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.

Ignore.

Never mind...

Not going to bother reading any of the other posts as I dont think its really worth it.

But well I play by raw as much as possible. Infact if I find out I did something wrong I will let my previous opponent know that I fecked up and I now give them the game that we played befor.

Now this is not saying that im a nice guy. if osme one for example brings a leman russ battle tank to a friendly game yes I will let him use it even if its kitted out with pask and everything.

In a tourny no I would probably not let them unless I knew they wernt very good at the game. It wouldent really matter to me. Can i be an ass hat sometimes when it comes to a tourny yes. but well I payed the money to play competitivly. I will very much do so.

Now this is not due to me being forced into playing a certian way or anything like that. Honestly if your a reasonable person in alot of cases I will let things fly. but maybe thats just me >.>

Golga wrote:Not going to bother reading any of the other posts as I dont think its really worth it.

But well I play by raw as much as possible. Infact if I find out I did something wrong I will let my previous opponent know that I fecked up and I now give them the game that we played befor.

Now this is not saying that im a nice guy. if osme one for example brings a leman russ battle tank to a friendly game yes I will let him use it even if its kitted out with pask and everything.

In a tourny no I would probably not let them unless I knew they wernt very good at the game. It wouldent really matter to me. Can i be an ass hat sometimes when it comes to a tourny yes. but well I payed the money to play competitivly. I will very much do so.

We all play by the rules as written as much as possible, it is where areas of grey exist, some of us employ that oft vaulted but rarely seen ability called Common Sense.

And in a tournament you would not have that luxuary, you would be playing by the ruling and adjudication of the event organisers.

And there is nothing wrong with being a nice guy.

Oh this is true but if they did not have the ruling of the leman russ or something else for the matter in the tourny package . And my opponent came to the table with said leman russ. I might object and have to call a judge over to point out the bad apple.

And as for your common sense part. Its not quiet as common as you seem to think.

Golga wrote:Oh this is true but if they did not have the ruling of the leman russ or something else for the matter in the tourny package . And my opponent came to the table with said leman russ. I might object and have to call a judge over to point out the bad apple.

There is nothing 'bad apple' there, there is no 'foul play' in someone with a codex that clearly states 0-1 leman russ bringing his tank, I would suspect anyone calling foul would actually be seeking an unfair advantage.

Golga wrote:And as for your common sense part. Its not quiet as common as you seem to think.

And that entirely depends on the company you keep.

Personally, I'm very much in favour of rules that make sense and are internally consistent over and above RAW.

That said, I think it's very important to examine the RAW carefully as to it's precise meaning rather then interpreting it how you'd like it to work or how it 'ought' to work. Then you can make a measured decision to break from the RAW to, in your own opinion, improve the game or to counter edition slippage in the older codexes.

Even the fervant RAW sticklers are prepared to compromise RAW for the sake of the game. I've even gotten Gwar! to agree to that in a couple of cases.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Golga wrote:And as for your common sense part. Its not quiet as common as you seem to think.

And that entirely depends on the company you keep.

It doesn't depend at all on the company you keep. It depends on whether or not you're willing to acknowledge when someone else's version of what is just 'common sense' is as valid as yours, despite being completely different.

"it's common sense" can be great way of saying "my interpretation is correct and you're stupid if you don't agree".

Much better, I think, to say "The rules say XXX but wouldn't XYX work better?"

Oh, I don't think it has to be quite to that degree. Shirley, we can find something in the middle that we both agree with.

You know, or roll a D6.

RxGhost wrote:Oh, I don't think it has to be quite to that degree. Shirley, we can find something in the middle that we both agree with.

You know, or roll a D6.

Which is fine for keeping a game moving. Doesn't tell you what the rule's actually supposed to be, though.

Would make for some fun in YMDC, though:

Some Guy wrote:Yeah, I need to know if I can take a Leman Russ in my WH army, 'cause my friend says I can't.

Some Other Guy wrote:Ok, I rolled a D6 for it, and it came up a 3, so your friend is right...

I don't like the "roll a D6" - I've always found that it's better to check and interpret the rules correctly or to agree to deviate from the rules.

I only ever see the "roll a D6" being used by TFG against someone he thinks he can bully. Conversation goes:
Newb - I don't think that's right.
TFG - It totally is, I been playing for xxx.
Newb - I'm going to try to find the rule.
TFG - There's no time for that - just roll a D6 for it.

Doesn't do anyone any good. And for those few very rare occassions when there is a genuine oddity that's not covered by the rules you should be able to reach some sort of conclusion or compromise with your opponent.

Polonius wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Frazzled wrote:lets maintain Dakka Rule #1 on this thread. Politeness will be required from all parties discussing this.

Ok, but what about:

JonnyDD wrote:the 40k YMDC stuff is almost entirely TFG-manufactured BS.

That seems like a completely general, hopelessly off-base and wonderfully inflammatory statement to make. Certainly not what one might call 'polite'.

As far as I've been able to tell, Rule #1 is enforced mostly against unusually rude behavior, not measured against any set community standard, but against each posters normal pattern of behavior. If a person is normally rude, abrasive, and condescending, than it takes something really outrageous to trigger a problem. When a poster is normally polite, reasoned, and well meaning, nearly any breach of etiquette gets a PM warning.

Its more about
1. Did the thread get reported?
2. Did we notice it when casually reading?
3. Am I feeling crotchety today (auto yes for Frazzled)
4. Do I really hate that guy? (auto yes for Frazzled)
5. Do we feel the need to abuse our incrdible super powers? (auto yes for Frazzled)
6. Is the coffee I am drinking really good or just mediocre?

That plus a little free form calculus and there you go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Non mod)
I now have some issues with YMTC. In the past I have posted some simple questions. half the time they were immediately answered (excellent) half the time it turned into some esoteric girly fight and I truly regretted posting the thread in the first place.
Other times much of it looks like "how many angels on the head of a pin" arguments. Assigning intensive meanings to words from persons who are not professional writers, attempting to employ logic and word parsing to non legally crafted documents. Its unique and hostile.

As a Mod I think this area is far and above the one that gets reported the most.

And on a personal level, calling someone a cheater because they do not agree with your personal view is not: 1.) conducive to discussion; 2.) conducive to reality. Certain parties bark the phrase "cheating" way too much when they wouldn't in real life. If someone called me a cheater in real life its going to get bad, maybe police being called bad. After all, thats the stereotypical ending to a bad card game. Someone gets called cheater and a fight (or worse) breaks out. Cheating requires intent.

The suggested 'roll a d6, flip a coin etc' has always been 'if you and your opponent cannot come to an understanding'.

So if sensible discussion on the issue and your opposing viewpoints can't be reached, then rather than argue or throw your toys out of the pram, then just roll for it and get on with it.

To refer to someone who suggests a d6 roll to resolve the unresolvable as TFG is interesting, since I would call someone spending hours and hours trying to find a nuance in the rules to gain advantage over the other TFG. Different strokes I guess.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To refer to someone who suggests a d6 roll to resolve the unresolvable as TFG is interesting, since I would call someone spending hours and hours trying to find a nuance in the rules to gain advantage over the other TFG. Different strokes I guess.

See, that's why we have YMDC: so you don't have to spend hours arguing with your opponent when you could be just getting on with your game.

That would be so if something were resolved on YMTC. Its rarely the case.

Frazzled wrote:That would be so if something were resolved on YMTC. Its rarely the case.

To be honest, I think that's an exaggeration. There are a lot of threads that have a simple answer and are over and done with. Certainly more than turn into 14 page epics.

But even those page-turners do serve a purpose: They show that a given rule is open to multiple interpretations, and that sometimes people will have a completely different interpretation to the one that you've always just taken for granted as being correct.

And over their course, they generally turn up pretty much every possible interpretation.

So whether or not everyone winds up agreeing with any one of those interpretations, people go away from it having seen any argument that is likely to surface, can make up their mind how they would prefer to play it, and are thus equipped to deal with the situation should they ever find themselves facing someone who doesn't play it the way they do.

Of course, there is also the occasional thread that is started purely as a mental exercise... but if you're participating in those, you really should take it for what it is, rather than expecting it to actually go anywhere useful.

The Defenestrator wrote:I don't think I would be too far off suspecting many fellow members of this so-called RAW crew don't actually play the way they argue in the forums. I know that, despite taking part in conversations regarding the finer points of putting Grey Knights in a Valkyrie, I would actually be pretty ambivalent over a FLGS player doing so in a game.

Beg to differ. Some might not, but a lot *DO*. Been there. Seen it. It happens at tournaments. You might not see it on Wednesday night at the FLGS but you damn sure see it on game day at the RTT.

insaniak wrote:

Frazzled wrote:That would be so if something were resolved on YMTC. Its rarely the case.

To be honest, I think that's an exaggeration. There are a lot of threads that have a simple answer and are over and done with. Certainly more than turn into 14 page epics.

But even those page-turners do serve a purpose: They show that a given rule is open to multiple interpretations, and that sometimes people will have a completely different interpretation to the one that you've always just taken for granted as being correct.

And over their course, they generally turn up pretty much every possible interpretation.

So whether or not everyone winds up agreeing with any one of those interpretations, people go away from it having seen any argument that is likely to surface, can make up their mind how they would prefer to play it, and are thus equipped to deal with the situation should they ever find themselves facing someone who doesn't play it the way they do.

Of course, there is also the occasional thread that is started purely as a mental exercise... but if you're participating in those, you really should take it for what it is, rather than expecting it to actually go anywhere useful.

I agree its an exaggeration. However to many thats the image that comes off.
Further I've seen posts where "how is this actually played" was at the heart fot he intiial post, because the poster did not know what the situation was. It wasn't an esoteric debate, but how someone would play it in the real world. I've seen that original poster be attacked, even called the dread "cheater." As noted I've quit asking questions on YMTC at this point.

insaniak wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To refer to someone who suggests a d6 roll to resolve the unresolvable as TFG is interesting, since I would call someone spending hours and hours trying to find a nuance in the rules to gain advantage over the other TFG. Different strokes I guess.

See, that's why we have YMDC: so you don't have to spend hours arguing with your opponent when you could be just getting on with your game.

Who argues about it? I've never been in discussion about the rules to that extent, we have certainly debated and discussed, I wouldn't fething game with someone who'd actually argue about it. The only arguing and hostility I see about the rules IS IN YMDC. Sweet FA seems to get resolved there, just some pricks stabbing their fingers at slanted aspects of the written word and taking them as truths and decrying anyone that deviates from their precious little ideal as 'wrong' or 'cheating'. There is no room for debate whilst these fascistic elements dominate the area of the forum, not as the voice of the majority as they seem to think, but merely as the loudest and most aggressive voice.

What pains me most is that new playersl, especially younger ones, will be walking into their friends house, lfgs or gw and waving some printed off piece of paper saying "SEE, UR WRONG, DAKKA SAID SO!!1!". This sort of elitism of the anally retentive and wordly exploitative is a damnable reflection on the hobby.

Actual debate has been removed from that area of the forum and replaced with who can shout the loudest. It's a shame and I don't believe for one second that's what is coming out of that area of the forum is actually what was intended of it.

In Insaniak's defense there are some good threads that are just flat out helpful:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/252778.page

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Who argues about it? I've never been in discussion about the rules to that extent, we have certainly debated and discussed, I wouldn't fething game with someone who'd actually argue about it. The only arguing and hostility I see about the rules IS IN YMDC.

My mistake, then. I thought we had already established that not everyone arguing in YMDC is doing so to gain an advantage for themselves, so figured you were talking about arguments at the table.

Mayhaps a title note would be helpful in future posts?

Theoretical
Real World-how does this play?
Quick help-how XXX work?

insaniak wrote:

TBD wrote:So if RAW doesn't apply all the time to the set of rules that are your own country's justice system, then why should it automatically apply to a miniatures game?

Without trying to be nasty in any way, this statement is a perfect example of the misconception that many posters seem to hold about YMDC.


Most of the posters in there, regardless of how much they may argue for RAW in a discussion of the rules, don't try to play by strict RAW.


We do try to apply it to discussions of the rules, because it's the only set benchmark we have. Etc.

Sure, your post is perfectly reasonable. If people treat it like that there shouldn't be any big problems.

I got the impression though that there are some others around who do seem a lot more fanatical and unreasonable about it, and that is why I commented. I do remember reading a while back that there actually are people who think disembarking from a Valkyrie should not be allowed at all (except with the chute), which obviously is taking it to the absurd.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
To refer to someone who suggests a d6 roll to resolve the unresolvable as TFG is interesting, since I would call someone spending hours and hours trying to find a nuance in the rules to gain advantage over the other TFG. Different strokes I guess.

That's fine but there are very few genuine unresolvables in the rules. Generally rule conflicts come down to poor or faulty reading/understanding of one or both conflicting rules.

Rolling a D6 does not help either party correct this problem and it seems to be often used by people who insist that their way is correct and refuse to budge despite their opponent actually finding and showing them the correct rules.

It's perfectly acceptable for "is that rhino 51% covered or 49%?" and stuff like that. Not for rules disputes which can be solved (in 99% of cases) by referring to the actual rules. (not the rule as I remember it, the rule as it ought to work, the rule from last edition or the rule that I read in a FAQ on the internet but I don't have a copy)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TBD wrote:I do remember reading a while back that there actually are people who think disembarking from a Valkyrie should not be allowed at all (except with the chute), which obviously is taking it to the absurd.

Actually, the rules don't allow it - you have to be within 2" of the hatch and the stand is too tall. There are a few rules that the Valk model just flat out destroys. (the rules were written with tanks/skimmers in mind - not flying things)

However, that lead to extensive discussion on how to work around that. Should the models deploy 2" as the crow flies? underneath the hatches (since that's a close as they can get)? touching the base?

There were lots of different interpretations of that since it's entirely not covered by the rules. Very helpful to see the many different ways that people intend to play the model.

Scott-S6 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
To refer to someone who suggests a d6 roll to resolve the unresolvable as TFG is interesting, since I would call someone spending hours and hours trying to find a nuance in the rules to gain advantage over the other TFG. Different strokes I guess.

That's fine but there are very few genuine unresolvables in the rules. Generally rule conflicts come down to poor or faulty reading/understanding of one or both conflicting rules.

There's your problem. 1. You believe that when reality (TM) isn't like that. Again these aren't technical manuals or legal documents which is have been tested and proofed in courts word by word, they are scriblings from a company that views rules as, at best, secondary. ; 2) the tone of that is actually pretty hostile.

Frazzled wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
To refer to someone who suggests a d6 roll to resolve the unresolvable as TFG is interesting, since I would call someone spending hours and hours trying to find a nuance in the rules to gain advantage over the other TFG. Different strokes I guess.

That's fine but there are very few genuine unresolvables in the rules. Generally rule conflicts come down to poor or faulty reading/understanding of one or both conflicting rules.

There's your problem. 1. You believe that when reality (TM) isn't like that. Again these aren't technical manuals or legal documents which is have been tested and proofed in courts word by word, they are scriblings from a company that views rules as, at best, secondary. ; 2) the tone of that is actually pretty hostile.

To bring the whole thing back from a standard rant about RAW to what my OP was about, I'm honestly starting to think that for some people, the illusion that GW rules are well written enough to stand up to that level of scrutiny and analysis is preferable to the thought of having something be resolved by a pre-game chat.

Frazzled wrote:Mayhaps a title note would be helpful in future posts?

Theoretical
Real World-how does this play?
Quick help-how XXX work?

I'd like to resuggest my tiered system.

A RAW debate YMTC, and a 'separate but equal' one where we discuss different interpretations of rules, and how we actually play.

I think that interpretation of how well the rules are written is largely choice. If you don't want to think they're fine as is, then you certainly won't see them that way, but you'll probably never be satisfied, even if GW suddenly start caring.

As for the earlier assertion that it's often TFG who wants to roll a d6 for it, I see that all the time, which is why I continually refer to people who choose to ignore the rules for any sort of gain as cheating - to me, insisting a d6 is rolled because you aren't sure enough in your interpretation of the rule to withstand scrutiny IS cheating - you're trying to escape the likely consequence of being told you'r wrong.

I roll more than enough dice in a game, I'm not hinging a ruling on it, until a judge tells me too. I don't want to either win or lose based on 50-50 chance. It eliminates player skill as a factor.

You can find plenty of quotes on here with me railing on GW's appalling rule-writing style.

None-the-less, the vast majority of rules conflicts are not actually conflicts at all and most genuine rule issues are the result of edition creepage (from the 4th and 3rd edition codexes still in use).

There are a couple of known issues where the language is too vague to be definitive either way or where the rules simply have nothing to say on the subject but these tend to be very specific instances that come up extremely infrequently.


You can see this by skimming YMDC. The vast majority of threads have a definitive answer with quote in a couple of posts. The ones that don't are one of the three cases above (e.g. edition slip: tau target locks, vague: astropath stacking, not mentioned: infantry entering a building which has enemy jump infantry on the roof)

Per Polonius's post, I have added a new thread in YMTC itself on thoughts on improvements.

Elassar-why do you believepeople wanting to D6 are trying to evade being wrong? We've done that many times. Often when we're not certain about a rule opr have differnt interpretations we'll d6 it for the game and search up what the rule really is later.

Frazzled wrote:Elassar-why do you believepeople wanting to D6 are trying to evade being wrong? We've done that many times. Often when we're not certain about a rule opr have differnt interpretations we'll d6 it for the game and search up what the rule really is later.

If your not sure about the rule then why roll the D6?

Either pull out your rulebook while he's doing something else or just do what seems most reasonable.