Obscure Rules?

[DrLove42]

I get a game or 2 in a month if i'm lucky.

Doesn't mean i don't know the rule book nearly cover to cover (few things escape me, but nothing posted in this thread) as well as 3 seperate codexes....and a fair few of the other ones

[HsojVvad]

What's with the, people are shocked that they don't know the rules? Is everyone suppose to know almost every single rule in the book? Are we having Geeks telling other Geeks, they are not Geeky enough?

If somebody doesn't know the rule, who cares, that is why we have the small rule book to look things up. First it was about Painted or unpainted minitures, now it's going to be not knowing 85% or more of the rules? I really hope it doesn't come to that.

40K is really a flawed game. The rules are not written well, they are not clear or consise. Well I should say alot of rules, not all. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have agruements or debates on rules.

Also you have to go all over the codex to get rules. For example some movement rules on page 20 (just saying for example) then you have to go to page 55, and then page 76 and then page 99 for all the rules that relate to movement.

Then you want to talk about cover saves, then you need to read page 45 then page 66 for the rest. To make it worse it's just one sentence in the page that relates to movement, so they are so easy to miss.

How come, GW can't get thier act together and put all the rules for movement under movement. Then if there is refrences to Deepstrike which is also considered movement, should ALL BE TOGETHER.

So many arugmentest happen because people forget and don't realize that D/S is part of movement, and the terminology used for D/S also is used for something else on a different page. Very frustrating indeed.

Then when reading for cover saves, it says what you can have coversaves for, but then goes into assaults where people think that cover saves also apply to CC as well. Rules should, I mean rules MUST be clearly defined, non of this BS of does the DoM Spirit Leech Rule affect units in vehicles or not, or how come psychic hoods effect units in vehicles while spirt leech doesn't. They do the same thing, but different results. No explanations are given so people understand.

So better explanations and descriptons are needed so there is no need of a FAQ.

[DarkLink]

I'm just surprised at how common some of these "obscure" rules are. A few I perfectly understand if someone doesn't know them, but others are so common that I'm surprised that the people haven't heard about them somewhere.


I mean, I just started Warmachine recently. Most of the rules are very different from 40k, so not much help there. I read through the rulebook once, and I've played ~10 games so far. We have several experienced players who have a pretty good understanding of the rules. From just reading through the codex once, and from playing a few games, I already have a good enough understanding of the core rules and of my army that I could probably go to a tournament. Sure, I'd have to look up the details of collateral damage from a slam attack on 'jack hitting a wall, but I know that I'd have to look it up. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know so that I can look it up when I need it. No need to study the rulebook.

Just from my own experience, is surprises me how much people miss sometimes.



But, yes, GW could do a much better job writing their rules. The rules themselves are often very ill-defined and vague, and the rulebook itself could be laid out better. Plus, so much counfounding fluff is mixed in with the rules and the rules so imprecisely worded that if one cut all that out, you could probably consolidate all the actual rules down to ~15-20 pages. I'd much rather have a very tight, consolidated ruleset than what we have now.

[erwos]

My own favorites have to do with barrage.

Barrage weapons may fire indirect AND receive the subtraction of BS from scatter if they can see the target! It shouldn't even be an obscure rule, because the BRB is extremely clear about it, but people get it wrong quite a lot.

Close follow-up: ordnance barrage weapons can't fire indirect when they move, but they CAN fire direct. Again, crystal clear in the BRB, but people seem to screw it up and claim that a Manticore or Basilisk can't fire direct if it moved.

[DarkLink]

People's lack of understanding of the assault rules is amusing sometimes, even though they're reasonably straightforward. Step 1: move closest to closest. Then you move subsequent models. Each model must end its move within 2" of a model that has previously moved, it must move into base contact with an enemy if it can, and if at any point a model has to move through difficult/dangerous terrain in order to satisfy one of those conditions then the entire unit must take a difficult/dangerous terrain test and suffer the consequences, which may cause the entire assault to fail, which is kinda awkward as then you would have to move all your models back to where they were. Always check everyone's move before you actually move anyone, just to save yourself the trouble.

There are a few other details in there, such as Independant characters move before non-ICs, how assaulting multiple unit differs, etc, but that's more or less it. People get stuff wrong here all the time.

[Daemonette666]

Whoop! thanks for that reference. I was a novice wargamer, years ago, and every time a new edition of 40K comes out with new rules and I have to update the way I play the game and avoid assuming it is played just as it was in the previous edition. Add to this the individual CODICE rules and nuances, and it is a wonder that I can remember the ones tht have been mentioned on this thread by everyone.

Yes novices will not know as many as those who play daily, which would be nice, since I probably get to play a game once every couple of weeks, and an Apocalypse game once every 2 to 4 months because of work, painting and other commitments.

I find it worth while asking the opponent to show me the reference to the rule so I can remember it, and even pass the knowledge on to other gamers who do not know. I tend to avoid using house rules when playing 40K.

[DarkLink]

Oh, yeah, and here's some other stuff that too many people get wrong.

The singular for codex is codex. The plural is codices. Not codexes, codices. Virtually everyone gets this wrong.

You're is a contraction of "you are". Your is possessive.

They're is a contraction of "they are". There refers to a physical or metaphorical location. Their is possessive.

Lose means "you lose the game". Loose means "that bolt came loose".

Not exactly obscure rules, but whatever.

[BuFFo]

There are a few other details in there, such as Independant characters move before non-ICs...

Yeah, I was playing a game and assaulted a unit. My friend told me to move the IC first, and I told him, um, no, that isn't how it works. That only occurs when defenders react and during the pile-in move, that's it.

Also, I rarely use my IG, so a rule as simple as Smoke Launchers was foreign to me. I had no idea how Smoke worked for years until I fielded my IG. You just may not be familiar with basic rules if you never come across them.

[Lerra]

The singular for codex is codex. The plural is codices. Not codexes, codices. Virtually everyone gets this wrong.

Including GW. They use "codexes". I don't really blame the gamers when the game company is doing it wrong, too.

[Daemonette666]

Including GW. They use "codexes". I don't really blame the gamers when the game company is doing it wrong, too.

Exactly, which is why I now refer to a Codex as a Codice, and then when I refer to its plural, I no longer use the word codexes, I use Codices. It may annoy Darklink, but I it looks and sounds like the correct alternative. I would ask everyone which they prefer Codexes or Codices. Then we can work out whether to use Codex or Codice for the singular based on which they choose for the plural. LOL

I do not think it is as bad an error as peolple calling the current edition of the Chaos Space Marines Codex/Codice as the 5th editoin, as it was released back when the 4th editin of 40K was still going. We are yet to get the 5th editon Codex/Codice for the following Armies - Chaos Space Marines, Witch Hunters, Tau, Necron, Eldar, Lost and the Damned (traitor Guard), Dark Angels,Black Templars and not for much longer Daemon Hunters.

The English language has new words added and words replaced or dropped every year so unless you keep a constant watch on the appropriate language website , which noone has time for, then I say let people go with what GW uses, as GW is suppose to be infallible. LOL