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.

I spent this weekend at a seminar for officiating the sport of Fencing led by an Internationally known director who has officiated at the last two Olympic games. The seminar went over the rules and practical application of those rules to the sport, concluding with a written test (on the rules) and a practical test (on the application). Some things struck me as having applications in wargaming and I thought I'd share them here and see what you fellow Dakkites think. Basically, the Fencing rulebook is full of penalty charts, rules governing the materiality of the touches, how an attack is performed, etc. Our director said, very plainly, that the job of the rules and of the offiicial is to facilitate the fencing, not to get in the way of the competitors. Being nit-picky on the rules is "trying to separate gnat-s##t from pepper" and gets in the way of the fencing (he even wrote gnat-s##t on the board and every time we asked a nit-picky question he pointed to the chalkboard).

Now, Sunday afternoon we were playing an Apoc game and had several rules questions come up. I realized that most of the arguments over rules are really just "separating gnat-s##t from pepper" and that the rules were getting in the way of us playing a game. The ultimate goal of playing 40k (or Fantasy, Warmachine, etc) is to have fun. Winning is actually a secondary goal; we don't play this game to win, we play this game to have fun (and often winning allows us to have more fun). If the rules get in the way of you and your opponent having fun, throw them out and roll a dice. If the debate over whether or not mystics can fire at a SM Drop Pod makes the game less fun, roll a dice and move on. Later, you can debate it (or come here and debate it) but in a game, get on with it and keep playing.

So that's what I learned this weekend, take from it what you will.

By the way, I passed the written and didn't screw up too bad on the practical so I now have my Directors rating.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

"The ultimate goal of playing 40k (or Fantasy, Warmachine, etc) is to have fun. Winning is actually a secondary goal;"

In debate, that's what's called 'making part of your argument a given'.

Not everyone is going to agree that having fun is the ultimate goal. And denying someone a deserved win due to ignoring the rules is certainly going to interfere with most peope's fun.

I spent the last few months coaching and refing youth football, and it's a similar situation. We did not throw penalty flags for things that didn't affect the play, no matter how blatant. We didn't want the rules to interfere with the kids playing the game.

But in effect we had agreed to use a different set of rules, not ignore the ones we had. Your example is no different.

So by all means, if you can get your opponent to agree to ignore warhammer rules because it's more fun, knock your socks off. But if he doesn't agree, and you still want to ignore those rules, then you're unsporting at best and a cheater at worst.

Two things:

1) If the game wasn't fun, would you still play? I'd bet the answer (for almost everyone) would be no. If you lost all the time, but had a blast, would you still play? Again, I'd wager the answer would be yes.

2) I'm not saying to ignore the rules. What I am saying is don't let the rules get in the way of playing the game. If you can't agree, just roll a dice. No need to argue for hours, just roll a dice. In my experience, most rules arguments don't determine who wins and who loses. If it is that critical, then by all means, argue away. But for the other 99% of rules arguments, just roll a dice and get back to playing.

You were the one person I knew would definitely come argue with me about this as you have your own interpretation of the rules, and you don't waiver from that (like Dark Angels not being able to fire their bolt pistols and assault), even if 9 out of 10 people play it the exact opposite from you. I also know that the lessons I learned this weekend would not change your approach to the rules (and I am right, you have now basically called me unsporting and a cheater), but that's ok, cause I don't think I'd ever have fun playing against you. Please don't take it personally, I just think that our approach to the game is different and it would not be a fun game for me. I respect your playing ability and I don't have negative views about you, just our approach to the game is radically different (hell, I play Dark Angels! ).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:Two things:

1) If the game wasn't fun, would you still play? I'd bet the answer (for almost everyone) would be no. If you lost all the time, but had a blast, would you still play? Again, I'd wager the answer would be yes.

THe problem is that, for Ed and others, it's an invalid question. Yes, they want to play fun games. However, part of the fun is winning. And winning is facilitated by understanding and mastery of the rules governing gameplay; if those rules are subject to arbitrary fluctuation, regardless of outcome, the game is no longer fun.

I happen to agree. Rules disputes mid-game suck, but resolving them with something as arbitrary as a die roll, especially when my own actions have been predicated on my understanding (i.e., how it should be played), can kill my fun in a game immediately.

To analogize, it's like stepping onto the strip with my epee, hitting my opponent in the hand, and then being told he though it was a foil bout, and the judge does a coin toss to decide which of us is right. (Extreme, yes, but I have seen rules disputes that egregious mid-game at tournaments.)

Short version: it's almost impossible to determine what a truly "trivial" rules dispute is, as you can never know what's been going on in the other guy's head. When a game can be decided by a single die roll (not infrequent), "minor" disputes are difficult to identify.

That's a touching story about sportsmanship and the joy of competition that is unfettered by needless officiating.

I understand what you mean, and I think it's a good point that should be remembered when playing fun pick up games and the like.

This doesn't have a ton to do with 40k.

Fencing has a pretty well established ruleset, and the judge exists mostly to determine results: was there a hit, a foul, an out of bounds, etc. 40k is essentially self regulated, and dice are the arbiters of what is a hit, etc. There are certainly trivial rulings in fencing, just as there are trivial rules in 40k, but the difference is that both fencers know what the rules are, and while each official makes calls a little differently, at least it is fair.

In 40k, the problem isn't in rulings: terrain and the like are agree upon, and line of sight, range, etc. are exactly the sort of disputes that a d6 can resolve if parties can't agree. The problem is in the rules: without errata, we do not know how to play. Now, while it's charming to say, "the point is to have fun, so do whatever is fun, and don't let the nitpicky stuff bog you down!" However, this game has rules, and barring errata, you cannot expect any player to allow you to break rules because it's fun. The infamous DA's firing bolt pistols argument is not the fault of Ed, it's the fault of GW from writing "A model may not charge if it fires a rapid fire weapon, but a model with a rapid fire weapon may charge if it fires a pistol or assault weapon."

Much like in Ed's Pop Warner league, they effectively decided upon a set of mutually agreed upon rulings. When on a traveling team, however, I'm sure his teams play by the letter of the rulebook unless they agree with any new teams.

In short: if both parties, free from pressure or undue influence, decide to foregoe certain RAW interpretations for the betterment of the game, then they are exemplars of the hobby that should be commended for understanding that having fun is important. If a person playing against a stranger asks politely that they play as the rules are written, free from house rules, "common sense," and "well, everybody plays this way because it makes sense," then that person should be accommodated without complaint or animosity. The gentleman had read the rules and wished to play them as they were written, not the way you enjoy.

to give a recent example: I was playing in an RTT saturday against a gentleman from Washington State who was in Cleveland on business. I shot his terminators, and he elected to take a wound on his lord, rather than lose his final terminator. I protested, saying he had to pull a complete model. His rulebook clearly stated that the rule only applied when there were multiple multi-wound models in the unit. While he clearly had bungled a rules reading from the 'net, I let it slide, because the rules backed him up, and not me. (incidentally, the squad failed a morale check, and because the last terminator was alive, his lord ran off the table....)

Should my opponent have pulled his terminator because it would have been more fun to simply agree with me and not debate the rule? Likewise, should he have been punished because he was a newcomer to a relatively intimate gaming community and wanted to play by the rules he read?

Hey, when I let me kids play with my little men they don't use any rules at all. They just move them around and make 'brrrrrr' noises with the tanks and 'pow-pow' noises with the guns.

They look like they're having a ball. Maybe we should all do that instead.

I opt for a middle ground. I don't mind looking up a rule. It takes about 30 seconds most of the time. It's no biggie.

If it's going to be a delay or unclear we'll just decide on what's reasonable and look it up later. The flow of the game is more important than minutiae.

There's maul's pewpew kids and then there's the rules lawyers from hell who will spend 3 hours in the middle of a game arguing how each sentence should be parsed. Most gamers I think are able to find a happy middle ground.

If you think fencing has an established ruleset, my 15 hours of seminar say otherwise.

All very good points and I appreciate the discussion. Just for the record, I'm not saying that if someone says they should be able to move their bikes like Eldar Jetbikes you should dice off for it. What I am saying is that when there is a grey area in the rules (and we all know the rules that are suspect), don't let that get in the way of the game. Read my question in YMDC about size 3 area terrain and Titans and you'll see an example of what I mean. What we ended up doing was saying, fine, I'll shoot the baneblade at those guys over there. We argued for a bit, then just said, "its cool, they don't specify anything, we'll shoot at those buggies over there." We then decided to post on different forums (I chose Dakka) to get opinions from other gamers and make our own ruling. But had we spent 30 minutes arguing about the rules, that's 30 minutes we aren't playing the game and having fun. That's 30 minutes longer the game takes and cuts into my already limited free time. I can argue why Dark Angels can fire their bolt pistols and assault, but every minute I do that is a minute I'm not playing 40k.

I guess that really is my point.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Asmodai wrote:I opt for a middle ground. I don't mind looking up a rule. It takes about 30 seconds most of the time. It's no biggie.

If it's going to be a delay or unclear we'll just decide on what's reasonable and look it up later. The flow of the game is more important than minutiae.

There's maul's pewpew kids and then there's the rules lawyers from hell who will spend 3 hours in the middle of a game arguing how each sentence should be parsed. Most gamers I think are able to find a happy middle ground.

That's a good way to phrase it. If there is money on the line, than there is a judge to ask. If there is no judge, I will usually yeild to RAW, a d6, or whatever test my opponent wants. If my opponent is making a cogent argument, and the rules either support him or are ambiguous, then the burden of proof is on me to match that with an equally well supported argument. When there are two genuinely equal arguements, then it's d6 time. 90% of the time, rules lawyers from hell aren't really rules lawyers: they're rule demagoges, spouting half remembered rules from other editions, games, or "I read it somewere in a FAQ."

@ Ozy: I think the reason people debate these points on forums is so they dont argue in games. I've never let a rules argument last longer than a few minutes, and that was in a game with stakes (god, I love my new baneblade. Too bad I have no time to build her...)

I appreciate your post, but you posted in a sort of "I just had a grand epiphany on 40k" way. I think nearly every poster here would agree that time spent arguing is time not spent playing. I think that carrying that to say you shouldn't argue rules because having fun is the most important pre-supposes that you can only have fun when everybody get's along and nobody is ever wrong.

Don't discount that there is something, and I'm not sure what, to be said for not backing down when you think you are correct. I'm not sure if it's noble or not, but to use your DA example, the designer seemingly gave DA bolt pistols for a reason, and that reason would be to shoot and then charge. However, the core rules prevent a model carrying a rapid fire weapon from charging if it fired. If we were playing on table 1, and there was something to be gained from me arguing that you couldn't shoot and then charge, shouldn't I stand by my convictions and at least make my case? I don't think it's a game breaker, and there's always the buggabo about not wanting to win on a technicality, but the rules were written for a purpose: to recreate how our toys would interact. There is a certain vritue to the idea that the rules have a meaning, and there is a correct one.

Now, you have backed a bit and said you were harping on the guys who argue at length. Well, there's only so long you can argue with somebody who will not change their mind, at which case, you dice for it, and than decide privately if it's worth playing with that guy again. Personally, I'm pretty open about rules issues, but I can respect the view points of those that aren't.

"The ultimate goal of playing 40k (or Fantasy, Warmachine, etc) is to have fun. Winning is actually a secondary goal;"

In debate, that's what's called 'making part of your argument a given'.

Erm guys? I remember darkly there was something like a "Golden Rule" in the 3ed book or so. I do not have one near me to look it up maybe someone can help me out. But it states something like this I think.

Even if we all go "brrrrrrrr" "pow pow" sooner or later there will be an argument like:
"Your guy is dead."
"No he is not. He was crawling."
"But mine can fly high and shoot em."
"So my bomb destroys everyone of your guys."

There is no game without competition and no competition without rules. And sometimes it is really surprising when you travel around and play in diffrent gaming groups. It is quite an experince "Oh you play it that way?" "Yes we all do." "Er, well but that's wrong look it up." "OH, you are right. We played it wrong all the time!" Also happens the other way round. What I want to point out is that it is a 2 component thing here.
1. Players can screw up
2. GW can screw up (but they shouldn't cause we pay money yadda yadda pancake...).

I am a fun player and I played on a tourney against a guy who had an awsome knowledge on the core rules (he made 1st place). It was fun to play against him because there were nor rules discussions (okay only one but solved quickly by the referee). For the rest I just relied on what he said I actually learned something. So I think Ozymandias and mauleed would have a problem come along with each other. ( I don't want to point out that Ozymandias can learn something from mauleed)

What poped up in my mind right now is that the "only" way solution to the problem would be a "refree" both players can rely on. I mean you compare sports to table top gaming and I do not remember a game where both players (or teams) are refree. I mean every player needs someone to blame if he lost in sports it is the refree. Because of the missing of such a person in table top gaming (most of the time) we tend to blame the rules or the other player.

Edit: Oh damn, this is just the long version of what Polonius stated before.

Asmodai is exactly right.

When the rules are unclear, argue your case, but don't let the argument get in the way of playing the game.

Heh I can think of one sport where the players are also referees, but then they are beating each other with sticks, so there is a certain amount of honesty encouraged

Edit: Christ, my brain is all over. I keep forgetting to make sense.
I agree with Ozzy for the most part; there is definitely something to be said for "Ok this will work, let's just roll."

In general, I'm a "Ok, let’s look it up" kind of guy. If there seem to be an issue with rules, the first place I go to is the rule book. That, in and of itself, tends to clear things up most of the time. In the cases of "gray" areas, I like to try and do what the book says and if that's also unclear or contradictory, I try to do what makes sense. I can't think of a rule argument I've had in recent memory that couldn't be solved in this fashion. That having been said, nothing upsets me more (and takes away from me having fun) then rolling a die to determine a rule. I absolutely hate that with a passion that defies words. In most cases, I'd rather pack up and leave than roll a d6 to decide a rule, particularly if the rule is covered in the book. The rules are there for a reason, so that we have structure for the game. They are there as the common element that allows us to pick up our models and go all over the world to play the same game. If people start ignoring the rules or playing by different ones, they are not playing the same game. I love house rules, but everyone has to play by the same rules if you are going to have fun. I just absolutely hate when the structure of the rules gets thrown out the window to the tune of "well lets just d6 for it". If I wanted to just roll dice, I wouldn't have bought all these expensive models.

Now, that having been said, there are some places where the d6 roll is appropriate. These are generaly things you and your opponent forgot to discuss before the game started, like terrain. "You can't shoot over that, its level 3 area terrain" "No, its level 2, my tank can see over it" Things like that are d6able. You both screwed up by not defining the terrain in the beginning so now the only real way to go about it is to random it. But that's more of a definition of the state of the board, not a rule.

Ozymandias has it dead right. I actually pulled out of a game GT due to exactly this situation.

I play for fun, but rules are paramount. If it looks like rules are interfering with the fun, address it.

Mind you, if we went to as much trouble sorting out which opponent we were going to play as we did our Army lists, it would hardly ever be an issue.

We are all in fact, playing with little toys(aka minatures) so realistically, we need to look at ourselves first, and how we interract with fellow Gamers.

I've been on the recieving end several times of people not wanting to play by the rules in tournaments and the judges supporting them because that's the way they think it should be played, regardless of what the rules actually say.

Unfortunately, I made my moves with the understanding of what the rules actually say, yet I'm the bad person...bah...

>>I play for fun, but rules are paramount. If it looks like rules are interfering with the fun, address it.

That would be the ideal situation, though surely we all recognise GW are never going to change.

As far as 40k is concerned, it is a very well established ruleset, and I think the most important thing regarding 40k, the rules and having fun is concerned is try and find someone (or alternatively a certain tournament environment) who have the same attitude towards the rules of the game that you do.

Now as far as other games are concerned, presumably it's possible to write a perfect ruleset that is all things to all people, or alternatively a variety of rulesets that appeal to different demographics.

I'll read the other posts later.

And gratz on the fencing thing.

I thought the job of rules were to be used as a sledgehammer to bludgeon your opponent with "in the air" whilst your army marches forth on the ground. Sort of a combined arms approach.

Have I been wrong all this time?

Seriously (sorry checking out some fo the new toys above), I think part of the issue is your opponent and the menageries of different rules interpretations. We have rules disagreements in EPIC/BFG (usually because we don't play that often), but if the issue last for more than 30 seconds and we can't find it immediately we just roll off/agree and check it out after the game. 40K is more loosey goosey and these arguments seem to come up more often, even amongst the same players.

jfrazell wrote:I thought the job of rules were to be used as a sledgehammer to bludgeon your opponent with "in the air" whilst your army marches forth on the ground. Sort of a combined arms approach.

Have I been wrong all this time?

What you're referring to isn't air support but rather psychological warfare.

Tacobake wrote:

jfrazell wrote:I thought the job of rules were to be used as a sledgehammer to bludgeon your opponent with "in the air" whilst your army marches forth on the ground. Sort of a combined arms approach.

Have I been wrong all this time?

What you're referring to isn't air support but rather psychological warfare.

Well it does involve a lot of hot air

Grats on your directors rating, though I'll have to disagree with you almost entirely. For all of the stated play to win vs. beer n pretzels arguments above. What struck me as odd though is that the 'Outcome doesn't matter - just have fun' argument would come from fencing, which is really one of the most play-to-win sports in existence. Granted there are a lot of little rules in fencing that have almost no relevance on the actual outcome of the competition between two individuals, but when you are talking about calls that DO matter - you had better be consistent and true to the rules.

Now the tie in here is that rule interpretations that come up during a tabletop game really do matter. If one player bases plans around doing something that he can't, or thinks you can't do something that you can - you'd better believe that has an impact on the outcome. Having a nitpicky gnat-sh## rules argument in 40k would be like arguing the interpretation of indirect fire in night-fight while not actually playing a night-fight mission. Sure that's futile, but that also doesn't happen. You can't aim for a win while simultaneously ignoring the rules required to achieve it.

On the topic of fencing: Since you're a director now, can I request that you yellow card people for the over-the-top victory screams when they get a point. That is the most obnoxious 'dancing in the inzone' crap ever in what was once the gentlemen's sport.

The thing that I see all too often is when someone becomes so obsessed by the rules that the player detracts so much from others enjoyment that he/she no longer has players to play with. And these same people come to tourneys with rules interpretations that are correct but fly so far in the face of logic/the spirit of the game that an official over rules it and they get so upset it ruins the rest of their day at say a GT for instance.

My rule of thumb is remember who and where you are playing. Competative play is very much how we talk about things here in dakka. However, playing in a GW store with someone just getting into the game should be very light hearted and permissive to allow the player to see mistakes and yet still have an enjoyable time.

Everyone will play how they see fit but I feel play competatively in tourneys, have fun with your friends and waffle stomp someone who is runing the fun of others in the area where you game.

Orion

"And these same people come to tourneys with rules interpretations that are correct but fly so far in the face of logic/the spirit of the game that an official over rules it and they get so upset it ruins the rest of their day at say a GT for instance. "

So people shouldn't get upset when an incompetent judge steals victory from a player?

Besides, that's an exceedingly rare occurance. What's more common is the judges simply don't know the rules and are making things up as they go. ....which I don't mind if they say so (I'm not sure, but if you want me to make a call, it's going to be....). But I really, really hate it when some knucklehead 'I'm the judge/outrider/etc.' type is convinces he's infallible.

Oxymandias, while I agree with the general thrust of your top post, I can't agree with the specifics. The mystics/drop pod issue is easily solved by looking at the rules. Mystics work against deep strikers. Pods are not deep strikers. End of story. If 30 seconds of research can solve the problem, it's not worth worrying about.

The REAL problems arise with genuinely ambiguous rules. For those, I am grateful for YMDC, the Yakfaq and similar resources, because they make the holes in the rules apparent. When a situation related to these rules comes up, I can say with confidence, "The rules don't cover this situation unambiguously. How do you want to play it?"

Moz wrote:Grats on your directors rating, though I'll have to disagree with you almost entirely. For all of the stated play to win vs. beer n pretzels arguments above. What struck me as odd though is that the 'Outcome doesn't matter - just have fun' argument would come from fencing, which is really one of the most play-to-win sports in existence. Granted there are a lot of little rules in fencing that have almost no relevance on the actual outcome of the competition between two individuals, but when you are talking about calls that DO matter - you had better be consistent and true to the rules.

Now the tie in here is that rule interpretations that come up during a tabletop game really do matter. If one player bases plans around doing something that he can't, or thinks you can't do something that you can - you'd better believe that has an impact on the outcome. Having a nitpicky gnat-sh## rules argument in 40k would be like arguing the interpretation of indirect fire in night-fight while not actually playing a night-fight mission. Sure that's futile, but that also doesn't happen. You can't aim for a win while simultaneously ignoring the rules required to achieve it.

On the topic of fencing: Since you're a director now, can I request that you yellow card people for the over-the-top victory screams when they get a point. That is the most obnoxious 'dancing in the inzone' crap ever in what was once the gentlemen's sport.

Its not a question of not wanting to win (in fencing or in 40k) its a question of not letting the rules get in the way of the game/sport. I think Orion has done a good job of explaining what my philosophy is (much better than I did).

The psychology of the yell in fencing is a whole new subject that I could spend a lot of time on. So no, I won't/can't give them a card for it. Though I can give a card for delay of bout...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:Its not a question of not wanting to win (in fencing or in 40k) its a question of not letting the rules get in the way of the game/sport.

You do realize that that is an entirely different argument than what you started with.

Everyone would love to play games of 40k that do not have rules disputes, but the current ruleset is bad, VERY bad. And this is where 90% of the problems arise from - not rules lawyering

A well written, clean ruleset that is supported by constant updating and errata by a competent, technical writing staff seems to much like a fantasy to me unfortunately

Not really. I wasn't that clear in my first post but essentially I keep the same argument, don't let gnat-s##t get in the way of you and your opponent having fun. I never said don't try to win, just that winning is secondary to having fun.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Spot on Ozzy. The game is MEANT to be fun. Considering all of the Various Codicies, I think they do OK.

Rules should never be 'ignored', but in the same acc. they should not be 'why' we play.
IMO anyway.

BTW, it seems some of you here do fence. In that case, try looking up the definition of jostling, or an abnormal fencing action, or offense against sportsmanship. They aren't in the rules and what is one to one fencer/director is not the same to another. And this is an Olympic sport!! Its a little different because it has an independent 3rd party making decisions, but the rules are just as unclear as 40k.

I am saying that we shouldn't let the rules (and disputes of said rules) get in the way of having fun. Many of you are saying "duh!" but I really do think that many of us forget that when we play.

I know I do.

Ozymandias, King of Kings