So I get accused of being a rules laywer a lot of the times. I dont really get offended cause I know I can be overly pedantic. However I always wondered what the mindset was that hated someone trying to stick to the rules as closley as possible.

Ive been getting into alot of arguments latley where ill try to illustarate a point in the wording of specific cards versus precident and such, like for instance i had a pretty riveting discussion about blade nail vs cagemaster recently and how cagemaster is techincally not written in optimal language for its use of WHEN versus IF and how i feel If having special connotations attached to it for this game was a bad idea because it interferes with how the english language should properly be used. i know some of you are rolling your eyes right now reading that but it was to illustrate a point.

I dont understand the hatred some people have for people who try to iron out the rules. When I play and hit a rules question, I will go into lawyer mode, trying to think analytically and refer to precident to attempt to deciper what an ambiguity in a ruling should be played as. I try to be as impartial and Mathmatic in my undertaking as possible, and honestly will not try to cater a rule to myself or my current situation (though generally I wouldnt be in an argument over it if I didnt feel it worked that way) but try to get to a place where precident and logic will dictate what the ruling should be.

That being said the response I get back from people a good portion of the time is "Your being a rules Lawyer" or "Thats not the intent" or something more personal. Some people do not like to hear the rules discussed and hate even more when crafy players are able to find combos within the rules they are able to exploit. There is no justification as to why a particular ruling i will come up with is wrong, just a name calling escapade. I dont get it.

Why do people have such hatred for trying to deciper the rules. We all idealy need to be playing with the same set of rules, they govern the game and define what we are all playing. The vast majority of games in existance that have been around for Eons have very defined rules with NO loopholes (Chess, checkers, Uno, what have you) and thats why they are still around.

As a rules lawyer it is always my fear that a bad ruling will get made and then based upon the precident it sets other rules will be based upon it that are incorrect and eventually lead to a point where you have 2 contradictions in the rules that cause a giant problem. I point at the blade nail thing again as a prime example. Because it was worded poorly it recieved a defacto ruling by dave that it only ever got you one momentum, even though the card really dosent say that. Later down the line Dave justified this by giving specal significance to the word IF which then fundamentally altered other cards and how they function (god of metal and the like). Meanwhile Cagemaster which had the same wording structure as bladenail was rules to work on every instance because it used the word If as opposed to when, there for setting more precident and giving these 2 commonly defined words in the english language secondary and sometimes conflicting meanings.

Heres where my lawyering comes in. Technically speaking using IF is proper for these cards, while when is not. IF indicates that the possibility of the event happening is not predefined. It may or may not happen. WHEN assumes that the event will happen with 100% certanty at some point in time, but the point in time is undefined. My bladenail may hit you, and if it does it will do something. However may Cagemaster may NEVER hit you (if its blocked or what have you), so there is no when, just IF.

Anyways my point is this, what is the logic in calling someone a rules lawyer. Shouldnt we all want to have a firm grasp on the rules to the point where we dont have to ask questions? Dont we all want to have an Objective rules set instead of having to make interpertations? Thanks for reading this whole thing if you did, I know I wrote a bit much.

This sort of thing comes up a lot in my group. Coming from my background in Magic, where the tournament rules is a novel-length document, I firmly believe that the rules should be airtight, aka, there is no room for "the intent" behind a card. If the card says you can do it (or doesn't say you can't do it) and the rules don't contradict it, then there's not really anyone that can make a good case otherwise.

An example of this happened not too long ago with Diversity. The tournament rules specifically states that when starting the game you can search your deck for a character card and start with it face down. I used this to pretty much say that we could get around Diversity by listing one character in our deck as the starting character, and then start with another character in the deck every round.

Now, instead, of proving me wrong using the tournament rules for Diversity, which is much farther down, and I hadn't gotten to it yet, people were bringing up "the intent" of Diversity, and saying I would never get away with it "just because" and getting really emotional about it, and pretty much, not really saying much of anything, but "you can't because it's wrong."

Now, I know that Diversity rules farther down prevent me from doing this, and in order to prove me wrong, all anyone had to do was dig those up, but as is too often the case, people are only willing to accept their pre-established "gamer morality" that follows some sort of unwritten code. Another example would be the Lynx Tail issue and user-defined X's. When I brought this up, again, there was a person who was quick to remind me of "the intent" of the card, when all I saw was the possibility. Again, all that's necessary to prove me wrong is contradictory rules text.

So yeah, I can see why people get upset. Most of the crowd wants to casually enjoy the game, or play at a level consistent with their own beliefs about what the game should be like, instead of what it really is like. Whenever someone finds a loophole or "inconsistency" those players feel like that person has betrayed some fundamental aspect of the laws of the game, if only by omission.

I also believe that rules should not be interpretive, but an established framework, like Magic. Interpretation will always lead to disagreement, and intent will never be the same across the board.

Templating, however, like your issue between Blade Nail and Cage Master is something else altogether, and mostly sloppiness on the part of the designer. Hopefully, we won't have these issues any more with FFG, and we can move on to a more streamlined and well-defined game.

The thing is that the term "Rules Lawyer" gets thrown around way too much, for far too many situations. As I play a lot of games, typically the term "Rules Lawyer" is used to describe someone who uses the rules as it is written, but only when it will benefit them.

Players who want to figure out the rules, regardless of the situation's end result, are not rules lawyers. I often times have situations where both players have to figure out how the rules apply, and in most cases, a mutual agreement can be reached. And if one can not be reached, we roll off.

One final way to put a stamp on a rules situation is to ask the scout or event organizer. Normally, these people have a decent grasp on the game, and can usually come up with a ruling and resolve the issue. Third parties are great for one-on-one situations.

That's my two cents. I don't think you are a rules lawyer, unless you constantly try to "decipher" the rules for your benefit.

Have fun,

Jim

I think typically speaking if your in this situation you will always appear to be defending your own perspective. If you put a combo in your deck that worked based on a specific rule that you were basing it around and then it gets challanged in an event, your going to defend it with the logic you came into the event with, and unless someone can give you compelling reasons that are in the printed rules why that dosent work your going to come off as "lawyering".

That being said I gotta say that a lot of people get pegged with this title because they read the forums. The forums is home to a bunch of defacto rulings that 90% of the time should be issued as offical eratta or clarification and not be a thread burried in the forums, but ofter times is not. Try explaining the Blade Nail thing to someone who has never read the forums and is new to the game, and then show them cage master and tell them why its different and see if you dont feel like a jerk.

Actually, I look at everything from the perspective that I want things to happen the way that they are supposed to happen, and if that means that I lose the game because of the outcome, so be it. I have the mentor mentality, so I actually prefer to help my opponent in most situations, and make it obvious that I am doing so. There have been some instances where I have actually pointed out that my opponent can win using methods that they may not be aware of, even if I didn't actually have to. I win a lot as it is, so occasionally losing a game because of a strange ruling doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's all in the delivery I guess.

-Jim

Yep. The only real problem with being a rules lawyer is when it comes down to a specific interaction within your deck. As an example, I'll refer to Program Malfunction v. Alluring Beauty. Prior to Worlds, it was ruled in such a way that the card committed by Alluring Beauty (while copying Program Mal) would remain committed during the next Ready Phase. However, in my match with Fred at Worlds, this ruling was overturned by Steve (this was the only time I was ever annoyed by a ruling, but mostly because it happened mid-game, and I wouldn't have used AB otherwise, ha). It wasn't anything against FRED - he's making sure that everything's on the up and up, which I applaud. I'm the same way.

But a lot of people do take it as you trying to twist and interpret things to your advantage.

Ultimately, though, yes, I think the game needs rules lawyers, because what is it we do? We look EVERYWHERE for any possible winky interactions, and bring them up. And a goodly portion of the time, what results is that we've found something that's never really been addressed before (World Champion w/ no cards in card pool, that sort of thing), and it tends to set the precedent for how things of that same nature are ruled in the future.

Lynx Tail, though...c'mon. C'mon. When have we ever been able to set X to a negative number when the option to freely set X is available? But I suppose someone had to bring it up, though. It result in a change to the TR, so maybe it did help.

Well, I brought it up because it serves the point nicely. If no rules concerning defining X existed, and the card didn't specify parameters, someone's going to see it say holy crap! -9000

And they would be perfectly right, as there are no rules against it.

If we want, we can bring up Ready for Anything, which states that a card has to be preceeded by a non attack for the pump to be playable. The intent is to make it work like balanced stance, but the way it's worded you only have to have one non-attack in the card pool period. It was ruled not to work that way, because of intent, but that ruling is wrong and will always be wrong until the card receives a functional errata (I'm not sure if it already has or not, if someone could tell me it would be great). Some people get upset when someone brings up a case like this, and start saying stuff like, "well, you know how it's supposed to work, don't be stupid." But the answer to those people will always be the card doesn't prohibit what I'm trying to do, and neither do the rules.

RFA hasn't recieved errata. One of my biggest gripes with the game is the fact that there are litterally dozens, if not hundreds, of cards that are "functionally errataed" in the forums, but not officially anywhere.

There should be a central repository of ALL errata, that is sorted by cardname and/or interaction. Every time something is ruled to work in a way other then what the card says, it needs to be noted there. Especially as the search feature for this forum sucks *censored*. Hell, just the other day Chester was ruled to work on "intent" rather then what's written on the card. This would also make it easier for rules arbiters to check past precident and either make sure new rulings fell in line with it, or overturn the previuos rulings.

I tried to do somethign like this with my UFS Wiki but there are far too many rulings every day for me to keep up w/ by myself. Maybe with a half dozen other volunteers it could be updated w/ existing questions and new ones as they're asked?

MegaGeese said:

lynx tail and makoota. found memories.

'cause rulings have been crap in this game from day one, and often don't make sense to 80% of the player base. Add to that an unclear, unupdated errata resource and absolutely no place to check previous rulings (due to a deficient search system), and you can pretty much see why Rules Lawyers will be frowned upon (mostly because the rules, THEMSELVES, don't make any sense!)

Maybe if we got better wording on cards, or a errata/ruling depository that everyone (and not the educated few who can actually withstand the annoying Q&A forums) can consult, we'd be in a better situation. Until this happens, you're gonna have to suck it in and deal with people being pissed at you.

An addendum because I don't feel like doing some URL shenanigans, hence the double post.

Rules Lawyering in a card game, normally, shouldn't be frowned upon provided the rules, card wordings and rulings are crystal clear. The negative stigma comes from pen and paper RPGs, because they lead to fights between a single player and the GM, which slows down the flow of the game, and only serves one single purpose : the advantage of the single player over the rest of the group. Honestly, I wouldn't exactly consider you to be a rules lawyer. I may ***** about the ruling in general, but unless you were the one to make the ruling I (and nobody else should either)'ve no beef against you.

I think the only time I would call someone a rules lawyer is the people who are jerks about things. I dont care if its a major tournament or what the game is to have fun, and so say you are drawing cards off the top of your deck and draw 1 extra by accident, the guy who calls a judge to get you a game loss instead of you just putting it back/shuffling/ or whatever (this happens in magic way too much and thats why I hate the people who play it) I remember when I played in Vs tournaments at the shop close to me before it got closed, the main rule was dont be a ****, people still did it though cause all they care about is winning, which is why these games arent fun sometimes.

FenMiHuo said:

Those kind of shenanigans are not being a Rules Lawyer, those are being an *******. Same with trying to DQ someone because they forgot to shuffle the hand the mulliganed in the first battle into their deck when they started the second.

As for myself I care most about playing the game properly, and in that respect this is the hardest game I've ever played. *sigh* As a scout when something comes up in a match I'll generally do my best to make the "right" ruling, and then look it up... Though if it's relevent to a game I'm playing in, and I'm not 100% positive, I'll generally rule in my opponent's favor. For example just last week my opponent was using Rat Chaser + Hidden Base to draw on my drawstep, I was fairly sure it didn't work, but wasn't positive so I let him go ahead with it, and looked it up (on the old forums, cause the new ones are unsearchable) on my laptop during his turns. And once I'd found out that you couldn't do that, we played the rest of the tourney properly.

aslum said:

I think the one I always end up facing is you say pass, realize something and say wait, I want to do this (before anything else has occured) I can understand not back tracking a game, but just saying the word pass then immediatly going "wait"

I lost a tournament for a deck box (thats it) in the finals because I said pass, immediatly realized something on his field I hadnt noticed and tried to fix something, and he basically said "no because then I'd lose"

If you've passed and want to do something, it can be courteous to allow a take back, but shouldn't be expected, especially if it's the difference between a win and a loss. "Oh BTW, if I had been paying attention to the order of my enhances, I could have killed you, would you let me change the order I did them in?" It's basically the same thing

i don't think most people would alow you to take back a move that would change the outcome of the game. thats not being a rules lawyer or an *******, it's just being smart.

My playgroup and I play with no takebacks, it's us not being jerks, it's forcing the other guy to slow down and think about your moves.

sir_shajir said:

in my opinion that is how the game should be played. even though i complain when i make a simple mental error, no takebacks is the way to go.

Maybe against a veteran "no takebacks" is good, but especially when playing against less experianced folks I'll let them do take backs...

I won't usually point out someone's "better" play, but I might give them a hint "Are you sure?" "*cough*Really?*cough*" or something of the like. Unless of course they're a vet and really should know what they're doing.

aslum said:

maybe it's just becuase thats the way i was treated, but i think unless you don't know how to play, you should suffer for your mistakes. i remember the first tournement i played in i was using starter akuma and i kept forgeting to ready him. mt_do was nice enough to remind me. but when i forgot to use his hax, mt_do just luaghed (or maybe not.) all i know is he didn't remind me. i think everyone should be nicer to new players, but i won't just give away the game because i'm trying to help.

Do you want to know the reason people hate you when you rules lawyer?

It's the same reason creationists get passionately angry about evolutionists, and vice-versa.

It's the same reason people hate finding out that their parents are wrong (either because they are ignorant or liars). It happens to everyone, and a lot of folks are really bad at dealing with it.

People HATE having their cosmology, their world-view, shattered.

On any scale. When someone believes something is so, and someone else tries to tell them that it is not so, the lack of a clear truth is mentally painful. Most of the time people believe the original condition because they were told it was truth by someone previously (sometimes someone they trusted, but it doesn't matter as long as the person believed it).

But sometimes a person believes something works a certain way, because that was their best interpretation of events or rules at the time.

In UFS, folks use their knowledge of English (which is unique to each individual, and very personal) to interpret some horrendously ill-templated cards that are monstrously ambiguous to start off with. They pick a way they think it works, it makes sense to them, and they stick to it. Until you come around (or any one else who uses a more detail-oriented English framework) and picks their interpretation apart and tells them they're wrong. You're calling into question two things when you do that: 1) their world-view with respect to how a particular card works, and 2) their world-view with respect to how the English language works (and remember, they think they're experts, because most of them grew up speaking English).

This isn't to say you shouldn't be a rules lawyer. But you should be extra-sensitive when you take on that role, and you should be very clear that it's not their fault (or your)--it's STG/FFG for making poorly worded cards.

I don't see why every CCG can't be as clearly worded as Spoils... It's just a shame.

ARMed_PIrate said:

Didn't that suck balls from the get-go?

no, actually. spoils was, hands DOWN, the easiest game to know what you can do, and when you can do it, and how you can do it.

the template of the cards was done well. i wish we could adopt a similar system, but there would be too many heads exploding from the radical change, even if it was for the extreme betterment of the situation.

I was under the impression that the spoils was just generally a bad game, not so much the rules set but the execution there in. Like you can have a great rules set and card that dont work right within thoes rules or arent desigend to be within them correctly, which i think is basicly what the spoils was. Also the IP and the tounge in cheek crap that game used was like 5 steps over the line. Like one or 2 cards written in L33t speak would be cute, an entire race of cards written like that makes you want to destroy the planet for crimes against the universe.

GouHadou said:

I think I'd like orgasm from the fact that we'd get such a thing.