It's not right because THAT'S NOT FAIR FUCK YOU I HATE YOU ALL.

Lawyers, as a whole, are total disreputable assholes.

Let me explain my credentials for making that claim: two of my closest friends and roommates are law students, and I have therefore been exposed to the habits, mannerisms, and thought processes of lawyers on a daily basis for quite a while now. And as frustrating as it can be to be proven wrong on semantics, protracted pseudo-logic, or just plain old-fashioned black magic, eventually you have to realize that being proved 'technically wrong' is exactly the same thing as being proved 'regular wrong'.

One of the most hated groups of 40k players are those soulless bastards known as 'rules lawyers'. You know the type; arguing with you over the definitions of the terms in the rules, exploring every possible interpretation of the written wording of even the simplest-sounding processes and happenings, and bringing a new level of clarity to the contentious and convoluted rules of our beloved hobby.

Wait, what was that last part?

Yeah, that's right punks. I just said rules lawyers are good. Now, this comes with the obvious caveat that taking anything too far is bad; Johnny Cochran is a bit dubious, but not every defense attorney is an unscrupulous prick, yah? Yah.

Break it down with me, daddy-o; we play Warhammer 40,000. This is a game that has rules. Those rules exist primarily in written form, the interpretations of which are obviously dependent on the meanings of the words with which they are expressed. The definition of each word in each rule has to be clearly and consistently defined in order for this game to make any sense. Take, for example, the seemingly simple word 'turn': according to the main rulebook FAQ, this only means a player turn, and not a game turn (two player turns). That's a big fucking deal: that's the difference between a Grey Knight Squad casting Hammerhand in your turn as well as his, instead of just half the time (or him not being able to cast Might of Titan in your turn. Have I cashed in on GK paranoia enough, here?). The word 'turn' could arguably be used to refer to either 'game turn' or 'player turn' based on the fact that both those concepts use the same word, but here we have a ruling that says that only one of these interpretations is correct. Might it not be the one you had personally thought was right? Too bad. In situations like this, the annoyance of arbitration is secondary to the necessity of clarity. In order for games of 40k to make sense we all have to agree on what all these terms mean ahead of time. Even if the FAQ didn't have an explicit ruling on whether the word 'turn' refers to player or game turns, we'd still have to come to a definite conclusion on which one of these definitions is right in order for the rules of the game to be consistent. Is being on the wrong side of one of these rulings frustrating? Bet your corduroy jacket it is. But 'broken' is worse than 'frustrating', and it's because of rules lawyers that we can make that distinction.

Let's take a look at a more relevant and unresolved issue: two of the premier tricksy combos in the Necron codex are using Orikan the Diviner's Temporal Snares ability in conjunction with the C'tan Writhing Worldscape Ability, or alternately using the Tremorstave of the Harbingers of Transmogrification in conjunction with the same. Both operate on the same principle: make terrain difficult, which then becomes dangerous by way of the C'tan's ablility. But even though they appear very similar, there are differences in the wording of the rules used that has to be inspected before we can say this tactic is k-k-k-kosher.

Here's the wording for Temporal Snares (pertinent bits bolded):

            "During the first game turn, all enemy units that move count as moving through difficult terrain. If they are actually moving through difficult terrain, then a unit can move the lowest D6 result of their difficult terrain test, rather than the highest."

And here's the Tremorstave, more specifically the Quake special rule that has the actual effect:

            "Quake: All enemy units hit by a weapon with the Quake type treat open ground as difficult terrain during their next Movement phase."

Finally, here's what Writhing Worldscape says:

            "Whilst the C'tan Shard is on the battlefield, all difficult terrain is also dangerous for the enemy. If the terrain is already dangerous, the Dangerous Terrain test is failed on a 1 or a 2."

Now, what we are tasked with doing (at least until the FAQ comes stomping through) is figuring out which wording means what. One, or both, or neither could be legal combos, and the only way we have to decide is by being rules lawyers. To me, the phrase 'counts as' implies a change to the way the TERRAIN ITSELF is handled. The open ground becomes sort of a facsimile of actual difficult terrain. It takes on the attributes of difficult terrain, without actually becoming it entirely. We still make the distinction that it is really just plain ol' open ground with a funky temporary makeover. On the other hand, a unit that 'treats open ground as difficult terrain' is much different. In this case, we handle the way the UNIT IN PARTICULAR behaves. It treats open ground exactly the way that it would difficult terrain, every time, all the time, in every way and in every circumstance. As far as the unit in question is concerned, the two are absolutely identical while the Quake rule is in effect.

So, we can logically conclude that based on the specificity of the Quake rule, all units that move through open ground while subject to it invoke every single provision of difficult terrain, which includes counting that terrain as dangerous if the C'tan is fuxxing with it.

The more difficult question remains, does Temporal Snares do the same thing? As far as I'm concerned, no it does not. Despite the fact that the wording of Worldscape seems to refer more to the terrain as opposed to the units moving through it in the same vein as Snares, the phrase 'counts as' kills this one in the crib. Open ground 'counting as' difficult terrain is still just open ground. It may mimic difficult terrain, but it can only do so for normal circumstances, and with the normal ruleset for it. I don't believe that any special circumstances imposed by other rules would affect it. It's too much of a shallow, tenuous relationship for Worldscape to lay its hurt on. This is of course just the interpretation of a single deranged gentleman, but until the FAQ comes out or somebody rebuts my argument by threatening to punch me repeatedly in the arm (I HATE that), I'm sticking to it.

In summation, folks, the reality of the situation is that a game based on rules has to have those rules scrutinized and examined. They can't be left open to personal interpretation; they have to be debated and reasoned through frequently if there isn't a black-and-white FAQ ruling to pour some decision-milk into our bowls of anarchy cereal. Ask yourself, as much as you hate getting into semantic debates in the middle of a game, would you rather play a dude who bends rules according to the situation and takes advantage of any available ambiguity? Or an opponent who insists on a strict and clear meaning for each rule and abides by them himself, regardless of whether you're on board with it?

Now, do yourselves a favor and troll me to pieces.

Let me feed your ear-toasters some strudel-words.

Thought for the day: If a racist hates somebody based on their race, and a sexist hates somebody based on their sex, does a hobbyist hate somebody based on their hobbies? I think yes.

Here's the thing about the way I, you, or anybody else plays 40k: nobody likes to win.

That is, nobody likes or respects victory in and of itself. There's a psychological connection between winning at checkers and happiness, but it's more related to what you felt as a kid when you got a gold star on a spelling test: you're happy you won because you see it as a reward for doing well. The tough distinction to make here is that it's easy to get your cause and effect mixed up. If you win a game by fielding a steroid netlist, manipulating loopholes and cheesy RAW interpretations, and rolling handfuls of 5's and 6's all day, you'll find it's quite easy to look at the fact that you won as justification for any and all methods that you used. It's a matter of perspective. It's how our brains are wired; when it comes to our world views we like to pretend that good guys always win and that the winners are always the good guys. It's called the Just-World Fallacy. The basic idea is that we are inclined to believe that if you win a game, it's because you deserved to win it. But the word 'fallacy' is in there for a reason. Every single gamer has had games where they won because their opponent failed one single morale check at the end of the final turn, or games where their painstaking tactical maneuvering was thwarted by uncooperative dice. It's simple enough, right? People mistake enjoying a victory with enjoying a well-earned victory. Of course, most people would be able to look back on a game they won purely by luck and realize that it was just that, and I'm not particularly interested in the few that can't. But the fact remains that because of this misconception we're programmed to have, and the tendency of some people to not think beyond it, that a couple of grievances arise.

I'll get the obvious problem out of the way first: people treating pickup games like 'Ard Boyz. At my local gaming store there are horror stories about a disreputable dude who bends some rules, breaks others, and takes advantages of rookie players' inexperience in games originally meant to 'show them the ropes'. For him, the means aren't so much backseat to the ends as they are gagged and bound in the trunk. Clearly he's an extreme example of not being able to distinguish between rosy rationalizations of why you think you won and why you actually did, but he's hardly the worst I've ever heard of. People sometimes lose sight of the fact that they can deserve a win or a loss. Their credo is along the lines of 'if I'm gonna win, I might as well massacre', which is a bit of a bloodthirsty attitude to have while you're just kicking it around locally, no?. People like this are pretty easily identified, usually by their power-built GT level lists that they bring around to friendly shops on weekdays to table casual players while grinning like a horny hyena.

But this kind of thing also propagates a different stereotype. While you might be correct in assuming that a power player would field a power army, seeing somebody with, for example, a Grey Knights army doesn't necessarily mean they're a baby seal clubber (hint: I'm talking about myself here). Since I started playing games with GK the general consensus people have when seeing a storm bolter being placed on a table is that I'm a jackass who shelled out $400 for an army, spent hours clipping and gluing and cussing at magnets, and then came to the store solely with the intention of mercilessly squashing anybody who is foolhardy enough to step to my Mat Ward-powered queso-fiesta army. There's always some self-righteous kid champing at the bit to call me a mercenary front-runner n00bz0r, and decry my obvious plans of running gaming tables against my hopelessly underpowered opponents. Good guess. When the GK rumors started circulating on the 'net and I made the decision to make them my first Marine army, it wasn't because I wanted to run MSU Psyback Spam, or fill Chimeras with Multi-Melta Servitors and Storm Shield Crusaders. I wasn't looking forward to Shunt Punching my opponents silly or fielding three Psyrifle Dreads every game. It wasn't because I'm clairvoyant and I knew GK would be projected to fill 8 of the top 16 slots at the Nova Open. I decided to start Grey Knights for the same reason I continue to play them now: because I think Grey Knights are bitchin' sweet. I read the codex leaks and weapon lists and thought of a backstory for my personal chapter. I planned out the color scheme. I started thinking about goddamn names for the squad leaders. I liked how the army sounded and I ran with it. That's as much thought as I put into it. Despite that now every major 40k blog (like this one LOLJKROFLCOPTER) has broken the codex and found the most retarded combinations that are all but unstoppable by normal means, I don't play this army because it gives me any particular advantage in a competitive sense. I'm of course not saying that it doesn't (power-armored armies don't seem to be able to suck), but that's beside the point I'm trying to make. The fact of the matter is that people simply assume everyone else is playing purely to win, and that makes it that much harder for either player to enjoy the game as a whole.

And that brings me to my central point: the color behind the armies, not certain armies' ability to let you dominate on the tabletop, are what truly make this game fun. Think back: the fluff of your army is most likely the factor that sparked your original interest in playing it, not it's delightful smoky gouda flavor. I like space bugs that eat worlds, so I play Tyranids. I like zombie robots that with guns that zap people into technicolor skeletons like Mars Attacks, so I play Necrons. I like psychic ghost-hunting space monks with broadswords and halberds and guns attached to their forearms, so I play Grey Knights. Do I win more games with Grey Knights than I do with Tyranids or Necrons? Of course I do; they're an extremely powerful army, more so than anybody predicted. But don't see me playing and automatically assume that their newfound competitive strength was even a factor in my decision to start the army. If there is anybody reading this who picked an army whose fluff they hated because they thought, "Well, I can win games with this", I will shake your hand and agree to completely disagree. In this deranged gentleman's humble opinion, wargaming is meant to be a very immersive experience, and to completely ignore everything but the gaming itself is to rob yourself of the majority of the enjoyment you can get from it.

And so I will always advocate fluffy lists, themed lists, lists with character and personality and fan-fiction personalized backstories, and above all fun lists above the soulless, run-of-the-mill tourney netlists. There's a weird trend I've noticed where super-optimized lists are considered the norm and casual lists the exception, which I feel is totally backwards. You can have all the MathHammer and predatory instinct you want but at the end of the day it's you and your little plastic tanks and soldiers against the world, and I think you can afford a nonchalant chuckle or two along the way. Do yourself a favor; write up a goofy, sub-optimal list, proxy and counts-as all the characters you've never used before, and while you're writing your list, remember to please get off the fucking internet. Would you rather read a novel and enjoy the art of it, or read the SparkNotes and learn just enough to pass the exam?

And most importantly, remember to meet me at the gaming table, where I'll be doing the exact same thing.

Prepare to be misinformed.

Who doesn't like a terribly brief and self-aggrandizing-yet-thematically-unrelated first blog post?

My name is Marcus, and I've danced on the sun with a gun in each hand. I've seen roller coasters tie themselves into knots with the hopes I would compliment them (I totally wouldn't, that's dangerous). When bears hibernate, they have terrible nightmares about me but are too fat to sleepwalk to safety. I jumped on a trampoline with a pogo stick and somehow grew a beard. I am in no way inspired by Charlie Sheen. When I go to see magicians perform, they are able to actually materialize helicopters and elephants and shit from behind tarps, instead of just hiding them somewhere beforehand, but they still hide one just in case and then their elephant fights my elephant and mine always wins. When I put my shoes on the wrong feet, they automatically change their shape to be more pleasing to my arches and insteps. I can't read, but I can write just fine.


And now that you know the basics, I will also add that I am an avid Warhammer 40k player and that the majority of my posts will be related to tactics, codex and unit reviews, battle reports, and making fun of people named Kevin. The rest will be chroniclings of my least awesome adventures and drunken indiscretions (the most awesome ones will be omitted as they defy both written word and internet bandwith). So I will leave you with the promise that in the near future I will be posting reviews of generic "Tyranid Tournament Lists" vs my "Seriously Stylish and Seductive 'Stealer Shock Syllabus", or SSSSSS for short. And after that...later...in April...specifically, starting on the 2nd...GREY KNIGHT PROJECT ARMY WEEKLY RECAP MADNESS! Believe it. For everyone who visited from Baals-2-The-Waals, please love me. I'm lonely.

See you on the gaming table.