Which core rules do you struggle with most while playing?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Just wondering what rules everyone struggles to remember while playing, or struggled the most to learn/remember.

[Wormwoods]

Anything related to spending CP, hate that stuff. Keep my rules on the models, pls. Glad 10th has less of it.

 

For now.

[Karhedron]

Anything where too many special rules are stacked. Faction rules, detachment bonuses, weapon rules and then special rules for the unit too. Last time I played Knights, I completely forgot my Errant's Aggressive Assault rule. 

 

Quote

Aggressive Assault: Each time this model makes a ranged attack against the closest eligible target, add 1 to the Hit roll.

 

[DemonGSides]

Battleshock, tbh. For something that the game obviously wants to be important, it's easy to forget and ultimately does very little. 

[FashaTheDog]

As for what I forget the most, it sounds silly, but I cannot remember.  I keep forgetting loads of things, or worse, I confuse 30K rules.  I thought I failed a battleshock test when I rolled a 7 and got excited about how my Dark Angels were now getting bonuses only to have my foe tell me I am playing 40K not 30K.  He plays both as well so he found it amusing how much I get confused.  Having only used my Deathwing this edition helps as the list is fairly homogenized with 43 Terminators, characters included.  When I start using other armies with more than just Terminators, or shock, no Terminators at all, I will really be adrift in a sea of forgotten rules.

[Helias_Tancred]

On 11/15/2023 at 7:50 AM, Karhedron said:

Anything where too many special rules are stacked. Faction rules, detachment bonuses, weapon rules and then special rules for the unit too. Last time I played Knights, I completely forgot my Errant's Aggressive Assault rule. 

 

 

 

Yeah its like when you run into that sort of situation where tons of things are stacking you have t slow it way down and go carefully to make sure you don't miss anything.

 

[TheArtilleryman]

At the moment, I forget everything!

 

20 years ago I would have had every single rule in my head at once and memorised every stat for both my army and my opponent’s. These days it feels like the editions and with them half the game mechanics change every five minutes. It’s probably not as often as I think, but more to do with the fact I’m older, with more responsibilities and less time to do the hobby than I used to.
 

Now I literally have to sit with the rule book and the index and switch back and forth the whole game to make sure I’m remembering everything, which takes forever … for some reason the rule I forget the most is stealth, either on Phobos marines or on my Ghostkeel.

[jaxom]

6 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

20 years ago I would have had every single rule in my head at once and memorised every stat for both my army and my opponent’s. These days it feels like the editions and with them half the game mechanics change every five minutes. It’s probably not as often as I think, but more to do with the fact I’m older, with more responsibilities and less time to do the hobby than I used to.

Yeah, around 2010 the RPG industry was going through something similar. The customer base was getting older and it turns out there's a tipping point where people go from heavily preferring crunchy rules, with a lot of systems and interactions between them, to simpler rule sets. FATE and PbtA got real popular.

[TheArtilleryman]

48 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Yeah, around 2010 the RPG industry was going through something similar. The customer base was getting older and it turns out there's a tipping point where people go from heavily preferring crunchy rules, with a lot of systems and interactions between them, to simpler rule sets. FATE and PbtA got real popular.

It’s not that I mind complex… I mean 2nd edition was my starting point and that wasn’t exactly simple. What I find harder is that lots of rules change subtly.
 

For example, from deep strike you can now charge in the same turn. You can now disembark from a moving transport and charge in the same turn (again). Your psychic powers are spread out all over the shop instead of in one phase. You have all sorts of things to do in the command phase, like battle shock, which always used to be something you did at the end of the turn. And every edition these kinds of things change. Again.

 

I spent ages looking for the rules for flyers being hard to hit in this edition, and frustratingly after about 30 minutes realised they aren’t there anymore and you can hit a supersonic flyer with a mortar (which used to be a guess-range weapon) just as easily as you can a static bunker. Some rules just don’t make sense anymore lol

Edited November 19, 2023 by TheArtilleryman

[FashaTheDog]

16 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

At the moment, I forget everything!

 

20 years ago I would have had every single rule in my head at once and memorised every stat for both my army and my opponent’s. These days it feels like the editions and with them half the game mechanics change every five minutes. It’s probably not as often as I think, but more to do with the fact I’m older, with more responsibilities and less time to do the hobby than I used to.
 

Now I literally have to sit with the rule book and the index and switch back and forth the whole game to make sure I’m remembering everything, which takes forever … for some reason the rule I forget the most is stealth, either on Phobos marines or on my Ghostkeel.

Part of it is that GW used to have a much slower release and update cycle so you are not wrong that things change far faster.  You had time to learn and set to memory rules and unit stats.

[Marshal Mittens]

Honestly there is just too many rules at this point. I want to be able to look at a datasheet, and know what a unit does, not have to look at 6 different pages to see all the various buffs and debuffs it has.

[TheArtilleryman]

7 hours ago, Marshal Mittens said:

Honestly there is just too many rules at this point. I want to be able to look at a datasheet, and know what a unit does, not have to look at 6 different pages to see all the various buffs and debuffs it has.

See this was exactly the aim of the new edition. We were meant to be able to do this because we were meant to memorise things like lethal hits, devastating wounds and the army rules etc. I imagine this will happen in time but until then we are switching pages frequently. This is even harder with digital publications as it’s much slower to go back and forth between documents than it is to just flick to the right rulebook page.

 

I’m probably showing my age but I still struggle with guardsman being able to hit a Daemon Prince in close combat as easily as they might hit a Nurgling. I know that change was a few editions ago but it still feels weird.

Edited November 20, 2023 by TheArtilleryman

[apologist]

18 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

[...]lots of rules change subtly.
 

For example, from deep strike you can now charge in the same turn. You can now disembark from a moving transport and charge in the same turn (again). Your psychic powers are spread out all over the shop instead of in one phase. You have all sorts of things to do in the command phase, like battle shock, which always used to be something you did at the end of the turn. And every edition these kinds of things change. Again.

 

I spent ages looking for the rules for flyers being hard to hit in this edition, and frustratingly after about 30 minutes realised they aren’t there anymore and you can hit a supersonic flyer with a mortar (which used to be a guess-range weapon) just as easily as you can a static bunker. Some rules just don’t make sense anymore lol

 

Yes, this is very much the experience of my gaming group, too. Beyond the layers of superseded rules, I think the broader problem for people who've played older editions is that things have gradually got more and more abstract, so it's harder to apply common sense. The 'simulation versus game' balance has always been a tricky one, and 40k has gradually moved more and more towards the latter. I don't think that's a problem per se – but the balance is clearly key to different people's enjoyment: just look at the reaction to the removal of vehicle facings for an example.

 

In fact, vehicles are a great example. 2nd editions' turning templates, targeting girds and individual damage tables were all introduced as a refinement of Rogue Trader, with the intention of providing a better simulation. Subsequent editions have gradually stripped away layer after layer of both complication and nuance with the presumed aim of making a larger-scale, faster game – 10th's treatment of tanks is the purest example of game over simulation, as they're all but identical to any other model.

 

The gamifying of 40k is great in terms of quick comprehension and speed, but stripping out the simulation means it's harder to fall back on applying real life explanations when adapting to the inevitable mental gymnastics of a messy tabletop wargame. 

[Xenith]

On 11/15/2023 at 1:13 AM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Just wondering what rules everyone struggles to remember while playing, or struggled the most to learn/remember.

 

Any 'active' rules on the unit's datasheet. Tyrannofex reduce D to 0, termagant scuttlers etc. The passive things like STEALTH, LONE OPERATIVE, etc are fine. just the things I have to remember to turn on and off are bad. 

 

20 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

For example, from deep strike you can now charge in the same turn. (you could do this from 8th ed onwards)

 

You can now disembark from a moving transport and charge in the same turn (again) (unless I'm missing something, you cannot do this in 10th unless you have a special rule).

 

Your psychic powers are spread out all over the shop instead of in one phase (psy powers are generally active ones used in the shooting phase, or passive ones that act as auras)

 

Just a few observations. You have to think of 10th as a new game entirely, enough has changed. 

[TheArtilleryman]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

Just a few observations. You have to think of 10th as a new game entirely, enough has changed. 

See, this is exactly what I mean! Things change back and forth so many times it’s hard to keep track.
 

You’re right about the rule for charging with disembarking units. This is a result of the other issue I have with GW’s rule writing recently. The rules are worded in this really odd fashion that makes you have to read them several times to decipher them. My son and I read this as “such a unit can declare a charge” when in fact is says “cannot.” That’s my own fault for mis-reading the rule, but I find the language so hard to wade through in recent editions that it’s a lot less clear than it used to be. And as an ex-English teacher and Shakespearean actor I’m not someone who normally finds reading stuff difficult! 
 

For example: why do they have to say things like “Each time this model makes a ranged attack that targets an enemy model, improve the ballistic skill of that attack by 1.” Instead of just “+1 to hit (ranged)?” This is the kind of bonkers wording that makes no sense and makes the game harder to get into instead of easier for new players.

[apologist]

2 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

[...]the other issue I have with GW’s rule writing recently[:]. The rules are worded in this really odd fashion that makes you have to read them several times to decipher them.

 

Yeah, they're very tightly-worded, which means the rulebooks read like a legal text. I can only assume that's to 

 

I was looking back through the Epic Space Marine (1991) rulebook recently. Just compare the wording there (left) with that from the 40k 10th edition core rules:

 

   

 

The more modern one is definitely more rigorous, and this style is far better for squeezing out edge cases and avoiding arguments about intent; but the old conversational style is clearer and more readable – and I think that makes it inherently more memorable and easy to parse. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by apologist

[DemonGSides]

But then you've got Billy down at the club who will argue until closing time that such and such a situation ISNT covered by that language. The legalese comes in clutch there. 

[TheArtilleryman]

Tell you what other rule I find hard to clarify. If I take a hit for 3 damage and I have a 5+ FNP, do I roll once to save the whole hit, or do I roll 3 dice - one for each wound suffered? And does FNP work for mortal wounds? 

Edited November 20, 2023 by TheArtilleryman

[DemonGSides]

You roll a fnp for each point of damage. (exact wording is that you roll a die for each wound that would be lost, so that means per damage inflicted, not per attack allocated)

 

Mortal Wounds stop all armor saves. A FNP is not an armor save, it's a wound mitigation, which does work against mortal wounds (as do other mitigation techniques).

Edited November 20, 2023 by DemonGSides

[tzeentch9]

15 hours ago, apologist said:

 

Yeah, they're very tightly-worded, which means the rulebooks read like a legal text. I can only assume that's to 

 

I was looking back through the Epic Space Marine (1991) rulebook recently. Just compare the wording there (left) with that from the 40k 10th edition core rules:

 

   

 

The more modern one is definitely more rigorous, and this style is far better for squeezing out edge cases and avoiding arguments about intent; but the old conversational style is clearer and more readable – and I think that makes it inherently more memorable and easy to parse. 

See I find the newer one easier to parse, the older version is too vague

[Karhedron]

16 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Tell you what other rule I find hard to clarify. If I take a hit for 3 damage and I have a 5+ FNP, do I roll once to save the whole hit, or do I roll 3 dice - one for each wound suffered? And does FNP work for mortal wounds? 

 

FNP works per Wound suffered, rather than per hit. Yes, it does work against Mortal Wounds.

 

[Xenith]

2 hours ago, tzeentch9 said:

See I find the newer one easier to parse, the older version is too vague

 

I think the difference is that the old style was for casual "we know what you mean" gamers that might have played such games before, while the new version is tightly written to stave off the inevitable FAQ's from WAAC players trying to eke out any advantage possible. 

 

The downside is that the rules are very wordy, and can put people off. Maybe start with the boxouts then go back and read the full thing if it's unclear?

21 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

FNP works per Wound suffered, rather than per hit. Yes, it does work against Mortal Wounds.

 

 

Heh, is it not per 'damage' inflicted, as opposed to wound suffered (which could be conflated with a successful to wound roll?)

 

Edit: Even the boxout says something different. They maybe need another definitions box:

A to hit roll causes a successful hit.

A to wound roll causes a successful wound. 

A failed armour save results in damage

Damage results in suffering a loss of wounds to your profile (<- this is where FNP kicks in).

Edited November 21, 2023 by Xenith

[TheMarsian]

Terrain and benefit of cover

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, TheMarsian said:

Terrain and benefit of cover

Basically all terrain gives benefit of cover. Nothing more really NEEDS to be thought about it. Just said that if you're within an inch of terrain and it's between you and the shooter, you've got cover.

 

It's a weird edition for terrain rules compared to old ones but I dont hate them. I don't love them either. 

[TheArtilleryman]

4 hours ago, Xenith said:

Heh, is it not per 'damage' inflicted, as opposed to wound suffered (which could be conflated with a successful to wound roll?)

 

This is exactly the confusion that I had with it. The issue is that the term “wound” has two different meanings. Firstly the roll to wound and secondly the loss of wounds. 
 

FNP should read something like: “If a model fails a armour save, roll a D6 for each point of damage a model would suffer as a result of the attack. For every roll of an x+, that point of damage is not suffered.” 
 

Alternatively, jest change “roll to wound” to “roll to damage,” change the damage characteristic to wounds characteristic and keep the existing wording.

Edited November 21, 2023 by TheArtilleryman