History Main / ThatOneRule

Differs from LoadsAndLoadsOfRules in that this is a localized case of the problem. See also GrapplingWithGrapplingRules, an example from tabletop {{RPG}}s. Not to be confused with ScrappyMechanic, which is not about a game rule or mechanic being complex or confusing, but about it being outright hated. Note that a rule can be both.

*** In Stephen Baxter's ''Time's Sphere'', British soldiers from colonial-era India try to explain cricket to the army of Alexander the Great. They manage to get most of it across with gestures and broken Greek. They give up trying to explain Leg Before Wicket.

* Summoning conditions in ''[=~Yu-Gi-Oh!~=]'' in regards to reviving monsters. If a monster's effect says it can only be special summoned one way, can it be special summoned from the graveyard after being special summoned through that method? For some cards (Dark Necrofear, ritual monsters, most fusion monsters), yes. For others (Armed Dragon LVs 7 and 10, Rainbow Dragon, most Elemental Hero fusions), no.

** To be fair, some cards do specifically say on the text that they can only be special summoned and only through a specific method, but there are always players who interpret it differently. Usually the debate isn't resolved until someone pulls up an official ruling from the website.
*** The rule of thumb is this: If the card's text reads "can only be Special Summoned by", then yes. If it reads "cannot be Special Summoned EXCEPT by", then no.
*** The cards that say "can only be Special Summoned by" fall into the [[RulesLawyer logical trap]] of not excluding the possibility of Normal Summons. The insertion of a comma between "Summoned" and "by" would [[GrammarNazi correct this mistake]]. There are, however, some cards that specifically say that they cannot be Normal Summoned.
** The fine print on spell/trap/effect monster cards can also lead to some unusual circumstances and headaches. Legendary Fisherman on the Field while "Umi" is active? If no other monsters are on the field, opponent can attack your life points directly. Trap Card negating the effects of all monsters on the field? Monsters can still be special-summoned by their own effect, ignoring any change to ATK and DEF as a result. Both of these are official rulings.
*** Also, flip effects of monsters ONLY activate after damage calculation. A face-down defense-position monster that is attacked is NOT flip-summoned, it is merely "flipped". A handful of cards have the exact text "When this card is '''''flip summoned'''''..."

----
<<|TabletopGames|>>
<<|SubjectiveTropes|>>

*** The cards that say "can only be Special Summoned by" fall into the [[RulesLawyer logical trap]] of not excluding the possibility of Normal Summons. The insertion of a comma between "Summoned" and "by" would [[GrammarNazi correct this mistake]].

** This troper always thought that it was a punctuation mistake; the cards should read "This monster cannot be normal summoned, it can only be special summoned. By (insert summoning method here) special summon this monster in face up atk/def/whatever position."

*** No, that's SeriousBuisness resulting in book by respected sportscasters called "DEATH TO THE BCS!"

** This troper always thought that it was a punctuation mistake; the cards should read "This monster cannot be normal summoned, it can only be special summoned, by ..."

* Summoning conditions in YuGiOh in regards to reviving monsters. If a monster's effect says it can only be special summoned one way, can it be special summoned from the graveyard after being special summoned through that method? For some cards (Dark Necrofear, ritual monsters, most fusion monsters), yes. For others (Armed Dragon LVs 7 and 10, Rainbow Dragon, most Elemental Hero fusions), no.

<<|Repair Shop Notification:r1pi73ffnjetz7palnhyd45i|>>

* Some of the mechanics of MagicTheGathering can be, in and of themselves, the very epitome of this trope.
** Banding seems to be, if not the most egregious offender, then at least the first really bad one.
*** Banding is actually easier than most other examples here from ''Magic''. The only really complicated thing about it is that it works differently on offense and defense. (Banding explained: When attacking, any number of creatures with banding, and up to one without, can form a band. If they do, they can be blocked as if they were one creature, and if any can be blocked then they all can be. When defending, if any creatures with banding you control are blocking a creature, you choose how to divide that attacking creature's combat damage rather than the attacking creature's controller.) Banding is so hated because the other examples on this page are interactions between rare cards designed to have one-of-a-kind game-changing effects while banding was very common when the game was new. 49 cards have been printed that have something to do with banding, and a lot of those give it to creatures that don't normally have it which might have god knows what other abilities as well. The other ThatOneRule problems with ''Magic'' come up very, very rarely, but when the game was new banding appeared in almost every game with creatures.
**** Another problem is remembering that banded creatures don't share abilities. If I band Timber Wolves (1/1, first strike) to Benalish Hero (1/1, banding), the Wolves do 1 damage, ''then'' the Hero does. This is mostly relevant when dealing with multiple creatures, a 1/X or higher, where X > the total attack of the first strikers, a first-striking enemy, or where my first striker has trample. Also, if you have landwalk, flying, or shadow in your band, it doesn't matter unless every single creature in the band has it. Except shadow, which now lets creatures with or without shadow block you if you have both. And flying if it comes with the disability that it can't block creatures without flying. Then there's the confusion of bands with other, the original ScrappyMechanic of ''Magic''.

*** Surprisingly, almost all of these cases can be handled if you keep a few simple guidelines in mind: 1) What the card says goes. 2) "Can't" beats "can". 3) The player whose turn it is chooses first (known as Active Player/Non-Active Player order) 4) All other things equal, the most recent effect applies last. Exactly ''what'' these guidelines mean is highly context dependant. For example, guideline 3 generally means that the other player gets more complete information, but when replacement effects are applied, getting to choose first means you can change the effect so your opponent's effect doesn't apply.

*** This troper once infuriated a judge by asking what the interaction would be if [[http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Blood_Moon Blood Moon]] (or, even better, [[http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Magus_of_the_Moon Magus of the Moon]]), [[http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=4881 Humility]], and an [[http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Urborg,_Tomb_of_Yawgmoth Urborg]] that's turned into a creature were all on the battlefield at once. Hint: If you think you know the answer, you don't.
**** This isn't absolutely horrible, assuming that the timestamps (the in-game time that cards came into play or effects were generated, relative to one another) of the effects are clear. You can puzzle out dependency from there and figure out the actual game state. The only complicating factor here is Humility. Generally, if you can think of a rules question, it can be made more difficult by at least one order of magnitude by including Humility in the game state. (As a prospective level 1 judge, that card is the bane of my existence.)

** En Passant is actually pretty easy. If the enemy pawn moves two spaces to be right next to your pawn (in other words, if that pawn hadn't moved yet), then you can move your pawn behind that pawn and capture it. The basic idea is that the two space move is considered "charging" or moving quickly without paying attention to your flanks, allowing an enemy in a good position to kill you "in passing" (which is the translation for En Passant). It's designed to prevent a player from denying an opponent a capture by virtue of a one time special move.

Differs from LoadsAndLoadsOfRules in that this is a localized case of the problem. See also GrapplingWithGrapplingRules, an example from tabletop {{RPG}}s. Not to be confused with ScrappyMechanic.

Whether these rules are caused by an ObviousRulePatch or just a bad design decision, most players[[hottip:*:or fans, in the case of sports]] learning the game ''will'' wind up confused by this rule; particularly spectacular examples will confuse (and be hated by) advanced players.

**** Another problem is remembering that banded creatures don't share abilities. If I band Timber Wolves (1/1, first strike) to Benalish Hero (1/1, banding), the Wolves do 1 damage, ''then'' the Hero does. This is smostly relevant when dealing with multiple creatures, a 1/X or higher, where X > the total attack of the first strikers, a first-striking enemy, or where my first striker has trample. Also, if you have landwalk, flying, or shadow in your band, it doesn't matter unless every single creature in the band has it. Except shadow, which now lets creatures with or without shadow block you if you have both. And flying if it comes with the disability that it can't block creatures without flying. Then there's the confusion of bands with other, the original ScrappyMechanic of ''Magic''.

** Cricket is one neverending ThatOneRule.
*** The LBW (Leg Before Wicket) rule is well-known for being one of those cases where the judgement call is generally in favour of whichever cricketer is the best boxer.

** Much as with the offside rule below, the infield fly rule is simpler than its reputation -- an infielder can't deliberately let a fly ball drop in order to get an easy double play by picking off runners who would otherwise be forced to advance. If there are less than two outs and runners are at first and second, or the bases are loaded; and a batter hits a pop fly the umpire feels could be easily caught, then the batter-runner is called out and the force is negated, putting the other runners out of jeopardy.
*** Um... kay?

<<|Repair Shop Notification:r1pi73ffnjetz7palnhyd45i|>>->''Proponents (of the Duckworth-Lewis method) assured us that this was the fairest way of determining the outcome of rain-affected matches. Fans without calculators and computer printouts were not so sure.''

->''Proponents (of the Duckworth-Lewis method) assured us that this was the fairest way of determining the outcome of rain-affected matches. Fans without calculators and computer printouts were not so sure.''