The Term "Rules Lawyer" Might Mean Different Things to Different Players

[Chris Copeland]

The term "Rules Lawyer" can be a tricky one. Some folks see it in a positive light. Others see it as a term laden with derision.

I assume most gamers are nice guys. "Rules Lawyer" might mean something slightly different to me than it does to some gamers. Nuance can be *very* hard to convey on the interwebz. To me rules lawyers are the kinds of folks who push the rules as hard as possible to find the week points to exploit. They sap all fun from gaming in my experience. I considered the whole argument (seen elsewhere on the interwebz) about whether THSS Deathwing Termies being able to have Cyclone Missile Launchers a prime example of rules lawyering. Another thread suggesting that a Tau Bomber won't ever get to bomb because it doesn't start off with a bomb falls into the same category (in my opinion). Wound shenanigans on Grey Knight Paladins at the start of 6th Edition also struck me this way.

I suspect that some in the hobby have a different take on the term "rules lawyer." Perhaps it means "one who delves deeply into the depths of the rules and knows them in and out." That would be a far more positive term. I call folks like that "rules gurus." I dig those folks.

I keep coming back to the basic idea that we all take different things away from this wonderful hobby. I get turned off by overly rules-lawyerly opponents and tend to veer away from them. Some seem to be turned off by my more easy-going attitude towards gaming. Fair enough. In a real world situation we might get along famously. Who knows. Again, nuance is hard to convey on the interwebz. So, I suggest caution with the term "rules lawyer." It might mean one thing to the sender and another to the receiver. Cheers!

[Deadlift]

I have played the odd game against some people I would describe as rules lawyers. To me it ment someone who tried to bend the rules to my disadvantage in some parts of the game and to their own advantage in others. Not fun really and now games night is just me and my beer drinking buddies. None of this measuring to the micro millimetre or quibbling over minor rules etc. GW has always encouraged us to play and innovate our games so I don't like strict rule adherence. An example is we allow tyranids to take allies, why not ? I don't think 40k was ever envisioned to be a "tournament" game anyway.
Id roll dice with you Chris ;) just don't expect to be sober by turn 5.

[OrksOrksOrks]

I don't think the term Rules Lawyer is ever meant nicely, as far as I'm aware, it came over from table top RPGs, to describe the players at the table who wouldn't go with the flow and let things happen because they were obsessed with the minutiae of the rules above having fun, its never a good thing

[chicop76]

In a role playing setting it's annoying. It typically turns into if you are pitted against werewolves and vampires and the rules layer in the party go wtf. They can't ally than it causes problems.

My thing with campains it's lots of invested time to not conflict with rules and if you due their is a reason and you already know you are conflicking the rules to throw in the unexpected. As gamemaster it' hard to roleplay with players who know the rules as much or even better than you do. My solution it to purposly change up the stats and rules. Reason being if players in the game don't know how to fight vampires and the players have their characters equiped with antivampire gear cause the players know they are in an area with heavy vampires although the characters do not know. So if I change water weakness into fire etc. That they have to actually role play to figure out how to defeat the threat.

In short it's a negative term fr role playing.

However for 40k and the like it's differant. It can mean knowing the rules and stopping the game with rule refferances. What's annoying with 4ok wayyyy back in 3rd gamers don't bother to read the book and learn by what people tell them and forget rules that hurts them and remember ones that helps them, or missread a rule like puppet master.

If I'm doing something wrong let me know and I correct it and try to do it the right way. Some even with the rule plain as day refuse to play with the rule. However to illustrate a point when you kick their butt even worst playing by a rule that really benefits you way more than them they tend to see why x rule was written the way it was.

Than you litterly have the rule benders. For example with MC's and multitrackers firing one or two weapons in overwatch, or attaching an ic to a riptide cause it took drones. Do you hate these guys are wait till it get abused enough till a FAQ comes out.

With Faq changing like once a month it's hard to keep track of the rules. Also not everyone even reads the FAQ and suume you are cheating.

[Chris Copeland]

I'd roll dice with you Chris ;) just don't expect to be sober by turn 5. Ha! Challenge accepted! I must warn you though, Deadlift: I'm a BIG boy and I learned to put away the booze years ago during my time in the Marines! I can hold my liquor. :) If I ever get across the Pond you and I will definitely have to roll some dice! Cope

[Mr Mystery]

Knowing the rules and rules lawyering are very different.

Knowing is good. Means you're playing the game right.

Rules lawyering? All about bagging you a dubious win. Or plain interfering in the game of an utter stranger.

[Chris Copeland]

A friend of mine (who is a real-life lawyer) had this to say:

"I find it a very ironic term. It often is used to refer to someone who finds a particular way to read the RAW that is advantageous to themselves but which in the larger context of the game may seem dubious. When a lawyer or judge sets about to interpret the meaning of a contract or statute, the #1 overriding principle is that that document should be interpreted, if possible to effectuate the *intent* of the parties to the contract/legislature that enacted the statute. There are whole sets of common rules of interpretation employd by lawyers, but the ultimate goal of all of those rules is to divine the intent of the drafter/enacter of the document.

But suggest that the interpretation of a game rule should attempt to discern the intent of the desginer, and ZOMG!!!!!!!

So these are not rules lawyers because they do not interpret the written word in a manner that a professional lawyer would.

Better terms would be Rules Shyster or Rules Fundamentalist depending on the bona fides of the their position."

[Daemonette666]

I had a game against a mate the other day, and positioned a rhino behind a building so that he had to advance within 10" of my Rhino in order to get in its side arc. It was carrying a Dark Apostle, and 8 Chosen of tzeentch armed with 4 Plasma guns and a Lascannon. I did not now whether he knew the rules on obscured vehicles, but did not want to lose my advantage, so I specifically pointed out that he was shooting at my front arc unless he got to a certain position on either side of the vehicle (showing him with a tape measure - from vehicle corner to corner).

When he declined to close, and then proceeded to shoot it with the weapons from a riptide, a hammerhead with the BS 5 character, a Quadgun fired by his BS 5 HQ, and 2 squads of Tau with Pulse rifles, I then informed him that I has a 3+ cover save for all his shooting except the quad gun which was in my side arc. I showed him the rule, and made the save on all except 2 glancing hits. I also popped smoke just in case.

This thankfully made it possible for the Rhino to survive, as other more threatening targets drew his heavy fire power, and I was able to send the chosen unit up, and they eventually charged into his Riptide using the Rhino's Dirge caster to cancel most of his over watch. That unit caused the Riptide to take a LD test and ran it down as it fled with 2 wounds to its name.

Now some may consider what I did with the Rhino, rules lawyering, other would consider it deceitful, but I knew if I told my mate Pete about the Obscured rule, which I could assume he should already have known about, then it would make him relocate his units to get in the side arc, and kill it off and I would lose the dirge caster. I hinted so much about the front and side arc, and since he did not ask me about it, or catch on that I mentioned it for a reason, then I think I had given him the chance to ask without telling him my battle plans .

[Mr Mystery]

That's not rules lawyering skip. That's using the rules, not exploiting them.

You'll often find a rules lawyer will be utterly one sided. Pre 6th classic? Claiming opponent to be out of rapid fire range, then pulling off a charge across the same distance...

[chicop76]

That's not rules lawyering skip. That's using the rules, not exploiting them.

You'll often find a rules lawyer will be utterly one sided. Pre 6th classic? Claiming opponent to be out of rapid fire range, then pulling off a charge across the same distance...

Love that. I always say how is that even possibile. Sadly that happened a lot.

[DarkLink]

Not rules lawyering, just cheating. Rules lawyering is more like arguing that Drones are BS5 when Snap Firing with the Control Node Commander. Fudge the rules, jump through loophole, ignore inconvenient restrictions, to make something illegal legal as long as your opponent is dumb enough to buy it.

[scadugenga]

I've always considered rules-lawyering to be about bending the rules just.....shy of the breaking point in order to gain an edge.

Usually the person who does this has something against losing a game. ;)

[chicop76]

I've always considered rules-lawyering to be about bending the rules just.....shy of the breaking point in order to gain an edge.

Usually the person who does this has something against losing a game. ;)

Move run and assault after firing an assault weapon. Eldar can do that.

[daboarder]

Move run and assault after firing an assault weapon. Eldar can do that.

And how do they manage that? Both the run rule, and the assault rules state that a unit cannot assault if they run/ran in the shooting phase, nothing in Battle focus overrides this.

even relentless does not override this

[DarkLink]

Did he mean claiming that you could would be rules lawyering in the negative sense?

[daboarder]

maybe, its very hard to comprehend what that guy writes a lot of the time

[chicop76]

Did he mean claiming that you could would be rules lawyering in the negative sense?

Lol. I was poking fun at the guy that said you can do that. I never said Daborder was a rules lawer. Someone else impled that.

[daboarder]

Ha! Challenge accepted! I must warn you though, Deadlift: I'm a BIG boy and I learned to put away the booze years ago during my time in the Marines! I can hold my liquor. :) If I ever get across the Pond you and I will definitely have to roll some dice! Cope

Ha american beer doesn't count, we all know that, come down to aus and I'll show you a decent pub drop

[Chris Copeland]

Ha american beer doesn't count, we all know that, come down to aus and I'll show you a decent pub drop Challenge accepted! Actually, we do have a very good American beer that is brewed right near me: Shiner Bock!

[chicop76]

Challenge accepted! Actually, we do have a very good American beer that is brewed right near me: Shiner Bock!


Ummm no. You can't compare American beer to foreign beer. It's like we drink Malibu and they drink Everclear. It's not the same. I like going overseas for the stouts and the living beer. Like liederman's I think it's called.

[Nabterayl]

A friend of mine (who is a real-life lawyer) had this to say:

"I find it a very ironic term. It often is used to refer to someone who finds a particular way to read the RAW that is advantageous to themselves but which in the larger context of the game may seem dubious. When a lawyer or judge sets about to interpret the meaning of a contract or statute, the #1 overriding principle is that that document should be interpreted, if possible to effectuate the *intent* of the parties to the contract/legislature that enacted the statute. There are whole sets of common rules of interpretation employd by lawyers, but the ultimate goal of all of those rules is to divine the intent of the drafter/enacter of the document.

But suggest that the interpretation of a game rule should attempt to discern the intent of the desginer, and ZOMG!!!!!!!

So these are not rules lawyers because they do not interpret the written word in a manner that a professional lawyer would.

Better terms would be Rules Shyster or Rules Fundamentalist depending on the bona fides of the their position."
As another real-life lawyer, I give this +1. Especially the part about "whole sets of common rules of interpretation." Try to suggest that somebody use those when reading the rules - you know, like a lawyer - and you're laughed off as the worst kind of n00b.

I agree that "rules lawyering" is an inherently negative term. It implies that one is, at best, being needlessly obstructionist, and at worst, making the worse argument seem best.

I do think that things can unfairly be labeled rules lawyering, though. Daemonette's example is one way. Another is to infer intent when somebody is making a neutral observation. Sometimes the rules tell us to do impossible things (remember the old chestnut about passengers Falling Back in 5th?). Somebody who discovers such a situation or agrees that it is insoluble or has an unexpected result is often accused of being a rules lawyer - the implication being that the person intends to use this newly discovered technicality to his advantage, contrary to the spirit of the game. Rarely is such a person given the courtesy of assuming that the observation is just an observation.

[DarthDiggler]

To me, "rules lawyers" is a term I reserve for those so caught up in rule minutiae that they are generally not fun to play games with. If they aren't arguing a possibly ambiguous rule you've used, they're trying to use one themselves to gain an advantage. Under no circumstance is it ever positive in my view.

[DarkLink]

I do think that things can unfairly be labeled rules lawyering, though. Daemonette's example is one way. Another is to infer intent when somebody is making a neutral observation. Sometimes the rules tell us to do impossible things (remember the old chestnut about passengers Falling Back in 5th?). Somebody who discovers such a situation or agrees that it is insoluble or has an unexpected result is often accused of being a rules lawyer - the implication being that the person intends to use this newly discovered technicality to his advantage, contrary to the spirit of the game. Rarely is such a person given the courtesy of assuming that the observation is just an observation.

Right. I don't really care in an actual game, but purely from an observational viewpoint ICs cannot grant infiltrate to a unit because of the means in which you attach the IC to the unit in order to grant it.

[40kGamer]

'Rules lawyer' is definitely a negative reference in my area. It implies someone who will interpret the rules in their favor to win games... The way some people angle to 'win' you would think it actually matters. And I agree that GW does not write tournament rules. It's just not their focus.

[Caitsidhe]

To me a Rules Lawyer is someone who attempts to apply the rules only when they are in his/her favor, i.e. a CHEAT. :D Someone who applies the letter of the law both to him/herself and others is not a rules lawyer. They are simply someone who knows the rules and plays by them. It isn't fair to call someone a "rules lawyer" simply because you get surprised by a rule you either didn't know about or simply misunderstood.

[Power Klawz]

While I find the term to be wholly inaccurate for reasons all ready espoused in this thread (they're not really being "lawyerly" about it, they're just trying to drop some BS and go against the intended rules via a technicality) I do think its an inherently negative descriptor. Most rules have a very clear application in the context of the game. Every so often you find a unique interaction of disparate rules that comes off as quirky but not against the intent of either rules. Then you have egregious violations of the intent that are only justified by tenuous rewording and interpretation, none of which is necessary since the intent is plainly obvious even without exacting wording.

I always play the game as intended to the best of my knowledge. If I encounter a situation where my assumption of intent is challenged I'll listen to the counterargument, and if it makes more sense than mine I'll go with it. If its iffy I tend to resort of the old standby of roll a d6, whoever wins the roll off gets their way. If its completely asinine and obviously only meant to garner unfair advantage I'll object, if my objections are met with continued argument I'll probably just roll my eyes and finish up the last game I'll ever play against that person.

If its friends who try to pull off boneheaded rules interpretations I'll just tell them to stuff it and move on haha.

[UkilitVi]

For me, this is an opportunity to care about fair play, or at least pretend that they are respected. From my point of view, in the game as well as in life it is necessary to observe the laws!

[Mr Mystery]

To me a Rules Lawyer is someone who attempts to apply the rules only when they are in his/her favor, i.e. a CHEAT. :D Someone who applies the letter of the law both to him/herself and others is not a rules lawyer. They are simply someone who knows the rules and plays by them. It isn't fair to call someone a "rules lawyer" simply because you get surprised by a rule you either didn't know about or simply misunderstood.

Quite so.

But, it's all in the presentation as well. If you're bringing up a completely valid rule, read and interpreted correctly, it's still possible to be an arse about it, usually when it's pulled out as a 'nyeh-nyeh' type thing. Whilst you are right to promote and use the rule, on account, it's a rule, your attitude can switch your opponent right off. (not meaning Caitsidhe, just adding to the conversation)

[Caitsidhe]

Quite so.

But, it's all in the presentation as well. If you're bringing up a completely valid rule, read and interpreted correctly, it's still possible to be an arse about it, usually when it's pulled out as a 'nyeh-nyeh' type thing. Whilst you are right to promote and use the rule, on account, it's a rule, your attitude can switch your opponent right off. (not meaning Caitsidhe, just adding to the conversation)

One would hope that someone pointing out a rule to you will do it in a professional manner. I have found very few people act in an obnoxious way... or as you put it... "nyeh-nyeh" ...but someone ignornant of the rule ALWAYS perceives it that way because they throw a tantrum rather than accept or simply admit the fact they didn't know the rule. I've actually watched this process myself from the outside when someone at a tournament didn't understand/know a rule (and they felt it was obscure and a gotcha moment) while the person pointing it out was perfectly polite and straightforward about it. I was there when the situation happened. I was there in the subsequent weeks as the jerk complaining about the "rules lawyer" grew the story in the retelling. Each time the person at the tournament who pointed out the rule was described as more and more rude and obnoxious.

In short, I don't buy it. In my entire time of playing these games I've only once had someone hit me with a rule and gloat about it while telling me of my mistake. It was an eleven year old kid. I was annoyed but took it with as good a humor as I could. I was, after all, the ignorant idiot who missed/misunderstood a basic rule that an eleven year old child got right. I considered my humiliation just punisment (however unsportsmanlike the kid's delivery may have been).

In the end it comes back to knowing the rules and not allowing bias to cloud perceptions of the person calling you on them.

[Killme304]

I would consider myself a rules lawyer. I make sure rules are played as close to the letter as I can. Obviously, with a game this complex, stuff gets through. But I try my hardest not to be an *** about it unless the guy I'm playing is being one.

I remind people of rules, even the ones that hurt me. What I seek is consistency, not squeaking out advantages to one player or the other.

An example from the other day: I was playing vs someone that had just started playing a few weeks prior and this was only his 3rd game. My 10 man Gauss Immortals rolled like champs and I actually "wiped" his unit of Immortals in a single round of shooting (for those that don't know, that's a huge luck-sack). As he was pulling his models off the board, I stopped him, got down to head level again, and saw that I could only actually see three of his models. He had completely overlooked the rule that mentions you can't kill what you can't see. He was excited that he didn't get smoked and I bet he will remember that rule from now on, because it went in his favor.

Most people at my LGS have been playing the game far longer than I have, and I find that doesn't mean they play the rules right. I've had one try to convince me that run and charge in the new eldar dex, which you clearly can't if you review the big book. When I'm in the shop, even some of the older, more hardcore crowd will actually seek me out just to ask me rules questions now. As a whole, I feel our LGS benefited from my going the rules lawyer route, as games are much more consistent, so people aren't getting sour over other people's loose interpretations.

[G00dySmiley]

i think rules lawyering also depends on a setting, in a tourney i would let much less slide, if a rule is ambiguos i will hope it was faq'd or aressed and ruled for like the adepticon packet does. if it is nto clea ri am still good with d6ing it because i still want to have fun but winning is important there.

not in a friendly saturday game with my gaming group F*(# it i am there to have fun, and roll some dice and am likely to show up with the stupidest possible list to see if i can make it work somehow... lootasx45 with 2 SAG... i've done it, mad doc leading 180 gretchin with cybork bodies... done that to and it was a blast tar pitting everything (guard blob fighting 60 gretchin is hilarious btw its liek watching a puppy wresling a sock and losing)

now the "rules lawyers" i am assumign you refer to that ry to bend everythign to their advantage, I face and see several of them some people i play with are borderline a tthis. I actually am ok with it, I just don't give them any slack either and will not "accidently" leave a vehicle facing a wrong direction giving them a good shot, or set up a facing line on the vehicl to make sure they have the facing they claim. I am more liekly to just go for the throat and crush them.. also more liekly to bring super tough lists against these players vs funny fluff lists against the new guys and laid back guys

[Eberk]

"rules lawyers" are always negative. Some of the examples above (about pointing out rules that benefit their opponents) are not something I consider "rules lawyers".

"Rules lawyers" always use (and bend) rules to their advantage. It is as simple as that.


Players who play by the rules (even when it is not in their advantage) are NOT rules lawyers (even if they talk about the rules the whole game through)