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.