Obscure Rules?

[eagleboy7259]

So I went to a different store than usual the other weekend to game. A couple of rules came up that the both of us had always taken for granted or never come across. It was a fun game, but some of the things that came up were so strange I decided to take an in depth look into the rule book just to be sure for next time. So here's some stuff that I didn't know before that is obscure enough I thought I'd share:


Poisoned weapons - always wound on a fixed interval (4+/2+/etc.) You do not have the option of using your base strength. However if the wielder of the poisoned weapon has a strength equal to or greater than the toughness of your opponent you get to re-roll failed rolls to wound.

Squads falling back that get assaulted must immediately test to regroup and if failed they are destroyed.

Squads testing to regroup do so during the movement phase. Squads passing a regrouping test may move up to 3" unaffected by difficult terrain. It cannot move in the movement phase, but can run, shoot, or launch assaults.

Artillery - cannot run, ever.

Beasts and Cavalry - double the distance rolled when assaulting through difficult terrain.

Ordinance - if choosing to fire the ordinance weapon your tank forgoes shooting any other weapon, even if stationary. They roll 2D6 for armor penetration and pick the highest.

Blast Weapons - halve their strength when rolling for armor penetration rolls if the center hole of the blast template is not in contact with the hull of the vehicle.

Vehicle Squads - treated any immobilized roll as wrecked (even if you aren't moving!) and any stunned result as shaken till 1 tank remains in the squad.

Both shaken and stunned results mean that passengers may not shoot from the vehicle in the next turn.

Skimmers - receive a 4+ cover save when moving flat out. Skimmers moving flat out that suffer an immobilized result treat it as wrecked instead. Skimmers remaining stationary, or moving at combat or cruising speed (up to 12") are immobilized as normal.

Immobilized walkers fight normally in assault with -1 attack. Shaken and stunned results have no effect in close combat. Units using grenades when assaulting a walker only hit on a 6+. When the walker becomes immobilized, they roll to hit with grenades using the WS chart.

[Whoop!]

Beasts and Cavalry - double the distance rolled when assaulting through difficult terrain.

did not know this, thank you for the information that's which point

Both shaken and stunned results mean that passengers may not shoot from the vehicle in the next turn.

if the vehicle suffers a shaken and stirred result in addition to a wrecked/destroyed and the models are forced to disembark do they still suffer from this penalty? I know there's a pinning test, but are the deployed models still suffering from the shaken and stirred result?

Immobilized walkers fight normally in assault with -1 attack. Shaken and stunned results have no effect in close combat. Units using grenades when assaulting a walker only hit on a 6+. When the walker becomes immobilized, they roll to hit with grenades using the WS chart.
[/LIST]

grenades on a 6+ only huh? I screwed that one up! Thanks for the heads up!

[eagleboy7259]

Both shaken and stunned results mean that passengers may not shoot from the vehicle in the next turn.

if the vehicle suffers a shaken and stirred result in addition to a wrecked/destroyed and the models are forced to disembark do they still suffer from this penalty? I know there's a pinning test, but are the deployed models still suffering from the shaken and stirred result?

Shaken and stirred only effects the troops while inside the vehicle. If they disembark or are foreced to disembark during the opponents turn then there is no disadvantage in terms of moving, shooting or launching assaults.

[SotonShades]

Another obscure one that people seem to forget;

Pg 62, left column, bottom paragraph;

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they may take the shot against the facing may can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save.

This can actually be fairly easy to do, with the right amount of terrain, and can make your opponant waste some/all of their long range firepower against a target they aren't going to hurt. Doesn't work so well against melta though lol

[Lemt]

Another obscure one that people seem to forget;

Pg 62, left column, bottom paragraph;

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they may take the shot against the facing may can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save.

This can actually be fairly easy to do, with the right amount of terrain, and can make your opponant waste some/all of their long range firepower against a target they aren't going to hurt. Doesn't work so well against melta though lol

Yeah, I used to play this one wrong. The whole thing about getting a 4+ obscured save is done against the facing you DO see. Giving a rhino a 3+ save isn't that hard.

[BuFFo]

Immobilized walkers fight normally in assault with -1 attack. Shaken and stunned results have no effect in close combat. Units using grenades when assaulting a walker only hit on a 6+. When the walker becomes immobilized, they roll to hit with grenades using the WS chart.


Incorrect... This is how you do it...

Immobilized and Stunned walkers fight normally in assault, but with -1 attack regardless of the amount of Immobilized and/or Stunned results they have. Shaken results have no effect in close combat. Units using grenades when assaulting a walker only hit on a 6+. If a Walker was Immobilized and/or Stunned at the start of combat, attackers roll to hit with grenades using the WS chart.

So... Keep in mind....

Being stun does affect walkers in close combat.

A Walker with an Immobilized and a Stunned result only gets a 1- Attack.

If you Immobilize or Stun a Walker at Initiative step 4, your Initiative 3 Grenades still need to roll a 6 to hit.

[Sir Biscuit]

If you fire indirectly, you cannot have moved is one that people seem to never know.

[eagleboy7259]

Incorrect... This is how you do it...

Immobilized and Stunned walkers fight normally in assault, but with -1 attack regardless of the amount of Immobilized and/or Stunned results they have. Shaken results have no effect in close combat. Units using grenades when assaulting a walker only hit on a 6+. If a Walker was Immobilized and/or Stunned at the start of combat, attackers roll to hit with grenades using the WS chart.

So... Keep in mind....

Being stun does affect walkers in close combat.

A Walker with an Immobilized and a Stunned result only gets a 1- Attack.

If you Immobilize or Stun a Walker at Initiative step 4, your Initiative 3 Grenades still need to roll a 6 to hit.

Thanks for the clear up Buffo!

I can't tell you how many times people act dumbfounded when I put a Soul Grinder on the table. They either assume its a monstrous creature and try to fire small arms at it or they have no idea how a walker acts in close combat.

[Whoop!]

Eagle boy, SS, Buffo

Thanks for the heads up. I haven't been playing long, and clarifications like this are helpful.

I don't play any walkers myself, so not too sure on the rules. I have a basic idea but nothing specific like what we were discussing.

Keep on passing that knowledge!

[jorz192]

I'm surprised I actually knew these! The poisoned weapons one I have used in quite a few games.

[DarkLink]

I'm surprised most people don't know these. I knew every one mentioned so far off the top of my head, and only one or two of them were things that I would consider slightly obscure because they don't come up much (like assaulting a falling back unit).

But some of this stuff comes up in virtually every game people in our group plays. Do people in other gaming groups not read the rulebook or something? I mean, seriously, not knowing a skimmer gets a 4+ save after going 18+" flat out? Eldar and Dark Eldar use that rule like every single turn.

[jorz192]

The issue that has arisen in my games is that when you are against an opponent whose codex you are not familiar with they miss-represent the armies rules.

For example the Blood Angels psychic power Shield of Sanguinius being presented as an invulnerable save, like the similar power in Codex Space Marines, rather than a cover save.

[eagleboy7259]

I'm surprised most people don't know these. I knew every one mentioned so far off the top of my head, and only one or two of them were things that I would consider slightly obscure because they don't come up much (like assaulting a falling back unit).

But some of this stuff comes up in virtually every game people in our group plays. Do people in other gaming groups not read the rulebook or something? I mean, seriously, not knowing a skimmer gets a 4+ save after going 18+" flat out? Eldar and Dark Eldar use that rule like every single turn.

It's really a combination of things - the rulebook is a pretty large tome and even then many of the situations don't come up often in gameplay. 40k is in it's 5th edition, there are people who have been playing since RT days who don't always catch some of the rules changes, especially the small ones. Then there are the codexes which sometimes introduce rules that need FAQ clarification.

I play demons and I had no idea about the poisoned weapons thing. No one had ever corrected me about it, so I always played them 4+ to wound or better without knowledge that I got those re-rolls to wound or that I always had to use the 4+ and couldn't say that my plaguebearers were just punching you instead of using the plagueswords. The codex doesn't mention anything under the plaguesword or noxious touch rule, and there just weren't that many poisoned weapons in the 40k universe before the new DE codex came out. Same way my buddy has played Dark Eldar since 3rd edition and we've always thought that skimmers die on any immobilized roll and passengers could still shoot out of a transport on shaken rolls.

[Daemonette666]

I did not think that most of these rules were obscure. Except for the Artillery can not run rule, I come across them all the time. With the falling back unit checking for morale and being destroyed if they fail, this is common toi any unit that is not fearless or has "And they shall know no fear" rule who are then treated as though they are fearless and take armour saves instead.

Poisoned weapons that have a " X " strength value or have a " - " strength value are treated as strength 1. This was mentioned in the errata and frequently asked question for the 40K rules, because people were unable to agree about being able to re-roll the to wound roll because many thought the weapon strength, unless mentined was equal to the defenders toughness, or the attackers strength (in the case of a projectile/ranged attack). In most cases, if the attack is a close combat attack that is poisoned, it is equal to the attackers strength.

I get exposed to tha lot of these rules a fair bit, as I have beasts and cavalry in my daemons army, walkers in my Chaos Marine Army. I have a fair ammount of non-fearless units in my chaos marine army, and face a lot of skimmers in marine, tau and eldar armies of both types. I also get a lot of artillery and ordnance barrage weapons fired at my forces from the nasty IG armies who can now flank attack my army, while I my supposedly assault orientated army can not flank attack - HMMF frustrating.

There are many rules that are not used as much anymore because the universal special rules they refer to are not as common any more, axcept in a few gifted units or provided as a bonus by certain characters or unit sergeants. A good example of this is Tank Hunters skill and skilled rider skill ( which any lone character riding a bike or jet bike gets automatically).

[Mr.Pickelz]

something that came up in discussion recently was, if beasts and calvery can move up into ruins, being that calvery and beasts move LIKE infantry, but ONLY infantry, jump infantry, jet-bikes, MC's and walkers can go up in ruins and only if the model can be placed there...:rolleyes:

meaning that Khorne flesh hounds/Fenrissian wolves can't navigate up some stairs/rubble but a dreadnought and a Carnifex can. (wtf?):confused:

the situation that came was, dude A threw his TWC into some necron warriors, of dude B, on 2nd floor of a ruin.

[Crevab]

However if the wielder of the poisoned weapon has a strength equal to or greater than the toughness of your opponent you get to re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat.

You left that off. Important difference

[Daemonette666]

I found another obscure rule, that many opponents do not realise, and often have to look up for themselves just to be sure.

The particular subject I am referring to is fortifications and buildings which are occupied and therefore counted as an immobile vehicle. The unit inside can not be targetted normally, just the building. For each firing slot/ window, 2 members of the unit may shoot out, and if the unit occupies the parrapet roof of the building, then those models on top can also fire making the building count as open topped (+1 for on damage table).

I think most people know these rules, and use them to protect the unit inside from snipers, and other enemy attacks. What most people do not realise is that flamer and other templat weapons that cover an firing point such as a window cause the building to be hit and the unit inside to take D6 hits. It makes units of Devestators hiding in buildings not as great a threat if you have a unit of burna boyz or a Slaanesh Champion with a doom siren shooting at hte unit inside.

If the Building is destroyed or explodes, the unit inside can be assaulted by the attacking unit, if the weapons fired do not prohibit the unit from attacking. Remember the building should be replaced by a crater or suitable rubble to represent it is destroyed , wrecked or blown up. One GW member at one of the local stores nearby uses the rule that the building now counts as dangerous terrain in addition to it being difficult terrain, but I can not find any reference to this in the main rule book.

I am sure there are other rules that are out there that people do not realise or follow, because as was mentioned before, they have not read the rules correctly and remember an old editoin of 40K and still believe that is how the game is played.

[Whoop!]

One GW member at one of the local stores nearby uses the rule that the building now counts as dangerous terrain in addition to it being difficult terrain, but I can not find any reference to this in the main rule book.

PG 62, Wrecks

When a vehicle (read as building which is how a occupied building is treated) is wreck or destroyed it becomes a terrain peice that is both difficult and dangerous.

Players who have been at this for years, or have the free time to play games daily are not the only ones to enjoy the game. Some of us have other obligations and have only been playing a shorter amount of time. As long as we aren't being dicks about rules is it so bad to have to correct your opponent? You were a newbie at one time, trying someone elses patience.

[eagleboy7259]

Players who have been at this for years, or have the free time to play games daily are not the only ones to enjoy the game. Some of us have other obligations and have only been playing a shorter amount of time. As long as we aren't being dicks about rules is it so bad to have to correct your opponent? You were a newbie at one time, trying someone elses patience.

Exactly! There are a lot of gamers out there who don't game frequently, don't use sources like the forums, or don't game outside their own gaming groups often and become used to house rules. Even if a rules issue comes up and I know what the correct rule is, for the sake of saving time and not frustrating my opponent by being a rules lawyer we usually just roll off and go with it.

Now if its a tournament or my opponent is clearly abusing my flexibility on strict adherence to the rules then its a different story.

[DarkLink]

I'm lucky to get in a game a week (I usually only get to play one wargame per week, and I have to pick between 40k and warmachine), but between me and my gaming group we have a solid knowledge of the rulebook, and when one of us isn't certain about something we look it up real quick. No rule lawyering involved.

Really, it comes down to knowing when you don't know something, as much as when you do know something. If you aren't certain you know the correct rules, then you can just look up the right answer quickly. Even if you end up doing it a few times per game, it doesn't take too long (and you can just handwave it if it takes more than a minute or two), and soon you'll know all the rules pretty well and you won't have to look stuff up again. Fully worth putting that minimum amount of effort in, even if you only play once a week or so.

[DrLove42]

I get a game or 2 in a month if i'm lucky.

Doesn't mean i don't know the rule book nearly cover to cover (few things escape me, but nothing posted in this thread) as well as 3 seperate codexes....and a fair few of the other ones

[HsojVvad]

What's with the, people are shocked that they don't know the rules? Is everyone suppose to know almost every single rule in the book? Are we having Geeks telling other Geeks, they are not Geeky enough?

If somebody doesn't know the rule, who cares, that is why we have the small rule book to look things up. First it was about Painted or unpainted minitures, now it's going to be not knowing 85% or more of the rules? I really hope it doesn't come to that.

40K is really a flawed game. The rules are not written well, they are not clear or consise. Well I should say alot of rules, not all. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have agruements or debates on rules.

Also you have to go all over the codex to get rules. For example some movement rules on page 20 (just saying for example) then you have to go to page 55, and then page 76 and then page 99 for all the rules that relate to movement.

Then you want to talk about cover saves, then you need to read page 45 then page 66 for the rest. To make it worse it's just one sentence in the page that relates to movement, so they are so easy to miss.

How come, GW can't get thier act together and put all the rules for movement under movement. Then if there is refrences to Deepstrike which is also considered movement, should ALL BE TOGETHER.

So many arugmentest happen because people forget and don't realize that D/S is part of movement, and the terminology used for D/S also is used for something else on a different page. Very frustrating indeed.

Then when reading for cover saves, it says what you can have coversaves for, but then goes into assaults where people think that cover saves also apply to CC as well. Rules should, I mean rules MUST be clearly defined, non of this BS of does the DoM Spirit Leech Rule affect units in vehicles or not, or how come psychic hoods effect units in vehicles while spirt leech doesn't. They do the same thing, but different results. No explanations are given so people understand.

So better explanations and descriptons are needed so there is no need of a FAQ.

[DarkLink]

I'm just surprised at how common some of these "obscure" rules are. A few I perfectly understand if someone doesn't know them, but others are so common that I'm surprised that the people haven't heard about them somewhere.


I mean, I just started Warmachine recently. Most of the rules are very different from 40k, so not much help there. I read through the rulebook once, and I've played ~10 games so far. We have several experienced players who have a pretty good understanding of the rules. From just reading through the codex once, and from playing a few games, I already have a good enough understanding of the core rules and of my army that I could probably go to a tournament. Sure, I'd have to look up the details of collateral damage from a slam attack on 'jack hitting a wall, but I know that I'd have to look it up. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know so that I can look it up when I need it. No need to study the rulebook.

Just from my own experience, is surprises me how much people miss sometimes.



But, yes, GW could do a much better job writing their rules. The rules themselves are often very ill-defined and vague, and the rulebook itself could be laid out better. Plus, so much counfounding fluff is mixed in with the rules and the rules so imprecisely worded that if one cut all that out, you could probably consolidate all the actual rules down to ~15-20 pages. I'd much rather have a very tight, consolidated ruleset than what we have now.

[erwos]

My own favorites have to do with barrage.

Barrage weapons may fire indirect AND receive the subtraction of BS from scatter if they can see the target! It shouldn't even be an obscure rule, because the BRB is extremely clear about it, but people get it wrong quite a lot.

Close follow-up: ordnance barrage weapons can't fire indirect when they move, but they CAN fire direct. Again, crystal clear in the BRB, but people seem to screw it up and claim that a Manticore or Basilisk can't fire direct if it moved.

[DarkLink]

People's lack of understanding of the assault rules is amusing sometimes, even though they're reasonably straightforward. Step 1: move closest to closest. Then you move subsequent models. Each model must end its move within 2" of a model that has previously moved, it must move into base contact with an enemy if it can, and if at any point a model has to move through difficult/dangerous terrain in order to satisfy one of those conditions then the entire unit must take a difficult/dangerous terrain test and suffer the consequences, which may cause the entire assault to fail, which is kinda awkward as then you would have to move all your models back to where they were. Always check everyone's move before you actually move anyone, just to save yourself the trouble.

There are a few other details in there, such as Independant characters move before non-ICs, how assaulting multiple unit differs, etc, but that's more or less it. People get stuff wrong here all the time.

[Daemonette666]

Whoop! thanks for that reference. I was a novice wargamer, years ago, and every time a new edition of 40K comes out with new rules and I have to update the way I play the game and avoid assuming it is played just as it was in the previous edition. Add to this the individual CODICE rules and nuances, and it is a wonder that I can remember the ones tht have been mentioned on this thread by everyone.

Yes novices will not know as many as those who play daily, which would be nice, since I probably get to play a game once every couple of weeks, and an Apocalypse game once every 2 to 4 months because of work, painting and other commitments.

I find it worth while asking the opponent to show me the reference to the rule so I can remember it, and even pass the knowledge on to other gamers who do not know. I tend to avoid using house rules when playing 40K.

[DarkLink]

Oh, yeah, and here's some other stuff that too many people get wrong.

The singular for codex is codex. The plural is codices. Not codexes, codices. Virtually everyone gets this wrong.

You're is a contraction of "you are". Your is possessive.

They're is a contraction of "they are". There refers to a physical or metaphorical location. Their is possessive.

Lose means "you lose the game". Loose means "that bolt came loose".

Not exactly obscure rules, but whatever.

[BuFFo]

There are a few other details in there, such as Independant characters move before non-ICs...

Yeah, I was playing a game and assaulted a unit. My friend told me to move the IC first, and I told him, um, no, that isn't how it works. That only occurs when defenders react and during the pile-in move, that's it.

Also, I rarely use my IG, so a rule as simple as Smoke Launchers was foreign to me. I had no idea how Smoke worked for years until I fielded my IG. You just may not be familiar with basic rules if you never come across them.

[Lerra]

The singular for codex is codex. The plural is codices. Not codexes, codices. Virtually everyone gets this wrong.

Including GW. They use "codexes". I don't really blame the gamers when the game company is doing it wrong, too.

[Daemonette666]

Including GW. They use "codexes". I don't really blame the gamers when the game company is doing it wrong, too.
Exactly, which is why I now refer to a Codex as a Codice, and then when I refer to its plural, I no longer use the word codexes, I use Codices. It may annoy Darklink, but I it looks and sounds like the correct alternative. I would ask everyone which they prefer Codexes or Codices. Then we can work out whether to use Codex or Codice for the singular based on which they choose for the plural. LOL

I do not think it is as bad an error as peolple calling the current edition of the Chaos Space Marines Codex/Codice as the 5th editoin, as it was released back when the 4th editin of 40K was still going. We are yet to get the 5th editon Codex/Codice for the following Armies - Chaos Space Marines, Witch Hunters, Tau, Necron, Eldar, Lost and the Damned (traitor Guard), Dark Angels,Black Templars and not for much longer Daemon Hunters.

The English language has new words added and words replaced or dropped every year so unless you keep a constant watch on the appropriate language website , which noone has time for, then I say let people go with what GW uses, as GW is suppose to be infallible. LOL

[DarkLink]

The singluar for dice is die. And yet GW invariably says "roll a dice".

[Daemonette666]

The singluar for dice is die. And yet GW invariably says "roll a dice".
That is so funny because GW is not an American Company who can get away with "We are American and speek and speel everything the American way" , they are English/ U.K based and therefore have no excuse.

I call it a dice as well, because I people get confused if I say roll a die, they think I am cursing their character's dice roll to save and telling them to roll the dreaded "1".

Call it lazy if you want but it avoids confusion. This is probably why people call the plural of codex , codexes, as people would generally think codices is the plural of codice, and codices does not sound right/correct as the plural of codex unless you look it up. A plural of vortex therfore would be vortices, more than one complex would be a group of complices, and so on. Comlpexes sounds better, so we us it. In the future it will probably be changed to codexes, complexes and vortexes as people will use these terms instead of what is currently supposed to be the way of saying them. That is how English has evolved of the centuries.

I am not going to be constantly harping about the gramatical way of saying the word unless it causes a great ammount of confusion, and I need them to reword it for me to understand what they mean.

I think the Codex editoin number is a more important factor, as people wh refer to past editions can get confused on which codex edition the person was talkng about.

[HsojVvad]

Talking about Codicie or Codicies, how about Fex? Alot of people like to use Fex for short so what is the pluarl for multiple Fex, Fecies then? That just sounds sooooooooooooooooo wrong.

[BuFFo]

'Fexes. Carnifexes is what I use.

Carnifex is a made up word. So just use what sounds the best for you.

[Crevab]

Hey now, just because latin is a dead language doesn't mean it's made up:p

[Necron2.0]

Thought for the day: Shakespeare, arguably the greatest of all English language authors, never spelled his own name the same way twice.

Syntax is not semantics (words are not meanings).

For myself, I never downgrade the meaning of someone's argument just because 'dayz spillin' ain't more gooder.

;)

[BuFFo]

Hey now, just because latin is a dead language doesn't mean it's made up:p

Oh, I didn't know that.

Cool, Carnifex means murderer, butcher, tormentor, as well as being used for the designation for certain species of animals.

Thanks for the inadvertent knowledge.

[Necron2.0]

Hmmm. So why isn't there a Callipygian and/or Callimastian Deamon in Slaanesh's court?

:D;)

EDIT: And I must give thanks to those Greeks and to the propensity of linguists to use Greek for disguising meaning in pedantry. It has saved me numerous times from a richly deserved face slap.

“My dear, you are the very essence of callipygian perfection.”

“Huh?”

“He said, ‘Wow. Nice ***.’”

[Whoop!]

"We are American and speek and speel everything the American way"

Hey now, no need for the snide remarks. Our form of English is just as rigid as yours. The different spellings were decided long before any of us were born, and we are still required to spell words in a certain way, just not the same as those Brits or you Aussies! At the time of our split the written language was still in flux.

So why don't you just put another shrimp on the barbi?:p(is that how one spells bar-b-que over there?)

[eldargal]

Callipygos was one of my nicknames at university, damned smart alec Classics department.


Hmmm. So why isn't there a Callipygian and/or Callimastian Deamon in Slaanesh's court?

:D;)

EDIT: And I must give thanks to those Greeks and to the propensity of linguists to use Greek for disguising meaning in pedantry. It has saved me numerous times from a richly deserved face slap.

“My dear, you are the very essence of callipygian perfection.”

“Huh?”

“He said, ‘Wow. Nice ***.’”

[Whoop!]

WOW. Nice ***!;)