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.

Gwar! wrote:

BlackSpike wrote:Am I right in thinking that Ork Big Meks can never use their repair tools unless they are embarked upon a vehicle (which is impossible for vehicles without transport capability)?
The rules say they must be in base-to-base, but (as mention re: ICs disembarking) they must be 2" away from a non-joined squad (and they can never join a vehicle squad).

No fixing of dredds/kans/boomwagons! :(

I did just mention that the 2" from vehicles thing is wrong right?

No, you mentioned that ICs can not join vehicle squads.
Combined with the rule that ICs must stay 2" away from squads that they cannot join, the Big Mek can never be in Base-to-base with one.
Hence not being able to repair it.

DogOfWar wrote:Any player worth their salt should be modeling for advantage and extending that Bane Wolf barrel way, WAY past the hull.

Wouldn't matter, as by extreme RAW, a flamer can never be fired by anybody. Flamer template cannot be placed so that it touches ANY friendly models. To fire it, you place it touching the base of the firing model, but there is no exception saying that it can touch the (friendly) firing model..............

A "Leman Russ Battletank" doesn't have a turret in RAW. There is a wargear entry for a "Leman Russ", but there are no rules for any unit called "Leman Russ". I guess Leman Russ Battletanks just drive around the battlefield now and watch the action. Sounds sweet. I hope the tank crew brought a six pack.

Ludovic wrote:There's no cost listed for the Wraithlord's Wraithblade. You can buy a wraithsword, but there's no description of its powers.

Harlequins don't have Furious Charge. They have Furious assault, but there's no description of that in the rules.

Now, taken separately, it's a case of clear typoes. But what makes it exceedingly stupid is that they're both in the same Codex.

Seriously, those differences just need common sense to work out. IMO it dosent matter if one word is different, as long as the actual rule is clear then its obvious what rule that unit is supposed to have

Valkyrie wrote:

Ludovic wrote:There's no cost listed for the Wraithlord's Wraithblade. You can buy a wraithsword, but there's no description of its powers.

Harlequins don't have Furious Charge. They have Furious assault, but there's no description of that in the rules.

Now, taken separately, it's a case of clear typoes. But what makes it exceedingly stupid is that they're both in the same Codex.

Seriously, those differences just need common sense to work out. IMO it dosent matter if one word is different, as long as the actual rule is clear then its obvious what rule that unit is supposed to have

QFT

A lot of these "RAW is broken", "Terminators don't have any armour" things are easy to figure out.
Terminators DO wear Tactical Dreadnought Armour, Harlies DO have Furious Charge, Wraithblades are the same as WraithSwords, etc.

Although I'm sure there are still some less-than-obvious ones knocking around.

You may ask your opponent to reroll the dice for your venerable dreadnought's damage result.

They can refuse your request. Plus, even if they wish to do so, there's no rule allowing them to.

BlackSpike:

I get the sense that many posters in this thread are the sort of people that require "Warning: Coffee May be Hot" to be printed on disposable coffee mugs.

Seriously, is there a Warhammer-related facepalm picture? I haven't read this much fail since I TA'd a course in first year Critical Thinking.

Hollismason wrote:There comes a time when rules as written just breaks the game, lets list the examples, you can discuss if you like but rules as written. Let us take a literal interpretation of the different rules in the game and list the different things you have discovered.

The idea of the thread was to read the rules as literal as possible (most likely to humorous results). I'm sure the people presenting the really silly entries know exactly how to fix them in a real game.

My fav rule, Thraka is slow and purposeful, which means that he can never gain an attack for chargeing, yet he gets +2 attacks on the charge.

doubled wrote:My fav rule, Thraka is slow and purposeful, which means that he can never gain an attack for chargeing, yet he gets +2 attacks on the charge.

Welcome to 5th edition. Slow and Purposeful no longer prevents models from gaining bonus attacks due to charging. Indeed, the +2A Ghazghkull Thraka got for charging in the 4th edition codex is one of the pieces of proof that the book was writing to be forwards compatible with the upcoming 5th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

phillosmaster wrote:The idea of the thread was to read the rules as literal as possible (most likely to humorous results). I'm sure the people presenting the really silly entries know exactly how to fix them in a real game.

Sure, but my point is that these 'humorous results" are the result of deliberate misreading, rather than any literal interpretation of the rules. It's not like the rules are written in poetry, or as a series of parables. They're a set of instructions written in plain English, 'literal' is how they're supposed to be read: the instructions concerning rolling to hit are not a metaphor for the grimdarkness of modern life, for example.

Im not sure if this example is valid but it's the first one i found:

P28 of Daemonhunters Codex: Eversor's Bio-Meltdown says "place a blast marker over the assassin" it does not mention the size of the marker, so therfore you could use a small, large or, if you want to be really annoying, an Apoc 10" marker!!!

Blast markers are the 3" ones. Large Blast markers are the 5" ones. Seriously, read the rulebook before posting in this thread.

Nurglitch wrote:Sure, but my point is that these 'humorous results" are the result of deliberate misreading, rather than any literal interpretation of the rules. It's not like the rules are written in poetry, or as a series of parables. They're a set of instructions written in plain English, 'literal' is how they're supposed to be read: the instructions concerning rolling to hit are not a metaphor for the grimdarkness of modern life, for example.

But having to interpret inconsistently labeled wargear for example is not a deliberate misreading. Taking the words as written to mean two seperate entities is a brainlessly literal reading. Instructions are meant to be read literally, but they need to be written clearly and consistently to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise they need to be interpreted not unlike a metaphor. Why would you assume wraithblades are the same as wraithswords. It's quite possible they could be two different things. Of course it is obvious after reading through the codex that the intent is that a wraithsword = wraithblade, but that's just sloppy writing when you are writing instructions. It deserves ridicule.

phillosmaster:

If it was sloppy writing, then you wouldn't be able to divine any intent from the rest of the codex. The fact is that it's clear that Wraithblades are Wraithswords, and pointing out the label is semi-inconsistent ignores the fact that the labels clearly represent the same thing in the game. It's typo, not an ambiguity.

Basically if you need bad or 'brainless' reading for a rule to appear to be broken, the problem ain't with the rule.

I could keep arguing my point, but I don't think this is really worth arguing over. This was suppose to be a silly thread after all.

phillomaster:

I disagree. It's worth discussing because all the false positives that have been raised in this thread contribute to an ongoing myth that GW writes sloppy rules, which while somewhat true in 4th edition, has been largely rectified in 5th edition*. Moreover threads like this give TFG and rules-lawyer munchkins new ideas for frustrating and aggravating their fellow gamers.

*The Power Fist vs Monolith problem, for example, was a genuine example of poor writing in 4th that has been fixed in the new edition.

I'll stop posting in the thread though. I've said my piece.

No I like this thread! (mostly because now everyone will look at gargants slightly differently)

As much as I like to RAWr it up with the best of them, there are (and I'm sure will be) plenty of times when I will read a rule, figure that I know what it means and go with it, only to discover that it reads actually completely differently from my first reading. First impressions count, as they say.

Stuff like this makes me rethink my knowledge and have a second look at things I thought I understood completely. It also makes me chuckle at how silly some of the situations obviously are. Both of which are good things in my book.

It's interesting to know the RAW in such situations as it shows dedication and accurate reading of sometimes complicated rule interactions, but I'll agree, at times it really can't be played that way. The trick is to know which rules are truly 'broken' and which are just unfortunate limitations. For instance, I'd let you shoot your Bane Wolf's main gun, but I wouldn't let you shoot your flamer guys out of your chimera.

Arbitrary? Well, yeah. Would I check it out and come to an agreement with my opponent before the game? Absolutely.

DoW

My favourite rule failing is deployment. The rule is simple deploy one sides models and the deploy the others.

However I do feel some basic qualifiers would have been nice. For example ...

...All units should be deployed in coherency...
...Units may be deployed inside transports. (note dedicated transports may only start with the unit that they were purchased with)
...Units cannot be deployed in place that they would not be able to move into, for example not in impassible terrain (on top of vehicles, Lava, ect)
... IC may be joined to unit before deployment (shrike may now infiltrate a squad yay)

something ive found in the SM codex

P131: the Chapter Champion may take Digital Lasers for 10pts

Digital Lasers do not exist, only Digital Weapons

You can use a Blood Angels exanguinator to save a land raider. It allows you to count as passing a failed save that isn't a PW and doesn't cause ID. So use it on a LR's cover save.

My favorite example of a silly rule I actually made people use was Apocalypse and 4th, which is really pushing it but I'm typing it here anyway cause it's so cheesy.

You used to get Feel no Pain from strength D weapons. They caused instant death. Note that it does not say that they are treated like a weapon with a strength of double your toughness, they simply cause instant death. And they don't have a strength, just strength D. So since they are not a weapon with a strength of double your toughness and they weren't a CCW that allows no saves you used to get FNP from them. Not anymore of course.

Okay, so maybe it's really lame, but if you read the REALLY gritty parts of GW's stuff (ie the forwards, intros and designers notes) you'll find that they tell you straight up that 40K is a well designed (if imperfectly edited) game with many complicated situations and if they tried to cover them all the ridiculous price they charge for their badly bound books would be justified because the BGB would be 200 pages long (and very dry reading).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No to say that last edition's apparent SM loophole that Termies could have bikes wasn't amusing and all.

Taking a vehicle with an ordinance weapon and any other weapons. You can't shoot the other weapons if you shoot the ordinance weapon, and what is the point of taking an ordinance weapon if you're not gonna use it every round?

warpcrafter wrote:Taking a vehicle with an ordinance weapon and any other weapons. You can't shoot the other weapons if you shoot the ordinance weapon, and what is the point of taking an ordinance weapon if you're not gonna use it every round?

... In many case its so you still have something to shoot once the enemy has scored a weapons destroyed

Redwunz wrote:Okay, so maybe it's really lame, but if you read the REALLY gritty parts of GW's stuff (ie the forwards, intros and designers notes) you'll find that they tell you straight up that 40K is a well designed (if imperfectly edited) game with many complicated situations and if they tried to cover them all the ridiculous price they charge for their badly bound books would be justified because the BGB would be 200 pages long (and very dry reading).

lol magic the gathering's rule book is huge and taking a lvl 1 judge test took me 4 hours taking a lvl 2 (which i never passed) took 5

they dont need to make it 100 extra pages but sometimes 4 extra words in a sentence do help.

Tri wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Taking a vehicle with an ordinance weapon and any other weapons. You can't shoot the other weapons if you shoot the ordinance weapon, and what is the point of taking an ordinance weapon if you're not gonna use it every round?

... In many case its so you still have something to shoot once the enemy has scored a weapons destroyed

It also stops a 2nd Weapon Destroyed from rolling up to a Immobilised.
Yes, taking all 4 extra Big Shootas on a Battlewagon that will be firing it's KillKannon each turn is a bit of a waste.

Being allowed to do something silly is not the same as a silly rule

Heres one:
Models bought on their own but are part of a Squadron Still follow the Squadron rules Because the rules for squadrons state that models only stop acting like squadrons when shot at:
If a squadron consists of a single vehicle when an enemy unit fires at it, it reverts to the normal rules for vehicle damage results.

Therefore, a if Squadron that starts the game as 1 model fails a dangerous terrain test before being shot at, it is destroyed.

Wait. Would that count if you were a LRBT in an inducted DH army?







Just kidding

DoW

Lol- nice "Weapon".