Breaking the rules / Cheating

[Melissia]

This came up in (as of this post) the most recent BoLS blog post, and frankly I hate blog comment conversations so I'm moving it here instead.



For my part, I'm consistently annoyed by people claiming someone is breaking the rules than trying to backtrack saying they're not saying the person is cheating. That's the very definition of cheating in gaming-- violating the rules of the game. If you were to move your king as if he were a knight in chess, that would be cheating because you are breaking the rules of the game. If you were to claim every lasgun in a horde Guard army was a lascannon, that would be cheating because that breaks the rules (C:IG defines a lascannon as S3 AP-, not S9 AP2). If you were to use an aimbot in TF2, that's cheating on most servers as most servers have rules against it, and therefor it breaks them.

If a player is playing by RAW, they are not breaking the rules no matter what army they're using...

[DarkLink]

Right.

There are three or four abilities in the whole game (doom of malan'tai, for one) that make me think "what the #@%^&# were the designers thinking", but other than that if you play by the rules then no one should have any problem whatsoever with the core rules of your army, as in Sister's Acts of Faith.

[Gotthammer]

If you mean JWolf's comment about Acts 'breaking the rules', I took it to mean it in a hyperbolic sense rather than litteral - they are so unlike anything else in the game in execution (points pool, variable requirements for success etc) that a lot of players seem confounded by them at first.

It was to me like saying 'when you use acts it's like throwing the regular rules out the window', 'they can pull stuff that's off the chart', 'Sisters be totally wiggity wack' or somesuch.


But yes, in a literal sense breaking the rules (S9 AP2 lasguns etc) is the same as cheating to me.

[Torcano]

For my part, I'm consistently annoyed by people claiming someone is breaking the rules than trying to backtrack saying they're not saying the person is cheating. That's the very definition of cheating in gaming-- violating the rules of the game. If you were to move your king as if he were a knight in chess, that would be cheating because you are breaking the rules of the game. If you were to claim every lasgun in a horde Guard army was a lascannon, that would be cheating because that breaks the rules (C:IG defines a lascannon as S3 AP-, not S9 AP2). If you were to use an aimbot in TF2, that's cheating on most servers as most servers have rules against it, and therefor it breaks them.

If a player is playing by RAW, they are not breaking the rules no matter what army they're using...

1) Nobody claimed anything of the sort.
2) Nobody claimed someone, anyone, or anything cheated
3) You fabricated this
4) Jwolf used a completely non-controversial and rather common expression, and you somehow made it controversial

It is amazing how defensive you got over this. I've never seen someone get so defensive over absolutely nothing. Nothing said about you at all. Simply an innocent expression used about your 40k army.

Defensive: excessively concerned with guarding against the real or imagined threat of criticism, injury to one's ego, or exposure of one's shortcomings.

That's what this is. Someone getting needlessly and extremely defensive over absolutely nothing.

[Nabterayl]

Agreed on all points. Mel, I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I don't disagree with anything Torcano said either. There's a difference between saying that somebody is breaking the rules, and using the expression "breaking the rules."

I mean, if I say that Michael Phelps has a chance to break all the rules of competitive swimming, it's clear that I am not accusing him of cheating, right?

You seem like the sort of person who ought to be able to appreciate the distinction with only contextual clues for help. May I suggest that your distaste for JWolf and your hair trigger as regards all things Sororitas have confluenced unhappily?

[mikethefish]

1) Nobody claimed anything of the sort.
2) Nobody claimed someone, anyone, or anything cheated
3) You fabricated this
4) Jwolf used a completely non-controversial and rather common expression, and you somehow made it controversial

It is amazing how defensive you got over this. I've never seen someone get so defensive over absolutely nothing. Nothing said about you at all. Simply an innocent expression used about your 40k army.

Defensive: excessively concerned with guarding against the real or imagined threat of criticism, injury to one's ego, or exposure of one's shortcomings.

That's what this is. Someone getting needlessly and extremely defensive over absolutely nothing.

EXACTLY what I was basically going to post. Melissa - it's a figure of speech that gamers use many times to describe a something that has unusual abilities. It's not exactly uncommon. I'm sorry if it offends you ... well actually I'm not. Seriously Melissa - get a frikken' clue, or at least a thicker skin. Everyone knew what he meant. Your reaction was completely pointless

[UltramarineFan]

I think the problem here is definition. From what I've heard in warhamer-speak, breaking is not necessarily the same meaning as what is usually understood. If a unit is broken then it is not literally broken, as far as I can tell some people apply this to rules as well. So saying that a unit 'breaks' the rules isn't necessarily saying they are literally breaking the rules it is saying that the unit is no longer using the conventional rules as laid down in the BRB and is using other rules. That's how I understood the comment anyway.

[Melissia]

EXACTLY what I was basically going to post. Melissa - it's a figure of speech that gamers use many times to describe a something that has unusual abilities. It's not exactly uncommon. I'm sorry if it offends you ... well actually I'm not. Seriously Melissa - get a frikken' clue, or at least a thicker skin. Everyone knew what he meant. Your reaction was completely pointless

Yes, it's s figure of speech. It's also an insulting figure of speech.

You seem like the sort of person who ought to be able to appreciate the distinction with only contextual clues for help. May I suggest that your distaste for JWolf and your hair trigger as regards all things Sororitas have confluenced unhappily?

There's no distaste for jwolf. I don't dislike the guy at all, and I usually like his posts.

[CitizenZero]

I wouldn't know, I don't read BoLS.

[Nabterayl]

There's no distaste for jwolf. I don't dislike the guy at all, and I usually like his posts.

My mistake then.