PDA

View Full Version : Rules... The details



DartzIRL
08-12-2007, 20:52
Not a rules question in itself, but more a rules discussion. How closely do people here actually stick to the rules while playing? Not the major rules now, but the little tiny little details

Also There are so many little unspoken gentlemans agreements floating around while we play, that, if they were codified down, the rulebook would be double the size.

Myself, during 4th ed close combat, I tended not to bother too much about locked or engaged definitions, or whatever, just sticking with a base-to base, or model bit's touching convention. Target ranges, and kill radius's, well never bothered too much with them either. Most opponents do the same thing, and generally play in a rather comfortable and quick fashion. Outnumbered modifiers for fall-back checks tend to be forgotten unless it's too obvious, as do the specifics of fall-back corridors. Things are simplified to basics at best, and both players are happy with it, because nobody's pucking and fighting about little details and distances, or unengaged models shooting.

Anyway, how detailed do ye all get over the rules. Do ye actually follow the letter, or just the spirit of the rules? Do you still mix Third ed' stuff in occasionally too?

Culven
08-12-2007, 21:04
Myself, and most of the people I know who play, follow all of the rules. As for gentlemanly agreements, we typically only worry about house rules to patch holes in the rules, and we try to ensure that everyone has a fair game. We don't even worry about whether a player's army is sporting as there are rules that typically provide means to counter their "beardy" forces, or they could find themselves without any opponents.

DartzIRL
08-12-2007, 21:19
Beardiness.... Anybody who's seen my Armoured Company, will know that a beardy force is usally very enemy specific.

I find though, that if we try to follow all the rules, to the latter, it bogs the game down far too much for it to actually be entertaining. Keeping things relatively simple improves the flow and the feel of things and keeps everyone interested...

PseudoK
08-12-2007, 21:59
At the local indie shop, we tend to play strict within logical sense. Getting into touching base to base with genestealers isn't a huge concern (crazy barrel of monkeys,) but the difference between locked and engaged isn't overlooked.

Things that don't effect technical gameplay are mostly overlooked. For instance, proxying isn't uncommon at all within reason - keep your base sizes appropriate, and make sure your opponent knows what your proxying (if he cares.) Interestingly, our tournaments are played in exactly the same fashion - with the exception that you must have an Army Builder created list (laptop and printer are provided.) But then, tournaments are just the regulars paying the winner of a series organized games.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
08-12-2007, 22:22
We tend to play by RAW applying common sense where necessary. For instance it is accepted that Terminator Squads wear terminator armour with all the attendant benefits, even if the army list entry doesn't specifically state they have the armour.

Nazdrugh
08-12-2007, 22:32
We tend to play by RAW applying common sense where necessary. For instance it is accepted that Terminator Squads wear terminator armour with all the attendant benefits, even if the army list entry doesn't specifically state they have the armour.

I couldn't believe what I was reading when I first saw that. Are there people who actually say that TERMINATORS don't wear TERMINATOR armour???:wtf:
I guess it's so they can deny their opponents the 5+ save. I would simply refuse to play anyone spouting that nonsense.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
08-12-2007, 22:36
I don't think there are actually a significant number of people who would actually try and do that. But there must be plenty of people who recognised it and rolled their eyes, then posted the observation the Internet for a laugh. Most people's online personas aren't representative of their real-life attitudes I think. Face to face, most people are more reasonable IMO, myself included. I might argue something viciously online but actually not give a damn. So really I don't think there are people like that or at leats I haven't met them.

Culven
08-12-2007, 23:22
I couldn't believe what I was reading when I first saw that. Are there people who actually say that TERMINATORS don't wear TERMINATOR armour???:wtf:
As Shutup said, there may not actually be people who try to deny that Terminators wear Terminator Armour, but there are many people who will point to the omission in the rules as an example of the fine job of editing that GW does on their rules. Also, there are many issues which may be debated online by people who don't really have an problem with any of the viewpoints. Many times, people will simply debate a point to help determine RAI and/or the most logical/well supported interpretation.

graveaccomplice
08-12-2007, 23:56
I once lost a charge attempt with hormies because my figure was 1/8th of an inch from base to base contact. Other than that, it's been pretty laid back. My opponents have been rather lenient about what is and isn't in base to base contact, considering the amount of gaunts or stealers that are piling in.

Hymirl
09-12-2007, 00:04
I normally play to the rules, but obviously ignore the dafter extremes of the RAW theory. Personally I seem to find the only people using RAW in all seriousness are generally the ones suggesting some ridiclous idea, or attempting to claim something that obviously doesn't exist and are hoping typing those three letters in their posts would somehow magically make them right.

Lord Cook
09-12-2007, 00:14
I play by the rules, so if a charging unit is 1/4 of an inch out, it's out and doesn't reach cc. But I often find some rules are largely ignored, such as casualty removal with regard to who can be seen by the firer and such. I normally don't bother arguing it, mainly because it prevents LOS sniping, which is a blatent abuse of the rules anyway.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
09-12-2007, 00:24
Same here. I am actually rather strict about measurments. I don't see that as being similar to strict raW arguements. If a model does not make it to base to base contact then the model does not make it into base to base contact, end of discussion as far as I'm concerned. I do not implore my opponents to let me charge that extra 1/4 inch and don't let the people I'm playing against do it because it has larger game balance implications than people realise IMO.

Rikens
09-12-2007, 00:28
By the book. If you're not playing by the rules, you're not playing the game. That's not to say RAW though, I just thought I needed to point that out.

ReDavide
09-12-2007, 06:50
I follow the rules unless it would be horribly awkward to do so. If we're fighting a close combat in a bumpy piece of terrain where it's hard to get models to stand upright, I'll suggest we just "count them all as engaged and not bother actually moving them into contact" for instance.

Most of the OP's examples of rules-to-ignore are things that I think are pretty core to the game though. I'm not about to forget an outnumbering bonus or weapon range, nor am I going to be lax about "unengaged models shooting." :wtf:

Though i will admit that fallback corridors are terribly defined in the rulebook so I'll just let my opponent run away however he pleases in most cases.

madden
09-12-2007, 10:57
As said movement is tight and used as the book but with cc it is 1 unit against another so who is fighting who is generaly relaxed unless there is spec caracter involved and the dead are just taken by the owner, there are not many nid players at our store so the mass hords effect does not occure often but when it does the book takes precedent.
The only old stuff to get used is advice like the rules are a frame and use common sense etc,

ReDavide
09-12-2007, 18:55
I often find some rules are largely ignored, such as casualty removal with regard to who can be seen by the firer and such. I normally don't bother arguing it, mainly because it prevents LOS sniping, which is a blatent abuse of the rules anyway.
Hmm. One person's basic game tactic is another person's rules abuse, I guess. :rolleyes:

vogelfrei
09-12-2007, 19:42
Anyway, how detailed do ye all get over the rules?

I try to follow them as good as I can.
LOS and kill zones for example...as well as Ld modifiers are never forgotten. They add depth to the game and open new possibillities rather than being rule lawyers stuff.


Do ye actually follow the letter, or just the spirit of the rules?

Most of the time. But there are things in the rulebook...probably written by JJ's son...for example...did you notice the whole squad can shoot out of the Rhino? Same goes for engaging in CC - If you can't make it for 1/4"...you're in (If you are a nice player...otherwise...no chance.). 1/2" is too much for me and you don't count assaulting.
There are also people who want to shoot a tank because a template is covering about the size of a boltgun...(You would be one of those being stranded 1/4" in front of my unit. :P)

DartzIRL
09-12-2007, 20:04
I try to follow them as good as I can.
LOS and kill zones for example...as well as Ld modifiers are never forgotten. They add depth to the game and open new possibillities rather than being rule lawyers stuff.



Most of the time. But there are things in the rulebook...probably written by JJ's son...for example...did you notice the whole squad can shoot out of the Rhino? Same goes for engaging in CC - If you can't make it for 1/4"...you're in (If you are a nice player...otherwise...no chance.). 1/2" is too much for me and you don't count assaulting.
There are also people who want to shoot a tank because a template is covering about the size of a boltgun...(You would be one of those being stranded 1/4" in front of my unit. :P)

I guess I chose poor examples. There are a good few details that are either glossed over or forgotten about though... I mean. To me, locked or engaged aren't really major things...

A unit in Combat is a unit in combat, it seems like an unecessary overspecification.

I'm npotorious though, for slipping into Third ed rules... Never firing with moving ordinance etc.... and some of these carry over

Reaver83
09-12-2007, 20:09
i think where i play every rule is observed, but it's balanced by some decent common sense with various interpretations.

The only rule that get routinely ignored is strategy ratings, people either ignore it (and people only role one dice) or add 1, 2 or 3 points, it's only for tournaments and competitive games it gets used.

eiglepulper
09-12-2007, 21:17
Where I play, we play to the rules. Depending on who is playing, it might even be down to the minutiae. Either way, I don't mind. Sometimes there are questions which arise and these are discussed so that a satisfactory compromise/answer is found. Then we just get on with the game anyway.

E.

wickywacky1
09-12-2007, 21:33
Not a rules question in itself, but more a rules discussion. How closely do people here actually stick to the rules while playing? Not the major rules now, but the little tiny little details

Also There are so many little unspoken gentlemans agreements floating around while we play, that, if they were codified down, the rulebook would be double the size.

Myself, during 4th ed close combat, I tended not to bother too much about locked or engaged definitions, or whatever, just sticking with a base-to base, or model bit's touching convention. Target ranges, and kill radius's, well never bothered too much with them either. Most opponents do the same thing, and generally play in a rather comfortable and quick fashion. Outnumbered modifiers for fall-back checks tend to be forgotten unless it's too obvious, as do the specifics of fall-back corridors. Things are simplified to basics at best, and both players are happy with it, because nobody's pucking and fighting about little details and distances, or unengaged models shooting.

Anyway, how detailed do ye all get over the rules. Do ye actually follow the letter, or just the spirit of the rules? Do you still mix Third ed' stuff in occasionally too?

Hi,
To me its based purely on memory and attitude, if you remember something then you will action it and if you are forward you will speak up. Its as simple as that.

Some peoples memories for rules as incredible and they need no rules book to sound very authoritarian whilst others baulk at the simplest things, even though they are right, and so fall prey to more assertive players interpretations.

Having said that I tend to sit back when a dispute starts and say something the once, the fewer words the better and this I find makes a much more convincing argument when its needed.

As to sticking to the details, I only do this when it will impact the game greatly but when its only minor will let my opponent know that he "owes me one in return."

Cheers.

don_mondo
10-12-2007, 13:10
I pretty much try to play by the rules. If you're short by 1/8 of an inch on the charge, you're short. If a weapon is out of range, it's out of range. If a model is out of LOS, it can't be a casualty, etc etc etc. We do make allowances for terrain, as others have also said and yes, termies wezr termie armour. Playing by the rules does not necessarily mean being an idiot about it.

EmperorEternalXIX
10-12-2007, 19:14
One thing that irks me is people not understanding flamer templates.

Any model it touches is hit. Not any base. Not "50% of the base or more." Anything, a tail, a particularly long toenail, whatever -- is a !@#$ing hit. I have to argue this every game.

I also have to argue CHARGING every game. it's CLOSEST TO CLOSEST, then within 2 inches. No, you don't get to wrap all of your genestealers around the dreadnought's base...

A lot of the people I play with do not have a full understanding of the charging rules. Even I freely admit I don't. But for god's sake, don't you think it's odd that you can freely maneuver your models to get every single one of them into combat every single time you play? Duh.

Fact is, these particulars have to be detail oriented. But wherever possible, I try to be forgiving. Unless it's an outright breaking of the rules I usually don't read too deeply into them.

Wintermute
10-12-2007, 19:25
I'm moving this thread to 40K General

Wintermute
The WarSeer Inquisition

Aurellis
10-12-2007, 19:29
One thing that irks me is people not understanding flamer templates.

Any model it touches is hit. Not any base. Not "50% of the base or more." Anything, a tail, a particularly long toenail, whatever -- is a !@#$ing hit. I have to argue this every game.


That really bugs me too, it's one of the best reasons to take flamers as well.

I hate it when people claim they can shoot through Size 3 terrain :(

jubilex
10-12-2007, 19:44
Well, when my mates and I first started playing, I was the only one to have read the rulebook. Being the the dungeon/game master/keeper type that I am I suppose.

In addition to this, we play at my house (hey, I'm in charge!!!). :D

Because of this, I became an absolutely anal RAWIST. I had to oversee everybodies games. I could not allow myself to make an error. (Yeah right, I could quite possibly be sued for the ammount of games I sent in one way or another, in persuit of the ultimate fairness of "RAW").

That was until I came to warseer, my first experience of the 40k world outside our little group.

I thought I was anal? Good god, what I have learned!!!

I now think of myself as a "moderate."

That said, most raw purists are trying to decode the game, even when, at times it seems they are disappearing up their own raw backsides.

When confronted with a problem, it's what does raw say?
Oh, that doesn't make much sense.
What do you think the rai is.
Mmmmm, maybe.
ERRR, SOD IT, THE RUGBY LEAGUES ON AT SEVEN, I DON'T WANT TO BE HERE ALL DAY (unless it costs me the win of course).

I think shut up said it best that online we may argue to all sorts of unlikely ends, but we are more reasonable than we first appear.

But, at the end of the day, for me it all depends on how much beer I have had.
Cause sometimes, I am two moves behind, anyway!

ankara halla
10-12-2007, 20:39
One thing that irks me is people not understanding flamer templates.

Any model it touches is hit. Not any base. Not "50% of the base or more." Anything, a tail, a particularly long toenail, whatever -- is a !@#$ing hit. I have to argue this every game.


Really? I hadn't realised that.
No matter though, I still won't punish my opponent for modelling his/her models in cool poses and stuff. I'll still keep on counting my flamer hits solely from the bases.

Leonidas300
10-12-2007, 20:47
One thing that irks me is people not understanding flamer templates.

Any model it touches is hit. Not any base. Not "50% of the base or more." Anything, a tail, a particularly long toenail, whatever -- is a !@#$ing hit. I have to argue this every game.

I would argue with that. The rules state that each model occupies the area of its base. And the definition of model is simply "an individual playing piece".
So doesn't that mean that when the rules say "model" its referring to playing piece not the model itself. And if a model only occupies its base doesn't that mean that it doesn't occupy areas outside it's base.

The rules go on to say use the closest edge of the base as your reference point for measuring distances. Isn't the range of the flamer the template? After all under "range" on the flamer profile it lists "template."


I also have to argue CHARGING every game. it's CLOSEST TO CLOSEST, then within 2 inches. No, you don't get to wrap all of your genestealers around the dreadnought's base...

You do if you follow the guidlines for charging. For example, after the first model is moved, you can move any model up to the charging distance as long as it ends up within 2" of a previous model. This means you can wrap around as long as you have the distance.

Lezta
10-12-2007, 21:15
Any model it touches is hit. Not any base. Not "50% of the base or more." Anything, a tail, a particularly long toenail, whatever -- is a !@#$ing hit. I have to argue this every game.

That is totally wrong - a model only takes up the area of its base. Thus, 'any model' means the base and only the base. The rest, in essence, is just decoration.

A.S.modai
10-12-2007, 22:08
It's funny that emperor said he argues every game and here we are arguing....

I have to agree with the Base only team. In terms of game mechanics it makes it easier to play fair although Genestealers get some benefit from this method where gretchin get screwed. PLUS, no arguing. If it touches base, argument over. Also, I do realize blast weapons are different but it does say that the models entire base must be covered, if any percentage of the base is not covered its a "partial". It doesn't really specify "models large protuding sword" covered=partial. Therefore I think the flamer wording could stand to be corrected because if that was the case then the gretchin base would count for blasts but not flamers?

Thats also how I approach range and charges. most times you either got it by a mile or you don't at all. If it doesn't touch it just doesn't. no arguments game continues. we used to give that 1/4 inch but it caused too many issues when the game got heated because it isn't consistant.