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.

5th ed has been out for almost a year now, and yet I encounter players who continue to play by 4th ed rules over and over again. My guess is that they don't actually read their rule book much, and assume that things didn't change, with the exceptions of running and going to ground. I've even encountered players who try to use 3rd ed rules...

So, lets all give an example of encountering a player who is just stuck in the past.

Today I was told that my unit of storm guardians could not capture an objective while inside their waveserpent. The rule on page 66 says that for measuring distances for an embarked unit, you measure to the transport's hull. Just to be even more obvious, the rule on page 90 says units of troops in a transport can control objectives (measure the distance to their vehicle's hull). And yet the player was telling me a rule based on the late-4th ed rulebook errata... lame.

Many players don't read the rulebook. C'est la vie. Try playing with people that know the rules and you don't have to deal with this problem.

Nurglitch wrote:Many players don't read the rulebook. C'est la vie. Try playing with people that know the rules and you don't have to deal with this problem.

In Portland, that seems to be like saying "try playing with people who have laser-eyes and giant roboschlongs." They're very, very rare.

willydstyle wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Many players don't read the rulebook. C'est la vie. Try playing with people that know the rules and you don't have to deal with this problem.

In Portland, that seems to be like saying "try playing with people who have laser-eyes and giant roboschlongs." They're very, very rare.

It's awesome when you do meet someone like that.

Who has read 5th edition, I mean.

Please don't hurt me.

Playing people with laser-eyes and giant roboschlongs would be awesome.

Slap them in the face with you BGB (yes, I know its red now)

Then find the page, then enforce the real rule.

Alternative method: Tell them to gtfo until they know how to read.

I have laser eyes and a giant roboschlong. Want to be slapped in the face with something besides your BGB?

Nurglitch wrote:Playing people with laser-eyes and giant roboschlongs would be awesome.

I'd feel inadequate...

So, what everyone is saying here is that you don't know the rules well enough to spot when someone is breaking them

Dashofpepper wrote:I have laser eyes and a giant roboschlong. Want to be slapped in the face with something besides your BGB?

Oh er missus.

To be fair, I dont actually know anyone who doesnt know and play by 5th ed.

Correction: I dont know anyone who actually plays 40k, and doesnt play 5th... Quite a few people who dont play at all.

Most of the people at my FLGS have been playin for several editions; every so often the inevitable brainfart occurs and we will accidentally substitute a rule from an earlier edition. The younger crowd, who have only joined since 5th has come out and know no other edition will then to make senility jokes, which have been properly earned.

grizgrin wrote:Most of the people at my FLGS have been playin for several editions; every so often the inevitable brainfart occurs and we will accidentally substitute a rule from an earlier edition. The younger crowd, who have only joined since 5th has come out and know no other edition will then to make senility jokes, which have been properly earned.

You're missing the point. Nearly everyone plays by 5th ed, nominally at least, but I've found that many players either accidentally, or "accidentally" continue to play by some 4th ed rules.

There's people like me who have played multiple editions (four of 40k now, five if you count 3.5 with the TVR and TAR), plus other games (PP, FOW, Warmaster, LotR, others). So, I sometimes do (to quote Roger Clemens) 'mis-remember' a rule. And sometimes, I remember it right, and look it up to show my opponent. I don't mind when someone pulls out the rulebook and shows me my 'mis-memory'.

Then there is TFG that intentionally pulls things like that out and then, if shown wrong, 'oh, sorry, I got confused'.

Without proof, I'd assume the opponent is dumb not malicious.

I've been playing since 2nd ed. I don't know the rules perfectly... but I know them pretty damned well. I'm just getting sick of players who don't even bother to pick up the rulebook.

Part of the reason why I know the rules really well is that any time there's a question about the rules, I take a moment to look it up.

I think many players just can't be bothered, and assume that things are the same.

Dietrich, I wish more players were amenable to being shown the correct rules, but many seem to get offended when their lack of rules knowledge is exposed.

I played in the Ard Boyz last year and couldn't pick up my AOBR rulebook until the thursday before the tourney. I spent most of the evening reading through the 5th rules and highlighting all the changes from 4th that might trip me up. I also put sticky tabs on each section for easier referencing.

1st round of the tourney I played a guy who had the book, but had never read it over. God was really watching out for me!

He was playing Armored Company, that was my first indication he had no idea what he was doing! Our mission was Capture and Control, needless to say it was a long game, with me showing him just about every change in the rules as they came up. I got 4 of 5 objectives though!

I know a guy who is still playing Second Ed. He even created an updated Tau Codex based on 2nd ed rules. I can't fault the guy though at one point he had probably near 100 Leman Russes.

Anybody that has over 100 Leman russes can do whatever he wants.

willydstyle wrote:Dietrich, I wish more players were amenable to being shown the correct rules, but many seem to get offended when their lack of rules knowledge is exposed.

If someone gets offended when I show them the rules, it makes me wonder if they're trying to cheat. At the least, I figure that they had some 'grand master plan' revolving around 'If A, then B, until C happens' and I just blew it away.

There's a lot of little differences between fourth and fifth, and some major ones. Ramming is a big addition. Losing 'Last Man Standing' is a minor one, but it's an important one. Losing the -1 Ld for being below half strength is big, but minor.

Honestly, a lot of my rules knowledge is from reading YMDC. I may not even own the Codex in question, but I figure if it's making it to here and having a debate, it might come up in a tourney.

I'm currently playing in a club that is still in mid-transition between 4th to 5th. If somebody is unclear on something (or still playing by the old rules) just show them the page with the rule. Just saying, "that's how you do it now" gets you nowhere. Showing somebody the rule in the book takes the responsibility from you and places back within the framework of the rules. I don't like to tell somebody that they are wrong, but how can you learn if nobody shows you the right way to do things.

Everyone I know plays 5th Ed, but then I play at a Gw with a big games room and lots of people, so it's what happens, it's also so much easier than 4th

willydstyle wrote:So, what everyone is saying here is that you don't know the rules well enough to spot when someone is breaking them

Ahem... I beg to differ good sir!

Just yesterday I ran into two quick problems with my buddy. First, he was shocked that a unit that Went to Ground still take morale tests. Secondly, he thought that units could shoot out of fast vehicles that moved 12", because "everybody always played that way." He spent a solid five minutes staring at the rule book trying to find out a caveat to the rule...

To his credit, every time I wrecked a transport (but didn't explode it), he tried to tell me how many guys were inside to rule for wounds.

Yeah I certainly don't miss three different Vehicle damage tables (3rd ed), but it's still tempting to roll for guys when a vehicle is wrecked (as per Polonius's example).

I still remember losing an entire squad of Termies when a basilisk exploded my LR. Curses Ordnance damage table!

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So, what everyone is saying here is that you don't know the rules well enough to spot when someone is breaking them

Ahem... I beg to differ good sir!

You hadn't posted yet

Polonius wrote:Just yesterday I ran into two quick problems with my buddy. First, he was shocked that a unit that Went to Ground still take morale tests. Secondly, he thought that units could shoot out of fast vehicles that moved 12", because "everybody always played that way." He spent a solid five minutes staring at the rule book trying to find out a caveat to the rule...

To his credit, every time I wrecked a transport (but didn't explode it), he tried to tell me how many guys were inside to rule for wounds.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, and both of these issues come up constantly. But then some players treat me like I'm the arsehole for pointing out the rules, and it's frustrating to me. Granted I play with some people who thank me for pointing out the correct rules as well.

TLOS has been a challenge for the 4th edition clingers.

I know exactly how you feel. I get it IRL and on Dakka.

Don't hate me because I am right

For the record, I do not ever make assumptions based on what I feel is "Right". I Make observations based on what the rules actually say. In Cases where it IS truly ambiguous (Astropaths Stacking and Deffrollas are the big ones recently) I am more than happy to admit there is no clear cut answer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:TLOS has been a challenge for the 4th edition clingers.

4th edition also used TLoS, just with a few Abstractions. What 5th uses should have been renamed as Absolute LoS.

olympia wrote:TLOS has been a challenge for the 4th edition clingers.

90% of 4th ed players played LoS completely wrong.

Fact: Hills did not have a height level, they were not area terrain.

Fact: model's height level was only used to determine whether they could see over area terrain or close combats, all LoS past a model (like say shooting past a rhino to a land raider) was "TLoS."

That was my big pet peeve for 4th edition

Last tournament I played in, I faced a guy who didn't know how to play Dawn of War. He thought that you have to roll for reserves for the rest of the army. I was nice and let him deploy the rest of his forces after I corrected him at the end of his turn.

Anyway, what I really don't like are people who skim through the rule manual (Or codices) and then claim to be experts. It's especially bad when they don't own the book itself. These people tend to be the most pigheaded of all TFGs...

Yesterday, I had a rules fumble. I thought Monstrous Creatures could still reroll their Difficult Terrain dice.

RustyKnight wrote:Yesterday, I had a rules fumble. I thought Monstrous Creatures could still reroll their Difficult Terrain dice.

TBH that's a pretty insignificant one (as they do have Move through Cover) but when people start insisting that their turbo boost was a 3+ invulnerable save when I Cooked his Nob Bikers with my Heavy Flamers, it make me worry that people have even read the 5th ed rulebook since it came out.

On an unrelated note the Nobz were not Cyborked but made every one of their FnP rolls.

Bob the Hobo wrote:Last tournament I played in, I faced a guy who didn't know how to play Dawn of War. He thought that you have to roll for reserves for the rest of the army. I was nice and let him deploy the rest of his forces after I corrected him at the end of his turn.

Anyway, what I really don't like are people who skim through the rule manual (Or codices) and then claim to be experts. It's especially bad when they don't own the book itself. These people tend to be the most pigheaded of all TFGs...

and, in my experience, GW employees!