There is always a lot of debate about rules in Warhammer. Some of
it is justified; it's hard to make up a rule system that will work across
thousands of gaming tables. The rules governing wargames as opposed to a
computer game have to be much more flexible to account for the creativity of
players. My friends and I often play custom games of 40k.
But the main rule
set is designed to allow players to meet total strangers and have a common
understanding of the game. This is where rules problems come into effect; A
miss understanding or different interpretation of the rules can not only bog
down a game but ruin players fun.
The common way to
resolve rules problems is the "Rules as Written" method. RaW seems
like it should be the be all and end all of rules settlements but there is a
massive problem with it; The players themselves. Being a competitive game
players are always looking for advantages. The worst players are the ones who
use the rules as a weapon. They often will quote little loop-holes and weird
order of operations arguments to explain why you can't or they can do an
action. Things like
"We are
playing a 750 point game and I brought my Black Templar but I didn't want to
use the lame Emperor's Champion model so I only brought 749 points. My codex
trumps the rule book and it says ARMY"
Now whats wrong with that argument? The logic is fairly sound.
All Black Templar
Armies that are 750 points and higher are armies that must take an Emperors
Champion
All black Templar
armies that are my army are Not Black templar armies that are 750 points and
higher
All armies that
are my army are armies that do not need to take the emperors champion
While the logic is
sound the wheels fall of this particular argument have nothing to do ether
premise or the conclusion. It's the Ethical implications within the argument.
What the argument is really saying is;
"I want
to use an option that is superior to the Emperors Champion; I am going to fudge
my numbers so the Emperors Champion isn't required by the rules as is exactly
written."
Another why to say
this is "I am going to do what I want to win and fuck you."
The simple truth
is that Wargames are supposed to challenge players on the table top. Players
are supposed outwit each other using the models on the table. You're supposed
to take an army and maneuver it to victory above the table play is
reprehensible. When players start looking for exploits and work arounds to
stack the odds in their favour they are actively ruining the game. If you are
playing the game in a way where a lot of people argue with you; chances are
what you’re doing is wrong. It may not be wrong by some stretch of logic. But
it could me wrong a morale level.
A personnel example I have of this type of behavior is a player
trying to keep Abaddon from joining a unit of Plague marines. The argument
being that while having the mark of chaos ascendant Abaddon had all the Marks
of chaos. But the rules say a model may join a unit with a different mark.
There was an argument for both sides (since remedied by way of FAQ) but he
wanted to win so he argued until he was blue in the face that Abaddon had to be
“on his own”.
Keep the battle on the table. Resist the urge to try and use the
rules as the decisive weapon in your list.
