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.

Hello,

Was reading through the tenets of YMTC and noticed there were things that I assumed were there, but were not. As such, I was wondering about a list of commonly agreed upon rules in YMTC - for example, Specific > General, etc. There seem to be a few of these rules floating about, and I was wondering about a whole listing of them.

Thanks.

I don't think anyone has a definitive list. I think in general:

Try and be polite. People will always disagree, but no-one wins in a shouting match on the internet.

Read the rules books. If you feel like weighing in on an argument, make sure you've got your facts straight! I often see people arguing a case based on a misquoted rule, only to be overturned once someone can produces the correct version.

Otherwise just lurk around until you get a feel for it. No one's going to bite your head off for getting it wrong once or twice.

Try and be polite. People will always disagree, but no-one wins in a shouting match on the internet.

Oh someone wins alright.... the terrorists!

Otherwise just lurk around until you get a feel for it. No one's going to bite your head off for getting it wrong once or twice.

Except maybe those terrorists.... :/



*** This post was just in jest and fun.... I second what Soup says

I'm sorry, I think I miscommunicated. I'm not necessarily worried about forum etiquette sort of things, but more specific rules interpretation laws, for lack of a better term.

ETA:
Principles of rules interpretations is perhaps the best way I can think of to describe what I'm looking for.

andruin wrote:I'm sorry, I think I miscommunicated. I'm not necessarily worried about forum etiquette sort of things, but more specific rules interpretation laws, for lack of a better term.

ETA:
Principles of rules interpretations is perhaps the best way I can think of to describe what I'm looking for.

Well judging from what you've said I think there are a few casual rules for YMDC

1: Dont ask for rules straight from the Codex: eg: Can someone please tell me the rules for a Plasma Gun? This is a big no in YMDC

2: Keep it polite: If someone says something incorrect/stupid, dont reply with something along the lines of "Omg you ****, read the rules you stupid ****" Simply state where they've gone wrong and stay poilte about it.

3: Check before you post: If you're unsure about something, check the revelant Codex before you post, as you may already have found your answer.

4: Check for repeated posts: Check if any rules interpretations have been discussed before, such as Drop Pod Doors and Counter Attack/Furious Charge. Repeating these discussions again can annoy some frequent users.

Hope this helps

Valk

Rule #0) Gwar! is always right.

Rule of Thumb: The Inquisition is right, no matter what is asked.

5. Never ask about ramming with a deffrolla.
6. Never ask (me) about wielding more then one special weapon.
7. Gwar is some times mistaken

Rule of thumb: The first person to post in a thread 'wins' said thread and everyone adopts their interpretation or ruling on the question asked.

I, therefore, put it to you that you are not sorry, did not miscommunicate, are worried about forum etiquette sort of things and, to close, that I get another thread for my pile.

Gwar! willing of course.

Soup and a roll wrote:Rule of thumb: The first person to post in a thread 'wins' said thread and everyone adopts their interpretation or ruling on the question asked.

lol this is a complete crock of ...the first 'right' post wins the thread. (if there is a right answer)

I, therefore, put it to you that you are not sorry, did not miscommunicate, are worried about forum etiquette sort of things and, to close, that I get another thread for my pile.

Don't appeal to clarity: If it was "clear" or "obvious" then it wouldn't be disputed, now would it?

Don't appeal to logic, unless you're willing to provide the 'value' of the logic you're appealing to, and then an actual valid argument using said logic to connect the dots. In that case, yes, please, appeal to logic and then actually use logic!

Don't appeal to conventional play: Its great that people play it that way, but the question is always: "What does the rule say, how should we play it?"

Don't quote cut. If you can't address someone else without turning your post into a mess of quotes that you address individually without putting them into context or connecting them to understand their overall message, then you shouldn't post; we can read their posts, thank you, that's the beauty of message boards.

Don't complain about unclear rules until your own writing is so cryst
al clear that no one could ever misunderstand what you've posted.

Don't mistake the text of the rules for the structure of the rules. In other words, the text tries to describe the rules, and its our job as readers not to implement the text as computer code, but to understand the rules that it describes.

Don't use terms like RAW and RAI, i.e.: 'Rules as Wretarded', and 'Rules as Interpreted'. The text is written to convey the author's intentions about the game, and the author's intentions are conveyed by the text, its like preferring heads to tails: stupid.

Avoid jargon. Do this not only to make it easier to read your post (well, easier for us English speakers, at least), but also so that people can use the Search function to find established threads rather than posting new threads on old subjects because they aren't privy to the local jargon (Fzorgle, Spod, etc).

Read a rulebook before posting! Seriously, if you don't have a rulebook handy to make sure your brain isn't just making things up, don't post in the forum, even if you think the caveat "I don't have my rulebook, but... IIRCLOLROFL".

Don't refer to FAQs, Gwar's or the INAT FAQ as any sort of canonical texts: you might as well be quoting yourself.

Don't bother trying to convince people of anything: just explain your position, cite your sources, and get on with discussing how people should play rather than why people should accept your opinion as the Word of God.

Don't post more than once in a thread. Have your say and let someone else post something. You can go multiply your post count in the pointless wasteland of the Off-Topic forum, where nobody cares what you think, and nobody will be mislead by your utter incapacity to read and comprehend the rules.

Don't accept anyone's authority: In Tzeentch we trust, and all else we fact-check.

Accept that there are several ways of defining terms in the rules: there's definition by equivalence (A is B), there's definition by picture or diagram (A is []), there's definition by usage (í.e.: normal refers to general rules that apply to all units of that type, special refers to particular rules cited in that unit's profile, etc).

Finally, pull a cork out and accept that nobody gives a tinker's cuss about your opinion unless that opinion reflects the facts and is constructed in a reasonable and logical fashion, in which case it isn't your opinion but a statement of the facts: leave out all references to "I think..." or "Its my opinion". We know its your opinion because you posted it; what we're concerned with is distinguishing between all the opinions that are wrong, and the opinion (perhaps shared) that is right.

Also, accept that while your opinion is a unique and beautiful snowflake (much like yourself), it not only can be wrong but often is. There is nothing about being an opinion that makes it unique and valuable: the only thing that gives your opinion value is whether it is right, rather than the number of people who agree with it (argumentum ad populum), however vociverously promulgate it (argumentum ad nauseum), or your own inflated sense of self-worth.

Thanks Nurglitch, that's a bit more what I was interested in. I'm debating writing an article, or perhaps a thread, about the similiarities of YMTC and biblical hermeneutics (crazy talk, I know), and what, if anything, can be learned by comparing the two.

andruin wrote:Thanks Nurglitch, that's a bit more what I was interested in. I'm debating writing an article, or perhaps a thread, about the similiarities of YMTC and biblical hermeneutics (crazy talk, I know), and what, if anything, can be learned by comparing the two.

Possibly worth mentioning then that there's a bit of stuff in Nurglitch's list there that are far more down to his personal opinion of how the board should work than how it actually does...

Indeed. I was a bit hard pressed to find much that didn't boil down to a subjective, personal expression of how the forum should be run.

Nurglitch wrote:Don't appeal to clarity: If it was "clear" or "obvious" then it wouldn't be disputed, now would it?

Don't appeal to logic, unless you're willing to provide the 'value' of the logic you're appealing to, and then an actual valid argument using said logic to connect the dots. In that case, yes, please, appeal to logic and then actually use logic!

Disagree. For instance, having a dispute does not in and of itself necessitate that one position is 'more clear' than the other. One or both parties may just be completely dense.

Nurglitch wrote:Don't quote cut.

Nurglitch wrote:If you can't address someone else without turning your post into a mess of quotes that you address individually without putting them into context or

Nurglitch wrote:connecting them to understand their overall message, then you shouldn't post; we can read their posts, thank you, that's the beauty of message boards.

sure

Nurglitch wrote:Don't complain about unclear rules until your own writing is so cryst
al clear that no one could ever misunderstand what you've posted.

Seriously? Oh, I see what you did there....har har har

Nurglitch wrote:Don't use terms like RAW and RAI, i.e.: 'Rules as Wretarded', and 'Rules as Interpreted'. The text is written to convey the author's intentions about the game, and the author's intentions are conveyed by the text, its like preferring heads to tails: stupid.

Oh dear...these are discussions focused (supposedly) on the rules as they are written (note I did not say RAW or Rules as Written), aren't they?

Nurglitch wrote:Read a rulebook before posting! Seriously, if you don't have a rulebook handy to make sure your brain isn't just making things up, don't post in the forum, even if you think the caveat "I don't have my rulebook, but... IIRCLOLROFL".

Wishful thinking on your part, but I would think that most of us take what each other say with a grain of salt anyway, rulebook or not. And I imagine that many of us post from work too.

Nurglitch wrote:Don't refer to FAQs, Gwar's or the INAT FAQ as any sort of canonical texts: you might as well be quoting yourself.

I was actually confused about what you meant here. Did you mean don't refer to Gwar! or INAT, or don't refer to FAQs in general? If the former, then I agree. If the latter, well good luck tilting at that windmill.

Nurglitch wrote:Don't bother trying to convince people of anything: just explain your position, cite your sources, and get on with discussing how people should play rather than why people should accept your opinion as the Word of God.

And take away half the fun!

Nurglitch wrote:Don't post more than once in a thread. Have your say and let someone else post something. You can go multiply your post count in the pointless wasteland of the Off-Topic forum, where nobody cares what you think, and nobody will be mislead by your utter incapacity to read and comprehend the rules.

What?! This one had me a bit flabbergasted. Which was nice because I think that's the first time I've had cause to write flabbergasted in a post on Dakka.

Nurglitch wrote:Don't accept anyone's authority: In Tzeentch we trust, and all else we fact-check.

Nice bit of advice, I think I'll apply it to your post.

Nurglitch wrote:Accept that there are several ways of defining terms in the rules: there's definition by equivalence (A is B), there's definition by picture or diagram (A is []), there's definition by usage (í.e.: normal refers to general rules that apply to all units of that type, special refers to particular rules cited in that unit's profile, etc).

Hmm, I'm actually heading out the door or I'd spend more time on this one...all I can say is that I agree and disagree

Nurglitch wrote:Finally, pull a cork out and accept that nobody gives a tinker's cuss about your opinion unless that opinion reflects the facts and is constructed in a reasonable and logical fashion, in which case it isn't your opinion but a statement of the facts: leave out all references to "I think..." or "Its my opinion". We know its your opinion because you posted it; what we're concerned with is distinguishing between all the opinions that are wrong, and the opinion (perhaps shared) that is right.

Out of all your criteria, I think that this one out to get the biggest rise Though that's just my opinion.

Nurglitch wrote:Also, accept that while your opinion is a unique and beautiful snowflake (much like yourself), it not only can be wrong but often is. There is nothing about being an opinion that makes it unique and valuable: the only thing that gives your opinion value is whether it is right, rather than the number of people who agree with it (argumentum ad populum), however vociverously promulgate it (argumentum ad nauseum), or your own inflated sense of self-worth.

That hurts, really. I think you just made my cat cry. Which is quite a feat as the little dude would sooner cut you then argue the finer points of reserve roll bonuses stacking.

How about you just read the nice insights at:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/YMTC_-_How_YOU_Play_the_Game_of_40k

and read the tenants at:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

-Yad

*points, laughs*

Nurglitch wrote:
Don't post more than once in a thread. Have your say and let someone else post something. You can go multiply your post count in the pointless wasteland of the Off-Topic forum, where nobody cares what you think, and nobody will be mislead by your utter incapacity to read and comprehend the rules.

You know, one might post more than once in a thread to refute someone's refuting of their posts... People come onto these boards looking for answers to questions(a fool's errand, generally) and it is good to try to make sure some semblance of correctness is reflected in the posts.

Everything else you said is pure, undiluted brilliance. Particularly the FAQ bit... The INAT and that other FAQ you mentioned are pure nonsense at points.

Modquisition on: I don't know if its ironic, unfortunate or both, that a thread in YMDC attempting to discuss some good general rules has been reported. We'll let this report go, other than that interesting note.

Monster Rain wrote:

Everything else you said is pure, undiluted brilliance. Particularly the FAQ bit... The INAT and that other FAQ you mentioned are pure nonsense at points.

That's not what he was saying at all. He was saying don't refer to them to back up your own argument. This isn't because they aren't useful guides for how to actually play the game but because they aren't official and can change with new GW releases (such as the new SW FAQ).

I am getting a kick out of reading a YMDC on YMDC. If any forum is going to become sentient and start judgment day, it'll be Dakka's YMDC.

Ozymandias wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Everything else you said is pure, undiluted brilliance. Particularly the FAQ bit... The INAT and that other FAQ you mentioned are pure nonsense at points.

That's not what he was saying at all. He was saying don't refer to them to back up your own argument. This isn't because they aren't useful guides for how to actually play the game but because they aren't official and can change with new GW releases (such as the new SW FAQ)

Why couldn't he be saying both things? I don't see our views as mutually exclusive, I just didn't feel like laying out every possible reason why non-GW FAQs are sometimes balderdash.

Because what he said was:

Don't refer to FAQs, Gwar's or the INAT FAQ as any sort of canonical texts: you might as well be quoting yourself.

Note nowhere in there did he say they were nonsense.

Great now I'm using NAW (Nurglitch as Written) to argue in YMDC.

Let me put it this way...

I was agreeing with what Nurglitch said; seconding it if you will, while editorializing a bit on my own. While he was saying that FAQs aren't canon, I took it a step further and meant to say that not only are they not canon they are oftentimes full of malarkey.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

I think that its ok for debates to get into a RAW vs RAI discussion in a case when the rules completely fail to address something. Because at that point in time its impossible to come to a solution (because the rules are broken) so its helpful to have a YMDC thread that just lets people know how everyone else plays it.