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.

This came up recently in a wargaming conversation and I was surprised to find a lack of agreement on its definition. It has always been defined by colloquial use in my wargaming club as roughly thus:

"A player who attempts, through interpretation of the written language of a rule, to warp the meaning of that rule in a fashion which benefits him during the game at hand."

A rules-lawyer would be someone who doesn't bend on his or her position, doesn't want to just dice the question off 1-3 his way, 4-6 the opponent's way, and get the game going again. He or she would rather argue about it.


The term was being used to describe people who were making honest inquiries about a rule's syntax online not in any specific context to a tactical or strategic situation, just trying to make sense of the rule because the language was confusing them. I don't think that's rules-lawyering by any means, not if such a person stops asking about the rule once a clear (or officially ruled upon) answer is provided to them...


How do YOU define "rules lawyer?"

A derogatory word used to belittle your opponent. Much like "cheesy or beardy". Generally used by poor sportsmen. Players bending/breaking the rules are cheaters. And in my experience rare.

Two people can honestly interpret a rule differently, it is when the paranoia starts that things go wrong. The gamer culture has developed a strong paranoia about anyone having any kind of advantage and reacts badly to it. Whether it was real or not. This has unfortunately been encouraged by GW's philosophy "Winning is rude".

I kinda agree with your definition of "rules lawyer" in the OP.

I don't mind vigorous rules debates, but a true "rules lawyer" will always seek out the most beneficial interpretation of the rules for their own army.

Cairnius wrote:"A player who attempts, through interpretation of the written language of a rule, to warp the meaning of that rule in a fashion which benefits him during the game at hand."

That's pretty much it.

Unfortunately, too many people tend to apply it to anyone who disagrees with them... If you're arguing an interpretation of the rule that I don't agree with, and refuse to admit that your interpretation is wrong (or refusing to admit that my house rule is the better/intended way to play the game), you must be a rules lawyer.

I think it is a more useful term in RPGs, as delaying an RPG session to argue technicalities is generally seriously notfun for 5-6 people and very aggravating. Also RPGs have a theoretically impartial referee who handles the 'game' stuff and is generally empowered to add modifiers or tweak rules on the fly as needed anyway.

The line is a bit different in wargames where I think the technicalities are a bit more important, but I guess it is possible and probably a manifestation of 'That Guy' who argues things way past the freshness date.

I think people are taking the term "rules lawyer" and using it to describe two distinct groups. There are actual rules lawyers who will pick apart the syntax and context of a rule until a RAW meaning is found. These people actually are helpful as their decisions are based entirely on fact. Then there are "rules manipulators" who will bend an ambiguously worded rule to suit their purpose.

Unfortunately these two groups sound similar to each other when giving an explanation so they get grouped together.

I think CrimsonDevil has a strong point.

At the core of the debate, I think you simply have conflicting views of the game - or how it should be played. Two questions I can pose will illustrate this better :

1) Does a Grand Master's Force Weapon Instant-Death models with Eternal Warrior?

2) Does a Dark Eldar Horror/Terrorfex pin fearless units?

My personal opinion is that terms like rules-lawyer are synonyms for beardy, or cheesy. These are concepts that predate the dawn of humanity in regards to how long they have existed within gaming circles and, like Crimson stated - they are simply ways to demean players with conflicting viewpoints and interpretations.

I think that recently, as in the last 10 years of Warhammer - it's become synonymous with TFG, and while I can see the point of more casual gamers still subscribing to theory "Just dice it off! Have fun!", I tend to think rule's lawyers are usually in the right. Personally, I just take a good hard look at the players involved.

I know the rules pretty well, and can generally interpret them with intent or as written very clearly, but you can't bring down the hammer on someone who isn't out to play that sort of game (your game). Within tournaments, sure, it's alright to play the rules as written as a hard rule as that's the only common ground a meeting of strangers will have. For a more casual gaming experience, I would side with the intent based players -unless they are trying to gain some sort of flagrant advantage.

So that's my definition, a rule's lawyer is someone intent on following the written letter of the rule. This does not always mean they are trying to gain an advantage. I lean towards the written word because it

A) Keeps the field level, as in I don't have to learn a new set of house rules I don't use every time I play

B) It creates uniformity in calls that could go either way when rules debates come up. If everything is played/ruled the same way every time, at the very least it creates gaming parity.

(The answer to both questions posed is yes, by the way.)

"Someone who knows the rules better than I do and decides to leverage that advantage."

Also

"An opponent who enforces a rule that I do not like."

I've never heard this term used seriously by a good player, but hear it slung frequently by sore losers.

To me, when used in a derogatory way, it should be reserved for someone who demands that the rules be picked over then and there, delaying the game and sucking much of the fun out of it, rather than a quick dice off, and research after the game. To such a person, being right (even when provably wrong) is actually more important than there opponent having fun.

So the original post is pretty much my view as well.

Someone who thinks that they can ignore the portions of the rules they dislike.

"Depends on what your definition of "is" is." - Bill Clinton

There's too much stigma attached to the term rules-lawyer to fix it now. I suggest we have a new term for people who try to play with a strict interpretation without being donkey-caves. Something like Attorney at RAW.

I see what you did there.

Now an additional question: Is being a rules lawyer a bad thing?

If the environment doesn't call for it, sure. I think it is.

If a couple of kids (badly painted, half assembled, virtually no gaming experience) down at your FLGS want to play a game, and you're not busy and have the time for it - would you pull out a really hard list? Or something softer?

I'd say it's the same concept with rules lawyering. If the situation doesn't call for it, it can destroy the spirit and enjoyment of the game. Unless you're one of those people that absolutely needs to be right and simply cannot stand for a rule to not be adhered to.

So you would equate a rules lawyer to the same status as a powergamer?

Danny Internets wrote:"Someone who knows the rules better than I do and decides to leverage that advantage."

Also

"An opponent who enforces a rule that I do not like."

QFT...At least this is the meaning that is mostly used.

Pika_power wrote:So you would equate a rules lawyer to the same status as a powergamer?

In games that largely don't matter, yes. I would.

For games that do matter?

Define games that matter?

Tournament games, practice tournament games against friends, etc.

Surely this is common sense stuff, people.

Rules lawyers are people who think playing the game "correctly" is more important than having fun. There is no single, strict, perfect rule to mark it out because everyone has fun differently.

Some of you seem to be Win At All Costs types. If you're playing a bunch of other WAAC types then no problem! Do what you think is fun! If you aren't, be flexible. Make your opponent be flexible, too. If two people who like playing with toy soldiers can't even find room to compromise on how they play with toy soldiers, there's something seriously messed up about this hobby.

Common sense isn't a real thing. Its meaning amounts to "that reasoning which I am comfortable with".

People that use the term are lazy, or otherwise unaware of their surroundings.

Anyway, 'rules lawyer' seems to relate to those people whose opinions are either unpopular, or highly technical; as opposed to colloquial, or local.

JOHIRA wrote:Some of you seem to be Win At All Costs types.

Playing by the rules does not equal WAAC.

I'm all for having fun, but playing the game "correctly" is just as important. If you don't play the game right then there's no point in playing, and you might as well go back to the sandbox and bash your models together, in my opinion.

Sidstyler wrote:I'm all for having fun, but playing the game "correctly" is just as important. If you don't play the game right then there's no point in playing, and you might as well go back to the sandbox and bash your models together, in my opinion.

Do you really think that? Really? As in, if you were playing a game of Warhammer that neither you nor your opponent were enjoying, the fact that you were following the rulebook as written is enough reason to see that game to the end?

Or conversely, that if your friend made an absolutely killer scenario with special rules and special units, and it looked like it was going to be the best, most thrilling game you'd ever played, you'd still refuse because it wasn't in the rules?

Cairnius wrote:
How do YOU define "rules lawyer?"

Cairnius wrote:
A person who were making honest inquiries about a rule's syntax online not in any specific context to a tactical or strategic situation, just trying to make sense of the rule because the language was confusing them.

... as well as studies the rules as written and provides fair, consistant, and accurate information to his gaming group.

As a "Rules-Lawyer" for my gaming group (allthough our Unique term is actually "Librarian", while the house rule maker/owner of the house is "Inquisitor-Lord") I am constantly frustrated by people who try to do what you described with;

Cairnius wrote:
"A player who attempts, through interpretation of the written language of a rule, to warp the meaning of that rule in a fashion which benefits him during the game at hand."

My definition of that is plain and simply "donkey-cave" (IDK if thats too strong language for Dakka, if so, Ill censure it). Using rules ONLY in your favor should get you banned from playing as it is a true form of "Richard-ery". For example... In an multi player apoc game I was taking a Thousand sons warcoven with players A and B on my team, against C D and E. During that game, we had all decided that due to their strict resemblence to normal Thousand Sons, the Thousand sons warcoven was to be considered "Troops" choices as we were using 5th edition rules for objectives. Using my 1ksonsTermies I held an objective in that game (we won by 2 so it didnt really matter for that game) however in the next apoc game, I was against Player B. Most of the game, there was no contest about the 1ksons being troops. We had consistantly reiterated that they were troops. On turn 3 6 hours into the game (yeah, we take a while) player B notices that there is a good chance my team will end up winning due to some of my 1ktermies that were near an almost completely uncontested objective.... so he brings up that they are "Not troops" causing a cluster-feth of an argument, I go out to smoke as I am quite livid at this point only to return to hear that someone on my team decided to "Roll off" on the ruling... My 1ktermies lost their title of "troops" on the bottom of turn 3.. the game ended in a Tie (kinda)

Needless to say, I was feeling the urge to convert to Khorne...


Which brings me to my next point...

Cairnius wrote:
" doesn't want to just dice the question off 1-3 his way, 4-6 the opponent's way,"

Thats more of the definition of a "Fatalist" and really shouldn't be the best approach to solving rule debates as many a time it can lead to things such as entire lists being renderded useless mid-game.

The best way I've noticed is... Agree to the rules before a game is played, if someone does something you don't think is legitimate (and you aren't in a sanctioned Tourny obviously) just write it down and bring it up for the NEXT game. Rules should be followed however, as we are playing Games Workshops Warhammer (40k). GW makes rules for their games for a reason, if you really don't want to use them, why bother shelling out 400$+ on an army for a game that you don't plan on playing the way it was intended to be played?

This term long predates GW's games...

It is basically someone who looks for loopholes in the rules that benefit them.

ZF-

I define them as the person who is an utter prick and butts in on the rules for other peoples games! fine and dandy when your at your FLGS, but at a tourney not so much!

Definitions and number of subscribers so far -

1) Bends rules to advantage - 7
2) Someone who tries to figure out RAW using rule syntax and context - 2
3) Derogatory term with no other specific definition - 3
4) Someone who actually knows the rules - 2
5) Someone who thinks that playing by the rules is more important than having fun - 1
6) Someone with opinions on rules which are unpopular or technical versus colloquial - 1
7) Someone who butts into other peoples' game to enforce rules - 1

I'm not going to claim that the definition with which I am most familiar is "right" simply because the clear majority of people felt the same way, but it's nice to know that I'm not entirely off-base in thinking "rules-lawyer" means what I think it means.


Some interesting points along the way -


Importance of following the rules: I'm not sure how this can be argued. Generally-speaking the rules for the games we play are pretty clear. I always revert to Flames of War as my example of "the best" ruleset...because I've been playing it for a year now and have never borne witness to a rules argument. Or heard about one taking place from my friends who play the game much more often than I do. Or seen such an argument taking place online.

If the rules are clear of course anyone should be expected to follow them - and enforcing those clearly-written rules does not, IMHO, make one a "rules lawyer" because you're not making an argument at all, which is what lawyers do. If you know the rules you're just reciting them to someone else without reading them directly from the rulebook because that would slow the game down. There is no argument. You know the rule, your opponent doesn't.

I think the derogatory usage of this term gets thrown at people who enforce rules mostly by players who think they know the rules but don't, get themselves into a tactical position based on their incorrect knowledge, and then when they attempt to press whatever advantage they thought they had based on this incorrect information and discover that they not only don't have said advantage but in fact just screwed themselves, they get angry at the person informing them of the actual rule.

That other player is not a bad person in any way for enforcing the rules...he or she has been playing by those rules the whole time, now the other player should be exempt from them? Then it comes down to the maturity of the person who just had the rules enforced on them. When I was a total noob, I never got angry at the person enforcing the rule...I might have complained about the rule, but that would also be the only time I made that mistake. It's certainly frustrating to spend 2 hours playing a game only to discover that you've made some sort of crucial mistake that effectively meant you didn't really play a game but rather had a very extended learning experience...but that's not the fault of the person who actually knows the rules...


If following the rules isn't fun: I would then suggest that one should not be playing that particular game, or playing as the army one is playing as or against the army one is facing. If you're not having fun I don't think that automatically excuses ignoring the rules...and "special scenarios" lay out their own rules to supplement or temporarily replace existing rules or both, so those special scenarios still also have rules which must be followed...if it's a good special scenario, anyway...

Actually the votes are
Rules bender - 7
Someone who plays by the rules -9
Someone who butts into other people's games -1