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.

First off, I want to make it clear up front that I don't mean to offend any people, in general or specific, with this post. My goal is to understand further where people come from, and why they post the things they do.

I've been on Dakka now for a few years, and YMDC has always been a pretty heated forum. Now, this isn't a surprise, as rules debates are in theory the thing most easily argued endlessly: tactics need to be played, rumors waited out, etc. So, for the most part I've chalked up the heat to the subject matter. As RAW analysis achieved dominance, the idea was that such things as "writers intent" and "customary play" were not proper, and needed to be replaced by a strict reading of the rules themselves. That made sense, and as 3rd turned into 4th and now 5th, the rules have gotten tighter, the holes smaller. RAI has completely disappeared as a serious argument, but has become a huge boon to the area known as "how people are actually going to play it." Look at the Valkyerie debates for evidence of that: even the sharpest voices against deployment acknowledged it would almost never be played that way at any level.

So, what has happened to YMDC? I think we're seeing a new conflict, that between "ultra-literalist" RAW and "Contextual" RAW. In the current debate on LRBTs in Witchhunter armies, the debate centers on if the term "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tanks" requires a unit labelled that in the IG Codex, or if the overall context makes it clear that as long as you only take up to one Russ, and it's a basic LRBT, it's legal. Now, obviously a close reading is key to RAW analysis, but losing sight of the overall nature of the rule also seems worrying. That's not my point, however.

My point, is how are the people that argue this? Most of us make our points, and realize we'll play at the club or store, and we dont need to argue it on Dakka for more than a handful of posts, if at all. RAW is a faily interesting intellectual debate, but something is keeping passion stoked for this stuff. Well, I have a theory. Unclear rules require dicussion with an opponent, a few minutes spent clearing stuff up, etc. When you read the posts of many of the most passionate RAW advocates, their disdain for those that dont' play by RAW shows up in the language: "Cheaters," "people use RAI to gain advantage", "TMIR is an excuse to be TFG." I think that many posters that are RAW fans are actually either horribly cynical of gamer's intentions or almost afraid to be able to reach compromise absent some authoritarian truth.

It's not shocking, I mean, gaming tends to attract the less extroverted, and there's no shortage of Misanthropy here or in the hobby in general. But I think that this has helped my understand that RAW fans cling to it to prevent rules interpretations be gained through bullying or influence.

Any thoughts?

You might be on to something here...

And the thread you reference should in fact become the "Poster Boy" for RaW vs. RaI.

Clearly if you field a DH/WH army and show up with a bog standard Leman Russ, everything should be OK.

By RaW, perhaps you "can't" but really, who "wins" with that argument?

Analyzing the philosophy behind the stances is interesting, but may quickly lead to bruised egos/feelings...

Polonius wrote

But I think that this has helped my understand that RAW fans cling to it to prevent rules interpretations be gained through bullying or influence.

I think this is a fair claim and will be true in certain situations, but I would add that the same argument applies in reverse.

Some of the most heated debates (such as the recent Valkyrie boarding and WH/DH LRBT threads) are what most people would argue is basic common sense and a very clear intention, albeit very poorly expressed, on behalf of the author, versus a strict RAW interpretation.

By far the most strongly worded posts are from those espousing the 'RAW at all costs' philosophy. This can often come across as people trying to bully their way to a win. The LRBT is a classic example, where a player without a new codex for years is allowed a unit and has played with it for dozens of games. All of a sudden because a different book is reprinted with a slight change in terminology - and without the WH/DH player looking for any advantage (ie not claiming access to multiple LRBTs or variant LRBTs) - they are now told by RAW advocates that they must change their lists.


Now, given GW's deliberate, bordering on malicious, determination to refuse to clarify its own rules, the gaming community is always going to have a problem with certain situations. But I would argue that intent cannot be universally ignored, as often seems to be the case. Perhaps a better format for YMDC discussions is for both parties to state not only what the text states and their interpretation thereof, but also what they believe the intent to be.

Two people who disagree on the text but agree on the intent are far more likely to reach a conclusion than people simply talking past each other with one saying 'this is what is written' whilst the other says 'this is what they meant'.

$0.02

YMDC brings out the worst of some internet users and the internet brings out the worst of some humans. YMDC is the internet squared that helps explain the neurosis.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:


By far the most strongly worded posts are from those espousing the 'RAW at all costs' philosophy. This can often come across as people trying to bully their way to a win. The LRBT is a classic example, where a player without a new codex for years is allowed a unit and has played with it for dozens of games. All of a sudden because a different book is reprinted with a slight change in terminology - and without the WH/DH player looking for any advantage (ie not claiming access to multiple LRBTs or variant LRBTs) - they are now told by RAW advocates that they must change their lists.

Two people who disagree on the text but agree on the intent are far more likely to reach a conclusion than people simply talking past each other with one saying 'this is what is written' whilst the other says 'this is what they meant'.

$0.02

Not just told they are wrong but outright called cheaters, which is quite offensive.

The folks who inhabit YMDC have convinced me not to ever click on that part of the forums again, there are other such forums and if I have rules questions I'll now head to those. Shame really but a few bad apples can ruin the whole bunch.

Edit: screwed up quote tags

The rules debates used to basically breakdown into RAW vs RAI.

I've noticed the same thing as Polonius. There's now factions within the RAW camp. I'm not ever sure it comes down to 'ultra-literalist' vs 'contextual'. I think a lot of times it comes down to 'my interpretation of this poorly worded rule is the only possible correct reading'.

Polonius wrote:
My point, is how are the people that argue this? Most of us make our points, and realize we'll play at the club or store, and we dont need to argue it on Dakka for more than a handful of posts, if at all. RAW is a faily interesting intellectual debate, but something is keeping passion stoked for this stuff. Well, I have a theory. Unclear rules require dicussion with an opponent, a few minutes spent clearing stuff up, etc. When you read the posts of many of the most passionate RAW advocates, their disdain for those that dont' play by RAW shows up in the language: "Cheaters," "people use RAI to gain advantage", "TMIR is an excuse to be TFG." I think that many posters that are RAW fans are actually either horribly cynical of gamer's intentions or almost afraid to be able to reach compromise absent some authoritarian truth.

It's not shocking, I mean, gaming tends to attract the less extroverted, and there's no shortage of Misanthropy here or in the hobby in general. But I think that this has helped my understand that RAW fans cling to it to prevent rules interpretations be gained through bullying or influence.

Any thoughts?

Its kinda funny, because you write up this huge post on how RAW people flame you constantly and use personal attacks. Yet that is all your entire post is directed at the RAW people.

Heres the deal:
Most of the RAW people for most discussions say they would just have a discussion/dice off before games to figure out how to play it.

They don't usually hold to their strong RAW rulings irl.

But heres the thing, you can have (or should be able to) a argument online to determine what RAW is, and even if it gets heated its not in a game. I don't understand why you care if people argue about something over 10+ pages. Is it hurting you in any way? Heck they aren't even stalling a game or being a jerk to their opponent. So your argument against it is, someone was a jerk to you over the internet? LOL

On a final note, there is just as many if not more personal attacks that get flung around by the RAI group.

Ironically most of the normal crew in there doesn't really get into personal attacks. Its usually the guy who comes in once a week or something, sees something is played differently than how he does it/wants to do it, and then calls everyone an idiot.

Timmah, I think you missed the point. The post is directed towards the difference in RAW camps because RAI is pretty much accepted as not being a valid argument outside of house rules.

Polonius makes a very good point that there really has been a breakdown on the RAW side of things between the camps Polonius describes. Granted, I think calling people "cheaters" etc. is more a rhetorical tool used to make people ashamed to hold a position than indicative of any particular sense of contempt as he says. Still, his point holds that there has been a pretty significant change in the nature of debate in YMDC in at least the last 3 years.

I think the problem lies in the fact most people have a hard time thinking of things from another person's perspective and likewise addressing their arguments specifically. As a result one tends to get a conversation that repeats itself over and over as one side makes an argument, the other side makes a different argument that does not fully address the previous argument, making the first poster think they have not been understood/engaged so they repeat, and so on. People start getting frustrated and poor behavior results.

Of course there are always the folks who can't help mocking other people when their ideas differ, but they are pretty few and far between.

Timmah wrote:

Polonius wrote:
My point, is how are the people that argue this? Most of us make our points, and realize we'll play at the club or store, and we dont need to argue it on Dakka for more than a handful of posts, if at all. RAW is a faily interesting intellectual debate, but something is keeping passion stoked for this stuff. Well, I have a theory. Unclear rules require dicussion with an opponent, a few minutes spent clearing stuff up, etc. When you read the posts of many of the most passionate RAW advocates, their disdain for those that dont' play by RAW shows up in the language: "Cheaters," "people use RAI to gain advantage", "TMIR is an excuse to be TFG." I think that many posters that are RAW fans are actually either horribly cynical of gamer's intentions or almost afraid to be able to reach compromise absent some authoritarian truth.

It's not shocking, I mean, gaming tends to attract the less extroverted, and there's no shortage of Misanthropy here or in the hobby in general. But I think that this has helped my understand that RAW fans cling to it to prevent rules interpretations be gained through bullying or influence.

Any thoughts?

Its kinda funny, because you write up this huge post on how RAW people flame you constantly and use personal attacks. Yet that is all your entire post is directed at the RAW people.

Heres the deal:
Most of the RAW people for most discussions say they would just have a discussion/dice off before games to figure out how to play it.

They don't usually hold to their strong RAW rulings irl.

What are you talking about? Polonius made no attacks and no flames. And there is a definitely a feeling in the YMDC forum by a majority of posters that if you don't follow RAW, you are a cheater or TFG. The reason Polonius hasn't talked about RAI folks is that RAI is not really what YMDC is about, and RAI arguments have greatly diminished lately anyway.

Your post makes no sense.

This is a classic example of what I was saying.

YMDC should not be about personal attacks, nor should it be about RAW vs RAI.

The fact is that there is a self-reinforcing assumption in YMDC that the initial argument should be RAW vs RAI, followed by an argument about different textual readings of RAW.

Invariably, no-one who starts on these semantic arguments is willing to accept any other point of view as valid, rendering the whole discussion ultimately pointless.

Nothing should be considered in a vacuum, intent and context are just as important as the text itself. The reason for the short tempers on YMDC and the general lack of meaningful conclusions is because people pick a single line or phrase that matches their own view and then repeats themselves until the thread gets locked or other parties get bored and give up.

olympia wrote:YMDC brings out the worst of some internet users and the internet brings out the worst of some humans. YMDC is the internet squared that helps explain the neurosis.

Too true, actually!

And, while at risk of using that old chestnut "Can't we all just get along?", everyone would do well to remember the fact that personal attacks anywhere on this site are not allowed.

YMDC seems to really bring out the worst in some though...

Considering the infamous recasting thread, everyone including the OP is liable to acting less than positive. Definitely sucks but whenever the inner lawyer comes out in people its bound to get heated. I'd also suggest surfing other forums and posting your rules questions if you want to see a broader range of results although flaming and the like is found everywhere but there are more moderated communites out there.

I think the point often gets missed that YMDC is purely for Tournament situations.


Yes, it is.

Listen, if I'm playing a friendly game, then winning should be less important to me than having a good time. So, if I don't know a rule (lol) and my opponent is SURE of his interpretation, I'll let it go, and play his way, only checking later. Basically, in friendly games, RAW is irrelevant, you play whatever the hell way you want, and no-one, least of all GW, cares. In a Tournament, however, there ARE going to be people who try to cheat you, and that's when RAW, and the Rules at all, matter. When that is the case, we need to know EXACTLY how the rule says it should be played.

Perhaps a split, into 'YMDC' and 'YMDC Lite' would simplify things...with 'Lite' being where people go "I played against a Guard Player, and he said he can give orders in my turn, and beat me in my own first turn. Is this legal?!?" - this example illustrates we can still have the same discussions, but in a wholly different context. In this case, there is no discussion, the guy cheated, because it was a friendly game, and he broke the spirit of the game over his knee and stamped in its face.

It baffles my mind that all too often rules lawyers argue for the wording, but real lawyers argue for intent. Trying to go strictly by wording without looking for the intent seems to me as if the player doesn't care to figure out how the designers wanted the game to be played. I know GW is 99% at fault for writing the rules that way and failing to answer any questions, but I feel that RAW Zombies (TM) have fallen onto this path of not even trying to decipher why certain rules are in place and just looking for little keywords in the texts that they deem so important.

MODQUISITION ON:


Gentlemen and ladies, lets maintain Dakka Rule #1 on this thread. Politeness will be required from all parties discussing this. I had to cancel my game for the second time in two weeks so I'm especially cranky...

Frazzled wrote:MODQUISITION ON:


Gentlemen and ladies, lets maintain Dakka Rule #1 on this thread. Politeness will be required from all parties discussing this. I had to cancel my game for the second time in two weeks so I'm especially cranky...

...? Unless you deleted a post or two, it's been pretty polite so far.

Hell, even RAW Zombies was a legit term, if not one of endearment...

Bat Manuel wrote:It baffles my mind that all too often rules lawyers argue for the wording, but real lawyers argue for intent.

There is a principle in statutory interpretation that you read the law so as to achieve a not-absurd result.

Interpretation of GW's rules would benefit from a similar principle.

@Polonius:

No offense intended towards anybody, but as I've said (and made .sig-worthy):

JohnHwangDD wrote:The 40k YMDC stuff is almost entirely TFG-manufactured BS.

I've given up entirely on YMDC. I don't read or post there at all any more, due to the total irrelevance to normal play. I play in a group composed of rational adult human beings that I have played with and against for years, and intend to do so for the indefinite future. Trying to move towards current YMDC thought would only damage how our group plays.

As I look at it, RAW should be dominant, perhaps 90% weight, with some allowance, perhaps 10%, for rationality due to the inability to write hyper-legalist rules in any sort of reasonable amount of space.

It used to be, RAI would be a "Fluff"-based argument that one could trump RAW or do something that wasn't specificied in the rules. In these cases, the bulk of them were easily resolved simply by asking whether the rules permitted the action, and whether the basic intent of the model is met.

That is, if we talk about whether a Valkyrie can embark / disembark passengers, the obvious answer is "Yes, it can." The Valkyrie is rules-wise a Transport (12), with passenger doors, rear ramp, and landing Gear. So the obvious solution for the model is that it lands to embark / disembark. Manufacturing an argument that Valks can't land to embark/disembark is nonsense, and I won't be bothered over it.

The new stuff, with the Valk always being on the stand is just plain ridiculous, because it's moving along the lines of the US Legal system, requiring a level of specificity that simply doesn't make sense.

Just as SFB sucks because it's wargaming for accountants, hyper-RAW 40k would suck as wargaming for lawyers.

Anyhow, hope that this perspective is helpful to you.

Polonius wrote: I think we're seeing a new conflict, that between "ultra-literalist" RAW and "Contextual" RAW. . . I think that many posters that are RAW fans are actually either horribly cynical of gamer's intentions or almost afraid to be able to reach compromise absent some authoritarian truth.

Which group from the first sentence does the second sentence apply to?

As for context that requires text, or facts. Or Orks, apparently.

I have always found it easier to play with random people when using stricter interpretations.
Leaping is my new favorite example. I do not build my lists for random games using it, as I cannot find RAW support for anything other than 3" radius during assaults. Many think that is nit-picking.
I am more than willing to discuss/debate this in YMDC. I have no intention of having such a debate at a random game. I will, however, point out to any other Tyranid players that Leaping can be an issue.

As someone else said, having your opponent want to play by the actual rules should not be surprising, and if you deny them that it is unsportsman like. Especially when the only responses that can legitimately be brought against them is "You are nit-picking", "It used to work", or worse, "They did not mean to leave/change/ignore that when they wrote it".

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.

1/4" can (and often does) win or lose a game, and you think questioning "rules" brought to the table is too much attention to detail?

(and the "you" I use is not meant for anyone in particular, it is to differentiate from myself, because I do nit-pick - for a living, and have no problem with others who do)

Good point kirsanth.

People who refuse to play by the rules with their friends, where they all know the rules they'll use instead, and all get EQUAL input to that situation, is fine. In ANY other situation, RaI is less than worthless. Play RaW, or Go Home, in that case.

JohnHwangDD wrote:That is, if we talk about whether a Valkyrie can embark / disembark passengers, the obvious answer is "Yes, it can." The Valkyrie is rules-wise a Transport (12), with passenger doors, rear ramp, and landing Gear. So the obvious solution for the model is that it lands to embark / disembark. Manufacturing an argument that Valks can't land to embark/disembark is nonsense, and I won't be bothered over it.

This is an excellent example of reading rules in order to achieve a not-absurd result.

Just as SFB sucks because it's wargaming for accountants, hyper-RAW 40k would suck as wargaming for lawyers.

Hey now - it's NOT the lawyers on the board who subscribe to the hyper-RAW school of thought. Leave us out of it; we're perfectly content to let you disembark from your Valks, and have terminator armor on your terminators.

The saddedst part of all of this is that with minimal attention to forums just like this one GW could completely fix all of these issues. I bet with the lure of some free product they could have certain people foaming at the mouth for the chance to tidy up rules issues.

I think the biggest problem with YMDC is that people are not arguing to further the understanding of the game or its rules: they're simply arguing to be right.

Hyperbole aside, they are the cancer that is killing 40K. That kind of mentality will only drive new players away or worse, teach them that it's okay to be jerks while they play, as long as they're right and the internet agrees with them.

kirsanth wrote:As someone else said, having your opponent want to play by the actual rules should not be surprising, and if you deny them that it is unsportsman like. Especially when the only responses that can legitimately be brought against them is "You are nit-picking", "It used to work", or worse, "They did not mean to leave/change/ignore that when they wrote it".

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.

1/4" can (and often does) win or lose a game, and you think questioning "rules" brought to the table is too much attention to detail?

The flip side of the coin is often equally applicable, though.

For example, it is pretty apparent that the Valkyrie/Vendetta is meant to transport models. However, the combination of the embark/disembark rules and the skimmer rules mean that, technically, no model will be able to board the thing during the course of a game.

First question: what is the rational conclusion? That a) it's a transport vehicle meant only to transport models under a very narrow set of circumstances; or b) that the RAW does not properly cover the vehicle?

Second question: how would you play it in a game?

Third question: do your answers differ between the first and second questions, and if so, why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bodichi wrote:The saddedst part of all of this is that with minimal attention to forums just like this one GW could completely fix all of these issues. I bet with the lure of some free product they could have certain people foaming at the mouth for the chance to tidy up rules issues.

Sad? Sure. But GW has no interest in writing an air-tight set of rules. Moreover, I really don't want them paying attention to YMDC these days - it'll just fuel their determination not to bother trying.

There are legitimate holes in the rules that need patching. GW should fix these.
There are problems caused by interaction with really old rules. GW will fix these, over the course of time.
There are "problems" caused by semantic analysis. GW can ignore these as irrelevant - if the problem isn't going to come up in an actual game, or no one will actually play that way, it's not much of a problem. Make a small note, maybe, and change the wording in the next edition.

Janthkin wrote:The flip side of the coin is often equally applicable, though.

For example, it is pretty apparent that the Valkyrie/Vendetta is meant to transport models. However, the combination of the embark/disembark rules and the skimmer rules mean that, technically, no model will be able to board the thing during the course of a game.

First question: what is the rational conclusion? That a) it's a transport vehicle meant only to transport models under a very narrow set of circumstances; or b) that the RAW does not properly cover the vehicle?

Second question: how would you play it in a game?

Third question: do your answers differ between the first and second questions, and if so, why?

I play Tyranids only. So I do not actually play it at all.

Valkyries actually have a rule "Grav chute insertion" that explains how to deploy from such a height.
So. . .
1: rationally, you need raised terrain or immobilized valkyries to embark/disembark "normally", or use the rules they come with the disembark otherwise. (As a note, they did include special rules for getting models out of a valkyrie.)
2: I would assume my opponent would play the way it is written. If it were mine, I would do the same (see my comment on Leaping)
3: No.

Sure, I know one guy who insists that he is correctly "interpreting" the rules to allow him to deploy 6" from the access points. I do not play him. He also thinks Leaping works as I said, so it is pretty blatant that he is cheating.

Edited to add words. They were sort of important.

RxGhost wrote:I think the biggest problem with YMDC is that people are not arguing to further the understanding of the game or its rules: they're simply arguing to be right.

Hyperbole aside, they are the cancer that is killing 40K. That kind of mentality will only drive new players away or worse, teach them that it's okay to be jerks while they play, as long as they're right and the internet agrees with them.

You rang?

kirsanth wrote:

Janthkin wrote:The flip side of the coin is often equally applicable, though.

For example, it is pretty apparent that the Valkyrie/Vendetta is meant to transport models. However, the combination of the embark/disembark rules and the skimmer rules mean that, technically, no model will be able to board the thing during the course of a game.

First question: what is the rational conclusion? That a) it's a transport vehicle meant only to transport models under a very narrow set of circumstances; or b) that the RAW does not properly cover the vehicle?

Second question: how would you play it in a game?

Third question: do your answers differ between the first and second questions, and if so, why?

I play Tyranids only. So I do not actually play it at all.

Valkyries actually have a rule "Grav chute insertion" that explains how to deploy from such a height.
So. . .
1: rationally, you need raised terrain or immobilized valkyries to embark/disembark "normally", or use the rules they come with the disembark otherwise. (As a note, they did include special rules for getting models out of a valkyrie.)
2: I would assume my opponent would play the way it is written. If it were mine, I would do the same (see my comment on Leaping)
3: No.

Sure, I know one guy who insists that he is correctly "interpreting" the rules to allow him to deploy 6" from the access points. I do not play him. He also thinks Leaping works as I said, so it is pretty blatant that he is cheating.

Edited to add words. They were sort of important.

Grav chute insertion only applies for moving flat out.

RxGhost wrote:I think the biggest problem with YMDC is that people are not arguing to further the understanding of the game or its rules: they're simply arguing to be right.

Hyperbole aside, they are the cancer that is killing 40K. That kind of mentality will only drive new players away or worse, teach them that it's okay to be jerks while they play, as long as they're right and the internet agrees with them.

When you typed "Hyperbole aside" I thought you'd NOT say something stupid and wrong!

Exactly WHO argues just to be right? Oh, wait, the people who get proved wrong in the end...

The problem with 40k isn't people trying to teach you how to avoid being cheated, it's the people that do the cheating. I'd FAR sooner play a Jerk than a Cheat, any, and every, day of the week, and I KNOW I'm not alone in saying that. I think people who subscribe to the view you espoused are Cheat Apologists, allowing them to continue by not helping to foster a better community understanding of the rules.

Have fun reporting my post, jerkwads - if you can't take the truth, you didn't have to enter the debate.

Elessar wrote:

RxGhost wrote:I think the biggest problem with YMDC is that people are not arguing to further the understanding of the game or its rules: they're simply arguing to be right.

Hyperbole aside, they are the cancer that is killing 40K. That kind of mentality will only drive new players away or worse, teach them that it's okay to be jerks while they play, as long as they're right and the internet agrees with them.

When you typed "Hyperbole aside" I thought you'd NOT say something stupid and wrong!

Exactly WHO argues just to be right? Oh, wait, the people who get proved wrong in the end...

The problem with 40k isn't people trying to teach you how to avoid being cheated, it's the people that do the cheating. I'd FAR sooner play a Jerk than a Cheat, any, and every, day of the week, and I KNOW I'm not alone in saying that. I think people who subscribe to the view you espoused are Cheat Apologists, allowing them to continue by not helping to foster a better community understanding of the rules.

Have fun reporting my post, jerkwads - if you can't take the truth, you didn't have to enter the debate.

I take a break from audit and see this? Welcome to suspension land. Room for one more.

Timmah wrote:Ironically most of the normal crew in there doesn't really get into personal attacks. Its usually the guy who comes in once a week or something, sees something is played differently than how he does it/wants to do it, and then calls everyone an idiot.

Actually, that's completely ridiculous. The overwhelming hostility in YMDC doesn't come from random people who just happen upon the forums. It's ludicrous to say that the 'regulars' never call others 'cheaters' or personally attack them. Especially when you consider that a sig of a particular's users outgoing personal attacks would far outstrip any potential list of times others were browbeat into saying they were correct.


EDIT:

When you typed "Hyperbole aside" I thought you'd NOT say something stupid and wrong!

Exactly WHO argues just to be right? Oh, wait, the people who get proved wrong in the end...

The problem with 40k isn't people trying to teach you how to avoid being cheated, it's the people that do the cheating. I'd FAR sooner play a Jerk than a Cheat, any, and every, day of the week, and I KNOW I'm not alone in saying that. I think people who subscribe to the view you espoused are Cheat Apologists, allowing them to continue by not helping to foster a better community understanding of the rules.

Have fun reporting my post, jerkwads - if you can't take the truth, you didn't have to enter the debate.

I rest my case.