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.

ive posted this here as it is a general subject

We all play miniature wargames, this means we can all read the "codices/army books/rules" so why is it if somone posts a question do people think the best response is "read the codex/rulebook" has no one heard of the theory that people read what they see the most obvious being
A
BIRD
IN
THE THE
WOOD

look quickly and what do you see? How many word in the caption?

the human mind see's what it thinks should be there not what neccisarily is!
So my point is people like gwar/etc who have an unseemingly infinite knowledge of the rules should not post smart comments like "read the codex/rulebook page x on posts from people asking questions on rules!!! As it is deameaning to people who have obviously missed a point or not quite understood

What the hell are you talking about? You'd think a topic with the subject "SMART PEOPLE" in all caps would have better grammar.

But sometimes the situations pictured are actually covered by tthe rulebook. And if you need to ask... maybe you didn't read that paragraph in particular.

whats the point in this thread. Obviously they arnt being deaming if they ask yuo to refer to a codex with information in .A codex will ahve the actual answer rather than a parafrased one.

the answers to this post have proved my point
some people for example Brother SRM have to post in a negative manor just to post even though it has no bearing on the subject
however Erasoketa you are right sometimes the situations pictured are actually covered by the rulebook but again the human nature is to read what it thnks it see's not what is actually there

to me 40k is a freindly society and that is the point

Failed thread is fails.

chub wrote:the answers to this post have proved my point
some people for example Brother SRM have to post in a negative manor just to post even though it has no bearing on the subject
however Erasoketa you are right sometimes the situations pictured are actually covered by the rulebook but again the human nature is to read what it thnks it see's not what is actually there

to me 40k is a freindly society and that is the point

You're not very good at stating what you mean to say. I'm not being snarky for the sake of being snarky. You just need more clarity in what you're posting.

I understand what he's trying to say perfectly. Though I must agree with Erasoketa in that some (not all) of the time, a question can be answered with a simple page number. Having said that, sometimes there is genuine confusion about the wording of a particular rule and it needs clarification. Thus, when someone references a page number to the rule in question and the person already doesn't understand it... they aren't magically going to get it once someone says "look at page X".

my point in this thread is someone says can i assault out of a bloodangel landraider if it deepstrikes? (a sensible question if you ask me) and the answer is READ THE CODEX surely if they ask the question they have read the codex NO? so there is no reason for such answers

@anticitizen013 you are right but surely we must encourage people not just quote page numbers

Not true. The world isn't all smiles, puppy dogs, and rainbows and if you ask a silly question, you aren't always going to get a nice answer.

Could people be nicer, sure. But is it too much to ask that before someone posts a question he/she reads all the relevant information?

chub wrote:my point in this thread is someone says can i assault out of a bloodangel landraider if it deepstrikes? (a sensible question if you ask me) and the answer is READ THE CODEX surely if they ask the question they have read the codex NO? so there is no reason for such answers

Page 37 of the Blood Angels codex:
"Note that a unit that Deep Strikes within a Land Raider cannot assault in the turn it arrives"

When the answer is that cut and dry it's not unexpected for some people to give you a hard time. In that case, getting just a page number as a response would not be unwarranted.

ye ozymandius its not all smile and handshakes but is there any need to come on to a forum of your own free will to be a smart bastard? my point is people should be aware they ar dealing with human beings not robots

edit:my blood angels example was JUST AN EXAMPLE i have the codex in front of me

That cuts both ways. Human beings respond to these threads as well, and human beings will give you a page number if the answer is that obvious. A certain degree of reading ability is required for this hobby.

ye thats my point a page number is ok but in a recent question the first response was READ THE CODEX

how is this helpfu? If they had a query surely they would have read the codex first?

Possibly. The internet has just as many stupid, lazy people as it does unhelpful, aggressive people. One of the first things you learn to do online is stop expecting people to be nice to you.

I Know but after a bitchin ard day at work enough was enough

I couldn't follow your first post asking that we read and count the words, what was that? But for what I think you're asking, I think that most rules queries are solved simply by Reading the Codex properly. There's a whole section for rules queries, and interesting discussions to be had where they are ambiguous in nature. Unfortunately rather a lot of rules queries I see on a day to day basis are things like 'how many points is this?' or 'can I take this wargear with these troops' and frankly it's all in black and White in the codex. The rules are supposed to be discussed on the forum not copied and pasted from books. Either way, it's best to direct someone to the rules in the official publication as later on the player should be able to refer firstly to their codex and not what they recall someone telling them online. To many people offer incorrect rulings on forums, best go to the rulebook whenever possible.

One of the first things you learn to do online is stop expecting people to be nice to you.

And the first rule of Dakka is ?
Sorry for being old fashioned and/or British but good manners are always to be expected.
Without exception

Yes there are people who want to be spoon fed. But equally there are newbs who just want some clarification. What is blindingly obvious to a veteran campaigner is not so clear to a newb.

What is written in black and white is not always clear otherwise there would not be the endless and often heated arguments

I think most of the "read the codex" answers Ive seen were well warranted.

I think most people need to grow thicker skin when asking on a public forum, questions. Doesnt matter the question, just be prepared to see at least a few people swinging their d**ks around. Thats how life works, and is even more harsh on the net because everyone is the biggest baddest mofo on the net. At least thats what I gather anyways

Well King Cracker if that's what you think you!

chub wrote:
look quickly and what do you see?

smart peoples being un neccisarillly deameaning

chub wrote:the answers to this post have proved my point
some people for example Brother SRM have to post in a negative manor just to post even though it has no bearing on the subject

Which, while not a particularly welcome response around here, is not surprising given the confrontational tone of your initial post.

Sorry, but this thread was doomed from the start. If people are answering questions in a manner that is rude, the correct response is to hit the Mod Alert button at the top of the post so it can be dealt with in an appropriate fashion by a moderator. Not to start a thread complaining about it.