaptAnderton at least was somewhat entertaining.

Mannahnin - Don't you think it's odd that the bike would be worse off by turbo-boosting in this case though? Turbo-boosting is supposed to give the bike an advantage for moving that distance without being able to fire. In this case it actually makes them more vulnerable.

I don't think that he was trying to reinforce any bad behavior at all, I think he's relying on folks to handle the situations maturely.

Flyins, I will let this post stand on the principle of giving you enough rope to hang yourself.

The reason I deleted your post was because you were flaming another poster. You started the insults, and despite multiple people pointing out that you were most likely misinterpreting DaIronGob's comments, and he himself explaining to you that his comments were not directed at you personally, you refused to see your error and either apologize for your error or even let the subject drop.

You started out "nice but misguided". You're quickly moving on to being seen as neither. CaptAnderton at least was somewhat entertaining.

I'll hold to my previous post. I've not insulted DaIronGob one bit. Apparently I'm held to a different standard here. DaIronGob explains himself and I'm to take that and be quiet (or get my post deleted) but if I explain myself then I';m still insulting him.

Gloriously ridiculous. I guess I should have known I needed to be in the Good Ole Boys club to be taken seriously.

Again, delete away, we both know why you did. 

"Flyins, I will let this post stand on the principle of giving you enough rope to hang yourself.

The reason I deleted your post was because you were flaming another poster.  You started the insults, and despite multiple people pointing out that you were most likely misinterpreting DaIronGob's comments, and he himself explaining to you that his comments were not directed at you personally, you refused to see your error and either apologize for your error or even let the subject drop.

You started out "nice but misguided". You're quickly moving on to being seen as neither. CaptAnderton at least was somewhat entertaining."

That is so lame and onesided you should hang yourself.

You're a Mod?

Again, delete away, we both know why you did.

Whoa what did I miss!?!?!

Seriously I was merely trying to compare how posts can be misinterpreted... Man seriously just let this go...

Heck I even started bashing on myself in the last post... misunderstandings are things that happen but getting this worked up over it isn't going to help you or me or anyone.

By the way, I am not a member of the "Good ole boys club" but I would like to know where to sign up!!!

Mannahnin - Don't you think it's odd that the bike would be worse off by turbo-boosting in this case though? Turbo-boosting is supposed to give the bike an advantage for moving that distance without being able to fire. In this case it actually makes them more vulnerable.

From a RAW perspective, I think it's clear.
From a fluff/logic perspective, it makes sense to me that a guy driving his bike at twice the normal speed might be extra vulnerable to being distracted by a psychic assault from a machinegun.
From a game balance perspective, it makes sense to me that there is one gun in the game which trumps this special rule.
From a designer's intent argument, when Pete Haines writes online that it does indeed work that way, it seems indicative.

Fluff and logic can be used to argue virtually ANYTHING. I think Orks should be S4 WS3. Hopefully they will be in the next codex. But until they change the RAW, I'll play by the RAW unless it's unplayable.

I don't think that he was trying to reinforce any bad behavior at all, I think he's relying on folks to handle the situations maturely.

But his intent and his effect may be two separate things. I know Raef. I think he's a nice guy and I know he wasn't trying to make it harder for us to spot people who are trying to cheat. But I think it was a badly written article and may have negative consequences.

Seriously I was merely trying to compare how posts can be misinterpreted... Man seriously just let this go...

lol I was trying to man before Mannahnin interjected. I hope you know I was not in any way insulting you, I actually respect you as a poster here than most.

I'd never get worked up over it, it's only an online forum after all. But I will defend myself when I feel it's needed. That's all.

For you and me form my perspective, you can consider this entirely and wholly dropped.

That is so lame and onesided you should hang yourself.

You're a Mod?

Again, what did I miss? Jeesh, now everyone wants a piece of the mods?

But anyway, in regards to the article and thread in general.

My feeling is that I see a common habit coming out of all of this. The players that will abuse the "d6" it by arguing over every last point they can in order to just boil everything down to a "d6".

I am NOT saying that using the d6 is a bad idea, in fact when it comes down to playable situations I would rather do just that instead of spending good quality playing time to argue over it.

Now, my labelling of those who would abuse it is "arm chair lawyers" because IMO they'd rather sit back relax and let everything boil down to a d6. It is an extreme analogy and it does not incorporate or include every person or gamer that has or will use a d6 roll off to determine the outcome. Just like Rules Lawyers, Cheesy Gits, Beardy Gamers are titles for those who take those stereotypes to the "extreme".

Now, my labelling of those who would abuse it is "arm chair lawyers" because IMO they'd rather sit back relax and let everything boil down to a d6. It is an extreme analogy and it does not incorporate or include every person or gamer that has or will use a d6 roll off to determine the outcome. Just like Rules Lawyers, Cheesy Gits, Beardy Gamers are titles for those who take those stereotypes to the "extreme".

Which goes back to my assessment that the article counts on players to be mature. Mature players (both players of cuorse) wouldn't get into these situations because they would never try to pull crap like that.

And we all know there are less-than-mature players out there that would abuse both sides of this argument, but hopefully none of us have to play folks like that too much. I know I wouldn't wish it on anyone, it sucks.

Gloriously ridiculous. I guess I should have known I needed to be in the Good Ole Boys club to be taken seriously.

Again, delete away, we both know why you did.

Again with the oversensitivity and lack of understanding. I am being perfectly honest and open about my reasoning.

If you had asked me two days ago whether we had a member with the handle of "DaIronGob", I would not have been able to tell you.

I am being perfectly honest and open about my reasoning.

If and when you apply your reasoning, "scolding", and editing to all posters here I'll start believing you. Until then, I seriously doubt your honesty.

That's excellent.

"I realize that my argument is devoid of logic or reason, but you sir are immature, therefore I must be right.".

So basically, if you don't make any sense, simply insult the other person and you win the debate, right?

You should run for office!

 

Doubt away. I am an inherently flawed and limited human being, with finite time to spend on these forums. It is logical (though unjust) that I will be able to spare more time and attention to an issue which interests me, or which occurs on a day when I have time to spare on the computer. I have also often left more inappropriate comments untouched when I felt that other posters already had the situation well in hand.

The nature of deleting posts is that only the people reading that thread and paying attention have a chance of noticing. One of the longtime members recently said "welcome back" to me in a thread where I deleted CaptAnderton's posts and "scolded" him for his behavior. Despite the fact that I have been frequenting the forums, he hadn't been aware. I just haven't had as much time to actually post as I used to, so most of my moderation has been confined to moving, deleting, or editing the occasional inappropriate post, and many posters haven't even noticed my presence. Russ rarely has time to post either, and so often gives the sense of being absent despite the constant work he puts into the site.

My feeling is that I see a common habit coming out of all of this. The players that will abuse the "d6" it by arguing over every last point they can in order to just boil everything down to a "d6".

How often have you ever had to d6 it? I rarely ever see this happen a tournament. One player is invariably a good buddy with the judge and usually gets their way... that is wot it really is.

Never happened to or against me in any tournament I've played. I would express my sympathy for your bad situation vis a vis poor judges at your local tournaments, but I am not certain that the situation is as you describe it.

How often have you ever had to d6 it?

Oh maybe once or twice that I can actually recall it having an effect on the game... but that's not really my point.

My point is that because this guy posts an article in WD that some gamers will take what is said as gospel and just start ending every argument or rules discussion with "d6 it" giving them a 50% to get their way everytime... I mean sometimes the answer is clear if you can show them but I am thinking that these players will insist on a "d6" simply because he disagrees with you..

It takes little time to flip open a rulebook to back a claim so as long as we've exhausted that route I don't mind rolling a "d6" on problematic situations.

The point of the article is not to d6 everytime there is a question but to apply common sense and interpret the rules. d6 was offered as a last resort. I will say here I am not a fan of d6.n it either coz as has been pointed out there are those that will try a 50% chance of overturning a solid rule. I've seen teenage power gamers do this a lot too.

I would have to agree about the "d6" approach just excusing lazy rulesmaking. I can tell you that in tournaments Ive been to, that if you call over a judge or force a d6 roll (and I did use the word 'force' on purpose), your opponent will think you are a rules lawyer. When I hear, "Don't be a rules laywer." I really hear, "Roll over and accept my view of it already."

I, for one, don't want an entire game to hinge on whether my debating skills are honed to razor edge. I see it over and over again. I call it the "Steamroll"....two guys shake hands and smile at a tourney game, and one of them proceeds to rig the game by calling terrain certain ways or gently contest everything your opponent does. The smoothest of them can do it and still get a good rating from their opponent. They really should screw old ladies out of their pension and credit card numbers over the phone - they would probably be good at it.

Case in point: This is repeated on another thread, so forgvie me - I will try to summarize. We all know that ICs can be targeted speperately in a HtH combat, and that this rule is a powerful and rarely questioned one. most people dont have debates about this in tourney. However, the individual codices clearly state that command squads (et al.) can change the status of a character to ordinary squadmember. The wording couldn't be more clear. Ok. Go to a tournament and try to remove a command squadmember when your lord is hit by the Powerfist, or even try to take you lord's attacks when he isnt personally in BtB, but his bodyguard is. The judge will be on his way over before the dice hit the table.

The book backs me up, and I am right. But the judge, Pete Haines and most of the people I play against disagree, very iritating. I learned this lesson very paiinfully, but Ive learned to move on and ignore the bodyguard wordings in the codex.
What is the designer's intent here? What do bodyguards do if they do not "guard bodies"? Anyone but me remember "Look out sir, Aaargh!"? President Reagan is good enough to have a guy throw himself in front of the shot, but my Marine Chapter Master isn't?

Oh, and by the way, for the MOD haters. Just realize that if this were the GW Games Development board, the thread would already be locked.

Apply common sense to a game set in a fictional world?

Just like with the Turbo Boosting Psycannon blasted bike, common sense isn't a replacement for the basic rule.

P1: A Psycannon round ignore invulnerable saves,
P2: The turbo boosting bike's save becomes Invulnerable

C1: The bike gets no save if blasted by a psycannon.

The is the rule as it is currently written.
Common sense WON'T WORK in this situation as we base common sense on our own reality and what we have learned. In the real world yes bikes move fast, bullets move faster but what we don't have in real life is a psychically charged mega bullet. So we having nothing but a one sided jaded view of how "common sense" effects this rule.

Just a reminder...

Common sense does not mean "How would it work in the real world?"

Common sense means "What do the game mechanics support/intend...i.e. what is the spirit of the rule?"

P1: MEQ Bikes are hard to kill with a psycannon normally
P2: Turbo Boosting is a Buff.
P3: Buffs should make models better, not worse.
C1: Although the RaW does state that the psycannon should easily kill a boosting bike, this is probably an unintentional consequence of a hastily written rule.  It is reasonable to assume that the bike still has an armor save.

I know that GW has later 'unoffically' clarified the above argument.  However I think you can see how a rational individual, who is not necesasarily full of poop, might draw the above reasonable argument.

P1: MEQ Bikes are hard to kill with a psycannon normally
P2: Turbo Boosting is a Buff.
P3: Buffs should make models better, not worse.
C1: Although the RaW does state that the psycannon should easily kill a boosting bike, this is probably an unintentional consequence of a hastily written rule.  It is reasonable to assume that the bike still has an armor save.

You didn't seriously post that as an argument, did you?

At least some of the premises in an arugment should be supportable Russ.

P1. Marines are super tough.

P2. Lots of stuff in 40k is T4

Conclusion: marines must be much better than T4.

So from now on, all my marines are T6.

It's common sense.

Common sense means "What do the game mechanics support/intend...i.e. what is the spirit of the rule?"

Says who or what? Common sense, is a whole different topic in regards that some people don't have any and some people have different definitions obviously.

How can we have your definition of common sense? Common sense is also referred to as "street smarts" or basically knowing the environment you are in. Common sense tells you not to stick your finger in a light socket or not to touch an oven burner while it's on. How do you obtain this knowledge? By learning it through life's experiences and those you come in contact with it. An infant won't know to not do those things until they either learn by doing or are taught by their parent(s). Example, I have learned through coming to these boards that trying to even remotely draw a common sense conclusion to a RaW debate will get you smacked around faster than agreeing with CaptAnderton in a RaW debate. ;-)

What really irks me is the premise and effect this article is apparently having on the gaming community. This person writes an article that basically says "quit beating on the GW editors and writers for their mistakes in rule writing" and puts the fault of said mistakes back on the player because some players "won't use common sense" to determine the "writer's intent".

My God I love this forum!

 

Edit: I think, we or someone should write a "rebuttal" article and submit it to White Dwarf to see if they "GW" have the balls to print it!

 Please attack my argument premises if you like.  Just stating I am wrong is both childish and obviously not a logical discussion.  Which of my premises are incorrect? P1, P2, or P3? Can you add additional premises to break my argument?<?

Your argument fails because I can interject additional premises that are true:

<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0> <TBODY> <TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"> <TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" vAlign=top>

 

</TD> <TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">

P1. Marines are super tough.
P2. Lots of stuff in 40k is T4
P3. More units in the 40k games system are T3 or less than T4 or more.
P4. The toughness value of marines is clearly stated many times in many places in a variety of books

Conclusion: Marines are T4, it is unlikely that this is a misprint or unintentional mistake.

My point is that it is rational to assume that there may have been a mistake made with the bike boosting  psycannon issue.  It is very logical that this may have been an unintended consequence.  It is in no way logical to somehow form an argument that marines are unintentionally T4.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Yes you should indeed rebutt the article.

heh, now the question would be "how to rebutt the article without seemingly flaming the original writer... mehehehehehe

IronGob wrote:

My God I love this forum!

Yeah, me too.  I love discussions like this.  That's why I like the article.  Get's folks thinking about the deeper stuff.  I like stuff that get's me thinking, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.  I think if folks look over my posts, you'll notice that I never said I really AGREE with the author, just that I see where he's coming from, why he might draw those conclusions, and that he is perhaps not entirly full of poop.

Although, to be fair, he IS a lawyer, so there must be some poop someplace. 

(Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.)

Then let's get together like you did for the FAQ and write a rebuttal to White Dwarf!!

This Lawyer turned Author named Dakka and basically, IMO, called us out. Let's answer and see if we get any airtime in the magazine!!

Please attack my argument premises if you like. Just stating I am wrong is both childish and obviously not a logical discussion.

This has been part of my point from the start.

That's excellent.

"I realize that my argument is devoid of logic or reason, but you sir are immature, therefore I must be right.".

So basically, if you don't make any sense, simply insult the other person and you win the debate, right?

You should run for office!

I see nothing illogical or unreasonable about what I have stated in this thread so far. It's perfectly logical and reasonable to believe it was a hastily and poorly written rule that a normal buff for bikes would actually be worse off against psycannons. It's also perfectly logical and reasonable to expect both (or all for larger games) players to act in a mature fashion that supports a smooth, quick, and most importantly fun game. I feel that part of acting mature (and I feel part of the article's point includes this) means using common sense for contraversial rulings, and if there is still a disagreement that solving those situations in the GW-recommended easy fashion (d6 roll) is perfectly reasonable as well. Stating things like "My terminators now have jump packs and my marines are T6" do nothing to further the discussion in a positive manner whatsoever.

It's perfectly logical and reasonable to believe it was a hastily and poorly written rule that a normal buff for bikes would actually be worse off against psycannons.

Yes, you are correct. But there is nothing we can do about it other than make a house rule clarification for friendly games as you suggested. But when playing in tournaments we are bound by the interpretation that is given to use by the judges on hand.

Yes, you are correct. But there is nothing we can do about it other than make a house rule clarification for friendly games as you suggested. But when playing in tournaments we are bound by the interpretation that is given to use by the judges on hand.

1000% agree and I did say that before as well. So I no one thinks I'm going after them I'll use myself as the example. Say I am playing in a tournament and a ruling comes up that is contraversial, we'll use the discussion in here about Necron Lords and the WBB while an enemy unit is on top of them, and the ruling from the judge does not go in my favor. As a mture player I should then move on with the game, adapt to the situation, and have fun! I should NOT sit there and pout, give my opponent a low sportsmanship score (assuming they were mature about it as well), and then whine about it. After the game I can then talk to the judge and let them know why I feel my position is correct, in a calm and rational manner. After that, move on to the next level (because of course I won the game )

Edit: I think, we or someone should write a "rebuttal" article and submit it to White Dwarf to see if they "GW" have the balls to print it!

Already working on it. Almost done.

Posted By mauleed on 03/31/2006 10:10 AM

Edit: I think, we or someone should write a "rebuttal" article and submit it to White Dwarf to see if they "GW" have the balls to print it!

Already working on it. Almost done.

Oh goody. We should all make one and flood their mailboxes and emailboxes.

 

No, because then mine's less likely to actually get published.

Posted By mauleed on 03/31/2006 10:16 AM
No, because then mine's less likely to actually get published.

Oh for the love of all that's holy that would be a tragedy.

I honestly doubt WD will have the balls. Maybe the rest of us should send letter to Dirty Steve and give our comments to him.

No, directly countering the original argument just gives it more weight.

There is no point in attacking the original, the rebuttal will handle the issues independently.

Of course, Ed, yours is less likely to be published anyway. GW has made it clear for some time that the most important rule is to "have fun." All other rules are mutable.

I suppose we can pray. A lot. That might help.

P1: MEQ Bikes are hard to kill with a psycannon normally
P2: Turbo Boosting is a Buff.
P3: Buffs should make models better, not worse.
C1: Although the RaW does state that the psycannon should easily kill a boosting bike, this is probably an unintentional consequence of a hastily written rule. It is reasonable to assume that the bike still has an armor save.

P2 and P3 are not supportible. There is no such thing as a "buff" in 40k. This isn't WoW or EQ, Russ.

All you have to do is make the argument that clear consistent rules enhance the fun of the game as it lets you spend more time actually *playing* then deciphering the often cryptic and bizzare logic that is the 4th edition rules!

Argument: People should just d6 it whenever there is a rules disagreement to preserve fun.

Counter Argument: GW should write better rules because rules arguments leading up to a "d6 it to see who's right" scenario detracts from the fun and enjoyment of the game.

Argument: A rules lawyer is someone who ruins the fun of the game.

Counter Argument: A rules lawyer is someone who bends the interpretation of the rules to gain advantage during a game. A lawyer is an advocate for a particular point of view (read: THEIR point of view). We are rules *judges* who are simply trying to interpret the rules and come up with a clear ruling on a difficult situation. The more clear the rules are, the less room there is for rules lawyers to bend the rules, and judges wouldn't be needed anywhere near as much. This would enhance the fun of the game making play go faster, giving rules lawyers less leeway to bend the rules, and making rules judging and interpretation much less difficult. *This would also enhance the play value of the game for the younger audience, allowing more people to enjoy GW products!*

All it would take in the case of the biker invulnerable save vs. psy cannon is changing *one* sentence to read "A turboboosting bike GAINS an invulnerable save equal to their armor save..." to resolve the issue. 

Of course I'm sure Mauleed has the article well in hand. I just hope it gets published.

Yes but it should be edited for content.

Posted By mauleed on 03/31/2006 10:10 AM

Edit: I think, we or someone should write a "rebuttal" article and submit it to White Dwarf to see if they "GW" have the balls to print it!

Already working on it. Almost done.

Crap, just when I was about to let my subscription drop, thanks Ed.  Looking forward to it if they ever print.

Has a non "fanboy-esque" article ever made it into White Dwarf? Man, I would LOVE to see it get in, but I think we can all agree it would be a cold day in hell before that happened. I'm not trying to take anything away from your project Mauleed. I'm just stating the obvious. GW is not going to print anything in their publication that criticizes their product, regardless of how true it is.

Pessimism aside, I think you should definitely follow through on it. Maybe, just maybe, it could turn out to be the proverbial straw that gets them to hire the talent they need to support this game. At a minimum, maybe they'll get the balls to hop on Dakka and heed the problems that are discussed throughout the site.

I'd love to see an honest letter from you go out to GW. Then I'd like to see a another letter to GW written together by you and HBMC. THAT would be some nice reading. Mind posting your rebuttal after you've completed it?

Flagg, I don't think Ed's really out to vilify GW as much as he is out to prove that you should play RAW whenever the rules explain something, as opposed to whenever "common sense" "should" prevail.

I just mailed in my letter this morning.

Maybe, just maybe, it could turn out to be the proverbial straw that gets them to hire the talent they need to support this game.

It takes some major conjones to make such a statement... or sheer stupidity. GW is cranking out some great codices for the most part. Wot we need are FAQs, which the present staff should be able to handle.

 

At a minimum, maybe they'll get the balls to hop on Dakka and heed the problems that are discussed throughout the site.

Dream on.

A demonic voice is whispering something into my ear, everytime I hear people complain about GWs poor rules support. Its something like this:

P1: Deep in our hearts we enjoy to be smartasses and enjoy proving it in rules debates.
P2: GW rules provide a lot of opportunities for smartass debates.
C1: We enjoy the way GW writes their rules.


Well, kidding aside, have you ever considered that aspects of the game that seem to be its major flaws, might be an essential part of the overall fun?

In soccer its easily possible to use ingame-video instead of real judges for the important games. But its not done, even though the masses often loudly complain about wrong decisions (by imperfect human judges). I think its not the strong judge-lobby that has prevented video-judgement by now. IMO its the fact that these real judges add a lot of drama to the game, which maintains strong emotions in the audiance, which again keep the game interesting and give fodder to discussions among friends.

So honestly I dont think its only about smartasses. Its about emotion and battle of whitts and about having something interesting to talk about.

The social aspect of WH40k seems to be an important factor to its success. Maybe part of this success are ambiguous rules?

Some of the people who frequent this forum are out to win at all costs, so social interaction is out the door for them, other than having another victim to trash time and time again. But that said I agree with you and find the social part of the game as much fun as winning. I will say I have never met anyone who plays the game that enjoys losing.

Yes, it would be nice to think that the other guy's a big meanie and even though he's much better at this hobby than you are, you're lots better in many other ways, so in fact you can maintain your sense of self worth.

But you must realize what a jaskazz it makes you sound that you'd think you could make statements about peoples social skills by reading their thoughts on how to interpret an ambiguous rule. Bravo.

But don't worry, if I ever have the displeasure of playing you, I'll do my best to not only grind you into dust, but make sure to confirm your notions of what a dick people like me are. It's a win/win that way.

Some of the people who frequent this forum are out to win at all costs, so social interaction is out the door for them, other than having another victim to trash time and time again.

Baseless speculation. You now have to prove it.

I could easily say folks like yourself are more into cheating via "common sense" approach, by not wanting to follow the rules...

Posted By Raider on 04/03/2006 4:33 PM

Well, kidding aside, have you ever considered that aspects of the game that seem to be its major flaws, might be an essential part of the overall fun?

In soccer its easily possible to use ingame-video instead of real judges for the important games. But its not done, even though the masses often loudly complain about wrong decisions (by imperfect human judges). I think its not the strong judge-lobby that has prevented video-judgement by now. IMO its the fact that these real judges add a lot of drama to the game, which maintains strong emotions in the audiance, which again keep the game interesting and give fodder to discussions among friends.

So honestly I dont think its only about smartasses. Its about emotion and battle of whitts and about having something interesting to talk about.

The social aspect of WH40k seems to be an important factor to its success. Maybe part of this success are ambiguous rules?

 

The social aspects are important but I don't think the kind of drama that poor rules creates really enhances the game.  There's enough drama from the randomness of the dice rolls.  The stories of a lone grot who manages to beat a terminator in hth.  The invincible Wraith Lord with 1 wound left that lasts for 3 rounds against 2 veteran sgts with power fists, only to grab the Chaplain from your opponents command squad and crush him utterly with his final attack, rendering the remainder of his retinue a non-scoring units, and grabbing you the tie, or the victory.

 

The difference between the rules and the dice are this.  When people get hosed by the dice, they are a nameless entity.  When people get hosed by the rules, it's not blameless.  Either their opponent is exploiting vague or unclear rules, or the rules just didn't make any sense at all.  People may be upset at a particularly unlucky roll, but they will still come back for more and smile all the brighter when their luck eventually changes.  That's like the good drama, the kind that comes when no one is to blame other than just plain dumb luck and no one is hurt in the end.  The bad drama comes from situations that really upset people, turn friends or even complete strangers into bitter enemies, and sour them completely to the game, like reality TV shows.

Posted By skyfyre on 03/31/2006 4:17 PM

All it would take in the case of the biker invulnerable save vs. psy cannon is changing *one* sentence to read "A turboboosting bike GAINS an invulnerable save equal to their armor save..." to resolve the issue. 

Or better still: "Also, a psycannon negates any save to turboboosting bikes. Its psychic loaded ammo interferes in the concentration of the driver making more vulnerable to the weapon when he's driving so fast" 

I remember when I used to play online chess the extremely violent comments some opponents made via the chat line while losing.

"But don't worry, if I ever have the displeasure of playing you, I'll do my best to not only grind you into dust, but make sure to confirm your notions of what a dick people like me are. It's a win/win that way. "

I am such a lucky person!

But that's what you want isn't it? The idea that someone could politely dominate you in such a meaningless pursuit that we've all invested so much time in is more than you can bear, so it's important that you find a way to cast the other person in a bad light so that you can mitigate your failure. It can't be your lack of skill at a child's game. It must be the other guy or something he's doing, right?

So I'm doing it for you sir, not me. Your feelings are important to me. Anything else I can do to enhance or maintain your self esteem, you just let me know.

This is a game that takes two people to play. We should treat our opponents with courtesy and respect. This applies at the highest level of any competition, no matter the whatever the odds. No one enjoys playing people that want you to remove your wounded models as fast as possible so they can kill more O your army. It is hard for some of us to deal with players that only come to the table to win at all costs... i.e., uber competitive to the nth degree. On that note there are a lot of very good players with some extremely nasty army lists. No one army list or person can win every game. Dice rolls are one of the differences between chess and 40k, which is part of the excitement. Missions and terrain are two more differences. I suppose if you can beat another player the majority of the time then you are better. One game doesn't mean much though. If someone keeps beating you that does not necessarily mean you should blame the other person. It could well be that they are just plain better no matter how you slice it and that is not their fault. But if you can have a good time then that there is something to be said to that. I used to know one player that would spray paint his RT Marines whatever color for the Chapter he wanted to play... e.g., blue for Ultramarines, green for Dark Angels, black for Ravenguard. He never won that often but he was always a blast to play and that was cool. Back to the original premise of this thread... saying that there does exist ambigous (sp?) rules is proof that RAW does not always offer a remedy to these unfortunate situations. We can knock GW all we want but we still have to deal with it... and how we deal with it says a lot about our character.

This is a game that takes two people to play. We should treat our opponents with courtesy and respect

That alsop applies in reverse. Ifyour going to use "common sense" over what the actual rules say, how much aof a chump does that make you?

You assume that folks come to the table to "win at all costs", where as we just want to play within the rules, sans crazy loopholes or folks trying to interject "common sense" or fluff into the game.

"Maybe, just maybe, it could turn out to be the proverbial straw that gets them to hire the talent they need to support this game." By me in reference to why I would like to see mauleed's letter to GW get finished and sent to them.

@ Bloody t: "It takes some major conjones to make such a statement... or sheer stupidity.

Please explain my stupidity.

 

MOD EDIT: Watch the language.

I remember when I used to play online chess the extremely violent comments some opponents made via the chat line while losing.

But that was down to sportsmanship, not some rules issue where the rules say you can take a piece in any square, but then goes onto define the board as made up of spaces.

The 40K rules do that. Chess doesn't.

BYE

Yes, it would be nice to think that the other guy's a big meanie and even though he's much better at this hobby than you are, you're lots better in many other ways, so in fact you can maintain your sense of self worth.

But you must realize what a jaskazz it makes you sound that you'd think you could make statements about peoples social skills by reading their thoughts on how to interpret an ambiguous rule. Bravo.

But don't worry, if I ever have the displeasure of playing you, I'll do my best to not only grind you into dust, but make sure to confirm your notions of what a dick people like me are. It's a win/win that way.

But that's what you want isn't it? The idea that someone could politely dominate you in such a meaningless pursuit that we've all invested so much time in is more than you can bear, so it's important that you find a way to cast the other person in a bad light so that you can mitigate your failure. It can't be your lack of skill at a child's game. It must be the other guy or something he's doing, right?

With gems of maturity like these and many many more, I wonder how someone could possibly question your social skills Ed.


I still can't figure out why it's bad to treat your opponents with respect and maturity, and expect the same back. Apparently this is a bad thing to a lot of people in here. I'm extremely happy I haven't run across anyone like that when I play.

And the article clearly says that you should D6 it even if you know you're wrong, simply because you don't like the rule.

Um, I just read the article again, and that's not what he says.

Russ, even though you and I both know that's not what he meant, that's the argument he made when he used the Psycannon vs. Turbo-boost example. He picked a rule that actually is clear when you look at it, and suggested d6ing it if you don't agree with it because it doesn't make sense to you.

Ed has a valid point that common sense really should only come into play where the rules are genuinely unclear or both players agree to a house rule.

I feel the author is advocating fun, mature play with his article, as well as the use of common sense.

The real problem is, which hasnt been address, is WHO's common sense prevails. Its obvious that Russ's common sense isnt the same as ed's who's common sense isnt the same as mine, which isnt the same as flyins.......

Common sense isnt really that common

Russ, even though you and I both know that's not what he meant, that's the argument he made when he used the Psycannon vs. Turbo-boost example. He picked a rule that actually is clear when you look at it, and suggested d6ing it if you don't agree with it because it doesn't make sense to you.

Right, but Ed is intimating that the article reads like "Pick a rule you don't like and D6 it." Although I know the author, I tried to read the article objectivly, and that's not the message I got. I agree the example was not great, but I don't think the article suggests a message of 'the best way to enjoy a game is to grab rules you don't like and dice for them.'

Russ, I think you're ignoring the text to defend your buddy. Noble surely, but doomed to failure.

And I'm not intimating it. I'm flat out saying it. As Ragnar said, he picked an unambiguous rule, said his "common sense" gave him the right to ignore it, then advocated D6'ing it. While I'm not making this a sweeping endictment of his character, it does not change the fact that to do so us unethical and reprehensible. I would go so far as to say it's advocating cheating.

I would certainly zero his sports score in a tournament over the very issue he sets forth in the article and not lose a single moments sleep over it.

 

Russ, I think you're ignoring the text to defend your buddy. Noble surely, but doomed to failure.

I think your ignoring large portions of the article. Are you suggesting that the article claims the only way to decide something is with a D6? I recommend a re-read.

No Russ, I'm claiming that in a very specific example (the turbo boosted bike one) he's saying that an unambigous rule should be ignored because you don't like it and you should force your opponent to D6 it.

Are you saying he's not saying that?

It also didn't help that he mentioned using a Chaos lord on a bike, which demonstrates that it is to his advantage to argue this particular rule.