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.

I don't see it as a negative term. I usually refer to someone who knows the rules by heart (even if they skew a few to their view) as a rules lawyer. They're helpful for things like DnD as I often DM and it's great to be able to just ask how much falling damage someone would take or how many rounds til someone drowns. If we disagree on something as long as they're humble and willing to not make a big deal out of it, they're nothing but an asset. For 40K, I like them because I can find out what douches will try to pull on me in tourneys. I'll throw them a bone in the form of a game every now and then, even if I disagree with some of their stuff as a thanks for their services and because I love a tough (even sometimes unfair?) fight.

JOHIRA wrote:Rules lawyers are people who think playing the game "correctly" is more important than having fun.

I've always found it interesting how many people seem to think that someone who wants to play strictly by the rules isn't playing for fun...

I think it's gotta be the guy whose trying to get an advantage by using the letter or the law against the spirit of the law. Such as the guy who refused to let a Chaos Marine squad shoot because they'd been modeled with very creepy looking blank faces, and as such had no eyes. Technically, he may well be right. But it's not really the kind of move any one tries just because it's the rules, it's because they want to win and stopping a squad firing that pair of Melta Guns at that Russ will help him win.

Cairnius wrote: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...

Ah, so this means that following the rules of the rulebook isn't what's important- just that the game has some kind of rules.
Following this to it's conclusion, house rules should be perfectly OK.

So my thinking is, if you aren't playing with someone who is a WAAC type, do you have to have the rules defined from the beginning? The whole point in making the rules clear from the beginning is to make the game fair, but if the game is fun for both players, does it have to be fair? You're both having fun. Or if you are playing with someone who has an inherent idea of fairness (one might say, as adults should surely develop) and you know you can trust them to break the rules in a fair way, why does it matter if you change things on the fly?

The chief arguments I've seen for strict following of the rules look rather circular to me, like following the rules are their own reward. Not very convincing.

Actually, it isn't fun to build an army/make moves in the game based on what the rules say to only be told 'we don't play by that rule' with the implication that anyone who does is a bad person.

What's a rules lawyer?

Anyone who honestly believes the Doom of Malan'tai doesn't get a Warp Field save and then calls you immature for wanting to play it that way.

JOHIRA wrote:Ah, so this means that following the rules of the rulebook isn't what's important- just that the game has some kind of rules.

There's some attempt at some kind of lawyering going on, but it's a poor attempt.

"The rules" for a game are laid out in its rulebook. If you need this explicitly stated then please do the world a favor and when you go to your FLGS wear a sign around your neck that says "Please do not use any language which carries any sort of implication in its content. Be explicitly specific with everything you say, assume nothing."

Then people will be able to communicate with you properly and avoid risk of your deciding that the rules don't actually mean anything and you're going to play the part of a Chaos God "for fun."

The fact that you're even asking for a justification for following the rules makes me seriously wonder how the mates at your FLGS regard you as a potential player for an evening when the three-to-four hours they've dedicated to that gaming night are precious free time they might not always have access to due to concerns of family or employment. *grin*

Rules lawyer for me, and the way I threw it out perhaps recklessly in another thread, is someone who wields the rules as a weapon and puts logic/commonsense out for their own advantage, usually at the expense of the "fun atmosphere" of the game. Most rules are black and white, there's little ground for misinterpretation, and it's great when both players know them backwards and forwards. That's just being knowledgeable about the game. Where the "rules lawyer" stuff comes in is when a gray area emerges and they try to manipulate the rule/seek the most advantage from their own interpretation, throwing out alternate views. This is the "lawyer" part: arguing their defense based on technicalities and a subjective viewpoint, rather than an objective discussion about the rule in question.

It's a fine line between legitimate rules discussion and rules lawyering at times, sure, but it comes down to intent. Are they seeking CLARIFICATION or ADVANTAGE? That's the difference, at least to me. I tend to just roll with it unless it's a real big stretch, and if the guy's a real douche about it, I just don't play him any more.

Cairnius wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:Ah, so this means that following the rules of the rulebook isn't what's important- just that the game has some kind of rules.

There's some attempt at some kind of lawyering going on, but it's a poor attempt.

"The rules" for a game are laid out in its rulebook. If you need this explicitly stated then please do the world a favor and when you go to your FLGS wear a sign around your neck that says "Please do not use any language which carries any sort of implication in its content. Be explicitly specific with everything you say, assume nothing."

Then people will be able to communicate with you properly and avoid risk of your deciding that the rules don't actually mean anything and you're going to play the part of a Chaos God "for fun."

The fact that you're even asking for a justification for following the rules makes me seriously wonder how the mates at your FLGS regard you as a potential player for an evening when the three-to-four hours they've dedicated to that gaming night are precious free time they might not always have access to due to concerns of family or employment. *grin*

Do you really think that's an appropriate response?

Pika_power wrote:Tournament games, practice tournament games against friends, etc.

Sorry it took a while to get back to you.

In that case, no sir. I feel power gamers and rules lawyers are right at home in tournaments. I wouldn't expect any other type of gamer to be there quite frankly.

Just curious Pika, why so interested in my opinion?

Well you seemed to share most of my views, so naturally I wanted to know a bit more.

So summed up, Rules lawyers should stick to their game at tournaments, and just go for the intent in the interest of preserving the peace during casuals, correct?

Yes Sir. That's what I firmly believe.

I think keeping the peace is an important part of a gaming experience when multiple parties are involved.

From my perspective, I can enjoy any sort of game and that's where my lax opinion on this matter comes from.

If some trash talking A) power gamer wants to play me, I know he's going to bring something worthwhile of a challenge - at the very least. For the most part min-maxers know what they are doing. So kudos for them.

If a B)beginning player wants to play me, who barely knows the rules, I get the satisfaction of being able to relax for a game and play an easier going one - and helping him/her learn the rules under the protection of a friendly gamer. Nothing kills the hobby more than Opponents A) playing opponent B) and slaughtering them without offering up guidance or advice.

Thankfully, I think people who slant more towards casual/hobbyist/fluff outnumber A), and all A)'s certainly arent that bad. But I think you also can tell the difference between "Gamers" and "Players".

So the peace must be kept. Since my enjoyment doesn't hinge on the specifics of any particular game(war-gamed out to the point where I just enjoy seeing my models on the table and having fun setting up dramatic HQ/HQ battles), it's easy for me to sacrifice part of my war-gaming experience for the greater enjoyment of my opponent.

Summation : If they want to get thrashed at the hands of a tournament power list, I can do that. But I would also enjoy not having to play that list.

JOHIRA wrote:Do you really think that's an appropriate response?

Yes. When someone makes the suggestion on a wargaming forum that rules really don't matter, that if you're not having fun you should just abandon the rules, I can only conclude one of two things:

1) The person is joking...in which case the snarkiness of my response should be taken as the same sort of tongue-and-cheek humor being utilized by actually suggesting the rules don't matter. They should enjoy my response and get a good laugh out of it.

2) The person is serious...in which case the snarkiness of my response should be taken as the sort of distaste I would feel should I be playing a game of 40K with someone who doesn't know the rules, or decides they don't like them, and then decides to not play by them anymore in which case they've just wasted a bunch of my time that I cannot get back.

I don't take kindly to people wasting my time.

insaniak wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:Rules lawyers are people who think playing the game "correctly" is more important than having fun.

I've always found it interesting how many people seem to think that someone who wants to play strictly by the rules isn't playing for fun...

Isn't it? I don't really get it myself.

JOHIRA wrote:

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?

...where in the feth did I ever say that? What are you talking about and what the hell does it have to do with anything?!

You said, basically, wanting to play by the rules makes one a rules lawyer, or a WAAC gamer. I disagreed, I think playing by the rules is just as important as having fun and I don't see as how it makes you a douche, which is what people often associate the WAAC label with. How the hell does that equate to "No, you're gonna sit there and play this stupid game whether you like it or not!"? There's nothing in the rulebook that says you can't concede a game, if that's what you're on about...I do it all the time in fact, when it's pretty obvious I've lost, just so I have more time to get in another game or do other things. If no one's having fun then there's really no point in going through with the game (though if you didn't want to play why you'd agree to play in the first place is beyond me).

I honestly have no idea where the hell that came from. Anything to make someone look bad I guess.

JOHIRA wrote: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?

Once again, I never said that. "Playing correctly" does not mean sticking to just the scenarios in the main rulebook.

That said however, what if I didn't feel like playing Johnny's super awesome killer scenario? Despite the fact that it would apparently be "the most thrilling game I'd ever played", what if I didn't feel like bothering with all that special stuff (maybe I'm just not in the mood to go over all the rules and units, maybe I don't have that much time, etc.) and just wanted to play "normal" 40k? This makes me WAAC?

Zad Fnark wrote:This term long predates GW's games...

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

ZF-

That sounds more appropriate than labeling everyone who wants to play by the rules a "rules lawyer", if you ask me.

Cairnius wrote:Generally-speaking the rules for the games we play are pretty clear.

lmao, do we play the same game?

"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."


exactly this.

witch results in from the poor sap who gets caugth by it.

but should actually result in the rules laywer reciving a


other people whom watch the
should start to



Remember kids the only good rules layer is a Castrated one.

Cairnius wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:Do you really think that's an appropriate response?

Yes.

You think it's appropriate to personally attack me because I don't share the same views as you about how to play with toy soldiers, in a thread where you asked us what we think about how to play with toy soldiers?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:You said, basically, wanting to play by the rules makes one a rules lawyer, or a WAAC gamer.

No, you misunderstood. I said that a rules lawyer is someone who thinks playing by the rules is more important than playing for fun is a rules lawyer. I stand by it. I never said that playing by the rules makes anyone a douche or a WAAC gamer.

The problem with rules lawyers and WAAC gamers is that they can't adjust. They can't be flexible. They play the game one and only one way, which is not fun for everyone. People play wargames for different reasons. Some people play to win. Some people play to have an excuse to paint a really cool-looking army. Some people play to re-create historical scenarios. Some people play to create really epic-looking a-historical scenarios. Some people play as an exercise in building backstory, almost like a roleplaying game. Some people play to unwind after a hard day at work. All of these ways to play are correct. Wanting to follow the rules at a tournament doesn't make you a rules lawyer. Wanting to follow the rules when you're playing with a friend who enjoys following the rules to the letter doesn't make you a rules lawyer. It's when you can't get out of that mode ever that you're a rules lawyer (and likely a WAAC gamer too.)

As you yourself said, the rules are not always clear. The rules allow some pretty bizarre things. The rules disallow some pretty common sense things. I remember back when 40-man seer councils were legal. I remember back when it was easy to fit 3 wraithlords in a 500 point army. I remember back when Lizardmen vs. Dwarves or Tau vs. Necrons were basically unwinnable matchups. And now there are arguments about if the Tyrannid unique creatures count as the default species they are clearly modelled from. Some people do not enjoy dealing with these ridiculous scenarios that can be elminated by a good bit of common sense.

If you can't ever break out of following the RAW, no matter what the situation, you're a rules lawyer. If you have the basic ability to tailor your playing style to fit a compromise between what you and your opponent want out of the game, you aren't. People on here have tossed around analogies to playing with action figures in the sandbox and going "pew pew pew", but that's what this hobby is for everyone. It's toy soldiers. Whether you follow the rules or not.

JOHIRA wrote:The problem with rules lawyers and WAAC gamers is that they can't adjust. They can't be flexible. They play the game one and only one way, which is not fun for everyone.

The same could be said about the people who label people as 'rules lawyers' or 'WAAC gamers'.

skyth wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:The problem with rules lawyers and WAAC gamers is that they can't adjust. They can't be flexible. They play the game one and only one way, which is not fun for everyone.

The same could be said about the people who label people as 'rules lawyers' or 'WAAC gamers'.

Not really. Or at least, not as simply as you're putting it.

It's just as simple as you're putting it with regards to people that play differently than you do.

JOHIRA wrote:

skyth wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:The problem with rules lawyers and WAAC gamers is that they can't adjust. They can't be flexible. They play the game one and only one way, which is not fun for everyone.

The same could be said about the people who label people as 'rules lawyers' or 'WAAC gamers'.

Not really. Or at least, not as simply as you're putting it.

No, he's correct. They do not adjust and are not flexible. They play by the rules and won't allow the opponent to get off some BS such as "Oh, this is my chapter master. He's made up, but because he uses rules from the rulebook, you have to let me use him. Oh, and he has a 2++ save, a powerfist that strikes at initiative value and feel no pain."

It is just the same as people who refuse to play with certain rules or with certain units and that attack the character of people that do. They are just as inflexible and not able to adjust as the supposed 'rules lawyer' or 'waac players'.

If you can't ever break out of following the RAW, no matter what the situation, you're a rules lawyer.

Well if you know me at all then you'll know I'm not the type to follow the RAW no matter what. If following RAW leads to a really slowed situation in game that defies all sense or logic (like how Rage can be ignored by turning a model around so it can't see the nearest enemy, or models without eyes can't trace LOS to targets and can't shoot, or how certain very large models only have a really small area that you can draw LOS to for shooting) then I don't mind bending the rules in that case...

I stand corrected. Somehow I got it into my head that we were discussing fluff bunnies. As you were.

skyth wrote:It is just the same as people who refuse to play with certain rules or with certain units and that attack the character of people that do. They are just as inflexible and not able to adjust as the supposed 'rules lawyer' or 'waac players'.

Now this is absolutely correct. Your earlier post was wrong because you presumed that everyone who calls someone a rules lawyer was part of this obstinate group.

This is a game, no matter how much some people try to spin it otherwise. If you can't meet your opponent halfway, you are missing the fundamental purpose of play. If your opponent can't meet you halfway, they have the same problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:

If you can't ever break out of following the RAW, no matter what the situation, you're a rules lawyer.

Well if you know me at all then you'll know I'm not the type to follow the RAW no matter what.

Then you shouldn't worry that anything I've said so far is directed at you.

Sidstyler wrote:

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:Well if you know me at all then you'll know I'm not the type to follow the RAW no matter what. If following RAW leads to a really slowed situation in game that defies all sense or logic (like how Rage can be ignored by turning a model around so it can't see the nearest enemy, or models without eyes can't trace LOS to targets and can't shoot, or how certain very large models only have a really small area that you can draw LOS to for shooting) then I don't mind bending the rules in that case...

I'm confused. You state that playing 'correctly' and 'by the rules' is your chosen option, but that you don't play RAW. I raise this not to have a go at you, but because 'I just play by the rules' is a recurring excuse of rules lawyers everywhere (though you don't seem to be one yourself)....

Anyway, OT

A rules lawyer, in my opinion, is someone who uses the exact lettering of the rules to find a loophole in the intent that allows him an advantage. Of course, the rules laywer is NOT cheating, merely playing by the exact letter of the rules. Even if those rules seem stupid to everyone else..

I'll offer another example to clarify, but your example of 'models without eyes' is just as good, too....

The unit described as 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' does not, RAW, have a battlecannon. In the IG army list, there is no main weapon option for 'Leman Russ Battle Tank'. There is a main weapon option for Leman Russ, but there is no unit specifically called 'Leman Russ'. Therefore, RAW, not only does a 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' have no turret weapon, anyone using the official GW model is not adhering to WYSIWYG....

Now, this is incredibly tenuous, and we ALL know what the book is MEANT to say, and that this is a small consistency error. A rules lawyer is someone who would, nevertheless, use this 'loophole' to his advantage.

His excuse? "I'm just playing by the rules, and anyone who does otherwise is cheating"

And, of course, he is right....

ArbitorIan wrote:I'm confused. You state that playing 'correctly' and 'by the rules' is your chosen option, but that you don't play RAW. I raise this not to have a go at you, but because 'I just play by the rules' is a recurring excuse of rules lawyers everywhere (though you don't seem to be one yourself)....

Yeah, I can see why it's confusing...

I'll play by RAW in some situations, when the solution to a problem isn't quite as obvious and the RAW "makes sense", I guess. In other situations however, like the one you described and ones I alluded to before, I refuse to play by RAW because it's absolutely ridiculous to do so and just breaks the game. Models without eyes that are carrying guns/equipped with awesome psychic powers were clearly meant to use them. Rage was obviously not meant to be easily bypassed by moving your models backwards so they have nothing to Rage towards, especially when it can affect damn near an entire army like in the case of Tyranids and was clearly meant to be a consequence for being out of synapse range. Etc.

Although I'll admit my own opinion on the valkyrie is heavily biased, but come on. I know the book says wings "don't count" (though I think they're referring more to infantry models in that paragraph), and even in real world terms wings aren't considered to be part of the hull. But considering damn near 2/3 of the valkyrie technically aren't "hull" in that case...I just refuse to believe that this is how GW intended for it to be played. I don't care what RAW says, it just feels wrong to claim that a model that big, with wings and tail that big, can't be shot at at all if I have a wing or it's tail in view. A situation that might rarely ever crop up in game I admit considering how tall it is, but you never know.

JOHIRA wrote:

Your earlier post was wrong because you presumed that everyone who calls someone a rules lawyer was part of this obstinate group.

Just the same as you tarring an entire group with the same brush.

Hi all.
I define 'rules Lawyer' as some one who continualy exploits porly defined rules to thier own advantage.
40k is a target rich environment for rules lawyers.

skyth wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:

Your earlier post was wrong because you presumed that everyone who calls someone a rules lawyer was part of this obstinate group.

Just the same as you tarring an entire group with the same brush.

No. The thread asked how I define a term, I gave my definition. I tarred no one.

You said that all Rules lawyers and Waac players are unable to adapt, etc...That is tarring the entire group with a single brush.