Ridiculous things you've heard from people in 40K

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**insaniak**

Fenris Frost wrote:
In 6 years I have not had a rule situation come up that wasn't able to be settled by simply looking at the books.

Really?

How do you draw LOS from a kannon?

**Grimtuff**

ClockworkZion wrote:
insaniak wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.

Well, except for the times they've said 'Oops, yeah, go with what the book says...'

But only when the feel that it fits the "Spirit of the Game" better and isn't basically "cheesedickery".

Ummm......

Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)

A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.

Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011

**Happyjew**

ClockworkZion wrote:
"The new Guard codex needs allies to be competitive."

It's funny because technically there is no guard codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
insaniak wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.

Well, except for the times they've said 'Oops, yeah, go with what the book says...'

But only when the feel that it fits the "Spirit of the Game" better and isn't basically "cheesedickery".

Ummm......

Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)

A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.

Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011

It's not the first time GW has said "You can legally do this, but you shouldn't". Space Wolves require each HQ to be different, yet all that means is you can run two completely identical except that one has a frost sword and the other has a frost axe. Is it legal? Yes, Is it in the spirit of the rule? No.

**Zengu**

Here's one: Psychic powers like prescience can only be used once per game..

**TheKbob**

Smacks wrote:
What I don't agree with however is that the rules are expressly "permissive" because they clearly aren't. Most need some level of interpretation. Some as you say need clarification. Others can only reasonably be misunderstood on purpose (usually by rules lawyers trying to make a point).

And that's the argument on why they are bad. Because non-permissive results in conflict or contradiction and GW is very poor when it comes to issuing timely correction on said matters.

**Grimtuff**

Happyjew wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
"The new Guard codex needs allies to be competitive."

It's funny because technically there is no guard codex.

This new name is winding me up no end.

That's why.

**Smacks**

TheKbob wrote:
Smacks wrote:
What I don't agree with however is that the rules are expressly "permissive" because they clearly aren't. Most need some level of interpretation. Some as you say need clarification. Others can only reasonably be misunderstood on purpose (usually by rules lawyers trying to make a point).

And that's the argument on why they are bad. Because non-permissive results in conflict or contradiction and GW is very poor when it comes to issuing timely correction on said matters.

Yeah I can agree with that. Sorry, I edited my post to reply to you on page three, but the topic moves fast!

EDIT: for your convenience...

Hi, yes I completely agree with you. It should be permissive to an extent. My point is really that even a permissive ruleset would probably depend on some reasonable assumptions. And the case I was discussing of not being able to check LOS during the movement phase, is an example of that. However there were "certain rules lawyers" who insisted that this wasn't possible because the rules are 'permissive' and this was NOT expressly 'permitted'. Even though anyone with the ability to see, would likely do it anyway just by looking at the table.

**ClockworkZion**

Grimtuff wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
insaniak wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.

Well, except for the times they've said 'Oops, yeah, go with what the book says...'

But only when the feel that it fits the "Spirit of the Game" better and isn't basically "cheesedickery".

Ummm......

Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)

A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.

Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011

Yeah, he admits he it's legal as per RAW then says don't do it because it doesn't fit the spirit of the game.

Some past FAQs basically read a lot like that in their answers said not to follow the strict allowances of the rules or to ignore the rules completely.

The again the rulebook says you can ignore the rules to create a fun experiance for everyone involved so maybe we're just not being friendly enough.

**TheKbob**

Technically I never shoot my Exorcist tanks. LOS for tanks is measured parallel to the barrels with +/- 45 degrees.

So basically I can shoot straight up.

**Murdius Maximus**

Hey if we have a rules discrepancy, and the rules don't lay out clearly how to solve it, we roll off. Worked out pretty well for us. We figure, hey this is a game, why bog it down?

**TheKbob**

Murdius Maximus wrote:
Hey if we have a rules discrepancy, and the rules don't lay out clearly how to solve it, we roll off. Worked out pretty well for us. We figure, hey this is a game, why bog it down?

Because this opens the door for people to abuse said roll off. While you know not to play that person again if this is the case, in competitive settings or looking for pick-up games, both are abhorrent and a good way to waste 2.5 hours.

I've seen folks trying to abuse the "dice off" rule too many times. It's a bad rule. I don't like the Warmachine book has it, either, but they at least have a company forum with Infernals who will rule on issues that are truly above and beyond what was expected or intended. GW has nothing, so an issue in one game is now an in issue forever. Are you dice off on said contradiction every time it comes back up? Or is there an agreement afterwards?

If the latter, we are paying for a product, at a premium price, that we must then troubleshoot and "patch" with house rules. This is a bad thing. I'm not paying for an alpha or beta issue.

Another way of saying it: if I bought a model kit and found my melta gun deformed or missing bits, GW would probably send me a new sprue and make me a happy customer. That's for a $35 box of marines. I spend $50 for a codex, find grammatical issues and contradictions/unclear rules and I get zero support. For being a "models" company, this is seems like a crap way of doing business. Think GW will give me a refund on my SoB codex since it definitely doesn't meet my expectations the same way I could return a box of marines?

**Talizvar**

First game with competitive player:
I suggest he play a more "balanced" list than a "net list".
"You do not tell me what to do, this is all by the rules!"
I play him and he does win.

Second game with competitive player:
I say I am prepared for a more competitive game to "his liking" (he appeared less happier about a game realizing no easy victim this time).
I utterly table him with much wining about "that is cheating!" (no, it was not), "you can't do that!" (yes you can according to rules), "that is not fair" (a little more fair than last game), "you paid to win!" (been playing 40k for some 20 years now).

I HATE it when people cannot, will not, take what they dish out and feel it is perfectly fair as long as they are doing it.

**Mortikye**

Ridiculous Statement: Nid player-"Melee is useless now"
How I solve it: Ground then then instagib all his FMC in CC.

**Overlord Thraka**

"Orks are OP!"
Quoted from my 9 year old brother. Because I take Lootas and Boom Guns. And my brothers (Yes all 3 of them) play CSM without Helturkeys.

**Martel732**

Mortikye wrote:
Ridiculous Statement: Nid player-"Melee is useless now"
How I solve it: Ground then then instagib all his FMC in CC.

He's kinda right, though. It was his mistake to let you do that.

**Ond Angel**

Talizvar wrote: I HATE it when people cannot, will not, take what they dish out and feel it is perfectly fair as long as they are doing it.

I couldn't agree more,
There are guys like this in the area I'm in...
<.<
I do like to play them at their own game so they know how others feel, a few times it's sucessful but most of the time I'm being a dick or a douche or <insert some kind of insult> when I do it back, but it's 100% okay when they do it.
.-,

**Zothos**

"Allies are great"

"Superheavies balance the game"

" The Doom of Malan'Tai is less broken than an Annihilation Barge"

My favorite though, was a buddy of ours who stated he hated Flyers, when he uses 4 FMCs every game because "he has to".

**PrinceRaven**

Zothos wrote:
" The Doom of Malan'Tai is less broken than an Annihilation Barge"

In 5th edition this was a completely accurate statement.
In 6th it still might be...

**Zothos**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Zothos wrote:
" The Doom of Malan'Tai is less broken than an Annihilation Barge"

In 5th edition this was a completely accurate statement.
In 6th it still might be...

**PrinceRaven**

Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?

Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.

**ClockworkZion**

"The Heldrake (with a baleflamer) doesn't need a points adjustment."

Right, and I'm the Emperor.

**Happyjew**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?

Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.

This reminds me of my last game with the Doom. Out of a 1750 Dark Eldar army, he soloed all infantry except for a 10-man squad of Kabalite Warriors (they got swept by an I1 Tervigon). So, yeah, the Doom was just a wee bit broken.

**herpguy**

Talizvar wrote:

I HATE it when people cannot, will not, take what they dish out and feel it is perfectly fair as long as they are doing it.

I feel your pain exactly here. There is one very vocal guy at my store who only plays netlists. He gets so upset when he loses and pretty much never plays games he's losing until the end. I've had him concede on me top of turn 3, and I've seen him concede turn 2.
Even if he's winning he will complain about the broken stuff in the enemy's list.
He was using a centurionstar with Tigurius and was complaining that my Chaos spawn were overpowered...

**Zothos**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?

Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.

Let me guess, you're one of those Tyranid players that was never on the receiving end of that abomination.

I have seen it single handedly wreck flanks. Every. Single. Member. Of our gaming group has experienced the same thing. So please do try to temper your criticism.

**dementedwombat**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?

Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.

I will just say this. There is a reason that every model in my army that is capable of being an interceptor takes it and takes a fusion blaster. I built entire lists around countering the Doom. Even now it's not an actual unit anymore I still build lists that way because I'm afraid its ghost will rise from the warp and suck away my entire army. When one of the most broken armies in the game is terrified of something you know it's pretty good.

**djphranq**

fallinq wrote:
It's MY army, sweety.

That's totally effing precious! I'm totally using that next time someone tries to 'correct' my list. Have an exalt!

**Idolator**

TheKbob wrote:

It doesn't matter. You cannot give reasoning and logic as an argument for situations within the game with conflicting rules that are purely mechanics based. Or times when GW has purely FAQd against reasoning and logic.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to "game logic".

Chess is a definitive permissive ruleset. Each piece may only move in set number of fashions. It's the perfect example. As complexity increases, to even include random number generation, the idea of game development is the same: the rules limit to what you are allowed to do.

When the company fails to use this judgement, they shift into a non-permissive mentality, and this can flaw the game and introduce conflict. Complexity lends to this happening.

It's essentially law, but inverse. Proper law functions under the mentality that you must define what is illegal. Trying to write laws for everything that is legal would be asinine and would be a nanny state; nanny laws don't work. See prohibition for this fact, the US alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and the current drug prohibition. Yes, this is a bit off topic, but the it's the extreme example of the opposite.

A good game is a permissive ruleset and only uses non-permissive in very, very rare circumstances. Since a game is less complex than Real Life™, it's much easier to write what you can and are allowed to do within the confines then to build the ruleset around what you aren't allowed to do. Warhammer 40k is written by trying to do both. What people mean when they say 40k is a permissive ruleset, it means it SHOULD be permissive as this is good game design. My guy is in close combat with your guy. When is he allowed to punch? At his iniative. How many times can he punch? As many as his attack profile allows for. Does my opponent get armor saves? Yes, unless I my melee attacks have an armor penetration value equal to or "greater" than their armor save value (greater in the AP2> AP3 > Ap4, etc. context).

It's when you cannot do one of these things within standard application becomes wonky and must be addressed. I have a power fist but I consolidate into combat "at initiative". My iniative is stat is 4 on a space marine, but I'm at initiative 1 because of unwieldy. This caused confusion for a long time, it wasn't clear what was intended, and was later FAQd for clarity. This was when they used non-permissive rules. The examples of such are pervasive throughout Warhammer 40k and I'd bet a major cause of butthurt within YMDC.

Someone is massively confused, it could be me.

Chess is a definitive example of a permissive rule set because it restricts the movement of the pieces? I don't get it.

What is the definition of a permissive rule set? I've honestly never seen one. I ask every time someone uses this term, but no one has a respected and legitimate source from which it is derived. So far it seems to be a completely made up term with no meaning other than that of the current user.

What type of laws(rules) are you ascribing to the prohibition laws? Laws are just rules by another name. It's difficult to tell if you consider them permissive or non-permissive. This is also the first time I've seen anyone use the term "non-permissive", what does it mean?

It's by far easier to write rules that limit than rules that allow. Imposing limits and requirements is all that rules do. It's literally the only functions that rules serve. Rules place restrictions on behavior and actions by placing limits or requirements. Anything not expressly limited or expressly required is open for interpretation. Which is how every rule system in the world works. All of them. Every Law. Every Rule. Every set of instructions. It's why there are professionals that make their livelihood based on rules interpretations. They're called attorneys, referees,umpires,judges. Claiming that the only allowable actions by the players are those that are enumerated prevents the game from being played at all.

**PrinceRaven**

Zothos wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?

Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.

Let me guess, you're one of those Tyranid players that was never on the receiving end of that abomination.

Yes, I have, I deployed well so it could only get 2 units, my Tervigon took a wound and I lost 7 Termagants due to their low leadership. Then I killed it with a Hive Guard brood.
130 points took down 67.5 points of models/wounds and distracted a unit's shooting. Which is pretty much how the Doom performed against any competent opponent.

Idolator wrote:What is the definition of a permissive rule set?

A ruleset in which you need permission from the rules to do things.

**ClockworkZion**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Zothos wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?

Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.

Let me guess, you're one of those Tyranid players that was never on the receiving end of that abomination.

Yes, I have, I deployed well so it could only get 2 units, my Tervigon took a wound and I lost 7 Termagants due to their low leadership. Then I killed it with a Hive Guard brood.
130 points took down 67.5 points of models/wounds and distracted a unit's shooting. Which is pretty much how the Doom performed against any competent opponent.

Nice ad hominem there calling other people incompetent when they had problems with Doom.

**PrinceRaven**

They may have had really poor luck or poor list building as well, I won't deny that. I'm just saying that in every game I played or witnessed the Doom against competent opponents it didn't do much beyond distracting and killing a small amount of troops. The ones in which it did I could point out the mistakes the opponent made that led to the Doom performing better than expected every time.

The most common mistakes were deploying in a way that allowed the Doom to be within 6" of too many units, having their army standing out in the open instead of in area terrain, not moving away from the Doom before shooting at it, and trying to decrease its wounds with low strength shooting and CC instead of ID'ing it.