Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

DeathReaper wrote:

GW assumes everyone knows what rules means,

GW also tends to assume people can use common sense and not be TFGs when they play the game.

Unfortunately their game has been co-opted by a subset of players that want it to be a sport and/or desire to rules lawyer their opponents into submission.

And thus threads like this exist showing the cancer that has infected the game...

Figured it out. You have to draw LoS from the weapon and measure range from it too. If you cannot see the weapon you cannot draw LoS or measure ranges accurately.

You win, rigeld.

CT GAMER wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

GW assumes everyone knows what rules means,

GW also tends to assume people can use common sense and not be TFGs when they play the game.

Unfortunately their game has been co-opted by a subset of players that want it to be a sport and/or desire to rules lawyer their opponents into submission.

And thus threads like this exist showing the cancer that has infected the game...

agreed, this is why i have yet to play in a tourny setting and prefer fun lists, it is about getting together, rolling some dice and having fun.

to me a drop pod seems liek it shoudl deploy open, but if the opponent wants it clsoed then i really wouldn't care. if he then opened the pedal to get los where my los was blocked i'd just figure the person needs a handicap to have any chance at winning or think that winning is the only important thing to them. either way I'd vocalize that, and brow beat them a bit, but other than that not pay it much mind... if they did things like that alot though i might not want to play them again/often.

there are TFG / WAAC players all around, my usually policy is ignore em and find people to have fun with

G00fySmiley wrote:this is why i have yet to play in a tourny setting and prefer fun lists

What does a tournament have to do with anything?

And why would they not include fun lists?

My questions are these: Why is a poll in YMDC? Shouldn't it be moved to discussion at this point?

CT GAMER wrote:GW also tends to assume people can use common sense and not be TFGs when they play the game.

Unfortunately their game has been co-opted by a subset of players that want it to be a sport and/or desire to rules lawyer their opponents into submission.

And thus threads like this exist showing the cancer that has infected the game...

From my experience, when people start bandying about the 'use common sense instead of being TFG' line, it translates to 'Play with your toy soldiers my way, dammit!' which is ultimately every bit as 'TFG' as the person you're calling a TFG.

You have posted twice in this thread, and neither post actually addressed the topic, but instead served no purpose other than to insult people for having an opinion on the game that is different to your own. If you're not interested in discussing the rules of the game, and find yourself incapable of seeing how interpreting the rules for a game of toy soldiers differently to how you do doesn't make them a bad person, I would recommend just staying out of YMDC.

There is no right or wrong way to play the game, so long as both players are having fun. Insulting people because they don't play the way you do is unnecessary, and unwelcome on this board.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:My questions are these: Why is a poll in YMDC? Shouldn't it be moved to discussion at this point?

Gathering people's opinions on a given rule via a poll is still within the bounds of what YMDC is for. It's not always the most reliable way of forming an opinion on how a rule should work, since people will often just vote from their own understanding of the rule (flawed or not) without actually reading the discussion... but for some people it's enough of an indication of how people actually play it.

kirsanth wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:this is why i have yet to play in a tourny setting and prefer fun lists

What does a tournament have to do with anything?

And why would they not include fun lists?

fun list to me would be like a theme list not just the best units in your codex, but somethign different that makes me and my opponent think about how to work against this because neither person has seen it used before

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/415576.page

This is a little 1750 surprise attack eldar list I plan on using this weekend. it has some weaknesses and will auto fail to some builds... but just something different, something to break up the same old lists you always see... like bw bash, sure it is effective, and I play variants of it, but I can only play against it so many times before I get tired of playing it/against it... or venom spam DE. I know some people just want to win or have super strong armies that have no weakness, and are ok playing the same list over and over again, but I get bored and want change

I'd love to see a tournament where you have to use theme or fun lists... i might actually play in that, might even enjoy it, but even then how do you judge what is a fun list vs a power made take on everything list.; it'd be difficult

insaniak wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:GW also tends to assume people can use common sense and not be TFGs when they play the game.

Unfortunately their game has been co-opted by a subset of players that want it to be a sport and/or desire to rules lawyer their opponents into submission.

And thus threads like this exist showing the cancer that has infected the game...

From my experience, when people start bandying about the 'use common sense instead of being TFG' line, it translates to 'Play with your toy soldiers my way, dammit!' which is ultimately every bit as 'TFG' as the person you're calling a TFG.

You have posted twice in this thread, and neither post actually addressed the topic, but instead served no purpose other than to insult people for having an opinion on the game that is different to your own. If you're not interested in discussing the rules of the game, and find yourself incapable of seeing how interpreting the rules for a game of toy soldiers differently to how you do doesn't make them a bad person, I would recommend just staying out of YMDC.

There is no right or wrong way to play the game, so long as both players are having fun. Insulting people because they don't play the way you do is unnecessary, and unwelcome on this board.

GW staffer's have discussed in print that they find the way that the ultra-competative set approach the game to be very alien and shocking to them at times.

They have discussed how many of the things that have to be FAQ'd to prevent rules abuse are things that most of them would not consider attempting.

I also remember one article in which they discussed the general difference in attitudes and approach to the game between brits and Americans for example.

People looking to rules lawyer are NOT playing the game in the spirit that GW intended. GW has stated very clearly that their general approach is not one in which the goal is to use the rules as a weapon to get your way or some advantage in the game.

The "rules" for a drop pod (or lack of clear ones) is unfortunate because it leaves this gray area for lawyering, but it is pretty clear what the intent was if anyone reads what GW has said about gameplay, and spirit of the game over the years...

IF beng called on unsporting rules lawyering makes people uncomfortable, then perhaps they need to look inward...

Right: To you, the rule is clear... so anyone who disagrees is rules lawyering.

Do you honestly not see how that attitude is every bit is bad as what you're accusing the 'rules lawyers' in this thread of?

The fact that the rule works a given way in your opinion doesn't make it 'right', any more than my opinion is 'right'. They're both just opinions.

And making judgements on a player's character or sportsmanship based on the fact that they disagree with you on whether or not a drop pod should open its doors? That way lies madness.

insaniak wrote:Right: To you, the rule is clear... so anyone who disagrees is rules lawyering.

The rule is very unclear (unfrotunately or we wouldn't be having this problem).

The Drop pod rules shoud state: "when a drop pod's final position is determined the hatches are blown (ie. placed fully down or removed) and remain so as long as the pod is in play. Los can be drawn through a drop pod as per TLOS rules".

However GW left people the loophole to play/model for advantage as discussed in this thread by poor choice of wording. They in effect underestimated the way people would attempt to use the non-specific wording to their advantage.

The spirit of what was intended is very clear if one reads any story, looks at drop pod art, even looks at battlereport that use drop pods. In any WD battle report has it ever discussed doors being selectively manipulated as described in this thread? Gw makes the false assumption that people can connect the dots and stay with the spirit of the game.

And that is the issue, when you continue to argue for/do something when you know it is wrong in spirit then that is where we part ways.

No big deal, peopel can continue to argue and do whatever their opponent allows them to get away with. And hopefully our paths never cross...

CT GAMER wrote: However GW left people the loophole to play/model for advantage as discussed in this thread by poor choice of wording. They in effect underestimated the way people would attempt to use the non-specific wording to their advantage.

Did they?

So if I leave my pod doors up (which I will, since my pods are custom made and don't have opening doors) and it blocks my LOS to a unit of my opponent's that I want to shoot at, am I still rules lawyering?


That's a large part of what makes the claims of rules lawyering so ridiculous here. The pod blocking LOS or not works both ways. And even if you do drop the doors, LOS through the pod isn't great... and from my experience, most players just assume that you can't draw LOS through it anyway (although, horrible rules lawyer that I am, I would have no hesitation in pointing out to them that they can do so if the situation arises).


You're slinging names and stereotypes around over something that simply isn't that big an issue.

insaniak wrote:

So if I leave my pod doors up (which I will, since my pods are custom made and don't have opening doors) and it blocks my LOS to a unit of my opponent's that I want to shoot at, am I still rules lawyering?

This wan't the sticking point of what was being discussed here, nor what i took issue with, but then you know that already.

What was being discussed was leaving some doors up and some doors down or all up or all down by choice at any given point so as to maximize advantage for the owning player.

I assume you can see the difference...

CT GAMER wrote:What was being discussed was leaving some doors up and some doors down or all up or all down by choice at any given point so as to maximize advantage for the owning player.

The idea of opening or closing doors during the game was debunked back on the very first page.

If that's what you're complaining about, you're a bit late. The thread since then has simply been about whether or not it's legal to deploy the pod with the doors closed.

CT GAMER wrote:GW staffer's have discussed in print that they find the way that the ultra-competative set approach the game to be very alien and shocking to them at times.

Can you support this claim? Even if it is true, it's a naive viewpoint. They have created a set of rules by which two people may enter a contest where there is a winner and a loser. The end goal is to have fun and enjoy yourself, but the fact of the matter is, it's a perfectly valid format for a tournament. Many of these tournaments are sponsored by GW themselves, so they propagate this practice. When in the course of playing this game, it becomes necessary for there to be a set of clear, concise rules that two people may agree upon in order to settle disputes. Ignoring that this is a requirement does not make it go away, nor does playing dumb to the fact that people exist who will try to exploit a rules system. Naturally, when prize support is on the line, people will attempt to win that prize support (or even just bragging rights) by building a list that has the maximum number of strengths and minimum number of weaknesses possible, and by taking advantage of rules, terrain, opponent weaknesses, or any manner of other things. This is human nature, and it leads to disputes between players.

GW should not claim surprise that people would attempt such a thing. They should attempt to do their absolute best to make it impossible, but they have never, and will likely never do this. The simple fact is that they are in the business to make money. They are casual gamers (clearly, as other companies have created games with far fewer problems simply by using competent, professional rules designers and an open beta process) that make a game used by a group of players they claim indignation toward, but will not cut off because they want their money. This is naive at best, and I honestly find it difficult to believe. I would assume that by now they would understand that they could make more money by changing their development process just slightly.

CT GAMER wrote:They have discussed how many of the things that have to be FAQ'd to prevent rules abuse are things that most of them would not consider attempting.

Again, citation please? Simply because they would not consider attempting something does not mean that several thousand of their player base would not attempt it in a large tournament where potential financial gain is involved.

CT GAMER wrote:I also remember one article in which they discussed the general difference in attitudes and approach to the game between brits and Americans for example.

We are two very different cultures, obviously or we would all still be under the same leadership. It was their choice to release their game in America, and to ignore the attitude and approach of such a huge customer base is a poor way to run a company. It is obviously necessary to have a cut-and-dried set of rules, and simply claiming otherwise because of cultural differences will not make that go away. By contrast, look at WoW. Americans are relatively hardcore when it comes to online games such as World of Warcraft, but Korea takes it to a whole new level. They exploit every angle of the system for actual financial gain by selling gold, something that is against the EULA and something that most Americans wouldn't consider (because it's illegal and perhaps partially out of laziness) but Blizzard made actual in-game changes that made it more difficult to gold farm. Claiming indignation would get your point across, but it wouldn't make it go away so they took action. All I want is for GW to do the same with their game.

CT GAMER wrote:People looking to rules lawyer are NOT playing the game in the spirit that GW intended. GW has stated very clearly that their general approach is not one in which the goal is to use the rules as a weapon to get your way or some advantage in the game.

They can say that all they want, but the cold hard truth is that people exist who will do that, and they go to tournaments. Saying something is against your intent when designing rules is all fine and good, but unless something in the rules (or an FAQ/Errata) prevents it from actually working against that intent, the intent itself is MEANINGLESS. I would consider myself a Rules Lawyer simply because I have spent a LOT of time combing the rules to find exploits and loopholes, and reading these forums. The difference is, I do it for awareness. I do it to know what kinds of things to expect if I run into a player attempting to exploit them at an event. I keep up with the FAQ and read the various discussions simply so that I know what the different viewpoints are. I find that knowing these things and bringing them up in a casual manner during a game against a WAAC player diffuses the situation. He knows I know the rules, and many of his attempts to exploit them stop and we get down to business.

The people I normally play against strive to know the issues so we can come to a group consensus on how something should be played. We go with RAW whenever possible, even if it might be against intent, unless it is clearly a game-breaking issue. We have fun playing. We enjoy ourselves and actual arguments while playing the game are few and far between. We are competitive, strong willed players and we bring lists designed to be effective in order to sharpen our skills unless someone specifically says they want a casual game using models they would not normally use, and we have fun. The thing that upsets me the most about people that share your argument is that you assume that simply because a player like me wants to play with a clear set of rules and official FAQ preventing exploits that we are not in this to have fun, and that we don't play to enjoy the game. I most certainly do play to enjoy the game, and have done so for almost 13 years. And you know what? Some of my most UN-ENJOYABLE games have been against players who assume that because I know the rules and call them out when they break them, that I am a bad person and am playing against the spirit of the game.

CT GAMER wrote:The "rules" for a drop pod (or lack of clear ones) is unfortunate because it leaves this gray area for lawyering, but it is pretty clear what the intent was if anyone reads what GW has said about gameplay, and spirit of the game over the years...

Do not assume intent on the part of GW. Their intent could be completely opposite from what you think it is. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Space Marines, being tactically superior to almost every army in the galaxy, will consider things such as which doors to blow on their Drop Pod when it lands to offer maximum cover to disembarking infantry. If GW intended for the model to have all of the doors open and close together, they could easily have done so with an interlocking gear mechanism at the base of each door rather than making them open and close independently.

CT GAMER wrote:IF beng called on unsporting rules lawyering makes people uncomfortable, then perhaps they need to look inward...

And perhaps your unwillingness to accept that there is more than one valid way to play this game means you should consider taking your own advice.

For the record, my stance is that the model should function exactly as it was designed. In other words, some, none or all of the doors may be opened when the model is placed on the table based on the situation at hand. However, they block LoS for the Storm Bolter inside the model as well. There are currently no rules that allow or disallow this, however, and so players should decide before the game starts how they will handle Drop Pods.

Why not just glue the door shut to block LOS or not block LOS depending on what you agree to with opponent beforehand, and then model the SB or ML on the outside so that the weapon can always shoot? Since you're modeling for advantage anyway, why not go the whole way and WAAC-out.

Gluing the doors shut is not modeling for advantage. It is just called modeling.

Putting it on a scenic diorama base that blocks LoS more than the pod could block on its own is modeling for advantage.

CT GAMER wrote:What was being discussed was leaving some doors up and some doors down or all up or all down by choice at any given point so as to maximize advantage for the owning player.

That same person apparently changed which doors were open for the same reason that they used the first time.

Kir is correct.

Deploying the model one way, and changing it mid-game without explicit permission from the rules (Like turret facing) is what is not legal within the rules.

Deploying the pod with doors open, closed, or a combination of both and leaving it that way the whole game is (as far as we can tell) legal.

GW does not cover modeling aspects in the BRB. so we are left with kind of an ad hoc situation.

Aldarionn wrote:it's a perfectly valid format for a tournament.

I disagree. But then I simply don't play them, so problem solved.

The best way to deal with this matter is to have a stores and players to come up with their own FAQ about DP, and stated that either the dam thing is close or open (when it lands). I know in our store that all DP are deploy open, you can't leave the door shut. If it glued you still can have draw LOS to any target onthe other side of the DP.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:The best way to deal with this matter is to have a stores and players to come up with their own FAQ about DP, and stated that either the dam thing is close or open (when it lands).

What's wrong with simply treating them as closed if they're closed, and open if they're open? No FAQ required.

5th Ed rulebook, page 2, Paragraph 3: wrote:

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is yours.

If someone I was playing pulled that gak on me I'd say "Nice one, you win", shake his hand, pack up my guys and leave.

Forgeworld isn't so sloppy.

IA Apocalypse 2, page 31 - Lucius pattern dreadnaught drop pod wrote:

ACCESS POINTS: All round (its doors open when the pod lands).

Personally I'd use that as a precedent and leave it at that...

rob-or-ross wrote:

5th Ed rulebook, page 2, Paragraph 3: wrote:

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is yours.

If someone I was playing pulled that gak on me I'd say "Nice one, you win", shake his hand, pack up my guys and leave.

Forgeworld isn't so sloppy.

IA Apocalypse 2, page 31 - Lucius pattern dreadnaught drop pod wrote:

ACCESS POINTS: All round (its doors open when the pod lands).

Personally I'd use that as a precedent and leave it at that...

See I see that as unsporting. why would you just stop. I dont see why you would take the game that seriously and act childish and leave like that. My buddy who got slaughtered stayed. He even said he would play the kid again, know he knows he would do that he would figure out a different strategy why play if your gona take the game super ceral seriously?

Do you just rage quit playing MW3 when someone used the UMP wit the silencer and rapid fire and just rapes the map? no you play and try to figure out ways to kill that guy.

Personally I think people who rage quit are cowards and no offence childish. Not trying to piss off anyone but... How sportsman would it be if you did something your opponent did not like and he was like omfg im done you win, just packs up and leaves and ignores you when you want to play a friendly game?

And getting to the IA armor thing... The Land raiders have access points in the back sides etc... but that doesn't mean your models have to disembark through all of them. And it does not say all its doors open when it lands. Just decide on what your going to do with ur DP b4 the game starts so when you do, do it, your opponent wont throw a tantrum and pack up and leave.

Might not have come across as I wanted to there.

It's not rage quitting since I would not loose my temper.

It is not childish or unsporting either.
I will not play with cheats.
And I would point out that I would not in the first instance sit back and take it.

I would first express that I think that what my opponent is doing goes against the spirit of the game and I am not happy, I would then (should he insist on playing that way) quit.

Cowardice is a strong word, I play this game for fun. If some "win at all costs" kid is going to try to suck all the fun out of the game then there is no point in playing.

He gets to tell all his friends that he won and I get to spend my time doing something more fun - like rubbing my face vigorously with a cheese grater.

If I did something my opponent did not like (happens all the time with forgeworld units, converted minis, prone melta squads etc.) then I ask what the problem is and come to an amicable arrangement because I am not a childish coward I am a grown man who can take responsibility for his actions.

Now, to clarify, my above reaction would be to an opponent altering his model mid-game for advantage, not claiming he can open only a few doors.
My reaction to the claim that you can open some doors but not all would be gentle piss-taking initially followed by a discussion leading to a mutually agreed compromise.

As for the IA thing (and I know that as it is in IA it isn't exactly relevant)

I know it doesn't say all doors but unless you read English as a second language it is pretty clear.

Also who cares about Land Raiders?
We are not talking about Land Raiders.

It has nothing to do with access points and where you have to be 2 inches from exactly. I only mentioned it because it clearly states that the reason the access points are "all around" is because the doors open when it lands.

Not "some of the doors", not "the player can choose to open the doors", doors required to allow disembarkation will open" but simply "the doors".


Finally and if anyone even cares at this point other than for the purposes of a good scrap - the obvious solution to this problem is to model the drop pod with no doors on it at all.

However the crux of the matter is (as I mentioned in my previous post) that only the two players involved can make this decision.

It is not cheating. The rules are unspecific. I would still say b4 the game starts decide.

The cheating is in reference to altering the model during play (in this instance changing some of the doors from closed to open).

i will agree that is cheating if your gona play the DP doors closed then open them and shoot my guys but saying their closed I wouldnt call that cheating. Then accusing the player of cheating and finishing the game or even if you dont accuse him and finish thats a rage to me and unsporting. Its aonly a game. Any one who calls off a game because of anothers tactic is childish.

I would agree that it is cheating to open and close the doors but something unspecific like landing open or closed then no.

usmcmidn wrote:i will agree that is cheating if your gona play the DP doors closed then open them and shoot my guys but saying their closed I wouldnt call that cheating. Then accusing the player of cheating and finishing the game or even if you dont accuse him and finish thats a rage to me and unsporting. Its aonly a game. Any one who calls off a game because of anothers tactic is childish.

I would agree that it is cheating to open and close the doors but something unspecific like landing open or closed then no.

You're playing a friendly game of soccer (or football everywhere else that actually plays it) and your team and the other teamplay to 2-2, and they change the rules halfway through the game. They get nine more goalies in front of the net in addition to their current team.

How is that fun? Acting in rational self interest, I'd walk way too. In fact, an argument could be made that that allowing a person or group of people to walk all over someone like that is unhealthy.

Give me proof its cheating. To some those are the rules. Again until it is definitively proven work out Wat ur gona do b4 the game.

Don't cry its a game of strategy ... That could b ones strategy .

While my first post could have been misunderstood if not misread I tried to be extremely clear with my second post.

Perhaps my post was too long?

To summarise:

Rules discussions should be settled as if between gentlemen - it is a British game after all.

Withdrawing when a player is cheating for advantage is not childish, unsporting or raging.
It is simply refusing to pander to the whims of a spoilt brat with no discipline.

If enough players refuse to play against them they will change their ways or never play again.

Games of strategy and tactics rely on honour, if your opponent has none then there merit in playing.

I have ended games before when my opponent has tampered with my minis while I was in the bathroom, fielded more units than in his list or repeatedly used a single dice to make practised rolls for advantage.

We all should, it might bring a bit of maturity and circumspection to the gaming masses.