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.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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.

I've found this to be true in my situations like this. It never sticks until it's seen in action, it seems.

Also to the OP, I understand your position, just keep working on it with them is all I can suggest. I had a similar situation come up in a recent game with the wife and her nids. She charged her squad of 20 genestealers into 2 squads of rubric marines, but Daisy chained the stealers so they would still get the broodlords bonus. Magically 2 rubrics survived the fight, then on my turn I used a squad of 5 chaos spawn on one end of the line to charge and a greater deamon of slaanesh on the other end. I activated the spawn first and rolled incredibly well, killing 14! She started to pull guys from whereever when I pointed out "you know, if you pull from the other side, I don't think my greater deamon will be able to fight." We looked it up and I was right, so she learned something.

Point is that when teaching a new player or someone who doesn't get the best grasp of the rules right away the best way to help is to point anything out that can go either way. In my case it was during pulling of dead models. In the original story about the game it would have been during the charging phase warning them if you knew it could go that way (Obviously you can't know it would have gone that way, the first walker could have completly missed with its attacks). And if you didn't realize it until it came up then don't feel bad, again it's a learning experience.

(BTW, I totally lost my game, greater deamon of slaanesh got slaughtered by the Swarmlord and his band of merry misfit genestealers lol)

2 pages already, wow.
Anyways, what I would do in these situations is after the fact, give the option of an "undo last move". This gives them the opportunity so go "ok, I know this can happen so I'll keep that in mind while I remake that move". Everyone will feel better about the game, they will more likely remember that rule and the game can continue without a half-hour debate.
People learn in different ways, some learn by reading, some by seeing and some by doing.
I'm a doing type learner. I can read all the books all day long, but most of it won't stick in my memory, not until after I do it.

Another thing I would do with these player, is play a modified rules game. Use just the very basic rules until they catch on, then slowly introduce the rest of the special rules a few at a time.

This is a pet peeve of mine. People that don't know the rules. Or maybe are willfully ignorant. I understand there is a learning curve, and everyone has to start somewhere- but this edition has what, like 8 pages of rules? And then you have your codex/index specific rules. It's my experience that people tend to always remember the positive rules and forget the negative rules of their armies.

No one likes it when their opponent tells them they can't do that, even when you show them in their own codex or the rulebook the rule in question. And I haven't found a good way to deal with it yet. I used to buy all the codexes and try to memorize every rule I could. Almost a walking encyclopedia. Ya know what? It sucked. People hated to play against me because I knew their army better then they did, and I know they felt I would somehow rules lawyer the win, even though I was playing by the rules!

So now, I just concentrate on the army I'm playing at the time. If my opponent wants to say something like "All my attacks cause 1 mortal wound when I roll a 6", Sure. Whatever. Not worth my time or effort to correct them. When my opponent starts to correct me...

Casual game night or pick up game? Whatever. In a tournament? You should be bringing your A-game, and I really, really hate it when someone tanks my sportsmanship score because I call them on bull moves or rules. Learn the rules!

I must admit the stuff mentioned in the initial post has raised a couple of concerns I had about 8th, once I'd digested the rules, and one situation which I hadn't even considered.

With 8th the main things which I'm really not a fan of are the loss of firing arc's for vehicles and the way casualties are dealt with. I really don't like how when I riddle half a squad with plasma, who are in perfect line of sight of my unit are then able to take casualties round the corner of the building. In addition to this I don't like how when I'm in h2h combat that units which are clearly out of reach are able to drop dead while those still stood toe-to-toe are able to continue as is.

To address the topic at hand, it's a case of providing lee-way while people are learning the game and just being conscious of people abusing this. It's a really difficult one to judge in some cases as everyone learns in different ways and at different rates, this is before taking into far more complicated factors.

Rake does a good job of hitting the nail on the head though.

I just view it as an abstraction over time. You killed five, the other fell back around the corner, or in the OP, he killed five, and the rest of the unit moved in to reliate. I think you have to allow for abstractions like this, in a game that does such an iffy job of modelling time.

Dreadsock!

A sorely underused word and solution.

grouchoben wrote:
I just view it as an abstraction over time. You killed five, the other fell back around the corner, or in the OP, he killed five, and the rest of the unit moved in to reliate. I think you have to allow for abstractions like this, in a game that does such an iffy job of modelling time.

This 100%. The models are just a representation of a unit on the battlefield. The vehicle didn't move and then shoot, it was shooting as it moved. This is why flyers can shoot units behind or to the side of them as they zoom forwards - they were strafing the enemy as it sped forwards. The models killed are removed from around the corner to represent the rest of that squad moving forward into the melee. Likewise I don't see the morale phase showcasing models fleeing the battlefield. It's an abstract to show that you are doing more damage when opening firing with your bolters or lasguns.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Dreadsock!

A sorely underused word and solution.

Only viable if you've been playing since 2nd ed.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
The attacking player felt cheated that he didn't get to attack, the defending player felt bad, and nobody really enjoyed the situation.

Why didn't you just house rule it so that the other walker still gets it's attacks then in that specific situation?
I constantly allow my opponents to do things anyway if they don't go a certain way. The last game I played my tyrannofex was charged by some jump pack guys from the Forgeworld Mechanicum army using 8th Ed rules he got off the internet. He was obviously excited to see them in combat vs a big monster but I killed some with a lucky overwatch rolls and I said we could just ignore it and carry on like it hadn't happened. Likewise I'll often let my opponents say failed charges succeed or certain models weren't killed if it'll result in something potentially fun and cool. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to follow the rules to the letter. Breaking the rules for the enjoyment of the game is part of 40k.

 Stormonu wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Dreadsock!

A sorely underused word and solution.

Only viable if you've been playing since 2nd ed.

So true, painfully so

 Sim-Life wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
The attacking player felt cheated that he didn't get to attack, the defending player felt bad, and nobody really enjoyed the situation.

Why didn't you just house rule it so that the other walker still gets it's attacks then in that specific situation?
I constantly allow my opponents to do things anyway if they don't go a certain way. The last game I played my tyrannofex was charged by some jump pack guys from the Forgeworld Mechanicum army using 8th Ed rules he got off the internet. He was obviously excited to see them in combat vs a big monster but I killed some with a lucky overwatch rolls and I said we could just ignore it and carry on like it hadn't happened. Likewise I'll often let my opponents say failed charges succeed or certain models weren't killed if it'll result in something potentially fun and cool. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to follow the rules to the letter. Breaking the rules for the enjoyment of the game is part of 40k.

Spoiler:

Saying that, my opponents don't really show me the same courtsey. :<

He wouldn't need to houserule it; the defender could have just pulled different models and let the attack happen. Remember the defender gets a free hit at run next turn anyway. Not allowing the walker to fight even once, before it got shot to death, isn't about knowing the rules. It's about knowing that the rules suck. Anyone who would pull this kind of stunt in a friendly game, KNOWING that the free, utterly unbalanced and ultimately unfair hit-and-run is coming up next turn, is "that guy", plain and simple. We should all be doing everything we can to try to make the game more fair, not less.

I'm sorry, but calling someone using tactics "that guy" is a rather "that guy" kinda move. It's not like people haven't used this tactic in past editions before the remove closest model rule can into play. The difference is now it happens on unit activation rather than initiative order.

Patience is a virtue.

 alextroy wrote:
I'm sorry, but calling someone using tactics "that guy" is a rather "that guy" kinda move. It's not like people haven't used this tactic in past editions before the remove closest model rule can into play. The difference is now it happens on unit activation rather than initiative order.

Free hit and run makes "that guy" out of all of us.

the_scotsman wrote:


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.

No offence but this is a perfect example. You don't have to be a full 4" away, just a full 1" away.

You don't get to pile in unless you are selected to fight, and you can't be selected to fight unless you are within an inch of an enemy model.

So yeah, it's tough - there are a lot of rules interactions.

I would treat the OP's problem as a learning experience - to say excitedly "yeah there are loads of tactics you can learn around combat - let me show you another cool trick you might do in a future game" and show him how to lock units so they can't fall back.

Basically... you can't use "I didn't read that rule" as an excuse for a take back... and there's no point being super upset in a casual game... but I'd be happy to tell you more so you know for future games.

 Silentz wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


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.

No offence but this is a perfect example. You don't have to be a full 4" away, just a full 1" away.

You don't get to pile in unless you are selected to fight, and you can't be selected to fight unless you are within an inch of an enemy model.

So yeah, it's tough - there are a lot of rules interactions.

I would treat the OP's problem as a learning experience - to say excitedly "yeah there are loads of tactics you can learn around combat - let me show you another cool trick you might do in a future game" and show him how to lock units so they can't fall back.

Basically... you can't use "I didn't read that rule" as an excuse for a take back... and there's no point being super upset in a casual game... but I'd be happy to tell you more so you know for future games.

The irony here is awesome! Actually you can pick units to pile if they're within 1" of an enemy OR if they charged in the same turn. The models would of had to be a full 4" away from the Walker as it still could of piled in as it made a successful charge in the prior charge phase.

Wait, what?

Haha.

Edit - clearly you are right and I apologise to The Scotsman for the appalling stain on his honor. I feel like I need to take an extended leave of absence from YMDC now!!!

 Stormonu wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Dreadsock!

A sorely underused word and solution.

Only viable if you've been playing since 2nd ed.

I have!

Got a Dark Angels metal dread kicking around in the house somewhere. Unless the parents threw it out, highly likely.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm sorry, but calling someone using tactics "that guy" is a rather "that guy" kinda move. It's not like people haven't used this tactic in past editions before the remove closest model rule can into play. The difference is now it happens on unit activation rather than initiative order.

Free hit and run makes "that guy" out of all of us.

Touche', Sir!

The big question is was the OP nice enough to explain to him that he could Pile-In and Consolidate 6" towards the closest unit once his target was killed out of contact. If so, no foul, just a learning experience.

This happens all the time with me - the Steel Behemoth rule is especially guilty of causing "surprise, this is a rule!" to players, because it's pretty rare and, while clear, the implications don't always process while I'm talking about it or even right after it is cursorily read.

So what I do is before an opponent makes an action that would be affected by Steel Behemoth, or follows a course of action that I believe is motivated by a lack of understanding of Steel Behemoth, I stop them, explain the rule, ask them if they want to change / undo said action, and don't let them move on until I've made sure they understand exactly what the problem is.

I still run into those mentioned players who simply cannot re-form their plan on the fly when they have to, and instead upon finding out their plan doesn't work they fold psychologically, but at least once the game is over I can talk it out with them and buy them a drink/coffee/snack and we can talk about a remach now that they have a week or two to plan and think it over.