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.

@Grimtuff

Sounds like you play in a very toxic environment?

In 20 years in the hobby I have come across people being dishonest a handful of times. It's not a concern for me.

This is a game we play for fun. It is not a sport that generates our income. If people can't facilitate each other's enjoyment they should not be playing or be avoided.

I had a great total of ONE (1) rule discussion in 8th, and it was fixed as soon as we checked the FAQs.

7th was a nightmare compared to that. All games had at least 1 rule dispute and after the game ended, you realized that you played at least a couple of rules incorrectly.

Warmachine was also like that when i played in MK2 and even worse in MK1.

8th may be suffering from bloat, true, but at least almost every interaction of rules is clear.

I believe entirely that the people who complain about the rules or about these mythical boogie-man opponents that will cheat them at every opportunity don't actually play the game often.

Yeah, I've only ever had one rules dispute/discussion in 8th and it was over the Concordance of Power stratagem and how it interacted with Runes of Battle powers. That happened solely because those psychic powers have unique manifestation mechanics compared to practically every other psychic discipline in the game.

Other than that, a quick check in a codex or an FAQ has been enough and has taken up a minute or two of game time at most.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, I've only ever had one rules dispute/discussion in 8th and it was over the Concordance of Power stratagem and how it interacted with Runes of Battle powers. That happened solely because those psychic powers have unique manifestation mechanics compared to practically every other psychic discipline in the game.

Other than that, a quick check in a codex or an FAQ has been enough and has taken up a minute or two of game time at most.

How can that be? I learned on this forum that you need 150 documents to play a game of 40K and that GW is unable to write rules

 Ishagu wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

Many people are legitimately confused about very similar rules playing different for no reason.

They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.

As for RAW v RAI, this isn't something that comes up frequently at all anymore, especially with the regular FAQs that clarify things.

I don't trust my opponent. At all. Neither should you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
I believe entirely that the people who complain about the rules or about these mythical boogie-man opponents that will cheat them at every opportunity don't actually play the game often.

No one said it was intentional. Well, I didn't anyway.

My local narrative campaign had to implement a comprehensive and clear warning, next game lost, ban for 2 weeks, ban for life process because people kept getting rules wrong and it wasn't clear whether they were doing it intentionally or not.

Most of it is confusion - after the first warning, people usually correct their behavior. Sometimes, I'll correct them about what their own army does during their own game without telling the GM so they don't get a warning, especially if it's clear it's just a result of confusion.

I've been physically threatened over tripointing. Nothing says FLGS like threats of bodily harm!

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.

Thanks for the perfect response, Grimtuff

Seriously, the only thing I can trust my friends with is getting their own rules wrong. Not to mention all the players just picking up the game, new armies or models.

And that's not even considering the one or two WAAC players blatantly lying about their rules.

Such a depressing outlook from some of you guys. No hobby spirit from yourselves or your communities.

No idea why you're in the hobby if things are as grim for you as you claim.

"Hobby spirit"? Have you played in America?

Plus, GW writes terrible rules and Americans are always looking for the best interpretation to help their position. That's why we are such good lawyers.

 Ishagu wrote:
Such a depressing outlook from some of you guys. No hobby spirit from yourselves or your communities.

No idea why you're in the hobby if things are as grim for you as you claim.

I have no idea what relevance this has. How does "hobby spirit" help myself or my opponents understand badly-written english?

GW: "Garble warble glabbety gla!"
Me: "GW, I don't understand you."
Ishagu: "Well, if you were One with the Force, you could understand..."
Me: "Why do I need to be one with the Force to understand? Why can't they just write good rules?"

I find it funny that people can't seem to handle the concept that multiple seemingly contradictory things can be true at once:

8th Edition rules have much less interaction issues than former editions, but GW continues to be bad a writing rules.

Trust your opponent, but don't be afraid to verify when you think they are mistaken.

People tend to be honest, but they also have a natural tendency to interpret rules in a way that advantages themselves.

People want GW to write their rules in a consistent and technical manner, but that doesn't mean they want 12 pages of soulless USRs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Such a depressing outlook from some of you guys. No hobby spirit from yourselves or your communities.

No idea why you're in the hobby if things are as grim for you as you claim.

I have no idea what relevance this has. How does "hobby spirit" help myself or my opponents understand badly-written english?

GW: "Garble warble glabbety gla!"
Me: "GW, I don't understand you."
Ishagu: "Well, if you were One with the Force, you could understand..."
Me: "Why do I need to be one with the Force to understand? Why can't they just write good rules?"

The sad part is that real life legislators aren't much better.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny that people can't seem to handle the concept that multiple seemingly contradictory things can be true at once:

8th Edition rules have much less interaction issues than former editions, but GW continues to be bad a writing rules.

Trust your opponent, but don't be afraid to verify when you think they are mistaken.

People tend to be honest, but they also have a natural tendency to interpret rules in a way that advantages themselves.

Plus the final thing:
The rules can be sometimes so convoluted that they're just difficult to understand. An example from a recent game (not even online but with a roommate) was the Belt of Russ vs. Quicksilver Swiftness. What the outcome is is that the Belt of Russ makes you "fight in the normal order" if you have a rule that normally lets you go first. The Belt of Russ otherwise makes you go last.

Since Slaanesh Quicksilver Swiftness makes you go first and the belt of Russ makes you go last, the auxiliary clause kicks in and the Slaanesh unit goes normally. But if you miss one "instead" in the Belt of Russ wording that's not intuitively placed? The whole thing gets muddier, because it sounds like both the main clause and the auxiliary rule apply.

Now for another question:
Once I've been made to go in the normal order as a Slaanesh daemon, can I spend 2CP to interrupt chargers after the first charging unit goes like a normal unit could? If so, all the Belt of Russ did was make me spend 2CP when I wouldn't otherwise have had to. Is that the intended interaction? Why or why not?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.

Thanks for the perfect response, Grimtuff

Seriously, the only thing I can trust my friends with is getting their own rules wrong. Not to mention all the players just picking up the game, new armies or models.

And that's not even considering the one or two WAAC players blatantly lying about their rules.

Indeed. I can trust my supposedly “toxic” friends in getting rules right but strangers? Nope. Been burnt too many times. There is a reason Tau players have such a bad rep for the mental gymnastics they perform with some rules, having stolen the crown from Eldar players in editions past.

Universal rules are just clear and make for a cleaner game and a better playing experience. Now, when playing one of my best friends at Warmachine it has been noted by our FLGS owner we look a little like we’re arguing to an outsider when a rules issue comes up, but it’s not. It’s a conscious effort to understand the universally same rules in front of us so we know how it works. With 40k you simply cannot do that as X is not always X because reasons.

I refer back to my previous example from past editions of True Grit. That only had 3 different versions of the rule under the same name but still everyone got it wrong.

 Ishagu wrote:
I believe entirely that the people who complain about the rules or about these mythical boogie-man opponents that will cheat them at every opportunity don't actually play the game often.

The go on a tour through central or eastern europe and check what making a mule out of someone means. Specialy if they aren't local or if they have a lower social status in the local community.

To me saying the stories about no worries about cheating, people buying armies every two months and playing what ever they like and winning are just as mythical.

The difference between a cohorent rule set and lack of it. Is that having one has yet to hurt anyone.

He does have a point that if you're having these kinds of issues at your LGS then it must be a real gakky community. Like yeah, GW can be shoddy with their writing but even with tight, well-written and clean rules it sounds like playing in your areas would be a fething miserable experience.

 Ishagu wrote:
Such a depressing outlook from some of you guys. No hobby spirit from yourselves or your communities.

No idea why you're in the hobby if things are as grim for you as you claim.

I'm not sure what relevance "hobby spirit" has to the quality of the rules or the relative advantages/disadvantages of USRs vs the current situation. I'm not even sure what "hobby spirit" is. Is it like common sense (i.e not very common at all)? Why does it only seem to be a requirement for GW games?

 Bosskelot wrote:
He does have a point that if you're having these kinds of issues at your LGS then it must be a real gakky community. Like yeah, GW can be shoddy with their writing but even with tight, well-written and clean rules it sounds like playing in your areas would be a fething miserable experience.

Yes, but the same problems don't exist with the same people in other games.

 Bosskelot wrote:
He does have a point that if you're having these kinds of issues at your LGS then it must be a real gakky community. Like yeah, GW can be shoddy with their writing but even with tight, well-written and clean rules it sounds like playing in your areas would be a fething miserable experience.

I dunno, if you're aware the rules are in fact shoddy, maybe don't making sweeping judgments about communities you have no experience with?

I have seen a fair games of infinity and historicals played at my store. And played by the same people that play w40k, and most people that play w40k play it for a long time, some longer then I live. I have never seen as much rules checking, "forgetting" in those other games as I did in w40k games.

Some problems seem to be a lot bigger, when people play w40k. Every game probably has its fair share of bad stuff, but I haven't yet heard from an infinity player that he doesn't trust his opponent unit load outs or point costs. I have no idea how they do it, but their list checks post game are like 2 min. And with w40k, if you wanted to be precise it could take hours, specialy with a soup list.

Voss wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
He does have a point that if you're having these kinds of issues at your LGS then it must be a real gakky community. Like yeah, GW can be shoddy with their writing but even with tight, well-written and clean rules it sounds like playing in your areas would be a fething miserable experience.

I dunno, if you're aware the rules are in fact shoddy, maybe don't making sweeping judgments about communities you have no experience with?

When I've been able to play 200+ games of 8th edition at my LGS, over half of which are vs random strangers and encounter basically none of the awful opponents people in this thread seem to come across then I will happily judge the state of those other communities.

It's either that or people here are being incredibly hyperbolic. Take your pick.

Karol wrote:
I have seen a fair games of infinity and historicals played at my store. And played by the same people that play w40k, and most people that play w40k play it for a long time, some longer then I live. I have never seen as much rules checking, "forgetting" in those other games as I did in w40k games.

Some problems seem to be a lot bigger, when people play w40k. Every game probably has its fair share of bad stuff, but I haven't yet heard from an infinity player that he doesn't trust his opponent unit load outs or point costs. I have no idea how they do it, but their list checks post game are like 2 min. And with w40k, if you wanted to be precise it could take hours, specialy with a soup list.

I mean, it's a skirmish game, so to compare it you'd have to compare a 250-point game of infinity with a 250-point game of 40k. Or I guess kill team.

Ishagu wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

Many people are legitimately confused about very similar rules playing different for no reason.

They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.

As for RAW v RAI, this isn't something that comes up frequently at all anymore, especially with the regular FAQs that clarify things.

Isn't it possible for me to mix up my rules if i play multiple armies that for some reason have same-but-not-really rules? I don't care about other players at my LGS, if they cheat its on their conscience, i dont play solely to win. Or when a player learns a new army, why do they have to learn new variations of the same-but-not-really rule? Sure its fine once you learned the rules, but theres always a possibilty that you mix up variants accidentally, i know ive done it in the past and felt bad about it.

Ishagu wrote:I believe entirely that the people who complain about the rules or about these mythical boogie-man opponents that will cheat them at every opportunity don't actually play the game often.

Its not about my opponents, its about me. I dont want to cheat, not even accidentally.


I don't get why youre so against a better re-write of the rules. You litterally come in a thread about USRs to tell people that want USRs that theyre toxic TFGs. i dont see the relevance in your posts.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
I have seen a fair games of infinity and historicals played at my store. And played by the same people that play w40k, and most people that play w40k play it for a long time, some longer then I live. I have never seen as much rules checking, "forgetting" in those other games as I did in w40k games.

Some problems seem to be a lot bigger, when people play w40k. Every game probably has its fair share of bad stuff, but I haven't yet heard from an infinity player that he doesn't trust his opponent unit load outs or point costs. I have no idea how they do it, but their list checks post game are like 2 min. And with w40k, if you wanted to be precise it could take hours, specialy with a soup list.

I mean, it's a skirmish game, so to compare it you'd have to compare a 250-point game of infinity with a 250-point game of 40k. Or I guess kill team.

Not only that, infinity actually HAS complexity to it. Yes you gotta check the rules a lot when you start out but each army has the same USRs so switching armies once you know one is easier. Even the weapons are USRs, the models change but a combi-rifle is a combi-rifle, no matter the army.

Karol wrote:


Some problems seem to be a lot bigger, when people play w40k. Every game probably has its fair share of bad stuff, but I haven't yet heard from an infinity player that he doesn't trust his opponent unit load outs or point costs. I have no idea how they do it, but their list checks post game are like 2 min. And with w40k, if you wanted to be precise it could take hours, specialy with a soup list.

The infinity community is a lot more respectful from what i've seen. When i was told that infinity is "intent driven" i instantly fell in love. If you move a model with the intent of having it in cover from a specific model while seeing another one you communicate with your opponent and both of you make it happen. If you want your model to take a path that keeps it hidden, you do the same thing, you check with your opponent to make sure it would be possible.

Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?

I believe that the frame in which 40K is designed is one of a game played by people who have agreed to have a fun game in the spirit of the hobby. It is not written to divide the assets between a separating couple or work out a business merger.

I always trust my opponent: I'm not playing for money. If a mistake is made I assume its an honest mistake - they happen and I make them. I bring my Codex with me so that I can show somebody the rules for my army if they have a question. If I am unsure on something like Wounds I look it up, but its infrequent. I play roughly two games a week in two different communities. There can be doubts when a new Codex comes out, but otherwise rules disputes are the exception and certainly not the rule. When I faced a Harlequins list on the release date for that Codex which coincided with our local tourney it was an adventure in trust, especially as my opponent only had an e-copy on his smart phone. We got through it somehow.

If an opponent is getting mad at you and threatening violence over tri-pointing it has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with the negative frame of the game that you are playing. Maybe don't play that person? It is hardly the game developer's fault that adults cannot behave themselves in each other's company. I have certainly never seen anything like that at the various FLGS and tourneys that I have played in over the years. I can recall one friend storming out of an Apocalypse game. He was at the other end of the table and I missed the lead-up, but I think that there were some external reasons to the game for his loss of control (we'd both recently redeployed from a bad part of the world). Other than that I am at a loss to explain these tales of woe.

Martel732 wrote:
I've been physically threatened over tripointing. Nothing says FLGS like threats of bodily harm!

That's fething terrifying!

I've had popular folks at FLGS be super transphobic and make verbal threats, but nothing physical. Even then, when called on to do something, the store backed down and made I think very much not a friendly place. Now I have no store to play at.

 Blndmage wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I've been physically threatened over tripointing. Nothing says FLGS like threats of bodily harm!

That's fething terrifying!

I've had popular folks at FLGS be super transphobic and make verbal threats, but nothing physical. Even then, when called on to do something, the store backed down and made I think very much not a friendly place. Now I have no store to play at.

Same guy constantly bragged about his guns, too. I realize this skews my view a bit about tripointing, but it illustrates the principle.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
thus the MFM points overrule the codex ones as they are more recent.

Wait, there are MFM points? I'm not even sure what MFM stands for. Are they different from the points in the codex? What are the differences?

MFM means Munitorum Field Manual, it's the second book in the Chapter Approved 2019 double pack. The MFM, unlike previous CAs, replaces ALL points costs, not just ones that have changed. The MFM 2019 is the single repository for all points costs for books released before it (books released after will have their own points costs except when the MFM also has those points in advance maybe and, presumably, superseded by MFM20).

I think there are a few changes to SoB points.

According to goonhammer, no changes:
https://www.goonhammer.com/chapter-approved-2019-balance-changes-the-goonhammer-review/#Sisters_of_Battle
I'd hate to have my book be made incomplete after less than two weeks...

Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?

now I haven't played prior 8th, but I would expect that if deep strike was identical to everyone the trust thing doesn't really have to happen. You just know the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman 787851 10789127 wrote:

I mean, it's a skirmish game, so to compare it you'd have to compare a 250-point game of infinity with a 250-point game of 40k. Or I guess kill team.

From what I understand 300pts is the normal sized game of infinity with anywhere between 20 or 30 models. Why should it be compared to a game runs a squad of models most of the time. Plus we are talking about a whole game expiriance here, which includes stuff how easy the rules are, how much the armies cost, how long it takes to play etc.