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.

Anyone else get into an argument with another player in your group where no matter how clear a rule or argument is, that person is either completely clueless or can only comprehend part of the argument and just latches on to it and that's all he or she refers to? More venting than anything else.

OomieCrusha wrote:
Anyone else get into an argument with another player in your group where no matter how clear a rule or argument is, that person is either completely clueless or can only comprehend part of the argument and just latches on to it and that's all he or she refers to? More venting than anything else.

I played with a guy in college who we said had 'two paragraph syndrome' because he seemed to only read the first paragraph of a rule, and consequently misinterpreted rules that had two or more paragraphs.

I always felt that it was pretty clear that to-wound rolls and penetration damage rolls are not interchangeable, and that 'preferred enemy lets you reroll 1s on to-hit and to-wound rolls' did not apply to the damage table. Was playing with my friends when one of them was hosing me with Punisher Pask, and rolled a '1' on his pen damage at a critical point. When he picked up the die to reroll it, I was like, 'wait, can he do that?' whipped out the book to check 'preferred enemy,' and then got into a back and forth that wounds =/= pen damage, which ended with me saying, 'no, I don't want to roll for it - you just can't do it.'

Which was where the argument ended, but I still felt like an ass for resorting to that. It'd be like something having fleshbane (letting you reroll failed wounds) suddenly make you that much more effective against armor too (unfortunately, I didn't think about the fleshbane example until well after the game was over).

And I'm going to feel really dumb if there's been a FAQ or errata that says preferred enemy works on the damage table too.

weeble1000 wrote:

OomieCrusha wrote:
Anyone else get into an argument with another player in your group where no matter how clear a rule or argument is, that person is either completely clueless or can only comprehend part of the argument and just latches on to it and that's all he or she refers to? More venting than anything else.

I played with a guy in college who we said had 'two paragraph syndrome' because he seemed to only read the first paragraph of a rule, and consequently misinterpreted rules that had two or more paragraphs.

Ouch. In this case, its an issue of trying to apply logic to a 40K rule- something that never goes well. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bookwrack wrote:
And I'm going to feel really dumb if there's been a FAQ or errata that says preferred enemy works on the damage table too.

As far as I know, you're right. Preferred enemy might give you an extra chance to hit the tank, but you'd need tank hunters for an extra chance to penetrate the armor.

OomieCrusha wrote:
Anyone else get into an argument with another player in your group where no matter how clear a rule or argument is, that person is either completely clueless or can only comprehend part of the argument and just latches on to it and that's all he or she refers to? More venting than anything else.

No. I save those types of arguments for at work and home. They happen there often enough.

When I am playing toy soldiers I try to not to argue much of anything. However, I only play people I know pretty welll and that helps too.

OomieCrusha wrote:
Anyone else get into an argument with another player in your group where no matter how clear a rule or argument is, that person is either completely clueless or can only comprehend part of the argument and just latches on to it and that's all he or she refers to? More venting than anything else.

Almost every gamer i've ever played that is outside of my playgroup.

Mostly kidding.

I know the type though. They find the seed of logic that justifies their position, and it's Ostrich-with-it's-head-in-sand to the rest.

What i love is the "it doesn't say i CAN'T do that". An old friend in the game design biz used to have a great retort to that : "Oh yeah ? The rules also don't say i can't hit you in the face with a toaster."

Yep. Unfortunately, there are some guys I've just learned to avoid/not play against, because they love to tailor rules to their benefit.

Very often.

There's someone in our group who will tend to purposely interperate rules in his favour in a situation, even if the rule is clearly written and he's obvious wrong. He's been known to hold up the game for a couple of hours has he scours rulebooks and codices to point out how he came to his specific conclusion or cite a FAQ or magazine printed amendment he totally forgot to bring, and if you still disagree with him in the end, he'll simply not continue the game without at the very least a roll off, giving himself a 50/50 chance of getting his way.

He'll then also read the rule the complete opposite way next time it comes up and favours you. Then go through the books for hours again to show you why. And then demand a roll off when he's wrong.

I don't play against him anymore.

OomieCrusha wrote:
Anyone else get into an argument with another player in your group where no matter how clear a rule or argument is, that person is either completely clueless or can only comprehend part of the argument and just latches on to it and that's all he or she refers to? More venting than anything else.

TDA on here lol

weeble1000 wrote:

OomieCrusha wrote:
Anyone else get into an argument with another player in your group where no matter how clear a rule or argument is, that person is either completely clueless or can only comprehend part of the argument and just latches on to it and that's all he or she refers to? More venting than anything else.

I played with a guy in college who we said had 'two paragraph syndrome' because he seemed to only read the first paragraph of a rule, and consequently misinterpreted rules that had two or more paragraphs.

That's dyslexia


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OomieCrusha wrote:
Anyone else get into an argument with another player in your group where no matter how clear a rule or argument is, that person is either completely clueless or can only comprehend part of the argument and just latches on to it and that's all he or she refers to? More venting than anything else.

We have an entire subforum entitled to this!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

Don't get me started.
One of my only opponents:
•Thinks literally every painted miniature (even pro painted) looks crappy compared to grey plastic.
•Thinks everything on the internet is a lie.
•Refuses to read his codex except when playing games
•Does not actually own a rulebook because "It's too expensive"

This is the average occurence when talking to him.

Me: "Well, with invisibility, an invisible Hammerpaladin squad is taking 0 wounds from a Wraithknight due to high initiative, and then dealing 3.25 wounds affer charging it. As long as they keep getting Invis off, Paladins can easily kill a WK."

Him: "Well this is a dice game, statistics don't matter."

 -Loki- wrote:
Very often.

There's someone in our group who will tend to purposely interperate rules in his favour in a situation, even if the rule is clearly written and he's obvious wrong. He's been known to hold up the game for a couple of hours has he scours rulebooks and codices to point out how he came to his specific conclusion or cite a FAQ or magazine printed amendment he totally forgot to bring, and if you still disagree with him in the end, he'll simply not continue the game without at the very least a roll off, giving himself a 50/50 chance of getting his way.

He'll then also read the rule the complete opposite way next time it comes up and favours you. Then go through the books for hours again to show you why. And then demand a roll off when he's wrong.

I don't play against him anymore.

I fsome one said roll-off or I quit, I just pack up.

They aren;t the perosn I want to spend a few hours with anyway.