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.

Dear Dakka Dakka,

I checked the forums and found a thread that had some similar discussion, but was about comp scores in tourneys, and as such doesn't really answer what I'm thinking about.
However, if there is another thread about this please re-direct me, or if it's really old, maybe this one can be kept alive.

99% of my gaming has been with my group of friends. I have been to one tournament but I am planning on getting more involved with them when I come home. But this also applies to gaming at the LFGS and local clubs, which I plan on getting more involved with.

My question is, what is the difference between being a rules lawyer and pointing something out to your opponent that was an incorrect move?

I like to think that I am a pretty fun opponent (I think we all do) but I also like to play a game by its rules. I like to know in the end that I had fun, but that I won or lost because I was outplayed or did the same to my opponent by the rules, not because something was done incorrectly. I'm not talking too much about interpretation of vague rules, although that does come at times, more along the lines of basic rules that may have been forgotten either intentionally or unintentionally.

Respectfully,
DarkAngelHopeful

Pointing out, done in a suitable manner (polite, non-confrontational) is one thing.

Constantly calling your opponent on pathetic little things (not measuring every single models move in a horde of 30 Boyz for instance) is Rules Lawyering.

Plus, Rules Lawyers can easily be spotted by their double standard and sulking.

Unfortunately, if someone has been playing by the "wrong" rules for a long period of time, sometimes they will still get very butthurt when you point out that they are playing incorrectly. I was very recently at a tournament where one person tried moving a unit through one of his other units, except there was no room between the bases to do so. His opponent advised that he could not move through that unit because there was not enough physical space between the models to do so. This is clearly outlined in the rulebook that you cannot move a model through another when there is not room between bases to do so. The opponent was pretty flustered and after the game stated (pretty extensively) that he plays for fun and didn't appreciate such dogmatic following and application of the rules. Had there been a sportsmanship score, I'm sure the person who was incorrect would've marked his opponent down quite low for following a clearly-written rule.

Moral of the story, even when you're clearly right and there shouldn't be a reasonable argument beyond "Rules say this" 'Oh you're right! I'm sorry for playing it wrong, I'll do this instead', that won't always happen and, especially in tournaments, people will sometimes be butthurt about it.

I understand. What if they are constantly making mistakes though? And what if it's not because they are trying to cheat, simply they don't have a good grasp of the rules. Would it be rules lawyering to point it out every time?

I agree on the double standard and sulking.

In a tournament, its your opponent's responsibility to know and adhere to the rules. If someone is acting flustered, or offended that I've corrected them on a rule and gets butthurt (lol), if I feel I have nothing to lose, I check them on it. "Dude...I'm sorry that I have to police your playing, it would be better if you had come knowing the basic rules of the game...."

In a friendly game, I'm more apt to let it pass, but make a verbal note - "Just FYI, the rules require blah blah blah instead of blah blah blah. Friendly game, continue what you're doing, just remember that probably won't fly in a tournament."

In a tournament....know your fething rules or don't fething play.

The definition of a rules lawyer is anyone arguing for a rule that I don't like.

“Well, you were supposed to be teaching me the game, and I saw that you were cheating all the time, so I thought that it was allowed by the rules.”

Leslie Charteris, Enter The Saint

for me, rules lawyering is providing an interpretation of rules whether asked for or not, that may not be the correct rule at all.

pointing something out would be like something that happened in one of my previous games... Playing against by buddy's Black Templar/ Grey Knights, and he was getting ready to roll scatter on his orbital lances, whereupon he grabbed the scatter die, and the WHFB artillery die, so i mentioned to him that its 2d6 and the scatter die, not artillery die.

That sort of thing.

I have an example.

Guy was playing O&G, he miscast and went to the BRB. I politely reminded him that I wasnt trying to be a back seat player, but that they had their own miscast table.

Both players were fine with it and thanked me for reminded them.



NOW

If you are standing over someones shoulder, playing the game for them, constantly saying you cant do this, or uhhh you cant do that, your asking to get punched in the face.

Also DO NOT try to correct someone unless you are completely positive you are right.


All this is if you are from the outside looking in, I have no problems asking specifics if im playing the game. Ive read every army book and know most armies pretty well. So sometimes ill be like are you sure?

Rules-lawyering is exploiting loopholes in game rules.

It's been around since Avalon Hill had been making wargames.

ZF-

The problem is a loophole is often defined as 'not the way I want to play the rule'.

I usually define rules-lawyering as abandoning common sense in an attempt to interpret poor wording or punctuation so that it gives you an advantage over your opponent.

Constantly calling your opponent on pathetic little things (not measuring every single models move in a horde of 30 Boyz for instance) is Rules Lawyering.

Unless he's gaining an extra 2" when he generously moves...

My definition of rules lawyering is mostly about intent. Wanting to play by the book, 100% RAW, is fine by me, especially when the rules are clear-cut or have been FAQed. While I'd be totally fine mixing things up with some house rules, I'd want them to be equally clear-cut and mutually agreed upon before the game starts. There are some rules, however, that are rather gray, due to popular misconception or vague wording in the rulebook/codex. Make a decision with your opponent and stick to it! This is where the intent comes in. A rules lawyer uses gray areas strictly to his advantage, adopting the interpretation that helps his army and insisting that it's iron law. Conversely, he may be incredibly fluid in his interpretation, throwing out "obviously correct" technicalities as they may apply to the situation, again, purely to his advantage.

In a friendly game, pointing out something that is obviously covered with absolute clarity in the rulebook is just fine, as long as you're not a flagrant about it. A casual opponent should have no trouble taking that in stride. If he messed up because he's playing some house rule he's accustomed to, it should have been discussed before the game. If he becomes butthurt, chances are he was either attempting to cheat and got caught or he's just been doing it wrong and lacks the modicum of social grace necessary to avoid parading your butthurt in the face of simple and friendly correction. No one likes being wrong

In a tourney, it's 100% RAW. Anything gray should be covered by an official FAQ, whether the TO puts one out himself, uses INAT, GW, etc. If he makes a call on the fly, it's his responsibility to be consistent with any rulings.