OT complaint thread

[mike954]

Continued from an Opponents Wanted thread hijacked by adjudicator at:
bedfordgladiators.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=opponentswanted&action=display&thread=1239

@ adjudicator: Allow me to retort!

I find your outburst surprising because I thought all of us made an effort and made a reasonable fist of getting a large scale game in using a mix of 40k and Apocalypse rules. In the circumstances I thought we did well to get as far as we did.

I was looking forward to future games that would run faster and better as we all got to grips with the rules. I bought a round at the bar and we settled back for a drink and a chat afterward.

I certainly wasn't expecting any verbal paraquat to follow on the forums of all places. In any case, I assume you wouldn't waste time on a rhetorical diatribe and actually wanted some dialogue, so here you are:

1. Gaming etiquette
You disputed basic rules of the game. You had not in fact read the rules. You did not even own the rules. As such you ought to be less sensitive about polite enquiries from players about your knowledge in these areas. Perhaps they were being considerate in finding out your level of experience with the rules so they could take the time to explain rules.

2. "Reading in part," "bending rules" and "deliberately misreading rules" to personal advantage:
Every point made regarding the rules was backed up with a page reference and passage of text which was shown to you. Despite prompting for any reasoned argument from you based on the BRB I can only recall your offer of (perfectly valid) personal opinions in the vein of "that rule is stupid."

I'm afraid I still see nothing in the p.41 BRB assault rules that produces your favoured interpretation - only the amendments made by the FAQ to the original rules do so, as pointed out by Elle.

I stand by my own reasoned interpretations of the BRB but remain, as I was then open to changing my mind in the light of any reasoned objection. In any event, "reading in part" was your vice, from the very start of the game onward. It cost you a strategic asset as I recall, when anonymice spotted the partial reading.

What you have claimed ("deliberately mis-reading rules") to have occurred is cheating by others. I'm sorry if you feel that is what happened, but I'm afraid I simply don't share your view. Nor can I sympathise with the choice to broach the topic as you have rather than doing so in person.

However, I do wish you the best with your future games and commend your purchase of the rules. I think they'll make playing the game easier and more enjoyable.

[anonymice]

i think thats a very dignified response

[adjudicator]

The paragraph directly below the one you showed me in the rule book, page 41, not an FAQ states:
Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the begining of combat (before any model attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. Declare how they are splitting their attacks immediately before rolling to hit.

The FAQ only changed the wording that it meant at the begining of each combat phase.
Rules like this were directly ignored. My only mistake was in not knowing the rules well enough. I do not wish to play a game where rules are going to be ignored if they're unknown to me.
Not many people have read all 800 odd pages of the data protection act and it's ammendments or human rights; but we all have a pretty good idea of them. From now on, I will be more critic of the rules, when I believe there is something amiss.

[Elle]

May 21, 2011 0:16:26 GMT mike954 said:

Off topic, I know, but Elle's post is constructive, civil, well reasoned and deserving of a reply.
bedfordgladiators.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=owt&thread=1246

I'm glad I came across the way I intended, thanks Mike *smiles*
I know I wasn't there but I believe that this was merely a misinterpretation of the rules, in truth I take much of the blame for this dispute if only based on the following quote:

May 2, 2011 7:30:26 GMT adjudicator said:

Would be great for Elizabeth to watch/ umpire, I'm nowhere near as good at the rules as I should be, and although he likes to feel he is, B is not as good at the rules as he should, either.

My apologies that I wasn't there as asked, to try and settle things, tho if Trev didn't question it on the day then its hard to say whether I'd have spoken up.
Again, I wasn't there and don't know how things went.

[steven]

Look guys, please lets keep this civil. I dont and cannot hope to comprehend what your debating. However, surely its easier (in a dispute over a game) to simply throw a dice - evens its one way, odds the other. Disagreements do occur - i know that and ive caused a few in my 30 years of gaming. However. surely they can be sorted out with a bit of a light relief with a dice (David - not that sort of LIGHT RELIEF)?

As a superb General once said "Waffle must end, for now we game!"

In short, enjoy the game, not the squabble!

[dave3]

Indeed, to see our new friends feuding is not good. Surely an ammicable way to resolve disputed rules is best. 40K is a bit rules heavy at the best of times,and even seasoned campaigners get it wrong now and again. If there is a disagreement mid game, agree to throw a dice to decide, abide by the ruling for that game, then look up or seek advice on the rule afterwards. We are here to have an enjoyable time playing toy soldiers after all!

[adjudicator]

I'm ok-ish with that.
I have been told by wayne there is only 4 pages of FAQ, so i can print them out and bring with. I'll be playing millions of little games over the next two to three months, and a medical procedure I must endure for an hour, twice a day will ensure I read and re-read that rule-book quite heavily. I probably will not be playing Mike, but hope to know the rules well enough, to not have to resort to rolling off a rule. But I am not above it, if the situation calls for it.
My sincere apologies for being arguamentative, again, I hope I will know the rules well enough to not repeat such a ridiculous thread over a mere game.
Hopefully this is the last post, I will get the next round in, probably not this, but next monday.

[anonymice]

i hope this doesnt effect ur judgement of me or elle, i have tried to keep neutal in this matter
i inderstand mikes view and trevs i agree and disagree with both and im more for a flowing game where everyone is friends.

trev now you have a rule book read it properly i know you sometimes just skip over some rules and just read and memorise parts which you like so make sure you understand them.

games are meant as fun and i think we played a big game to early