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.

What are some rules that you very commonly see misplayed or misunderstood, assuming the players are attempting to play by standard rules?

Biggest one I see is people thinking that there is a massive “all units in melee pile in again” step at the end of the fight phase.

Second: a ton of people are under the impression that only an HQ can be your warlord.

I don't see a ton, but I still occasionally see.

1) Deepstriking "within 9 inches", making an 8" charge roll.
2) Rolling a D6 for each model in a destroyed transport (instead of rolling D6 equal to the number of models, and choosing who dies etc.)
3) People doing mega-smite on a roll of 10 or more...instead of more than 10.
4) People miscalculating morale (not sure why this is difficult). Seen this even on some YouTube reports.
5) Re-rolling without considering modifiers...which is something I occasionally forget myself.
6) Frequently throwing grenades in Overwatch when not within 6".

I'm sure there are others, but the ones above are a good example...just minor fringe stuff that is easily corrected.

Psykers casting smite twice in the same turn. I've had multiple people make that mistake.

Anything having to do with terrain, vertical or diagonal movment.
"True" LoS in a world where terrain can't work that way and no one wants to play with people sniping HQ, they have risen their sword can make a single turn of shoting a 55min argument.

Just a comic someone made about me (edited to remove a slightly un-PC word):

Disclaimer for the mods: This is self-deprecating humour. I do not find it insulting or rude in any way, nor should anyone else since ya'll hate me anyway.

For me the most common one has to be firing assault weapons after advancing.

Ok, serious mode, the biggest one people get wrong is when they insist that the "Rule of 3" is a "Beta Matched Play rule", when it's never been Beta and never been a Matched Play rule. Also a lot of people still seem to think being obscured alone still grants cover.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
ya'll hate me anyway.

Hey, that's not true!

I don't always agree with your arguments or your tone, but still on balance see your contribution as a net positive to the community.

There MUST be some others that feel that way surely!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Just a comic someone made about me (edited to remove a slightly un-PC word):

Disclaimer for the mods: This is self-deprecating humour. I do not find it insulting or rude in any way, nor should anyone else since ya'll hate me anyway.

For me the most common one has to be firing assault weapons after advancing.

Ok, serious mode, the biggest one people get wrong is when they insist that the "Rule of 3" is a "Beta Matched Play rule", when it's never been Beta and never been a Matched Play rule. Also a lot of people still seem to think being obscured alone still grants cover.

Had to try and find the rules on how cover works... best I could find was the descriptions of the different kinds of cover. But they seem to say that <infantry> only receive cover if they are on the terrain, and not if they are *behind* the terrain. Which seems... wrong.

Non-infantry units get cover if they are 50% obscured by the terrain, which means they could be behind it and get cover saves. But infantry can't. Seems weird, I'm sure there's a rule somewhere I'm missing.

Niiru wrote:
Had to try and find the rules on how cover works... best I could find was the descriptions of the different kinds of cover. But they seem to say that <infantry> only receive cover if they are on the terrain, and not if they are *behind* the terrain. Which seems... wrong.

Non-infantry units get cover if they are 50% obscured by the terrain, which means they could be behind it and get cover saves. But infantry can't. Seems weird, I'm sure there's a rule somewhere I'm missing.

You're missing the fact that non-infantry also do not get cover if they are not on terrain.

In 8th cover is binary, you're either on a terrain piece that grants it, or you don't get cover.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Had to try and find the rules on how cover works... best I could find was the descriptions of the different kinds of cover. But they seem to say that <infantry> only receive cover if they are on the terrain, and not if they are *behind* the terrain. Which seems... wrong.

Non-infantry units get cover if they are 50% obscured by the terrain, which means they could be behind it and get cover saves. But infantry can't. Seems weird, I'm sure there's a rule somewhere I'm missing.

You're missing the fact that non-infantry also do not get cover if they are not on terrain.

In 8th cover is binary, you're either on a terrain piece that grants it, or you don't get cover.

I'll be honest, Kill Team has a better cover mechanic.

Niiru --- the only rules for "being behind" cover are indeed only the ones for barricades. Not everybody plays by those rules (even the GW rulebook says "these are just suggestions, make your own additional terrain rules", etc.).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Had to try and find the rules on how cover works... best I could find was the descriptions of the different kinds of cover. But they seem to say that <infantry> only receive cover if they are on the terrain, and not if they are *behind* the terrain. Which seems... wrong.

Non-infantry units get cover if they are 50% obscured by the terrain, which means they could be behind it and get cover saves. But infantry can't. Seems weird, I'm sure there's a rule somewhere I'm missing.

You're missing the fact that non-infantry also do not get cover if they are not on terrain.

In 8th cover is binary, you're either on a terrain piece that grants it, or you don't get cover.

I'll be honest, Kill Team has a better cover mechanic.

Only because you're dealing with 10, maybe 15 models tops. It simply doesn't work for a game of 40k's model count. If I had a penny for every time an opponent quibbled over being obscured in previous editions, I'd be a very wealthy man because of Copper speculators.

The amount of times ive had to tell my friends "your model 12 inches from that barricade isnt in cover just because its partially obscured" or "your tank doesnt grant cover" is astounding.

Another thing I PERSONALLY screwed up for ages was thinking you could fall back and charge with a flying unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Had to try and find the rules on how cover works... best I could find was the descriptions of the different kinds of cover. But they seem to say that <infantry> only receive cover if they are on the terrain, and not if they are *behind* the terrain. Which seems... wrong.

Non-infantry units get cover if they are 50% obscured by the terrain, which means they could be behind it and get cover saves. But infantry can't. Seems weird, I'm sure there's a rule somewhere I'm missing.

You're missing the fact that non-infantry also do not get cover if they are not on terrain.

In 8th cover is binary, you're either on a terrain piece that grants it, or you don't get cover.

I'll be honest, Kill Team has a better cover mechanic.

Only because you're dealing with 10, maybe 15 models tops. It simply doesn't work for a game of 40k's model count. If I had a penny for every time an opponent quibbled over being obscured in previous editions, I'd be a very wealthy man because of Copper speculators.

Yeah, but they could do something similar.

Then again I'm nostalgic for 5th's cover system even if it required laser pointers at times.

In my group the clear winner is character targeting for some reason. We often have people running around a rhino, drone or other single model blocking shooting to reach a character and shoot it... while most of the unit is standing next to the vehicle, making it the closest model and not the character.

Second up is people consolidating away from the closest model.

Infiltrating nurglings after deployment but before T1. Someone called me out on it today thinking they deployed like other typical infiltrators and didn't believe me until we consulted the book. Nurgling infiltrate is just deployment as usual but without being restricted to your deployment zone.

barboggo wrote:
Infiltrating nurglings after deployment but before T1. Someone called me out on it today thinking they deployed like other typical infiltrators and didn't believe me until we consulted the book. Nurgling infiltrate is just deployment as usual but without being restricted to your deployment zone.

You may have to be a little lenient here, as it depends on which ones and not everyone has every codex.

In typical GW style they have 2 sets of rules, one in the DG codex where they are not restricted in where they can be placed (you could place them in BTB with some infiltrators your opponent placed first if you wanted) and ones in the Daemons codex where they follow the normal restriction of being 9" from enemy models too.



One that currently irritates me ATM, as I can't really explain it in any adequate way to a semi regular opponent of mine to show him he's wrong is the DG Strategem "Could of Flies" where he believes you can target characters behind the unit (so long as there are not any other units closer etc. etc.) as the unit is now "like a character" because it cannot be targeted unless it's the closest visible target. No, it just means that. It does not make the unit a character so therefore same rules apply.

Just looked at the DG codex. Their entries look the same to me.

Maybe my post wasn't clear but nurglings don't deploy "in concealment" the same way other infiltrators used to deploy like pre-Big FAQ 2 rangers or Alpha Legion forward operatives. Instead they deploy like space marines scouts, which means they still deploy at the same time as any other unit, in alternating order with your opponent throughout the course of the deployment phase. You don't "place them in concealment" then set them up before T1. Instead you set them up directly on the board when it's your turn to deploy a unit. The advantage is they can be set up outside your DZ.

barboggo wrote:
Just looked at the DG codex. Their entries look the same to me.

Maybe my post wasn't clear but nurglings don't deploy "in concealment" the same way other infiltrators used to deploy like pre-Big FAQ 2 rangers or Alpha Legion forward operatives. Instead they deploy like space marines scouts, which means they still deploy at the same time as any other unit, in alternating order with your opponent throughout the course of the deployment phase. You don't "place them in concealment" then set them up before T1. Instead you set them up directly on the board when it's your turn to deploy a unit. The advantage is they can be set up outside your DZ.

I'm aware of that.

Keep in mind I'm going from the physical copies here and (to my knowledge) no such errata has been given on the DG ones (did they stealth update the digital version and not tell anyone?), but the DG entry for Nurglings lacks the last restriction of "...and any enemy models" that the Daemon codex has. So, as long as you're outside of 9" of the enemy deployment zone you could, as I suggested; deploy them in BTB with the aforementioned Scouts if they set up first.

Gotcha, I see the difference you're referring to now. I was focusing on something else in my post, but you are right, this slight difference in ruling between the two codexes certainly doesn't help make it any less confusing.

So RAW you can choose to use the version of Nurglings that can be deployed in BTB with SM scouts. There doesn't seem to be an entry the in DG errata about this. I wonder if this has been addressed in tournaments.

barboggo wrote:
Gotcha, I see the difference you're referring to now. I was focusing on something else in my post, but you are right, this slight difference in ruling between the two codexes certainly doesn't help make it any less confusing.

So RAW you can choose to use the version of Nurglings that can be deployed in BTB with SM scouts. There doesn't seem to be an entry the in DG errata about this. I wonder if this has been addressed in tournaments.

Considering summoning is the better way to bring Nurglings into a DG army if you're not running a detachment from the Daemons codex (because just putting them into your list without summoning means losing some DG specific bonuses), I'm going to say "no".

The rules that me and another have to keep everyone honest on are such:

- needing a 9" charge when charging from deep strike.
- the mixing of different regiments/forge worlds in a detachment.
- The rule of three.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

barboggo wrote:
Gotcha, I see the difference you're referring to now. I was focusing on something else in my post, but you are right, this slight difference in ruling between the two codexes certainly doesn't help make it any less confusing.

So RAW you can choose to use the version of Nurglings that can be deployed in BTB with SM scouts. There doesn't seem to be an entry the in DG errata about this. I wonder if this has been addressed in tournaments.

Considering summoning is the better way to bring Nurglings into a DG army if you're not running a detachment from the Daemons codex (because just putting them into your list without summoning means losing some DG specific bonuses), I'm going to say "no".

You could easily put them in a detachment where no one cares for Inexorable Advance. This is already a common way to access warptime sorcerers. Summoning is pretty much the worst way to get anything.

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

barboggo wrote:
Gotcha, I see the difference you're referring to now. I was focusing on something else in my post, but you are right, this slight difference in ruling between the two codexes certainly doesn't help make it any less confusing.

So RAW you can choose to use the version of Nurglings that can be deployed in BTB with SM scouts. There doesn't seem to be an entry the in DG errata about this. I wonder if this has been addressed in tournaments.

Considering summoning is the better way to bring Nurglings into a DG army if you're not running a detachment from the Daemons codex (because just putting them into your list without summoning means losing some DG specific bonuses), I'm going to say "no".

You could easily put them in a detachment where no one cares for Inexorable Advance. This is already a common way to access warptime sorcerers. Summoning is pretty much the worst way to get anything.

That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I mean, you could do it but DG work better with IA, and your face looks better with a nose.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

barboggo wrote:
Gotcha, I see the difference you're referring to now. I was focusing on something else in my post, but you are right, this slight difference in ruling between the two codexes certainly doesn't help make it any less confusing.

So RAW you can choose to use the version of Nurglings that can be deployed in BTB with SM scouts. There doesn't seem to be an entry the in DG errata about this. I wonder if this has been addressed in tournaments.

Considering summoning is the better way to bring Nurglings into a DG army if you're not running a detachment from the Daemons codex (because just putting them into your list without summoning means losing some DG specific bonuses), I'm going to say "no".

You could easily put them in a detachment where no one cares for Inexorable Advance. This is already a common way to access warptime sorcerers. Summoning is pretty much the worst way to get anything.

That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I mean, you could do it but DG work better with IA, and your face looks better with a nose.

Except that only infantry, princes and helbrutes get IA. So you could add nurglings to a detachment with some cheap non-shooty HQ, and things like drones or crawlers.

Which is more like cutting out your appendix to spite your face. Cos I mean... you don't have any need for it, and your face wont miss an appendix.

Being unable to fight things you didn't charge seems to be a common one among my opponents (even and especially at tournaments), doubly so now with Space Wolves.

Opponent: I'll charge your unit with my Zerkers
Me: I'll Heroically intervene with my character here.
Opponent: My Zerkers will chop up your character.
Me: They cannot. You didn't declare him when you charged.
Opponent: WHAT?? WHY?? Call a JUDGE!!!!

At least once every tournament. I don't know why. And people get super-upset about it too for some reason.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Being unable to fight things you didn't charge seems to be a common one among my opponents (even and especially at tournaments), doubly so now with Space Wolves.

Opponent: I'll charge your unit with my Zerkers
Me: I'll Heroically intervene with my character here.
Opponent: My Zerkers will chop up your character.
Me: They cannot. You didn't declare him when you charged.
Opponent: WHAT?? WHY?? Call a JUDGE!!!!

At least once every tournament. I don't know why. And people get super-upset about it too for some reason.

Have to say I'm not totally up on these rules myself, but I'm sure I've seen people on dakka who have basically said "ok so I'm declaring a charge against all of your units" even when they're only charging one unit, because of... I think it's because of being able to pile in / consolidate or whatever into other units...

I dunno, it sounded like poor rules / cheesy play to me, and it's never come up in a game i've played as we tend to play the sensible interpretation of rules.

Niiru wrote:
Have to say I'm not totally up on these rules myself, but I'm sure I've seen people on dakka who have basically said "ok so I'm declaring a charge against all of your units" even when they're only charging one unit, because of... I think it's because of being able to pile in / consolidate or whatever into other units...

I dunno, it sounded like poor rules / cheesy play to me, and it's never come up in a game i've played as we tend to play the sensible interpretation of rules.

You can only declare a charge against units that are within 12" of your unit.

 Ghaz wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Have to say I'm not totally up on these rules myself, but I'm sure I've seen people on dakka who have basically said "ok so I'm declaring a charge against all of your units" even when they're only charging one unit, because of... I think it's because of being able to pile in / consolidate or whatever into other units...

I dunno, it sounded like poor rules / cheesy play to me, and it's never come up in a game i've played as we tend to play the sensible interpretation of rules.

You can only declare a charge against units that are within 12" of your unit.

It might have been declaring against all units within 12", even if some are beyond your actual charge roll... I don't remember the details, I just recall it being a bit weird.

Niiru wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Have to say I'm not totally up on these rules myself, but I'm sure I've seen people on dakka who have basically said "ok so I'm declaring a charge against all of your units" even when they're only charging one unit, because of... I think it's because of being able to pile in / consolidate or whatever into other units...

I dunno, it sounded like poor rules / cheesy play to me, and it's never come up in a game i've played as we tend to play the sensible interpretation of rules.

You can only declare a charge against units that are within 12" of your unit.

It might have been declaring against all units within 12", even if some are beyond your actual charge roll... I don't remember the details, I just recall it being a bit weird.

If a unit declares a charge against every enemy unit within 12", then each of those units may have the opportunity to fire overwatch against that unit. What you read was probably just a bit of hyperbole someone was using to make a point and not actually a tactic they would employ.

The rule on the only swinging at units I declared a charge against causes a lot of problems in my group as well. It's that last bit that singles out chargers. I suppose it was to avoid the one CC unit runs through half your army with consolidate...but since they then added in all the extra rounds of fighting abilities and stratagems...