Tynskel's Guide to Interpreting Rules

[Tynskel]

Step 1:
(this one is hard)
READ THE RULES!

Step 2:
READ THE FAQs

Step 3:
...

Step 4:
Profit!

[Wolfshade]

I prefer the following:

Step 1:
Read the rules

Step 2:
Mis-interpret the rules to your own advantage

Step 3:
Complain when some pulls you up on it and engage in some debate quoting non-gaming sources and be pendantic over language usage being

Step 4:
Move argument base rapidly to avoid any counter arguments

[thecactusman17]

I prefer the following:

Step 1:
Read the rules

Step 2:
Mis-interpret the rules to your own advantage

Step 3:
Complain when some pulls you up on it and engage in some debate quoting non-gaming sources and be pendantic over language usage being

Step 4:
Move argument base rapidly to avoid any counter arguments

Yeah, this one seems to be far more common around here.

[Bean]

I prefer the following:

Step 1:
Read the rules

Step 2:
Mis-interpret the rules to your own advantage

Step 3:
Complain when some pulls you up on it and engage in some debate quoting non-gaming sources and be pendantic over language usage being

Step 4:
Move argument base rapidly to avoid any counter arguments

Close, but I think it's more like:

Step 1:
Presume that everyone else is misinterpreting the rules to gain an advantage.

Step 2:
Glance the rules, picking out words more or less at random and presenting them as though they were an argument.

Step 3:
Keep repeating that jumble over and over again as if that would make the argument stronger.

Step 4:
Switch to name calling (dirty win-at-all-costs powergamer seems to be a favorite).

Step 5:
Get thread locked.

;)

[Turner]

That's sounds pretty straight forward, here let me try!

Step 1:
(this one is hard)
READ THE RULES!
"...all models"

Step 2:
READ THE FAQs
Yep, nothing in the FAQ's stating that it should be different.
Step 3:
...

Step 4:
Profit!
Yeah! it should work like this! All models!

Step 5:
Everyone Else
Yeah when they say "all models" they mean only your models.

Step 6:
/sigh




Well that didn't work.

[thecactusman17]

You know, I think that this is the shortest rules interpretation thread with either Bean or Tynskel in it that I've ever seen.

Amusingly enough, it's still getting responses.

[Tynskel]

You know, I think that this is the shortest rules interpretation thread with either Bean or Tynskel in it that I've ever seen.

Amusingly enough, it's still getting responses.

:)
Everyone should do it the way Bean n' I do it.
Sooo much simpler that way...

[Uncle Nutsy]

Step 1:

read the codex and specific rule

Step 2:

Read the FAQ and apply logic to both

Step 3:

Point out flaws in the other participants' line of thinking.

Step 4:

realize said participant is intentionally misunderstanding/misinterpreting your argument and/or rules, and is pulling stuff out of nowhere, leading to a stagnated argument. Leave thread.

[Bean]

Step 1:

read the codex and specific rule

Step 2:

Read the FAQ and apply logic to both

Step 3:

Point out flaws in the other participants' line of thinking.

Step 4:

realize said participant is intentionally misunderstanding/misinterpreting your argument and/or rules, and is pulling stuff out of nowhere, leading to a stagnated argument. Leave thread.

Lol. Yup. =)

[Chris*ta]

Step 1:

read the codex and specific rule

Step 2:

Read the FAQ and apply logic to both

Step 3:

Point out flaws in the other participants' line of thinking.

Step 4:

realize said participant is intentionally misunderstanding/misinterpreting your argument and/or rules, and is pulling stuff out of nowhere, leading to a stagnated argument. Leave thread.

You left out Step 5:
Wait til GW posts a FAQ completely vindicating your point, then return to the thread and loudly post about how you were right all along: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?22876-Special-Power-quot-axes-quot/page20

Oh yeah, threadomancy powers activate!

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I have a problem when people use "Rules As Written".

There's no such thing as what's "objectively on the page". All reading is interpretation. In a lot of the discussions of "Rules as Written" I've seen, I'd really actually have called it "Rules As Selectively Interpreted".

A lot - not all! - of these so-called Rules Conundrums are just poor reading skills or people trying to pull a fast one.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Observation Bias my friend. The curse of scientists everywhere.
Although there are some interesting ones out there where a rule is worded so bloody poorly it could mean two things OR better still it doesn't do what it was clearly intended to.

[Tynskel]

I have a problem when people use "Rules As Written".

There's no such thing as what's "objectively on the page". All reading is interpretation. In a lot of the discussions of "Rules as Written" I've seen, I'd really actually have called it "Rules As Selectively Interpreted".

A lot - not all! - of these so-called Rules Conundrums are just poor reading skills or people trying to pull a fast one.

I have been saying this on BoLS for years...

[Wolfshade]

I think we should just use Rules as Wrote (by me)

[Tynskel]

I think we should just use Rules as Wrote (by me)

I think the idea is that rules are written with a framework. No one rule is independent of the others. They fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

[Wolfshade]

I think so. But I am not sure if a precedent is unviersal.

[Nabterayl]

All y'all should just treat the damn things like lawyers. Solves all the problems.

[Wolfshade]

All y'all should just treat the damn things like lawyers. Solves all the problems.

Yes I have seen many a quick summary between you and Tynskel... ;)

[Nabterayl]

Pfff. Tynskel has some inchoate idea about interrelationships and vague notions about interpretations. Nothing at all like the rigorous, completely scientific approach of we who wear the purple cowl.

[Tynskel]

Pfff. Tynskel has some inchoate idea about interrelationships and vague notions about interpretations. Nothing at all like the rigorous, completely scientific approach of we who wear the purple cowl.

bwahahahahahah!
Shot across the bow!

[Psyfer]

You left out Step 5:
Wait til GW posts a FAQ completely vindicating your point, then return to the thread and loudly post about how you were right all along: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?22876-Special-Power-quot-axes-quot/page20

Oh yeah, threadomancy powers activate!

Step 6: Get sick of waiting for the FAQ, realise that GW considers rules and balance an afterthought and move to better constructed (and more then likely cheaper) game :P

[James_33]

At some point you have to invoke the fluff and what happens in "the real world" to support your interpretation, ignoring the fact that most rules are matters of game mechanics.

[Wolfshade]

No, fluff is the enemy of rules!

[Dave Mcturk]

no... green wombles are the enemy of rules... 6th ed... re-runs of almost every codex under the sun... no visible reason for impact on SALES ... but still cant get basics right...

hence the need for FAQ and disputes... ... putting NEW rules in a different FONT and COLOUR might help...

[Tynskel]

no... green wombles are the enemy of rules... 6th ed... re-runs of almost every codex under the sun... no visible reason for impact on SALES ... but still cant get basics right...

hence the need for FAQ and disputes... ... putting NEW rules in a different FONT and COLOUR might help...

I seriously hope you talk how you write.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I was listening to the Bad Dice Podcast interview with Alessio Cavatore the other day. What struck me in particular is when Alessio recounts how he, as a young powergamer, used to believe that games designers must be incompetents not to see how their rules will work, or to know the answer to every question. The terms he uses are achingly familiar from any internet tactics/balance discussion.

Then of course he became a games designer, and learned some lessons about "balance" and "competence" on the part of rules writers. Warhammer and 40k are very abstracted games.

[Tynskel]

New Edition brings...

Resurrection!

[40kGamer]

New Edition brings...

Resurrection!

...and ongoing debates, arguments and misinterpretations! :D

[Mr Mystery]

Step 1 - Decide what you feel the rule should be.

Step 2 - Read the rule, find it doesn't do what you want it to do

Step 3 - Declare the rules poorly written because you don't like what you read, rather than rule itself not being clear.

[Wolfshade]

Sounds very similiar mystery...


I prefer the following:

Step 1:
Read the rules

Step 2:
Mis-interpret the rules to your own advantage

Step 3:
Complain when some pulls you up on it and engage in some debate quoting non-gaming sources and be pendantic over language usage being

Step 4:
Move argument base rapidly to avoid any counter arguments

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

The number of people who just don't seem to read the whole rule alarms me, and I'm by no means all that up on the rules!

[John Bower]

Even when you do sometimes 2 people can still disagree on the interpretation of it.

[LCS]

Dat necro....