Hidden (?) units.

[treadasaurusrex]

Amen!

[plloyd1010]

Oh, for Pete's sake, in shared - online or face-to-face - play, just use the 4th edition hidden units rule (1/3 of the units and leaders in scenarios were the units maybe setup as dug-in) or else allow the defending side to be completely hidden, and risk the resulting opfire.

Why play with individuals you don't trust, or persnickety rules lawyers? I don't.

It's just a game, It's supposed to be fun to play . . .

No one said you have to play this way.

[Grognard Gunny]

Everybody's got their own bag!

GG

[Schoenwulf]

So Webster says that a game is " a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other". One of the operative terms there is "rules", which should the same for both players. One sets their strategy in this case  on the this assumption. So when one is in a game and their opponent doesn't follow the rules, it's no longer a game, but a contest of which player can get away with the most egregious violations without getting called on it, sort of the game within the game. The term "rules lawyer" is a rather silly oxymoron, since any disagreement on the rules can be quickly settled without the need for litigation simply by a die roll.

[Grognard Gunny]

Well said!

GG

[Tubac52]

So Webster says that a game is " a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other". One of the operative terms there is "rules", which should the same for both players. One sets their strategy in this case  on the this assumption. So when one is in a game and their opponent doesn't follow the rules, it's no longer a game, but a contest of which player can get away with the most egregious violations without getting called on it, sort of the game within the game. The term "rules lawyer" is a rather silly oxymoron, since any disagreement on the rules can be quickly settled without the need for litigation simply by a die roll.

Spoken like a true Gentleman.

If only most PG Rules Lawyer were so gracious! Unfortunately, most want to argue about every rule in the 4th Edition, and will hold up play and waste time pontificating about THEIR interpretations of what are often, not well-written rules.

Much better to do as you suggest. Hear both player's interpretations, then throw odd or even dice, to determine which interpretation to use.

[cjsiam]

It is important to clarify misunderstandings of the rules before play commences...
And there are occasions where two intelligent humans can both make what appear to be valid
interpretations of the rules---or they might seem to be on first blush.

I see no problem with an ongoing effort to seek a universal understanding of the Rules between players.
On occasion, when agreement/consensus can't be achieved--a die in the game, and then review of future gaming opportunities would be appropriate.

Blatant misplaying of clearly laid out rules needs to be challenged, and honestly stopped, else bad habits develop when 
such a player is confronted with the actual rules....

Rules Lawyers have a role in assuring that the interpretation of the rules is true to the best translation of the Authors intent.
Optional Rules, and modification are all valid too--if players agree...
Personally, Peter's mods, including Double-blind make the best games I've seen...
But, that's just me.

[Grognard Gunny]

Agreed.

GG