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.

Hey guys, I was wondering what is too far when arguing for rules?

My example would be the 40k Tournament I went to a week ago. I was playing against an IG player with blobsquads and artillery, so I knew I was boned. However, we had a big rules debate about my assault phase:

My ASM charged the blobsquad and kill 7 (out of 40), however this makes the the Guardsmen out of 1" for assault. In his initiative step, I tell him he moves up 3" to become as close as he can. He does this, but says "the units aren't in assault anymore cause they aren't close enough, so the ASM can't run me down". I tell him that they are still in assault because I haven't wiped the squad - meaning that our units move consolidate towards each other. He continues to state that you only consolidate at your initiative step, and not at the end of combat. I even show him the rule and ask the TO to come and confirm. We end up arguing so long I say that I don't really care anymore. I ask him to roll the Sweeping Advance roll anyways too, and I would have ran down the entire blob ........ Later on he states "I fell like I kinda cheated you a bit earlier".

I don't know if i should stopped or kept going....

Anyone else had an experience like this? Also, anyone have any tips on how to deal with these kinds of situations?

Thanks,

Lucarikx

I have a player in my store that tends to mix 5th with 6th rules and doesn't bother to check at all. leading to a im right your wrong gak chucking fest.

Also if your 3" initiative pile in isn't enough to move you into base contact i believe you are no longer locked but il look at that rule later

Edit: forgot to answer the actual question lol: its when objects start flying be it dice or landraiders

How far is too far?

When you pull a knife

If it gets to the point of destorying a friendship, or getting on the bad side of some one you do not know. Then i would say its gone a little to far.

I'd think something has gone wrong when a dice roll can't fix you rules problem.

I think something has gone wrong when you need a dice roll to fix a rules problem.

In regards to the rule, it says if all models 3" move in an initiative step is insufficient to bring them into base, so 3" + 3" = 6" then the combat is over and all steps are lost. You then resolve the combat and determine fall back and sweeping advance etc. AFTER that you do an end of combat pile in to bring the remaining models that did not fall back into base to base.

So he was wrong, even not being in base to base you would have resolved the combat, then done a second end of combat pile-in, on both sides, so another 6". All told if they squad is somehow out of 9-12" then that was a crazy squad.

I think if you're right, and you're at a tournament, and the TO comes over you've brought the arguement as far as it should need to go. your TO should know the rules and make a calling, not just let the arguement continue.

If you're just playing casually, argue for a bit, keep it down, and try to resolve it peacefully. It's gone too far when you start yelling or someone just straight up stops caring about the rule. Then it's not fun for anyone anymore.

 sing your life wrote:
I'd think something has gone wrong when a dice roll can't fix you rules problem.

Why should it need that at all? These problems only seem to stem from GW's rulesets, that all come with their "On a 4+ I get to cheat" clause that GW feel is their get outta jail free card for not making professional well written rules and just churning out the same hippy-dippy rubbish.

With properly written rules these ever escalating nerdfights would not nearly come up as often.

It's only too far when one of you is missing a testicle and the other is a bloody smear on the floor.

In a tournament: too far is pushing it after a TO has ruled (even if incorrectly, it happens).

In a friendly game: Too far is as soon as it looks like people are getting heated. It's a game meant to have fun. If my opponent and i disagree on rules interpretations, i propose a roll off, and we can discuss it post game for future reference / faq searching, etc.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Why should it need that at all? These problems only seem to stem from GW's rulesets, that all come with their "On a 4+ I get to cheat" clause that GW feel is their get outta jail free card for not making professional well written rules and just churning out the same hippy-dippy rubbish.

With properly written rules these ever escalating nerdfights would not nearly come up as often.

This. The problem of "how far is too far" only exists with GW games. With games that are made by professional game designers the answer to every rule question is to read the rules again and do what they say.

"I don't think it works that way... (Check rulebook)"
"Still disagree. No big deal - Hey! TO! Need a ruling."

If you disagree with the TO bring it up between rounds.

Goes too far when fists start swinging. Usually a quick look through the relevant BRB/codex/FAQ will solve most problems. After that call the TO.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
I'd think something has gone wrong when a dice roll can't fix you rules problem.

Why should it need that at all? These problems only seem to stem from GW's rulesets, that all come with their "On a 4+ I get to cheat" clause that GW feel is their get outta jail free card for not making professional well written rules and just churning out the same hippy-dippy rubbish.

With properly written rules these ever escalating nerdfights would not nearly come up as often.

Back to this facile argument? Show us where all of these perfect rulesets are, where there are combinations of rules that fall into conflict. Please, show us how bad GW rules are?

@Solo: For a near perfect ruleset, I'd direct your attention to MTG or WM/H to a lesser extent. For the conflicts in GW's rules, see the YMDC Forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To deny their existence is silly IMO.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
@Solo: For a near perfect ruleset, I'd direct your attention to MTG or WM/H to a lesser extent. For the conflicts in GW's rules, see the YMDC Forum.

To deny their existence is silly IMO.

Ah! So satisfy my craving for battling miniatures, is should start playing a card game! How did I not see that? He wasn't saying that GWs flaws don't exist, but that these "perfect rules sets" that people go on about aren't as common as people insist.

 Goliath wrote:
Ah! So satisfy my craving for battling miniatures, is should start playing a card game! How did I not see that? He wasn't saying that GWs flaws don't exist, but that these "perfect rules sets" that people go on about aren't as common as people insist.

If that's the case, then I apologize for my own misunderstanding. But why not look to a card game for a good ruleset? It's not like that the tight rules are tied to the format a game is played, but rather on the company's rule designers/play-testers/etc. GW could produce a much clearer ruleset, but they really have no incentive to do so.

I feel like this question has great makings for a "You might be a redneck..." type thread.

You may have gone too far arguing the rules if:

...you move to different sides of the mountain and start a feud that lasts generations.
...genitals start getting pulled out.
...you turn your best friend's scrotum into a knapsack.
...people start taking bets.
...you can no longer be buried in a church cemetery.
...small children form around you in a ring shouting "Fight! Fight!"
...you wake up the next morning with a mushroom-shaped tramp stamp.
...people take your picture, put captions on it, and three years later it surfaces on the front page of Reddit.
...you are now required to inform the police whenever you move to a new neighborhood.

 Lansirill wrote:
I feel like this question has great makings for a "You might be a redneck..." type thread.

You may have gone too far arguing the rules if:

...you move to different sides of the mountain and start a feud that lasts generations.
...genitals start getting pulled out.
...you turn your best friend's scrotum into a knapsack.
...people start taking bets.
...you can no longer be buried in a church cemetery.
...small children form around you in a ring shouting "Fight! Fight!"
...you wake up the next morning with a mushroom-shaped tramp stamp.
...people take your picture, put captions on it, and three years later it surfaces on the front page of Reddit.
...you are now required to inform the police whenever you move to a new neighborhood.

I lol'd. Have an exalt!

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
I'd think something has gone wrong when a dice roll can't fix you rules problem.

Why should it need that at all? These problems only seem to stem from GW's rulesets, that all come with their "On a 4+ I get to cheat" clause that GW feel is their get outta jail free card for not making professional well written rules and just churning out the same hippy-dippy rubbish.

With properly written rules these ever escalating nerdfights would not nearly come up as often.

Back to this facile argument? Show us where all of these perfect rulesets are, where there are combinations of rules that fall into conflict. Please, show us how bad GW rules are?

It doesn't have to be "perfect". Nearly every game I've ever played has had better written rules than this - and the only one where the rules were unwieldy was Star Fleet Battles.

 Goliath wrote:
Ah! So satisfy my craving for battling miniatures, is should start playing a card game! How did I not see that?

What does cards vs. miniatures have to do with anything? The point is that it's entirely possible to create complex game rules without needing to resort to "on a 4+ you get to cheat". GW's poor rules quality is entirely caused by their own laziness and incompetence.

He wasn't saying that GWs flaws don't exist, but that these "perfect rules sets" that people go on about aren't as common as people insist.

Sure, there are more bad rule sets than perfect ones. But that doesn't change the fact that GW are on the low end because they don't care enough to do better.

And, according to another thread I can't find right now, many of those "perfect ones" are so complex that it is hard to record batreps. How comllicated does a game need to be in order to provide the daily dosenof fun?

Just because something has no tolerance for errors doesn't necessarily make it perfect. A Luger pistol has individually fitted parts and is smooth as silk, until it gets dirty. An M1911 is a poorly fitted pistol, but it works no matter what condition it is in. A loose ruleset allows for the inevitable rules clash to be negotiated with more ease than one that alledges to have predicted every single conflict. Flexibility is key.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And, according to another thread I can't find right now, many of those "perfect ones" are so complex that it is hard to record batreps.

What does that have to do with anything? Recording batreps has nothing to do with the goals of the game.

Also, as counter-examples: MTG and X-Wing both have far fewer problems than 40k. X-Wing is a simple game (that still has plenty of strategic depth) that can be printed in ~30 pages (half pictures) and learned in 15 minutes even without previous gaming experience. Total number of rule conflicts I've had? Zero. And then MTG solves the complexity problem by providing a basic rulebook that is good for most "casual" games, and a set of complete tournament rules that most people only use to answer rule disputes from the basic rules. That way most of the complexity is hidden from the average player until they need it, but every rule question still has a single indisputable answer.

How comllicated does a game need to be in order to provide the daily dosenof fun?

There is no minimum level of complexity. GW's games aren't poorly written because they're too simple, they're poorly written because GW doesn't bother to try to make them any better. That's why there are constantly FAQs for things that should have been caught before the book was printed.

Again, X-Wing is the counter-example: simple, more fun than 40k, and rule arguments are almost nonexistent.

Just because something has no tolerance for errors doesn't necessarily make it perfect. A Luger pistol has individually fitted parts and is smooth as silk, until it gets dirty. An M1911 is a poorly fitted pistol, but it works no matter what condition it is in. A loose ruleset allows for the inevitable rules clash to be negotiated with more ease than one that alledges to have predicted every single conflict. Flexibility is key.

That's a terrible analogy for two reasons:

1) The 1911's "poor fit" improves function by letting it work in rough conditions, something important for a military weapon. It's a deliberate design decision that helps achieve an important goal, not simply the result of poor manufacturing techniques. GW games, on the other hand, have terrible rules because GW doesn't care enough to make better ones (and why bother, when people like you will praise them for putting out garbage?), not because making ambiguous and/or conflicting rules improves gameplay.

2) The 1911's "poor fit" doesn't prevent it from working. That's entirely different from GW games, where their poorly written rules lead to arguments and people not having fun (which, after all, is the point of a game).

 Haight wrote:
In a tournament: too far is pushing it after a TO has ruled (even if incorrectly, it happens).

Pretty much this.

TO makes a call, it's done. You can approach them later and talk it
out, but for that day and for that call, that's how the rule works.

 KoganStyle wrote:
I think something has gone wrong when you need a dice roll to fix a rules problem.

Yeah but thats a bad game system problem.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
@Solo: For a near perfect ruleset, I'd direct your attention to MTG or WM/H to a lesser extent. For the conflicts in GW's rules, see the YMDC Forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To deny their existence is silly IMO.

Warmachine and Hordes is NOT a near perfect ruleset. It's a good ruleset, it has never been near perfect.

Or are we forgetting the old days of what happens when a berserk shadowshifting bane knight kills a model with the effect that lets it attack before dying (forget its name at the moment)? If you don't recall that, or didn't play at the time, essentially it was unresolvable timing sequence wise. Completely f'ing unresolvable. The Infernals and Devs basically had to say "Look we know this is unresolvable logically according to timing sequence, but this is the way it was meant to resolve, so resolve it this way". There have been many rulings in WM/H FAQ (which btw in both editions is many, many pages long) that "worked because we say so (we meaning the infernals and the games rules development team)".


WM/H is a very good, but incredibly complex ruleset, and hiccups most certainly happen in it. It's absolutely not true that it's near perfect. MKII was all about eliminating a ruleset that had gotten too complex for it's playerbase acceptance (and i'm speaking from experience, I used to be an Infernal, i came in at the very tail end of the Pirates faction book, and stayed on through Domination. I worked on MKII for a really long time - i probably wrote literally thousands of pages of design feedback, and likely drove Kevin, and later DC, insane ).



Even calling Magic the Gathering a near perfect ruleset is very very debateable - remember at one point they basically had to say "Okay the pool of rules and cards has gotten so complex that we effectively have to have many sub rule sets governing types of play and effectively which cards are legal for each subset". That is not a sign of a perfect ruleset. That's a sign of balance giving way to release schedule - i don't mean that pejoratively either, it's a smart business model. That said, at some point Magic basically said "Okay, this has become too bloated to effectively and continually balance our game in one unilateral way, we are going to have to chop this up a bit."

Don't get me wrong i'm not bashing either game, both have excellent designers working for them and very good ruleset. In absolutely no way are either perfect or even close to it. There's no such thing in any game where your rule design model is prefaced with the variable that there will be a constant stream of new, innovative things, coming out in perpetuity.


A perfect (or near perfect, really) rule set is Chess.

 Haight wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
@Solo: For a near perfect ruleset, I'd direct your attention to MTG or WM/H to a lesser extent. For the conflicts in GW's rules, see the YMDC Forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To deny their existence is silly IMO.

Warmachine and Hordes is NOT a near perfect ruleset. It's a good ruleset, it has never been near perfect.

Or are we forgetting the old days of what happens when a berserk shadowshifting bane knight kills a model with the effect that lets it attack before dying (forget its name at the moment)? If you don't recall that, or didn't play at the time, essentially it was unresolvable timing sequence wise. Completely f'ing unresolvable. The Infernals and Devs basically had to say "Look we know this is unresolvable logically according to timing sequence, but this is the way it was meant to resolve, so resolve it this way". There have been many rulings in WM/H FAQ (which btw in both editions is many, many pages long) that "worked because we say so (we meaning the infernals and the games rules development team)".

And?

It was from Mk1 (IIRC), so is now completely irrelevant to the current ruleset. Also, PP are light years ahead of GW in actually resolving these corner case scenarios. GW prefer to let them stew for months or even years at a time before even bothering to address them (if at all). To compare the rules issues that arise from WMH to 40k is just asinine, the evidence is right there in their respective YMDC forums. Look at how many issues have arisen from the SM codex that more than likely would have been caught very easily with more thorough proofreading and/or playtesting. Missing out the option for special weapons in Command Squads? That's a fething schoolboy error right there. Something a company that is supposedly at the top of its industry should be ashamed of.

 Haight wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
@Solo: For a near perfect ruleset, I'd direct your attention to MTG or WM/H to a lesser extent. For the conflicts in GW's rules, see the YMDC Forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To deny their existence is silly IMO.

Warmachine and Hordes is NOT a near perfect ruleset. It's a good ruleset, it has never been near perfect.

In my defense, I did say to a lesser extent, as compared to 40k. Would you prefer if I used the term, "more perfect?"

Haight wrote:Or are we forgetting the old days of what happens when a berserk shadowshifting bane knight kills a model with the effect that lets it attack before dying (forget its name at the moment)? If you don't recall that, or didn't play at the time, essentially it was unresolvable timing sequence wise. Completely f'ing unresolvable. The Infernals and Devs basically had to say "Look we know this is unresolvable logically according to timing sequence, but this is the way it was meant to resolve, so resolve it this way". There have been many rulings in WM/H FAQ (which btw in both editions is many, many pages long) that "worked because we say so (we meaning the infernals and the games rules development team)".


WM/H is a very good, but incredibly complex ruleset, and hiccups most certainly happen in it. It's absolutely not true that it's near perfect. MKII was all about eliminating a ruleset that had gotten too complex for it's playerbase acceptance (and i'm speaking from experience, I used to be an Infernal, i came in at the very tail end of the Pirates faction book, and stayed on through Domination. I worked on MKII for a really long time - i probably wrote literally thousands of pages of design feedback, and likely drove Kevin, and later DC, insane ).

No argument with this. It shows what a miniatures company can do to create a better ruleset. If GW were willing to take these steps, people in general would have less issues with GW's rules. WM/H's ruleset may only be "good" but that's still better written than 40k's (and I still like 40k more, go figure).

Haight wrote:Even calling Magic the Gathering a near perfect ruleset is very very debateable - remember at one point they basically had to say "Okay the pool of rules and cards has gotten so complex that we effectively have to have many sub rule sets governing types of play and effectively which cards are legal for each subset". That is not a sign of a perfect ruleset. That's a sign of balance giving way to release schedule - i don't mean that pejoratively either, it's a smart business model. That said, at some point Magic basically said "Okay, this has become too bloated to effectively and continually balance our game in one unilateral way, we are going to have to chop this up a bit."

I have to disagree with this. MTG has a official sanctioned tournament formats, but the breakdown of that rotation has very little to do with the well written ruleset they have. If that were true, they wouldn't bother to address rules issues with the very few non-tournament legal cards. For example, the card Shahrazad is banned in all tournament formats, yet the MTG comprehensive rules still have an entire section devoted to it. Or all the Ante cards. Both are still maintained and updated as new rules/sets get released. Yet both completely banned from tournament play.

Haight wrote:Don't get me wrong i'm not bashing either game, both have excellent designers working for them and very good ruleset. In absolutely no way are either perfect or even close to it. There's no such thing in any game where your rule design model is prefaced with the variable that there will be a constant stream of new, innovative things, coming out in perpetuity.


A perfect (or near perfect, really) rule set is Chess.

I didn't want to mention the "C" word, but yeah, that's about the most prefect ruleset.

The gamers are also at fault as well, sometimes we tend to make the rules more complicated in order to possibly gain an advantage by the way we "interpret" them. Additionally, some of us should try to get a job at GW and help innovate the rules or even talk GW up enough to where they completely rewrite the rules.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And, according to another thread I can't find right now, many of those "perfect ones" are so complex that it is hard to record batreps. How comllicated does a game need to be in order to provide the daily dosenof fun?

That's assuming Warhammer and 40K are both simpler than other games, and I don't think they are, it's just the typical gamer will be more familiar with them and will have internalised their complex rules (the relative WS skills needed to hit feel easy to me because I've memorised the formula, which doesn't make the chart any less clunky to a novice).

Let us know when you find that thread; I'm sure it will prove your point exactly, and you won't turn out to have been the least bit hyperbolic in your summary.

 Chris_P wrote:
The gamers are also at fault as well, sometimes we tend to make the rules more complicated in order to possibly gain an advantage by the way we "interpret" them. Additionally, some of us should try to get a job at GW and help innovate the rules or even talk GW up enough to where they completely rewrite the rules.

But again, that's only possible because the rules have room for innocent or malicious misreadings in the first place.

Not wanting to be the fanboy, but when I played (5th ed) 40K, all games would be interrupted at least once by a dive for the rulebooks, and a debate over what this particular rule "meant". Since started playing Warmachine, I can't think of a rules question that couldn't be resolved by flipping open the book and checking what the rule actually said, and applying that.

Perfect? No. Better? Irrefutably.