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.

On a forum, I will stick to my guns until I my opinion has been changed by an Informed, logical argument supported by fact I cannot refute.

In real life? I have no desire to waste time in a rules debate. If we can come to a quick agreement that lets the game continue, I will go with it every time, and research the correct answer after the game is over.

SJ

 Jimsolo wrote:
the drop pod issue is a little closer, though, and even though only twenty-nine percent of Dakkaites think that Drop Pod doors should be able to completely block LOS by remaining up, that will still leave fifteen percent of players insisting that the doors should be blocking LOS. If more than ten percent of people are going to dig in their heels over a rules issue that is likely to come up in a game with me, then I want to know ahead of time how we are going to resolve that issue.

With regards to the drop pod issue, i think you may be missing the point slightly, as indeed seems to be the case with many others who have largely the same viewpoint as you. Rules debates often boil down to what the rule actually says, compared to how the rule is played. In the case of the drop pod the arguments for doors blocking LOS are literal interpretations of RAW, that is to say, that is exactly how they are presented in the rules. but Literal interpretations of RAW are often counter intuitive and can often break certain units, and in fact the game if you take them too far,
this is why when you have a divisive issue a consensus is reached that might not stick to the literal RAW but is one that both works, and is acceptable to the community as a whole. in the case of the drop pod, the community as a whole has decided (a decision which i think the majority will agree with) that the doors in question should simply be ignored for all purposes.

Now just because a consensus is reached doesn't make it the right way to play as far as a literal reading of the rules is concerned, but it does make sense, and solves a lot of issues that a literal application of the rules would throw up.

YMDC is a forum that tries to cut through all the conventions, all the house rules and the ways people think it should be played, and get to what the rules actually say. regardless of whether that is workable or not. you will also find that a lot of the time people who post in YMDC will also say how they would play it, and that is often completely at odds with a literal reading of RAW.

There is also a convention, at least where i play, that you resolve any 'major' issues before the game starts so rules discussions which can disrupt the flow of the game happen before the game and not during. in the afore mentioned drop pod example, you should decide between you what the exact status of the drop pod doors is before you do a single thing. if a rules debate happens during the game, i prefer, rather than to stop and have a RAW vs RAI debate in the middle of a game, to ask a knowledgeable individual what they think, if one isn't forthcoming, simply roll a d6 and settle the issue after the game.

I have been caught in the 'but we play it like this' trap a few times before, and its not exactly a pleasant experience and is exactly why i personally try to avoid rules discussions with large close knit groups because often they will take their friends side even if he is wrong and they know it. I don't think there is any right answert to your poll (i voted other) simply because its impossible to predict the kinds of groups you will be playing with, and while sometimes its definately worth it to argue the point ad infinitum because rules debates can actually be fun, while at other times its not worth the effort

I take a minute or two of my time to try and convince people.
Then we vote and if that is 50-50 we roll a d6.
We don't vote for what the RAW is, we vote for how we play it.

The plus-side is that almost every player has a wide array of armies.
If you "vote" against a ruling to cheese your way out of a game, you can be sure that it will come back to bite your ass.
Most of our group know eachother for over a decade.
You don't act like an a-hole with good friends.

Interesting opinion madtankbloke.

I think that part of the conflict that arises in the YMDC section is that some people think the default approach is to argue the rules in some theoretical bubble. The 'as written, on paper' rules, if you will. Other people prefer to approach rules discussions with the default assumption that you aren't talking about some abstract application of the rules, but rather how it goes in real life, on the table. I fall into the second camp. The only time I will really argue raw RAW is when we're doing some sort of facetious commentary on what the rule technically says. (Like Flying Monstrous Creatures not getting Relentless or Smash.)

Some of these arguments have good points on both sides. But if I'm going to actually enter into a rules debate, then I am always approaching from the 'how do you apply it in real life' standpoint. When I post a poll, it's because I've seen an interesting issue and I want to know how divided the community ACTUALLY is on it. We've all seen a thread or two where one person has every other post, doggedly insisting that the rules work their way when we can clearly see that they're wrong. These kind of threads skew the perception of how even the two sides of the debate are.

This poll is essentially a curiosity. If I think something works one way, and the majority of people at my local community disagree, I tend to just go along to get along. I'm curious as to what other people think. While the numbers might be slightly useful, it's more to give me an idea how much contention to expect from divisive rules calls.

I picked "other". If you have a rules debate during a friendly game check the rule-book. If an answer is not forthcoming or the wording is vague then roll a D6 and get the game going again in order to maintain some level of flow. You can always check the book afterwards and note it for next time.

The worst is when you get someone else who is so utterly convinced of themselves that they refuse the D6 method and spend twenty minutes staring at the book. I treat this the same way as I treat very close TLOS, range, and charge distance situations. I give them the benefit of the doubt; simple as that. No need to get out of shape about plastic soldiers.

The most important part of this game is to have fun. Keeping up game flow and occasionally giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt often leads to happier participants.

Three fifths, because thats closest to two thirds which is my rule of thumb