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.

Starting a thread here, in order to NOT hijack Yak's FAQ thread in YMDC.

The Sarge wrote: In the example above they talk about make a Ld test for taking wounds, then having to fall back again and again. Well to me that was an oversight when the rules were made up. Someone found it and now can try to exploit it to win the game.

And this is why GW will never be able to please everybody. Because a rule like this just make sense to me, and in no way seems an oversight. "Troops who are falling back automatically fail ALL morale checks except those to regroup." Sounds pretty intentional to me. Pretty logical conclusion that somebody who is retreating (whether in fear or to gain a more strategic position) Would CONTINUE to do so until they are no longer being harassed by the enemy. To me, using this to your advantage is mo more exploiting the rules than making an initiative test to see if you wipe out a squad.

That little rant aside, what do you consider exploitation of a rule?

The best example I can think of was range or line-of-sight sniping in 4th edition. You could position your firer so that it could only see the one model you wanted to kill through a gap, thus avoiding all those pesky squadmates. Legal, but it allows you to circumvent the general way that things work.

In 5th is is equiping multiwound models in a unit differently to exploit the wound allocation system. 3 crisis suit all with different loadouts. Ork nobs all equipt differently. Legal but definitely a rules exploitation.

What do you consider exploitation of a rule?

IMO it is a rule, or a combination of rules that makes little sense, or anchored at least a little in the physical universe. I understand that this is a game of toy solders that are fighting 38,000 years in the future and that some realism has to be sacrificed for game play, but there are some rules that are completely bazaar and don’t even have a hint of common sense.

A couple of my past favorites:

In 3rd edition you could have an Avatar and a Wraithlord, and make them untargetable. The Avatar stands in front of the Wraithlord and you can’t shoot them because an Avatar is an IC and can’t be targeted, and the Wraithlord can’t be shot because he is screened by a MC. So you are staring at 2 monstrous creatures and you are unable to target them because of a rule.

In 4th edition you can’t come within 1” of a model. Since the bases are just a hair under 1” around, if you have another friendly model in B-t-B they can’t be assaulted. You have an enemy unit in front of your unit and you can't charge because they have a unit right behind them?

Those IMO are exploits.

Designating a cluster of trees (not on the same base) as area terrain to force movement tests through it.

I have never seen that in a 40K game.

Eldramesha wrote:Designating a cluster of trees (not on the same base) as area terrain to force movement tests through it.

Except that’d require the agreement of both players, so isn’t really an exploit. We did this a lot in 4th ed, but it was always done to create a more interesting board with a little more LOS blocking terrain, and wasn’t exploitative and always agreed to by both players. It also doesn’t come from any reading of the rules, but rather is a houserule.

I think a rules exploit is any use of the rules or combination of rules that is goofy and beyond their original intent… but it has to be both those things. Games are going to have a little goofiness, as sometimes you have to accept a little goofiness in order to speed up or balance play, or prevent certain tactics or units from dominating. And some rules are beyond the original intent but result in better, more enjoyable or ‘believable’ games - one measure of a good ruleset is that it grows beyond its developer’s intent and facilitates new strategies and concepts naturally.

Intermixing two units to claim a cover save for each would count as an exploit, probably the first exploit attempted in the fifth ed rules. In fourth ed, it was common to take two or more units of identical models and operate them together, but make each their own unit so each had to be fired on separately – raveners and crisis suits did this a lot.

On the other hand, it was also common to assault with units column formation, so that only one or two models from each side was in the combat. Or to deploy tarpit units like conscripts with a row of troops spread out at the front, preventing assaulters from hitting the bulk of the unit. In both cases crap units were able to drag out combats longer than intended due to clever deployment. I wouldn’t consider that an exploit, because while it was likely beyond the original intent of the rules, it was believable to deploy this way, to gain those effects, and it resulted in more interesting games and interesting uses of lower quality units.

In 4th edition rules exploit of a powerklaw going at initiative since the wording of the powerfist entry in the 4th edition rulebook stated that powerfists struck at I1 but not Powerklaws.

A rules exploit is when someone smarter than you finds a loophole you missed and beats you with it.

Darrian13 wrote:In 5th is is equiping multiwound models in a unit differently to exploit the wound allocation system. 3 crisis suit all with different loadouts. Ork nobs all equipt differently. Legal but definitely a rules exploitation.

I disagree. It was quite common for battlesuits to be differently equipped in 4th edition, because that is the way they work. For example, you might give the leader a drone controller, and one of the other guys might carry a flamer because you had 5 points left over at the end of the army, and you might give another guy a fusion gun for some anti-tank.

Yeah, I agree with Kilkrazy, I don't see how legally equipping models in the same unit with different loadouts is an exploit. Even if it makes wound allocation tricky, why would a allowing for a variety of weapons and such be an exploit when it's something you're allowed to do?

Kilkrazy wrote:I disagree. It was quite common for battlesuits to be differently equipped in 4th edition, because that is the way they work. For example, you might give the leader a drone controller, and one of the other guys might carry a flamer because you had 5 points left over at the end of the army, and you might give another guy a fusion gun for some anti-tank.

It's the difference between giving a model a different bit of gear because you want the extra weapon/ability and giving a model an extra gun because you want to treat each model as unique for wound allocation. It's pretty subjective and there'll often be a little bit of each involved, but odds are if the player is putting on a fusion blaster it's probably to increase the AT, if the player is attaching a drone controller but no actual drones it's just to exploit the wound allocation system.

Somewhere in between those points there's a judgement call.

Actually that's just a flaw in the rules, fellas.

GW tried to dumb down wound allocation for the kiddies and instead added a huge drag and loophole the size of a barn door into the rules.

Hey look I can equip all these units differently so I never lose a model unless it's an ID hit.

I didn't make all those demon lists with 4 heralds of slaanesh for nothing, ya know. You don't "group" IC's so that's 16 ablative wounds for your huge unit of seekers.

Oh right, don't want people thinking I'm a and contributing to the douchebag level of play 5E is encouraging in "friendly" play.

Can't wait for the LV GT!

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I disagree. It was quite common for battlesuits to be differently equipped in 4th edition, because that is the way they work. For example, you might give the leader a drone controller, and one of the other guys might carry a flamer because you had 5 points left over at the end of the army, and you might give another guy a fusion gun for some anti-tank.

It's the difference between giving a model a different bit of gear because you want the extra weapon/ability and giving a model an extra gun because you want to treat each model as unique for wound allocation. It's pretty subjective and there'll often be a little bit of each involved, but odds are if the player is putting on a fusion blaster it's probably to increase the AT, if the player is attaching a drone controller but no actual drones it's just to exploit the wound allocation system.

Somewhere in between those points there's a judgement call.

You are absolutely right.

The judgement call will often be subjective too.

Intermixing two units to claim a cover save for each

This does not work!

OT: Plain and simple... Exploiting a rule is to use it selfishly for one's own ends. The most perfect example is Cover Saves. The rules state that if players disagree on cover saves that the cover save is granted with a -1 modifier. Players who exploit this will argue that their opponents models are NOT in cover just to have the -1 modifier applied.

oni wrote:

Intermixing two units to claim a cover save for each

This does not work!

OT: Plain and simple... Exploiting a rule is to use it selfishly for one's own ends. The most perfect example is Cover Saves. The rules state that if players disagree on cover saves that the cover save is granted with a -1 modifier. Players who exploit this will argue that their opponents models are NOT in cover just to have the -1 modifier applied.

Units become intermixed sometimes. You can't claim cover for both. One is clearly in front, one is clearly in back, or they are side by side and neither have cover.

If units become mixed, clearly ask 'which one is considered in front so I know who gets cover and who doesn't'

I Like the new cover rules but Dislike the new LOS rules as some people will spend 10 minutes with a laserpointer to avoid giving you acover save you 'clearly intended to get by plasing your models'. So Because I run orks, I have begun doing what I did in old 3rd edition days.

"I am moving this unit into cover here. We can accept it is in cover from this angle or I can spend 5 minutes placing and sighting every model to make sure they are all in cover"

"I am screening my broz with these grots, you can agree they are screened or I can I can spend 5 minutes placing and sighting every model to make sure they are all screened"

I have had people say 'do it, spend 5 minutes to get them in cover'. and I do, and they still spend 10 minutes trying to line up a shot on that unit.

So Now I 'state' my intention, place my models as best I can and the opponent can either work with me, or fight me for a 5+ save.

Or run KFF so I can not have to care about LOS.

Stelek wrote:

I didn't make all those demon lists with 4 heralds of slaanesh for nothing, ya know. You don't "group" IC's so that's 16 ablative wounds for your huge unit of seekers.

How does that work? You're only getting that many wounds if they're on chariots, and then they lose IC status and can't join the squads and just get shot at separately.

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I disagree. It was quite common for battlesuits to be differently equipped in 4th edition, because that is the way they work. For example, you might give the leader a drone controller, and one of the other guys might carry a flamer because you had 5 points left over at the end of the army, and you might give another guy a fusion gun for some anti-tank.

It's the difference between giving a model a different bit of gear because you want the extra weapon/ability and giving a model an extra gun because you want to treat each model as unique for wound allocation. It's pretty subjective and there'll often be a little bit of each involved, but odds are if the player is putting on a fusion blaster it's probably to increase the AT, if the player is attaching a drone controller but no actual drones it's just to exploit the wound allocation system.

Somewhere in between those points there's a judgement call.

It's more like the difference between buying 30 boyz ork mobs because they are large mobs in the fluff and buying a large mob so it takes a long time to lose it's fearless bonus. If the end result is the same and you think one way is an exploit then you are most likely wrong.

An exploit is simply any rules interpretation that you don't want to play by.

Exploiting a rule is to use it selfishly for one's own ends. The most perfect example is Cover Saves. The rules state that if players disagree on cover saves that the cover save is granted with a -1 modifier. Players who exploit this will argue that their opponents models are NOT in cover just to have the -1 modifier applied.

Except the rules don't let you do this on ANY cover save, only a very specific situation (when it is time consuming to determine LOS from each firer to each target model) and then it is only allowed if both players agree. This makes it nearly impossible to exploit this rule unless your opponent is very agreeable (or gullable).

Rule is below with my emphasis:

In situations where it’s not obvious whether a unit is in cover or not, the normal solution is to strictly apply the majority rule above, and count how many models are in cover from the point of view of each of the firing models in range. As this process might prove to be rather time-consuming, for a faster (albeit less precise) solution, the players may agree to treat these units as in cover, but with a cover save of one less than normal (for example a 5+ save if partially in cover behind a building or another unit, which normally would offer a 4+ save).

I define exploitation as interpreting a rule other than it was intended to be interpreted to gain an advantage. Because the rules were written pretty lackadaisically, there are plenty of times where a rule could be exploited, but that wasn't the way the game was intended to be played.

The very fact that GW has always done a pretty half-assed job of making sure that the rules for 40K made any sense at all is obvious, so why don't we all try to be adults and stop all this obsessing over whether somebody is unfairly taking advantage of the rules or not. If you're really so concerned with somebody's behaviour, don't play them again, or study the rules and find your own favorite loophole. In the rules for Warmachine, they dedicated an entire page to encouraging players to be as underhanded and vicious as possible. Remember, the 41st Millenium is a dark and brutal place that requires dark and brutal thinking. If you can't handle it, take up knitting.

snooggums wrote:It's more like the difference between buying 30 boyz ork mobs because they are large mobs in the fluff and buying a large mob so it takes a long time to lose it's fearless bonus. If the end result is the same and you think one way is an exploit then you are most likely wrong.

Unit selection benefits from rules wonkiness or unit selection deliberately taking advantage of rules wonkiness
VS
Unit selection for purely fluff reasons or unit selection to benefit from the plain and intended meaning of the rules


I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, but your point doesn't really relate to this conversation.

warpcrafter wrote:The very fact that GW has always done a pretty half-assed job of making sure that the rules for 40K made any sense at all is obvious, so why don't we all try to be adults and stop all this obsessing over whether somebody is unfairly taking advantage of the rules or not. If you're really so concerned with somebody's behaviour, don't play them again, or study the rules and find your own favorite loophole. In the rules for Warmachine, they dedicated an entire page to encouraging players to be as underhanded and vicious as possible. Remember, the 41st Millenium is a dark and brutal place that requires dark and brutal thinking. If you can't handle it, take up knitting.

But it isn't the 41st millenium and I'm not facing a the darkest threat to imperium, it's my kitchen table and I'm facing the guy from the down the street.

Warmachine has a page dedicated to spelling out the culture for it's game, and it's culture is to use the rules to gain any advantage possible, regardless of balance or common sense. That's cool, that how Warmachine works. 40K, especially 5th ed, has a lot of text for its own intended culture and it's very different to Warmachine, it talks about using reason and compromise, playing to win but looking at the game first. Ignoring that and declaring your own preferred style of play as superior is, well, obnoxious.

Burning Star,
How can you know what way the rules are to be interpreted in everyone has a different interpretation? I know I like to think of my self as above average in intelligence, yet the rules lawyers get me all the time. I had one guy argue that because of the place of a comma in the codex it changed the meaning of the rule. How do you handle people like that? Sure at a tournament you can mark them down in sportsmanship, but what about local games?

Warpcrafter, by the sounds of your post you seem like a person who will "interpret" things to win at any cost. Since I do not know you, I will not direct anything towards you. But, I know people like that. They think that because they win a game with little plastic soldiers, it makes them more of a man. All it really does is show someone's true character.

sirisaacnuton wrote:

Stelek wrote:

I didn't make all those demon lists with 4 heralds of slaanesh for nothing, ya know. You don't "group" IC's so that's 16 ablative wounds for your huge unit of seekers.

How does that work? You're only getting that many wounds if they're on chariots, and then they lose IC status and can't join the squads and just get shot at separately.

You can stick the heralds in front of the seekers (or bloodcrushers) and everyone behind gets a cover save.

Go ahead and shoot those four 5 wound models instead of the seekers (or bloodcrushers).

You do die to either the 4 single units or the one large unit, after all.

See, you can make everyone fire at your one super unit (for no gain) or fire little bits of their army at multiple units (also, for no gain).

It's quite difficult to kill ALL of the 4 heralds and the seeker unit, and then because you are close to it, it runs over and beats you in CC.

skyth wrote:An exploit is simply any rules interpretation that you don't want to play by.

You just owned everyone in this thread. lol

Stelek wrote:

skyth wrote:An exploit is simply any rules interpretation that you don't want to play by.

You just owned everyone in this thread. lol

LOL True enough.

Here is my question...

Has anyone actually seen this done in games? How often?

I mean seriously. We get to 'see' a lot of these loopholes come down the pipe here at dakka, but the problem is that we assume people actually play like that. I have never come across the cheese you guys are spreading.

Thankfully, I havent seen anyone pull stunts listed here in over a decade when a few choice people who were cheat mongers played BA. Such awesome idiocy as "I can see you but you cant see me" etc.

But it is good to discuss them and what you would do in the face of such problems. Forewarned is forearmed.