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.

yakface wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:Ultimately, I think Gwar's interpretation will be ignored by the majority of players.

I do agree with that.

Oh, So its "You don't agree with Yakface therefore you will be ignored?"

Well, glad to see the true nature of this forum I suppose.

If I can ask, why will my Interpretation be ignored when it is actually correct?

Gwar! wrote:

yakface wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:Ultimately, I think Gwar's interpretation will be ignored by the majority of players.

I do agree with that.

Oh, So its "You don't agree with Yakface therefore you will be ignored?"

Well, glad to see the true nature of this forum I suppose.

If I can ask, why will my Interpretation be ignored when it is actually correct?

Sorry I am derailing the thread on this one

lol, Gwar, you are actually good at rules interpretation, the problem is that you may be too good.

But if I may, I can offer a reason as to why *I* (not others) think it may be ignored.

What I mean to say is that this kind of reading can only take place by those willing to read the rules in such a specific and finite (I don't know if this is the correct word to use?) way. Most players have a very 'open' and 'liberal' reading of the rules and will normally read this rule as 'any time during deployment' instead of the very specific present tense 'deployment' versus the overall time frame of a 'deployment'.

Take this is as a compliment if you will, but this is probably a hallmark sign of a rules lawyer. Truly no offense is intended, and a rules lawyer is not always a bad thing. Just like in real life a 'lawyer' is often times a necessary evil.

Ok, back on topic if there is anything left to discuss that is

Gwar! wrote:

yakface wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:Ultimately, I think Gwar's interpretation will be ignored by the majority of players.

I do agree with that.

Oh, So its "You don't agree with Yakface therefore you will be ignored?"

Well, glad to see the true nature of this forum I suppose.

If I can ask, why will my Interpretation be ignored when it is actually correct?

Because literal interpretations of the rules are often ignored by players who (for a variety of reasons) decide to play another way. Perhaps they prefer to play by the rules as they imagine they were intended, sometimes they decide to play the way they think it should be.

Experience has shown me, both in real life and running polls in this forum, that people play the game a variety of different ways for a variety of different reasons.


And I don't understand why me saying that unveils a "true nature of this forum". I very frequently put forth my own interpretation of the rules and then often immediately speculate on how I believe people will actually end up playing the situation.

It wasn't intended to be a slight in any way.

EDITED BY MODQUISITION

Gentlemen, this thread has been reported. Everyone please avoid using indirect references that could be seen as insulting. Everyone, please remember Dakka Rule #1-be polite.

As always, please argue the points and not the personalities.

Gwar! wrote:

yakface wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:Ultimately, I think Gwar's interpretation will be ignored by the majority of players.

I do agree with that.

Oh, So its "You don't agree with Yakface therefore you will be ignored?"

Well, glad to see the true nature of this forum I suppose.

If I can ask, why will my Interpretation be ignored when it is actually correct?

Everyone doesn't necessarily play the game according to the most correct interpretation of the rules.

I am reminded of the AP1 vs SMF controversy in 4e. The rule was completely specific, but lots of players did not think it made sense, and eventually it was FAQed that the rule did not mean what it actually said.

To be fair, I think the rule as written had been written wrongly, in other words, it had not been intended that it should mean what it actually did mean. Someone wrote it who didn't understand what they were writing. But that is again a matter of assumption and interpretation.

(non-mod mode)
I also have to proffer we should remember, this is YMTC. Part of that is the 'how many angels on the head of pin' discussion ie not what the rules mean or how we would use them in Real Life (TM), but what the actual rules as written said. Like a law review article discussing the actual language.