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.

Here's the situation: I'm part of a group of ~7 players, we usually get in a couple of games per month. Of the group, there are two who have a habit of either not reading or understanding the rules. Now, it's a new edition, I get it. But it seems like by this point in the release it shouldn't be an issue.

I'm asking this now because of a recent incident: we had a combat where a spread-out infantry unit was charged by two separate walkers, but on opposite sides. When the first walker attacked, it killed quite a few. The defending player removed the models from the opposite side, resulting in taking so many that the second walker was no longer in combat. This triggered a 20 minute debate on how that was legal, why it couldn't attack, etc. - and nobody wants that. The attacking player felt cheated that he didn't get to attack, the defending player felt bad, and nobody really enjoyed the situation.

I'm not always sure that it's a laziness issue in learning the rules, either. There was another incident where I was playing and read my army special rules to the guy before the game (same person as above example) verbatim from the book because I thought that would prevent any confusion. Nope. Halfway through the game he grumbles, "Oh, I didn't know you had that rule."

So I'm not sure if I'm just venting here and if this is an unrecoverable situation, but any good ideas are welcome.

Spank them with the BRB and their respective Codex until they become competitive enough or die as the filthy casuals they are.

Rarely a good situation, but it happens. 40K has a lot of moving parts and no one can keep track of ALL the interactions. I don’t think there’s anyone who is intimately familiar with all the factions off the top of their head. Giving someone a heads-up about units they would be unfamiliar with is always a sporting gesture.

However, the onus is on players to be as familar as they can with the rules. Sometimes, you may inform someone about a special rule beforehand, and until it actually hits/affects them, that rule may not really gel in their mind.

In the ned, even real-life generals get surprised, and if you didn’t know the rules - well, now you do. If lack of rules knowledge is bothering/inhibiting some players quite frankly it’s in their court to make the effort to get up to speed. You can be sporting to give them a heads up at the start of the game or if they ask, but you can’t think for them - or force them to fill their head with game knowledge. They may simply be reserving that mental space for some other hobby or activity.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Here's the situation: I'm part of a group of ~7 players, we usually get in a couple of games per month. Of the group, there are two who have a habit of either not reading or understanding the rules. Now, it's a new edition, I get it. But it seems like by this point in the release it shouldn't be an issue.

I'm asking this now because of a recent incident: we had a combat where a spread-out infantry unit was charged by two separate walkers, but on opposite sides. When the first walker attacked, it killed quite a few. The defending player removed the models from the opposite side, resulting in taking so many that the second walker was no longer in combat. This triggered a 20 minute debate on how that was legal, why it couldn't attack, etc. - and nobody wants that. The attacking player felt cheated that he didn't get to attack, the defending player felt bad, and nobody really enjoyed the situation.

I'm not always sure that it's a laziness issue in learning the rules, either. There was another incident where I was playing and read my army special rules to the guy before the game (same person as above example) verbatim from the book because I thought that would prevent any confusion. Nope. Halfway through the game he grumbles, "Oh, I didn't know you had that rule."

So I'm not sure if I'm just venting here and if this is an unrecoverable situation, but any good ideas are welcome.

Eh. Most people like that are going out of their way to seem "blindsided" so they can feel like a mistake isn't their fault. As to the walker situation, that's pretty rare to see so I can see why it would be confusing/disappointing - when a unit has charged in such that it's B2B with the target, it's usually really hard to remove enough models that its a full 4" away from any enemies. But then again CC movement and activation tactics definitely do get pretty crunchy in 8th and when people are used to the much simpler system from 7th it can take some serious time to adjust. There's a lot of weird interactions that even since the release of 8th I've only seen a few times. As another example I had a situation similar to yours, where my small cc unit charged an enemy, I activated someone else first and he pulled enough casualties that a different, nearby enemy unit was actually closer. If I wanted to pile in, I actually had to pile into that different unit, and as such I wasn't allowed to attack them since I didn't charge them this turn. Mistake on my part, but first time I'd seen that ever happen so I didn't feel too bad.

A few ideas:

1) Remember that many people don't read instruction manuals. They don't read rulebooks or codex either outside of the fluff between games so chances are what they learn about how to play comes mostly from the games that they do play. As a result any mistake in a game they are unlikely to spot and will assume its the normal rule; plus anything that happens outside of what's happened to them before in a game will confuse them because they've not had the inspiration to read around the rules (ergo like your close combat example, if its never happened before to them they've never had to go through the process to know what happens).
There's also the fact that some people are not creative with theory; so unless specific events happen during a game they won't mentally connect the dots together as to how an event should play out.

2) Treat games like a learning experience ; so open up the rulebook and play strict and straight to the rules. Maintain this for both sides through the whole game. YES this will slow things down ;but on the flipside you're basically helping to both teach them the game and show them/get them to reference and find stuff in the rulebook. This should help reinforce what they do know and help them prepare for the next game.

3) FAQ/Errata - print them out and make sure everyone has them as chances are they will also help a lot in resolving many common questions or issues.

4) Try not to play against them; harsh but true if you don't want a certain type of game don't play a person who is going to give you that kind of game. Sometimes at clubs the easy way to get around this is to find time-filling games that you can play with them in case you two are left the only ones without a game for a while. Munchkin; MTG; regular boardgames; cardgames; heck even a smal scale skirmish game could be options to fill time outside of 40K whilst you both wait for a more suitable player to play against.


In general players with less understanding/grasp/experience either have to be taught or left to play with others of a similar level within a group. You either invest time into training them up or leave them to their own devices and don't play them. In smaller groups is FAR preferable to train them up and fnid was and game setups that encourage more learning without spoiling the fun. That way you end up with (eventually) havnig better opponents to play against.



Edit - forgot to say
Those who get dissapointed at armies having sudden rule types or losing bunches or units or basically getting surprised are often those who can't think on the fly in the game.
It's not saying they are slow, stupid or incapable; but its saying that they've approached the battle with a single plan of attack (however advanced or basic) and when things go against that plan they lack the experience and know-how to recover from it and change their plan in a meaningful way. Thus they are highly likely to reach a point of "Well that's it the opponent has won" far quicker and once they lose moral they will generally lose the game as well, evne if they were in a strong position.

They are a group that should respond well to varied gameplay that helps to teach and show them how to adapt tactics on the fly and how to do different things. Of course teaching this kind of topic is a lot harder as its often one of those things many people don't think out formally; they go on gut instincts or perform actions that have worked in the past, but which they can't really explain the hows and whys of what makes them work.

 Galas wrote:
Spank them with the BRB and their respective Codex until they become competitive enough or die as the filthy casuals they are.

This is a good point - am I being too demanding with my expectations? I really don't want to be TFG, and please do call me out if I am sounding like one.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Spank them with the BRB and their respective Codex until they become competitive enough or die as the filthy casuals they are.

This is a good point - am I being too demanding with my expectations? I really don't want to be TFG, and please do call me out if I am sounding like one.

Possibly; most of the people on forums like this are extremely pationate about the game, while most folks are pretty casual to minimally invested. If they haven’t pursued in-depth knowlege of the rules, you may have to step back and accept that is the level of comfort they have with the system, and play accordingly. That doesn’t necessarily mean gimping yourself, but at the same time just deal with the fact they didn’t see something coming and not making a big deal about it, but just push on with the game.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
...we had a combat where a spread-out infantry unit was charged by two separate walkers, but on opposite sides. When the first walker attacked, it killed quite a few. The defending player removed the models from the opposite side, resulting in taking so many that the second walker was no longer in combat...

Isn't that how it's supposed to work and a viable tactic?

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Spank them with the BRB and their respective Codex until they become competitive enough or die as the filthy casuals they are.

This is a good point - am I being too demanding with my expectations? I really don't want to be TFG, and please do call me out if I am sounding like one.

Don't read too much into it. I was just making a joke.

Is reasonable to expect people to know their rules. But one should understand how confusing the GW publication of FAQ's, erratas, etc... is, and that not everyone spends all his time reading about warhammer. The best solution is to make a class, maybe? Reading all the important FAQ's and erratas one day so they are aware of them.

 Overread wrote:
Edit - forgot to say
Those who get dissapointed at armies having sudden rule types or losing bunches or units or basically getting surprised are often those who can't think on the fly in the game.
It's not saying they are slow, stupid or incapable; but its saying that they've approached the battle with a single plan of attack (however advanced or basic) and when things go against that plan they lack the experience and know-how to recover from it and change their plan in a meaningful way. Thus they are highly likely to reach a point of "Well that's it the opponent has won" far quicker and once they lose moral they will generally lose the game as well, evne if they were in a strong position.

They are a group that should respond well to varied gameplay that helps to teach and show them how to adapt tactics on the fly and how to do different things. Of course teaching this kind of topic is a lot harder as its often one of those things many people don't think out formally; they go on gut instincts or perform actions that have worked in the past, but which they can't really explain the hows and whys of what makes them work.

Holy crap, do you know him? This is him in a nutshell. He'll tend to concede/lose any motivation to keep playing as soon as his plans change or a super special unit gets taken down/crippled. That's a really useful perspective, thanks!

Edit: and I've got to say - I feel like all the responses here have been really empathetic/reasonable regarding engaging with people who I might otherwise just write off. Being good ambassadors for the hobby and all that.

Just go slow. And don't take advantage.

I like the plan of teaching people about varied strategies. My friends and I always debrief and talk through various key points of games to try to figure out how to play smarter in the future. That said, I find it very frustrating to play against the mopey single-strategy types mentioned. My group runs competitive lists and aims to win, but this is ultimately a game. Rules disputes can hardly even be termed such, and roll-offs for dodgy situations are common. I can't remember anyone ever having any hurt feelings, win, lose, or draw. It's supposed to be fun! I just can't relate to someone getting that emotionally bogged down in the gameplay, and while I'm wholeheartedly behind showing them new tactics that may make future games more enjoyable for them, it's exceptionally difficult for me to be the person who shows them the way.

edit: To the topic, my hope is that new players avoid getting bogged down in success and just enjoy the game, learning the rules along the way. That's the atmosphere I've tried to create when showing new people the ropes.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:


Holy crap, do you know him? This is him in a nutshell. He'll tend to concede/lose any motivation to keep playing as soon as his plans change or a super special unit gets taken down/crippled. That's a really useful perspective, thanks!

It's actually a major problem with the hobby itself.

You can google up and youtube up guides on how to assemble, paint, sculpt, craft, build etc... until they come out of your ears. You can also google up loads of army lists. There's even FAQ and loads of posts on how to use an interpret the rules

But there is honestly far less on how to actually "PLAY" the game itself. Ergo how to devise a viable strategy; how to adapt on the fly; how to manoeuvre and move units; even setting up and establishing terrain is sort of only touched upon. This is the area that, thus, most people have the greatest problem with, especially so since this is a game of alternate player activations instead of alternate unit activations; thus meaning that typically one player in any game at least gets to begin/establish or even complete their core plan without much contention from the other player.

So its not abnormal that you get a lot of people who really find it hard to learn how to play even if the understand the rules mechanics well.

Being able to read the situation, to plan out alternative approaches and such is all about a player knowing that they are doing their best in the game. That really helps their mental wellbeing during the game because they know if they lose it was chance/skill/that bad dice roll etc.... Rather than their own faction or skills as such. If they don't have this learning and self confidence then any loss to their army is a big blow to their confidence and once they've had it bashed out a few times they lose moral really quickly - oh you killed my landraider on turn one; and I was going to use that to win the game...sigh... I've lost (again).



So yes if there's a way you can teach this person tactics and how to play the game beyond the mechanics of the rules then do so as the potential reward is a more fun game for both of you

Why didn't the second walker just pile-in?

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Edit - forgot to say
Those who get dissapointed at armies having sudden rule types or losing bunches or units or basically getting surprised are often those who can't think on the fly in the game.
It's not saying they are slow, stupid or incapable; but its saying that they've approached the battle with a single plan of attack (however advanced or basic) and when things go against that plan they lack the experience and know-how to recover from it and change their plan in a meaningful way. Thus they are highly likely to reach a point of "Well that's it the opponent has won" far quicker and once they lose moral they will generally lose the game as well, evne if they were in a strong position.

They are a group that should respond well to varied gameplay that helps to teach and show them how to adapt tactics on the fly and how to do different things. Of course teaching this kind of topic is a lot harder as its often one of those things many people don't think out formally; they go on gut instincts or perform actions that have worked in the past, but which they can't really explain the hows and whys of what makes them work.

Holy crap, do you know him? This is him in a nutshell. He'll tend to concede/lose any motivation to keep playing as soon as his plans change or a super special unit gets taken down/crippled. That's a really useful perspective, thanks!

Edit: and I've got to say - I feel like all the responses here have been really empathetic/reasonable regarding engaging with people who I might otherwise just write off. Being good ambassadors for the hobby and all that.

Its a very common player type. they only ever see the negative aspects and not the fact that they are actually just winning.

mean while (not really 40k but still) i play skaven and lose literally entire units of 40 skaven clan rats to a single combat and im sitting there going yep. thats normal.

pismakron wrote:
Why didn't the second walker just pile-in?

the first one must of killed a stupid amount of them to the point he was no longer within range to be considered in combat. and as such cannot pile in.

 Desubot wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Why didn't the second walker just pile-in?

the first one must of killed a stupid amount of them to the point he was no longer within range to be considered in combat. and as such cannot pile in.

Yes. It wasn't an obscene amount, but they were already fairly spread out. If memory serves, there's also no pile-in until the unit "activates" in combat, and the second one hadn't yet activated by the time they died (I could be wrong on this area, admittedly).

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Here's the situation: I'm part of a group of ~7 players, we usually get in a couple of games per month. Of the group, there are two who have a habit of either not reading or understanding the rules. Now, it's a new edition, I get it. But it seems like by this point in the release it shouldn't be an issue.

I'm asking this now because of a recent incident: we had a combat where a spread-out infantry unit was charged by two separate walkers, but on opposite sides. When the first walker attacked, it killed quite a few. The defending player removed the models from the opposite side, resulting in taking so many that the second walker was no longer in combat. This triggered a 20 minute debate on how that was legal, why it couldn't attack, etc. - and nobody wants that. The attacking player felt cheated that he didn't get to attack, the defending player felt bad, and nobody really enjoyed the situation.

I'm not always sure that it's a laziness issue in learning the rules, either. There was another incident where I was playing and read my army special rules to the guy before the game (same person as above example) verbatim from the book because I thought that would prevent any confusion. Nope. Halfway through the game he grumbles, "Oh, I didn't know you had that rule."

So I'm not sure if I'm just venting here and if this is an unrecoverable situation, but any good ideas are welcome.

In a friendly game I would tell the player that was intending to charge (when he was setting up the attack) what I would be able to do if he made the assault. Nothing is fool proof, but saying "are you sure you want to do that because x." goes a long way.

My favorite goto, is politely ask them to show you the rule for the situation. Have a copy of the FAQ in your bag. Or now chapter approved. Bring sticky notepad and a pen, and take notes.

I have been wrong before and learnt something i missed, but more often than not vindicated, just don't gloat. Be humble, respectful and play the noob to 40k card hard.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Why didn't the second walker just pile-in?

the first one must of killed a stupid amount of them to the point he was no longer within range to be considered in combat. and as such cannot pile in.

Yes. It wasn't an obscene amount, but they were already fairly spread out. If memory serves, there's also no pile-in until the unit "activates" in combat, and the second one hadn't yet activated by the time they died (I could be wrong on this area, admittedly).

If he charged that turn he would still be allowed to activate and pile in, and consolidate.

in the Choose unit to fight with on p182 it states "any unit that charged or has models within 1" of an enemy can be chosen to fight in the Fight phase." So you cannot kill a unit out of activating if it charged this turn, you can kill it out of the ability to attack (if it is more than 4" away from the nearest enemy model that it declared a charge against) but it still can pile in and consolidate, and might still end engaged with a unit.

pismakron wrote:
Why didn't the second walker just pile-in?

Could have been over 4" away, or the closest model to it was in a different unit it had not charged and so couldn't attack.

to the OP, I always try to introduce to people I'm playing the tactics I'm using in a friendly way. They tend to remember and stop them the next time or use them themselves later in the game.

For instance, in a pile-in "lets see if I can move my models so I can surround one of the guys in this unit"

during activation "I definitely want to activate this unit first because if you interrupt before them, you'll definitely kill them."

Especially when I'm playing someone who I know has a morale issue like you describe, I will also make a point to warn them of a potential sneaky move I could pull ("you know, if your tank is right next to the ruin like that, it'll make it pretty easy for me to tie it up so it can't fall back") so that way they won't get blindsided by it. If it happens again after that, the reaction is usually more favorable because they realize they made a mistake and it wasn't just evil rules-lawyering.

In terms of low morale players who just give up, It can be hard to deal with, but occasionally you can recover by offering an idea of how they can get at least a moral victory, or something like - "hey, I just want to see how it goes if our two warlords fight it out in the middle" or something like that.

pismakron wrote:
Why didn't the second walker just pile-in?

I assume it did but they pulled so many loses that the walker ended up more than 4 inches away.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Why didn't the second walker just pile-in?

the first one must of killed a stupid amount of them to the point he was no longer within range to be considered in combat. and as such cannot pile in.

Yes. It wasn't an obscene amount, but they were already fairly spread out. If memory serves, there's also no pile-in until the unit "activates" in combat, and the second one hadn't yet activated by the time they died (I could be wrong on this area, admittedly).

A unit that has charged always get to activate in the fight phase. That means that it will be able to pile-in and fight models up 4" away, or it will be able to pile-in + consolidate units up to 7" away without fighting but still locking in close combat.

But I can see why it would annoy your buddy, learning about such rule quirks when said rules were to his disadvantage. I am not exactly gracious in defeat myself. Hrm.

I'm really hoping the defender didn't cheat the walkers out of their right to pile in after charging...perhaps, OP, you should change the title of this thread to "how do you handle cheating players"...because the defender clearly cheated in this case.

1. Power bomb them through a table...

or

2. Correct their blunders in the most condescending ways possible. In other words, shame them into reading their rules.

So long as it's not a tournament (in which case you should be fairly up on most common rules interactions) maybe if the players cared less about winning there'd be fewer spats?

I know when my regular gaming buddy and I have had a bad mood game it's been because a particular rules interaction had come up that he should have known, and he either fluffed some attempt as a result or I pulled some legal but annoying trick I needed to use to e.g. keep my fragile Genestealers alive. I've got pissy when his Eldar could do magical wonder feat, or his Catachan's have S4 somehow so can wound Marines on 2s with their power fists. Reason for annoyance on both sides was being too wrapped up in *winning* what was only ever a friendly game.

Whenever we chill out more and just play to win, sure, but mostly enjoy the game and tell a story things go much better and theres less angst.

So maybe just approaching things that way and setting the tone at the start of the game would go some way to helping these "rules-unfamiliar players" have a better experience. I often even outline in advance key dirty tricks he may not know about, just so he can't call "shenanigans" later during the game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

skullduggery wrote:
1. Power bomb them through a table...

or

2. Correct their blunders in the most condescending ways possible. In other words, shame them into reading their rules.

Neither of these will win you any friends, or even necessarily games!

The walker issue just had a multi-page thread on DakkaDakka so I don't think its a familiarity with the basic rules that's your problem.

For advanced cases like that you generally need someone in your meta known as knowledgable and fair. That person can arbitrate quick rules problems whenever the group runs into a problem.

40k doesn't have a strict, easy to interpret rules set like certain other miniature games. Its normal to have rules disputes and misunderstandings. It's just part of the game.

 JimOnMars wrote:
I'm really hoping the defender didn't cheat the walkers out of their right to pile in after charging...perhaps, OP, you should change the title of this thread to "how do you handle cheating players"...because the defender clearly cheated in this case.

I don't believe so. The distance that the walker was left at was a good 5" (they charged at 2 endpoints of a well-spaced line of infantry). It was definitely a niche/rare set-up. But still, the fact that people can see it that way really does illustrate the intricacies of the rules.

Edit: and I meant this as more of an example of the general trend I see with people and this was just the most recent example that came to mind. Didn't mean to start a rules conversation.

Be patient if they're learning or just plough through if they've been lazy about it is what I tend to do.

Easy answer for this problem: I suggest we play Bolt Action or Frostgrave

The short answer to the specific situation the OP has is to not force people to play out situations where they made a bad decision because they didn't know the rules. Clarify the situation beforehand if possible, be prepared to rewind the game state if something unforseen comes up.

It isn't a perfect solution (it takes longer, some game states can't really be rewound, the experienced player may feel cheated...) but it's the path that gets you, eventually, to a group of people that all still understand, play, and enjoy the game, as opposed to holding the newbies strictly to rules they don't know or understand for the sake of the short-term satisfaction of the experienced players and ending up frustrating them into quitting.

Reading out your rules before the game isn't going to help. Until you've got a context in which to put it for the vast majority of people that's going to go in one ear and out the other, they're not going to remember that it exists, let alone be able to infer how it's going to impact their choices on the fly.

Everyone involved has to accept that learning games are learning games, the newbie has to be comfortable asking questions when they don't understand something, the experienced player has to be willing to go slow/easy to make sure the newbie can keep up, and nobody involved can take winning/losing so seriously that they feel the need to stop the game for a twenty-minute argument about whether the rules are correct rather than rewinding that combat to the charge phase and asking "with that experience of how wound allocation works fresh in your mind, would you have done something differently from back here?"