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.

Thor665 wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:As they say over and over again, that it is not , that they shake thier heads in sadness when they hear people playing that way, then it seems strange for so many to hold to such strict dogma.

Does the position that the rule book should contain the rules and be a solution for rules questions really strike you and GW as so strange?

I would note that any game that is played in a competitive tourney environment is obligated to have a clear set of rules for people to reference.

And there in that one simple sentence lies the whole problem. As much as we hate it, the game was never written with that in mind - it just wasn't. No amount of stating otherwise will get around it. Yes, I do agree that the rules are getting better and clear but we all know there is a way to go - however, even today, the GW mind set is it is a fun game not up for the rigors of tournie play.

Wargames Research Group Ancients was written specifically as a tournament set of rules and was refined over decades to be as fair and balanced as possible.

The language it is written in is widely derided for its prolixity and still arouses bitter disputes about the precise meaning, to the point where the 12 pages of De Bellis Antiquitatis are supported by a 70+ page explanatory supplement produced by fans.

GW never wrote 40K to be used for tournaments, so it is disingenuous of them to run tournaments especially when refusing to issue FAQs and corrections, but that is the situation as it stands.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The language it is written in is widely derided for its prolixity and still arouses bitter disputes about the precise meaning, to the point where the 12 pages of De Bellis Antiquitatis are supported by a 70+ page explanatory supplement produced by fans.

oh so very true - anyone who hates GW rule writing should never ever pick up DBA rule set - heads would explode. Having to have a "translation" to make the rules penetrable is such a sad indictment on the rule writing ability of the DBA writers

... and elephants

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:As they say over and over again, that it is not , that they shake thier heads in sadness when they hear people playing that way, then it seems strange for so many to hold to such strict dogma.

Does the position that the rule book should contain the rules and be a solution for rules questions really strike you and GW as so strange?

I would note that any game that is played in a competitive tourney environment is obligated to have a clear set of rules for people to reference.

So you say that the rule book contains the rules in one sentence and then cite the fact that tourneys have to generate their own rules in another?

This seem flawed to you at all?

It would, but that's not what I said. I never said tourneys have to generate their own rules (though unfortunately they do) I said that I believe the concept that the "rule book" contains the rules for the game without having to make house rules or personal calls is not an unreasonable standpoint to have. I stand by the belief that it is not unreasonable, and I also stand by a belief that GW has not delivered on this and does obligate house rules at tourneys they support. If they wish to not have tourney level rules that is fine, but I am forced to then wonder why they bother to support tourneys at all.

Polonius wrote:
that's a sloppy restatement. The position that the rule book, interpreted literally with no thought given to playability, context, etc is the sole source of solutions for rules questions due to it's design is seen as strange by GW, and yes, by me.

When the authors of a text tell you not to dig too deep because they don't' think about it that much, yes, continuing to interpret it as writ seems a little strange.

I believe in nothing but a literal interpretation of the rules without use of context? Dear sir, didn't you just get done haranguing me for misrepresenting your standpoint in the first post? I support RAW interpretation, however if you go to YMDC and look at what I've posted you will see I am often calling for people to read the sentence in front of a rule they are confusing or that I make fun of how Librarians in Terminator armor while not Terminators are also apparently not Space Marines. What I am attempting to discuss here is, as your initial post called for, an examination of the RAW vs. RAI vs. "fanatic RAW mindsets. Currently I am doing so by questiong some of the generalized negativity that seems to be directed at those who *do* believe that the rulebook should have the rules for the game and cover pretty much every situation.

I have never once said I believe in literal interpretation of the words in the rulebook, that is what you said I said.

I would note that every person that sleeps with me is obligated to tell me up front when they have VD.

Both of those statements are true only when "obligated" means "really ought to" and not "actually is required to and in fact, does do so."

...um, okay. I'm sorry, you lost me here for a minute. So you agree with me that GW really ought to tighten up their rules because of their tourney support? I'm just double checking because I'm not sure I'm reading this right. My comment was a lamentation that GW doesn't have a tighter rule set and I pointed out how, since they have tourneys that they really should tighten up their rules and not use their d6 as a cop out. With competitive play comes a requirement for legitimate rule gray area abolishment/answers.

Thor665 wrote:
It would, but that's not what I said. I never said tourneys have to generate their own rules (though unfortunately they do) I said that I believe the concept that the "rule book" contains the rules for the game without having to make house rules or personal calls is not an unreasonable standpoint to have. I stand by the belief that it is not unreasonable, and I also stand by a belief that GW has not delivered on this and does obligate house rules at tourneys they support. If they wish to not have tourney level rules that is fine, but I am forced to then wonder why they bother to support tourneys at all.

Ah, apologies, but there you see my point, they are having to have rules set out. I personally think it's a shame the actual rules won't stand up to the scrutiny of a tourney. I know that tournaments would still be generating house ruling and FAQs even if the rules were considerably tighter but still, GW refusing to even acknowledge the competitive play that goes on (or when it does, it belittles that aspect of the hobby) is just arrogant and, to my mind, missing an opportunity.

Amen to that MeanGreenStompa.

Thor665 wrote:

Polonius wrote:
that's a sloppy restatement. The position that the rule book, interpreted literally with no thought given to playability, context, etc is the sole source of solutions for rules questions due to it's design is seen as strange by GW, and yes, by me.

When the authors of a text tell you not to dig too deep because they don't' think about it that much, yes, continuing to interpret it as writ seems a little strange.

I believe in nothing but a literal interpretation of the rules without use of context? Dear sir, didn't you just get done haranguing me for misrepresenting your standpoint in the first post? I support RAW interpretation, however if you go to YMDC and look at what I've posted you will see I am often calling for people to read the sentence in front of a rule they are confusing or that I make fun of how Librarians in Terminator armor while not Terminators are also apparently not Space Marines. What I am attempting to discuss here is, as your initial post called for, an examination of the RAW vs. RAI vs. "fanatic RAW mindsets. Currently I am doing so by questiong some of the generalized negativity that seems to be directed at those who *do* believe that the rulebook should have the rules for the game and cover pretty much every situation.

Sorry, I got confused and read your post wrong. BTW, haranguing is usually defined as a rant or tirade, not a quip.

I would note that every person that sleeps with me is obligated to tell me up front when they have VD.

Both of those statements are true only when "obligated" means "really ought to" and not "actually is required to and in fact, does do so."

...um, okay. I'm sorry, you lost me here for a minute. So you agree with me that GW really ought to tighten up their rules because of their tourney support? I'm just double checking because I'm not sure I'm reading this right. My comment was a lamentation that GW doesn't have a tighter rule set and I pointed out how, since they have tourneys that they really should tighten up their rules and not use their d6 as a cop out. With competitive play comes a requirement for legitimate rule gray area abolishment/answers.

Of course they shoudl have tighter rules. I was merely pointing out that they clearly aren't obligated, because they don't do it.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW never wrote 40K to be used for tournaments, so it is disingenuous of them to run tournaments especially when refusing to issue FAQs and corrections, but that is the situation as it stands.

I'm not sure it's disingenuous of them to hold tournaments... in a sense its a failing of translation.

They see a tournament as a chance to get together for three or more guaranteed games, have fun, throw dice, show off your models, and win prizes.

We see a tournament as a chance to show our gaming prowess by putting the beat stick to our opponents.

Personally I question the scoring system used in many tournaments that *heavily* emphasizes Battle Points. With such a large degree of scoring based on the admittedly less than rigid tournament quality rules, is anyone surprised that this type of rancor develops in tournament settings? Whats wrong with emphasizing the Sports and Paint part of the game at least as much as Battle Points?

Polonius wrote:

skyth wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, now I think I understand better. It's simply a psychological compulsion, a way of dealing with the world. I feel comfortable using common sense and negotiation to resolve a rules question, but a lot of people aren't, and so see RAW as a way of bringing order to chaos. Knowing that, I can understand where they're coming from. I know it's not being a jerk, or wanting to ruin anybody's good time, or getting advantage: it's just a way of viewing the world. And that helps me, and I think it will help the RAW hardliners when more people realize it.

It's my hope too. Most of the RAW hardliners conistenently play the rule the same regardless of which army/side it benefits. They typically have multiple armies and are affected both positively and negatively by a certain rule. It's sad that the RAI hardliners start with the attacks about only arguing for your advantage, etc.

Sigh. As an aside, when there is an attempt at civility and understanding, making a bit of a reckless overstatement about the other side is usually considered bad form. I don't think think RAI hardliners, if such a thing exists, start with personal attacks. I think they generally start with, you know, what the intended meaning of the rule is. They may sometimes end up in personal attacks, but your statement is pretty sweeping.

I've also seldom seen the attacks made on the basis of gaining advantage, at least not by more seasoned YMDC folk. I think there's been accusations of being TFG, but that's distinct. And like I've said before, it's hard to understate how freaking confused I was (and I can only assume others are), why anybody would argue RAW interpretations we see as correct but lousy. So yes, many people assumed that RAW folks were jerks or just jockeying for advantage. I'd like to see that stop.

I'd also like to see a little less paranoia and victimization from the RAW hardliners. Its safe to say that your viewpoint is a minority view, and so while I'm going to do what I can to get people to understand that view and work around it, it would help if they likewise understood that most of the community doesn't understand them, and that the reactions their getting are based more in confusion than malice.

Sorry, I misstated what I was trying to say...I wasn't trying to say that the first thing the RAI hardliners (Which I define as the people that decide that they don't like how certain rules work and refuse to play by them...Regardless of how clear the rule is, often ones that say that the someone who wants to follow said rule is a bad person) do is start calling names, but I have seen people just jump into a rules argument and thier first post in the argument accuses people of only arguing a certain side for thier advantage - here and on other forums (Granted, mostly other forums. On Dakka understanding what the RAW says is at least acknowledged). Typically this is directed towards people who argue for rules that help a powerful army/unit. (CSM gets a lot of the brunt of this).

Polonius wrote:Sorry, I got confused and read your post wrong. BTW, haranguing is usually defined as a rant or tirade, not a quip.

No apologies needed. And thank you for the definition of harangue, but I am cognizant of its meaning and was simply implying the emotional aspect. Your self declaration of quip is duly noted.

Of course they shoudl have tighter rules. I was merely pointing out that they clearly aren't obligated, because they don't do it.

So you feel "of course they should" but you don't feel they are "obligated". I'm sorry, you're still losing me, I'll chalk it up to semantics at this point and just say that we apparently more or less agree here.

The Green Git wrote:Personally I question the scoring system used in many tournaments that *heavily* emphasizes Battle Points. With such a large degree of scoring based on the admittedly less than rigid tournament quality rules, is anyone surprised that this type of rancor develops in tournament settings? Whats wrong with emphasizing the Sports and Paint part of the game at least as much as Battle Points?

Amen to this as well (though I'll flog the old saw horse of VPs over KPs). You have hit upon a point I've been vaguely attempting to make; I suspect much of the tense vitriol that tends to erupt regarding rules can be directly traced to this. In my opinion GW's claim of "it's all just for fun folks, roll them d6 to answer rules" is perfectly legit until they then also create a competitive play environment. At that point people want to know and understand the rules fully so as to (and here I'll just presume the purest of motives) to play fairly and properly and to not have a win besmirched by a questionable maneuver so that in the end we know the "best" player has won.

So thus, when a board has a forum that specifically claims to be a spot to discuss rule interpretations is it a surprise that the dank dwellers therein are less then fond of someone coming in, asking for a rule, getting an answer and then saying "LOL, whatever, this is how we house rule it!" It begs the question why they bother to ask, and really why anyone who wishes to or supports the whole house rule or d6 style as opposed to a more stringent RAW would ever even bother to go to said rules discussion forum. If you accept that you can house rule anything and that's what you want to do - then do so, but clearly in a rules forum situation there should be the utmost strive to reach exactly what the rules do or do not allow.

The one reason why I will never accept "RAW" is because of this simple fact.

According to the codex, Blood Angels rhinos have no entry or fire points. So any squad that starts the game inside can't get out, or fire from the vehicle, and no squad that begins outside may enter it.

That alone is enough to convince me that the entire "RAW" argument is stupid, because you're basically telling me "No, this is how it must be played, even though the designers OBVIOUSLY meant for Blood Angels players to be able to use their own fething transports, the book states otherwise, so that's how it must be played."

Yeah. Good luck getting away with that. I'm sorry but I'm just completely unwilling to listen to the RAW side on this matter. Not the Blood Angels codex matter, just the argument in general about RAW vs. RAI.

I just wish GW could write rules, really...

Sidstyler wrote:The one reason why I will never accept "RAW" is because of this simple fact.

According to the codex, Blood Angels rhinos have no entry or fire points. So any squad that starts the game inside can't get out, or fire from the vehicle, and no squad that begins outside may enter it.

That alone is enough to convince me that the entire "RAW" argument is stupid, because you're basically telling me "No, this is how it must be played, even though the designers OBVIOUSLY meant for Blood Angels players to be able to use their own fething transports, the book states otherwise, so that's how it must be played."

Yeah. Good luck getting away with that. I'm sorry but I'm just completely unwilling to listen to the RAW side on this matter. Not the Blood Angels codex matter, just the argument in general about RAW vs. RAI.

I just wish GW could write rules, really...

Our Hurricane Bolters and Cyclone Missile Launchers also have no rules by RAW.

The Green Git wrote:Personally I question the scoring system used in many tournaments that *heavily* emphasizes Battle Points. With such a large degree of scoring based on the admittedly less than rigid tournament quality rules, is anyone surprised that this type of rancor develops in tournament settings? Whats wrong with emphasizing the Sports and Paint part of the game at least as much as Battle Points?

Really?!? That type of system makes player skill irrelevant, compared to painting, they did it before. Being the best painter in the room =/= best player, and a tournament should be about skill.

Skill?

Tell me, how does copy/pasting a list off a forum into word, printing said list, painting/assembling the minis in said list and then thrashing everyone in sight because you took a WAAC list that plays itself to a tournament tantamount to skill?

40k tournaments remind me of how obscene MTG got when every tourney season the deck that won THE WORLD MTG tournament was posted up online, people with more money than sense started building that same deck only to bring it to local tournaments and thrash players who could only afford booster decks and maybe a few rare cards if they were lucky...that took no skill, that just took being willing to spend $300 on a deck of cards to beat people who could only afford to spend $20. It happened all too often when I played so I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass.

YMDC WAS fun to go into occasionally to see what kind of heated arguments people get into. I don't take it seriously for rules Q&A as other sites seem to do that more eloquently and politely.

My opinion on YMDC is that it gets way too out of hand with attacks and name calling; I visited it for a while when it was more gentlemanly but now I don't even bother. I usually end up sick to my stomach trying to wade through trolls and asshats and jerks.

Being the best shouldn't give people the right to be a jackass. (And by being a jackass they are not the best.)

Lists don't play themselves...

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:GW never wrote 40K to be used for tournaments, so it is disingenuous of them to run tournaments especially when refusing to issue FAQs and corrections, but that is the situation as it stands.

I'm not sure it's disingenuous of them to hold tournaments... in a sense its a failing of translation.

They see a tournament as a chance to get together for three or more guaranteed games, have fun, throw dice, show off your models, and win prizes.

We see a tournament as a chance to show our gaming prowess by putting the beat stick to our opponents.

Personally I question the scoring system used in many tournaments that *heavily* emphasizes Battle Points. With such a large degree of scoring based on the admittedly less than rigid tournament quality rules, is anyone surprised that this type of rancor develops in tournament settings? Whats wrong with emphasizing the Sports and Paint part of the game at least as much as Battle Points?

There's all kinds of problems with Sports and Paint. (And Comp.)

The good thing about Battle Points is that the result of the battle is completely objective.

It's just the deficiencies in the rules and codexes which cause problems.

Sidstyler wrote:That alone is enough to convince me that the entire "RAW" argument is stupid, because you're basically telling me "No, this is how it must be played, even though the designers OBVIOUSLY meant for Blood Angels players to be able to use their own fething transports, the book states otherwise, so that's how it must be played."

Without trying to be rude, this is another perfect example of the way YMDC is misunderstood.

Telling you that the rules say the rhino doesn't have an access point is in no way telling you that's how it must be played. It's doing nothing more than telling you what the rules say.

The argument isn't stupid. Pointing out what the rules say is exactly the purpose of a rules discussion.

The application of the argument's outcome might be... but that's nothing to do with discussng RAW.

Fateweaver wrote:Skill?

Tell me, how does copy/pasting a list off a forum into word, printing said list, painting/assembling the minis in said list and then thrashing everyone in sight because you took a WAAC list that plays itself to a tournament tantamount to skill?

40k tournaments remind me of how obscene MTG got when every tourney season the deck that won THE WORLD MTG tournament was posted up online, people with more money than sense started building that same deck only to bring it to local tournaments and thrash players who could only afford booster decks and maybe a few rare cards if they were lucky...that took no skill, that just took being willing to spend $300 on a deck of cards to beat people who could only afford to spend $20. It happened all too often when I played so I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass.

YMDC WAS fun to go into occasionally to see what kind of heated arguments people get into. I don't take it seriously for rules Q&A as other sites seem to do that more eloquently and politely.

My opinion on YMDC is that it gets way too out of hand with attacks and name calling; I visited it for a while when it was more gentlemanly but now I don't even bother. I usually end up sick to my stomach trying to wade through trolls and asshats and jerks.

Sidstyler wrote:Lists don't play themselves...

Well said Sid.

An army list can't be WAAC. Disavow yourself of this nonsense, please. What you seem to misunderstand is that this game isn't as simple as MTG. Before you start moaning, I picked MTG up in a week, and was competing with the best players in my area, because I bought a couple Ravnica boxes to start. I don't play now, because of the stupid way sets go out after 6 months, and because the game was dull. Just because you have a decent army list doesn't mean you know how yo use it. Also, the best players all (shock horror!) have a pretty close opinion of what's good, because it's not subjective, it's a matter of fact. If I think TH/SS Terminators are good, it doesn't matter if i have internet access of not, I'll put them in my bloody army, as many as I can grab. If I have the capacity to read Vulkan's ability, then I can tell it improve my army if I build towards it and, oh look, Melta and Flamer weapons >>>>>> Plasma anyway.

People get het up with this nonsense concept of people using netdecked army lists, I've never met anyone who plays a netdecked list. Read them, yes. Adapt them to fit their own playing style by switching something around, yes. PLAYTEST them as is before, yes, but never stick with the exact list they initially found, because I don't play with morons incapable of writing an army list of their own. There's nothing wrong with asking for army list advice if you're unsure, I have done it myself, to see if anyone can think of a better combination etc. Frankly, the way people complain about netlists (there's no deck involved, let's stop calling it netdecking, FFS) it sounds as though they want it to be forbidden to provide army list advice...without which, I'm not even sure 40k related Forums would survive. We'd all have to post Tourny reports without telling the reader what was in our army, or our opponents...Who knows how BatReps would be posted...

If you've encountered lists that beat you without the opponent needing to put any effort in, then you've a rubbish list yourself, and could do with trying one from the interwebs.

I don't see what WAAC has to do with YMDC unless some people are saying/implying YMDC is a tool for WAAC. Certainly some people do use it for that goal but certainly not everyone.

G

Fateweaver wrote:Skill?

Tell me, how does copy/pasting a list off a forum into word, printing said list, painting/assembling the minis in said list and then thrashing everyone in sight because you took a WAAC list that plays itself to a tournament tantamount to skill?

40k tournaments remind me of how obscene MTG got when every tourney season the deck that won THE WORLD MTG tournament was posted up online, people with more money than sense started building that same deck only to bring it to local tournaments and thrash players who could only afford booster decks and maybe a few rare cards if they were lucky...that took no skill, that just took being willing to spend $300 on a deck of cards to beat people who could only afford to spend $20. It happened all too often when I played so I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass.

YMDC WAS fun to go into occasionally to see what kind of heated arguments people get into. I don't take it seriously for rules Q&A as other sites seem to do that more eloquently and politely.

My opinion on YMDC is that it gets way too out of hand with attacks and name calling; I visited it for a while when it was more gentlemanly but now I don't even bother. I usually end up sick to my stomach trying to wade through trolls and asshats and jerks.

So you start your post off with an attack (An incorrect one at that) and then complain about YMDC has attacks? A little hypocracy?

Fateweaver wrote:Tell me, how does copy/pasting a list off a forum into word, printing said list, painting/assembling the minis in said list and then thrashing everyone in sight because you took a WAAC list that plays itself to a tournament tantamount to skill?

I usually end up sick to my stomach trying to wade through trolls and asshats and jerks.

While some lists are easier to play, lists still need a player.

You know, if you got out a mirror to change your perspective, those "trolls, asshats, and jerks" might see the same in you that you see in them. No offense intended.
____

Sidstyler wrote:Lists don't play themselves...

True, though some come closer than others.
____

Elessar wrote:An army list can't be WAAC.

OK, then how do you characterize a list which is far too efficient for its points compared to a more ordinary grab bag of stuff?

insaniak wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:That alone is enough to convince me that the entire "RAW" argument is stupid, because you're basically telling me "No, this is how it must be played, even though the designers OBVIOUSLY meant for Blood Angels players to be able to use their own fething transports, the book states otherwise, so that's how it must be played."

Without trying to be rude, this is another perfect example of the way YMDC is misunderstood.

Telling you that the rules say the rhino doesn't have an access point is in no way telling you that's how it must be played. It's doing nothing more than telling you what the rules say.

The argument isn't stupid. Pointing out what the rules say is exactly the purpose of a rules discussion.

The application of the argument's outcome might be... but that's nothing to do with discussng RAW.

But when RAW guys convert to screaming "CHEATER" in their posts, it does come off as telling us how things must be played.

There will always be trolls in any sort of internet milieu. The RAW trolls do not, by their existence, mean that all who proscribe to RAW are trolls or that the belief in support of RAW is intrinsically incorrect.

But when RAW guys convert to screaming "CHEATER" in their posts, it does come off as telling us how things must be played.

Indeed, that's the image I had in my mind...someone calling out a BA player as a cheater because they're not following the rules as written.

"oh of course we wouldn't tell you how to play at home or with friends if you want to do it wrong and cheat..." /flutters fan and adjusts enormous wig...

Yeah, that gak. It doesn't win friends or engender confidence in their side of the picket fence. It just puts up hackles and irritates.

R3con wrote:But when RAW guys convert to screaming "CHEATER" in their posts, it does come off as telling us how things must be played.

And so you just put that particular poster on your 'Ignore' list, and carry on with reading the posts that are actually useful.

Because those who scream 'cheater' are a very, very small minority. The majority of posters over there are a little better at keeping things in perspective, and remembering that this is a game that includes as a part of its core philosophy the idea that you can change the rules to suit yourself.

kirsanth wrote:If you know that "technically" something cannot be done, no matter how silly it sounds, and you do it anyway, calling you a cheater is a pretty tame response.

That is where most RAW accusations come from. Yes you can d6. Yes you can assert otherwise. When you know the rules read one way and you play another, that is, honestly, cheating - unless you have permission first. As per every example given.

carry on.

kirsanth wrote:
That is where most RAW accusations come from. Yes you can d6. Yes you can assert otherwise. When you know the rules read one way and you play another, that is, honestly, cheating - unless you have permission first. As per every example given.

carry on.

cheat

• verb 1 act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage. 2 deprive of something by deceitful or unfair means. 3 avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill: she cheated death in a spectacular crash.
The Oxford English Dictionary.

Now, dishonest would be denying that the rules exist, unfair would be not being prepared to enter into discussion. Deprive using deceitful means?

1st point of call, can you really not fathom why people consider the term cheater to be insulting?

2nd point of call, can you really not see that seeking to understand the meaning of the rules and interpretation of the context is NOT cheating by the definition set in that most relevant of rulebooks, the Oxford English Dictionary...?

You and others using that word to describe anyone who is attempting to employ the common sense as they perceive it on a matter of rules fugue as using the word Cheat incorrectly and furthermore insulting those you direct it at.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Elessar wrote:An army list can't be WAAC.

OK, then how do you characterize a list which is far too efficient for its points compared to a more ordinary grab bag of stuff?

Seriously? I would characterize that as 'Not gak'.

As for calling people out as cheaters - if you know what you do isn't how the rule works, you're cheating. Knowledge = Intent.