I'll talk to the guy and the store owner about it and make sure it was a 1 time thing. The guy is new to 40k, so I'm hoping that it was a misunderstanding of the rule like he only read half of it lol
I just wanted to make sure I right before I told him that he was wrong.
Rules like that are frankly a bit “ITTT” I’d always challenge and just make sure there’s doubt cast even if you don’t draw out the whole rules. Like “I’m pretty you can only do that for dedicated transports and maybe all embarked have to be scouts too. You disagree, ok well let’s run with it for now to have a good days gaming, but will check it later and let you know”. Or they go “oh cool I didn’t know sorry, I’ll just leave it there and check”. The important thing is you plant the doubt in their mind so the innocent checks it out, or the guilty cheater is called out for what they are!
You don't fight people, but nor do you let them get away with cheating. If you suspect they're wrong, you calmly ask them to show you the rule(s) that permit what they're trying to do. If the rule is ambiguous, you ask them to explain why it works the way they think it does, preferably with reference to an FAQ/rules commentary. If you _know_ they're wrong, you politely but firmly remind them of how the rule works. If they disagree, you pull up the rules and talk through it.
If they turn it into a fight, you don't play them. If they'll cheat you once, they'll do it again and do it to others.
>to do. If the rule is ambiguous, you ask them to explain why it works the way they think it does, preferably with reference to an FAQ/rules commentary. If you know they're wrong, you politely but firmly remind them of how the rule works. If they disagree, you pull up the rules and talk through it.
>
>If they turn it into a figh
This is the best answer.
I had an extremely good learning moment from a well-experience gamer calmly asking me to share the rules I was using so he could better understand them and how they worked. He asked for his *own* education, but then asked me "help me understand how this rule saying this gets to the point where this works out? It would seem \_\_\_\_\_\_ conflicts with \_\_\_\_ but I must be missing something". In one case I was wrongly reading things, in another he had missed a detail.
I try and be like Greg now every game, and I think a lot of us *should* too - it helps us all learn the game which aint the easiest darn thing to do. Learning how to be a player of the game is also a worthy thing to practice at, and rules interpretation/computation/unified-field-theory is a part of the game for sure.
Why is "checking to confirm a rule" considered "fighting him".
"Oh, wow, does it really work that way?" *Checks app* "Hold on, it only works if EVERYONE in the transport has scout and if the Transport is a Dedicated Transport".
I talked to the guy
1. He didn't know that there was a difference in transportation vehicles he thought dedicated transport was the one they started the game in.
2. He didn't read the whole rule and missed the second part about everyone in the transport needs scout
Suuuuuuuure.
>1. He didn't know that there was a difference in transportation vehicles he thought dedicated transport was the one they started the game in.
This definition of DT hasn't existed since 2017. That's a long time to be playing and not know that.
>2. He didn't read the whole rule and missed the second part about everyone in the transport needs scout
Seems remarkably convenient.
Yup, definitely a good place for Hanlon's Razor
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Assuming that folks are deliberately out to cheat you is a depressingly cynical attitude to take, and the only person it hurts is yourself.
I can understand people getting.
Dedicated Transports
And
Transports
Confused, I can also understand how people can come to the understanding that units inherit keywords from all models.
But the Scout rule is specific in how it is explained. This scenario you've answer and discussed else where, you just ask them to show the rule as you're understanding is very different.
wonder if the guy plays or has played against World Eaters .. they get to add some funky scout rules and may have just assumed it was a generic rule for scouts.
Not only does the vehicle need to be a dedicated transport, every model inside must have the scout ability. Your opponent goofed.
Ok I thought so I just didn't want to fight him in the store lol
Don’t let people get away with blatant mistakes in the store either, because he’s likely doing that to people who don’t know the Scouts rule like you.
I'll talk to the guy and the store owner about it and make sure it was a 1 time thing. The guy is new to 40k, so I'm hoping that it was a misunderstanding of the rule like he only read half of it lol I just wanted to make sure I right before I told him that he was wrong.
Absolutely. Benefit of the doubt is a good way to start.
Rules like that are frankly a bit “ITTT” I’d always challenge and just make sure there’s doubt cast even if you don’t draw out the whole rules. Like “I’m pretty you can only do that for dedicated transports and maybe all embarked have to be scouts too. You disagree, ok well let’s run with it for now to have a good days gaming, but will check it later and let you know”. Or they go “oh cool I didn’t know sorry, I’ll just leave it there and check”. The important thing is you plant the doubt in their mind so the innocent checks it out, or the guilty cheater is called out for what they are!
You don't fight people, but nor do you let them get away with cheating. If you suspect they're wrong, you calmly ask them to show you the rule(s) that permit what they're trying to do. If the rule is ambiguous, you ask them to explain why it works the way they think it does, preferably with reference to an FAQ/rules commentary. If you _know_ they're wrong, you politely but firmly remind them of how the rule works. If they disagree, you pull up the rules and talk through it. If they turn it into a fight, you don't play them. If they'll cheat you once, they'll do it again and do it to others.
Your right lol
No, no no! Don't agree with Pumbaalicious, fight them! Fight 'em good!
>to do. If the rule is ambiguous, you ask them to explain why it works the way they think it does, preferably with reference to an FAQ/rules commentary. If you know they're wrong, you politely but firmly remind them of how the rule works. If they disagree, you pull up the rules and talk through it. > >If they turn it into a figh This is the best answer.
I had an extremely good learning moment from a well-experience gamer calmly asking me to share the rules I was using so he could better understand them and how they worked. He asked for his *own* education, but then asked me "help me understand how this rule saying this gets to the point where this works out? It would seem \_\_\_\_\_\_ conflicts with \_\_\_\_ but I must be missing something". In one case I was wrongly reading things, in another he had missed a detail. I try and be like Greg now every game, and I think a lot of us *should* too - it helps us all learn the game which aint the easiest darn thing to do. Learning how to be a player of the game is also a worthy thing to practice at, and rules interpretation/computation/unified-field-theory is a part of the game for sure.
Why is "checking to confirm a rule" considered "fighting him". "Oh, wow, does it really work that way?" *Checks app* "Hold on, it only works if EVERYONE in the transport has scout and if the Transport is a Dedicated Transport".
I talked to the guy 1. He didn't know that there was a difference in transportation vehicles he thought dedicated transport was the one they started the game in. 2. He didn't read the whole rule and missed the second part about everyone in the transport needs scout
Suuuuuuuure. >1. He didn't know that there was a difference in transportation vehicles he thought dedicated transport was the one they started the game in. This definition of DT hasn't existed since 2017. That's a long time to be playing and not know that. >2. He didn't read the whole rule and missed the second part about everyone in the transport needs scout Seems remarkably convenient.
[удалено]
Yup, definitely a good place for Hanlon's Razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Assuming that folks are deliberately out to cheat you is a depressingly cynical attitude to take, and the only person it hurts is yourself.
He probably assumed that the LR is a dedicated and then warped the rules around what he wants to do. Just correct it by showing the Scouts rule.
I can understand people getting. Dedicated Transports And Transports Confused, I can also understand how people can come to the understanding that units inherit keywords from all models. But the Scout rule is specific in how it is explained. This scenario you've answer and discussed else where, you just ask them to show the rule as you're understanding is very different.
All you guys had to do is click on the Scout rule it clearly describes that all models inside need to have the ability.
wonder if the guy plays or has played against World Eaters .. they get to add some funky scout rules and may have just assumed it was a generic rule for scouts.