Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Moderator: Anger Worm

Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby mauleed » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:23 pm

I'm too lazy to dig it up, but recently you said that you never engage in fantasy rules debates because of the 'most important rule'.

Having repeatedly reread it last night, I'm curious why.

I agree that it says keeping in the spirit of the game is more important than winning at all costs. But I don't see that they've defined 'keeping in the spirit of the game' as meaning to ignore unambiguous rules that are unpopular or not intuitive.

I does go on to say that in situations that lie outside the rules as written to make accomodations. But nothing about ignoring unambiguous rules for any reason whatsoever. In fact the exact wording of the 'most important rule' is 100% consistent with the stance I always take, which is follow the rules until you can't follow the rules, then come to an agreement.

So what am I missing?
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby Bauhaus » Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:27 pm

Point being that the game basically says that there may always be ambiguous rules (you don't know what rules will be ambiguous before you start because of situations, player POV, interpritations, etc).

It may be clear to you but not your opponent so apply the "spirit of the game" rule to all situations.
Blood for the Blood God!
User avatar
Bauhaus
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby mauleed » Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:38 pm

?

I'm not sure I get you dave. My read of it is that:

1. Spirit of the game is more important than winning at all costs. However nowhere is 'spirit of the game' defined as ignoring unambiguous rules (or defined at all).

2. In cases where the rules are ambiguous, come to an agreement.

But nowhere in the most important rule does it ever say to ignore an unambiguous rule for any reason.

And time and time again I see people saying that they will ignore unambiguous rules because they don't like them. Of course that doesn't take into account situations where just one party thinks the rule is ambiguous, but more often than not, people admit the rule is unambiguous, but they just don't like it.

I just wanted to know from Tom if he saw something in his read of it I did not. Tom and I generally see eye to eye on these things, so I wanted his take.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby Bauhaus » Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:07 am

What I'm saying is that just because the rule seems "unambiguous" to you (or me) doesn't mean that your opponent is going to feel the same way.

Generally, you're right though. Most Tournament Players know what rules are ambiguous and what ones aren't. They don't try to argue with you about "the rules". But I've played people (GW employees no less) who believe that you must measure from the edge of your movement tray, charge the nearest enemy, etc.
Blood for the Blood God!
User avatar
Bauhaus
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby mauleed » Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:09 am

Got ya.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby Flavius Infernus » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

Yah, what Dave said.

The sticky phrase in the rule for me is "situation that is not covered fully by the rules."

If you read that as a strict literalist, then that means anything that can't be answered by a sound deductive argument based on the rules: no problem.

But the phrase for me opens the door for those situations where the strict reading produces a result that players feel is "wonky" and inappropriate or unintended. It's a slightly different take on the idea of a situation "not covered fully by the rules," but still a good read to my way of thinking. Since the language of the most important rule is so open, it appears to me to allow pretty much any rule to be called into question.
User avatar
Flavius Infernus
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby mauleed » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:31 am

I'm not seeing that Tom. It seems crystal clear to me: it only applies to rules that are ambiguous, but certainly nothing about 'wonkyness' in there.

Can you expound?
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby -poxous » Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:21 pm

Calling any rule in question is not how I see "the most important rule". To me that little term is telling us "Hey tough guy IT'S A GAME have fun". If something comes up that can not be agreed on and there is no rule coverage then solve it in a way you both can live with.

Now making rules issues is a different bear to hunt all together :rollin
-poxous
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby mauleed » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:59 am

I agree with everything you just said Todd. Particularly the "there is no rule coverage" part.

But so often people, including you :rolleyes , use it when there is rules coverage, but you just don't like how it's covered.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: Tom, question about "the most important rule".

Postby -poxous » Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:27 am

and often people, like you Ed, muddy the waters to get ahead or to look smart on the internet.
-poxous
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:03 pm

Next

Return to Warhammer Fantasy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron