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.

Please read before voting!

So, these threads here (one, two, three, four, five of 'em!) got me thinking about something.

Suppose you discover that you hold a particular opinion on a rules issue. Now, let us suppose that you realize you are in the minority on the rules dispute. How long do you insist that it be played your way, in real life? How deep into the minority do you have to go before you give in and play it the way everyone else thinks it should work. Let me stress: in this scenario, you are sure that you're right, and the rules support your decision. Still, how outnumbered do you have to be before you just accept the majority rule and go with it?

If your go-to resolution is a d6 roll, then at what threshold do you accept the d6 roll rather than insisting that your way is correct?

Split between the 75% and 90% option in your poll. A mere 50% isn't enough, since it's very easy for 51% to be wrong about something (especially since so many people don't understand the rules very well) and I'm not going to accept an obvious error just because a slight majority is wrong about something. A substantial majority (75%) would be getting to the point where I'd get tired of the debate and just give it to them because I know my chances of persuading anyone are minimal, while at 90% I'm probably on the unpopular end of a RAW vs. RAI debate and stubbornly insisting on my side just means that I won't be playing the game anymore.

I dunno. I guess it depends on how clearly I can understand the other side's opinion, whether it makes sense to me, and how clear it is that I am wrong or right. Unless it's a ridiculously large percentage, and even then, I'm more likely to question whether I'm playing it right, and try to figure out what I'm missing, rather than simply swaying to the majority opinion. But if a large enough number of people I encounter play it a different way, I'll do some research regardless of how clear it seems to me.

I can afford that, because I pretty much only play against one opponent and no one else, so unless I venture into YMDC, I'm rarely presented with different perspectives on rules.

Also, it confuses me to read some of the more debatable YMDC topics, because I can see valid reasoning behind multiple sides of the argument. Both sides make sense sometimes, so I find it hard to decide.

I've never actually had this issue. Usually if there's a dispute that can't' be settled by reading rules / faqs we will just 4+ it. In a tournament setting we just grab the TO their ruling is final.

It was just a curiosity. I see some pretty insistent folks over in the YMDC forums, and I always wonder how they handle that in a real-life situation.

This actually happened to me in a tournament involving me casting my psychic powers inside a transport on the squad inside with eldrad inside. I argued for 10 mins with everyone that joined in against me. I kept going for the rulebook but they stopped me, so I got annoyed, and went to the index to find Declare Target, Pg 67. Not one of them apologised for their actions, and I made sure that my opponent knew I was pissed.
There's been other cases, but I won't go into them. I'm probably in the 75% + area though.

I chose 75%, but I must admit that it often depends on the circumstances.

There are some issues where you know you are correct, despite the opposition. If someone says that going to ground in open terrain does not grant a cover save (as an example off the top of my head), and 9 out of 10 people i agree with them, I will still disagree. The rules clearly state otherwise.

In cases where the rules are not clear cut, 3/4 is usually enough to convince me (particularly if it is well reasoned). That being said, I have not played enough games outside of my small group of playing friends, so I have yet to run into an issue like those mentioned above.

In my gaming group everybody gets a vote. If it's a tie - 4+.
I may bitch and moan about it but the majority stands.

So, second option - 50%+ is the way to go.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It was just a curiosity. I see some pretty insistent folks over in the YMDC forums, and I always wonder how they handle that in a real-life situation.

Oh, in real life.

I had that happen once at a local tournament.

I was playing Space Marines, it was 3rd edition, and had taken a Lightning Claw or Power Fist or Storm Bolter or something on my commander or sergeant or something.

My opponent tried to tell me that that was an illegal choice at some point, and pointed out the asterisk next to the entry for the weapon in the armory which denoted that Terminator models could only select those items (my guy was in power armor). I forget exactly what I did, but I think I made a feeble, quiet-voiced attempt (I was very quiet and shy in those days) to point out that "models in terminator armor can only take these items," was not the same as, "only models in terminator armor can take these items." Fortunately, I never had to really argue about it, because he quickly said, "But it's okay, I'll let you play with it this time," and I let it go, knowing that I was right. I tried for weeks or months while lying awake at night in my bed, to figure out an argument that would've proved it, and eventually I came up with power swords being marked identically.

Admittedly, the guy was French Canadian (I live in Quebec, but a largely english-speaking area of Quebec), so if he only had an english language Codex (It can sometimes be tough to find french ones; in fact, you can't even ORDER a french language codex from the Canadian GW site), there may have been something lost in translation. The positioning of adjectives can be different between english and french, which can cause issues if you're not familiar with the language (like I'm not with french, though I can get the gist of news articles sometimes).

On the forums, I find people will argue until eternity that they are right, even if they know they are wrong. In real life though, at least in my area it's different.

99.999 (repeating of course) percent of the time rules debates in my area go as thus:
1. Two players playing a game or having a general rule discussion.
2. A difference of opinion is met in each party's interpretation of the rules
3. The debate is made in a civilized maner both sides having a fair chance to reference rule book/codex/faq ect, to make their argument.
4. (Optional) a near by third party or TO will offer their opinion and also have a chance to make their case as in step 3.
5. Either both parties agree on the way to play the situation, the TO offers a final ruling, or a 4+ die role is made and the discussion is continued after the game in a civil manner as per step 3.

I have very rarely seen real life rules debates go on beyond 15-20 minutes, and those that do get that long tend to be at tourneys when there is a reason to get into it long enough to hold the game. Most of the time it's a quick "hey, that's not how that works", "are you sure, lets check", "my reasons are ....", "well mine are ...". Which almost always ends in either "ah you know what that makes sense", or "I don't agree, lets 4+ it for now". The only time it ever gets bogged down in non tourney play is when tfg or waac or both, really wants/needs the rules to go his way. Those people never last more than a few game sessions in my local play area.

On the internet, it's much easier to get bogged down with subtle interpretations and context as you can't just have a quick back and forth reading it right there together. It's also easier to stubbornly stand with an opinion because it's not bogging down a game or running out a tournament clock. Also, not always, the internet does have people who argue for the sake of arguing, if not out right trolling. Not that any of you fine dakkanites would be guilty of such a thing

At the end of the day, it's a game/hobby, and the point is to enjoy it. If you're not having fun, why are you wasting a chunk of your life playing the game. The rules aren't super air tight, we all know that. Just keep calm, remember you are there to play a game and have fun, and it usually just works out quickly and smoothly. My two cents.

I would not ever spend much more than 5 or 10 minutes discussing it. I would rather just play the game and get on with it. Now if someone was consistently having a different interpretation on different rules, I would probably consider not playing them any longer.

I voted "other". If they can show me a rule, I give in. If show them a rule, I expect the same. That's it.

Long time experience has found that "group polarization" can happen where a large group can be very much wrong.

Just ask "show me the facts" and actively try to prove their case and see if it "holds water".

The sign of a good mind is to be able to entertain an idea or train of thought but not accept it.

I find in actual games that it rarely comes down to trying to determine majority opinion. In the last decade or so, I can only think of one situation that wasn't solved by a quick discussion with my opponent, and a quick check of the relevant rules if necessary before agreeing how to proceed. That one situation we couldn't find the relevant rule in the book, so rolled off on it and came back to the discussion after the game.

Actually, there's also 3 or 4 times we've called a judge over in tournament games. Not because we couldn't have come to an agreement, but because they were issues that had a large impact on the game, and it was better to clarify how they would be ruled at that event top avoid repeat issues in later games.

 pwntallica wrote:
On the forums, I find people will argue until eternity that they are right, even if they know they are wrong. In real life though, at least in my area it's different.

99.999 (repeating of course) percent of the time rules debates in my area go as thus:
1. Two players playing a game or having a general rule discussion.
2. A difference of opinion is met in each party's interpretation of the rules
3. The debate is made in a civilized maner both sides having a fair chance to reference rule book/codex/faq ect, to make their argument.
4. (Optional) a near by third party or TO will offer their opinion and also have a chance to make their case as in step 3.
5. Either both parties agree on the way to play the situation, the TO offers a final ruling, or a 4+ die role is made and the discussion is continued after the game in a civil manner as per step 3.

I have very rarely seen real life rules debates go on beyond 15-20 minutes, and those that do get that long tend to be at tourneys when there is a reason to get into it long enough to hold the game. Most of the time it's a quick "hey, that's not how that works", "are you sure, lets check", "my reasons are ....", "well mine are ...". Which almost always ends in either "ah you know what that makes sense", or "I don't agree, lets 4+ it for now". The only time it ever gets bogged down in non tourney play is when tfg or waac or both, really wants/needs the rules to go his way. Those people never last more than a few game sessions in my local play area.

On the internet, it's much easier to get bogged down with subtle interpretations and context as you can't just have a quick back and forth reading it right there together. It's also easier to stubbornly stand with an opinion because it's not bogging down a game or running out a tournament clock. Also, not always, the internet does have people who argue for the sake of arguing, if not out right trolling. Not that any of you fine dakkanites would be guilty of such a thing

At the end of the day, it's a game/hobby, and the point is to enjoy it. If you're not having fun, why are you wasting a chunk of your life playing the game. The rules aren't super air tight, we all know that. Just keep calm, remember you are there to play a game and have fun, and it usually just works out quickly and smoothly. My two cents.

If my dad played 40k - which he refuses to do since he's a bit obsessive when it comes to collecting things, and him playing 40k would bankrupt him - he'd love YMDC. His hobby is arguing with people in the comments section of news and tabloid sites. He also used to argue about rules on baseball forums - he was a coach and umpire for kids' baseball for a while. He LOVES it. (Arguing on the Internet, I mean)

You left out the only one I use. Roll a D6.

If its a tournament then you ask the TO, case closed.

If we disagree I spend about 30 seconds discussing it then 4+.
When I'm at the table, playing the game is absolutely more important than any rules discussions. Those can be over a beer afterwards.

If the majority of the group feels a rule should be interpreted a certain way, we generally just accept it at that. Essentially at that point we seem to just accidentally create a house rule

If there's no majority (eg there's nobody else around, just me & my opponent) personally I don't like sitting around wasting time arguing. After a look in the rulebook if it isn't clear my preference is to 4+ it, and if it was a big deal (or very likely to come up again) I'll do further research after the game and come to some consensus with my opponent in the calm of post-game.

JWhex wrote:
You left out the only one I use. Roll a D6.

If its a tournament then you ask the TO, case closed.

That sounds like a really good reason to vote 'other.'

Honestly, I considered adding an extra option for that, but I felt like that was in itself a form of giving up, so I didn't. The point where I let a d6 roll decide how we play it is the point where I've given up getting my way. The d6 roll is just the last ditch effort, truth be told. I'll amend the initial post to reflect that though, JWhex.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I've never actually had this issue. Usually if there's a dispute that can't' be settled by reading rules / faqs we will just 4+ it. In a tournament setting we just grab the TO their ruling is final.

This pretty much. TO takes care of most issues and further debates can be resolved later on forums or after tourney discussions. Friendly games I dont care at all, its not the point or important to me.

Personally, I'll just keep the game moving (4+ if necessary) and then figure it out afterwards.

When it comes to the post game figuring out it doesn't matter what the majority thinks if they're not reading what the rules actually say but what they thing that they ought to say (which is the majority of rule disputes in my experience).

Well, seeing as your OP does say that in this hypothetical situation I'm sure I'm right and the rules support my decision, I went for the "9 out of 10" option. If I can actually find something that backs me up in the printed rules then I think that really ought to settle it.

I don't just use this to give myself an edge, though. If an opponent forgot to do something, or did something wrong in a way that put them at a disadvantage, I'd tell them too.

Personally, I tend to give up in the face of a simple majority. I've seen more than a few issues where I think everyone is absolutely incorrect in their interpretation of the rules (of course, they think the same about me!) and there was just no way that either side was going to budge. If I'm not in the majority, I usually just cave for the sake of sportsmanship.

I voted "other".

Group-thinking or fallacious appeals to popularity will never sway me.
The merits of the arguments presented stand on their own.
Nothing else matters.

I find the majority of rules disagreements come about because one, or both, parties have misread the rules and think they say something that they don't. in those situations, being something of the 'rules lawyer' in my group i'm often the one who is asked what he thinks.

My answers come in 2 parts, firstly what my literal interpretation of the rules is (refering to one of the examples you've given re. drop pod doors, that they most certainly DO block LOS and they do NOT have to be opened) and then how i personally would play it (again, same example, i would urge both parties to ignore the doors for all purposes as per standard convention).

These kinds of debates often occur because one or both parties are not intimately familiar with the rules, and disagreements are usually very easily resolved by refering to the relevant passage in the BRB or codex, when one or both parties will realise they misread it.

On the other hand, with bitter rules debates of the kind when you try to define exactly how royal court members interact with the units they have joined, special abilities and things like ghost arks its usually better to get it our of the way before the battle is started, and assuming a consensus isn't reached you simply roll a D6 about it.

I tend to think that rather than poll your entire group about a rules dispute, one you can't resolve between you, simply ask one person who is familiar with the rules what he thinks, and go with his interpretation for that game. there is plenty of time afterwards to hash out the pros and cons after the battle
. if your arbiter can't decide, go straight back to the D6 method. the reason you ask someone knowledgeable (TO's are a good example) is because in my experience, the majority of players, while they know the basic rules to a competent level, and their own armies rules, they are often in the dark about other things, and many reactions are along the lines of 'thats OP it can't be right, thats not fair, i don't like it'
Having said that, i'm not going to rock the boat and ruin a perfectly good games session because of a stupid rules disagreement, even if i know i'm right and everyone else is just being dense, lets just roll dice!

Steelmage99 wrote:
I voted "other".

Group-thinking or fallacious appeals to popularity will never sway me.
The merits of the arguments presented stand on their own.
Nothing else matters.

Okay...so, not on the internet, not internally, but in reality, how do you handle these situations? If you are playing a game, and you say something works one way, and there are nine people at your game store, how many of them have to tell you you're wrong before you play it the other way? Note: I'm not saying you are wrong in this hypothetical, just that everyone is telling you that you are.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
I voted "other".

Group-thinking or fallacious appeals to popularity will never sway me.
The merits of the arguments presented stand on their own.
Nothing else matters.

Okay...so, not on the internet, not internally, but in reality, how do you handle these situations? If you are playing a game, and you say something works one way, and there are nine people at your game store, how many of them have to tell you you're wrong before you play it the other way? Note: I'm not saying you are wrong in this hypothetical, just that everyone is telling you that you are.

I am sorry. I cannot answer that question.
I do not play in a FLGS, but rather with 5 close friends in a private setting.

In that particular setting I happen to be the "rules guy" as I play every single faction in the game. We have agreed that rules-issues are not a popularity contest (it isn't even a democracy). Only rational logical arguments carry any weight.
As we don't have any real time-constraints we can use all the time we want to hash out the problems. In any case the number of dissenters or supporters are irrelevant.

Okay...so the question remains. What would you do if your rational, logical arguments have failed to garner your friends' support. Instead, the five of them think that you're wrong (even though you know you aren't) and nothing any of you say will sway the others. Then what?

To be honest, from the way you make it sound, you're just the 'boss' of your group. If you play in a near vacuum situation like that, it's hard to get any kind of honest dissenting opinion. I can definitely see how that would qualify as an 'other.'

I feel like you think I'm trying to put forth weight of numbers as the only deciding factor in a rules decision. You've thrown out a couple of negative terms to that effect, and I just wanted to take a second to point out that I, too, value rationality and logical arguments above popular opinion. That's why I specified in the original post that "you are sure you're right, and the rules support your decision," as a qualifier to the question. I'd always prefer to solve my problems with sheer logic, but the unfortunate truth is that in real world situations, sometimes people refuse to see reason, or certainly refuse to see reason the way the one person sees it. At some point, you either have to give up and walk away from the table (in which case it would be the 'I never concede' option) or you have to give up trying to convince them and just play it their way. (Which would be whichever threshold option is your personal breaking point.)

Many veterans can empathize with being in the extreme minority, fully believing that the majority of people are playing a rule wrong. The whole point of this thread was to find out when those people just say 'to heck with it,' and play it the way everyone else thinks it should be played. Thanks for your response though! It hadn't occurred to me that there were people playing in odd little microcosms like that, but I suppose that's what the 'other' option is around for!

 Jimsolo wrote:
Okay...so the question remains. What would you do if your rational, logical arguments have failed to garner your friends' support. Instead, the five of them think that you're wrong (even though you know you aren't) and nothing any of you say will sway the others. Then what?

Yes, that is the very issue, isn't it?
In that hypothetical situation I guess I would keep arguing.
If no consensus can be reached, then discussion would shift from "What does the rule actually say" to "How do we like the rule to play", ie we would move into houserule territory.
The exact point at which that transition happens is kinda hard to define.
Doing that is not an uncommon thing within our small group. So even in the hypothetical situation of me being right and everybody else being wrong neither I nor any other single member would have any issue with simply making a houserule for the greater good of the game.
So I guess that while the practical result is a consensus, one person have indeed "given up" at some point. In case of a houserule though that isn't so bad and should avoid most "bad" feelings in the "loser" as a consensus is still reached where the "loser" has a feeling of being heard.

Now, one would be totally justified in asking; "What happens if you cannot reach a consensus regarding the houesrule?".
We try it out the different rules. After 3-5 games of each we discuss the issue again. Consensus is rarely a problem after that.

To be honest, from the way you make it sound, you're just the 'boss' of your group.

I think that is a correct interpretation. I am usually the organizer of terrain, campaigns and the guy who spends the most time thinking about the game and its rules.
It is almost inevitable that such a person is seen as a sort of authority, justified or not.

If you play in a near vacuum situation like that, it's hard to get any kind of honest dissenting opinion.

That is indeed a very relevant issue, and why such a "person of authority" has such a big responsibility to seek out and, at every turn promote, open and honest discussion.

I feel like you think I'm trying to put forth weight of numbers as the only deciding factor in a rules decision. You've thrown out a couple of negative terms to that effect, and I just wanted to take a second to point out that I, too, value rationality and logical arguments above popular opinion. That's why I specified in the original post that "you are sure you're right, and the rules support your decision," as a qualifier to the question.

I understand.

The whole point of this thread was to find out when those people just say 'to heck with it,' and play it the way everyone else thinks it should be played.

The question for me is; "How is that information useful?"
I don't think it is constructive to find an actual break point. Some people might "break" sooner than others, some later, and neither is "doing it right".
Instead of trying to find a rule-of-thumb I would rather promote constructive discussion, and the realization that it is very dependent on the particular situation, as the main solution.

Without further comparison it reminds me of the recurring "Does X get cover behind an Aegis Defense Line"-threads in YMDC - where a search for a rule-of-thumb prevents some players from realizing that the answer is highly situational.

It hadn't occurred to me that there were people playing in odd little microcosms like that, but I suppose that's what the 'other' option is around for!

Yeah, I realize that my input might be of lesser value to the topic at hand as our group might not represent the majority of gaming-situations, with its on semi-unique problems and advantages.

Steelmage99 wrote:

The question for me is; "How is that information useful?"
I don't think it is constructive to find an actual break point. Some people might "break" sooner than others, some later, and neither is "doing it right".
Instead of trying to find a rule-of-thumb I would rather promote constructive discussion, and the realization that it is very dependent on the particular situation, as the main solution.

The benefit I seek to derive is this: When I post or view polls in the YMDC section, I like to know when something is close-cut enough that I should have to ask every one of my opponents beforehand how they want to do it, (like the Drop Pod LOS thread going right now) or whether I can safely assume that everyone either sees it one way, or is playing it that way.

The battle brother IC's in an allied transport thread is a good example of that. Regardless of what I think (and I happen to think that Kel's original assessment was correct) I can safely assume that statistically everyone is playing it the majority way. (Even though 18 percent of poll respondents thought that allied ICs COULD get into their ally's transports under the right circumstances, fifty-two percent of those are going to capitulate to the majority opinion, meaning over ninety percent of people are playing it one way, so there is little point in me even asking my opponent how they want to resolve it.

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.

I feel I can safely assume that random opponents will not be trying to get allied ICs into transports not from their codex, nor will they allow me to do so. I feel like I cannot safely assume that my opponents will feel free to draw LOS through my drop pod doors, so that's an issue I am going to hash out with every new opponent before games begin from now on. This thread just helps me get some extra numerical data to help my musings, is all.