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.

I myself have read the 5ed rule book and my ork codex a few times but am a complete novice to 40k. Yet whilst reading forums and comments (generally the BOW vids on YouTube) it seems that so many players do not get even simplest to understand rules such as calling a Waaagh!!, wound allocation and LoS. Is it; that I am so much of a n00b that I have yet to play in a situation where there rules come under fire, that the rules would be better with a more visual medium or that many players only skim the rules without understanding them. This is not a dig at anyone who has had these issues but an intrest in the method of creating rules as I am student studying games design.

Lesson #1: Rules are NEVER as clear as you think they are.
Lesson #2: This isn't a rules question.
Lessons #3: Corollary to Lesson #1: If you've written a rule that your target audience has difficulty understanding, it's your fault as a game designer that the rule is misunderstood.

Firstly your reply is fair this is not a direct question about a particular rule, maybe this post should be moved? Secondly all rules can be explained in depth, it is the capacity of the recipient to comprehend the explanation. This is considered an uncontrollable constraint as every individual is different. If anyone would like to supply a rule they are unsure about, I would, as part of a study like to create a method to try and make it clear!

Alot of the problems that arise from a seemingly simple rule, is there is such a thing called a rules lawyer. They ruin your normal rules by picking even the slightest of faults in wording and twist them into a confusing mess. Only a rules lawyer will call into question the WAAAAGH rule and such, and for a not so learned player, they can get caught up into it.


Others like LOS, I personally have never had a problem with LOS rules, but I do see why some people will have problems with it. Mainly though, I blame that on players trying to convince their opponent that no they actually CANT shoot at this unit, mainly for fear of being smashed

A lot of the problems also come from the fact that many players don't actually read the rulebook.

They learn the rules from another player, or read the rulebook once and from then on just go from memory... and so wind up with 'rules' entrenched in their mind that they've been playing wrong but that are how they remember the rule as working.

The rules could be laid out much better and are fairly poorly written as compared to other games. One big issue is that "common sense" is highly subjective when speaking of space emperor's and robot zombies. The fact that every book's fluff plays up it's own faction as unstoppable I believe muddles things on a subconscious level if nothing else.

One of the biggest things you have to take into consideration also, is that everyone can perceive something different from someone else.

They can either intentionally or unintentionally have a different perception than what other people see. Does this mean they are wrong? No, it means they think along a different track, and bring a new angle to something. Does this mean they are right? No, for the same reason as they are not wrong.

Most true problems occur when strange codex rules meet other strange codex rules. Another part are people who simply read things the way the want them to work, and refuse to change the mind. The third part are people not playing by the actual rules(learning rules second hand or people cheating).

I feel like complaining about the 40K rules in general at the moment.

Let's pick on the Line of Sight rules. If Line of Sight were well defined in the 40K rules, a person could provide rules quotes to answer the following:
A. How do you determine LOS for a model with no eyes?
B. How do you determine line of sight for vehicle with no weapons?
C. A clear definition of 'visible' that doesn't have to be reconstructed by implication from other sections of the rulebook.

To pick on terms that are vague for 40K, there are:
- at least three different uses of the term 'movement' subject to different rules
- at least two different uses of the term 'deployment' subject to different rules (and used to specify when actions are possible)
- at least two contradictory notions of when the game "starts"
- the dreaded rules phrase "as if ____ing" in contrast to "counts as ___ing"

And that's not getting into terms that aren't ever defined, or mechanics that are worked out by inference (temporary attribute modifiers vs. wargear attribute modifiers) that end up being inconsistent between devices, and the inconsistent FAQ's for which abilities stack with themselves.

Solkan I believe I can easily answer A,B and C.
A - I do not think Games Workshop is asking you to communicate with the models to find a LoS and most infantry models have eyes often located in the head area. Using this knowledge as a base for further decisions it can be "presumed"(dangerous word I know) that a player looking from an abstract position behind the head of the model can share its LoS.
B - If the vehicle does not have a weapon then the need to have a LoS to fire a weapon is not necessary as LoS is only required for the shooting phase. If you are insinuating about firing from a vehicle then firing points are usually found in the relevant codex.
C - In the LoS section of the 5ed rule book the word visible appears once, used to describe that accessories on a model such as banners and weapons do not count as being part of the models body. The rules clearly state that to fire upon a model you must have LoS to the targets body. I feel visibility is a topic in its own right which affect checking range and cover saves more than LoS. Remember you either have LoS or you don’t (i.e. seeing an Orks hand through a window or through a clump of vegetation still counts as having LoS)
Ok I have answered your questions and I do not want to appear combative with my answers as I am assuming you have more depth in the questions that are written in your post and I would like to hear more. I do like what you say about the vague use of language in the 40K rules. I will need more time to ponder a response.

Actually solkan was posting rhetorical questions, as you can't quote rules to answer those questions, as their are none. It still is quite clear what to in that case.

Taking BoW Vids as a Source of rules confusion evidence(or even as a source of rules clarification) is a lot like walking outside, fiding out that someone had spray-painted your lawn pink and decideing that must mean that all grass is pink.

Beasts of war do not know the rules, and the only rule I have ever seen them get right is combat tactics(which is a pretty straight-forward rule; they mostly were just talking about tactics using that rule, which is also self explanatory).

The Problem with GWs WH40K rules is that there are lots of them, and when you have lots of rules you very quickly start getting into inconsistencies(Either in terms used, or, through some FAQs, a ruling that may say the opposite of the rule text or an answer to a specific question that is broadly written). Because they have so many rules, and later FAQ rulings, there is bound to be confusion on seemingly simple rules; worse yet is that with so many rules when a new rule is written they often leave out 1 or 2 things that should be effected, but isn't.

I agree with Kell.

Using the BoW vids as a measure of how much the general community (or even BoW themselves) understand of the rules, is setting the bar mighty low.

The only game with a similar volume of rules to ever reach the point of a 100% solid rules construct, is Magic: The Gathering, and it took them twelve years for them to get there. But, as opposed to GW, WotC actually cares about their rules, they have been shelling out errata and faqs on a weekly basis ever since their website launched, have an entire department devoted to rules management and playtesting, and have their own association of judges for any official events.

All other games I know are in a worse state (contradicting rules in four places of the same book and the like) than Warhammer40k , so it's not that bad.

Magic is meant to be a professional tournament game, something they have states 40k is NOT aimed at.

One of the differences there

Also, its a matter of focus - GW focus models first, rules somwheere second or third. For magic its all about the rules, as the cards have far less investment in them by the player.

Please! Do not look at Beast of War as a source of rules. I love the site, the modeling and painting tips are nice, but i would hate to play a game with Darrell or any of those guys, because the entire game would be spent in the big red rule book trying to explain that they are playing the wrong game!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Magic is meant to be a professional tournament game, something they have states 40k is NOT aimed at.

One of the differences there

Also, its a matter of focus - GW focus models first, rules somwheere second or third. For magic its all about the rules, as the cards have far less investment in them by the player.

We'll it wasn't when I started playing 14 years ago, and even today more people tend to play casual "kitchen table games" than at any tournaments comparable to WH40k tournaments.

As for investments - competitive decks for the "cheapest" tier of tournaments cost around $200 to buy, and you'll have to replace them partially or completely every three months, single cards costing up to $80.
If you want to play in tiers where close to all cards are allowed, you will have to spend up to $5000 on a single 60-card deck, though that one rarely has to be replaced.
For casual decks, it is possible to build $20 decks, but most are more on the area of $100 or more.
And the funnies part of all: WotC gets only a fraction of all this money spent, the rest goes to the secondary market.

If I'd spend as much money on Warhammer40k as I did on Magic over the course of 14 years, I could most likely fill any given GW store with enough ork boyz to make anyone wade knee-high in them. So the difference in investment is not really an issue

Baiscly GW needs to do nothing but get their asses up, employ at least two people for making their rules consistent, playtesting and answering faqs all day, and the YMDC forum would be nothing but a deserted place.

I didnt mean monetary investment! You dont spend anywhere near the amount of time with a single card as you do with a single miniature. It is a piece of flat card with some occasionally pretty pictures, compared to a model you build/convert/paint/play with - so your investment in any individual item is generally higher than in magic.

That might be true, though you can't really compare cards to models in that way... it's more like decks to units. I build most of my casual decks over the course of years, adding cards one by one. If my entire collection would be set on fire, I probably could still tell you every single card in the decks I played.

But you're right, there is no "hobby"-section in magic, which is the little difference that made me end up here. Can't do much with magic cards to kill time, if there is no one around to play.

Apart from obsessively ordering them via release, block and rarity?

WotC seem to have little qualms about invalidiating cards either, from what I've seen of them. Less so with GW, who since the CSM codex havent removed a playable unit from a codex - although DH/GK are a bit odd at the moment, you can still use ISTs as henchmen!

People are idiots, and don't read the rules for themselves - and when they do, they do it with pre-existing notions of how things work, from other people, fluff, previous Editions, other game systems, or 'reality' - it matters not which.

The fact that people STILL think Chaos Dreadnoughts Fire Frenzy backwards is proof of this.

Not only do people think that, but they rules that way at Indy GT last week - despite me pointing out page 16 (LOS == visible) and the rules for vehicles and "hull" mounted weaponry

My dreads were the only units inthe game with 360 visibiiity. Sigh.

insaniak wrote:A lot of the problems also come from the fact that many players don't actually read the rulebook.

They learn the rules from another player, or read the rulebook once and from then on just go from memory... and so wind up with 'rules' entrenched in their mind that they've been playing wrong but that are how they remember the rule as working.

Or they confuse previous editions with the current.

Really? Huh. I thought that event had been reasonably competitive, but when they aren't actually PLAYING 40k...

This right here is the entire reason for the acronyms of RAW and RAI. Rules as Written (favored by the rules lawyers) and Rules as Intended, which still can't always cover some disputes.

For example, I think everyone here would agree that the Orkish Deffrolla is a weapon. It's a big spikey drum that kills things, and it's an addition onto the vehicle. So, I assumed it could count for a Weapon Destroyed result, because, hey, it's a weapon. But, because it's not listed under the 'weapons' section of Battlewagon wargear (which isn't even called "weapons" btw) it does not count.

That's a case of finickyness, and a strange FAQ.


Then there's the Blood Talons wargear for Blood Angels Death Company dreads, and the argument about what specific words mean (basically ignoring context, which, in the English language, can drastically change the meaning of a word) as well as using issues in the Wound allocation rules to argue for or against points, despite those issues not actually having any bearing when you're doing actual wound allocation. In that case, it's also fairly clear that the argument is happening because people don't want the blender-dred to get extra attacks, and it could be argued that, despite them understanding the rule perfectly, they choose to be obstinant and question the rule in order to gain an unfair (or possibly completely fair [I mean, have you seen the Blood Talons rule?]) advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apart from obsessively ordering them via release, block and rarity?

WotC seem to have little qualms about invalidiating cards either, from what I've seen of them. Less so with GW, who since the CSM codex havent removed a playable unit from a codex - although DH/GK are a bit odd at the moment, you can still use ISTs as henchmen!

Scarboyz, Stickbomers, Madboyz, Freebooters all seem to be models that appear on ebay regularly without any rules to them anymore.

As for WotC invalidating cards: When you play Legacy-Torunaments (the ones with the $5000 decks) you are allowed to play any card at least once, unless:
- It is an ante card (cards allowing you to get cards from your opponent and keep them). Except for obvious reasons, these cards make magic games considered illegal gambling in some countries. All of these have been out of print for over a decade.
- The card was printed as banned card. (Fun cards that force your opponent to get you a drink etc, or cards with different backsides).
- It is one of two cards requiring you to throw the card at the table from a distance. Those two have been out of print when I started the game.

Also, in casual games, you are usually allowed to play any card you want, comparable to FW models. Don't bring too many Landraider Achilles, or you'll get beat up

Though the point I was trying to make, was not how awesome m:tg is, but that it is possible to create solid, working rules without conflicts. GW simply doesn't want to, with their only excuse being laziness called "focus on something else".

Elessar wrote:Really? Huh. I thought that event had been reasonably competitive, but when they aren't actually PLAYING 40k...

One slightly idiosyncractic rules decision in a document that spanned some 200+ questions is '[not] actually PLAYING 40k'?

BoW don't usually say they try to explain the rules.
Darrell's videos are usually trying to exploit ceratin aspect of the rules but are generally about tactics.

There have been a few videos answering members' questions.
It is worth reading the comments below which usually have any clarification.

Jidmah - SINCE the CSM codex. From memory those werent about in either KoS or otherwise.

Yes, it was an idiosyncratic ruling, what happens when locals play houserules and havent changed between editions. I did get them to realise that Emergency disembark really isnt the same as the old "entangled" result

solkan nailed it.