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.

Ozymandias wrote: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.

Wanted: an independent 3rd party referee to follow me around at tournies. (Can't pay you; you wouldn't be independent then.)

Fencing is a sport descended from actual combat and the rules are to put limits on what the parties do to each other.

Ambiguous areas such as "jostling" are inevitable considering the huge range of motions available to the human body, the mental impetus behind movements, the speed at which things move, and the perspective of the judges.

40K, however, does not exist without rules, the rules are the game. And some of the most core rules in the game are ambiguous. For example, the shooting rules are clouded by the problems with Rapid Fire, the Wounding rules are clouded by the problems with mixed multiple toughness and multiple wound models in squads, and the Movement rules are clouded by problems of movement in Tank Shock situations.

These rules are not ambiguous because of the unavoidable effect of simulating real-life battles. They are ambiguous because they are badly written.

I do not believe it is possible to write a perfect set of rules. In my view, the imprecision of ordinary English means that a really tightly written set would be very technical and dry to read, and would put off a lot of potential players. However, GW have swung to the other end of the spectrum and written a very chatty set which is full of holes. There must be a happy medium.

They can write decent rules. Open up the publicly available BFG or EPIC rules. With a game or two under your belt there really aren't many rules issues. The rules are generally both clean and simple.

jfrazell wrote:They can write decent rules. Open up the publicly available BFG or EPIC rules. With a game or two under your belt there really aren't many rules issues. The rules are generally both clean and simple.

I think that supports my point.

BFG and Epic are "veteran" rules written for people who are assumed to have some gaming experience under their belts and not be frightened.

The style of 40K is aimed at youngsters.

This is why I like playing in my local GW store; I can rule-debate for hours long after we've moved on in the game, simply due to it being an interesting quandry.

And the same issues can be decided democratically.

Ozymandias wrote: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

And again, you asking me to ignore rules interferes with my fun.

Or is it only your fun we're concerned with?

Because I'm not concerned with either of our 'fun'. Or rather I'm not going to let you ruin my game simply because you're too self centered to follow the rules even when you don't like them.

Mauleed, you just aren't getting it. If you say I can't shoot my Bolt Pistols and assault, rather than argue for 30 minutes I'd probably say fine, cause I don't want to let the rules get in the way of my fun (I'd rather dice for it, but I know you wouldn't go for that). Is that really that hard to understand?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

EDIT: Cool, my post count just hit 666

Ozymandias wrote:Mauleed, you just aren't getting it. If you say I can't shoot my Bolt Pistols and assault, rather than argue for 30 minutes I'd probably say fine, cause I don't want to let the rules get in the way of my fun (I'd rather dice for it, but I know you wouldn't go for that). Is that really that hard to understand?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

EDIT: Cool, my post count just hit 666

I noticed the eyes on your avatar are suddenly red. Is it justme or someone playing Omen music over the office intercom?

I think Moz nailed it. When you make moves in the game which are predicated upon a certain understanding of a rule, the game CAN be ruined by ignoring that rule.

The rules aren't the reason we play the game, but they are the means by which we play it.