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.

So I have this dilemma.

I feel when I'm playing any game, I must follow the rules as much as possible. No forgetting a rule when it helps me, and reminding others when they forget something, even when they forget to move/shoot/assault with a unit

Yet there is a player in my area who seems to refuse to play with me. I hear him calling me a rules nazi behind my back. I've noticed this guy taking liberties with the rules in many games, nothing completely wrong, but I always politely point it out.

When playing any game, I try to memorize the rules. I try to know everything I can and should. I know others who don't may forget things. I always act politely when something comes up and I always require a page number when a rules question appears and what I know contradicts what the player said. (this goes for all games, including table top rpgs) I always say things such as "Don't forget you need to place the marker then measure" or something when a rule problem appears, I don't force a player to revoke what they did unless it's completely impossible.

So here is the thing, am I TFG? A rules lawer? Am I wrong for wanting to follow rulebooks to the letter? What do you see when you read this?

Thanks for the input, since I know my feelings about it may be bias.

Nothing wrong with you. The other guy's a knob-end though.

As long as you're being polite about it, there's really no reason why playing by the rules should be a problem.

Well, you're obviously not a cheater so that's a good start. The guy calling you a rules nazi is probably the kind of guy who likes to bend the rules slightly in his favor, so don't worry about him. Seems to me that you should be refereeing and handing out red cards--like a boss.

You have to be careful when policing a friendly game.

If people generally turn to you for help with rules, then it's fine to interrupt.

However, you might want to interrupt politely, or wait until someone asks for
your input. If you're inserting yourself into a game between two people, some
of them might read it the wrong way.

If you're doing it to prevent a newer player from being cheated out of
a good gaming experience, however, then all bets are off.

I wouldn't mind playing you. I like to see when people remind their opponent of something they forgot to do.

unless your army isnt just bases with pictures on them or something itd be fantastic to play you since i forget some rules ::

The only thing I worried about was the issue Malfred raised. It can be rude to make comments about a game you're not personally involved in. If the participants ASK you, that's another story. Of course, if you see someone seriously cheating or misplaying something, you may feel compelled to speak up, but don't be surprised if you do that and the person you correct resents it.

I'm pretty much just like you. I always point out oversights in rules to my opponents that pertain to the actual rule book, no matter if it helps or hurts. The way I see it, is that I want to know if my army can win with the rules. It does me now good if I win a pick up game and knowingly let a rule slide. Come tournament time I'll be glad I did.

I usually don't help on rules from codexes, and just take their word for it, unless I know better. If you challenge every special rule in their codex then yeah you might get labeled a rule monger.

Ah ok to clear that up I don't police other games at all, nor do I watch anything other than what I am playing, unless it's a quick glance. I try my best to remain focused. I will, if asked, provide my input on an issue though.

Also my armies are all actual models, and always 95% or 100% WYSIWIG, though not always completely painted, ahhaha so lazy.

I know about those silly rules, like models without eyes technically can't shoot and other stupid things like that, but really, what kinda fool tries to enforce stuff like that?

Also:

Lt. Coldfire wrote:Seems to me that you should be refereeing and handing out red cards--like a boss.

Permission to sig?

You like to follow the rules that is fine. Now are you the kind of guy who follows RAW 100% to the letter (ex disallowing vehicles to fire flamers or let units without eyes shoot).

From the op, you sound like a guy who likes to play fair and by the rules. You sound like a good guy to play by.

Well this is a game and games have rules. If they did not have rules then the game would not be very fun.

House rules are cool. One of the house rules we have at my friends house is any space marine players who come have a 500 point handicap.

(This is mainly to screw with people and laugh at them until they stand up for them selves.)

I would pretty much have to agree with the posts above, sounds like you are polite and knowledge, I would be happy to play a game with you. The other guy sounds like TFG.

juraigamer wrote:So I have this dilemma.

I feel when I'm playing any game, I must follow the rules as much as possible. No forgetting a rule when it helps me, and reminding others when they forget something, even when they forget to move/shoot/assault with a unit

Yet there is a player in my area who seems to refuse to play with me. I hear him calling me a rules nazi behind my back. I've noticed this guy taking liberties with the rules in many games, nothing completely wrong, but I always politely point it out.

When playing any game, I try to memorize the rules. I try to know everything I can and should. I know others who don't may forget things. I always act politely when something comes up and I always require a page number when a rules question appears and what I know contradicts what the player said. (this goes for all games, including table top rpgs) I always say things such as "Don't forget you need to place the marker then measure" or something when a rule problem appears, I don't force a player to revoke what they did unless it's completely impossible.

So here is the thing, am I TFG? A rules lawer? Am I wrong for wanting to follow rulebooks to the letter? What do you see when you read this?

Thanks for the input, since I know my feelings about it may be bias.

I have always thought of rules lawyers as people who use the strict interpretation of the rules to give themselves an advantage. If you aren't doing that I think you are ok. Everyone should follow the rules because it makes for a more enjoyable game.

there's a dif between silly irrelevant rules nazi-ing like (in my experience) if I fleet as part of my move, when it obviously wont affect what shots i will take in my subsequent shoot phase, just to get it out of the way if it obviously wont affect anything. i hate it when anal people get all stuffy about that kind of gak (or if i have 2 squads firing with the same damn guns, who cares if I roll 24 shots instead of 12 and then 12). Some rules are ignorable. Others are just dumb to enforce in obvious situations where the outcome is irrelevant.

I get accused of nazi-sm when it comes to scatter dice and measurements because that is where the canny players fudge their little tiny amounts whenever you turn your head a centimeter.

Running during the movement phase often gives an advantage in terms of the decision tree. If you move and Run one unit, and they roll poorly and you can now see they aren't going to get where they need to go, you can then go ahead and move and Run another unit in that direction, thanks to the information you gained.

I'll often allow it in the first turn or two of the game just to help speed things up in a tournament. But it's against the rules, and it can easily matter.

Thanks, Yeenoghu, for giving us a nice illustrative example of why it's not a good idea to leap to judgment about your opponent, or about what rules are "ignorable" or "dumb to enforce".

OTOH, it's often worth your while in a tournament to let your opponent break or bend the rules in minor ways if you really don't think it's going to impact the game. You save time while you're on the clock, and help things move more smoothly with an opponent who may react badly to being asked not to break the rules.

It's impossible to answer this without knowing what your demeanor is when you're handing out the nuggets of wisdom. If you're being TFG when doing it, it seems unlikely that you'd admit to it here - or feel guilty about it, either. TFG never feels guilty.

So, presuming your advice is only dispensed when solicited, or in a game you're actually playing it, I would assume that's fine.

As a somewhat new player (I spend my time modeling and painting compared to playing...almost a year in now) I would love to play against someone like you...that knows the rules, and likes to be helpful, whoever said you were a rule nazi needs a slap to the lips! I would play against you any time! cause like I said...it's nice to learn the game...with someone who knows what's going on, but isn't going to pound you into the ground when you don't know all the rules

and there is a rule about models can't shoot is they have no eyes? I never knew that!...but eyes on my un helmeted spacewolves would look dumb...cause I find the eyes over sized

The rulebook says when drawing LOS from a model you do it from their eyes. So if you were to play it 100% by the RAW, then yeah, a model with no visible eyes wouldn't have anything to draw LOS from.

juraigamer wrote:Yet there is a player in my area who seems to refuse to play with me. I hear him calling me a rules nazi behind my back. I've noticed this guy taking liberties with the rules in many games, nothing completely wrong, but I always politely point it out.

If you were that bad, it wouldn't just be one guy complaining about it.

Does this same guy tend to play newbs? Complain about hard lists (but not his own)? Like to roll dice where the other player can't see them or without declaring what they're for?

Lt. Coldfire wrote:Well, you're obviously not a cheater so that's a good start. The guy calling you a rules nazi is probably the kind of guy who likes to bend the rules slightly in his favor, so don't worry about him. Seems to me that you should be refereeing and handing out red cards--like a boss.

Agreed. If your being polite and focusing on both of you enjoying the game in good humour I see no problem with what you said youve been like jurai.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Does this same guy tend to play newbs? Complain about hard lists (but not his own)? Like to roll dice where the other player can't see them or without declaring what they're for?

In a sense, yea. He also exclusively plays necrons and runs a maximum monolith spam list with the night bringer only. The only time I saw him borrow nids he used the swarmlord, 2 warrior groups with boneswords, the doom, an outflanking genestealer unit with broodlord and the deathleaper. When he used to run SM he had a few scouts, one ironclad dread and as many SS/TH termies as he could fit.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to mention he's also a sore loser. Perhaps him talking bad about me is just a way to get back at me for repeatedly railguning his monoliths into spiky giblets?

I also can't really describe how the guy acts, though he always had this bad habit of rolling for reserves but not saying what it was (had more than just one kinda unit in reserve) He also tended to play without his glasses on, which could attribute to some crazy blast marker scatters.

Minis dont have eyes though, eyes are roughly spherical balls that faciliate sight. Models are made of plastic and lack the necessary biological systems for eyes.... ergo nothing can shoot EVAR!

Does this same guy tend to play newbs? Complain about hard lists (but not his own)? Like to roll dice where the other player can't see them or without declaring what they're for?


In a sense, yea. He also exclusively plays necrons and runs a maximum monolith spam list with the night bringer only. The only time I saw him borrow nids he used the swarmlord, 2 warrior groups with boneswords, the doom, an outflanking genestealer unit with broodlord and the deathleaper. When he used to run SM he had a few scouts, one ironclad dread and as many SS/TH termies as he could fit.

You seem to be polite enough and maybe the guy is just a plonker but trying to prove so by analysing his lists is fail Im afraid.
So he picks "hard", "spammy" lists. So what? He presumably likes to win, hence picks army lists he thinks helps him do so.
Nothing wrong with that. List building is as subjective as what type of icecream you like.

If hes rolling behind others backs/not declaring then thats another issue.

juraigamer wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Does this same guy tend to play newbs? Complain about hard lists (but not his own)? Like to roll dice where the other player can't see them or without declaring what they're for?

In a sense, yea. He also exclusively plays necrons and runs a maximum monolith spam list with the night bringer only. The only time I saw him borrow nids he used the swarmlord, 2 warrior groups with boneswords, the doom, an outflanking genestealer unit with broodlord and the deathleaper. When he used to run SM he had a few scouts, one ironclad dread and as many SS/TH termies as he could fit.

Hahaha, I think I met this guy! I played against a similar player in an out of town tournament and he ran the exact same Necron list and deep struck EVERYTHING against every opponent, always electing to go second. Then he got pissed when everyone scored him for sportsmanship with a zero and got mad that he didn't win the tournament: he beat me the final round, but I placed higher, because I was nice to the guys that I tabled

yeenoghu wrote:there's a dif between silly irrelevant rules nazi-ing like (in my experience) if I fleet as part of my move, when it obviously wont affect what shots i will take in my subsequent shoot phase, just to get it out of the way if it obviously wont affect anything. i hate it when anal people get all stuffy about that kind of gak (or if i have 2 squads firing with the same damn guns, who cares if I roll 24 shots instead of 12 and then 12). Some rules are ignorable.

Ignoring both of those rules can change game resolution. Fleeting in the movement phase definitely can affect how you move your models or what decisions can be made. An Ork player, for example, could fleet+move, and then WAAAGH (in the shooting phase) knowing with certainty that his assaults will succeed.

And shooting 24 shots instead of 12+12 affects wound allocation in a big way. Let's say I've got 8 Tac Marines, a Sarge, and the melta guy. If you roll 2x12 shots and do 2x5 wounds, I can put them all on Tac Marines twice (assuming I don't lose 4 Tacs the first time). One big batch of ten wounds means I have to test on every single guy, and odds are just as good of a melta marine or sarge dying whereas before that was impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:Hahaha, I think I met this guy! I played against a similar player in an out of town tournament and he ran the exact same Necron list and deep struck EVERYTHING against every opponent, always electing to go second. Then he got pissed when everyone scored him for sportsmanship with a zero and got mad that he didn't win the tournament: he beat me the final round, but I placed higher, because I was nice to the guys that I tabled

So at what point was he actually a bad sportsman? From what you described (so far) he played conservatively and well but lost a popularity contest. To my eyes that makes the other 3 people poor losers, not him a poor winner.

Agree with Sourclams. There is nothing inherently bad about using a powerful list or tactic, or one you think is powerful.

Scott-6 didn't ask primarily about the guy's list, he asked about several specific behaviors which are often signs of a TFG:

Does this same guy tend to play newbs? Complain about hard lists (but not his own)? Like to roll dice where the other player can't see them or without declaring what they're for?

timetowaste85 wrote:
Hahaha, I think I met this guy! I played against a similar player in an out of town tournament and he ran the exact same Necron list and deep struck EVERYTHING against every opponent, always electing to go second. Then he got pissed when everyone scored him for sportsmanship with a zero and got mad that he didn't win the tournament: he beat me the final round, but I placed higher, because I was nice to the guys that I tabled

And this is a classic example of why soft scores are fail sauce.

Mannahnin wrote:Agree with Sourclams. There is nothing inherently bad about using a powerful list or tactic, or one you think is powerful.

Scott-S6 didn't ask primarily about the guy's list, he asked about several specific behaviors which are often signs of a TFG:

Does this same guy tend to play newbs? Complain about hard lists (but not his own)?

These, to me, are the classic big-fish-in-small-pond TFG warning signs. Add in loose with rules (when it suits) which the OP already mentioned and you've got the whole package.

Getting stroppy with newcomers that can play well and with people who pick up on his behaviour is classic as well.

sourclams wrote:

yeenoghu wrote:there's a dif between silly irrelevant rules nazi-ing like (in my experience) if I fleet as part of my move, when it obviously wont affect what shots i will take in my subsequent shoot phase, just to get it out of the way if it obviously wont affect anything. i hate it when anal people get all stuffy about that kind of gak (or if i have 2 squads firing with the same damn guns, who cares if I roll 24 shots instead of 12 and then 12). Some rules are ignorable.

Ignoring both of those rules can change game resolution. Fleeting in the movement phase definitely can affect how you move your models or what decisions can be made. An Ork player, for example, could fleet+move, and then WAAAGH (in the shooting phase) knowing with certainty that his assaults will succeed.

And shooting 24 shots instead of 12+12 affects wound allocation in a big way. Let's say I've got 8 Tac Marines, a Sarge, and the melta guy. If you roll 2x12 shots and do 2x5 wounds, I can put them all on Tac Marines twice (assuming I don't lose 4 Tacs the first time). One big batch of ten wounds means I have to test on every single guy, and odds are just as good of a melta marine or sarge dying whereas before that was impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:Hahaha, I think I met this guy! I played against a similar player in an out of town tournament and he ran the exact same Necron list and deep struck EVERYTHING against every opponent, always electing to go second. Then he got pissed when everyone scored him for sportsmanship with a zero and got mad that he didn't win the tournament: he beat me the final round, but I placed higher, because I was nice to the guys that I tabled

So at what point was he actually a bad sportsman? From what you described (so far) he played conservatively and well but lost a popularity contest. To my eyes that makes the other 3 people poor losers, not him a poor winner.

I probably should have clarified this, I actually gave him a full score: the other guys didn't. I didn't like his play style, but I generally give everyone a full sportsmanship score unless they are complete donkey caves. This guy was kind of an arrogant jerk with his attitude, but I let it slide. We didn't have any rules issues, so I didn't have any reason to give him a bad score. It wasn't just him being conservative, but he was a real jerk while doing it to the other guys and very unfriendly. I was at work before, and couldn't complete the full thought. Like I said, kind of a jerk, but no rules issues.