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.

Many, many posters here in YMDC have put forth incorrect assertions about TMIR. It is my fear that these falsehoods may be seen as gospel truth and as such further degenerate YMDC.

The Warhammer 40,000 Fifth Edition Rulebook, Page 2 wrote:The most important rule then is that the rules aren't
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
-the choice is entirely yours.

This is the RAW for TMIR. I have provided it so that all can easily reference it for the purposes of this debate. If any mods object to this, I'll gladly remove it.

Now, breaking down this rule, first we are told that the rules aren't important. Then, the rule elaborates that as long as both players agree, the rules may be amended as the players see fit. All in all, this rules seems simle enough, yet I'd have to say it is one of the most often abused rules here on Dakka.

Let's address some of the common slanders against the rule that crop up, shall we?

Poor Misguided Soul Number One wrote:If my opponent doesn't let me win on a 2+, he's breaking TMIR

This statement is false. TMIR simply states that if both players agree, they may ignore/change the rules. If both players do not agree to change the rules, no breakage of the rules is occurring.

Poor Misguided Soul Number Two wrote:Using TMIR is cheating!

A timeless gem, this statement couldn't be further from the truth. Using TMIR is following the single most important rule in the game.

Poor Misguided Soul Number Three wrote:Using TMIR hopelessly breaks the game.

False. TMIR merely gives two players the ability to alter the rules to suit their specific gaming needs. There is nothing wrong with this; the rules encourage it!
+++
A note on the use of TMIR in YMDC
From a RaW standpoint, TMIR is nearly impossible to use to back up an argument, as the agreement reached using TMIR is not in the rules. As such, TMIR should only really be used when suggesting alternatives to a rule that seems incorrect.

For example, a poster asks the following question:

Confuzzled Neophyte wrote:What is the 'Scout' rule for Space Wolf Scouts?

This is an incorrect use of TMIR:

Poor Misguided Soul Number Four wrote:In accordance with TMIR, it is actually the rule 'Scouts'

This is a correct use of TMIR:

Soul That Has Achieved Enlightenment wrote:Well, that rule doesn't exist. Me and my mates just count it as Scouts, in accordance with TMIR. While our solution is not strictly RaW, it seems rather likely that 'Scout' is just a typo.

+++
Do you agree, or have I interpreted it wrong?

kirsanth wrote:Is there a rules question here?

No just rant

kirsanth wrote:Is there a rules question here?

Echo

RustyKnight wrote:Do you agree, or have I interpreted it wrong?

The most important rule is i don't want to change the rule so tough luck we're playing by the rules. (note this doesn't include glaring mistakes like 'scout' ... I class these as proof reading for GW)

Sure, I'll add one to the bottom of the first post.

Should I be worried that 3 out of the 4 are me?

Citing RAW for TMIR?


Ok, now I have a headache...

TMIR is used more often than people think. For example any use of an Indy tournament's FAQ including the one found here is use of TMIR.

In fact the GW's own FAQ's (not erratas) are another great example of TMIR in use. As often times the answers are not RAW solid and because they come from GW most people wont bat an eye at their use, or you are playing in a tourney then you are agreeing to play by them.

YMDC hasn't always been about RAW in its purist form. In fact there was a time when an asked question was given many answers depending on the many interpretations of the same rule and that was normal.

The fact is TMIR makes all rules answers theoretically "not wrong" given the nature of the loose rules writings supposedly enforced by GW writers on purpose...

So can we just give up trying to work out the answer to rules and just make stuff up, as TMIR lets us do that?

Gwar! wrote:So can we just give up trying to work out the answer to rules and just make stuff up, as TMIR lets us do that?

Only if both/all players in a game agree to it

Gwar! wrote:So can we just give up trying to work out the answer to rules and just make stuff up, as TMIR lets us do that?

Noone said that. Trying to work out the pure RaW is fine, as is discussing fair alternatives to the RaW if the RaW seem bizarre.

Tri wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Is there a rules question here?

No just rant

Thanks.
It seems my response broke the thread.

It's rare that TMIR is called upon at all where I play. However, I like to use it against the evil lawyers sometimes when they slow the game down with their annoying rulebook shenanigans.

How do you use TMIR against "evil lawyers" when by simply not agreeing to change the rules they satisfy the rule?

Now, in YMDC, I'm an advocate for RAW. However, common knowledge tells us that GW is nowhere near perfect when it comes to RAW. However, TMIR makes sense, but in all honesty, it's basically a rule saying "We aren't perfect at rules writing, instead of getting all riled about it why not just D6 it, or some other fair method of ruling."

In essence, it's basically telling players to use common sense.

When in doubt, appeal to an awkward car driving analogy.

Let's say that there was a rule that vehicles could only drive on side of a road, but the rule failed to specify which side other than to specify that all vehicles had to use the same side from the perspective of the driver.

No problem, you say, we'll just invoke TMIR and decide on a side and use that locally.

That works just fine until you join up with the neighboring town and find out that they've decided to use the OPPOSITE side of the road. Or you go traveling and find yourself uncertain which side of the road the other person is going to expect. Or you go off to a race and have to worry about either getting confused or forgetting and driving on the wrong side of the road.

Or worse yet, you find an online forum where people are discussing which side of the road is the correct one and it degenerates into a flamewar of lefties versus righties...

solkan wrote:That works just fine until you join up with the neighboring town and find out that they've decided to use the OPPOSITE side of the road. Or you go traveling and find yourself uncertain which side of the road the other person is going to expect. Or you go off to a race and have to worry about either getting confused or forgetting and driving on the wrong side of the road.

And in all these situations, it still works fine, because (since you're aware that the side you use was arbitrarily chosen by your town) before driving on unfamiliar roads you stop and check with the locals which side they drive on.

Except I don't want to drive on the right hand side of the road.

So don't go to places that drive on that side.

No, I'd much rather go there and drive on the left. They'll have to turn, or we'll both crash.

insaniak wrote:

solkan wrote:That works just fine until you join up with the neighboring town and find out that they've decided to use the OPPOSITE side of the road. Or you go traveling and find yourself uncertain which side of the road the other person is going to expect. Or you go off to a race and have to worry about either getting confused or forgetting and driving on the wrong side of the road.

And in all these situations, it still works fine, because (since you're aware that the side you use was arbitrarily chosen by your town) before driving on unfamiliar roads you stop and check with the locals which side they drive on.

+1

Pika_power wrote:No, I'd much rather go there and drive on the left. They'll have to turn, or we'll both crash.

Lolwut? Then you are breaking the law and will suffer the consequences. What are you trying to prove? That some people are idiots and break the law (rules)?

I'm continuing the metaphor. I think we just discovered that it doesn't work if we go too in-depth. xD

On a more serious note, I was trying to metaphorically state that I play with someone else (driving through a different area) and I decide that instead of playing their personal way of playing something (driving on their side of the road) I decide that I want to play my way of it. Then we come into conflict and an argument breaks out (the crash) or one of us decides that it's not worth it and gives in (swerving to the side in order to avoid becoming a lump of twisted bone and metal). This is where TMIR (each town deciding for itself) fails and a well written rule book (a universal side to drive on) is useful.

Or the two players can't come to an agreement and default to using the base rules. Two players breaking the rules does not mean that TMIR fails.

"Well written rule book" and a thread about Warhammer 40k have no business being with each other. Look at how many errors Gwar! found for his FAQ (which uses RaI) before the SW codex even came out. It is impossible to reasonably believe that GW does not make errors when writing their codeci.

Pika_power wrote:Then we come into conflict and an argument breaks out (the crash) or one of us decides that it's not worth it and gives in (swerving to the side in order to avoid becoming a lump of twisted bone and metal).

Or you roll for it, or you decide not to play.

If you and your opponent can't reach an amiable solution, that's not a failure of TMIR, it's a failure of you and your opponent's ability to compromise.


Besides, having a better written rulebook wouldn't change the fact that a lot of people have their own way of playing the game. That's not specific to 40K's rules... it's a facet of just about every board, card, miniature or roleplaying game ever made.

For what it's worth, my personal belief on house rules has always been basically that the house rules. Your house, your rules. Your store that I'm visiting, likewise, your rules. If it's somewhere neutral, then it's either a roll-off or a quick discussion and agreement before the game. In more than 15 years of playing 40K, I've never had a game 'crash' because my opponent and I couldn't agree on which rules to use.

Pika_power wrote:I'm continuing the metaphor. I think we just discovered that it doesn't work if we go too in-depth. xD

On a more serious note, I was trying to metaphorically state that I play with someone else (driving through a different area) and I decide that instead of playing their personal way of playing something (driving on their side of the road) I decide that I want to play my way of it. Then we come into conflict and an argument breaks out (the crash) or one of us decides that it's not worth it and gives in (swerving to the side in order to avoid becoming a lump of twisted bone and metal). This is where TMIR (each town deciding for itself) fails and a well written rule book (a universal side to drive on) is useful.

It doesn't fail.

The Warhammer 40,000 Fifth Edition Rulebook, Page 2 wrote:The most important rule then is that the rules aren't
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
-the choice is entirely yours.

Possible to use your universal side to drive on...

But still , tabletop games consist of agreements of 2 or more players.
-agree to play 40k .
-agree to a size ( points)
-agree to standard 40k or the use of expansions

Where is the problem with the need of an agreement if a different set of rules shall come into play?

Is it really so hard to have a choice?

RustyKnight wrote:Or the two players can't come to an agreement and default to using the base rules. Two players breaking the rules does not mean that TMIR fails.

Exactly. But in the case of the base rules being ambiguous or downright unworkable, there is nothing to default to. Which brings me to my second point.

"Well written rule book" and a thread about Warhammer 40k have no business being with each other. Look at how many errors Gwar! found for his FAQ (which uses RaI) before the SW codex even came out. It is impossible to reasonably believe that GW does not make errors when writing their codeci.

The rulebook is poorly written and has errors. Games Workshop attempt to brush this off by 'allowing' the players to decide what should happen via TMIR and their stating of the rules being guidelines. This is actually a lazy attempt to cover their blatant lack of solid rules writing. When TMIR fails, there are no base rules to default to, because you were using TMIR to sort out the mess of rules in the base rules. That is what I meant by TMIR failing. I skipped ahead a bit in my reasoning and did not make myself clear. Sorry about that. I presume you understand my position now, right?

Oh, and the place where this fits in the metaphor is that there is a rule saying "drive on one side of the road relative to the driver", but nothing to specify which side. This is the poorly designed rule that the towns/players correct via TMIR. If you are using TMIR in order to adjust the already well written rules in order to make the game more enjoyable for you and your opponent, I have no complaints.

So, we shouldn't use TMIR because GW should write better rules?

No, we shouldn't be required to use TMIR in order to cover up for Games Workshop's errors.

TMIR is fine for what it does: allows the players to ignore the rules if they agree to. It just doesn't work when they disagree, so it is lacking as a patchup job to a hole-ridden ruleset.

@Pika

Unfortunately, we do have to use TMIR because GW does not bother to write clear, concise, and complete rules sets.

Until GW goes out and hires some former Avalon Hill rules writers to handle the next edition, we're gonna be stuck with TMIR.

We can TMIR easier if we use unofficial FAQs though.

If only they only ruled on what they needed to, instead of changing more.

Pika_power wrote:We can TMIR easier if we use unofficial FAQs though.

If only they only ruled on what they needed to, instead of changing more.

If you're not happy with the unofficial FAQs that are out there already, write your own.

Ultimately, whether you're saying 'How do you play this rule? And this one? And how about this one?' or just saying 'How about we use all the rules in this unofficial FAQ?' comes to the same thing in the end.

insaniak wrote:

Pika_power wrote:We can TMIR easier if we use unofficial FAQs though.

If only they only ruled on what they needed to, instead of changing more.

If you're not happy with the unofficial FAQs that are out there already, write your own.

Ultimately, whether you're saying 'How do you play this rule? And this one? And how about this one?' or just saying 'How about we use all the rules in this unofficial FAQ?' comes to the same thing in the end.

I did, and I made sure Rules Changes were correctly labeled