Craziest re-imaginings of rules (to nerf your stuff)

[march10k]

What's the worst way an opponent has fabricated or mutilated a rule to screw you over?  Here's mine:

 

So I had an opponent last night with massive cheese in his list, and it was a perfect counter to mine. Apparently, having rock to my scissors wasn't good enough, he needed to screw me over to ensure a nice tabling (he failed at that, although he came close, the game was over after the top of turn two). I did spend half of the night (and he's no noob, just a WAAC POWARGAYMERZ!) proving to him that his paradigm of finding (or imagining) an ambiguity in the rules, widening it, and then insisting on implementing the interpretation within that expanded gray area that is most advantageous to him, was simply not going to fly with me, because I'm not a noob, either.  Well, one of his mad claims just left me so flabbergasted that I didn't know how to respond.  Here it is:

 

It involves the multiple barrage of the wyvern.  Now, to review, the wyvern's main weapon is a pair of heavy 2 barrage weapons.  That's four small blast templates.  If you take a pair of them, eight, three of them, twelve small blasts targeting the same thing (unless you use a techpriest to split fire one).  Well, his interpretation was that because the rule for determining the number of hits after all the templates are laid doesn't explicitly say that a model covered by more than one template is hit more than once, it just says "count the number of models underneath," or something like that, without specifying a separate count for each template, to be added together afterwards, you basically get a single composite template out of it (in effect, making the wyvern's two heavy two barrage weapons a single heavy one barrage weapon with an oddly shaped blast)...except not quite.  According to his theory, if a given model is touched by two or more (three is feasible, barely) blast templates that are not overlapping one another, then that model suffers two hits.  So if you're shooting at a unit of three guardsmen, and you score a hit on the first one while clipping the other two, you could lay a second blast marker to score an additional hit on each of the fringe models, but only if you don't overlap the blast markers at all...and of course, the original target model, being entirely under the first marker, is immune from being hit more than once.  So...a squadron of three wyverns shooting twelve blasts at a solo 25mm model (say a last man standing from a troops choice holding an objective) would almost certainly only score a single hit, although exceptional luck with scatter might allow two or three hits. 

 

That convoluted re-invention of how multiple barrages work is based on the absence of "count each blast marker's hits separately, then add them up" verbiage in the multiple barrage rules.  The antidote to this poison is clear, though.  The first sentence of the barrage rules states that barrages follow rules for blast weapons, "with the following exceptions."  In other words, unless something in the barrage rules flatly contradicts the blast rules, the blast rules apply.  Failure to cut and paste is no contradiction.  And the blast rules, we all know, say to count the hits from each marker separately, then add them up.  

 

You guys might have examples of rules shenanigans that had more potential for harm (I think his cheating would have saved him 3-4 models over the course of the game?), but I defy you to produce an example as bat-poop-crazy as this one...

[scatmandoo]

All I can say is wow. That is the most cheesy cheating ever. I cannot even come close with any examples.

 

The best I have is hiding my hellhound with chimera next to it hiding behind a hill knowing it is night fighting.

To then have a predator autocannon out of range, still 'shoot' it to get the searchlight targeted on the hellhound, and then shoot a conversion beamer onto the hellhound, scatter slightly over the chimera, and then blow both up with S10 and AP1, killing 10 on my vets and effectively crippling my force. Fun!

 

I didn't even know you could use the searchlight if you weren't in range in the first place!

 

Do you have any other from this guy?

[MisterDutch]

I must say that... I dont really get the barrage story at all, or what was actually wrong (or right? i dunno) about the interpretation

[Prot]

I know the way we play it is if you get a bullseye after the original template is dropped, it may entirely overlap the first template, duplicating the hit count. But other than that I guess I'm too thick to truly understand what happened in your game. 

[Grand Master Belial]

I think power gamer was trying to use the blast template to get actual hits so the poor dude in between gets hit twice. Then in the reverse case, five bolters can only see one guy and then only actual hits would only go on the one guy instead of being spread amongst the unit.

 

Or I just confused myself and since I've been around since 2nd Edition, I can't keep straight what rules are active.

 

I still get players that tourney move their units. By way of using the ruler one model (and even that is suspect) and then moving the rest of the squad models around him. Typically, in the midst of this movement, a special weapon may be switched around or some models would exceed their 6" limit as they went around terrain. I call it a tourney move because it is meant to expedite the movement phase and get to the fun of shooting.

[Idlem]

...my head hurt after reading his logic.

 

So basically, he was saying that any model that was already under a previous template would only count as a single wound if the current template overlapped the previous one. That the only way to put multiple wounds on a barraged target would be for the target to be under two separate blast marker edges.

 

Good gravy, I'm thankful the worst I've ever had was the fudging of vehicle movement.

[march10k]

All I can say is wow. That is the most cheesy cheating ever. I cannot even come close with any examples.

 

The best I have is hiding my hellhound with chimera next to it hiding behind a hill knowing it is night fighting.

To then have a predator autocannon out of range, still 'shoot' it to get the searchlight targeted on the hellhound, and then shoot a conversion beamer onto the hellhound, scatter slightly over the chimera, and then blow both up with S10 and AP1, killing 10 on my vets and effectively crippling my force. Fun!

 

I didn't even know you could use the searchlight if you weren't in range in the first place!

 

Do you have any other from this guy?

 

Gods, yes!  I spent the entire night arguing with him.  Let's see...two more.  He insisted that beast movement (ignoring difficult terrain) meant that he didn't have to spend any inches to climb things (in essence treating a rooftop as being at street level), his understanding being that it was the terrain being ignored, not the negative consequences of it being classified as "difficult" (i.e. rolling dice for movement, -2" charge range, etc).  He didn't want to pay the inches to get on top of my skyshield, and once I beat that back, he balked at paying the inches to climb on top of a wrecked vehicle, and only wanted to pay the difference between the vehicle roof and the skyshield deck (stealing only 2" instead of the original 4-5").  I fired a pieplate underneath the skyshield, and he wanted a 3+ cover save "for an intervening fortification."  When I proved that it was terrain, not a building or anything, he still wanted a 4+, because by his calculation most cover saves are 4+, and there was no specified cover save associated with the skyshield.  I wouldn't have given him any save, except that a couple of his bases were marginally obscured by one of the pillars holding the skyshield up.  The BRB of course says that if a cover save isn't specified (as in, 4+ for ADLs, 6+ for craters, etc), it defaults to 5+.  So I gave him a 5+.

 

I know the way we play it is if you get a bullseye after the original template is dropped, it may entirely overlap the first template, duplicating the hit count. But other than that I guess I'm too thick to truly understand what happened in your game. 

 

No worries, it took me about ten minutes to even figure out what he was trying to say.  Idem summarizes it far better than I did:

 

...my head hurt after reading his logic.

 

So basically, he was saying that any model that was already under a previous template would only count as a single wound if the current template overlapped the previous one. That the only way to put multiple wounds on a barraged target would be for the target to be under two separate blast marker edges.

 

Good gravy, I'm thankful the worst I've ever had was the fudging of vehicle movement.

 

Eldar players are the worst when it comes to movement fudging (with their skimmers), which is crazy, since they get more legal movement than anyone!

[Prot]

okay I think I get it. You were the Astra player and he acted like once one of his characters was wounded by a template, it couldn't be wounded a second time by the same series of barrage templates...?

 

That's crazy if I understand, however if you are in a group I'd call over someone else and have them reason with him... To me a similar analogy would be a squad with 3 flamers... saying each model could only be wounded once by the total templates... it's absurd (providing I understand you.) I mean even trying to understand on pure logic, what would be the purpose of a barrage if it worked that way? It would be useless.

[march10k]

To me a similar analogy would be a squad with 3 flamers... 

Precisely...he had an insane sort of logic behind his argument, but then contradicted himself.  If the rules for barrage weapons didn't start out with "unless contradicted here, blast rules are in effect," then the ambiguity that he was inventing would be real.  It wouldn't make him right, but it'd give him room to argue.  See, within the barrage rules, it never specifies one way or the other whether you count up the hits from each blast template separately, and then add them up, or whether you simply count the number of models hit vs not hit by the attack overall.  Naturally, the first counting technique is specified in the blast rules and not superseded by anything in the barrage rules.  

 

The most bizarre part is that he then, having established a logical argument, throws it out the window by saying that if two blasts templates hit the same model without overlapping one another, then the model suffers two hits.  Up to that point, the only thing wrong with his argument was that he was totally ignoring the sentence incorporating the rules governing blast weapons.  But by contradicting himself, he went off to crazy land and at that point I was sure he was cheating, not merely misguided.

[WarriorFish]

I had to read that twice to understand what the hell he was talking about :P I think you definitely win with this guy, or rather win this topic - I think overall you may have lost because this guy sounds like a lot of work and no joy to play against!

 

I can't remember many rule twistings,as my usual gaming circle has long been free of rule lawyers (thank the Emperor) but I'll never forget an Eldars player we used to have who would do all sorts of nonsense. Giving Exarchs two powers, quibbling over the tiniest of details not to mention plenty of movement shenanigans if he thought you weren't looking :lol:

[CyderPirate]

For me its usually just the mysterious transforming terrain. You know, when cover saves vary depending on whose turn it is/whose model is doing the shooting. "I can see a tip of that banner pole, so you're not getting a cover save" to "No, a bit of his boot is behind this rock - if you look at it from THIS angle - so I'm getting a 4+."

 

Hands up, though, I tend to try and interpret rules in my favour, clutching at straws when I'm losing. I don't do it deliberately, its just under pressure my already poor understanding of the rules gets worse. And a lot more biased. (My hopes are usually dashed by a quick look at the rulebook/codex, though).

[WarriorFish]

At least you recognise it, that means you can take steps to fix it :) Learning the rules is a good idea as it helps speed up games too. I always try to be fair and give people the benefit of the doubt, save the disagreement for when it is really necessary. Makes games less hassle and hopefully because you object less often people will take more notice when you do.

[Jolemai]

In the second edition I once thought that my Hunter Killer Missile had a blast marker. My opponent had never played with Dark Millenium and neither of us had the rules to hand so we just went with it and I took out an entire Devastator squad with it... I still feel bad when I remember it.

[Cod]

^Hmm but that was a genuine mistake wasn't it

Not like the sounds of the OP's game.

Sounds like 'that guys' rules interpretations were aimed at improving his own side and diminishing yours. Which in real simple terms is what cheats try and do, to win.

Was he a friend or new acquaintance? Was it in a store? If that guy doesn't change, just dont play him again. Must be better people to play

I had a game once where this guy had stuck small pieces of terrain on his bases. Like a little wall section or sand bag, or traffic sign etc. I thought they looked ok and made for a themed army, until... during the game he tells me he's getting cover saves from them. What? But that squad is in the open. No they're not, they are taking the terrain with them. Mobile terrain he called it. Because it was glued on their base! Oh and it stacked with other actual terrain when they hid behind that too! Crazy! Needless to say I never played that guy again.

[CyderPirate]

At least you recognise it, that means you can take steps to fix it Learning the rules is a good idea as it helps speed up games too. I always try to be fair and give people the benefit of the doubt, save the disagreement for when it is really necessary. Makes games less hassle and hopefully because you object less often people will take more notice when you do.

Yeah, getting better at not doing it now. If I'm playing against someone with their own creative interpretations of the rules, or the local chesse-meister it tends to get worse though.

I had a game once where this guy had stuck small pieces of terrain on his bases. Like a little wall section or sand bag, or traffic sign etc. I thought they looked ok and made for a themed army, until... during the game he tells me he's getting cover saves from them. What? But that squad is in the open. No they're not, they are taking the terrain with them. Mobile terrain he called it. Because it was glued on their base! Oh and it stacked with other actual terrain when they hid behind that too! Crazy! Needless to say I never played that guy again.

I'm pretty sure there's even a section in the rulebook on this exact thing, and how ridiculous it is. Shame, cos sounds like a cool-looking army.

[march10k]

 I think overall you may have lost because this guy sounds like a lot of work and no joy to play against!

 

Sadly, you have the right of it.  Actually, win or lose, it's no fun against cheaters...

 

Although there was this one time...I had the game well in hand, and had just managed to shoot a squad of carnifexes (when did they become non-synapse and start coming in squads?!?) out of synapse, and my opponent just couldn't handle it.  I measured after he (fudging a bit, naturally) moved the nearest synapse node directly towards them.  Still 19.5" away...and the carnies only have a 6" move.  He's going to be 1.5" out of synapse (would have been more like 3+" if he hadn't been so generous with the synapse creature's move, but that's what tipped me off in the first place!), no doubt about it, since he's only got a 6" move and synapse is 12".  Simple math, right?  "yeah, yeah, whatever," he blows me off, moves his models, amazingly, he's managed to re-establish synapse.  I had been taking it easy on him to that point, but after that I took a vicious pleasure in pounding him into the mud.  The punk found a different store to play at.

[WarriorFish]

Indeed, I think there's always a line where someone is beyond "rehabilitation" and you can refuse to play them. It's up to you to decide where that line is.

 

I've always been fond of that old chestnut. There's a unique kind of pleasure to be had in explaining that it's impossible for his model to have done X because you measured the distance in your previous turn for something so knew what the measurement was and it was bigger than the legal X move for his model :lol: