...it's like TV Tropes, but LINKED DATA!

That One Rule

190 statements
33 feature instances
6 referencing feature instances

That One Rule	type	FeatureClass
That One Rule	label	That One Rule
That One Rule	page	ThatOneRule
That One Rule	comment	Games require rules. Even Calvinball has a few (You can't play it the same way twice, you must wear a mask, and you are not allowed to question the masks). Most of the rules are simple, especially in simple games, like tag. But then, there's That One Rule. It's the one exception, it's complicated, it can get most people arguing over how long players can stay on base without getting tagged. Whether these rules are caused by an Obvious Rule Patch or just a bad design decision, most players (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. The point here is that this is a case where most of the rules are very easy to understand except for a rule, or a few rules, that are glaringly complicated. Differs from Loads and Loads of Rules in that this is a localized case of the problem. See also Grappling with Grappling Rules, an example from tabletop RPGs. Not to be confused with Scrappy Mechanic, which is not about a game rule or mechanic being complex or confusing, but about it being outright hated - a rule can be both overly-complicated and hated.
That One Rule	fetched	2024-04-06T22:16:59Z
That One Rule	parsed	2024-04-06T22:16:59Z
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to BrokenBase: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to ExactWords: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to GrapplingWithGrapplingRules: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to HandWave: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to LoadsAndLoadsOfRules: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to LuckBasedMission: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to MoneyDearBoy: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to NecessaryWeasel: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to ObviousRulePatch: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to PoorCommunicationKills: Not an Item - CAT
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to PrisonersDilemma: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to RuleZero: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to SFDebris: Not an Item - CAT
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to TapOnTheHead: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to TheEighties: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to TotalPartyKill: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to TournamentPlay: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	processingComment	Dropped link to WordOfGod: Not an Item - FEATURE
That One Rule	isPartOf	DBTropes
That One Rule / int_2ade1ae9	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_2ade1ae9	comment	The 3rd edition of Nobilis introduced a system for resolving non-miraculous actions by mortals that is a bit confusing because it focuses not on immediate success or failure but the effect that taking such an action has on your life. (e.g. Achieving long-running goals, impressing people, making your life better, doing "the right thing" etc.) Handling task resolution at this level is hard to wrap your head around, but it's mitigated by the fact that most mortals don't have the "oomph" to regularly get really high on the scale. Normally. However, Nobles can do so trivially with Aspect miracles, and the "Shine" trait gives an extra push up the chart for mortals doing something a Noble tells them to do.
That One Rule / int_2ade1ae9	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_2ade1ae9	featureConfidence	1.0
Nobilis (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_2ade1ae9
That One Rule / int_303eced	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_303eced	comment	The board game of Go has extremely simple rules... Except for the "ko rule" which is designed to prevent repeating positions. In the simplest form, it just disallows one specific position which is sufficient for 99.9% of all games. The Ing Ko Rule resolves the other .1%, at the expense of pages and pages of explication. Endgame scoring under the Japanese rule set can also be problematic in certain situations, because if a group is dead in the endgame, the killer doesn't have to capture it. Sometimes, however, whether a position is dead or not is in dispute, because the position is not truly alive with two eyes, but the attacker could not capture it even in the endgame. The most common situation where this would happen is with a shape called a "bent four in the corner," which can only be captured through a ko fight, which is a bit unpredictable, and resolving ko in the endgame is a source of major rules disputes.
That One Rule / int_303eced	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_303eced	featureConfidence	1.0
Go (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_303eced
That One Rule / int_4110f1d0	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_4110f1d0	comment	Baten Kaitos had the Turn Timer. As you class up in the game (meaning you could hold more cards in your hand) a timer was introduced where if you didn't complete your turn in time, you'd forfeit it. It starts at 30 seconds but by end game you have only seven seconds to look at your cards and decide on a move. Unsurprisingly this was replaced with a better system in the sequel.
That One Rule / int_4110f1d0	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_4110f1d0	featureConfidence	1.0
Baten Kaitos (Video Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_4110f1d0
That One Rule / int_49a88442	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_49a88442	comment	This is extended into Final Fantasy XIV, which brings the Plus and Same rules over wholesale in its recreation of said card minigame. Due to lacking any particularly good explanation or visualization of said rule, it's mostly considered the same way it is in FF8 - a way for the computer to pull off wins from nowhere.
That One Rule / int_49a88442	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_49a88442	featureConfidence	1.0
Final Fantasy XIV (Video Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_49a88442
That One Rule / int_49ad83ee	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_49ad83ee	comment	In World of Warcraft the armor penetration stat ended up so confusing and defining some classes to such a degree that in the Cataclysm expansion, it was removed from the game entirely. Armor penetration was of course distinct from but interacted with abilities that reduce enemy armor, abilities that bypass enemy armor, and amount of enemy armor. And you needed to calculate all this to know with what gear and on which fight armor penetration became better than attack power (though by the end of the expansion it became stack armor penetration, always).
That One Rule / int_49ad83ee	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_49ad83ee	featureConfidence	1.0
World of Warcraft (Video Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_49ad83ee
That One Rule / int_4c44acb7	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_4c44acb7	comment	The inability of anyone to explain the offside rule is parodied in The Little Book of Mornington Crescent. The explanation of Mornington Crescent's offside rule is half a page of dense, jargon-filled gobbledegook. Which concludes "This should not be confused with the offside rule".
That One Rule / int_4c44acb7	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_4c44acb7	featureConfidence	1.0
I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue (Radio)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_4c44acb7
That One Rule / int_5633638b	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_5633638b	comment	Starting in the 1993 season of Nickelodeon GUTS, contestants started their Aggro Crag ascent at Boulder Canyon. The players climbed to the top of the first boulder and then jumped off the descending rocks until they hit the first actuator at the base of the mountain. After two seasons of contestants haphazardly navigating the obstacle, a rule change was added when the mountain became the Super Aggro Crag on Global GUTS. Contestants who did not touch every boulder, even the final one which was only a few inches high, were penalized with an automatic third place finish. This unsurprisingly led to multiple instances where a contestant who had a lead going into the Super Aggro Crag and reached the top first lost the gold medal to an opponent after getting disqualified. On one episode, two contestants got automatic thirds for disobeying the rule, and the third player won the gold despite reaching the top last.
That One Rule / int_5633638b	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_5633638b	featureConfidence	1.0
Nickelodeon GUTS	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_5633638b
That One Rule / int_5a4f0e98	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_5a4f0e98	comment	Consort Longevity in Rex Factor. While Longevity is usually straightforward aside from the mathematics involved (measured from coronation till death, then plugged into the formula du jour), consorts frequently outlive their partners and, especially in the case of Queen Mothers, may be more politically active after the death of the monarch. This is handled by giving them half points for their time as Queen Mother. Of course, it's less straightforward then it sounds. What if there are multiple children, or there's a stepmother situation? Or what if she's the de facto ruler for a period of time?
That One Rule / int_5a4f0e98	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_5a4f0e98	featureConfidence	1.0
Rex Factor (Podcast)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_5a4f0e98
That One Rule / int_68237790	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_68237790	comment	In third edition DnD, (and, by extension Pathfinder) most DMs just have monsters and NPCs die when they reach 0 hp or lower rather than tracking their hp (the rules officially state that characters don't die till they reach -10 hp or the negative of whatever their constitution score is in Pathfinder), mainly because it is both a hassle and creates some moral quandaries, as killing an opponent who is already unconscious and bleeding to death doesn't seem very heroic. The big exception being monsters in Pathfinder with the Ferocity ability (which lets them remain conscious and keep fighting till they are reduced to negative con hp). Pathfinder second edition (which removes negative hp and just has a character fall unconscious and have to make saving throws to avoid dying) explicitly says that monsters and NPCs should just die when brought to 0 hp, unless it was due to a non-lethal attack. Fifth Edition doesn't have "nonlethal" damage as a rule at all. Instead, whoever deals the damage which reduces a creature to zero HP can simply declare they are knocking their target out rather than killing them. Of course, this is still subject to DM arbitration as to whether this is possible given the way the damage was dealt. It's certainly possible to knock somebody out with a Tap on the Head; knocking them out with a Fireball is a little more dicey.
That One Rule / int_68237790	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_68237790	featureConfidence	1.0
Pathfinder (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_68237790
That One Rule / int_68c8e9ad	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_68c8e9ad	comment	Early games in the Super Robot Wars franchise included a stat called "Limit". Intended as a nod to Mobile Suit Gundamnote where Amuro's growing Psychic Powers eventually make the Gundam unable to keep up with him, Limit would throttle a character's Accuracy and Evasion if they were too high for the machine they were using, forcing the player to spend extra upgrade money just to make machines perform as they're supposed to. Limit lasted all the way up to the original Super Robot Wars Alpha before quietly disappearing, with absolutely nobody mourning the loss.
That One Rule / int_68c8e9ad	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_68c8e9ad	featureConfidence	1.0
Super Robot Wars (Video Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_68c8e9ad
That One Rule / int_6ab79c14	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_6ab79c14	comment	Bend It Like Beckham: Jules' mother finally accepts her daughter's love of the sport and decides to learn how it's played. Her husband explains the offside rule to her over lunch using the various condiments as substitutes for the players.
That One Rule / int_6ab79c14	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_6ab79c14	featureConfidence	1.0
Bend It Like Beckham	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_6ab79c14
That One Rule / int_6ac55ec7	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_6ac55ec7	comment	Dungeons & Dragons: Before 4th edition, initiating a grappling attack was usually cause for your entire gaming group to throw large, heavy objects at you. There's a reason the trope is called Grappling with Grappling Rules. Even in later editions where it's been simplified, expect the DM to have to go look the rules up to actually resolve your attack. Subduing dragons in early editions required the GM to recalculate what percentage of the dragon's HP you had burned through with non-lethal damage and then make percentile rolls. Worse, it basically amounted to giving a rampaging, roaring engine of death a blanket party and hoping it decided to cry. Attacks of Opportunity/Opportunity Attacks started out like this in Third Edition, so each successive edition of the game has mostly scaled them back. The basic principle behind them was simple and understandable: In a game that uses turns for simplicity instead of real-time, there should be some kind of restriction against a character abusing the turn-based rules to simply bypass a whole group of defenders to take out a weaker target, steal an object, etc. The problems occurred with both confusing terminology and an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach as more situations were added to what could trigger an Opportunity Attack. The former described this as a situation where the trigger creature lowers their defenses, but a more accurate description would be a situation where the trigger creature lowers their counter-attack offense: i.e., you can take a free swing at them because you're not worried about leaving an opening for them to swing back at you. The latter issue combines with the first issue confusion to where using an action triggers an attack even though the condition where the action was made isn't changing regardless of the action. To explain, why does attempting to stand up from prone trigger a free attack but simply lying helplessly prone does not, or attacking someone without a melee weapon in hand (e.g., crossbow or punching) triggers an AoO but simply standing there unarmed doesn't? Fourth Edition reduced the circumstances to just attempting to move past a creature or use a ranged attack next to them, although oddly giving the defender supposedly unlimited attacks as long as it was against a new target, and Fifth Edition reduced this even further to just moving past the defending creature completely, as you can still circle around an opponent. No edition has brought up the concept of removing your ability to use AoO if other enemies are engaging you (e.g. if you have five creatures engaging you, how can you possibly get a free swing at a different one?), but most likely is due to the rules getting just too complex at that point. In third edition DnD, (and, by extension Pathfinder) most DMs just have monsters and NPCs die when they reach 0 hp or lower rather than tracking their hp (the rules officially state that characters don't die till they reach -10 hp or the negative of whatever their constitution score is in Pathfinder), mainly because it is both a hassle and creates some moral quandaries, as killing an opponent who is already unconscious and bleeding to death doesn't seem very heroic. The big exception being monsters in Pathfinder with the Ferocity ability (which lets them remain conscious and keep fighting till they are reduced to negative con hp). Pathfinder second edition (which removes negative hp and just has a character fall unconscious and have to make saving throws to avoid dying) explicitly says that monsters and NPCs should just die when brought to 0 hp, unless it was due to a non-lethal attack. Fifth Edition doesn't have "nonlethal" damage as a rule at all. Instead, whoever deals the damage which reduces a creature to zero HP can simply declare they are knocking their target out rather than killing them. Of course, this is still subject to DM arbitration as to whether this is possible given the way the damage was dealt. It's certainly possible to knock somebody out with a Tap on the Head; knocking them out with a Fireball is a little more dicey. In 5E, the Challenge Rating system is intended to help the DM balance encounters, but is infamous for how bad it is at doing so. The Challenge Rating/CR of a monster is designed to tell you how great a threat the monster is by saying that four adventurers of the monster's CR should have a difficult but winnable fight. For example, if a monster's CR is 3, that means four party members, each of whom are at level 3, should find such a beast to be a worthy challenge, but not a deadly one. Trouble is, what counts as worthy of a high CR is completely arbitrary, self-contradictory, and hard to pin down. One monster with a CR of 10 may be surprisingly easy for a party of level 6 characters, while a monster with a CR of 12 may end up causing a Total Party Kill on a level 15 party. Plus, even though the adventurers can only reach level 20, a monster's CR can go as high as 30, which is where the system gets really arbitrary, as in order for a monster to have a total CR of 30 its offensive and defensive statistics must both be above certain values, with there being technically no cap. What is not generally obvious but has been claimed by MCDM's analysis is that a single CR30 monster accounts to roughly half of the daily budget over a 2-short rest adventuring day for a party of 4-6 level 20 characters. While the Dungeon Master's Guide's pages on calculating CR work wonders for homebrewers and Xanathar's Guide To Everything contains yet more tables on quickly creating encounters, none of the books after the core rules have bothered to explain the value of specific abilities and next to no homebrewers have done so, requiring enterprising DMs to reverse-engineer the CR of monsters so they can use their abilities in other monsters.
That One Rule / int_6ac55ec7	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_6ac55ec7	featureConfidence	1.0
Dungeons & Dragons (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_6ac55ec7
That One Rule / int_7ea744c2	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_7ea744c2	comment	An incident similar to the "Berry"/"Barry" one on Jeopardy! happened on a 1982 episode of Password Plus. Marcia Wallace contested a judgment call where her contestant's guess of "Hairy" was determined to be phonetically dissimilar to the password of "Harry". The staff not only maintained their ruling against her, they also rolled out a chalkboard which explained the pronunciation difference. Marcia was not amused.
That One Rule / int_7ea744c2	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_7ea744c2	featureConfidence	1.0
Password	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_7ea744c2
That One Rule / int_82b754a	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_82b754a	comment	The first "Mr Blobby" based "Gotcha Oscar" on Noel's House Party (a Candid Camera Prank based around a fake [and entirely unworkable] kids' TV show, thereby removing the need to hide the cameras) was footballer Garth Crooks trying to teach Mr Blobby how to play The Beautiful Game, including an increasingly confused explanation of the offside rule. Some time later, an entirely unrelated skit about the Crinkly Bottom football team would claim that Mr Blobby was their coach, and still didn't understand it.
That One Rule / int_82b754a	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_82b754a	featureConfidence	1.0
Noel's House Party	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_82b754a
That One Rule / int_82ca6aa3	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_82ca6aa3	comment	The DonPachi series' most prominent scoring mechanic by far is its combo system; destroying enemies within a sufficiently short interval of each other accumulates combo, and to oversimplify, the higher your combo, the more points you get from destroying the next enemy. At first, this seems like an interesting concept, but it becomes apparent that the best way to score is to build stage-long combos, which require extreme levels of memorization of where each enemy is, far beyond what is needed in a survival-based run, because destroying enemies too quickly will leave you without any enemies to combo off of before the combo timer runs out, breaking your combo and hurting your score, and depending on where the combo breaks you can miss out on tens of millions of points (DoDonPachi 2-loop and DoDonPachi Dai Ou Jou 1-loop top-level plays end in the hundred-millions, Dai Ou Jou 2-loop into the single-digit billions).
That One Rule / int_82ca6aa3	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_82ca6aa3	featureConfidence	1.0
DonPachi (Video Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_82ca6aa3
That One Rule / int_88156ac9	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_88156ac9	comment	Battle Garegga seems like a pretty straightforward Shoot 'Em Up...except for its take on the Dynamic Difficulty "rank" system. Basically, rank very slowly increases over time, and actions like shooting (especially by tapping the shot button rapidly) and collecting items will additionally increase the rank. Eventually rank will get to a point where enemy attacks become too aggressive for most players to feasibly dodge, resulting in feeding continues or otherwise a thwarted no-continue run. The only way to reduce rank is by dying, and the rank decreases more the fewer lives you have in stock when you die. The intricacies of rank are extremely complex, not explained at all in-game or in out-of-game official instructions, and force the player to commit several Violations of Common Sense to strike a balance between surviving, not collecting excess powerups or powering up too quickly, and occasionally suiciding to keep the rank at a managable level.
That One Rule / int_88156ac9	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_88156ac9	featureConfidence	1.0
Battle Garegga (Video Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_88156ac9
That One Rule / int_9871d4f3	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_9871d4f3	comment	Bluey has Bandit comment on a dubious call while watching cricket in between playing with his kids.
That One Rule / int_9871d4f3	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_9871d4f3	featureConfidence	1.0
Bluey	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_9871d4f3
That One Rule / int_9b5c40ef	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_9b5c40ef	comment	Espgaluda II seems like a pretty straightforward Bullet Hell vertical shmup, with, much like its predecessor, a unique Kakusei mechanic that allows you to slow bullets down, but it drains your gems over time and causes enemies to turn much more aggressive if you stay in this mode after your gems run out. However, if you intend to play for score, this game becomes a very complicated beast. This game introduces Kakusei Zesshikai (also known as Absolute Ascension Dead Zone), a mechanic for cancelling bullets for massive amounts of points and which makes the game significantly more complex than its predecessor. First of all, using it requires both gems and gold, and drains both at a very fast rate, making it difficult to find a good opportunity to use it. Second, bullets cancelled with this mechanic trigger revenge bullets that can cost the player precious lives, and often the bullets spawn in ways that are counter-intuitive, but those revenge bullets can be cancelled for even more points. But without this mechanic, it can be somewhat difficult to get the two point-based extra lives (at 15 million and 35 million points) since the point gains from using regular Kakusei are quite tiny in comparison. It's rather telling that, while most CAVE games don't have instructions on how to use their scoring systems to the fullest, Espgaluda II's console ports actually has an in-depth tutorial on how its game mechanics work, including how to use Kakusei Zesshikai. It's a very satisfying technique to use when pulled off correctly, but the high execution barrier means most non-hardcore players will be content to just use regular Kakusei for a low-scoring, survival-oriented playstyle instead of recklessly endangering their run.
That One Rule / int_9b5c40ef	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_9b5c40ef	featureConfidence	1.0
Espgaluda (Video Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_9b5c40ef
That One Rule / int_9bb149b3	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_9bb149b3	comment	Diplomacy is normally a relatively simple game - there are four basic moves and rules for resolving their interactions - except that convoys, where an army moves between locations using a chain of naval units possibly owned by another player, are notorious for creating problems. This began with the discovery that a player could convoy another player's army without their knowledge or consent, and continued into situations creating actual paradoxes. For example, an army which travels via a convoy to displace another army which is cutting the support of a fleet which is attacking the same convoy; if the convoy succeeds, the support is not cut and the convoy defeated, so it ought to fail; but if the convoy fails, the support is cut and the convoy survives, so it ought to succeed. The tournament rule book at one point simply abandoned any attempt at making sense and spent several pages presenting a humanized version of the source code of the automated resolution system.
That One Rule / int_9bb149b3	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_9bb149b3	featureConfidence	1.0
Diplomacy (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_9bb149b3
That One Rule / int_a7c9f8e9	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_a7c9f8e9	comment	The combat resolution system in the Legend of the Five Rings CCG was almost universally regarded as its biggest flaw- both armies totaled up the Force of their unbowed cards present at the battlefield and the army with lower Force (even if it was only by one point) was destroyed completely, while the winner lost nothing. While both players could still suffer considerable damage in battles from ranged attacks, duels or other effects, this still led to a lot of games that would be entirely decided by a single "all-in" battle where the loser lost their entire army and were helpless to resist further attacks (or counterattacks) from their now-unopposed enemy. The "Yu" trait (which forced the opponent to sacrifice cards when the personality with Yu was destroyed) was added to the game specifically the counteract this, and spinoff game Legend of the Burning Sands used a different system which caused both players to take losses, but it always remained a sticking point.
That One Rule / int_a7c9f8e9	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_a7c9f8e9	featureConfidence	1.0
Legend of the Five Rings (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_a7c9f8e9
That One Rule / int_a825da3e	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_a825da3e	comment	Some of the mechanics of Magic: The Gathering are like this. A few old-school cards have very complex rulings because they were made before making sure that there was no room for interpretation became one of the game's priorities. See for example Ice Cauldron or Word of Command. However, the absolute worst part of the rules is what happens when there are multiple persistent abilities that affect what a card can do, epitomized by the interaction between Humility and Opalescence. Witness the block of rule clarification on the interaction between those two cards specifically, as well as how many times those rulings have changed. Several of the pickier rules regarding how persistent effects interact with each other were created as a direct response to the Humility+Opalescence combo, in hopes of making it less of a headache to resolve. The so-called "infinity rule" is responsible for plenty of headaches. Simply put, a player cannot do anything infinitely (even if it is possible within the rules), they must declare an exact number of times. This is mostly fine, as the player can simply say "a billion" in the majority of situations, but it does get messy when both players can do something infinitely. For example, if one player can do an arbitrarily large amount of damage, and another player can prevent an arbitrarily large amount of damage, things get ugly. (Would you believe that the outcome depends on whose turn it is?) There are about two dozen cards printed early in the games history that care about the order of cards in a players graveyard. Unsurprisingly having to carefully track the exact order cards go into the graveyard, especially when a bunch of them go there at once, is very annoying, as is not being allowed to pull important cards to the top of the pile for easy access. Fortunately the design team realized pretty quickly this was far more annoying than it was worth and stopped making cards that cared about graveyard order, and the rules specifically clarify that in any format where these cards aren't legal (which is most of them, given all the relevant cards are from the 90's), graveyards can be reordered freely. The cards in question are also mostly not very good, so even in formats where they're technically in play the issue lucky doesn't come up too often. Regeneration was considered this for quite some time, including by the developers themselves. While it was relatively straightforward in the early days of Magic and the concept was simple - pay a cost to keep a creature from dying - increasing complexity of the rules led to plenty of confusion as to how it was supposed to work. Unfortunately for the designers, it was well enough entrenched that they essentially had to work out all the details and make it work, but Word of God has said that a rule like Regeneration never would have made it off the drawing board if it were thought up today. New cards no longer use it at all - instead, cards wanting this type of effect become "indestructible until end of turn". The Protection keyword ability has also historically been a source of some confusion, as it is shorthand for several distinct abilities (for something that has protection from a given category: all damage is reduced to zero, it cannot be targeted by a spell or ability, it cannot be blocked, and it cannot be enchanted or equipped). Newcomers to the game often find the mechanic confusing because it is non-discriminatory (something with Protection from Red grants protection from ALL red sources, including friendly and/or beneficial ones), and it has several notable omissions (it does not prevent "Destroy" effects, global effects, effects that produce counters, or effects that target the controlling player and force THEM to do something to the protected card). It has been somewhat phased out in modern design, with Protection cards being significantly rarer, but it does show up periodically. On top of that, there's no real limits on what something can have protection from. Colors or card types are the most common, but many more specific types of protection add another layer of confusing interpretation (for example, Emrakul has Protection from All Colored Spells, while Progenitus has Protection from Everything, and True Name Nemesis gets protection for a specific player), making it even more confusing. The last time Banding was printed on a physical card was back in the 90's, and for good reason. It's widely considered the strangest and most unintuitive mechanic in Magic's long history. The basic concept is fairly simple: When attacking or blocking, your creatures can form "bands", which are effectively treated as one creature in combat from then on. All but one creature in an attacking band must have banding, and at least one creature in a defending band must have Banding, which is already strange, but tons of other questions also come up as soon as combat happens, such as: what abilities the band will or won't have, how damage from and against the band actually works, how the opponents creatures and abilities interact with their banded creature and so on. And this is without even getting into the "Bands with Other", a more specific subtype of banding with an additional restriction on what could be in the band (for example, "Bands with Other Wolves"). It used to be even worse, as well, because prior to a 2010 rules update "Bands with Other X" didn't actually mean they could band with creatures that had quality X, only other creatures with the same "Bands with Other X". Even after being removed the "Planeswalker Redirection rule" is still causing problems. Originally the rules allowed non-combat damage to be redirected from a player to a Planeswalker they controlled in order to retroactively allow various things to kill Planeswalkers, similar to how creatures could directly attack them. However the rules were changed in 2018, allowing those spells and abilities to directly target Planeswalkers instead, which generally makes much more sense, but means it's often unclear if older cards from before the rules were updated can target Planeswalkers or not, forcing players to constantly look up what specific spells or abilities can target. Layers, the incredibly granular method of determining how ongoing effects are applied and interact. 95% of players could go their entire lives never needing to know they exist. 4% are tournament players and TO's who have to comb over the layers step by step to resolve an edge case. The remaining 1% are people frustrated that alterations to a creature's stats are, unintuitively, the only thing in the game that completely ignores of the order they were applied, resulting in a lot of would-be clever power/toughness switching not working for completely arbitrary reasons. Innistrad: Midnight Hunt added a day/night cycle to the game and it quickly became one of the most reviled rules in "modern" MTG. The concept is simple enough: once you play a card that references day or night, you then have to track what time of day it is. At the start of any given turn, if it's day and the previous player didn't cast a spell on their turn, it becomes night; if it's night and the previous player cast two or more spells during their turn, it becomes day. The problem was that as soon as a card was played that needed to reference day or night, the players had to keep track of day and night for the rest of the game. Even if there were no cards left in play that were affected by day/night, players still had to continue to keep track of it because of the possibility that a card could be played that depended on time of day (Daybound and Nightbound cards had completely different stats and abilities depending on whether it was day or night, so it did actually make a difference as to what time of day it was when they are cast). The day/night cycle added an easily forgotten, rather annoying step to games and the fact that it never went away afterwards earned it a lot of ire.
That One Rule / int_a825da3e	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_a825da3e	featureConfidence	1.0
Magic: The Gathering (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_a825da3e
That One Rule / int_b0b22636	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_b0b22636	comment	Since practically the beginning, Wheel of Fortune has had a rule that puzzles must be solved exactly as they appear on the board. Naturally, whenever a contestant is ruled wrong for leaving a letter off a word due to their dialect (such as a contestant who dropped the G from puzzle SEVEN SWANS A-SWIMMING in 2012 and was ruled wrong for it), or if a completely filled-in puzzle is still mispronounced (e.g. REGIS PHILBIN & KELLY RIPA in January 2010), the media has a field day. Finally, the show introduced crossword puzzles in 2016; in these, three to five interlocking words are on the board, and the contestant must read off all the words in any order to solve. In doing so, the contestant may not add any other words. Multiple contestants have been ruled wrong for adding an "and" between the last two words, to varying degrees of discussion from social media and sometimes the contestants themselves.
That One Rule / int_b0b22636	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_b0b22636	featureConfidence	1.0
Wheel of Fortune	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_b0b22636
That One Rule / int_bc907c69	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_bc907c69	comment	Ranking up in Tetris: The Grand Master is simple enough: Score enough points. And clearing multiple lines at once gives you a better points-to-line ratio. But once you reach rank S9, the game ceases to tell you how many points are needed for the next rank. This is because the final rank of Grand Master requires you to meet score and time quotas at levels 300, 500, and 900, and finish with a high enough score and low enough time. None of which is stated in the game itself, and you're not informed whether you meet or fail any of these checkpoints. Later games in the TGM series only get more complex.
That One Rule / int_bc907c69	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_bc907c69	featureConfidence	1.0
Tetris: The Grand Master (Video Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_bc907c69
That One Rule / int_cc0cf90e	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_cc0cf90e	comment	Bridge In tournament and club play, there are procedures for dealing with a board that cannot be scored for any reason at one or more tables. These are mathematically complex, and can result in a pair not involved having its score reduced - for example, a pair that might otherwise have gotten 10 out of 10 on that board will now get only 9.9. This is disliked both by new players (who don't understand the calculations involved) and by experts (for whom that small adjustment can have an impact on their placement). The scoring procedures for a fouled board (where cards got moved between hands somehow, so that not everyone played exactly the same hand) are even more complicated; fortunately, this comes up very rarely. The rules for a revoke (playing a card of a suit other than the first suit led when following suit is possible) are a bit baroque and have resulted in numerous appeals at clubs and events. The rules state that up to two penalty tricks may be awarded to the aggrieved side - one for the trick where the revoke happened, and one for the trick when the revoke card (the one that should have been played on the revoke trick) finally gets played. However, this is only supposed to apply when both the aggrieved partnership lost both tricks in question and it's deemed that they would have won the tricks in question if play had progressed properly (for example, if the aggrieved side would have won the revoke trick regardless, they wouldn't be eligible to receive a penalty trick for that trick). Arguments about how play would have progressed differently can result in much hair-splitting over penalty tricks rewarded, and that's even before getting into the issue of how many people (including directors, at clubs and tournaments) argue that there should be a two-trick penalty regardless. Some players will just Hand Wave the two-trick penalty rule as being hard-and-fast just due to not wanting to deal with hashing out how things should have gone.
That One Rule / int_cc0cf90e	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_cc0cf90e	featureConfidence	1.0
Bridge (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_cc0cf90e
That One Rule / int_d5fcae4e	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_d5fcae4e	comment	In the series based on the shorts, Ted routinely struggles with the rule, as he's an American football coach with no experience with Association football. Just as he starts to get the hang of the rule, he struggles with its intricacies, such as the "not interfering with play" exception. It takes until the Series Finale for him to finally nail it down.
That One Rule / int_d5fcae4e	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_d5fcae4e	featureConfidence	1.0
Ted Lasso	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_d5fcae4e
That One Rule / int_dbf18509	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_dbf18509	comment	In Final Jeopardy!, the last round in Jeopardy!, contestants use electronic pens to write down what they think is the correct response. Two rules about this have come under scrutiny by fans. The first is straightforward at first glance: spelling doesn't count as long as it doesn't affect any pronunciation. Any moment where a contestant is ruled incorrect on even a slight pronunciation difference usually results in angry tweets or Facebook posts, even if it doesn't affect the outcome. The first viral case of this was on July 31, 2013, when the judges ruled against twelve-year old Thomas Hurley for misspelling the first word of "Emancipation Proclamation" as "Emanciptation". Another one happened a few months later when a defending champion was penalized for misspelling "Kazakhstan" as "Kazakhistan". On September 15, 2020, Berry Gordy was the subject to a clue and a contestant was denied credit for "Who is Barry Gordy?". That one caused debates in different American dialects pronouncing both names. The second is about how the judges determine a complete response based on timing and how the contestants move their pens. The pens stop working once the final note of the think music plays, so a response is considered incorrect if it's incomplete. While not tested to the extent of spelling, this rule has also led to accusations of it being haphazardly applied. Two separate Final Jeopardy! clues had "Clint Eastwood" as the correct response; "Who is Clint E" was accepted, but "Who is Clint Eastwoo" was notnote The "Clint E" decision affected a Tournament of Champions placement; the contestant who wrote it won four games and beat out another four-time winner for a qualifying spot by $201. Two separate rulings in Season 38 brought this rule to the social media age. On June 17, 2022, a contestant squeezed the correct response of "Harriet Tubman", but host Mayim Bialik announced that it was not finished in time. On July 18, a contestant scribbled "Waiting for Godot?" before time expired, and it was accepted. Fans argued the latter ruling because the final word looked just as illegible. A compilation of other decisions and the impact they had on some games can be seen here.
That One Rule / int_dbf18509	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_dbf18509	featureConfidence	1.0
Jeopardy!	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_dbf18509
That One Rule / int_de69142d	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_de69142d	comment	Japanese Mahjong: The rule that a hand with no value has some value. Explanation:Yaku give "multiplier" (han) points which are applied to the "basic" (fu) points of the hand. A hand with the absolute minimum of fu counts as a yaku as this is actually quite tricky to do, and is therefore a valid hand to win with. And then you add that, under some circumstances, you need more than one yaku to win.
That One Rule / int_de69142d	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_de69142d	featureConfidence	1.0
Mahjong (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_de69142d
That One Rule / int_de914b60	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_de914b60	comment	Star Wars Customizable Card Game: "Attrition". For a vastly simplified explanation, at the end of most larger battles, both sides are assessed a penalty, in addition to the penalty paid for losing a battle, which can only be paid by discarding combatants (as opposed to discarding from one's hand or deck), which counts simultaneously toward the penalties paid by the loser. This penalty or its remainder is often waived if the characters remaining have sufficient Plot Armor, but how much plot armor is needed depends on the whole penalty, regardless of how much has to be paid by Red Shirts, and the loser's penalty remains if it's not paid by the time remaining attrition is waived, and can, if the player wishes, be paid by discarding these characters. Even in a game notorious for Loads and Loads of Rules, the complications that would crop up around this one in particular are legendary.
That One Rule / int_de914b60	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_de914b60	featureConfidence	1.0
Star Wars Customizable Card Game (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_de914b60
That One Rule / int_e26d37ec	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_e26d37ec	comment	Tetris: Ranking up in Tetris: The Grand Master is simple enough: Score enough points. And clearing multiple lines at once gives you a better points-to-line ratio. But once you reach rank S9, the game ceases to tell you how many points are needed for the next rank. This is because the final rank of Grand Master requires you to meet score and time quotas at levels 300, 500, and 900, and finish with a high enough score and low enough time. None of which is stated in the game itself, and you're not informed whether you meet or fail any of these checkpoints. Later games in the TGM series only get more complex. Modern Tetris games use what is known as the Super Rotation System. In many older Tetris games, it can be hard to rotate pieces in tight spots, since if the piece's new orientation would be blocked by another block or a wall, the piece will not rotate. So some Tetris games implemented a "kick" mechanic where if you try to rotate a piece but it would be blocked, the game will attempt to shift its new position to an adjacent space. SRS involves a complex set of tables to determine how pieces should rotate in tight spots. The kicks aren't always intuitive either, as upward kicks tend to get prioritized, meaning that if you're trying to slip a piece into a tight gap, the game will more than likely pop your piece out instead. Ironically, Tetris: The Grand Master, a series known for its complex grade systems, has one of the more Boring, but Practical versions of wall kicks: If piece rotation is blocked, try shifting the piece one column to the right, and if that doesn't work, shift the piece one column to the left of its intial position, and fail if neither of those kicks work.
That One Rule / int_e26d37ec	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_e26d37ec	featureConfidence	1.0
Tetris / Videogame	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_e26d37ec
That One Rule / int_e5964cdb	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_e5964cdb	comment	Chess: Castling and the en passant capture, sometimes even for more experienced players. Castling is a move of both the king and one of his rooks on the same rank, the only move allowed in chess where two pieces are moved in the same move. The list of circumstances that must be met is rather long, but it's easy to determine whether all of them have been met or not. The simple version is: Neither the king nor the rook can have been moved at all; all the intervening squares in the back rank must be vacant; the king cannot move through a square where he would be under attack if he were to stop there; you cannot castle to escape check; you cannot castle into check (though you can deliver check or even checkmate); you cannot capture in the course of castling; and you cannot un-castle or re-castle. Since castling is common and therefore learned early, most instances of confusion come in the form of people assuming additional rules that don't actually exist. More than one master-level player has had to ask a judge mid-game if they could castle when their rook is under attack (You can). The en passant ("in passing") capture is — well, it's this: "It can only occur when a player exercises his option to move his pawn two squares on its initial movement and that move places his pawn next to the opponent's pawn. When this happens, the opposing player has the option to use his pawn to take the moved pawn "en passant" or "in passing" as if the pawn had only moved one square. This option, though, only stays open for one move." If you need it simplified, it's as easy as this: "You can't use the two-square move to dodge an enemy pawn's capture zone." The move itself is well-defined; the major issue with it is that, unlike castling, it happens quite rarely. Most new players simply do not know it exists, and even a few relatively experienced players forget about it. Tournament Players probably don't have any confusion about castling or en passant. For them, That One Rule is the long-evolving set of rules about when they are allowed to claim a position as drawn.
That One Rule / int_e5964cdb	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_e5964cdb	featureConfidence	1.0
Chess (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_e5964cdb
That One Rule / int_e677e8f7	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_e677e8f7	comment	Draws are exceedingly rare in Shōgi, Japanese chess. However, they can occur under the right circumstances where both players are able to surround their king with promoted pieces. In this case, the winner is decided by counting all of the pieces owned by each side, with a point value for each (5 points each for bishop and rook, one point for all others). If both players have at least 24 points, it is a draw. If not, the player with more points wins.
That One Rule / int_e677e8f7	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_e677e8f7	featureConfidence	1.0
Shōgi (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_e677e8f7
That One Rule / int_eb6719f6	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_eb6719f6	comment	Final Fantasy VIII has two rules in its card minigame, Plus and Random. Random is straightforward - your hand is randomized (instead of choosing 5 cards you want), which usually means having to play with sub-par cards. Plus, however, looks straight (if a card is adjacent to two cards, and you can add a single number to card's stats to match the stats of those two cards, both cards are flipped), but ends up being a huge pain in the neck, since it also triggers Combo (cards flipped by Plus, Same or Combo will also flip all adjacent cards with lower stats), allowing the AI to possibly flip the entire table in one move. Not to mention, unlike Same, Plus opportunities are very easy to overlook, resulting in the AI abusing the rule for all its worth to pull off wins out of pretty much thin air. This is extended into Final Fantasy XIV, which brings the Plus and Same rules over wholesale in its recreation of said card minigame. Due to lacking any particularly good explanation or visualization of said rule, it's mostly considered the same way it is in FF8 - a way for the computer to pull off wins from nowhere.
That One Rule / int_eb6719f6	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_eb6719f6	featureConfidence	1.0
Final Fantasy VIII (Video Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_eb6719f6
That One Rule / int_f367511c	type	That One Rule
That One Rule / int_f367511c	comment	Yu-Gi-Oh!: The inconsistent wording of old cards made it really confusing to determine card interactions. What's the cost, and what's part of the effect? Can you trigger X effect after performing Y action? Can Card A negate action B? The Problem-Solving Card Text has helped to alleviate matters without needing to reference an online, but some niche situations can catch players off-guard, and add to the steep learning curve for new players. Summoning conditions 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, no. For others, yes. In the modern day, this is pretty easy to distinguish, since the former (known as "Nomis") say "Must be Special Summoned by X", and the latter (known as "Semi-Nomis") say "Must first be Special Summoned by X." The thing is, the terminology on older cards was far less distinct, and known to change every couple of years—for instance, "cannot be Special Summoned except by X" versus "can only be Special Summoned by X", which happened in a period where they were trying to formalize the definition. Go back a little earlier, and you're trying to pick between which of these◊ two◊ cards is a Nomi. Reprints with modern text have somewhat alleviated the issue, but there's still a lot of cards out there with text that remains outdated. Negating an effect is significantly different from preventing its activation. For instance, if "Skill Drain" is on the field, it normally prevents "Accesscode Talker" from destroying it... unless Accesscode Talker banishes itself as part of its cost. Now that Accesscode is off the field when the Chain is resolving, it won't be negated by Skill Drain and can destroy that floodgate. This is just one example of how Exact Words can lead to unintuitive interactions. Inherent Summons are a little difficult to distinguish from effects that Summon, and in turn it decides whether a player can Summon past a monster negate, or if an effect that negates a Summon (but not an effect that Summons) can stifle that action. The key is to see if there's a colon within the Summon condition (indicating that action starts a Chain). Some cards have text that says "ignore summoning conditions". This is clearly self-explanatory when special summoning from the hand or deck so most likely, the logic for most players at time was that if it applied to reviving it after using a Foolish Burial, then the same situation could occur, right? WRONG! According to Konami's official ruling, ever since the release of Level Modulation in Elemental Energy, a monster with a special summoning condition, whether it can be revived or not by other card effects must always be summoned properly first before it can be revived, thereby the "ignore summoning condition" clause not applying in this situation. So a monster like Armed Dragon LV7 must be special summoned to the field first if players want to revive it with Level Modulation. The fact that there is an exception to this rule is not implied on the card text, which makes the game look inconsistent. The missing the timing rule. There are four types of effects that activate when a certain condition is met (they take the form of "If X, Y", "If X, you can Y", "When X, Y", and "When X, you can Y"). An "If" effect occurs as long as its condition is met, and is incapable of missing the timing. A "When X, Y" effect must occur right after its condition is met, but can't miss the timing because it's mandatory. "When...you can" effects, however, MUST happen immediately after their condition occurs. Since it's not mandatory, and thus doesn't HAVE to happen, it won't happen if anything else happens in between when its condition is met and you're allowed to activate new effects. This means that if its condition is met during any link of a chain other than the first link, or if its condition is met during any part other than the last one of the resolution of a multiple-part effect, it'll miss the timing because the rest of the chain/the effect it was met during happens before you have a chance to activate it, and thus the condition is no longer correct by the time you're able to activate it. For example, if an effect can activate when a monster (let's call it monster A) is summoned by another monster's effect, but that monster is summoned during chain link 2, then you won't be able to activate it after the chain ends because link 1 happened during the small window of opportunity when you were allowed to activate the effect, forcing you to skip it. Similarly, if you activate a monster's effect that allows you to summon monster A, then do something else (such as tributing another monster), then the second half of the effect will cause you to skip past the window of opportunity, again forcing you to skip the activation of monster A's effect. Confused yet? Pole Position is a good example of how an innocuous card can become a complete mess. Its effect is simple: the highest-ATK monster on the field is unaffected by Spells, and if Pole Position is destroyed, so is that monster. But what if, say, you use Axe of Despair (a spell that increases the monster's ATK) to make it the strongest monster on the field? Then it becomes unaffected by Axe's effect, which means it's no longer the strongest monster, which means Axe works again, which creates an infinite loop of the monster's ATK going up and down. To solve this, Konami has ruled that it's illegal to create an unresolvable infinite loop through card effects, but this means that Pole Position can accidentally trigger its infinite loop. The card's ruling page on the wiki is basically a comedy of errors explaining all the different situations where it can shut something down. It's the only card where the rulings for it can make it destroy itself rather than deal with the hassle. Mystical Refpanel makes it so that a Spell card that targets a player will instead affect the other. But even after PSCT, Spell card never state if they target a player, so you're going to need a trip to the wiki to figure out if Refpanel can respond to a Spell, on top of learning how it resolves. Short version: anything that draws, discards from the hand, changes your LP, or limits your actions, and that only affects one player, and that isn't an Equip, Continuous, or Field Spell, and it only transfers effect, not cost, condition, or whoever used it... you can generally tell a card falls into this when it doesn't see a rerelease, and Refpanel hasn't been reissued in the OCG since 2001, despite its fairly pivotal anime appearances. Necrovalley is notorious for causing problems. Its main function is to lock off the Graveyard: hence, it originally stated that it negates all effects which "involve the Graveyard", and prevents players from banishing from the Graveyard. The apparently-intended idea of this effect was that it would negate, for instance, Monster Reborn, which revives monsters from the Graveyard, reflecting its status as the central card of an archetype of tombkeepers... but the thing is, the list of effects that could be considered "involving" the Graveyard is pretty long. For instance, would a card that activates in the Graveyard count, like Sangan? What about a card that sends cards to the Graveyard, like Foolish Burial? The card is notorious for having been errataed seven times, and some of its erratas seem to describe entirely different means of functioning: for instance, any effect that affected cards in the Graveyard was negated, but currently, it's restricted to effects that would either move a card in the Graveyard to a different location, or change the types or attributes of cards in the Graveyard—and that second one didn't exist as late as its sixth errata. Time rules at a tournament usually dictate that a player with more LP when time is called is the winner. However, this means that you end up with games being decided on incidental burn damage or LP gain to just get the numbers advantage, and some players abuse the rule by stalling to overtime while they're ahead. This also consequentially makes the few decks that rely on paying LP as part of their game plan, such as P.U.N.K., Dinomorphia and Gold Pride, much more difficult to play since the player who's using them has to be extra careful to not lose because of the time rules.
That One Rule / int_f367511c	featureApplicability	1.0
That One Rule / int_f367511c	featureConfidence	1.0
Yu-Gi-Oh! (Tabletop Game)	hasFeature	That One Rule / int_f367511c

The following is a list of statements referring to the current page from other pages.

That One Rule	processingCategory2	Game Tropes
That One Rule	processingCategory2	That One Index
Australian Rules Football	seeAlso	That One Rule
Munchkin (Tabletop Game) / int_2ea983d6	type	That One Rule
Neuroshima (Tabletop Game) / int_2ea983d6	type	That One Rule
Hamtaro: Ham-Ham Heartbreak (Video Game) / int_2ea983d6	type	That One Rule

Copyright of DBTropes.org wrapper 2009-2013 DFKI Knowledge Management. Imprint. - Thanks to Bakken&Baeck for hosting. Contact.
Copyright of data TVTropes.org contributors under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.