Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Rule Lawyers. We all know what they are. Some people love them, some hate them, some simply ignore them. Without lawyers many of the discussions on this and many other boards would be short and sweet, and probably very dry. Lawyers add some spice to the discussions, or fuel to the fire depending on your point of view.
I'm not writing this to knock the lawyers. I appreciate their aid, most of the time, in deciphering GW's poorly written often contradictory rules. Issues often come up as to the intent of a rule or how something should work in 40k compared to the real world. To me it sounds a lot like politicians (in the US) who make legal judgements based on "what the Founding Fathers intended" or at least what they want them to have intended. This seems to reinforce the concept of the rules of 40k being akin to laws in the real world. In the real world the interpretation and application of laws are often a complicated mess, as is often the case with the rules of 40k.
The overriding problem I have, maybe more with GW than with the lawyers, is the fact that there is no defined list of terminology for 40k. If you read a real law the first thing you will find is a precise definition of all the terminology used in that law, especially if a given term is used differently than in other previous laws or in everyday usage. It is these definitions and their application which are used to argue various points of contention brought about by the law in question. Unfortunately this doesn't exist in 40k. There are explanations of various terms throughout the BBB and many codices, such as: what an IC is, what a barrage weapon is, what an armor save is, etc. But many definitions are lacking as evidenced by some recent threads: what is a penetrating hit?, does a deepstriking skimmer count as moving fast?, does a powerfist work against a monolith?, etc.
My point is this, how can lawyers properly argue many of the problems found in the 40k rules when there isn't a standard definition for most of the terms used? I'm not saying there are NO definitions, mainly that they are inadequate to describe how many of the rules should work in unusual, yet fairly common, game circumstances. I would like to see GW publish a list of terminology and precise definitions to clear up some of these problems. Knowing what the designers understand these terms to mean when they write up the rules would be very useful to all players in trying to sort out how to apply the rules properly in confusing situations. This would cut down on the need for FAQs, which GW can't be bothered to update. Imagine the chaos if in every court the judge and the lawyers had to guess at what the exact meaning of every law was because there was no precise definition of terms such as murder, robbery, rape, etc. Actually, it isn't that hard to imagine, just read the questions that come up on LO and most other 40k forums.
The very fact that there is no clear terminology allows the lawyers to prosper if it were all as simple as say monopoly (which isn't that siple when it comes to mortgages etc btw) then you wouldn't get rules lawyers. Furthermore lawyers in real life DO argue over definitions of crimes particularly relevant in cases involving S&M (can consent for someone to harm you be legal) that is why thewre are precedents where a judge decides on the proper inturpretation.Originally Posted by Lord Malachi
"God is dead" Nietzsche- 1886
"Nietzsche is dead" God- 1900
Why are there scams? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q71FLDIMBc8
Well you said it best yourself. Games workshop needs to clearly lay out the rules and update the errata correctly. This "40k rules help" forum almost always falls into rules lawyering, as many GW rules contradict previous ones, such as the tau drone rules. It's not a problem with the gamers, it's a problem with the game makers.
Ask yourself why in the world would you trust a win loss record? Playing them yourself is the only way to tell.
The true joy in the game is playing down to the last model, no matter the odds.
Well, the issue of Tau drones is kinda moot. The FAQ specifically says to use the Majority Toughness and Mixed Armour rules, so there's really no conflict anymore. The rules in the codex are simply overridden.
In general, though, what GW needs is to have meaningful and frequent dialogue with their customers. We really need to be able to express our problems with the rules and get rulings on what to do. There needs to be more official, printed erratas and FAQs that are easily available to everyone.
Why do the survivors remain anonymous -- as if cursed -- while the dead are revered? Why do we cling to what we lose while we ignore what we still hold?
Name none of the fallen, for they stood in our place, and stand there still in each moment of our lives.
--Duiker, "Deadhouse Gates"
I personally hate rules lawyers. Whenever I meet one I just say that if they enforce their petty stupid rules that are obvious miswording (like possessed needing to be summoned) I simply enforce every unclear rule in the game. They usually shut up about the time I get to terminators not actually wearing terminator armour.
And no rules lawyer arguments don't add spice in my opinion. Good rules arguments (like Tzeentch and veteran skills) can be fun but these kind of things aren't rules lawyering as their is no answer.
Check out my Codex: Farmyard Animals here!
If anyone wants any kind of help writing fluff for any kind of GW army just ask.
Malachi, I dont dissagree with your point, but according to the RULES this is off topic for this forum
Everything you have been told is a lie!