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.

Was he really arguing that a unit could fire overwatch twice, even after getting locked in combat? That is a very clear passage in the book. What exactly was he reading loudly and repeatedly?

As almost everyone has said so far, it really depends on how it was done, and since none of us here were privy to the conversation in person, we can't know who was being a jerk. Even with a transcript, we don't get to see tone and body language of the discussion.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Was he really arguing that a unit could fire overwatch twice, even after getting locked in combat? That is a very clear passage in the book. What exactly was he reading loudly and repeatedly?

It's literally the next sentence in the paragraph.

If it's an introductory game, it would have been better to interrupt with something small like "Usually. Some circumstances or models can set up to deny it. Were you going to cover those later?"

I mean, it's still fourteen pages of rules, the person might have been trying to leave stuff out to avoid overwhelming the other player, rather than playing wrong.

Personally if I was teaching someone how to play a game and a complete stranger came in and tried to correct me my immediate reaction would be entirely dependent on their mannerisms, but not likely to be hostile at all. I fully welcome people correcting my mistakes so I do not make them and so I do not teach wrong rules. If somene corrects me and proves me wrong I thank them for it. Its better for everyone for the rules to be followed properly.

I can see an argument made for minding your own business, but personally the only reason you are correcting them is to help them so why would they be upset by the fact that you are trying to help? I think getting upset over being proven wrong is just silly.

There are so many nuances and aspects to what went on at that table that we here aren't aware of, there is no way to give you an objective answer to your question.

But my subjective opinion? You were a jerk, but like I said, I could be wrong, and maybe the other guy was a jerk. Not enough information here...

If you were not asked a question, nor were you a part of the conversation you have no reason to correct or even talk to them.

Being polite is sometimes minding your own buisness.

Gamers have a stereotype of being intelligent and often also stereotyped as putting a lot of their ego into their intelligence (this ties into the whole WAAC thing and why a lot of gamers put a lot of pride into their W/L record)

Being corrected, especially publicly, especially in front of their wife, is the equivalent of going up to a body builder and kicking sand in his face at the beach.

That being said... I prefer to be corrected on rules. Otherwise I'll think a rule is a rule when its not, I'll play it that way, and then I'll play a cynical player who sees I'm playing wrong and assumes and vocalizes that I'm a cheater. I vastly prefer to be corrected early on than have to deal with that garbage.

That's a stupid fething rule anyway.

Overwatch is clearly meant for to be a defense against being charged.

Denying overwatch because a enemy unit is within one inch, but not yet in melee combat is a gak rule.

Mitochondria wrote:
Denying overwatch because a enemy unit is within one inch, but not yet in melee combat is a gak rule.

If a unit is within 1" of an enemy unit, then it's in melee.

As others have said it really depends on the approach. In a demo/teaching game I probably wouldn't interject. Maybe do it privately later, ask him something like "While you were teaching, you said that you could overwatch even if you were within 1" of an enemy unit, can you show me where you found that rule, because I thought that you couldn't." Then the next time he is playing with those people, he can correct his mistake from earlier. Honestly in a teaching game I would avoid situations of multiple overwatch anyway.

Leaning toward 'yeah, you might have been a bit of a jerk'.

Demo games often gloss over parts of the rules - the idea is to introduce people to the game, and build up some interest and excitement in actually playing the game.

Not in getting every rule right the first time.

Corrections can be made over time - but if the interest in the game is killed by some wandering rules lawyer, then it is possible that it will be the player's last time.

Another important bit of missing context - do you make a habit of interjecting like that in other people's games?

The Auld Grump

he is a narcissistic loser. find a new friend. simple as that.

I've run into those types of guys before. You did the right thing, now just go start your own group and don't invite him. Nothing worse than someone who gets frothing mad about a game playing with toy soldiers.