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.

slight moan, just in case anyone from GW reads this!

I have to say that the index is incredibly sparse, and for a noob like me, is really missing some key words (e.g. exploding vehicles).

they could have added another page and fattened it up a bit!

Vehicles exploding is on the stat card for each vehicle.

gkos wrote:
slight moan, just in case anyone from GW reads this!

I have to say that the index is incredibly sparse, and for a noob like me, is really missing some key words (e.g. exploding vehicles).

they could have added another page and fattened it up a bit!

The rules for exploding vehicles aren't in the index because they aren't in the rulebook. Each Vehicle and MC has their own special snowflake rule on what happens when it dies.

Basically the only universal special rule is the Fly keyword, everything else you need to know is shown on the data sheet of the unit in question.

I look something up and 60% of the time it's not there.

The rules cover 12 pages, with additional pages for scenarios and such. How big an index does it need?

No index would ever show you something that doesn't exist in the book in question so I'm not sure what the complaint about exploding vehicles is for.

You know what's actually horrid? The iPad version's search function. We pay more for it than the physical (god knows why) and then it's still got all the fluff, and the search function goes through all that. In the old rulesbook the special rules tended to be prioritised, which made it a lot better, but in the new one, there's like 15 matches in the fluff before you get to a rules-match.

I REALLY wish the search function on the iPad book could filter out fluff from rules. It's horrible the way they've done it.

Welcome to CNN.... I mean Dakka

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Welcome to CNN.... I mean Dakka

. I don't know, I trust dakkadakka more for my news more than CNN lately.

Index's are so last century, it is all about screwing up the search function now.

 MrVulcanator wrote:
Vehicles exploding is on the stat card for each vehicle.

but reading the stat card doesn't tell me what happens to anyone inside the vehicle.

Those rules are cleverly buried in the massive tome of 8 pages of rules.

 Elbows wrote:
Those rules are cleverly buried in the massive tome of 8 pages of rules.

They are, thanks for being condescending, we all played our first game once.

Any time.

You're getting flak for this because you posted an entire thread to complain about a simple 8 page booklet. If you think this is bad you missed previous editions where the rulebook was 200 pages and then spread over 4-5 additional books.

I have a front/back cheat sheet which covers all of the main rules if you want it. I made it a day after they released the rules directly on their website. We have a half dozen sitting around the game club.

While the Index in the main book could be better, they totally screwed up the CSM Table of Contents dataslate section.

Helbrutes are listed as pg 130, but that's the page for Horrors which are listed as pg 147. Helbrute is 138 btw.

It looks like they had it setup slightly differently but changed it last minute. The Contents list has Kharn and Lucius listed along side the WE and EC units, but they have them slotted in with the rest of the HQs. Looks like that is where everything started to go wrong

So, that's a whiny no then?

So, that's a whiny no then?

I think you will find it's a somewhat sarcastic response rather than a whiny one, the subtlety was obviously lost.

Or, you could ask for it?

Not hard to do that, given that Elbows has offered.

He stated that he has some lying around his club, which I interpreted as if I visited his club, I could have one. I admit this is a kind offer but alas not a practical one as I suspect we live more than one bus journey apart.

You're the one who created a thread instead of reading all of 8 pages. Complaining at someone else for not "taking the effort" is a little ironic.

I have read the pages, I did find the rule, the thread was just to point out that the book is rather lacking in it's ease of use due to an index that does not facilitate the quick lookup of rules for someone who has not committed them all into memory as they are a new player.

My complaint was that the gentleman in question could quite as easily posted something positive and helpful, but instead put his time and effort into "telling me off".

It still would be very useful if he did post a link, I'm sure this would be of much more benefit to both myself and other players rather than this boring and drawn out thread of responses about how I shouldn't have expressed my opinion on the issue in the first place.

Amazing Internet fact #5

If you actually want to try and discuss things with other people -- especially if you hope that "the powers that be" might take note and improve a feature in the future, then yelling and being rude to other people is really not the way to go about it.

except your specific complaint was something that was adressed as being specificly on the stat card, I agree the main rulebook could have an expanded index (it doesn't for example, seem to tell me what page detachments are detailed on) when you where corrected on this you got salty.

The posts were deleted because they were no longer pertaining to the thread's original purpose, as it has been completely derailed into thinly-veiled insults (especially against a mod).

I'd just like to remind people that rule #1 is still a thing and we're not permitted to "fight fire with fire", even if someone is being belligerent. We have the little yellow triangle for reporting posts for that explicit reason. Since the main reason for this thread has already been answered, I think we can just leave well enough alone. Again, the little yellow triangle is there.

I'm also a huge D&D player, and after the index in the D&D 5th edition books, I have no complaints about the 40k 8th edition index.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love D&D 5E. I've been playing since D&D BECMI, and 5E is my favorite of all time. However, the index is pretty lacking in some areas. There are times I'll look up a rule, and it tells me to look elsewhere in the index under a different topic for the page number instead of just putting the page number. Then you go to the part of the index it tells you to, and that part actually doesn't have the page number either, and refers you to a another different index section, and so on.

Having said that, I think the 8E 40k index is fine. As has been mentioned, the rules are only a couple of handfuls of pages anyway, and I've pretty much already memorized what rules are on what page because of how short the rules section is.