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.

Hi guys,

I'm a rather new player, but I believe I'm rather good at interpreting, learning and then remembering the rules.

There seems to be a problem at my local store where the store manager doesn't seem to know the current rules as well as they should. Furthermore they're the ones who have taught the players that go to that store the rules he believes to be right.

This seems to cause a few heated discussions, and even after going over the rules with the manager, even showing picture examples present in the rulebook, I am still told I'm wrong. I can give a few examples of rules if needed.

Has anyone else here encountered this kind of problem? If so, what did you do to solve it?

Thanks,

Yep its an issue with many players - they think they know the rules cos they have always (rightly or wrongly) played them that way.

It can be someone who has only just started or a Grand Tournament veteran - everyone gets stuff wrong - and sometimes its hard to admit it.

40k/WFB do however have some rules that are not clear or can be interpreted in different ways - which really does not help the matter........

I used to be as bad as everyone else at this but I do now try and check stuff actually in the book

If you can't agree on the rules after looking at the rules themselves - that is difficult - we usually resolve it with a dice throw or similar but sometimes its simply interpretations that are not going to change and someone will feel hard done by......

Players who have played through multiple editions do tend to have a problem of different versions s all melding together. I also suffer from this.

Most recently I remember I had scouts with cam cloaks sitting in a ruin. They had stealth(ruins) from my warlord trait. I rolled them having 2+ cover (4 from ruins, +1 from stealth, +1 from cam cloaks) for half the game until someone pointed out cam cloaks give stealth now, not just +1 to cover. I simply apologized to my opponent and leared from my mistake.

As far as a player misremembering or misunderstanding the rules, if they just don't understand the current rule right and refuse to budge, what can you really do? It is hard to comment because we don't know what rule it is, and how they are wrong. But all you really can do is try to (calmly) explain to your opponent with the rule book right there, how it should work.

The 'show me where it says that' argument works. It should atleast bring the fact that the rule is absent or changed.

A lot of people get new and old rules mixed up, like with the new ways to make an army. 7th Edition is a year in, maybe a bit less, and people are still getting confused about how to take a Formation in the 'Force Org Chart'. and that's as simple as skipping a paragraph or even a single line in the rulebook and assuming it works the same or similar to how it used to.

I had one of those moments where I thought Rapid Fire weapons fired once at half range when the unit moved, twice at half or once at full range if they were stationary. I never thought they'd change a fundamental part of the game like that and just didn't read that bit when I got back in the game. Another player kindly told me I was wrong and laughed at the 3rd Edition rule. Gloss over one thing and the person doesn't even realize they're wrong.

What are some of your examples?

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
I had one of those moments where I thought Rapid Fire weapons fired once at half range when the unit moved, twice at half or once at full range if they were stationary. I never thought they'd change a fundamental part of the game like that and just didn't read that bit when I got back in the game. Another player kindly told me I was wrong and laughed at the 3rd Edition rule. Gloss over one thing and the person doesn't even realize they're wrong.

I did exctly this when that rule changed also.

Yeah I'd like to see some examples as well. It's always interesting to see what people are doing these days.

But I have also come across this where people who have played longer have a tougher time of remembering rules because they have had to remember multiple versions of the rules. It is much easier to get one system down than to get everything right once they start changing rules.

However, you'd think after they were shown the new rule they would acknowledge their mistake.

I had to stop playing in my local GW (before it closed) because the staff were terrible about knowing the rules and were teaching all of the regulars there the rules wrong. It was sad every time I pointed the rule out in the book and they'd say "but [insert staff members name] said it worked the other way" and they'd proceed to lose because they had played a rule wrong.

 Icculus wrote:
Yeah I'd like to see some examples as well. It's always interesting to see what people are doing these days.

But I have also come across this where people who have played longer have a tougher time of remembering rules because they have had to remember multiple versions of the rules. It is much easier to get one system down than to get everything right once they start changing rules.

However, you'd think after they were shown the new rule they would acknowledge their mistake.

Most people do - its usually a bit of shock when we see it in B/W and go opps well I got that wrong - but some people do try and argue round it................

it can be very annoying when they try I am a Veteran or Tournament player so I can't be wrong line.............

After learning your 8th set of 40k rules it is easy to have them jumble up in the head (I experience this often).
I usually mark some spots off in the big rule book or keep a "cheat sheet" handy of the latest "gotcha's" that changed with this edition (with page references).
Do not depend on others to tell you the rules.
Look it up.
Anyone argues: point to the page.

These last two editions is the first time ever I was not able to keep up on all the codex's to understand opponent capabilities.
Way too expensive now never mind those data sheets.

 Talizvar wrote:
After learning your 8th set of 40k rules it is easy to have them jumble up in the head (I experience this often).
I usually mark some spots off in the big rule book or keep a "cheat sheet" handy of the latest "gotcha's" that changed with this edition (with page references).
Do not depend on others to tell you the rules.
Look it up.
Anyone argues: point to the page.

These last two editions is the first time ever I was not able to keep up on all the codex's to understand opponent capabilities.
Way too expensive now never mind those data sheets.

Excellent advice - its weird how sometimes the most adamant often don't have rule books or codexes (or similar)

One example that I keep hearing is: They believe Ordinance means cover and wounds are allocated from the centre of the blast. I believe only Barrage does this, and the weapon in question was a Battle Cannon.

Another example is about Indirect Fire scatter. He seems to believe that Barrage weapons firing indirectly always scatters, but you only deduct ballistic skill on a HIT!. I know that this isn't the case, and you hit as normal if you get a HIT! And scatter full distance if you get an arrow.

Another example is intervening ruins and cover saves. They believe that no matter what the terrain is, you always get a 5+ cover save from 25% concealment. I know this isn't the case because of the "Units in Cover" example in my rulebook says "There are 3 orcs circled in red that have a 4+ cover save because at least one model from the firing unit has his line of sight obscured by the ruin."

Furthermore, with the cover save, they believe that vehicles only get 4+ cover from ruins if they are "in" the ruins. However vehicles don't get cover saves from area terrain, and the vehicle cover save example where a Rhino is 25% obscured by the ruin shows that it gets a 4+ save.

Those cover examples above means that the standard for cover is: All units except vehicles get cover from area terrain, and all units get cover from 25% obscurement, the save is conferred by the type of cover that they are in or obscured by.

There may be more rules, but those are the main ones that come to mind. I have made a thread or two on Dakka about these rules to confirm with you guys, and I seemed to get a positive response that I was correct in my interpretation of the rules.

It doesn't help that there are clear examples, even with pictures and clear wording of how these rules work. Especially the cover save rules, and these are still not accepted.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
The 'show me where it says that' argument works. It should atleast bring the fact that the rule is absent or changed.

I will try that next time and see if it works! Thank you for the suggestion.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
After learning your 8th set of 40k rules it is easy to have them jumble up in the head (I experience this often).
I usually mark some spots off in the big rule book or keep a "cheat sheet" handy of the latest "gotcha's" that changed with this edition (with page references).
Do not depend on others to tell you the rules.
Look it up.
Anyone argues: point to the page.

These last two editions is the first time ever I was not able to keep up on all the codex's to understand opponent capabilities.
Way too expensive now never mind those data sheets.

Excellent advice - its weird how sometimes the most adamant often don't have rule books or codexes (or similar)

The less competent a person is, the more confident he generally is in his competency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Most rules are "permission" based.

They tell you what you can do.

The advice of "show me where it says you can do that" works well.

I had a few people argue "Where does it say I can't do that??" and I have to point out they cannot cover everything a player can dream up, only the stuff you CAN do.

We all have opinions. Show a logical argument. If it bogs down, roll off on it and discuss later. If you face continual arguments on things, maybe play someone else.

Someone somewhere has in their sig: "Well the rules don't say I can't teabag all of your models either..."

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I had to stop playing in my local GW (before it closed) because the staff were terrible about knowing the rules and were teaching all of the regulars there the rules wrong. It was sad every time I pointed the rule out in the book and they'd say "but [insert staff members name] said it worked the other way" and they'd proceed to lose because they had played a rule wrong.

I feel that this is how it goes at my GW store.

The rules I listed earlier. Am I correct in believing they work how I said?

Thanks,

Colehkxix wrote:
The rules I listed earlier. Am I correct in believing they work how I said?
Thanks,

Read the rules.
Have faith in your own reasoning.
Distrust those who speak loud and confidently with no reference material used.

Barrage:
BRB page 160
First bullet point in black for scatter.
Use BS to reduce scatter on hit, 2D6 on other results.
Second bullet point covers direction of hit and vehicle damage.
For unit hit coming from centre for cover or who hit.
Hits on vehicles ALWAYS on side armor.

Ordnance:
BRB page 41
Applicable here is for vehicle penetration roll two dice pick highest one.
Now "large blast" comes into play: page 158 BRB.
Read second paragraph and reference page 12 "scatter".
Key words are "hits worked out like normal" no mention of centre of blast marker.

Cover for vehicles:
BRB page 77
Obscured vehicles.
See first bullet point on 25% obscured, use cover save intervening terrain grants.
"Inside terrain" see second bullet point: physically obscured? No? No save.

Pretty clear, use the index it helps.
Mind you, "vehicles and cover" rather than simply "cover" is a pain.

 Talizvar wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
The rules I listed earlier. Am I correct in believing they work how I said?
Thanks,

Read the rules.
Have faith in your own reasoning.
Distrust those who speak loud and confidently with no reference material used.

Barrage:
BRB page 160
First bullet point in black for scatter.
Use BS to reduce scatter on hit, 2D6 on other results.
Second bullet point covers direction of hit and vehicle damage.
For unit hit coming from centre for cover or who hit.
Hits on vehicles ALWAYS on side armor.

Ordnance:
BRB page 41
Applicable here is for vehicle penetration roll two dice pick highest one.
Now "large blast" comes into play: page 158 BRB.
Read second paragraph and reference page 12 "scatter".
Key words are "hits worked out like normal" no mention of centre of blast marker.

Cover for vehicles:
BRB page 77
Obscured vehicles.
See first bullet point on 25% obscured, use cover save intervening terrain grants.
"Inside terrain" see second bullet point: physically obscured? No? No save.

Pretty clear, use the index it helps.
Mind you, "vehicles and cover" rather than simply "cover" is a pain.

Oh! You seem to believe that Barrage scatters on a Hit! ?

All I can see is that the BS of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance. "Unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice, the blast marker always scatters the full 2D6"." Furthermore the example below shows that a Hit! does not scatter. I see no mention of scattering any distance when a Hit! is rolled. Hmmm. Was this different in the previous edition of 40k?

Thanks for referencing pages. I'm sure I've looked at these multiple times already but I always forget the numbers! The intervening terrain giving it's cover save due to concealment rule isn't clearly stated, but both vehicle and non-vehicle examples, and the vehicle cover rules seem to point towards that being the case for all models.

Colehkxix wrote:
Oh! You seem to believe that Barrage scatters on a Hit! ?
All I can see is that the BS of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance. "Unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice, the blast marker always scatters the full 2D6"." Furthermore the example below shows that a Hit! does not scatter. I see no mention of scattering any distance when a Hit! is rolled. Hmmm. Was this different in the previous edition of 40k?

You missed the beginning of the sentence: "When firing indirectly, the Ballistic Skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance; unless a Hit! Is rolled on the scatter dice,...". Understand now? Do not quote parts of a sentence unless up to a comma or something. A semi-colon is to link two independent clauses into one sentence. Think of it like using the first part for each statement separated by commas: saves on writing a similar sentence twice.

Thanks for referencing pages. I'm sure I've looked at these multiple times already but I always forget the numbers! The intervening terrain giving it's cover save due to concealment rule isn't clearly stated, but both vehicle and non-vehicle examples, and the vehicle cover rules seem to point towards that being the case for all models.

No, bullet point 2 on vehicle cover saves: "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins.". This statement full stop says no cover save by being inside terrain. Do not be confusing "simply" as a conditional statement. They further expand with the 25% rule.
See first bullet point on "intervening terrain" and point of view of firer.
Do not mix rules and examples for vehicles and troops!
Isn't combining "elementary logic" and grammar fun to get the true meaning of a rule? (gah!!!)
You have to read carefully, their casual style of writing is confusing for clear rules writing.
I feel like putting a red line through all filler words.

I like your questioning, it only makes me better!

 Talizvar wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
Oh! You seem to believe that Barrage scatters on a Hit! ?
All I can see is that the BS of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance. "Unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice, the blast marker always scatters the full 2D6"." Furthermore the example below shows that a Hit! does not scatter. I see no mention of scattering any distance when a Hit! is rolled. Hmmm. Was this different in the previous edition of 40k?

You missed the beginning of the sentence: "When firing indirectly, the Ballistic Skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance; unless a Hit! Is rolled on the scatter dice,...". Understand now? Do not quote parts of a sentence unless up to a comma or something. A semi-colon is to link two independent clauses into one sentence. Think of it like using the first part for each statement separated by commas: saves on writing a similar sentence twice.

Thanks for referencing pages. I'm sure I've looked at these multiple times already but I always forget the numbers! The intervening terrain giving it's cover save due to concealment rule isn't clearly stated, but both vehicle and non-vehicle examples, and the vehicle cover rules seem to point towards that being the case for all models.

No, bullet point 2 on vehicle cover saves: "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins.". This statement full stop says no cover save by being inside terrain. Do not be confusing "simply" as a conditional statement. They further expand with the 25% rule.
See first bullet point on "intervening terrain" and point of view of firer.
Do not mix rules and examples for vehicles and troops!
Isn't combining "elementary logic" and grammar fun to get the true meaning of a rule? (gah!!!)
You have to read carefully, their casual style of writing is confusing for clear rules writing.
I feel like putting a red line through all filler words.

I like your questioning, it only makes me better!

Oh I never said that vehicles got cover from being in area terrain, I was only talking about the 25% concealment, which seems to effect all models whether they are troops or vehicles.

With regards to barrage. I still don't see your explanation. Furthermore you never mentioned anything with regards to the example below that says "As a Hit! Is rolled, this does not scatter."

The way I see it, the section: "When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance." means exactly that. Then, as something independent to that we see "Unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice, the blast marker always scatters a full 2D6 inches." Both are with regards to "When firing indirectly." I'm not sure why they would effectively say the same thing twice, but that's the only way I can interpret this rule.

I see nothing that says a Hit! scatters at all. Only that you always scatter maximum distance, unless a Hit! is rolled (which then you don't scatter at all).

Colehkxix wrote:
The way I see it, the section: "When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance."

It did not end! It is not a period! Unless is divided by a semicolon so it is included as part of the sentence!
It would read exactly like this:
"When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice.
When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance (other than a hit) the blast marker always scatters a full 2D6."

means exactly that. Then, as something independent to that we see "Unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice, the blast marker always scatters a full 2D6 inches." Both are with regards to "When firing indirectly." I'm not sure why they would effectively say the same thing twice, but that's the only way I can interpret this rule.

I see nothing that says a Hit! scatters at all. Only that you always scatter maximum distance, unless a Hit! is rolled (which then you don't scatter at all).

Unless is key because it means you do subtract ballistic skill or why mention it at all?

 Talizvar wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
The way I see it, the section: "When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance."

It did not end! It is not a period! Unless is divided by a semicolon so it is included as part of the sentence!
It would read exactly like this:
"When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice.
When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance (other than a hit) the blast marker always scatters a full 2D6."

means exactly that. Then, as something independent to that we see "Unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice, the blast marker always scatters a full 2D6 inches." Both are with regards to "When firing indirectly." I'm not sure why they would effectively say the same thing twice, but that's the only way I can interpret this rule.

I see nothing that says a Hit! scatters at all. Only that you always scatter maximum distance, unless a Hit! is rolled (which then you don't scatter at all).

Unless is key because it means you do subtract ballistic skill or why mention it at all?

In those cases you've ignored the semi-colon and the fact that they are represented as two independent clauses. They're independent of eachother. They can be read as if they are entirely seperate entities.

Colehkxix wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
The way I see it, the section: "When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance."

It did not end! It is not a period! Unless is divided by a semicolon so it is included as part of the sentence!
It would read exactly like this:
"When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice.
When firing indirectly, the ballistic skill of the firer is not subtracted from the scatter distance (other than a hit) the blast marker always scatters a full 2D6."

means exactly that. Then, as something independent to that we see "Unless a Hit! is rolled on the scatter dice, the blast marker always scatters a full 2D6 inches." Both are with regards to "When firing indirectly." I'm not sure why they would effectively say the same thing twice, but that's the only way I can interpret this rule.

I see nothing that says a Hit! scatters at all. Only that you always scatter maximum distance, unless a Hit! is rolled (which then you don't scatter at all).

Unless is key because it means you do subtract ballistic skill or why mention it at all?

In those cases you've ignored the semi-colon and the fact that they are represented as two independent clauses. They're independent of eachother. They can be read as if they are entirely seperate entities.

Yarp, that's how English works so I agree.

GW should be better at creating a 'what's changed' list when new rule are released.
Lots of us miss things, like Focussed Fire is not a thing now, or ICs don't get Skilled Rider any more.
If it isn't pointed out, people will spend ages scouring a rulebook looking for a rule that isn't there.
Sometimes you'll see a changes list after a new ruleset, but they are fan-created. Better than nothing (and usually better than GW would do), but not official.

 Skinnereal wrote:
GW should be better at creating a 'what's changed' list when new rule are released.
Lots of us miss things, like Focussed Fire is not a thing now, or ICs don't get Skilled Rider any more.
If it isn't pointed out, people will spend ages scouring a rulebook looking for a rule that isn't there.
Sometimes you'll see a changes list after a new ruleset, but they are fan-created. Better than nothing (and usually better than GW would do), but not official.

QFT!!!!

 SharkoutofWata wrote:

I had one of those moments where I thought Rapid Fire weapons fired once at half range when the unit moved, twice at half or once at full range if they were stationary. I never thought they'd change a fundamental part of the game like that and just didn't read that bit when I got back in the game. Another player kindly told me I was wrong and laughed at the 3rd Edition rule. Gloss over one thing and the person doesn't even realize they're wrong.

What are some of your examples?

Speaking of rapid fire. Goddamn. And I play as IG against a boltgun-happy space marine player. You'd think I would know that one.

I get mixed up on how the hell CAD works in 7th, mostly just defaulting to the force org + allies list.