There are a fair amount of rules that IMO are really dumb, especially when used against me. What are some of these rules for you? Which ones seem to be stupid and would never happen in future battles? Just curious/bored.
Well one thing that really pisses me off is at my gaming store there is a kid who plays space wolves and blood angels and for the love of god he takes what rules he has and never
presents the actual ones, and when you get him cornered he will go oh my bad, and act as if nothing happens.
Something like this really pisses me off when it comes to gaming when you are trying to have a fun game and someone has to botch their own rules and trying to make them
more powerful then they really are.
I guess an example would be Corbulo giving furious charge within a radius and the guy will count that radius being the entire board.
True line of sight- great idea, you can only shoot at stuff your figures would actually be able to see. Casualty removal from shooting- take from anywhere in the unit (even if the figures are totally out of sight), totally ruins the true line of sight idea!
Our local group amends it so that only figures that can be seen can be removed, makes it a lot more tactical and enjoyable...
50% of unit in cover = cover saves for everyone. People hate when i play this, i have a hive tyrant and two tyrant guard, and I'm able to screen them with gaunts in the wide open due to the T. Guard being infantry models. Yes, that's a big giant bug out in the open. oops! he ducked!
With my giant 30-man mobs it frequently happens that guys in the front get hit with a flamethrower but models 24 inches away are removed. They light the front rank on fire who are OK, but some guy in the back stubs his toe on a rock and dies.
Luke_Prowler wrote:I always thought of that as the front guys are dieing, but the guys in the back are moving to the front.
What I dont like is a blob of land with two or three trees in it somehow represents a whole forest, and I can't hit the guys behind it.
True line of sight fixed this.
Not sure this is a rule but:
my Fast attack wraiths have 3+ invulsave because they phase out. The C'tan as a 4+ invulsave even though he can phase his body out as well... his body is made of necron space ship metal, he can alter the fabric of time and space, he ignores the laws of physics, he has enslaved billions, slaughtered untold trillions, and is 100 million years old. A fething WRAITH has a better save though -.-
Frag Assault Launchers: They give frag grenades to any unit disembarking from the Raider. Good, but if you consider that almost every Marine unit has them as standard, or strikes at I1 anyway due to Power Fists/Thunder Hammers. The only unit that can actually benefit from the launcers are Lightning Claw Terminators.
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.
The requirement to roll fleet/running in the shooting phase, making players move units twice per turn and doubling the time taken.
The inability to split squad fire between targets. It would add almost no extra playing time and open up a range of tactical choices and encourage lists with units with more than just a single, narrow purpose.
Mick A wrote:True line of sight- great idea, you can only shoot at stuff your figures would actually be able to see. Casualty removal from shooting- take from anywhere in the unit (even if the figures are totally out of sight), totally ruins the true line of sight idea!
Our local group amends it so that only figures that can be seen can be removed, makes it a lot more tactical and enjoyable...
Mick
I don’t know if you played earlier editions, but that used to be the rule, only models visible to the attacker could be taken as casualties. It caused a lot of problems – people would take landspeeders with multi-meltas to character snipe, carefully positioning them so they could only see the opposing general. Or they’d take rhinos that would roll around their own lines, setting up to restrict the LOS of heavy weapons so the only model able to be targeted was the heavy weapons dude.
The new rules cause some odd events, but these events are mostly accidental, and given they don’t happen too often they can be explained away more or less. In the alternative system though, there was a different benefit to the attack to restrict LOS, and that resulted in attacking units manoeuvring to abuse the rules, and so if you were unlucky in your choice of opponents it happened a lot.
Valkyrie wrote:I think the worst rules are the following
Frag Assault Launchers: They give frag grenades to any unit disembarking from the Raider. Good, but if you consider that almost every Marine unit has them as standard, or strikes at I1 anyway due to Power Fists/Thunder Hammers. The only unit that can actually benefit from the launcers are Lightning Claw Terminators.
Characters in Terminator armor don't have grenades. I know what you're talking about, but when there are only four possible Terminator configurations for CC, and they make the rule to benefit Terminators it works...just strangely.
Valkyrie wrote:I think the worst rules are the following
Frag Assault Launchers: They give frag grenades to any unit disembarking from the Raider. Good, but if you consider that almost every Marine unit has them as standard, or strikes at I1 anyway due to Power Fists/Thunder Hammers. The only unit that can actually benefit from the launcers are Lightning Claw Terminators.
Characters in Terminator armor don't have grenades. I know what you're talking about, but when there are only four possible Terminator configurations for CC, and they make the rule to benefit Terminators it works...just strangely.
That's the point he's trying to make, though. Of all the units and configurations in the Marine codex, there are only a couple of things that actually benefit from having them. I would say that the launchers are much more useful for Space Wolves, though - Wolf Guard are prohibitively expensive to run as TH/SS (68 points a model!) so it's far more common to see them at initiative 4.
I'll have to second this. It worked well in Epic: Armageddon, but it doesn't work so well in 40k. I think it's because these rules promote mixed units, which works well to promote a combined arms approach in Epic, but just means shenanigans on a skirmish level. Besides, the niceties of range/LOS sniping were fun. Of course, the interesting this is that the justification given for each approach is exactly opposite!
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.
The rules in regards to vehicles moving and shooting weapons are stupid in the extreme. I know it's silly to talk about "realism" in a fantasy game, but they are implausable. Apprently in the Grim Darkness of the Far Future, they have forgotten how to make gyro-stablizers.....a piece of WW2 era technology. The former tanker in me shakes my head at these rules.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 CCWBP 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.
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.
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.
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).
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
Page 14 - Dangerous Terrain. 1 = Death. I mean... does it make sense from a realistic perspective? Imagine, for a second...
Kurlos - Abomination of the Abyss - had reigned the Tanulch Sector for close to 3 thousand years. Under his cruel dominion, the forces of the Imperium had been destroyed, and his lord and master, Khorne, had granted him the gift of Daemonhood.
Now, upon the blighted plains of Derrimos IV, among the twisted limb-trees of the Forest of Torture, the upstart Tau had decided to make their claim. Kurlos would have none of this, and the blue-skins' commander would come to know the taste of the Daemon Prince's mighty Daemon Blade before the day was out.
Carefully and purposefully Kurlos did choose his steps through the twisted bone-roots of the hideous daemonic trees. Many'a warrior had fallen afoul of the vengeful entities that inhabited this wood. No doubt the blood-bark would taste Tau flesh today just as surley as Kurlos would slay their leader.
His faithful Chosen not far behind him, Kurlos spied a small gathering of the bird-like Kroot ahead. A grim smike etched its way across Kurlos' face - first blood would be his today. Kurlos raised his shining crimson Daemon Blade into the air and bellowed a challenge - 'Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne! You alien wretches will feel the wrath of the God of Slaughter!'.
And he charged... but his foot caught on a small bone-root, and Kurlos - slayer of A'dros the Mighty, defiler of Teylos Prime, and high Blood-Prince of Khorne - fell down, dying instantly.
Elsewhere, in the Warp, Khorne looked displeased.
'All he had to do was roll a 2...'
No, sorry. It's the 'no armour save' bit that always gets me with that rule.
Ok, moving on...
Pages 15-26. The whole TLOS that isn't, stupid things like majority toughness/armour, etc. All bad. All irrevocably stupid. All needlessly complex.
Page 30. The need to scatter every blast marker. Uhh...
Page 40. Sweeping Advances.
Page 42. This is less an issue with Page 42, and more with the way GW writes rules (ie. in a vacuum + overbalancing perceived problems rather than real problems). Case in point - Power Fists. Great in 4th. Marines and Chaos could get 'em for 15 points on Vet Sergeants/Asp Champs. Maybe a little too powerful? Well, along comes Codex Bland Angels and makes 'em 25. Ok, I can live with that. It balances out their power vs Cost. Then 5th Ed comes above and further 'balances' them, letting them lose an attack if you don't have a second power fist. Wait... so now they're worse, and I'm also paying more for them? Did the guys re-writing the rules for Power Fists look at their changed price tag? Did the guys writing every Marine Codex since notice that they've become less powerful, so putting their price up is a dumb idea? Overbalancing and rules in a vacuum - all represented wonderfully by Page 42.
Page 44. 'No Retreat'. Fearless is meant to be a boon, not a burden. I hate this rule.
Page 48. IC's auto-joining units. What if I don't want to?????
Pages 56-73. Yes, the entire vehicle section. Vehicles have gotten worse and worse in every edition of the game since 2nd Ed. In 3rd they were bunkers, sitting in cover because Hull Down was all or nothing and moving meant you couldn't fire anyway, so what was the point. In 4th, they became glass hammers, with cover doing very little, but you could move and shoot. And then in 5th they've gone two steps backwards, made cover an all or nothing affair once more, removed the point of moving vehicles with lots of guns, and further simplified the damage chart (it's amazing how we've gone from Datafax Cards for each vehicle to a SINGLE table). It's even more amusing when you consider that everyone whines about how modifiers shouldn't be part of 40K whenever you mention them for shooting, yet the vehicle chart has modifiers and everyone's fine with that...
Page 75. The Feel No Pain revision from 4th to 5th. Talk about wordy. FNP does this... except if this happens or if this happens or if this happens or if this happens or if this or this or this happens, but only on Tuesdays, and only during a full moon, assuming it's June-September, on an odd-numbered year, in the right hemisphere, and then only if your opponent's name is either Steve or Gonzavio. It worked before - why feth with it?
Page 80. You get +1 damage to a building when someone is standing on its roof because... because... uhh... because... because of arbitrary!
Page 91. Kill Points. I don't think I need to elaborate here.
Page 95. Deep Strike Mishap table. Yay. Thank you for adding yet another step in the Deep Strike process. How hard is it to say "Units that scatter onto either enemy or friendly models are moved the shortest possible distance and placed as normal. Units moved in this manner may do nothing until their next turn except defend themselves in Close Combat." There. Done. No tables. No nothing. Fixed.
And then after that it's just pretty pictures, mini-photos and John Blanche scribble-art.
Page 14 - Dangerous Terrain. 1 = Death. I mean... does it make sense from a realistic perspective? Imagine, for a second...
(snip story)
No, sorry. It's the 'no armour save' bit that always gets me with that rule.
Your anecdote seems to be using the dangerous terrain rules to apply to loose rubble. Why? Take the same story but have your plucky Chaos dude rushing over a lava field or through a burning, ruined building, and it the rule becomes a lot more clear.
Adding the armour save would make the rule worthless by the way - risk the perils of running over this lava flow, there's a one in six chance of death. No wait, sorry, forgot about the HBMC rules change, there's a one in sixth chance of having to roll an armour save, so there's a one in eighteen chance of your Chaos warrior taking a wound. Now you've got two rolls with a very low chance of doing anything, might as well just take dangerous terrain out of the game.
Page 30. The need to scatter every blast marker. Uhh...
As far as slowing the game down the rule has nothing on running, but you still make a fair point. It's a rule that belongs in a game with a high level of simulation detail, which 40K seems mostly to be trying to avoid. The issue isn't scattering blast markers, it's the weird mix 40K has between completely abstract and highly simulationist rules.
Page 42. This is less an issue with Page 42, and more with the way GW writes rules (ie. in a vacuum + overbalancing perceived problems rather than real problems). Case in point - Power Fists. Great in 4th. Marines and Chaos could get 'em for 15 points on Vet Sergeants/Asp Champs. Maybe a little too powerful? Well, along comes Codex Bland Angels and makes 'em 25. Ok, I can live with that. It balances out their power vs Cost. Then 5th Ed comes above and further 'balances' them, letting them lose an attack if you don't have a second power fist. Wait... so now they're worse, and I'm also paying more for them? Did the guys re-writing the rules for Power Fists look at their changed price tag? Did the guys writing every Marine Codex since notice that they've become less powerful, so putting their price up is a dumb idea? Overbalancing and rules in a vacuum - all represented wonderfully by Page 42.
Which would be damning indeed, if the powerfists weren't still decent value - which can be noted as they're still taken in large numbers. And they also give powerswords a look in, so they aren't simply the cheaper, crappier option that people take for fluff reasons.
We're actually at a point (finally) where powerfists are taken because the player has a plan for their use, not just because everyone gets one.
Page 44. 'No Retreat'. Fearless is meant to be a boon, not a burden. I hate this rule.
Agreed.
Page 48. IC's auto-joining units. What if I don't want to?????
Then keep your distance.
Pages 56-73. Yes, the entire vehicle section. Vehicles have gotten worse and worse in every edition of the game since 2nd Ed. In 3rd they were bunkers, sitting in cover because Hull Down was all or nothing and moving meant you couldn't fire anyway, so what was the point. In 4th, they became glass hammers, with cover doing very little, but you could move and shoot. And then in 5th they've gone two steps backwards, made cover an all or nothing affair once more, removed the point of moving vehicles with lots of guns, and further simplified the damage chart (it's amazing how we've gone from Datafax Cards for each vehicle to a SINGLE table). It's even more amusing when you consider that everyone whines about how modifiers shouldn't be part of 40K whenever you mention them for shooting, yet the vehicle chart has modifiers and everyone's fine with that...
It isn't amazing that they've moved from datafaxes with a multiple damage tables to a single damage table. That's part of the push to strip out the mess of detail that achieved nothing but slow the game down - and the only issue there has been GW's inability to follow through properly (why do we still have three rolls to determine if a shot kills someone? why are there four stats for melee combat?)
Page 75. The Feel No Pain revision from 4th to 5th. Talk about wordy. FNP does this... except if this happens or if this happens or if this happens or if this happens or if this or this or this happens, but only on Tuesdays, and only during a full moon, assuming it's June-September, on an odd-numbered year, in the right hemisphere, and then only if your opponent's name is either Steve or Gonzavio. It worked before - why feth with it?
It's a case of adding more detail and detracting from the game. It opened up an option for high strength, modest AP weapons, but then GW said AP1 and AP2 weapons stop FNP... so you can rely on the same AP2 weapons to beat FNP that you were using on high armour targets.
Page 80. You get +1 damage to a building when someone is standing on its roof because... because... uhh... because... because of arbitrary!
Because it's deemed open topped, as if it were a vehicle. I'm not sure it's a rule that's at all necessary, but it's hardly an issue.
Page 95. Deep Strike Mishap table. Yay. Thank you for adding yet another step in the Deep Strike process. How hard is it to say "Units that scatter onto either enemy or friendly models are moved the shortest possible distance and placed as normal. Units moved in this manner may do nothing until their next turn except defend themselves in Close Combat." There. Done. No tables. No nothing. Fixed.
So Deep Striking in crowded spaces shouldn't have any risk attached?
My least favourites:
Lash of Submission: Stupid, overpowered and irritating rule.
TLOS: That forest with the three trees on it is actually a representation of a massive tangled thicket. Which I should not be able to draw LOS through. I get into more arguments about TLOS than anything else. I'd much prefer it if area terrain blocked LOS like it used to- but then they'd probably have to do something to make CC less powerful, as that would bone shooting armies.
I always saw wound allocation as the balancing factor for MEQ armies, I used to get whole squads toasted per turn (by plasma or equivalent anti-meq weapons plus i hate transports so i suppose its my fault but I begrudge paying 15 quid for something as dull to build as a rhino) and with a low model count for marines it took its toll very quickly so now I can actually get assault marines and termis etc to combat without them being plasma'd to death and without having to spend hundreds on rhino's and razorbacks
Da Boss wrote:My least favourites:
Lash of Submission: Stupid, overpowered and irritating rule.
TLOS: That forest with the three trees on it is actually a representation of a massive tangled thicket. Which I should not be able to draw LOS through. I get into more arguments about TLOS than anything else. I'd much prefer it if area terrain blocked LOS like it used to- but then they'd probably have to do something to make CC less powerful, as that would bone shooting armies.
Also hate scattering every blast.
I agree on that one for sure. If you think about it, now every army has just as good a chance landing a blast marker shot, as the ORKS do. Congrats on all those years of hard, dedicated training, learning how to be a Space Marine, but uh... you have just as much a chance to get a direct hit as the Orks do
As far as my annoyance with the running rule. Im talking about rolling for run with 1 d6 on flat ground, vs rolling 2 d6 and picking the highest while trying to climb over and though blown up buildings. How the hell does that make sence? You get a better chance for a higher roll with moving through difficult terrain then you do for your run roll. That just baffles me
No Retreat has always been there, however people didnt care about it in 4th as, at most, you could take 5 wounds from it (4:1 outnumber, under 50%) which never happened to nids (30 gaunts dont get outnumbered very often) or Orks.
Now they have made combat more brutal. And you dont think Fearless is still a abenefit? OK, i;'ll let you not take NR! wounds if I can SA you after you take you Ld2 test. Happy now?
Kill Points - been there, had that argument. Can peeople answer this: how else do you balance objective missions, which reward MSU troops? VPs certainly DO NOT balance objectives.
Vehicles - sorry, how are they *more* vulnerable in 5th than they were in 4th? Er, no. They cannot get glancing 6'd to death any longer. WHy else are necron players whining?!
Lash isnt overpowered - as youre in a vehicle. right?
Powerfists are now a decent buy but not an OBVIOUS no brainer. Or, in other words *balanced* against power swords. Sorry, your argument is bunk there.
TLOS *is* there, with some abstraction for area terrain. Sorry, you cant have one tree and hide a LR behind it.
Da Boss wrote:My least favourites:
Lash of Submission: Stupid, overpowered and irritating rule.
TLOS: That forest with the three trees on it is actually a representation of a massive tangled thicket. Which I should not be able to draw LOS through. I get into more arguments about TLOS than anything else. I'd much prefer it if area terrain blocked LOS like it used to- but then they'd probably have to do something to make CC less powerful, as that would bone shooting armies.
Also hate scattering every blast.
I agree on that one for sure. If you think about it, now every army has just as good a chance landing a blast marker shot, as the ORKS do. Congrats on all those years of hard, dedicated training, learning how to be a Space Marine, but uh... you have just as much a chance to get a direct hit as the Orks do
As far as my annoyance with the running rule. Im talking about rolling for run with 1 d6 on flat ground, vs rolling 2 d6 and picking the highest while trying to climb over and though blown up buildings. How the hell does that make sence? You get a better chance for a higher roll with moving through difficult terrain then you do for your run roll. That just baffles me
Going over difficult terrain + running: 2d6(pick the highest) + 1d6 = a chance of moving anywhere from 2-12" a turn
Moving + running: 6" + 1d6 = anywhere from 7-12" a turn.
It IS faster, or rather has a higher chance of being faster. Makes perfect sense to me, anyway.
As for scattering blast templates, I actually rather like that rule, though that may be bacause my usual enemies are Tyranids, Imperial Guard, Orks, and (the oddball) Space Marines. I actually used to complain about my missle magically disappears and misses the sea of enemies, just because it didnt hit that unit.
KingCracker wrote:As far as my annoyance with the running rule. Im talking about rolling for run with 1 d6 on flat ground, vs rolling 2 d6 and picking the highest while trying to climb over and though blown up buildings. How the hell does that make sence? You get a better chance for a higher roll with moving through difficult terrain then you do for your run roll. That just baffles me
You don't move or run. You move then if you choose to you can run. So you compare moving over open ground to moving over land (auto 6" move vs 2D6 pick highest). And then you compare running over open ground to running over difficult ground (both 1D6).
Hi all.
The 40k rules go down hill from pg 3 onwards,(IMO) by pg 56 they have become irevocably over complicated for the simple game play of 40k...
This is because the rules are written in a restrictive way ,definening things in an exclusive NOT inclusive way.
40k rules fail because they ....do NOT define characteraistics to corolate directly with in game effects.
40k game play SHOULD be an even ballance of mobility, ranged attacks and close combat attacks.(IMPO)
The characteristic profile has NO value for movement, ONE value for ranged attacks, and FOUR values specificaly for close combat attacks.
(This sort of imballance works against the development of the game IMO.)
The abstract nature of the development means anything can be explained away no mater how appauling the 'WTF' moments in gameplay.
Most gamers prefer intuitive well defined rules.(Some gamers just like arguing interpritations of poorly defined rules, it takes all sorts.)
The easiest way to get complex interactions to be intuitive is to base the game play on known events,so the players can use a real world experiance to instinctivley follow in game events.(All GW best games follow this example.)
Unfortunatley 40k is developed to inspire short minature sales, not long term game play, hence the miriad of dumb rules.
Including ,
Unit types, (too many at 12, should be reduced to 3. ),
Characteristics,( not focused on the game play of 40k, but on the game play of WHFB.)
Game turn mechanic,(Army level IGO UGO Napoleonic game turn, not suited to 40k units and interaction.)
Movement, explained -defined exclusivley( over 10pgs)not inclusivley (4 pages.)
Shooting,confuses concealment with physical protection, list weapon abilities for infantry specific use, counter intuitive structure to wound allocation,fails to define in game effects acuratley etc...
Assaults, disproportionate amount of focus on this aspect of the game IMO, could have better defined results if focus shifted to the unit level maybe?
Moral , totaly undermined by special rules to accomodate massive casualties from ranged attacks on the way into close assault .... Rather than put something right they just broke something else to a similar extent.(Yay, balance )
Characters, generaly 2 dimentional close combat monsters.....rather than interesting leaders that improve a forces performance in a miriad of ways.
Vehicles, totaly unecisary seperate rules set .
Universal Special Rules, unecisary rules to try and fix the poorly concieved and implemented basic rules.
Currently 40k has more exeptions than rules, this is not good ...
Kill Points - Some armies benefit more some than others on this one.
TLOS - Does nothing but cause arguements on can they see or not see.
Wound Allocation - If the Heavy bolter dies, then someone else picks it up. Plus you are now able to take less auto-deaths from low AP weapon than before.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Vehicles - sorry, how are they *more* vulnerable in 5th than they were in 4th? Er, no. They cannot get glancing 6'd to death any longer. WHy else are necron players whining?!
Yes they can, you just have to destroy all their weapons and then get another weapon destroyed roll or two immobilized rolls. It's less likely to happen now but it's still possible especially with how many shots necrons get. As an example, in one volley of fire from a 20 man squad of crons (rapid firing) against my buddies black templar dreadnought I destroyed all three weapons and immobilized it. Whiney necron players are just not playing them well I bet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dpredator666 wrote: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.
I thought the same thing too but I would rather have the rule (can't remember what it is called) where you can still run from CC but you auto-regroup and can go back to normal fighting with no sweeping advance allowed (as per black templars). Doesn't make sense to me how humans are more fearless than machines with no emotions at all (except the pariahs which are wasted points anyway).
*edit*
One rule I do hate though is that only troop choices can capture objectives.
Kevin *please* read posts more closely: I said they cannot get glancing 6'd to death any longer, i.e. 1 "6" wont kill the vehicle, unles it is AP1 or open topped. Which is why Necron players complain, as their odds of killing a vehicle in 1 volley is now very unlikely.
Again, people who "hate" kill points dont seem to come up with another system that BALANCED objective games where MSU troops choices are the no brainer option. Again, VPs DO. NOT. BALANCE. objectives.
Exhaust Cloud Cover Save - I mean c'mon, you get a 4+ Cover Save for a cloud thats BEHIND you, I play bikez and even I think its stupid. If anything the shape of the cloud would be pointing directly TO the orks.
pixxpixx wrote:Exhaust Cloud Cover Save - I mean c'mon, you get a 4+ Cover Save for a cloud thats BEHIND you, I play bikez and even I think its stupid. If anything the shape of the cloud would be pointing directly TO the orks.
lol same here. and i am a SM player, sometime i think if i can intentionally destory my bike's exhaust casing? so that i can benefit from 4+CSV for all time. since get the gas cloud behind you is a good thing.
Wound allocation really ticks me off. The main reason is because this once happened in a game of Nids vs. Grey Knights (Two players running Grey Knights vs. one player running Nids).
Genestealers emerge from the correct board edge on Outflanking and charge into a GKT squad. After the barrage of attacks, the GKs are left with 6 rending wounds and a handful of regulars. All six rends end up on one Grey Knight, while the other GKTs take about 5 saves each. And of that, only two died because of the 2+ armor save. How on earth does that happen? Was one stealer gifted with incredible power-claws?
Oh, and I also don't like the rules for cover saves in the matter that if you shoot at a unit that's behind another enemy unit, a passed save means that the shot just fizzled into midair. Why can't the shot resolve as a hit against the other squad? I can understand holding back if you're aiming through your own models, but honestly, your units aren't going to care if the shot misses the targeted squad and ends up killing someone from a different squad instead. On that note, I also think it's kind of silly that you can't place blasts or templates in a way that they would remotely touch your own units - with infantry, it's alright, but what about vehicles? That half power shot is going to do nothing against the front armor of a vehicle. And the odds of it scattering directly onto the vehicle are fairly remote. (Don't know any exact numbers, but I have seen a shot scatter onto an friendly vehicle once.)
One last point: as sebster pointed out, they call it dangerous terrain for a reason. If you haven't noticed, you don't take dangerous terrain tests for normal, foot-sloughing infantry if you walk through a forest. Yes, Jump/Jet Infantry, skimmers, and bikes have to, but that's also because there's always that off chance that the machinery propelling them will send them into a tree at 60 miles an hour. If you don't like the dangerous terrain rules, stay away from it, or have units that aren't concerned with taking the wound or becoming immobilized do it. Unless you play games over an active volcano where every step could mean tumbling into the lava, there should be no real need to risk it.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Kevin *please* read posts more closely: I said they cannot get glancing 6'd to death any longer, i.e. 1 "6" wont kill the vehicle, unles it is AP1 or open topped. Which is why Necron players complain, as their odds of killing a vehicle in 1 volley is now very unlikely.
Again, people who "hate" kill points dont seem to come up with another system that BALANCED objective games where MSU troops choices are the no brainer option. Again, VPs DO. NOT. BALANCE. objectives.
Suppose I misunderstand your terminology. But really, if necron players are complaining that they can't kill a vehicle in one volley are just whining (and yes, I'm a necron player obviously). The fact that pretty much everything can glance a vehicle should more than make up for that but I suppose everyone wants to have the unbeatable army.
H.B.M.C. wrote:And dangerous terrain is SO powerful in ALL instances that it ignores ALL forms of armour, does it?
No. That's silly and far, far, far too simplistic.
See, if you had said that in the first place, I would have agreed with you. Instead, you just seemed to whine about how even the most dangerous terrain denies armor saves. Maybe I misread what you posted, but that's what I read it as (Your initial post).
While I agree that the system is way too simplistic, I think it might get too convoluted if the RAW try to interpret the AP value of terrain. Sure, there are basic ones that are obvious to use (Lava pits, acid or venom pits) but anything beyond that and we're back to the TableHammer 40k that previous editions seemed to use. Simply saying that dangerous terrain ignores armor is a way to speed up the game, along the same lines of dropping the number of deployments/missions to 3 each, making a single table for Vehicle Damage, and dropping all the cover rules of 4th Edition for TLOS. Is it right? No, it's way too simplistic for what it is. Does it speed up gameplay, which seems to be the motto of 5th Edition? Yes, it does.
That being said, I still think dangerous terrain is too uncommon to get worked up about. In my experience, I have seen precisely one piece of terrain that was designed to be dangerous - an acid pit that the owner of the FLGS made, and uses in all his games. Never have I actually seen it claim a casualty, since most players wouldn't take the risk of charging over it.
Oh, I did just think of a rule that I think is ridiculous. The -1 LD penalty for every wound you lose by in CC. Absolutely ludicrous and unnecessary and frustrating. Honestly my friend and I usually play without that rule (we make just a -1 for losing CC) because we both hate that rule, and he plays BT.
pixxpixx wrote:Exhaust Cloud Cover Save - I mean c'mon, you get a 4+ Cover Save for a cloud thats BEHIND you, I play bikez and even I think its stupid. If anything the shape of the cloud would be pointing directly TO the orks.
I have no idea how you're picturing how this works, but you're doing it wrong. Unless you think orks always ride in a neat line abreast,most of a unit is going to be obscured in the cloud behind the lead bikes.
Kevin949 wrote:Oh, I did just think of a rule that I think is ridiculous. The -1 LD penalty for every wound you lose by in CC. Absolutely ludicrous and unnecessary and frustrating. Honestly my friend and I usually play without that rule (we make just a -1 for losing CC) because we both hate that rule, and he plays BT.
It's to make combat more brutal and fast. Combat in 4th ed was often protracted, lasting until one side was wiped out, as the maximum penalty (and highly unlikely one!) was -5. Mostly it was -1, which even Ld7 guard had a good chance of passing.
this at least makes -3+ penalties more likely, making combats a lot quicker (as you now actually break troops, whcih is the point of differing Ld values....) and helping the game to flow better.
This is exactly how it works in fantasy, and is a far superior system to the old out numbering system.
pixxpixx wrote:Exhaust Cloud Cover Save - I mean c'mon, you get a 4+ Cover Save for a cloud thats BEHIND you, I play bikez and even I think its stupid. If anything the shape of the cloud would be pointing directly TO the orks.
I have no idea how you're picturing how this works, but you're doing it wrong. Unless you think orks always ride in a neat line abreast,most of a unit is going to be obscured in the cloud behind the lead bikes.
Your forgeting that orks arent going in a straight line. Heck, they probally go backwards half the time for the fun of it.
jbunny wrote:Kill Points - Some armies benefit more some than others on this one.
This is the answer:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, people who "hate" kill points dont seem to come up with another system that BALANCED objective games where MSU troops choices are the no brainer option. Again, VPs DO. NOT. BALANCE. objectives.
Seriously. Having more KPs reward you in 2 out of 3 scenarios! Again 2 out of 3. Why is it unbalanced to have only disadvantage in 1 (ONE) out of three?
Should they have it easier in 2 and not harder in 1?
If there is some rules I find stupid it's that the Orks have the best technological weapons of all. KFF, Deffrolla, Exhaust Cloud, 14AV? Sure d6 S10 hits after 1" Ram. Some strange field that grants area cover. Armour compared to super tough Land Rider. Why all the powerful and technologically advanced species don't put some pointy sharp crap on their vehicles? It's sooo much more powerful. I know how Ork technology works but come on..
Well actually, the Deff Rolla question has already been answered.... by the main rulebook. Basically you can't Tank Shock a vehicle so it just doesn't work. But here is neither the place or the time.
I do agree; why do Orks have superior (or at least in many cases equal) technology to most of the other races? Kustom Force Fields topping the list. I can understand weapons like the Shock Attack Gun, which is unpredictable and silly, by Zzap! Guns can be more powerful than Lascannons (though I rarely see them), Mekks equal to or greater than Terminators, Killa Kans are nasty death machines akin to Dreadnoughts, and ramshackle vehicles with AV14?!
On the subject of Kill Points: Good idea, poor execution. Yeah, they only apply one out of three times, but that's actually quite often! So when you're making a competitive list for a competition, you can't NOT take that into account and have to immediately discount dozens of possible army configurations. However, I think the idea is valuable. Small "suicide" units have been a fluff bane in 40k, generally used by, imaginative, but poor gamers. Kill Points pretty much put a stop to that. The problem? Well, it just really hurts several armies that don't need to be further restricted or punished for their play style. Imperial Guard and Tau being the main two.
The deffrolla is a huge steam roller with spikes pushed by a huge battle wagon, so i expect it to do a lot of damage. also its not high tech, its just huge and heavy. the battle wagon gets 14 AV because its made ork so its full of scrap thrown on and its side and rear are 12 AV and 10 AV, so not like a land rader.
maxpower3579 wrote:The deffrolla is a huge steam roller with spikes pushed by a huge battle wagon, so i expect it to do a lot of damage. also its not high tech, its just huge and heavy.
Why would it do a lot of damage. Seriously. I could see it maybe doing some superficial damage to a Rhino or something, but it's not going to scuff a Land Raider or Russ. Besides, the rules don't allow it, so nothing to worry about.
Wait, NO! I'm not going to keep this going. OFF TOPIC!!!
maxpower3579 wrote:The deffrolla is a huge steam roller with spikes pushed by a huge battle wagon, so i expect it to do a lot of damage. also its not high tech, its just huge and heavy.
Why would it do a lot of damage. Seriously. I could see it maybe doing some superficial damage to a Rhino or something, but it's not going to scuff a Land Raider or Russ. Besides, the rules don't allow it, so nothing to worry about.
Wait, NO! I'm not going to keep this going. OFF TOPIC!!!
A selective reading of the rules (which has been FAQed against) doesn't allow it. A basic understanding of hyponymy does.
Locclo wrote:While I agree that the system is way too simplistic, I think it might get too convoluted if the RAW try to interpret the AP value of terrain.
Why not "If you roll a 1, take an armour save or suffer a single wound". There. Problem solved. Then the more dangerous the terrain, the more D6's you roll.
maxpower3579 wrote:The deffrolla is a huge steam roller with spikes pushed by a huge battle wagon, so i expect it to do a lot of damage. also its not high tech, its just huge and heavy.
Why would it do a lot of damage. Seriously. I could see it maybe doing some superficial damage to a Rhino or something, but it's not going to scuff a Land Raider or Russ. Besides, the rules don't allow it, so nothing to worry about.
Wait, NO! I'm not going to keep this going. OFF TOPIC!!!
"When an Ork Bonecruncha ploughed over the Hand of Steel, its giant Deff Rolla crushed the turret and ground its commander to a paste." Ork Deff Rolla inflicts some damage on a Leman Russ, Codex Imperial Guard page 58.
Because some people dont read the rules and FAQs or understand that when they say ALL tankshocks that Rams, a special type of tankshock move, they really did mean ALL tank shocks.
You then point out to the same people that the deff rolla worked against every vehicle (except LR and MOnoliths) perfectly fine in 4th ed, and they go strangely silent.
Orks have lots of "field" technology because their fluff says so. Seriously - they were engineered by the old ones to have an inate understanding of forcefield technology, and indeed basic mechanics, at the genetic level. So, they have powerfields, KFF, etc - all things that the Imperium have lost the abiiltiy to create from scratch, because they jsut know how it works.
And the BW being AV14 is easily explained - they shoved as much armour as they could onto it at the front, less on the sides and none on the rear. Essentially its a large lump of iron travelling towards you. inelegant and not as reliable as a LR, but works for now, which is all that matters....
Kevin949 wrote:Oh, I did just think of a rule that I think is ridiculous. The -1 LD penalty for every wound you lose by in CC. Absolutely ludicrous and unnecessary and frustrating. Honestly my friend and I usually play without that rule (we make just a -1 for losing CC) because we both hate that rule, and he plays BT.
It's to make combat more brutal and fast. Combat in 4th ed was often protracted, lasting until one side was wiped out, as the maximum penalty (and highly unlikely one!) was -5. Mostly it was -1, which even Ld7 guard had a good chance of passing.
this at least makes -3+ penalties more likely, making combats a lot quicker (as you now actually break troops, whcih is the point of differing Ld values....) and helping the game to flow better.
This is exactly how it works in fantasy, and is a far superior system to the old out numbering system.
It's not that I don't understand it, I just think it's a pretty one-sided rule for all the armies that are better at close combat (see also, marines and tyranids). Doesn't matter to me how much it is justified, I think it's ridiculous.
I have to agree on the leadership negatives from cc seeming a bit harsh. Going from 4th to 5th it seems like losing cc always means your going to lose and flee (and probably sweeping advanved). Even if an army is poor at close combat that army should still be able to use it as a delaying action, rather than simply throwing men into the inevetable one turn cc defeat. I'm not saying the old way was better, but -1 pt for every wound you lost by is very harsh.
Also I'm not biased on this, I play Templars and 'Nids.
Locclo wrote:
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.
I never thought of that scene as having any game relevance. I thought it was just a Sphess Puppies furry faptacular extravagasm for all the fan boi\s.
Locclo wrote:While I agree that the system is way too simplistic, I think it might get too convoluted if the RAW try to interpret the AP value of terrain.
Why not "If you roll a 1, take an armour save or suffer a single wound". There. Problem solved. Then the more dangerous the terrain, the more D6's you roll.
Because, like I posted earlier;
"Adding the armour save would make the rule worthless by the way - risk the perils of running over this lava flow, there's a one in six chance of death. No wait, sorry, forgot about the HBMC rules change, there's a one in sixth chance of having to roll an armour save, so there's a one in eighteen chance of your Chaos warrior taking a wound. Now you've got two rolls with a very low chance of doing anything, might as well just take dangerous terrain out of the game."
nosferatu1001 wrote:So you dont think that armies that are good at combat should, you know, be good in combat? Interesting.
I take it you also allow consolidate into fresh enemy?
Did I say that? No. Also, to your second question, no. But with the way LD works and the sweeping advance rule and the fact that all the good CC armies are fearless or equivalent AND that space marines (or just BT? I can't remember) can't be sweeping advanced...ya, it's a little on the unfair side for an armies that aren't that good at CC considering there are no rules for shooting that allow for wiping out an ENTIRE SQUAD just because you killed a few guys.
Hey, it would make combat smoother and more fluid if they incorporated a ranged sweeping advance style attack. Game would go quicker and you can play more. Ok, so for every guy I kill in shooting you lose -1 LD and have to take a LD test. Failed? Roll a D6, add some modifier, whoever is higher wins. I win, your squad is dead even though I only killed one guy.
Seems fair for the armies that are better at shooting than CC, no?
I think the cc rules work well (though for the "involves close range shooting" piece to be included I'd like to be able to use a squad's guns in cc with 6's to hit).
Anyway, I really hate the IC is forced to join a squad if he ends the movement phase within 2" of it. I've nearly had this ruin a game for me because I needed to move Fuegan and a squad of fire dragons in an X like way so the dragons could kill an obliterator and Fuegan could save Eldrad. I almost couldn't do so because they would have been forced to become one squad.
Just found out in another thread that I have been looking at the vehicle shooting rules wrong.
I thought vehicle weapon range was measured from the hull rather than the muzzle of the gun. Now I have been enlightened...but I don't like it.
The various vehicles in 40k and even different variants of the same vehicle have different sized barrels on their weapons, and since all movement is measured from the hull than it seems this would be taken advantage of in certain situations. The only solution that makes fair sense to me would be to measure the ranges from the hull as well. So no matter how the weapons are arranged the ranges would be constant and standardized. Also since the vehicles aren't really scale models I don't see that this would be a big deal really.
Kevin949 wrote:Did I say that? No. Also, to your second question, no.
But that is the implication - they have made close combat *more* effective, rather than having uber combat unit stuck in combat for 11 rounds. Theres a reason necron players hate 5th - their best tactic was, usually, baiting you into assaulting a lord plus warrior unit, lasting one round (nroamlly testing at Ld10, maybe Ld9 *if* you outnumbered them) then veiling out. Now it is a far riskier propositiion.
However this is *balanced* HUGELY by not being allowed to consolidate into fresh combat - as this usually means that you assault squishy unit with uber killy unit, kill them and sweeing advance...and suddenly you are closer to the opponents lines, not locked in combat and able to be shot to death. Meaning shooting armies can now actually sacrifice units effectively. Making shooting armies focus on combined fire and not in MSU everthihnig - which is the general design philosphy of 5th: an end to min max (ref KP missions)
Kevin949 wrote: But with the way LD works and the sweeping advance rule and the fact that all the good CC armies are fearless or equivalent AND that space marines (or just BT? I can't remember) can't be sweeping advanced
All SM chapters have ATSKNF - they take NR! wounds instead if you catch them. Or they get away but cant rally as you follow up.
Kevin949 wrote:...ya, it's a little on the unfair side for an armies that aren't that good at CC
No, it redresses the huge 4th ed imbalance where shooting was the prime part of the game - combat was too risky and generally bogged down in long, protracted combats. This helps speed things up, makes combat an effective use (how many times did you see sweeping advance used in 4th? Hardly ever as usually the winning side was forced to wipe out the losing side, as morale check modifiers were pathetic)
Sorry, making 1/3rd of the game actually be ffective in 1/3rd of the game is NOT a bad thing, is it?
As I said, this is the exact system fantasy uses, and it is much much stronger for it.
Kevin949 wrote: considering there are no rules for shooting that allow for wiping out an ENTIRE SQUAD just because you killed a few guys.
So falling back off the board edge doesnt exist? Odd, I must revisit my rulebook.
As stated, Sweeping Advance is a fantastically fluffy rule - turning to run from shooting and not being very fast at it shouldnt be anywhere near as punishing as when someone is chopping you to bits with chainswords. Oh look, it isnt! NOrmally people hate GW for making realistic rules, now its the opposite?
Kevin949 wrote:Hey, it would make combat smoother and more fluid if they incorporated a ranged sweeping advance style attack.
No, it would imbalance the game such that shooting, where you have NO drawbacks (apart fom gets hot! and the SAG, shooting has no real penalties to it) is again the preference. SAD style armies would back to being king, and the entire game would resolve into a long range shooting match.
I know you were being facetious with the remark, but it was a telling one.
Kevin949 wrote: Game would go quicker and you can play more. Ok, so for every guy I kill in shooting you lose -1 LD and have to take a LD test. Failed? Roll a D6, add some modifier, whoever is higher wins. I win, your squad is dead even though I only killed one guy.
Is there a facepalm Ork icon yet?
Im sorry you dont get why they rebalanced it so that combat was on a more even footing compared to shooting in 4th ed, I dont know how to explain it in simpler terms. Combats *should* be brutal, and they finally are - and to stop CC armies entirely reigning over all they gave you vehicles that can actually stand up to hits, the removal of consolidation into fresh combat where you are always sfe, and the ability to strike back and not have combat zones cleared. All the last lot balanced combat out, but I guess you didnt consider that?
Kevin949 wrote:Seems fair for the armies that are better at shooting than CC, no?
No, for the reasons above. Sorry that your shooting army now has to think about combat, rather than avoiding it til the last second. You have heard of sacrificial units, right?
zeshin wrote:Just found out in another thread that I have been looking at the vehicle shooting rules wrong.
I thought vehicle weapon range was measured from the hull rather than the muzzle of the gun. Now I have been enlightened...but I don't like it.
The various vehicles in 40k and even different variants of the same vehicle have different sized barrels on their weapons, and since all movement is measured from the hull than it seems this would be taken advantage of in certain situations. The only solution that makes fair sense to me would be to measure the ranges from the hull as well. So no matter how the weapons are arranged the ranges would be constant and standardized. Also since the vehicles aren't really scale models I don't see that this would be a big deal really.
very few models have guns sticking out past the hull more then an inch or so and the guns that do stick out past the hull usually have such a long range that it almost never matters if there is an inch or so difference.
besides this is 100% realistic to the real world. the treads are what moves and so that should be what is measured from for movement.
guns are the same thing.
when you think about it the guns move just as far as the tank does. take 2 tanks(same kind) and measure a 6" movement from the hull one one and a 6" movement from the gun on the other(this illustrates how far the gun moved in relation to the tank)
surprise, surprise, the tanks moved the same distance. this is always the case so even if you think its unfair to measure shooting from the gun remember when the tank moves the gun moved the exact same distance too.
now if someone has magnatized their Landraider lascannon sponsons and switches the holes forward/backward after movement to get an extra 2" range then cry foul, but short of that everything is fine.
Thank you Templar, I understand the principle GW is going for and your right the movement will be constant. Now on the opposite end, let’s take hurricane bolters on a LR crusader though. They lose 25% of there max range and 50% of there rapid fire range just getting past the hull. Maybe I should just put really long sniper barrels on my crusader...like 10".
And again, I understand there is very little impact, but when the vehicles are not to any kind of scale I don't see why the precision of measuring from the muzzle would be required.
zeshin wrote:Thank you Templar, I understand the principle GW is going for and your right the movement will be constant. Now on the opposite end, let’s take hurricane bolters on a LR crusader though. They lose 25% of there max range and 50% of there rapid fire range just getting past the hull. Maybe I should just put really long sniper barrels on my crusader...like 10".
And again, I understand there is very little impact, but when the vehicles are not to any kind of scale I don't see why the precision of measuring from the muzzle would be required.
Where do you mount your hurricane bolters? mine only use 3" getting past the hull 25% of rapid and only 12.5% of max range I have LR's with sponsons mounted front on some back on others. Makes sense to me the shorter ones would be mounted to the fore but I believe the original box had LC's on the forward mount. I just use what i think looks cool at the time, no-ones ever told me to mount them at the front or i might lose precious inches of range, I think your taking it way too seriously
zeshin wrote:Thank you Templar, I understand the principle GW is going for and your right the movement will be constant. Now on the opposite end, let’s take hurricane bolters on a LR crusader though. They lose 25% of there max range and 50% of there rapid fire range just getting past the hull. Maybe I should just put really long sniper barrels on my crusader...like 10".
And again, I understand there is very little impact, but when the vehicles are not to any kind of scale I don't see why the precision of measuring from the muzzle would be required.
I get what you're saying and I agree to a point, but how does that correspond with LOS? You'd check LOS from the gun, but then measure range from the hull?
zeshin wrote:Thank you Templar, I understand the principle GW is going for and your right the movement will be constant. Now on the opposite end, let’s take hurricane bolters on a LR crusader though. They lose 25% of there max range and 50% of there rapid fire range just getting past the hull. Maybe I should just put really long sniper barrels on my crusader...like 10".
And again, I understand there is very little impact, but when the vehicles are not to any kind of scale I don't see why the precision of measuring from the muzzle would be required.
I get what you're saying and I agree to a point, but how does that correspond with LOS? You'd check LOS from the gun, but then measure range from the hull?
My "not to scale" argument does go against the grain a bit on that. But basically the method that made sense to me was to measure from the hull for everything (range and movement) and simply verify that the weapon, as it is mounted, can actually see the target. Thus if my predator is angled toward a heavy weapon on the left of the board (hoping for a fron armour hit) the left sponsons won't be able to shoot much straight down the board and certainly not to my right. It seemed a common sense thing with the LOS, but now my desire to simplify just sounds more complex...
Don't assume I've played 4th ed. Don't assume I give a crap about fluff. Don't assume I want this to be like fantasy warhammer (which I know nothing about). Don't assume I am other people.
You seemed to have missed the obvious sarcasm in parts of my last post. How was it telling, you don't even know me? And sure, units can go off the board if they fail their morale test for losing 25% but they are at not anywhere near the same negative. Nor should they be, but again I think the negatives are way too high. Plus that is a very specific situation as they actually need to be near the board edge, lest they rally again. Not to mention that many many of the new units and/or entire armies are fearless (and I'm speaking of armies that people actually play en masse, not just how many armies GW has).
You can argue until you're blue in the face, I won't change my stance on what I feel is a stupid rule.
Locclo wrote:While I agree that the system is way too simplistic, I think it might get too convoluted if the RAW try to interpret the AP value of terrain.
Why not "If you roll a 1, take an armour save or suffer a single wound". There. Problem solved. Then the more dangerous the terrain, the more D6's you roll.
Because, like I posted earlier;
"Adding the armour save would make the rule worthless by the way - risk the perils of running over this lava flow, there's a one in six chance of death. No wait, sorry, forgot about the HBMC rules change, there's a one in sixth chance of having to roll an armour save, so there's a one in eighteen chance of your Chaos warrior taking a wound. Now you've got two rolls with a very low chance of doing anything, might as well just take dangerous terrain out of the game."
Why not just change it to require an armor save for every member of the squad when going over dangerous terrain, fail and take a wound. A 1 in 6 chance of having to take an armor save is just not dangerous enough to simulate dangerous terrain. The method I suggested might be too brutal though.
And sure, units can go off the board if they fail their morale test for losing 25% but they are at not anywhere near the same negative.
Nor should they be, but again I think the negatives are way too high.
Plus that is a very specific situation as they actually need to be near the board edge, lest they rally again.
Not to mention that many many of the new units and/or entire armies are fearless (and I'm speaking of armies that people actually play en masse, not just how many armies GW has).
I think this is my sentiment too. Shooting cannot ever get as brutal as cc is now because cc has such stiff penalties for suffering casualties.
I understand some of that is to prevent shooting armies from wiping out cc armies before they can get to cc, but honestly- Tau are in the spot they are partially because they can't compete with cc-hammer... Tau can't push enemies off of objectives without serious focused shooting... whereas I can run a 30boy mob into assault with 120ish attacks and force the enemy off the objective via morale penalty.
I think ccLd penalty just needs to be adjusted.
Should be easy to achieve a -3 or -4 as the winning side, but a -5 or -6 to Ld should be fairly tough to pull off.
Simply put, cap the wounds suffered penalty at 4. You can still have that brutal feeling of major losses affecting morale- but you don't have silly things like -9.
The additional points would outnumbering 2:1 (have to achieve 2:1) and possibly extra things like banners and masks and such.
WHFB works in the massive Ld penalty rule because you also have lots of available bonuses to Ld, such as banners/musicians and rank bonuses. I can get Skaven up to Ld10 with enough rats in the unit... Only Orks have a similar mechanic...
Other stupid rules include TLOS in regards to infantry. When I put a forest down on the table, it blocks LoS to the other side, there's a lot of trees implied in the forest- although they're not modeled.
If you want to argue that it has to be modeled, then I want to see you fit 10 space marines in a Rhino or fit a dreadnought inside a drop pod and close the doors.
The game isn't fully modeled to realism, why does my forest have to have hundreds of trees to represent a forest?
I place a few trees to show what it is, then there's a mat or paper underneath showing the valid area terrain size.
Likewise, if my models are inside the forest, you can see and shoot them, but they have the cover save. Done.
Other dumb rule- sweeping advance. Initiative should not be used to determine an entire unit's death. Just make it "suffer additional casualties equal to the amount lost by. Equal to or higher than and there's no losses, the unit falls back.
Remove fearless NR rules... it's dumb.
No Retreat was implemented to sort out the uber fearless cc units that would sit in close combat tearing up everything and never dying (i.e. Terminators with Chaplain or daemons)...
No it just hurts any and all units that have fearless - especially nids and orks.
Why not just say the unit takes an additional wound for each point lost by (subject to the amended loss penalties, so never more than 5 or so) and has to make armor saves or die? They have armor and they're fearless... so it's not like you're catching them flat-footed and unable to defend themselves.
I get what you're saying and I agree to a point, but how does that correspond with LOS? You'd check LOS from the gun, but then measure range from the hull?
No, you measure both from the gun.
A landraider can hide behind a building just as wide as its hull, fire out with no obstruction and not get shoot at in return.
My interpertation RAW would be that you can't see the LR as the BRB says only a models body or hull counts for LOS, guns don't.
Kevin949 wrote:You can argue until you're blue in the face, I won't change my stance on what I feel is a stupid rule.
I was just explaining your belief was irrational, giving a reasoned argument based on rules, precedent and a grasp of the balance in the game. Balancing 1/3rd of the game so it has an effect in 1/3rd of the game makes sense to me - it doesnt to you, but hey.
Your response is: tl:dr. that explains even more about you.
Kevin949 wrote:You can argue until you're blue in the face, I won't change my stance on what I feel is a stupid rule.
I was just explaining your belief was irrational, giving a reasoned argument based on rules, precedent and a grasp of the balance in the game. Balancing 1/3rd of the game so it has an effect in 1/3rd of the game makes sense to me - it doesnt to you, but hey.
Your response is: tl:dr. that explains even more about you.
I read your response, I just didn't feel the need to quote it. Again, taking things way to literally. If I didn't read it, I wouldn't have been able to respond to individual portions of it.
So you're arguing my belief of a rule being stupid by basing your argument on the rules? You seem to not understand, I get the rule. I get where it comes from. I get their reasoning behind it. I fully 100% understand everything about the rule. *I* think it's a dumb rule. Anything that allows an entire squad to be wiped out because you had to roll against some attribute that has huge negatives to it is ridiculous. Especially considering the rule doesn't apply to at least 2 entire armies. Probably more, but again I don't know all the armies and don't know who can be/get fearless.
nosferatu1001 wrote:And I was explaining, mainly for the benefit of others, why it isnt *actually* a stupid rule. It balances the game, which you don';t like.
Your personal belief that it is a dumb rule is fine - it doesnt mean it actually IS.
Balances it for the armies that don't actually suffer from it, sure. *Shrug*
nosferatu1001 wrote:And I was explaining, mainly for the benefit of others, why it isnt *actually* a stupid rule. It balances the game, which you don';t like.
Your personal belief that it is a dumb rule is fine - it doesnt mean it actually IS.
it is a stupid rule. It works in the middle but breaks down at the extremes, and unfortunately the extremes are reasonably common.
The problem is that they eliminated outnumbering as any kind of bonus. Their intent is a good one, lets make combat faster and more brutal with less tar pitting. Unfortunately it ended up with some absurd results, such as:
I have 20 guys, you have 6. I kill 5 of your guys, you kill 9 of mine. Now it's 1 on 11 and I'm guaranteed to win...except oh I'm LD 8 so I'm testing on a 4. Now I likely get swept.
The point may be to say that well, even though it looked like you were doing well in that combat, you weren't really, sorry! That is fine, but it looks absolutely ridiculous on the game board when these kind of results happen.
If they kept the current rule, but also put in a modified version of outnumbering that gave a bonus, then it would be fine. As it is, it is terrible, unrealistic, and even though it achieves their quick and brutal goal, it does it in a ham handed way that only GW could be proud of.
I used to like the old rules where (i think its been a while) you got -1Ld if out numbered -2 if it was 2:1, -3 if 3:1 and -4 if 4:1 have to look at 3rd ed rulebook tonight
4th ed rulebook. You also got -1 for being below 50%
Kevin - no, you dont get what "balance" means do you? It *balances* COMBAT as a *whole* so it is a reasonable proposition compared to shooting, where you take no risks at all (barring the outliers like Gets Hot! et al) and such where it accounts for the 1/3rd of the game it should be.
What it means is that armies where combat is their focus now have combat phase equal to those armies where shooting is their strength. tautological statements like "it improves those who are good at it" dont disprove or even vaguely address this.
As for the "extremes" - so you mean the situation where you have seen half your mates butchered wouldnt be unnerving to you? At all? Or do you rationally sit down and work out how many you killed, and go "Oh thats not so bad..."? Menwhile the last guy has chopped your head off...and g'teed to win? Why? Are you saying armies with hordes should automatically win combat, just because there are more of them? Uh, no. That is idiotic in the extreme - you are equating 11 grots to 1 space marine there.
Bunk
Combat resolution is another abstraction necessary because of the IGO UGO nature of the game - you have to have a method of working out who "wins" at each step, and this is a great one for making it so that combat doesnt take 3 full turns to complete. It improves combat to the point where it isnt a slow, long slug fest where nothing really happens until the last guy dies or finally you outnumber 4:1 (by virtue of 1 guy left and 4 enemies...) and they break.
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
But on open ground you already get a free move and then you add 1d6. You're not running through the terrain, you're picking your way through it so your whole move is 1d6 or less.
11 grots normally won't even kill a space marine in combat. So no, I'm not comparing 11 grots to 1 space marine, please straw man less.
The rule tried to fix tar-pitting and instead created absurd butchery and made numbers meaningless.
If we kill 5 dudes and leave one left, but we lost 8 dudes...strangely, no, I wouldn't view it as my mates being "butchered around me" or that we were losing in any way. we killed 85% of them!
I agree with you that the rule is slightly better than the old tar pit happy rules. I just don't agree with the abuse it causes low leadership armies, and large sized, non-fearless units. 5 or less on a 2d6 because you lost by 3? I'm not comparing 11 grots to 1 space marine, I'm comparing 20 kroot to 6 marines, which turned into 12 kroot and 1 marine. It is especially poor because you end up in situations where one extra armor save changes a massacre one way to a likely massacre the other.
Compare the rule with the fantasy rule it poorly copies. In 40k:
Casualties are counted. Loser tests on LD -result. If it fails, I test. Swept on a tie or better.
in Fantasy:
Casualties are counted. Bonuses given for Ranks, Banner, outnumbering. Typically easy access to a higher leadership or a reroll or both. Loser tests on LD -result. If it fails, unit flees and can be pursued - if the units have similar speeds, it is an even test.
Piles of easy to achieve bonuses are given in fantasy. No bonuses of any kind are given in 40k for anything for most armies - making it even worse against the few who do have bonuses!
Obviously combat resolution has to be abstracted. But it doesn't need to be abstracted as simply as it is in 5e. You can say "it's a good rule" until you're blue in the face, but it isn't. It's a good start, and better in some ways than 4e, but it is a failure as a rule.
It isnt strawman at all, given you didnt specify the unit. I just picked something used in largeish units. You misunderstand strawman...
"Easy access" to a higher leadership? Avg Ld in fantasy is 1 point lower, you have to have a hero in the unit or the general within 12" to have anything higher. Bonuses only apply unless you get flanked by US5, in which case only the banner counts. Etc. At least 3 armies can get bonuses.
It isnt a failure as a rule, it achieves exactly what it set out to do: in a game with movement as easy as it is compared to fantasy, and with shooting as potent as it is compared to fantasy, combat is now a fair comparitor - potetnially higher gains, but at commensurately higher risk, ESPECIALLY as you can no longer clean combat zones.
Stop considering the rules in a vacuum, that is a dishonest way to consider the overall effect on balance, which is what th edebate was about.
You: a space marine should be able to kill 11 grots!
That is a strawman, plain and simple. You weren't arguing against what I said, you made up your own example and argued against it.
You made comments that it was *exactly* as it worked in fantasy, and it isn't. You stated repeatedly that this rule "balances" shooting and assault armies, which also isn't true. Even if it were true it wouldn't matter, since this is a thread about rules you find dumb, not lets trash people who find rules dumb that you happen to like.
Anyway, pointless. The rule sounds dumb to me, the end. I also think it fails to really achieve its goal, and could be improved immensely with minor changes, but we disagree on that and that is fine. The end.
lambadomy wrote:Anyway, pointless. The rule sounds dumb to me, the end. I also think it fails to really achieve its goal, and could be improved immensely with minor changes, but we disagree on that and that is fine. The end.
This is a forum, man. Forums, traditionally, are where people come to discuss and debate things in public. If we can't engage each other in debate, what the frak are we even doing here? You can't discuss ideas if you can't say someone opposite you is wrong. Then everyone is CAT-footing around the issue trying to remain politically correct.
I think Nosferatu is correct, and Lam and Kevin are wrong, for reasons Nosferatu already went over. The -Ld is more of a boon for shooting armies than Assault ones, and speeds the game up in general. And you can still throw meat at Assault units to slow them down: getting the charge is huge for most assault units. Pretty much all the good ones rely on Furious Charge or the extra attacks from the charge to deal damage. I mean, look at what happens when a Combat Squad steals the charge from a horde of Orks.
DarkHound wrote:I think Nosferatu is correct, and Lam and Kevin are wrong, for reasons Nosferatu already went over. The -Ld is more of a boon for shooting armies than Assault ones, and speeds the game up in general. And you can still throw meat at Assault units to slow them down: getting the charge is huge for most assault units. Pretty much all the good ones rely on Furious Charge or the extra attacks from the charge to deal damage. I mean, look at what happens when a Combat Squad steals the charge from a horde of Orks.
I have mixed feelings about the rule at present. In it's favour it does speed up combat resolution dramatically. This is a fundamentally different game to fantasy, and while that game should have something of a grind in melee over multiple turns, in 40K an assault should be a decisive thing. And it's worth remembering that speedy combat resolution is not always a benefit to the cc player - he likes to have his troops nice and safe during the enemy's turn.
However, it's basically removed an entire unit type from the game, with tarpitting all but gone. The option to take a low cost unit with loads of wounds and nothign else and try to hold up elite enemy units was an interesting part of the game, and now it's all but gone. The other issue is the tendency for combats for feel 'wrong', such as the example of the unit losing 9 of 20 models, while their opponents lost 5 of 6 - under the old outnumbering rule the losers would have to take a morale check, but it'd be with no modifier and they'd probably stay in combat. In the 5th ed rules they'll suffer a modifier of -4 and be almost certain to run away, despite being almost certain to win the combat in the subsequent turn.
There's plusses to the new rule but there's also minusses. Perhaps they could modify the current rule, so that you only suffered the negative modifiers if you had less troops than the winner? So, for instance, a mob of 25 conscripts is fighting 15 CSMs, and in the first round the CSMs kill 9 conscripts, while the conscripts kill 1 in response. The conscripts would test, but rather than suffering a -8 modifier and being almost certain to flee, they would test but suffer no modifier as they have more troops in the fight. In the second round the conscripts suffer another 8 casualties, while inflicting another one themselves, now they’ve got less men in the fight and they’re losing badly, so the negative modifier would apply and they’d be almost certain to flee.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zeshin wrote:]My "not to scale" argument does go against the grain a bit on that. But basically the method that made sense to me was to measure from the hull for everything (range and movement) and simply verify that the weapon, as it is mounted, can actually see the target. Thus if my predator is angled toward a heavy weapon on the left of the board (hoping for a fron armour hit) the left sponsons won't be able to shoot much straight down the board and certainly not to my right. It seemed a common sense thing with the LOS, but now my desire to simplify just sounds more complex...
Yeah, it isn't a bad replacement, I was just pointing out that it wouldn't be an ideal fix as you'd be measuring range and LOS from two different places. If GW took it on it'd probably get as many complaints in threads like this as the current rule does
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:No, you measure both from the gun.
Yes, that is what you do under the current rules. The issue was what you do under the proposed rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Norsehawk wrote:Why not just change it to require an armor save for every member of the squad when going over dangerous terrain, fail and take a wound. A 1 in 6 chance of having to take an armor save is just not dangerous enough to simulate dangerous terrain. The method I suggested might be too brutal though.
Not that I see a lot of dangerous terrain.
That'd be pretty harsh on anything that isn't in power armour. The 1 in 6 thing also represents the luck factor, when you jump pack into a forest you might fly into a branch but you probably won't - but under your rules it assumes every ork would hit a branch and only 1 in 6 would survive. I just think leave the rule as it is - it's fine for something that doesn't come up very often.
DarkHound wrote:This is a forum, man. Forums, traditionally, are where people come to discuss and debate things in public. If we can't engage each other in debate, what the frak are we even doing here? You can't discuss ideas if you can't say someone opposite you is wrong. Then everyone is CAT-footing around the issue trying to remain politically correct.
A Few things:
At some point, you have to just agree to disagree and move on, if you're not getting anywhere. Arguing and discussing is fine, no one is tiptoeing, and I'm not complaining about it. I'm perfectly willing to say, repeatedly, that nosferatu is wrong, and he's willing to say the same about me. But he's not going to suddenly convince me about the rule being good at this point, so...what is the point? This isn't even an objective discussion.
As nosferatu said, you can't judge rules in a vacuum. This rule affects the fearless taking extra hits rule, which some say is dumb but it's better than getting swept! This rule is related to the fact that you can't consolidate into a fresh combat, which you point out makes quick resolution sometimes a boon to the shooty army. I'm not arguing about any of that. This thread is specifically about rules you find dumb. The way this rule often works out, to me, is dumb, was lazily written, and could be much improved, in ways I and others have pointed out. You don't agree...and I'm not going to get GW to suddenly write a new rulebook to change it for me.
This thread was on a specific topic, what rules sound dumb to you. Continuing to argue about whether the rule actually is dumb feels like hijacking the thread, though admittedly it's been long hijacked.
If you have a unit of 30 models and 1 is sticking in LOS of the enemy, only that 1 model may fire. But the enemy can fire and wound the entire 30 model unit...
Hoodwink wrote:If you have a unit of 30 models and 1 is sticking in LOS of the enemy, only that 1 model may fire. But the enemy can fire and wound the entire 30 model unit...
This, if i can only fire one guy you cant hit the rest
Hoodwink wrote:If you have a unit of 30 models and 1 is sticking in LOS of the enemy, only that 1 model may fire. But the enemy can fire and wound the entire 30 model unit...
This is to prevent LOS / Range sniping, and was explicitly in the design notes for 5th ed. Range / LOS sniping was *dumb*
Also: you have control over where you move your models to. If you manage to only let one guy shoot, guess whose fault that is?
)
