Tzeentch win Cancon and the GW GT Heat 1

[BillyOcean]

3 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

I absolutely agree, but until a clarification comes out the player with the rule in question should play it safe and dont force others to accep his interpretation of RAW as the right one. 

I agree with that - I'm a Tzeentch player and was already playing Battleshock and Rend the non-broken way before the FAQ, because it didn't seem right and I was sure it would be Errata'd. With the Horror Icon rule I will ask for my opponents interpretation of the FAQ and play it that way (for what its worth, my regular opponents come down on different sides of this). My only point in this argument is that we shouldn't have to make these calls as players, there should be a carefully worded document that doesn't leave it in doubt.

[Phasteon]

8 minutes ago, BillyOcean said:

I agree with that - I'm a Tzeentch player and was already playing Battleshock and Rend the non-broken way before the FAQ, because it didn't seem right and I was sure it would be Errata'd. With the Horror Icon rule I will ask for my opponents interpretation of the FAQ and play it that way (for what its worth, my regular opponents come down on different sides of this). My only point in this argument is that we shouldn't have to make these calls as players, there should be a carefully worded document that doesn't leave it in doubt.

Absolutely, but sadly thats often not the case. 

Thats why I make the point that its on the players in this case to be a good sport and interpret the rules in a way that makes for a fun and fair game experience for both players. 

When someone always interprets questionable rules in a way that benefits him, winning games here and there sometimes just because of that, also often against new players or players that dont rule lawyer at all and just take it, that person dont need to be surprised if he gets called „that guy“ and avoided by the others. 

 

Edit: Even worse, there are people that build a ONETRICK list that just consists of abusing that questionable rule. I have no words for that tbh. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Phasteon

[novembermike]

1 hour ago, BillyOcean said:

Indeed! And then let's try to apply consistent logic to the Icon rule, where a lot of arguments are hinging on the FAQ's statement that Destiny Dice in a battleshock test count as unmodified. "Counts as" can't mean "different from" in one case, and not the other. 

I will keep advocating for the position that both of these things are unclear and the Rules Team should be asked to publish a new, carefully-worded FAQ that accurately conveys their intent. I don't see this position as particularly controversial. 

Nah, "Counts As" works for look backs. All dice rolls are look backs, you roll the dice and then look back at it to see how to resolve an event. "Counts as" works fine there. The Horror split is a replacement ability. It looks for a specific event (a model being slain) and then replaces the effect (instead of removing the model you remove the model and add in other models). Replacement effects can't be look backs because they have to happen when the event occurs. 

[Isotop]

1 hour ago, Phasteon said:

Thats why I make the point that its on the players in this case to be a good sport and interpret the rules in a way that makes for a fun and fair game experience for both players. 

I really do not get why the player with the unclear rule should be the one who has to step back. By interpreting the rule in question "mildly" their opponent gets an advantage as well - why would the advantage be less unfair in this case? Why not simply roll off when a rule is simply  not clear?

1 hour ago, Phasteon said:

Edit: Even worse, there are people that build a ONETRICK list that just consists of abusing that questionable rule. I have no words for that tbh. 

I understand: You have been touched by some very bad people. But do not generalize. Not every person who want to play with clear and detailed rules is also an immoral human being.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Isotop

[Isotop]

25 minutes ago, novembermike said:

Nah, "Counts As" works for look backs. All dice rolls are look backs, you roll the dice and then look back at it to see how to resolve an event. "Counts as" works fine there. The Horror split is a replacement ability. It looks for a specific event (a model being slain) and then replaces the effect (instead of removing the model you remove the model and add in other models). Replacement effects can't be look backs because they have to happen when the event occurs. 

You are literally making this up. As nice as it sounds, there is no foundation for your explanation in the rules. I wish they were more clear on a lot of things, but they are not. Let us just wait and hope for a better Erratum/Commentary.

[Daramiz]

33 minutes ago, novembermike said:

Nah, "Counts As" works for look backs. All dice rolls are look backs, you roll the dice and then look back at it to see how to resolve an event. "Counts as" works fine there. The Horror split is a replacement ability. It looks for a specific event (a model being slain) and then replaces the effect (instead of removing the model you remove the model and add in other models). Replacement effects can't be look backs because they have to happen when the event occurs. 

Quote some rules for "look backs" and "replacement effects".

[novembermike]

1 minute ago, Daramiz said:

Quote some rules for "look backs" and "replacement effects".

These are pretty basic game concepts so if you're having trouble understanding I can give you a few pointers, but GW doesn't tend to define their terms pretty well. Do you have the rules quote for what an inch  or a foot is?

[Isotop]

10 minutes ago, novembermike said:

These are pretty basic game concepts so if you're having trouble understanding I can give you a few pointers, but GW doesn't tend to define their terms pretty well. Do you have the rules quote for what an inch  or a foot is?

An inch is a perfectly defined concept. Your "look backs" and "replacement effects" are terms made up by you. I think it is pretty clear that these are subjective concepts that do not exist in AoS rules as general constructs. 

EDIT: It is absolutely fine to use new terms to describe how you might understand a certain ruling, but please do not act as if "look backs" and "replacement effects" are some objective rules facts. Just explain a bit more and others might be able to follow your argumentation and react in a sensible way.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Isotop

[Phasteon]

29 minutes ago, Isotop said:

I really do not get why the player with the unclear rule should be the one who has to step back. By interpreting the rule in question "mildly" their opponent gets an advantage as well - why would the advantage be less unfair in this case? Why not simply roll off when a rule is simply  not clear?

I understand: You have been touched by some very bad people. But do not generalize. Not every person who want to play with clear and detailed rules is also an immoral human being.

1) Because you as the „active“ player gaining something from a misinterpreted rule is worse than taking a „disadvantage“ by not getting something you maybe shouldnt have. 

Thats common sense. 

2) I did not generalize, I talked about a very specific kind of toxic players most certainly everyone knows.

[Isotop]

1 minute ago, Phasteon said:

1) Because you as the „active“ player gaining something from a misinterpreted rule is worse than taking a „disadvantage“ by not getting something you maybe shouldnt have. 

Thats common sense.

I really  do not understand how this is common sense. Why is the "active" or "passive" status of the player important? We do not know how the rule will turn out in future Errata/Commentaries, so how could it be an abuse to play the rule one way or another? Why is it important "in which army" the unclear rule is located? 

 

[Ser_namron]

1 hour ago, BillyOcean said:

My only point in this argument is that we shouldn't have to make these calls as players, there should be a carefully worded document that doesn't leave it in doubt.

This is the big take away. How hard could it be for GW to make this call? Literally ****** 5 seconds.  GW once again showing how incapable they are. 

[Daramiz]

25 minutes ago, novembermike said:

These are pretty basic game concepts so if you're having trouble understanding I can give you a few pointers, but GW doesn't tend to define their terms pretty well. Do you have the rules quote for what an inch  or a foot is?

This is silly. "Inch" has a set definition. If I want to go to outside games for a definition on "Replacement Effect" I could look at Magic the Gathering which has over a page of rules defining "Replacement Effects" (So much for being basic). Except in MtG 'When Pink Horror dies create two Blue Horror' WOULDN'T be a replacement effect but a triggered ability, so there goes that idea.

[NJohansson]

16 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

1) Because you as the „active“ player gaining something from a misinterpreted rule is worse than taking a „disadvantage“ by not getting something you maybe shouldnt have. 

Thats common sense. 

2) I did not generalize, I talked about a very specific kind of toxic players most certainly everyone knows.

I thought to just drop the argument (seeing as it almost guaranteed will not lead anywhere) but against better judgment I’ll bite.  

Common sense is not a universal understanding. What common sense is to one person is wholly different to another one (basic leadership/management/legal training has tonnes of literature on this phenomena) - it is a subjective (culture/education/belief etc.) notion.  
 

The concept of a toxic player has the same subjective assumption. We all can probably agree that a player that belatedly cheating, rage quitting, being offensive/threatening  is bad for the hobby and is toxic. Beyond that it becomes subjective - you may want people to play nice, fluffy and balanced lists, other players want to face and field the most cut throat lists that are possible.  Odds are that if these two types of players play against each other - one or the other will find the other player toxic (most probably the fluffy list guy - simply due to his/her list being wiped of the board) but in reality they just have very different ideas about common sense, rules of engagement and the game in general (it’s like having a communist talk politics with a capitalist - they will not come to any understanding).
 

So in essence there is no real concept of who should yield or whose common sense should prevail - the best solution is try to follow the rules and agree on them where possible (usually not a problem when both players have similar common sense), use RAW when in argument (the communist plays the capitalist) and hope for clarifications when even RAW becomes impossible or just in the end roll-off. Much more fair than asking someone to play by your notion of fairness.

[Phasteon]

2 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

I thought to just drop the argument (seeing as it almost guaranteed will not lead anywhere) but against better judgment I’ll bite.  

Common sense is not a universal understanding. What common sense is to one person is wholly different to another one (basic leadership/management/legal training has tonnes of literature on this phenomena) - it is a subjective (culture/education/belief etc.) notion.  
 

The concept of a toxic player has the same subjective assumption. We all can probably agree that a player that belatedly cheating, rage quitting, being offensive/threatening  is bad for the hobby and is toxic. Beyond that it becomes subjective - you may want people to play nice, fluffy and balanced lists, other players want to face and field the most cut throat lists that are possible.  Odds are that if these two types of players play against each other - one or the other will find the other player toxic (most probably the fluffy list guy - simply due to his/her list being wiped of the board) but in reality they just have very different ideas about common sense, rules of engagement and the game in general (it’s like having a communist talk politics with a capitalist - they will not come to any understanding).
 

So in essence there is no real concept of who should yield or whose common sense should prevail - the best solution is try to follow the rules and agree on them where possible (usually not a problem when both players have similar common sense), use RAW when in argument (the communist plays the capitalist) and hope for clarifications when even RAW becomes impossible or just in the end roll-off. Much more fair than asking someone to play by your notion of fairness.

So after all you agreed, lol. 

It should be common sense to find a solution both players can accept. 

And its the basic concept of fair play that before you accidentally cheat you better tripple check something. 

And if its not 100% clear to both players you either ask a judge or roll off. 

 

[relic456]

45 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Thats common sense. 

Oof, that's where you lost me. Common sense is so subjective that the term is almost meaningless. I can see both sides of the Tzeentch argument so it's definitely a "wait and see" for me. In a friendly game, I'll happily allow the Tzeentch opponent play it however they like. In a tournament setting, I'd ask how the TO will rule it and act accordingly, there are a few other interactions where that's a best practice anyways.

My reasoning: I'm of the opinion that the adjudication of rules should flow from those with the most authority (GW Rules Team) to the least (the players in the game). Similar to REL in MtG, I think the highest authority to use is context dependent. I'm perfectly happy to arbitrate rules with my opponent in a friendly or home game. I have zero interest in arbitrating rules with my opponent in a tournament setting. Both of us stand to benefit from the outcome of the ruling and therefore cannot provide an objective opinion. Without an official decision from the GW Rules Team, the next highest authority would be the TO. If I disagree with how the TO wants to rule it, the right thing to do is accept the ruling and table the complaint until after the tournament.

[novembermike]

17 minutes ago, Isotop said:

An inch is a perfectly defined concept. Your "look backs" and "replacement effects" are terms made up by you. I think it is pretty clear that these are subjective concepts that do not exist in AoS rules as general constructs. 

EDIT: It is absolutely fine to use new terms to describe how you might understand a certain ruling, but please do not act as if "look backs" and "replacement effects" are some objective rules facts. Just explain a bit more and others might be able to follow your argumentation and react in a sensible way.

Which inch? Are we using Scottish inches? Survey Inches? French Inches? Is it just 1/12th of a foot? If so, whose foot are we measuring? There's a basic assumption that people will be reasonable about it. I'll go ahead and define the terms in case there's confusion but the terms are not that unusual.

Look-back: The game's memory. Hungry Hungry Hippos has no memory, you can derive the entire state of the game off of the state of the board. Chess has a little memory, you need to now who's turn it is and whether anyone castled to understand the state of the game. AOS has tons of memory, you need to know if something moved, how many models were slain that turn, how many were slain total, etc to understand the state of the game.

Replacement Effect: AOS provides a set of basic rules. Many units have abilities that modify those rules. For example, Gyrobombers have a rule that lets them bomb things after they move. The rule doesn't limit how many times you can use the ability after a move, but most people play it as being usable once per move rather than infinite times. The simplest way to model that is that it modifies the way that Gyrobombers move. You can model the rule differently but it ends up being functionally identical to a replacement. 

GW isn't too rigorous about their rules system so they can be a bit random but they do tend to write rules differently for these.  When they modify the game's memory they tend to say "counts as" and add in a past tense bit. In 40k, deep strikers "count as having moved", and if they don't come in by the third turn they "count as having been destroyed". Morale and split units are the same in AOS, for battleshock models flee, which is defined as "remove them from play and count them as having been slain", while split units says "the models you remove count as having been slain".  This is very different from the slain event, which is defined as "Place a slain model to one side - it is removed from play". One is slain -> removed from play, the other is fled -> removed from play -> counts as slain. 

This doesn't cause issues for most abilities because most abilities that trigger on being slain assume that the model is on the board. The Cities Phoenix's, Vulkite Berzerkers and Barak Thryng KO are a few examples, but there are more. Horrors cause an issue because they're worded differently but if you go through the logic Fleeing is not the same as Slain, it's just treated the same after the fact for effects like healing or scoring.

 

5 minutes ago, Daramiz said:

This is silly. "Inch" has a set definition. If I want to go to outside games for a definition on "Replacement Effect" I could look at Magic the Gathering which has over a page of rules defining "Replacement Effects" (So much for being basic). Except in MtG 'When Pink Horror dies create two Blue Horror' WOULDN'T be a replacement effect but a triggered ability, so there goes that idea.

This is pretty close, the only issue is that AOS doesn't have the same timing rules as MTG so Triggered Abilities don't really work, so they all have to be modeled as replacement effects. Without a stack triggered abilities are basically a subset of replacement effects though so it works out (even with a stack they're still a subset but there triggered abilities simplify a few useful things).

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, relic456 said:

Common sense is so subjective that the term is almost meaningless.

Every day when a child goes to his first class of the day in school, the first thing he or she should hear from a teacher is that statement.

 

If we start young, maybe we'll get the idea that common sense is even a thing out of our cultural mindset.

It might also lead to rules with better wording.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Sleboda
Typo

[gjnoronh]

On 2/5/2020 at 5:09 PM, Dead Scribe said:

Or... and hear me out.... competing IS fun for some of us.  Which in this context means creating the most powerful lists we can so that we are not at a disadvantage against someone else who is doing the same thing.  

I'm assuming that was in response to me.  If not my apologies.

There is nothing wrong with 'hard' lists particularly in a setting where both participants know what to expect.

Would you have fun "competing" if every game was a series of arguments with a verbally abusive guy who didn't know their rules.  Irrespective if you 'competed at a high level event' I'd argue that game would probably not be a lot of fun.       Would you have fun 'competing' if  you  _always_  lost? Say the Magic situation where your opponents have access to far far better cards then you you may be at a premier event against great players but would you enjoy the experience.  Maybe  maybe not.    

I'm definitely not calling you out for wanting to play competitively, or wanting to win.   I just wonder if the word 'competing' is the right term.   There are situations I've been in 'competition' (and non competition) that fundamentally weren't fun including finals at the top table of tournaments.   I think that may be true for most people in those settings.     There may be some people who value 'competing' against an unpleasant opponent but I think that's fairly rare.   

 On the same note we're aware on this forum that there are people who have suggested they should subvert event rules, use weighted dice or dice tricks or practice rules lawyering to win events.   That's probably more finding 'winning is fun' then it is a enjoying  ' competing' at least as most people would define 'competing.'    Note that sentiment is probably  okay as well (who doesn't like to win!) but it's really not enjoying 'competing.'     

I love a close fought  and intellectually stimulating game with hard or soft lists, I don't know that I particularly  enjoy a mismatched game whether I was winning or losing.  

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by gjnoronh

[Phasteon]

19 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Every day when a child goes to his first class of the day in school, the first thing he or she should hear from a teacher is that statement.

 

If we start young, maybe we'll get the idea that common sense is even a thing out of our cultural mindset.

It might also less to rules with better wording.

I think we might have a different definition of common sense. 

You talk about it as if its something that effects people negative, in my country common sense quite literally means that you „think like a sane person“ 

[Nogginnocker]

Some portions of this thread are starting to reach DakkaDakka levels of intense disagreement. 😲

Just because I was bored and curious, I started looking at the FAQs in other languages. The Spanish mirrored the English, but the German was slightly different. *Ooooh Intrigue!!!!!* I'm busting out the tinfoil hat and Jiffy Pop for this.

Here's the German:
Seite 69 – Kampfeigenschaften, Meister des Schicksals Ersetze den letzten Absatz durch das Folgende: „Jeder ausgegebene Schicksalswürfel ermöglicht dir, einen einzelnen Würfel zu ersetzen. Wenn du einen Wurf mit 2W6 ersetzen möchtest (etwa einen Zauberwurf oder Angriffswurf), musst du 2 Schicksalswürfel ausgeben. Ersetzte Würfe zählen als unmodifizierte Würfe und können nicht wiederholt und nicht weiter modifiziert werden. Wenn du einen Schicksalswürfel ausgibst, um einen Schutzwurf zu ersetzen, wird das Ergebnis des Schicksalswürfels wie üblich durch den Wuchtwert der Attacke modifiziert. Wenn du einen Schicksalswürfel ausgibst, um einen Kampfschocktest zu ersetzen, wird das Ergebnis des Schicksalswürfels wie üblich durch die Anzahl der aus der Einheit getöteten Modelle modifiziert.

Now, I am no German linguist (alas, there is no Korean language FAQ). However, I faithfully put my trust into the almighty Google Translate because I'm a 21st Century Digital Boy (minus the illiteracy bit), and this is the result:

"Page 69 - Combat characteristics, master of destiny
Replace the last paragraph with the following:
“Each fate die you spend allows you to replace a single die. If you have a litter want to replace with 2d6 (like a magic throw or attack roll), you must spend 2 dice of fate. Replaced throws count as unmodified throws and cannot be repeated or modified.
If you spend a die of fate, around one to replace the save throw, the result of the fate die is modified as usual by the balance value of the attack.
If you spend a die of fate, around one replacing combat shock test will be the result of Destiny Cube as usual by the number of modified the unit killed models."

I noticed that it left out the somewhat awkward parenthesis in the English FAQ that seems to have unwittingly caused confusion "(with the exception of save rolls and battleshock tests)." If there's a massive failure in the Google translation, I'm sure someone fluent in German can point it out quickly enough.

I'm not a tournament player. I only play for fun in my basement, my friends' basements, or my FLGS. I have some local friends who either currently play Tzeentch demons or are currently building a Tzeentch demon list. I know I'll let them use a DD of 1 in the casual games we play because I think maybe GW went a tad too far on some of the errata and I feel kind of bad. Also, I'll just look at it as much deserved flagellation for failing to kill a mere 10 pinks or even 20 pinks in some situations. Also, I can sometimes pick out the banner bearer specifically, so it may not even matter.  However, if I ever did plan on going to a tournament in the near future before GW answers this question, I would simply ask the TO and call it a day. It's that simple.

Regardless of the outcome, I will henceforth refer to DD as "Destiny Cubes." 

[Phasteon]

17 minutes ago, Nogginnocker said:

Some portions of this thread are starting to reach DakkaDakka levels of intense disagreement. 😲

Just because I was bored and curious, I started looking at the FAQs in other languages. The Spanish mirrored the English, but the German was slightly different. *Ooooh Intrigue!!!!!* I'm busting out the tinfoil hat and Jiffy Pop for this.

Here's the German:
Seite 69 – Kampfeigenschaften, Meister des Schicksals Ersetze den letzten Absatz durch das Folgende: „Jeder ausgegebene Schicksalswürfel ermöglicht dir, einen einzelnen Würfel zu ersetzen. Wenn du einen Wurf mit 2W6 ersetzen möchtest (etwa einen Zauberwurf oder Angriffswurf), musst du 2 Schicksalswürfel ausgeben. Ersetzte Würfe zählen als unmodifizierte Würfe und können nicht wiederholt und nicht weiter modifiziert werden. Wenn du einen Schicksalswürfel ausgibst, um einen Schutzwurf zu ersetzen, wird das Ergebnis des Schicksalswürfels wie üblich durch den Wuchtwert der Attacke modifiziert. Wenn du einen Schicksalswürfel ausgibst, um einen Kampfschocktest zu ersetzen, wird das Ergebnis des Schicksalswürfels wie üblich durch die Anzahl der aus der Einheit getöteten Modelle modifiziert.

Now, I am no German linguist (alas, there is no Korean language FAQ). However, I faithfully put my trust into the almighty Google Translate because I'm a 21st Century Digital Boy (minus the illiteracy bit), and this is the result:

"Page 69 - Combat characteristics, master of destiny
Replace the last paragraph with the following:
“Each fate die you spend allows you to replace a single die. If you have a litter want to replace with 2d6 (like a magic throw or attack roll), you must spend 2 dice of fate. Replaced throws count as unmodified throws and cannot be repeated or modified.
If you spend a die of fate, around one to replace the save throw, the result of the fate die is modified as usual by the balance value of the attack.
If you spend a die of fate, around one replacing combat shock test will be the result of Destiny Cube as usual by the number of modified the unit killed models."

I noticed that it left out the somewhat awkward parenthesis in the English FAQ that seems to have unwittingly caused confusion "(with the exception of save rolls and battleshock tests)." If there's a massive failure in the Google translation, I'm sure someone fluent in German can point it out quickly enough.

I'm not a tournament player. I only play for fun in my basement, my friends' basements, or my FLGS. I have some local friends who either currently play Tzeentch demons or are currently building a Tzeentch demon list. I know I'll let them use a DD of 1 in the casual games we play because I think maybe GW went a tad too far on some of the errata and I feel kind of bad. Also, I'll just look at it as much deserved flagellation for failing to kill a mere 10 pinks or even 20 pinks in some situations. Also, I can sometimes pick out the banner bearer specifically, so it may not even matter.  However, if I ever did plan on going to a tournament in the near future before GW answers this question, I would simply ask the TO and call it a day. It's that simple.

Regardless of the outcome, I will henceforth refer to DD as "Destiny Cubes." 

Definately true. 

The german FAQ states 2 things: 

- destiny cubes are „unmodified“ rolls

- destiny cubes used for saves and battleshock get modified by rend/lost models. 

No exception, which means that a „1“ should still trigger the banner. 

 

But if we take the german wording now, my „Prayer of Ash“ works on a 3+ now instead of 4+ because it is printed that way and was never FAQd and we can now choose which translation fits our purpose best. Right?

(This is no offense, but the german translation is often full of mistakes, where they leave important things out or straight up copy a wrong/old wording) 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Phasteon

[Sleboda]

42 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

I think we might have a different definition of common sense. 

You talk about it as if its something that effects people negative, in my country common sense quite literally means that you „think like a sane person“ 

Not to derail, but my point is that the definition of what is our is not common sense varies not only from time period to time period or culture to culture, but even from one town, street, or house to the next.

In other words, it's not "common" at all and thus it should not be used to support an opinion.

[Phasteon]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Not to derail, but my point is that the definition of what is our is not common sense varies not only from time period to time period or culture to culture, but even from one town, street, or house to the next.

In other words, it's not "common" at all and thus it should not be used to support an opinion.

Ok, I can see that. 

We can switch „common sense“ with „being a good sportsman“ then. 

I thought that everyone can agree that being a good sport is important therefore making it common sense regarding wargaming. Maybe I‘m wrong on that and its just my personal opinion. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Phasteon

[Sedraxis]

We have now shifted from interpreting rules to interpreting words, what a time to be alive!

I think this topic has run its course.

 

In conclusion:

New Tzeentch book way to stronk, FAQ nerfed broken things, still needs more FAQ to clear up mess. Still really stronk, maybe too much stronk.

 

I think it's still the strongest army around, even if everything regarding battleshock, destiny cubes and horrors no longer works. But who knows, it's a lot less insane then before.

We will see what happens in a couple of tournaments, new subfactions coming out tomorrow might also shake things up. Peace ✌🏻

Edited February 6, 2020 by Sedraxis

[Dead Scribe]

We have a guy that uses sportsmanship as a form of pressure to get what he wants.

Meaning if you don't do what he wants you to do or you disagree with one of his rules interpretations, you are making his game unfun, you are that guy for twisting the game to break it, and you are a bad sport.

If you do what he wants and follow his rules interpretations, then you are a fun opponent, great to play, and a great sport.