Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nerco has many stupid rules. they are not fearless and can sweep out if they lose close combat. and the phase out rule....

i also do not understand, firing through one unit can give another unit CSV.

and IG has some crazy rules i can not think of now.

Well, some rules that will be stupid are the ones in the blood angels. In the new dex, players can deep strike tanks in, which is totally ridiculous.

The "true" LOS rules annoy me. I've started refusing to play people unless we count forests as blocking all LOS. Those three little trees are an abstraction, because we can't move our models in a realistic forest. Being able to tag a unit of Grey Knights because you can see one guy's foot sticking out behind a rock, clear across the table, through a forest, is frankly B.S.

The rules restricting vehicle shooting are dumb, and it seems GW realizes this, because each new codex is adding some rule that lets them ignore it (raiders get PotMS, Russes get Lumbering Behemoth, Angels get FA all around).

The pricing on extra armor is f'in slowed. The bonus for squadroning being the same as extra armor is also f'in slowed. I'd actually pay 15 points for extra armor if squadrons allowed you to ignore shaken rules. That way a squadroned vehicle would ignore results 1 and 2, but be destroyed on a 4. I think that would be a much fairer trade-of.

You can have two squads in the open each giving the other a cover save.

The fact that the whirlwind can fire only 1 missile per turn, while most mrl systems fire their whole payload in less than 1 second, and that power fists, which are an extension of youre arm, are harder to wield than a gigantic broadsword with a built in power field.

The whole wound allocation system:

You fire 2 melta guns and 8 bolters at some terminators, both meltas hit, but since you also have bolter hits, 2 melta hits are stacked on the same guy instead of different ones, potentially giving you less casualties than if you just fired the meltas alone due to armor saves.

How I would fix this:
Each ap value of weapon has its own allocation, so you would have to allocate the ap 1 hits to your unit, then allocate the ap5 hits to your unit in the above case.

That you check to see if your modal is tough enough to take the damage before you see if the armor stops it.

Grey Templar - actually Ice Magic DID exist. On a single model in the Norscan list.

That was a special character, so never got played...

Wound allocation is great, as it removes the magical "powerfist sarge is last to die" syndrome you got in 4th ed. Now you have a chance to kill the important members eaerlier on. Which is actually MORE real.

And as for more shots not doing more damage? Your assumption there is that each shot precisely kills someone and no other shot does. Whereas we all know some unlucky trooper gets hit with 4 plasma bolts at the same time...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wound allocation is great, as it removes the magical "powerfist sarge is last to die" syndrome you got in 4th ed. Now you have a chance to kill the important members eaerlier on. Which is actually MORE real.

But that was thematic! The Never Die Commissar and the Tough-as-Nails Sergeant were awesome being the last to accept defeat! Now they're just wasted points and cannon fodder.... boooooriiing.

the chaos guy wrote:That you check to see if your modal is tough enough to take the damage before you see if the armor stops it.

The math would be the same, but I agree.

1. Tactical Genius... How to outflank your Leman Russ.

2. Wound Allocation... Sure SOMETIMES an unlucky guy dies to several plasma gun shots, but the fact that EVERY time several special weapons are fired that the SAME guy is always killed by ALL of them is straight out dumb (Red Shirt Syndrome lol... if I ever collect DT I'm painting my arbitrary scout with shotgun and scout with CCW BP with red Star Trek tops lol).

As far as true line of sight and removing figures goes (oh and cover saves for half the unit in cover) I always think of it as 'squads' of 'models' representing a rough approximate of a real squadron of troopers that bustle about and their location. So while you can only see the Serg and Commisar standing clear as day while the infantry mill in the forest behind them, in reality the two commanders are flowing amongst the ranks ordering their troopers about and are ready to step forward when required.

What pisses me off is Vehicle Squadron Immobilized Results. Like even if the squadron doesn't move for the rest of the game, they still abandon the immobilized one? Or my favorite, when you get two immobilized results on the last two guys. I think RAW is they are both destroyed (abandoned) which is dumb, we play it that one is destroyed and the last is immobilized, and it SHOULD be they both stay alive and are immobilized!

@TheTrueProtoman - I agree that people making their own rules up are the most annoying. I had one boy tell me that his Deceiver had fleet, yeah, my arse it has. I also hate people that just give up when they know that they are going to lose.

Anything from the BA codex i've heard so far(may change by actually seeing the codex).

Fearless wounds!!!!!!!

Valkyrie wrote:


Ceramite Shielding: This Thunderhawk rule means that Melta weapons only roll 1D6 for penetration. This is where the rule falls short:
1: Due to the range reduction for flyers, most Melta weapons can't even touch the 'Hawk
2: If they are within the reduced range, they still only have a 1/6 chance to hit. Even then they will almost never be in range as any Melta higher than 12" will need to be within about 6" of the flyer
3: The only weapon that this rule could possibly efficiently affect is a pintle-mounted Multi-Melta, which just happens to be in the same army as the 'Hawk itself.

Valk

What about the full turn that T'Hawks and 'Transporters spend on the ground when dropping off troops or vehicles? For that turn all three of your points are negated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ihatehumans wrote:
What pisses me off is Vehicle Squadron Immobilized Results. Like even if the squadron doesn't move for the rest of the game, they still abandon the immobilized one? Or my favorite, when you get two immobilized results on the last two guys. I think RAW is they are both destroyed (abandoned) which is dumb, we play it that one is destroyed and the last is immobilized, and it SHOULD be they both stay alive and are immobilized!

This I agree with - immobilised vehicles should be destroyed if they're out of coherency at the end of a movement phase. That way if one is immobilised you get the choice of loosing it or (effectively) immobilising the whole squadron.

1. Tactical Genius... How to outflank your Leman Russ.

Kelly begs to differ!

Master Llyons wrote:Deep Striking..... Land Raiders

^^

Norsehawk wrote:The whole wound allocation system:

You fire 2 melta guns and 8 bolters at some terminators, both meltas hit, but since you also have bolter hits, 2 melta hits are stacked on the same guy instead of different ones, potentially giving you less casualties than if you just fired the meltas alone due to armor saves.

How I would fix this:
Each ap value of weapon has its own allocation, so you would have to allocate the ap 1 hits to your unit, then allocate the ap5 hits to your unit in the above case.

It makes sense though. If you were in the army, you would want to kill the person first before you move to the next so they don't do more damage.

and they shal know no fear- because all my fearless units loose more men where as your little space marines can simply walk a few inches insted of loosing men when you lose a close combat.

agnosto wrote:

Frostreaver wrote:Someone at a tournament told me that Kroot Hounds had rending...

I wish.....

Sorry to bring this up again but...
Just wait for the next codex.

Just wait...

Doom "isn't" a zoanthrope

One thing I really dont like is the fact that deep strikers cant assault the turn they come on.... i mean, isnt that supposed to be what they are for? jumping straight into the combat?

but what really erks me is the fact that Space marines get 4 new codexs to everyone elses 1, and you even get varient lists with them, whereas with Chaos, they even axed the Books of the Gods out of their main codex......

My general annoyance is with GW's inability to write decent base rules and then stick with them. They'll have an idea for the general rulebook, and then every new release introduces more and more things that ignore them.

Inventing new rules with every book to get around the stupid vehicle shooting rules is the most blatant example.

Chaos will get theirs eventually. There are only two SM books left to do, which shouldn't take long given their frenetic pacing this year (2 books and 2 expansions already, and that just takes us through May).

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Any time they have a universal rule but give it a cool name.

QFT

So much easier if they just stated the rule instead of some cheesy sounding name.

Sargow wrote:Hitting back armour of a vehicle in assult... never understood the reasoning for it. Yes you can stick your hand in there but apparently the hot as a sun plamsa shot just missed that fuel pipe or crack in the armor while it was burning the paint away. I think everything should be done by facing, would make movement important.

It represents being able to access specific weakpoints when you're up close, that cannot be practically targetted at range. Targetting the gap between the turret and hull isn't practical at range, but quite possible when you've climbed onto the tank. It also represents the ability to target the weaker top armour, which direct fire weapons will not be able to strike.

It was a marked improvement in 5th ed. Previous editions saw people running around the sides of tank to hit the side and rear armour, which was plainly stupid. If you can reach the tank to attach and explosive, the tank's facing doesn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:Moving through difficult terrain/running annoys me pretty good.

Roll 2 d6 and pick the highest, when moving through rubble, blown up vehicles, barbwire fences and the like. But running on FLAT OPEN GROUND you roll 1 d6. So I guess its harder to run on open ground then running through a blowd up building

Dude, what? You're comparing running (a bonus to the standard move) with movement - these are different rules, for different things. Movement over difficult terrain is to be compared to movement over open ground - highest of 2d6 vs an automatic 6" move. Running over difficult ground is to be compared to running over open ground - both allow a move of D6".

Moving on open ground you get an automatic 6" move, which you can then follow with a D6 run. If moving through rubble you get to move the highest of 2D6, followed by a D6 run. The average over open ground is 9.5", the average over difficult terrain is 8".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norsehawk wrote:The whole wound allocation system:

You fire 2 melta guns and 8 bolters at some terminators, both meltas hit, but since you also have bolter hits, 2 melta hits are stacked on the same guy instead of different ones, potentially giving you less casualties than if you just fired the meltas alone due to armor saves.

How I would fix this:
Each ap value of weapon has its own allocation, so you would have to allocate the ap 1 hits to your unit, then allocate the ap5 hits to your unit in the above case.

It could be fixed without having to sort by each AP value, as units tend to have consistant armour values the primary issue is 'has an armour save' vs 'has no armour save'. I'd just state that no model can be allocated a second armour penetrating hit until all models have been allocated an armour penetrating hit, and similarly that no model can be allocated a second armour allowing hit until all models have been allocated an armour allowing hit.

So if a unit of five marines is wounded by two plasma shots and four bolters, you couldn't allocate both plasma hits to the same model.

well this is an old rule but i just have to let it out. the stupid rending from 4th ed. it was stupid to auto wound on a roll of 6 on the TO HIT roll. the TO HIT, not the TO wound roll. so glad for the 5th ed.

A Word In Your Ear

I have no problem with you having the ability to change something with your army deployment with a special rule. But leave my deployment alone. I understand the reasoning behind it due to the fluff but how often does fluff affect things in the game rules wise?

True, but that must mean you hate it when I use Lash of Submission on you even more.

It's a bit annoying but that one isnt as bad in my opinion, I guess its partly that lash take a psychic chech where as word in ear one takes nothing, I have no defence against it. Also might be the certain player that uses the assassian.....

Vehicle Squadron damage allocation rule is really stupid.

now i am shooting the vehicle i see from the squadron and score a pentrate, then the oppnent can allocate that to another vehicle, which the shooter can not see and take CSV for that..... come on....how could that happen. i can take what GW say about wound allocation, but vehicle...no..

MC is pretty lame. to score a wound on it is pretty much as hard as scoring a pentrate or glancing on a vehicle. but they can still fight as normal. i think we should have some MC damage cart.

Had a game where a friends sw melta bombed a squadron of lemun russ's, the blew up all 3 from assaulting 1 tank, how does that work?

Sargow wrote:Hitting back armour of a vehicle in assult... never understood the reasoning for it. Yes you can stick your hand in there but apparently the hot as a sun plamsa shot just missed that fuel pipe or crack in the armor while it was burning the paint away. I think everything should be done by facing, would make movement important.

This is actually kind of explained in the novel Space Wolf; the opening chapter basically has the main character (Ragnar) run up to a Predator, toss a Krak grenade into the treads, jump up on top of the tank, rip off a turret, and drop a couple of frag grenades down the hole. The main point is, assaulting a vehicle doesn't mean you're running up to whack the side of the hull (Unless you're Orks); it means you're running up to hit its weak spots, which are easier to spot when the vehicle is a few inches away from you (In real life terms, not game terms). When you're that close, you're going to spot the crack in the hull where you could put a sword through; you'll notice that the treads are less armored than the hull; you can see that the top hatch is a thinner layer than the armored plates covering the vehicle.

Basically, while you're hitting the rear armor value, you're still probably hitting a weakness on whatever side you happen to hit.