Hi dakka I was just wondering about what is your guys least favorite rule in warhammer 40k. Now let me clarify what this means. I do not mean griping about how you lost a battle because of some rule you didn't know or didn't read or something like that this is a strictly friendly thread and I'm trying to see if people out there agree that some rules GW comes up with don't make sense.

My least favorite rule is actually 2 rules.

1. I don't like how models can not consolidate into a combat anymore after winning a close combat. I loved how in 4th edition after you wiped a unit out you could then (assuming you rolled well) charge another unit in the same turn. Too many times now I've assaulted a unit with my Terminators or even Assault Marines only to have them blown to smitherines after the combat. I used to play a pretty heavy CC oriented army in 4th but thanks to that rule change now I have to play a more ranged army and I think it gives an advantage to ranged armies.

2. I don't like how hard it is now to destroy vehicles. Currently in 40K I think the metagame is definitely vehicles. Back in 4th Lascannons used to be very effective but now (at least with my roll's ) in 5th I find Lascannons to be very uneffective. It seems Meltaguns are the way to go but I miss the days of having a predator be able to reek havoc in my opponents army. (I however do not miss how overpowered Eldar were lol)

Anyway, let me get your guys opinions on any rules you don't like, or you find don't make sense, or even rules you miss from earlier additions.

+1 on the vehicle damage chart for AP1 weapons. It made the meltagun the obvious default weapon of choice and as such it is spammed everywhere. Also all most new weapons seem to be AP1 for no reason at all except for the bonus to the damage chart. Its stupid.

I much prefered back in 4th ed where an AP1 weapon turned a glancing hit to a penetrating hit. You actually saw different weapons other than melta guns on the table.

Second most hated rule is the run rule. I hates it I tell you. Now everyone has 4th ed fleet and 5th ed fleet has significantly reduced game effect. Because we all know that Eldar guardians really want to jump into combat. Its justa slap in the face for those who have it (old codexs) but never want to use it.

Falling back. Just once I want to play a game where the whole leadership part, doesnt exist....(and no, i hate space marines )

1. As primarily a Tau player I must disagree. I feel that in the present edition the CC vs. Ranged is mostly balanced.

2. Partially Agree. Although I can understand how there might be an issue with lascannons or lances, Railguns annihilate enemy vehicles, especially when tl on a broadside suit or with markerlights. Again though, most armies don't have S10 AP1 at Range 72", so I see how this could get annoying.

As for my own least favorite rule? Sweeping Advance in some extremes. Although I can understand some things (say, my fire warriors getting wiped out), why is it that 5 assault marines can cut down 30 orks? Maybe limit the number of kills in a sweeping advance to the number of attacks a squad gets (including bonuses for extra CC weapons but not for charging into close combat). It wouldn't effect most CC, but would prevent some unrealistic scenarios.

As a Guard player, I don't like how in CC, vehicles get hit on their rear armor. Doesn't mean that it is a bad rule or isn't balanced or anything. I still don't like it, though .

Jayden I totally agree with you that there is too much melta on the table its insane that its like the only thing you see now. Scuicide squads are almost a must have now for Space Marines and IG and even Orkz.

Blitza falling back does suck but it makes sense though because a unit would get disheartened to see his comrades slaughtered. (Now I am a mostly Space Marine player and my Guard rarely run, they just get wiped out lol, so I don't really know just how bad running can be )

Alphapod Railguns are amazing and I wish my Marines had something like that but I know one of my friends would disagree that CC vs. Ranged is mostly balanced. He actually thinks CC is still overpowered (to which I disagree), he plays Tau and he hates them. In one tournament he had Tyranids overun and wreck him.

I've always hated the turn sequence.

Nurglitch wrote:I've always hated the turn sequence.

This.

I have always hated(even knowing it is an abstraction) my army patiently waiting for the opponent to move, and shoot me and maybe launch an assault or 2 before i get to do the same to him.

The game would have more tactical options; along with being more realistic with a given turn being broken down like this:
First Player starts the Turn; begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
Second Player begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
First Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
Second Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
First Player makes assault moves
Second player makes assault moves
Close combat begins for each unit in Close combat.

This would also even up the other issue I have always had: There are twice as many assault Phases as there are Shooting phases(making Close combat actually more powerful than shooting, along with the ubiquitous cover).

I don't think there are any rules I hate... but there are a lot I feel could work better.

Major one for me is movement and squad coherency. Moving pieces is definitely one of the biggest time sinks in 40k, Especially with hoards. If you're playing against someone who is pedantic about measuring, or you have to be pedantic about it, because your opponent keeps cheating, then it can get really tiresome. I'm not going t derail the topic by suggesting ways to fix it. But I think it's a bit pointless to try and streamline the game (which GW has been doing) without seriously addressing movement.

Break tests could certainly be better. I frequently forget about them, my opponents frequently forget about them. And it's really irritating when you are already in the combat phase and someone notices that a squad took 25% casualties in shooting and we forget to take a break test...

Though my biggest gripe is with armour penetration. i don't see why someone couldn't sit down and think up one straight forward system for armour pen that covers both tank armour and infantry armour.

I'd like a better way of handling harming things under one system. Toughness/Save vs. AV is awkward.

sonsoftaurus wrote:I'd like a better way of handling harming things under one system. Toughness/Save vs. AV is awkward.

The point of doing so many checks is to balance out lucky rolls without taking away the chance to perform better, or worse, than average entirely.

I think my least favorite rule concerns the movement of vehicles and how many weapons they can fire. Combat tanks are simply immobile, and that defeats the whole point of putting guns on tracks.

Kommissar Kel said:

The game would have more tactical options; along with being more realistic with a given turn being broken down like this:
First Player starts the Turn; begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
Second Player begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
First Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
Second Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
First Player makes assault moves
Second player makes assault moves
Close combat begins for each unit in Close combat.

I totally agree with this I think the game would go much better given simultaneous turns and I agree that CC is very powerful due to the fact that there are twice as many rounds of it (perhaps thats why GW stopped the whole consolodate into combat thing).

As for vehicles I think we can all agree that Melta aside it is incredibly hard to kill vehicles. I've seen armies that are CC oriented WITH Melta-bombs and other anti-tank weapons get ripped apart because when they assaulted the vehicle they need insane rolls to hit and then their rolls failed to destroy the tank. I don't understand why GW can't do some sort of structure point system similar to vehicles in Apocolypse. They could do something like this,

If you glance you roll a dice and follow the normal rules for the damage chart.

But if you penetrate the vehicle you take away automatically 1 structure point and then roll a dice and add the normal damage chart affect as well, and if your opponent happens to roll a 6 then your vehicle is automatically destroyed (maybe the unit got a lucky shot) and then on a roll of a 5 maybe the vehicle loses yet another structure point.

That way instead of me firing my Lascannon penetrating and then rolling a 1 every freakin time at least I know I would be helping to wittle the vehicle down instead of just watching it buzz around (unless its a LR darn PotMS).

I think the rules for hitting moving vehicles in CC are completely slowed.
My absurdly high weapon skilled model can only hit the gigantic tank on a 6 with no modifiers? Yeah, nice one GW.

Kommissar Kel wrote:I have always hated(even knowing it is an abstraction) my army patiently waiting for the opponent to move, and shoot me and maybe launch an assault or 2 before i get to do the same to him.

The game would have more tactical options; along with being more realistic with a given turn being broken down like this:
First Player starts the Turn; begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
Second Player begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
First Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
Second Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
First Player makes assault moves
Second player makes assault moves
Close combat begins for each unit in Close combat.

This would also even up the other issue I have always had: There are twice as many assault Phases as there are Shooting phases(making Close combat actually more powerful than shooting, along with the ubiquitous cover).

Vaguely similar to 1st edition Epic. Place a counter by each unit for orders, charge, advance or overwatch. Do the charge moves, advance moves, overwatch fire, advance fire, close combat.

What annoys me is the concept that vehicles hit in cc turn 1 are autohit as they didn't move the previous turn because there wasn't one, even if they scout moved. Just how long were they parked there 100 feet from all those genestealers?

I hate that a vehicle that deepstrikes onto enemy (or friendly) models suffers a deep strike mishap-I'm pretty sure a land raider (I do play BA) that lands on my opponents unit of kroot will smoosh said kroot into little piles of gak...rather than blow up from falling on them. Seriously...the monolith has it right-push enemy troops out of the way-they scatter from a falling vehicle. Or count it as a tank shock. Or things like drop pod rules-but mishapping from falling on troops is complete gak. It should turn into a tank shock if hitting troops, or ramming if hitting another vehicle. Just my 2 cents on a great topic idea!

Arson Fire wrote:I think the rules for hitting moving vehicles in CC are completely slowed.
My absurdly high weapon skilled model can only hit the gigantic tank on a 6 with no modifiers? Yeah, nice one GW.

\

A gigantic tank Zooming by...

hard to hit a squishy spot with only 2 seconds to aim your attack and swing ;-)


I dont care for the your turn my turn thing.

should be i activate a unit, move, shoot, assault with it, then you activate a unit etc. till all units have moved that turn.

Hand's down. The rule if you close off a transport and it explodes the unit inside dies.

DarkHound wrote:

sonsoftaurus wrote:I'd like a better way of handling harming things under one system. Toughness/Save vs. AV is awkward.

The point of doing so many checks is to balance out lucky rolls without taking away the chance to perform better, or worse, than average entirely.

I think my least favorite rule concerns the movement of vehicles and how many weapons they can fire. Combat tanks are simply immobile, and that defeats the whole point of putting guns on tracks.

Seconded, why put buttloads of guns on your tank if you have to stay at the far end of the table to actually fire them?

Shadowbrand wrote:Hand's down. The rule if you close off a transport and it explodes the unit inside dies.

Wait what?

There is no rule like that, the only thing that happens is the unit gets a S4 hit...

(well, unless It is army specific...)

Oh God. With 5th Ed it's just too hard to pick one!

True LOS (that isn't).

Scatting every single blast market.

The vehicle rules, in toto.

Kill Points!

The Chaos Codex. All of it. Every single fething word.

It happens when a transport is entirely surrounded and then wrecked. Since the infantry cannot disembark because enemy models are in the way the entire squad is destroyed.

EDIT: H.B.M.C. is still kicking around? I haven't seen him post in ages.

Fearless wounds and Orks. I understand some sort of counterbalance is needed, but Orks are bloody screwed over by fearless wounds and are screwed without Fearless to keep them fighting.

If Mob Rule allowed the Ork player to re-roll the saves for Fearless wounds, it might not be so bad.

So you'd prefer fearless to running away and being SA'd on Init 2?

Ork KFF. I have enough problems killing vehicles at range without a bloody 4+ save....

I think consolidating into a new combat is a little over powered, for sure. A good CC unit could kill half an army. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if you could consolidate into a new assault, but not fight it until the next assault phase, but count as charging. Essentially, you could take cover in the assault during your opponents shooting phase.


In general, I like the 5th edition rules, though my least favorite is the single target shooting restriction. If I've got a lascannon in my Tac squad, why would that Marine waste his shot on the squad of traitor guardsmen his bolter armed buddies are gunning down when there's a perfectly threatening vehicle off to the side?

You should, as a general rule, be able to able to split shots between targets by wargear, ala Wound Allocation rules. i.e. In a standard Tactical Squad, the missle Launcher Marine can have one target, all the bolter marines can have could have a different target, the sergeant can have a different target, and the flamer marines can have a different target. It'd still be pretty unwise to spread fire too much. As a principle, you want to roll as many dice as you can.

Assault restrictions are also annoying. Why can we only assault what we shoot? I suppose it makes sense that your unit is too focused on the one enemy unit, but if you wipe it out with shooting, you should be able to assault a different target.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you'd prefer fearless to running away and being SA'd on Init 2?

How about they just rework combat resolution to something fair that doesn't go out of it's way to screw horde armies over while holding an 'I hate hoards!' sign, yelling into a microphone about how much hoards suck in 40k and signing it's autographs 'Hoard Hater'? Just purely counting number of wounds done with no other considerations and then arbitrarily screwing one side, hard, sideways, without lube and with fiberglass is just total bollocks. I know it's a shocking concept, and you should probably sit down before I hit you with this. You done? Ready? OK here it comes, brace yourself. Last chance to make sure you're ready. Hoard armies have a lot of wounds. BAM OMG ARE YOU OK I'M SORRY I THOUGHT YOU WERE READY.

Commander Endova wrote:I think consolidating into a new combat is a little over powered, for sure. A good CC unit could kill half an army. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if you could consolidate into a new assault, but not fight it until the next assault phase, but count as charging. Essentially, you could take cover in the assault during your opponents shooting phase.


In general, I like the 5th edition rules, though my least favorite is the single target shooting restriction. If I've got a lascannon in my Tac squad, why would that Marine waste his shot on the squad of traitor guardsmen his bolter armed buddies are gunning down when there's a perfectly threatening vehicle off to the side?

You should, as a general rule, be able to able to split shots between targets by wargear, ala Wound Allocation rules. i.e. In a standard Tactical Squad, the missle Launcher Marine can have one target, all the bolter marines can have could have a different target, the sergeant can have a different target, and the flamer marines can have a different target. It'd still be pretty unwise to spread fire too much. As a principle, you want to roll as many dice as you can.

Assault restrictions are also annoying. Why can we only assault what we shoot? I suppose it makes sense that your unit is too focused on the one enemy unit, but if you wipe it out with shooting, you should be able to assault a different target.

#

Oh yes, Definitely think we need to be able to split fire by weapon type, "Brother! use the squad's lascannon on the Traitor's Predator while we hold them off!" "No, the rules won't let me"

And yes why can't centuries old highly trained fighters concentrate on more than one thing at a time with regards to shooting & assaulting, Christ even I can multitask, right now I'm working and whingeing

And overwatch needs to come back...

I'd really like to streamline the turn sequence... I mean really games like Warmachine have it down, it feels really fluid. Also why can't we pick our targets? I don't even think it would be overpowered...

DarkHound wrote:EDIT: H.B.M.C. is still kicking around? I haven't seen him post in ages.

I'm part of the furniture man.

By far the one I hate the most is the Sweeping Advance rule, because if you think about it it just doesn't make any sense for half the armies out there. There is no reason for most of the armies raised in the Grimdark world to flee when they start losing a small fist-fight scuffle. Space Marines are battled hardened veterans of centuries of fighting so I highly doubt they're one to turn tale and get shot down while fleeing. Necrons don't fear death, they work for him, and it says they only retreat when tactically advantageous. Tyranids can just make more so they wouldn't care about being slaughtered in combat. Chaos Space Marines are generally so crazy they've lost a primal fear. The only armies who can logically be affected by sweeping advance, to me, would be the Tau and the Eldar. But even then Tau would stay for 'The Greater Good'.

I don't like how easy vehicles are to kill in CC, Kroot should not be able to harm a chimera ever, under any circumstances.

Disruption pods KFF and the like, its railroading all guard players into one style of play, and thats melta vets. I want big tank battles!

SumYungGUy - ummm, ok. Nerdrage alert.

SO you think they should have kept the 4th ed rules where you could lose combat by 30 but as long as you have at least the same number of models as the losing side you would test on, at worst, a -1 to LD?

Your point is so hilariously bad its just...just funny, really. Combat is brutal, get over it. If you have 30 boyz how in hel are you losing that badly, and if you ARE losing badly then perhaps, just perhaps, you should have selected a slightly better target?

Player incompetence isnt a rules problem...

EmilCrane wrote:I don't like how easy vehicles are to kill in CC, Kroot should not be able to harm a chimera ever, under any circumstances.

Disruption pods KFF and the like, its railroading all guard players into one style of play, and thats melta vets. I want big tank battles!

My gunline army would like to have a word with you.....

TsarNikolai wrote:
My gunline army would like to have a word with you.....

Do you have any success with anything but Melta vets?

TLOS is by far the worst rule of 5th ed. Now, the way that a unit is modeled actually matters tactically on the field. This leaves you with two options, either using models that were designed by artists, not tactitians, or to model things yourself and get accused of cheating. Combining art and strategy was the worst move of 5th ed.

Other than that, I still don't like assault rules. They did a much better job of simplifying it and weeding out some of the nonsense (endless assaults where you never got to shoot at a unit because they consolidated straight into another combat, for example), but it's still kind of bulky and awkward, especially where multi-assaults are concerned. Could use a little work.

U mad, Ailiaros?

Killpoints.

"I wipe out 3/4 your army, you took out some Rhinos...so you win?"

I don't actually think that KP was all that bad. Without it, mech armies would have their usual advantage in objectives games without the liability that KP brings. If you think we see a lot of mech lists now, just imagine if KP weren't there.

The impression I get of KP games was that they did the other two missions and thought of what kinds of lists would just horribly dominate (MSU swarms, mech lists, etc.) and then designed a mission type that was specifically designed to deter people from taking those kinds of lists to the exclusion of everything else.

You say MSU and mech is bad...because? It's mostly an annoyance that you can clobber an enemy dead, but "lose" by bookkeeping mechanics (or wonky Ard Boyz missions)

Blitza da warboy wrote:Falling back. Just once I want to play a game where the whole leadership part, doesnt exist....(and no, i hate space marines )

Pretty much hate the Falling Back rule myself.
I don't want to fall back, I came to FIGHT!

If there was one thing I would change though it's with the way Turns are played out. I think it would play better if players took it in turn to activate a Unit at a time. That way Initiative would be less important.

But generally I'm happy with the game. I would play it if I wasn't.

To people complaining about consolidation into combat ....

It was your fault if you left units too close together, you should have seen the assault coming earlier and moved unitw aaway from his intended target to leave him high and dry ...

Incompetance shouldnt get the rules changed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:SumYungGUy - ummm, ok. Nerdrage alert.

SO you think they should have kept the 4th ed rules where you could lose combat by 30 but as long as you have at least the same number of models as the losing side you would test on, at worst, a -1 to LD?

Your point is so hilariously bad its just...just funny, really. Combat is brutal, get over it. If you have 30 boyz how in hel are you losing that badly, and if you ARE losing badly then perhaps, just perhaps, you should have selected a slightly better target?

Player incompetence isnt a rules problem...

Welp you heard it hear first folks, player incompetence means a bad rule is good. As long as you insult someone else you're immediately right, bonus points for manufacturing arguments for them then knocking them down. Logic? Seeing things from another point of view? Being open minded? Nobody needs that. Just tell the other guy he sucks!

Allaros - TLOS has been in the game since 3rd ed. It was only in 5th that they finally tried to stop everyone simply classifying everything as level 3 area terrain so a tank could hide behind a tiny hedge.

4th ed should have been mostly TLOS, people simply played it wrong.

Sumyunguy - so you cant respond sensibly, well done! Keep going, your argument is brilliant so far, real grade "A" stuff.

If you lose a combat by 30 wounds then perhaps you should have not got into that combat. Being punished for losing badly is quite a sensible rule - or do you prefer the endless combats of 4th ed, where a swarm of models, as long as it had one more model than the opponent, was only ever testing (or taking NR!) on -1Ld?

Most of my problem rules are ones that slow the game down while providing little (if any) benefit.

For example, I hate scatter dice. I understand the concept: misses still hurt a densely packed foe. But it's a slow process to figure out exactly where a miss should end up. And when you need to tell whether the center hole is on a vehicle or not, a difference of a few degrees can be huge. To make things worse, thanks to the differing perspectives of the opposite sides of the table, you and your opponent are each going to have a different view of where the template ought to end up.

It's a rule that seems intentionally designed to cause tension.

I also used to really hate Feel No Pain. Mostly because of the history: Multiple saves were removed in 3rd Ed. in the name of streamlining, and then the silly 3rd Ed. Blood Angel Codex brought them right back. I have calmed down since then, but I've got to imagine that the game would play slightly faster if FNP was simplified into a bonus to either Toughness or armor save. (Or both!)

I like the abstractions of 5th Ed. A "realistic" grimdark setting would also be neat, but would need to involve a top-to-bottom redesign.

I think some of you have forgotten how much consolidating into new combats could suck. having a close combat army play connect the dots with your army for 4 turns despite you having lots and lots of guns to shoot at them. You can still do it half the time anyway when the combat ends on your opponents turn

For the record I'm not a fan of always hitting vehicles on rear armor. I could see hitting side armor from the front or rear from the side but what really grinds my gears is having my 200+ point battle tank killed by some schmoes who managed to reach the front of my AV14 tank and proceed to kill it with S6 grenades.

"Remove xxxx from play"

After playing agaisnt a IG army where the squads winded up, I found out that I think the cover saves are much better than they should be.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Allaros - TLOS has been in the game since 3rd ed.

Except this is the only edition of the game where you can be forced to remove models that are out of range of your attacker, or are out of LOS of your attacker, or out of range and LOS of your attacker.

There's nothing "true" about the line of sight rules in 5th Ed.

Just like there's nothing fun about the Sweeping Advance rules.

Just like there were never any complaints about MSU's until Kill Points first showed up (honestly - never even heard the acronym throughout all the years of 3rd and 4th).

Just like vehicles changed from moving glass hammers (4th Ed) back to stationary bunkers (3rd Ed).


5th Ed is a fething joke. Several huge steps backwards from what was already a pretty clunky game system (4th Ed).

Kill points seems inferior to victory points. The latter just seems more intuitive. TLOS isn't a perfect system but has worked well enough for me and my friends.

I just dont like sweeping advance at all. If you win the Initiative check you should just get a free hit for every model you had in the combat (save and wound as normal) then the loser retreats. Makes much more sense and doesn't lead to bizzare scenarios.

Also I don't know if it would break the game but I think they could have some shoot into melee rules, the simplest would be 4+ cover to the enemy and to hit roll of 1 are resolved as shots on allies.

Just my 2 cents.

edit: "Remove xxxx from play" I forgot to include how annoying these type of abilities are. "O hai thar Nightbringer howz about I turn you into a squig or use Jaws of the World Wolf!"
The worst is probably Dante's death mask though, free wound and then some, no saves or checks.

HBMC - which was introduced to remove the complete stupidity, excelled by Lash, of range and LOS sniping. As the studio stated at launch, many times.

ANd you didnt hear about MSU in 4th? Really? Where were you? Las/plas 6 man marine squads? 6 man lance warrior squads? Anything ring a bell?

I see plenty of moving vehicles. Maybe Australia has some weird time warp?

5th ed is the best version of the "modern" systems so far, and has seen an increase in 40k players locally (casually and at tournaments locally and nationally) which is the point.

Eldar have I5 and so aren't as likely to get cut down as I2 Fire Warriors, who should run away because they suck in CC. I've never liked KPs because they screw armies that have more squads on the field. CC is strong because there are two rounds, but they have to GET to the enemy first. And with no consolidation into assault they can get left out in the middle of an open field right before I shoot. I play Tau and although they aren't new or broken, they are unique enough to be competitive even against Space Wolves or other new codices (although I've never played vs. BA as Tau or against IG at all.) I'm not, however, a fan of Fast, Outflanking Baal Predators or Deep Striking Land Raiders. I mean, seriously?! Under what circumstances (teleportas excepted) could a land raider deepstrike!

I agree shooty units should be punished in a sweeping advance for letting themselves get caught in melee. I just think its absurd when 1 terminator takes out 30 guardsmen (hyperbole, yes but I think you get the idea).

Also I think a free attack better simulates whats happening on the field: an enemy has his back turned so no need to roll to hit, however he's trying to get away as fast as possible rather than lock you in combat so you only get a few attacks.

If one extra attack on a SA isn't enough then maybe base amount of hits, or normal amount of hits (base plus multiple CC weps, none for charging).

edit:just realized termies cant SA, bad example anyway I'm sure people have run into some odd cases so I don't feel compelled to come up with one. Or I could list every CC engagement my crons have had, all bitter defeats (and all against tau )

pariahs losing assault to broadsides was the worst

nosferatu1001 wrote:crap

Yeah yeah, fly away little troll. 'You're stupid and can't argue with me' is not a valid point.

On with the show. It will never happen because GW is allergic to such drastic changes, but I really wish they would take their 'streamlining' foolishness and apply it to the turn phases. I Go, You Go really does suck and the changes necessary are minimal to make hybrid turns. We've played a few games at my local gamer's club and it needed very few fixes.

I myself hate that if you can see the head of one guy in a squad, you can unleash on him and his squad and wipe them out to oblivion.

OH, and assualt phase, as a tau player I think GW should take it out all together (for the greater good of course )

timetowaste85 wrote:I hate that a vehicle that deepstrikes onto enemy (or friendly) models suffers a deep strike mishap-I'm pretty sure a land raider (I do play BA) that lands on my opponents unit of kroot will smoosh said kroot into little piles of gak...rather than blow up from falling on them. Seriously...the monolith has it right-push enemy troops out of the way-they scatter from a falling vehicle. Or count it as a tank shock. Or things like drop pod rules-but mishapping from falling on troops is complete gak. It should turn into a tank shock if hitting troops, or ramming if hitting another vehicle. Just my 2 cents on a great topic idea!

Further more. Blood Angels deep striking into a tiny cluster as they fall out of the sky on their jet packs. That people is TALENT.

Ice got problems with saves. Of all kinds. Wouldn't it make more sense to take armor saves BEFORE rolling to wound? That's like saying "ow you shot me in the kidney... wait hold up I'm good my armor took the bullet out." And I feel like some invulns should stack with armor saves, why should I have to choose between my armor and my energy shield when they're both there?

Cover.... ugghh cover just makes no sense, I feel like it should either a) stack with armor, just because I have good armor I'm suddenly unable to benefit from this wall? Or b) affect being shot period. If I'm behind a wall, you don't hit me and then the wall stops the bullet AFTER it's embedded in my spine, you just hit the wall. It should modify BS or something.

Wow reading that back it sounds whiney

MandalorynOranj wrote:Cover.... ugghh cover just makes no sense, I feel like it should either a) stack with armor, just because I have good armor I'm suddenly unable to benefit from this wall? Or b) affect being shot period. If I'm behind a wall, you don't hit me and then the wall stops the bullet AFTER it's embedded in my spine, you just hit the wall. It should modify BS or something.

That's exactly what it does in Necromunda, which I think has a much better shooting system than 40k despite being very simliar.

Multiple saves makes sense but it would take forever to kill anybody.

"I myself hate that if you can see the head of one guy in a squad, you can unleash on him and his squad and wipe them out to oblivion. "

I think this simulates guys bobbing in and out of cover, peeking around corners, etc. though it's still odd. I have this mental imgae of a SM getting popped in the head because he was peeking over a wall, and all his friends decide to investigate and each one gets headshot'd one by one.

Kurb wrote:

Further more. Blood Angels deep striking into a tiny cluster as they fall out of the sky on their jet packs. That people is TALENT.

I don't understand. All deep strikers do this.

DarkHound wrote:

MandalorynOranj wrote:Cover.... ugghh cover just makes no sense, I feel like it should either a) stack with armor, just because I have good armor I'm suddenly unable to benefit from this wall? Or b) affect being shot period. If I'm behind a wall, you don't hit me and then the wall stops the bullet AFTER it's embedded in my spine, you just hit the wall. It should modify BS or something.

That's exactly what it does in Necromunda, which I think has a much better shooting system than 40k despite being very simliar.

There's a reason for that. Necromunda uses 2nd ed. 40k rules

Sweeping advance. I am a 5 man tactical squad. I wound 5 guardsmen. Guardsmen only wound 2 of us. Oh ty the other 25 are dead.

Not dead they just got their morale horrible broken and the unit scattered from combat, because even though they outnumbered their enemy five to one they were smart enough to see where the fight was going and didi mao.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

Jack

I hate the vehicle shooting rules as well, if all tanks followed the fast vehicle shooting rules it would be much better.

I agree about tanks and shooting. I mean stationary or slow moving tanks that pause to shoot is a WW1 concept that was considered out-dated by the end of that war...

Look at the Battle of the Bulge, Rommel in Africa or the Blitzkrieg. Some of the most influential tank battles in history... because the tanks were firing on the move! Keeping mobile whilst engaging their targets at the same time. Even Mark IVs and A7Vs could do that, admittedly the A7V did bog down and become a firebase after 30 minutes and the Mark IVs lost the ability to turn properly when their trailing wheels got clogged with mud, but still, the idea is that tanks move and shoot big guns, at the same time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ANd you didnt hear about MSU in 4th? Really? Where were you? Las/plas 6 man marine squads? 6 man lance warrior squads? Anything ring a bell?

MSU and min/maxing isn't the same thing.

Min / max led to the same thing, which was many small units. OR are you saying the IW oblit/las plas CSM spam list wasnt MSU?

MSU existed in 4th as a common term. Sorry you didnt hear it, obviously the UK was more META than Aus?

SumYungGUy - brilliant argument, love the rational, logical rebuttal there. Keep going!

Eyclonus - have you not noticed that the LR has a very...early look about it? The tank designs *are* early WWI in look, and apparently have similarly poor "guidance systems" [i.e. pretty much none, if BL is to be believed]

The ruin / building rules are stilla mess - better than 4th (when there wasnt any.....) but that isnt exactly difficult. The way ICs work is still too all or nothing (either you can hit them, non-retinue, or you cant - one is exponentially more powerful than the other. Like daemons being able to assault from deepstrike) - like a lot of elements in 40k it seems too binary.

It's about all the rebuttal I need for you and your trolling. Try going back to beginning and responding without resorting to 'hurr hurr you suck, I'm better!' so I have something to respond to.

Jaon wrote:Sweeping advance. I am a 5 man tactical squad. I wound 5 guardsmen. Guardsmen only wound 2 of us. Oh ty the other 25 are dead.

...and upon the day that this is balanced out a great music will be heard from above celebrating the return of assault as a horde army not sucking. Bonus points if No Retreat! wounds and multiple assaults are fixed too.

Another thing I'd like fixed is the vehicle damage chart being 2D6 with more shades of grey between 'oh you scratched my paint, no shooting next turn' and 'ZOMG I BLOWED UP'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Min / max led to the same thing, which was many small units. OR are you saying the IW oblit/las plas CSM spam list wasnt MSU?

False cause analogy.

MSU = the use of multiple small units to gain an advantage in objective (ie. non-VP) based missions.

Min/Maxing = The taking of the minimum required models to gain the maximum possible special/heavy weapon options.

And while it is true that a Min/Maxed unit can be an MSU (as by their virtue they are usually small units), MSU =/= Min/Max.

And you just sound like a bitter player who hated fighting Iron Warriors.

I believed MSU was the idea that there is too many targets to deal with that fire with the exact same efficiency as an entire squad.

Take 9 obliterators for example. In squads of 3, they are (a nightmaare!!!) reasonably easy to kill, but if all 9 were in seperate units i.e. on their own, the list would be nigh unstoppable, for exactly the same points and firing potential.


Also, when I first started 40k I was appalled that tanks couldnt split fire. Extremely surprising. I still wish for the sponsons of a land raider to be able to target different units WITHOUT using potms, or a leman russ to fire its battlecannon at a rhino then destroy some scouts with its heavy bolters.

But of course there is much sense in the way it is, but I just thought it odd at the time.

Also remove unit XXXX is a bumhole, but its quite hard to use on most units (can we ignore JOTWW)

I am sick of razor spam. Ive never versed one myself, but seriously, why should 10 transports be able to beat every single everything ever?

I also wish with all my heart chimeras still had autocannons :(

I would run a autocannon based army:

3x hydra
3x chimera with autocannon
2x leman russ exterminator
3x heavy weapons team with autocannons.

I would then call my self the ELDAR HUNTER and go and kill eldar.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Eyclonus - have you not noticed that the LR has a very...early look about it? The tank designs *are* early WWI in look, and apparently have similarly poor "guidance systems" [i.e. pretty much none, if BL is to be believed]

What about the SPESSSS MAHREENS!? Oh wait Power of the Machine Spirit. But what about Eldar and Orks? I mean being an ancient race of great power, you'd think they'd bothered with investing in improving armoured warfare? And Orks? Why the hell would not having targetting stop them? They don't even need a peephole to encourage them to pull that trigger and its not like the drivers are in the mood to stop their wagons just so some wimpy boy can hit dat humie!

Snipers should be more effective, I mean sure they're rending but wouldn't it make more sense to wound on a 3 then a 4 if their whole purpose is to pinpoint enemy weaknesses?

H.B.M.C. wrote:False cause analogy.

MSU = the use of multiple small units to gain an advantage in objective (ie. non-VP) based missions.

Min/Maxing = The taking of the minimum required models to gain the maximum possible special/heavy weapon options.

And while it is true that a Min/Maxed unit can be an MSU (as by their virtue they are usually small units), MSU =/= Min/Max.

And you just sound like a bitter player who hated fighting Iron Warriors.

Wrong. So ttoally wrong.

MSU = way to win VP battles by having as many small pointed units as is effective. MSU means you have maximised you ability to split fire to the appropriate targets, while having reduced your opponents abiltity to gain points in return (it is harder to get VPs from 3 units of 10 than 1 unit of 30)

MSU was most hellishly effective in VP missions (90% of 4th ed games, at a wager) and existed all through 4th. Ready to concede yet?

Given my first army was IW plus Khorne (when you were allowed 1 unit of 'zerkers, so i made em BIG for that unit as i love my axes) I really, really doubt you have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Really, couldnt be further from the mark.

SUmYungGuy - nope, your argument still rocks. Good going!

Ugh.

Can we all dial down the drama and the personal attacks?

Yes, I believe we can.

I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

Rage. Nuff said.

I already said mine, but i'll add psychic powers. Why are they so weak? The whole Imperium fears the psykers for their power and proximity to the warp, but hell if i'm running from a leadership test every now and then...

SumYungGui wrote:

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

Are you sure were talking about the same thing here, because a necron is definately not a kitten 0.0

Unreal Toast wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

Are you sure were talking about the same thing here, because a necron is definately not a kitten 0.0

I think he's refering to the fact that they are an outdated codex and therefore weak and defenseless although Dash has shown they aren't as defenseless as some had thought.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ready to concede yet?

You're priceless.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ready to concede yet?

You're priceless.

Isn't he just? Trolls are so cute. I think this one might be a bit confused though, he seems to have left the Warhammer fantasy forum and wandered over here. We don't have Trolls, just Orks.

I'ma have to go with the tried and true 'you can't shoot models engaged in assault.' Silly, ridiculous, and has cost me more games than I can count. I understand why the rule exists, but I still don't like it.

Wow sumyunguy and hbmc .... you both talk with such authority ... whilst having no fething idea what youre talking about ....

kill dem stunties wrote:Wow sumyunguy and hbmc .... you both talk with such authority ... whilst having no fething idea what youre talking about ....

+1

I'm going to go with the whole no consolidating into close combat rule. One of my biggest peeves about playing an assault heavy army is watching one squad assault, wipe out an entire squad, and then proceed to die to shooting on the next turn. Now, I'm not complaining about not being able to sweep across an entire board taking out squads one at a time, but I would like to at least get into CC after winning an assault.

Loccio -but thats the "binary" choice thing I was talking about - key parts of the game seem to end up being overpowered or underpowered, with no middle ground.

Daemons assaulting from deepstrike == game over
Daemons not assaulting from deepstrike == meh

Sumyungguy - carry on, gotta love your spouting of the "t" word, really adds flavour and weight to your argument.

HBMC - since you have failed to refute, I accept your concession.

man so much serious business in this thread

Alpharius wrote:

Can we all dial down the drama and the personal attacks?

The way the assault phase works out on fast units or beasts. They should be able to ride in, beat the crêpe out of them and ride away.

The DEAMONIC ASSAULT rule.

My least favorite rule is "The Most Important Rule," because rather than serve its intended purpose, it lets whiny players try to bend the rules when the outcome of a particular action isn't what they hoped it would be.

Well, I just recently got 5th edition so I haven't come across rules I hate in play, but I do have two I hate in theory.

First is the conga-line of casualty removal; if you can't see or can't range into a model, then he should not be a potential casualty.

Also, I do not like IGO-UGO. I prefer alternating activations like Fast and Dirty does.

M.

Suicidal Cheez wrote:The way the assault phase works out on fast units or beasts. They should be able to ride in, beat the crêpe out of them and ride away.

They call it Hit and Run. That said, its an annoyance but what I find frustrating is that if you manage to beat the tar out of a unit, you can't attempt a Hit and Run. (Or as I call it, the "Show-off Clown Syndrome", due to many a Harlequin unit who stood to gloat over the bodies of fallen Scouts before dying to the Marines who would disembark from their Rhinos to bolter them).

Infantryman - this is to remove the frank stupidity of LOS and range sniping from 4th ed Hideous, hideous rule set 4th ed.

Right, there are some rules that make less sense when seen in the light of reality, but make more sense in terms of game mechanics. With a few exceptions, 5th ed cleaned up most of the stupidity and garbage of 4th ed (because SMF would be my answer to the least favorite rule question if it were posed a couple of years ago. Thanks for fixing that, GW).

I rather like drange and line of sight sniping. It gave the game a nice tactical edge. The new version expands the strategic possibilities though, so there's that.

Mind you, what's hilarious is the colour justification given for the new casualty selection vs the old, it's basically a complete flip-flop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler:

Actually, I think they'll integrate Hit and Run into the main rules in the next edition, much like how they integrated Running. There's been a number of universal special rules like Fleet that have have been re-cut to have their success depend on some characteristic of the model, and I think the plan is to integrate these slowly into the main rules over a slow progression rather than risk the backlash that happened in the switchover from 2nd to 3rd.

That damn stupid rule that skimmers that aren't tanks can't ram.

Any vehicles that is not a tank cannot ram. It's part of, you know, TANK shock....

nosferatu1001 wrote:HBMC - since you have failed to refute, I accept your concession.

What do you think this is, Space Battles?

The OP asked for our least favourite rule. A few of us said what our least favourite rules were. You don't agree with what a few of us have said, so have it stuck in your tiny little head that you must get all Internet Tough Guy on us and 'prove us wrong'.

My lack of reply is not a concession, it is simply me doing something I learnt a long time ago on this board when arguing with idiots like JHDD and FW - you cannot argue with a wall, because a wall cannot be moved. You can, however, walk away from the wall, because walls cannot follow you.

You are a wall.

I am walking away.

Good luck.

You sure showed him...

Oh feth off Nurglitch.

Great contributions as usual HBMC.

Speaking of least favourites, except on topic where the rules are concerned, Fearless was a rule that really got my goat in 3rd edition and 4th edition because it broke the Morale system. 5th edition really squared it well with No Retreat, and if anything it would be better to square Sweeping Advance with No Retreat than to retain the current Sweeping Advance rule (though I have a thread on it in the Proposed Rules wastes so I probably should be arguing for such a change here).

I tend to disagree, No Retreat! has two major problems as a form of combat resolution. The 'reality' of it is that it is much, much more harsh, by multiple orders of magnitude, in resolving against the horde armies that are out there and I feel that making it armor saves as opposed to some other form of 'punishment' is weighted very poorly as not everyone runs around with a 3+ save on their standard troops.

Horde armies by definition are going to have a whole lot of dudes to throw into the meat grinder and, by their very nature, already accept that they will have lots and lots of losses for every action. It's sort of why they're horde armies. Punishing them twice for designing the codex that way is just uncool.

That being said I'm willing to entertain debate on the previous two points. Forum, opinion, discussion etc. etc. The absolutely despicable rule that I will never, ever even begin to allow an sort of excuse for existence is No Retreat! wounds and multiple assaults. That combination is just complete and utter bollocks that needs fixed.

It beats the 'All or nothing' of Sweeping Advance, from a design point of view, and it really beats the 'Automatic All' that Fearless used to convey.

While I might agree that forcing each unit to suffer the loss suffered by every unit in combat, this is actually a good thing from a game perspective. It used to be that shoving Fearless units into combat was a no-brainer, especially against units that could beat the piss out of them. There was no reason not to throw a couple of Termagants into combat with a Tactical Squad being assaulted by a Carnifex. The risk of doing so now complements the benefit of doing so, and it helps to square close combat with shooting so that combat is risky with a high payoff while shooting is not as risky but considerably less rewarding.

Lets keep it civil in here guys I meant this to be a place to vent frustration out on GW more than anything. We obviously all love the game or we wouldn't be playing it thats a fact. I was merely asking what rules you didn't like from the standpoint of you think they either make certain armies worse or don't make any sense. That being said, I thank all of you for your input and would love to hear more.

I notice a lot of hatred at Sweeping Advance and No Retreat and I'll agree that those two rules could use some tweaking, but lets all be grateful that Terminators can't sweeping advance or Necrons would have some SERIOUS issues against me !

HBMC - i disagreed with you stating that MSU was a 5th ed construct, showing you where you were wrong (or, perhaps, where Aus just didnt use the same term) and how, in fact, MSU was a construct designed to help with VP games. Its one of the reasons KP are needed, because VPs do not balance the inherent advantage MSU has in objective games.

Sorry you are too....within yourself to see that. There's only one "wall" here.

Agreed on fearless *finally* having a drawback. The new morale results mean that assault is high risk / high reward, shooting is very low risk (except gets hot, and even that has been generally reduced in risk) with very variable reward.

Sweeping advance is so harsh because, in my opinion, essentially fighting another round of combat, as some have suggested, already takes a very protracted phase and would just add more to it.

I just find it a really hard sell to count up the number of wounds done to a Terminator Squad and compare it to the number of wounds done to a brood of Termagants or a unit of Ork Boyz with choppas. If the latter take five wounds in a turn of assault their response is "that's it?". If the Terminators suffer five wounds, do you think he's going to notice it?

I don't think it should be that way but that's not my decision so I've learned to live with it and play around it. However I will never agree with No Retreat! wounds transferring from one unit into another. If you're going to screw someone in a wildly disproportionate fashion is it really necessary to do it twice? Then on top of that have the screwing travel on, typically to a death-star type unit, and completely side-step their defenses, stats, capabilities and abilities? Just "Wham bam thank you ma'am, here's your screwing. Enjoy!" Think about how that feels to be on the receiving end of a couple times.

I hate the Melta rule, if only because I'm getting so sick and tired of seeing the damned things.

SumYungGui:

One thing about Fearless and No Retreat is that it's proportionate to the unit's save, so the wounds suffered do not circumvent the suffering unit's characteristics. Indeed, those characteristics are required to win combat. I rather like the way it rewards 'doubling down' on the risk of a charge by making a multi-charge. The downside is certainly fierce, but it's within the control of the player to decide whether they want to face that downside. In other words, if the puck went in the net, then it's not the net being too big, it's the goalie's fault.

Nurglitch - I've tried that line of reasoning before, but got told that player incompetence doesnt make a bad rule good - despite showing it isnt actually a bad rule.

Apparently tactics dont matter, just throw it all in against the wrong target and be annoyed at the result.

In a straight up one-on-one assault then yeah, stats are sort of a part of it in that better stats will result in less wounds to begin with. In multiple assaults though that line of thinking goes out the window. Charge into fifteen Termagants with ten terminators and one that just 'happens' to make base contact with the Hive Tyrant standing next door, devote every single attack to the Termagants without even looking at the Hive Tyrant then watch as he just drops over dead of a heart attack when he takes armor saves because the Termagants lost. His stats didn't mean anything, he didn't get to defend against it because every single attack went into Termagants. He just takes more armor saves than any model can be expected to survive at any armor value and drops over dead.

That's a really, really harsh way to punish someone twice and it seems completely out of whack. That brood or Termagants can be completely replaced with some decent rolling on a Tervigon. It means very little to have them all die. Now if a Terminator squad takes fifteen unsaved wounds people are going to notice real quick. There's a gaping chasm in the 'value' of wounds from model to model, but they're all lumped together and called the same thing for combat resolution. One extra step to account for this difference in values would go a loooooong way.

So don't let 400pts of Terminators multi-charge 75pts of Termgants and 250+pts of Hive Tyrant? It is harsh. It should be harsh, considering the Terminators outnumbered you 4:3. That's not out of whack, that's what should happen if they can pull of the multi-charge with more points worth of assault troops.

Bubble-wrapping Monstrous Creatures with Termagants isn't hard, and it's actually good since the Terminators will wipe out the Termagants and leave themselves open to Paroxysm and a charge by the Tyrant next turn.

But we should discuss this in Tactics, and leave this thread for rules that people don't like, rather than explanations for why their dislike may be irrational.

Just a minor rule I have a problem with...

I don't like the "I go, you go" system where one player uses his entire army to beat the crap out of you and then...it's your turn.

Some form of alternating activations for units would be much better.

When half of your hidden squad dies because your opponet can see a foot of one of the guys. TLOS my butt.

whocares wrote:Just a minor rule I have a problem with...

I don't like the "I go, you go" system where one player uses his entire army to beat the crap out of you and then...it's your turn.

Some form of alternating activations for units would be much better.

A few friends and I wanted to experiment with hybrid turns that weren't back and forth and really it's quite easy. It takes very, very few homebrew rules. You move a unit, I move a unit, back and forth until done. Determine results of shooting with the assumption that all shooting is simultaneous. Anybody that dies gets laid down until it's their turn to fire. End of the shooting phase remove casualties. The only really big problem we had was the assault phase. Movement rules saying you have to stop one inch away were problematic, because as soon as you moved to threaten someone with assault they moved six inches away, plus the one inch you had to maintain. We also didn't want to change anything to accommodate assault that would shut down the target's shooting. So determining who got to assault and when was difficult. We tried a few different setups but never came to any elegant solution that all players enjoyed.

Yeah, I've tried it too. I'm glad I'm not the only one!

I liked this way:

Choose a unit. Move it, shoot with it, and declare assaults with it. Just like you would during a normal turn, only it's only one unit. The only real difference is you don't work out the assault.

Then your opponent chooses a unit and does the same thing.

Go back and forth until all units are activated.

Then resolve all assaults simultaneously like in a normal turn at the end of the phase.

Some units will shoot before other units, but you don't have an entire army going at once. And yes, you can lock people in assault to prevent their shooting, but you can do that already.

SumYungGui wrote:

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

Hah, yea it is. BUT I agree with him, the friggin things dont die.

I think my biggest issue thus far encountered is being able to trap a unit of jumpack troops. I don't think my Interogator chaplain cares if he's pinned in cc, he'll fire up his pack and go over everyones head.

I agree with how hard it is to kill vehicles at any sense of range and how tanks, Land Raiders excepted, are basically bunkers. I know they look WWI era-ish but I would think they would have some advanced tech over modern day. I mean, marines main weapon is a burst fire .75 cal armor piercing rocket propelled grenade launcher and you mean to tell me my tank cant move and shoot? I know this is the same universe where people travel in kilometer long spaceships so they can hit green people with swords but cmon...

I think the rules for hurting vehicles in cc is somewhat accurate, though there are outstanding situations certaintly, but being able to toss a grenade in a vent (notably on Rhinos) is certaintly going to do a lot more damage than hacking at the part where the armor is thickest.

I disagree with the consoldating into cc because it buffs cc armies a rediculous amount. I do tend to find the cc vs range to be fairly balanced for the most part. From my experience Marines do miserably when they are spaced out just because you can't bring enough fire to bear where it needs to be being so spread out and we all know the marines will be the last to be nerfed (unless they really want to sell Wolf and Vamp goodies). Also, I tend to think the turns as taking place over a period of time, if you have one unit shredding multiple units in one round, that doesn't make any sense at all to me for the time spent.

My $.02

Luco wrote:I think my biggest issue thus far encountered is being able to trap a unit of jumpack troops. I don't think my Interogator chaplain cares if he's pinned in cc, he'll fire up his pack and go over everyones head.

What do you mean by this? Units in close combat are never pinned, and if a unit that has Gone to Ground either voluntarily or via pinning is charged then it automatically loses pinning. Units, excluding all non-walker vehicles, are locked if any of their models are engaged in close combat.

Ah, surrounded not pinned. I forget the actual term. Lose combat and have the unit completely surrounded and thus destroyed.

The more observant of those among this thread may have noticed my first army is Tyranids. Before the kick-to-the-balls FAQ I always felt jump pack infantry should get some kind of resistance to the Mawloc. I dunno about you, but if I'm tooling along with a jet pack strapped to my armor and something starts going all 'Tremors'-movie on my ass I know for damn sure what I'm gonna do and it doesn't involve me getting hurt at all.


Course now everybody gets cover saves against his attack so screw 'em.

Luco - you're thinking of sweeping advance. And Marines dont really suffer from it - ATSKNF kicks in and they take NR! wounds instead if the get caught by SA!

I'll have to find it in the book, I dont think it was Sweeping Advance, then again it was one of my earlier games so I mightve just been punk'd. Or does Sweeping Advance cover when you try to fall back but run into another unit in the processs>

Nope, SA is when you break from combat. It;s an init+D6 roll off. Losing it (as the unit breaking) kills the entire unit.

1) I think the stupidest rule is (like some others have said) that you cannot consolidate from one combat into another. It is easy enough to avoid too, if you see a CC squad charging at you, move 6" away. They can only consolidate a max of D6". Not hard guys.

It means that I am probably better off charging with 5 Striking Scorpions rather than 10, because 10 would destroy the whole squad then get shot to hell. 5, on the other hand, would have less of a chance of killing the whole squad, but most probably still survive, then have a chance of finishing them during the opponents turn, freeing them up in my turn.

2) Oh and the cover system is fairly silly too. You shouldn't have to choose between your armour or the wall in front of you; the bullet still has to go through both (or over it, if you get a lucky shot). I agree with one of the earlier guys who said that it should be more like the Necromunda rules (sorry but can't be bothered going back and looking for names).

Blitza da warboy wrote:Falling back. Just once I want to play a game where the whole leadership part, doesnt exist....(and no, i hate space marines )

go play old nids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ above.
2.

why? Cover works well - if we made it as you suggest, a company command squad could effectively get 3+ 3+ 4+, which requires a 10/216 chance to actually kill one member, and even if you have a flamer that is AP3, the champ still gets his 5+ invo.

Bavis wrote:1) I think the stupidest rule is (like some others have said) that you cannot consolidate from one combat into another. It is easy enough to avoid too, if you see a CC squad charging at you, move 6" away. They can only consolidate a max of D6". Not hard guys.

I tend to agree that with the much reduced consolidation move being able to consolidate into combat might not be as overly powerful as it once was. The underlying issue of not wanting to kill an enemy to take return fire is more a problem with the cruddy IGO-UGO system though. They should get the chance to shoot your assault troops regardless of when you win the fight.

Jack

I hate that the rules can let an enemy move/fleet/charge more than 12", making my guns worthless.

A group of orks can ride up in a truck, get out, shoot me, then charge my guardians before they have a chance to pull their triggers? GW should really allow Readying Actions. Example: My guardians don't shoot on their turn, I declare that they will be firing at the orks, and then when the orks move into range, they automatically fire.

While it's not my least favourite rule, I gotta point out the Instant Death rule as one I really don't like. It's just such a kludge, even by the standards of 40k.

Captain Solon wrote:why? Cover works well - if we made it as you suggest, a company command squad could effectively get 3+ 3+ 4+, which requires a 10/216 chance to actually kill one member, and even if you have a flamer that is AP3, the champ still gets his 5+ invo.

Minor nitpick - they'd still get FNP as well. AP3 weapons do not deny FNP.

My new least favourite rule is 'The Red Thirst'

SmackCakes wrote:My new least favourite rule is 'The Red Thirst'

Really? I thought it'd be "Independent Characters."

Cover...could they have been more lazy? Wait...wait... don't answer that.../sigh.

Seizing Initiative.

It was stolen from me 4 straight games. I now set up for each game expecting to have the initiative stolen. Probably a wise move, anyway.

kronk wrote:Seizing Initiative.

It was stolen from me 4 straight games. I now set up for each game expecting to have the initiative stolen. Probably a wise move, anyway.

...not really? There's a one in 6 chance of this happening. Setting up expecting it is statistically shooting yourself in the foot.

Setting up so you can compensate for it, sure. But setting up specifically to counter it, at the expense of a smart deployment? Eh, not so much.

A lot of players see patterns in bad runs of dice, when patterns do not necessarily exist. Rolling four sixes to sieze initiative in four games in a row is improbable. Do not let an improbable event (of which a repeat is just as improbable) define your tactical approach.

If you don't set up for it, and are playing Tau or IG, and they steal it, you're fethed.

kronk wrote:If you don't set up for it, and are playing Tau or IG, and they steal it, you're fethed.

If you don't set up to compensate for it, yes. But setting up expecting it to happen is just as bad as setting up expecting it not to happen. It's a very real thing that can happen, but it's not going to happen every game. Be ready for it without relying on it.

Actually, your example is fairly sound, though. Reminds me of the game I played last Sunday. 3500 points, 2v1. 2000 points of Tau (me) and 1500 points of Nids (my ally) versus 3500 points of CSM with a doubled FOC. He won the roll and elected to deploy first and go first. He deployed without even considering what would happen if we stole the initiative. We did. My Broadsides popped one of his Rhinos and his Vindicator in his deployment zone, my Piranhas moved Flat Out right up next to his Land Raider. Turn 2, my Piranhas popped his Land Raider and my partner's Hive Tyrant managed to assault his Chosen. It got pretty nasty.

I understand what you're saying, and it does gimp my starting strategy a bit when I prepare for the worst. But, against some opponents, I just have to.

I just have to manage that when I see who I'm playing against and what they brought. I certainly don't expect to lose init 100% of the time, nor do I ALWAYS deploy that way. I shouldn't have said it that way. But, Tau and IG have screwed me too many times. I find it best to just expect it and move on.

My least favorite is cover as well, after playing necromunda and fantasy the 40k cover seems lazyily made and illogical at best.

NO OVERWATCH!! its a staple of wargamming not to have it anymore is lame

Jubear wrote:NO OVERWATCH!! its a staple of wargamming not to have it anymore is lame

Agreed. And it would also resolve the oddity that is your troops happily sitting there watching a transport drive over, some big dudes climb out and then run towards you swords waving, and your dudes completely forget to shoot at them.

I miss my overwatch so very, very much. So very much.

My least favourite rule was from the old version of Imperial Armour, where they had different rules for bombs. Essentially, bombs were simply a blast weapon, acting exactly like a frag rocket, exactly the same, even when you would have to hit with it. It's a bomb dropped from an aircraft. If you don't pass your roll to hit, where the feth is it going to go?

Least favorite rules:
The entire Tyranid FAQ
Handheld weapons producing as much power as vehicle mounted weapons - and conversely, single-shot (at a time) vehicle weapons able to hit mobile infantry.
Vehicles getting 4+ cover - as if the damage chart wasn't favorable enough for them in the first place
Non-universal USR's that get applied this way and that way.

As to the whole MSU thing, not that I want to wade into an argument, I first saw it in 6th Ed... Fantasy. Dark Elves were pretty good at it with a bunch of small fast cav units. I don't know if that's where it was truly introduced into the game systems, but that's where I frist encountered it.

Overall though, I disagree with HBMC, I find 5th to be an improvement over 4th... but it still has a long way to go.

Also, I don't particularly favor IGOUGO, but I haven't found a system that allows for fluid gameplay when scaling to larger points levels. It's easy to alternate units in movement/shooting/assault phases at a skirmish level, but gets cumbersome as the games get bigger.

Sanguinis wrote:1. I don't like how models can not consolidate into a combat anymore after winning a close combat. I loved how in 4th edition after you wiped a unit out you could then (assuming you rolled well) charge another unit in the same turn. Too many times now I've assaulted a unit with my Terminators or even Assault Marines only to have them blown to smitherines after the combat. I used to play a pretty heavy CC oriented army in 4th but thanks to that rule change now I have to play a more ranged army and I think it gives an advantage to ranged armies.

Yeah, and too many times I saw a single deathstar unit take out an entire army by themselves simply because they got into combat and never got out.

I'm glad it's gone. I rather dislike deathstar armies.


My least favorite rule is, oddly, Rapid Fire... not being able to assault after firing Rapid Fire weapons doen't make too much sense to me, but then maybe I'm thinking too much about Hollywood.

Valkyrie wrote:My least favourite rule was from the old version of Imperial Armour, where they had different rules for bombs. Essentially, bombs were simply a blast weapon, acting exactly like a frag rocket, exactly the same, even when you would have to hit with it. It's a bomb dropped from an aircraft. If you don't pass your roll to hit, where the feth is it going to go?

Maybe it's a dud?

Melissia wrote:Yeah, and too many times I saw a single deathstar unit take out an entire army by themselves simply because they got into combat and never got out.

I'm glad it's gone. I rather dislike deathstar armies.


My least favorite rule is, oddly, Rapid Fire... not being able to assault after firing Rapid Fire weapons doen't make too much sense to me, but then maybe I'm thinking too much about Hollywood.

100% agree with Rapid Fire. If it's an inherent advantage of my automatic weapon, why shouldn't I be able to assault after? Am I not just holding/pulling the trigger?

Hmmmm... Everyone's most hated rule seems to be whatever effects their army the most negatively. Is there really nothing no outrageous we can't all band together and hate GW for the same reason?

Can I consider the entire vehicle section 'a rule'? Cause that affects everybody and it's all rubbish.

As a Tyranid player, I'll say No Retreat is my least favourite rule, I've had so many of my gaunts creamed in close combats from this I've just stopped taking them, not to mention the damage this can pass on to my MC's if its a multiple assault. It wouldn't be quite so bad I don't think if I could go first in the combats, but lack of Frags makes so many of the lower end Tyranid assault units next to worthless.

It says something about the strange rule setup up that I have to carefully orchestrate my movements to get the Hormagaunts to leave Synapse control when assaulting to give them a better chance of survival. Yay.

Suprised it took til page 5 to get to Seize the Initiative. I hate that rule.
Next up is probably TLOS, because it causes more disagreements than any other single rule, and slows the game down a lot, and means you had to remake a load of scenery because ruins without lots of windows are useless.

Last is probably the way that hitting vehicles in close combat is completely uncoupled from WS. I'd probably give vehicles a weapon skill value based on their speed- immobile = WS 1, Combat Speed = WS4 Cruising speed = WS 9, Fast = WS 10.
It'd even out at the top and bottom ends of the scale, but it would make infantry armies much more viable in the current mech dominated environment, and I think that'd be a good thing. Plus, it just plain makes more sense!

Phase out... nuff said.

stjohn70 wrote:Least favorite rules:
The entire Tyranid FAQ

This was a close second for me initially as well.

Ordo Dakka wrote:Am I not just holding/pulling the trigger?

Well actually yes. If you were just holding down the trigger it would be an assault weapon where the rate or spread of fire means spray and pray works. Rapid fire weapons need aiming, hence no assault. Its pretty much already defined in the rules.

What bugs me is no shooting when receiving an assault. In WFB a dude with a crossbow gets to take a shot at the people charging. So how come the guy with the heavy bolter doesn't get to?

Because shooting is, generally, less effective in fantasy than it is in 40k. To hit modifiers (such as -1 for S&S) means you drastically reduce shooting potential even further.

Mystic plasma spam for IG should show you how this is not a good thing for 40k to hve....

Has to be wound allocation, it is really annoying and leads to all kinds of tricky ploys. Was it really that bad to just let the defender remove casualties as they liked? The current rule just seems to help those that have really complicated units and it takes too long to figure out.

The wound allocation was first implemented in Epic Armageddon and worked really well to encourage diverse detachments. A problem with defender-selected casualties is that the models in a unit get divided into the valuable specialists who survive until the unit is destroyed/routed, and the meat-shield scrubs who act as a pool of wounds, and then a "torrent of fire" needs to be implemented so that specialists can be knocked out of commission with sufficient applications of firepower. The designers attempted to ameliorate this by also implementing an additional complication that casualties could only be removed from range and line of sight.

While it meant that there was a certain tactical finesse required to use units to their utmost, it made horde units kind of pointless since whether it was close combat or shooting you just sort of fed them into a grinder. So while there was a loss of tactical finesse, the change made the strategic option of fielding horde units like Ork Boyz strategically useful. Not a bad trade-off considering it both increased the number of strategically useful configurations of unit and the diversity seen in those units.

The building rules are complete garbage IMHO. The idea that you cannot hurt a unit in a building without destroying the entire building is just ludicrous. Also ,why can't you assault a unit in a building? To make matters worse, a unit standing on top of a building cannot be assaulted or shot at. Who thought these rules up? How on earth does a brick house (which the BRB calls armor 11) make a unit functionally immune to small arms fire? The whole building section of the book needs some serious work.

Maybe. You'll hit the buildings automatically in close combat, so those grenades and melta bombs will hit automatically. Shaking the building will prevent the contents from shooting, so Fearless units inside of them can be suppressed and they'll need fire points to shoot from in the first place. Placing models on top will make the building open-topped and more vulnerable to being destroyed. If they have fire points, such as battlements or a parapet when models are placed on them, then a template weapon can affect models on the inside as well as the building (a rule that should have also been applied to vehicles...).

I can't remember if vehicles copied building or buildings copied vehicles, but somewhere in that chicken-and-the-egg mobius strip of idiocy the exact same line of reasoning was transferred from one to to the other. That's why you have outlandish rules for transports as mobile bunkers with invincible tinfoil walls, and the completely bonkers inability to assault into a building. Call it laziness on the part of whoever copied one to the other. Making separate rules is, like, hard and stuff. If things don't go well in the office you might have to playtest them and stuff instead of being able to pass it off to the 'extended beta' that all the released rules get before the buck gets passed and someone else has to think of a fix.

It's not simply laziness. There is a major advantage to keeping the rules as simple as possible. They're already fairly complex and hard for a newbie to learn all the details. The fact that buildings mirror vehicles keeps things simplified.

I'm not saying I like the rules for buildings (in my playgroup we actually never use buildings as anything other than area terrain), but I can understand why GW does it that way.

DeathReaper wrote:
should be i activate a unit, move, shoot, assault with it, then you activate a unit etc. till all units have moved that turn.

This. But it could be because I keep forgetting what units I haven't moved or shot so often fast-forward to assault.

Being a nid player, I despise the no retreat rule. Fearless becomes as great or greater a liability than a boon because of it, and the fact that someone can wipe out my gaunts and then obliterate the Carnifex in CC due to no retreat wound saves on it is totally ridiculous.

NR! has been listed already - bad planning does not make it a bad rule. NR! hasnt actually changed, its just the change in combat res

Now you have to actually think and plan ahead. Screen your fexes with gaunts so they cant be multiassaulted. ITs not difficult, just different to 4th ed where Fearless required no thought whatsoever.

Marrak wrote:Being a nid player, I despise the no retreat rule. Fearless becomes as great or greater a liability than a boon because of it, and the fact that someone can wipe out my gaunts and then obliterate the Carnifex in CC due to no retreat wound saves on it is totally ridiculous.

I typically don't run into this problem, but I can see where you're coming from. Maybe it's a fairly simple fix of making MC immune to No Retreat wounds. Or, maybe some units should be designated as "disposable" and don't factor into combat resolution. I don't see a unit of Ork Boys being effected because some nearby gretchen were wiped out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:NR! has been listed already - bad planning does not make it a bad rule. NR! hasnt actually changed, its just the change in combat res

Now you have to actually think and plan ahead. Screen your fexes with gaunts so they cant be multiassaulted. ITs not difficult, just different to 4th ed where Fearless required no thought whatsoever.

Don't you dare lay No Retreat! in it's current form at the foot of the person playing the army and try to hand-wave it away with 'You suck at this!'. It's a horrid rule that is massively unfair to horde armies and will screw monstrous creatures over doubly so. Insulting the person getting screwed is just ignoring the problem for no valid reason.

I had NR! "screw monstrous creatures over" exactly once.

Then I learned from it.

It still happens, but it has not been any worse to my monstrous creatures than to any of my other bugs since then. Generally I use it to my advantage now.

Not like "remove xxxx from the table".
No save from it.
No ability can counter it.
No Tyranid vehicles to ignore some causes of it.
No way for me to do it!
No fun.

SumYungGui wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:NR! has been listed already - bad planning does not make it a bad rule. NR! hasnt actually changed, its just the change in combat res

Now you have to actually think and plan ahead. Screen your fexes with gaunts so they cant be multiassaulted. ITs not difficult, just different to 4th ed where Fearless required no thought whatsoever.

Don't you dare lay No Retreat! in it's current form at the foot of the person playing the army and try to hand-wave it away with 'You suck at this!'. It's a horrid rule that is massively unfair to horde armies and will screw monstrous creatures over doubly so. Insulting the person getting screwed is just ignoring the problem for no valid reason.

Sigh. You again.

NR! is not "horribly imbalanced" as it actually punishes you for playing badly.
If you consistenty are getting in losing fights with your baby 'nids, and losing badly enough that you are also losing fexes/trygons/other big 'nids to it then STOP THROWING THEM INTO THAT COMBAT. Perhaps think and use any number of techniques to prevent getting multicharged.

Sheesh. Its not difficult and its *gasp* using tactics. In a wargame. Gosh, the horror. Do you actually have a useful argument, or just a badly formed opinion?

Grakmar wrote:I typically don't run into this problem, but I can see where you're coming from. Maybe it's a fairly simple fix of making MC immune to No Retreat wounds. Or, maybe some units should be designated as "disposable" and don't factor into combat resolution. I don't see a unit of Ork Boys being effected because some nearby gretchen were wiped out.

I think the simplest fix would be to steal from WHFB - there a unit with more ranks (more numbers basically) that loses a combat is counted as stubborn - it doesn't suffer the -ve modifier to it's leadership test. Introducing that, and also adding the No Retreat! casualties are only suffered if the unit has less troops than the enemy and you'd bring reasonably useful but not overpowered tarpit options back into the game.

As it stands combat resolution and No Retreat! are reasonable rules that don't quite work right - I think bringing the concept of WHFB steadfast into the game would go a long way.

On the other hand, the current building rules are just awful. It's amazing that a game that's all about fighting from building to building would have such a ridiculous ruleset. What kind of game design would stop troops from small arms from being to shoot each other in combat, or stop a unit assaulting another unit in a building. It really was incredibly bad design.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:NR! has been listed already - bad planning does not make it a bad rule. NR! hasnt actually changed, its just the change in combat res

Now you have to actually think and plan ahead. Screen your fexes with gaunts so they cant be multiassaulted. ITs not difficult, just different to 4th ed where Fearless required no thought whatsoever.

Don't you dare lay No Retreat! in it's current form at the foot of the person playing the army and try to hand-wave it away with 'You suck at this!'. It's a horrid rule that is massively unfair to horde armies and will screw monstrous creatures over doubly so. Insulting the person getting screwed is just ignoring the problem for no valid reason.

Sigh. You again.

NR! is not "horribly imbalanced" as it actually punishes you for playing badly.
If you consistenty are getting in losing fights with your baby 'nids, and losing badly enough that you are also losing fexes/trygons/other big 'nids to it then STOP THROWING THEM INTO THAT COMBAT. Perhaps think and use any number of techniques to prevent getting multicharged.

Sheesh. Its not difficult and its *gasp* using tactics. In a wargame. Gosh, the horror. Do you actually have a useful argument, or just a badly formed opinion?

But what about those situations when there's an active CC going on between some Marines and some Gaunts. Your Carnifex is standing nearby, but not engaged with anything. There's nothing else nearby for him to get tangled up with (I assume he ate it all).

Are you really saying it makes the most sense for the tactical decision to be for him to wait patiently outside the combat until it's resolved? I know it's easy to decide not to charge in, but what kind of sense does that actually make?

I think the best change to No Retreat! would be to make it so the units must take a number of saves equal to the number of wounds suffered by the Unit. This way, if you decide to mulch gaunts, the Trygon won't be hurt by No Retreat!, but I also will not tarpit your squadwith Gaunts.

Grakmar wrote:
But what about those situations when there's an active CC going on between some Marines and some Gaunts. Your Carnifex is standing nearby, but not engaged with anything. There's nothing else nearby for him to get tangled up with (I assume he ate it all).

Are you really saying it makes the most sense for the tactical decision to be for him to wait patiently outside the combat until it's resolved? I know it's easy to decide not to charge in, but what kind of sense does that actually make?

actually depends quite a lot on loads of other factors and i doubt it'd turn out the same way twice. why are you sending a carnifex to help out gaunts if you know no retreat possibly will kill it, even 30 gaunts are worth less than a standard fex, not that a squad of standard marines can put that many wounds on gaunts (4 from a full squad), the carnifex can remove a bit of that anyway.

as for why not to, apart from keeping 160points alive;
1. is the fight anywhere near an objective?
2. does the fex have a gun which can shoot something?
3. do you need a fire magnet to keep some other things alive a bit longer?
4. if there is nothing within 12"s when you have engaged with gaunts you are probably winning and therefore shouldn't overcomit.
5. can it threaten a squad?

sebster wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I typically don't run into this problem, but I can see where you're coming from. Maybe it's a fairly simple fix of making MC immune to No Retreat wounds. Or, maybe some units should be designated as "disposable" and don't factor into combat resolution. I don't see a unit of Ork Boys being effected because some nearby gretchen were wiped out.

I think the simplest fix would be to steal from WHFB - there a unit with more ranks (more numbers basically) that loses a combat is counted as stubborn - it doesn't suffer the -ve modifier to it's leadership test. Introducing that, and also adding the No Retreat! casualties are only suffered if the unit has less troops than the enemy and you'd bring reasonably useful but not overpowered tarpit options back into the game.

As it stands combat resolution and No Retreat! are reasonable rules that don't quite work right - I think bringing the concept of WHFB steadfast into the game would go a long way.

On the other hand, the current building rules are just awful. It's amazing that a game that's all about fighting from building to building would have such a ridiculous ruleset. What kind of game design would stop troops from small arms from being to shoot each other in combat, or stop a unit assaulting another unit in a building. It really was incredibly bad design.

I'm not a fan of cribbing from fantasy battle entirely just to make life easier on someone designing the rules so I wouldn't advocate this exact approach, but something does need to be done along the train of thought espoused by the situation above. Counting up wounds and ignoring every single other factor in the entire game just does not work. Put it this way, if a full mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's takes ten unsaved wounds in one assault, how significant is that? Now what happens if a fully loaded Storm Shield/Thunder Hammer Terminator squad takes ten unsaved wounds at the end of one round of assaulting. How significant is that? According to the current assault resolution rules, they are precisely identical.

The stubborn idea is just crazy - you are now back to worse than 4th ed in terms of how brainless you can be with Fearless.

In 4th ed you could take, at most, 5 wounds from NR!. ANd only then if you were outnumbered 4:1 and under half strength. Which was stupid. Required no thought at all - you may as well chuck them in, unlikely to do any harm to anything you care about and could kill a [thing] or two.

Now you actually have to think and set up your army.

Grakmar - so again you have moved your carnifex / trygon 6" twoards a combat you are, presumably, losing badly (otherwise sending the fex in isnt a problem) and then just let it sit there. Is there really nowhere else better on the battlefield it could go?

Something else about No Retreat! with regard to the Tyranids: It means that sometimes there's a sound tactical reason to start your Termagants/Hormagaunts within Synapse range and then moving them outside of it to charge so that they aren't Fearless. With Ld5 they're either going to run away, or they're going to do some damage, particularly if you bothered to invest in their own Toxin Sacs and Adrenal Glands, and then run away. With I4/5, they're pretty safe from Sweeping Advance and can be backstopped by Synapse to give them something like And They Shall Know No Fear.

Yep, as I said - it makes you think about how best to use your troops that are squishier than most. Combined arms, not one shot ponies.

The great strength in the Nid codex is the synergy between units. It requires skill and thought, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Or you could just nerf the ONLY downside to fearless troops so 6pt nids dont die so easily. Lol

Amphibous! Mostly cause it's almost useless. God, I could go on a whole rant but won't...

I guess the most is the dangerous terrain rule- it really doesn't make sense to me. I mean, on a 1 I trip and fall on my head and die, or some of the like. A toughness test seems better to me... but that would kinda be unballanced.

True line of sight!

Scatter.

So no retreat is 'balanced' because it forces players to treat ten wounds in a mob of Ork Boys the same as it does ten wounds in a SS/TH Terminator squad? And anyone that disagrees with that assessment just needs to learn how to play because they are obviously an inferior player incapable of thinking, nothing more than grist to be ground down before the steely gaze of those superior players who chose not to play a horde army?

Glad we got that sorted out.

Wait, someone thinks terminator saves are equal to ork boy saves? Without hyperbole or ignorance?

SumYungGui wrote:So no retreat is 'balanced' because it forces players to treat ten wounds in a mob of Ork Boys the same as it does ten wounds in a SS/TH Terminator squad? And anyone that disagrees with that assessment just needs to learn how to play because they are obviously an inferior player incapable of thinking, nothing more than grist to be ground down before the steely gaze of those superior players who chose not to play a horde army?

Glad we got that sorted out.

So let me get this straight. Ever since you've joined Dakka Dakka, you've done nothing but whine, put words in peoples mouths, belittle people for liking specific armies (How dare we play mechanized armies...), dismiss criticism as trolling...as it stands, Tyranid players are getting a reputation as the whiniest players in 40k, and frankly you're not helping the image.

No Retreat favors elite armies, which it should; after all, between the elimination of Kill Zones (and associated character sniping; elite units in 4e could survive by emptying their zone, or aiming their assault to snipe the hidden Powerfists), and introduction of Defender React, swarms got better in several ways; without No Retreat, there wouldn't be much incentive to playing small elite melee armies otherwise. There are plenty of ways to circumvent No Retreat or mitigate it; MSU multicharging (enemy squads must maintain coherency/can only attack the unit they're in B2B with, etc), screening your units from assault with an expendable swarm,bringing some sort of shooting to soften up melee units, Catalyst/Paroxysm...

SumYungGui wrote:I'm not a fan of cribbing from fantasy battle entirely just to make life easier on someone designing the rules

I have no idea why it would matter where a rule came from if it solved the issue. I was arguing for a rule like that before stubborn came along, so would that help?

so I wouldn't advocate this exact approach, but something does need to be done along the train of thought espoused by the situation above. Counting up wounds and ignoring every single other factor in the entire game just does not work. Put it this way, if a full mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's takes ten unsaved wounds in one assault, how significant is that? Now what happens if a fully loaded Storm Shield/Thunder Hammer Terminator squad takes ten unsaved wounds at the end of one round of assaulting. How significant is that? According to the current assault resolution rules, they are precisely identical.

I think it works fine for the most part. There's two issues in morale, as far as I can see, how many of our men got mashed up, and do we have loads more guys than them?

The old rules weren't great because troops that got really hammered were still very likely to stay in combat - until their numbers were really reduced they'd suffer no modifier or a slight one at most.

The new rules apply the combat margin as a straight mod to the morale check, solving that problem. Unfortunately that mod doesn't make any sense when the losing side outnumbers the attacker, which is where my steadfast/stubborn rule comes in. This can then be extended to No Retreat! as well - you're not forced to take extra losses for doggedly holding on until you've got less troops.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The stubborn idea is just crazy - you are now back to worse than 4th ed in terms of how brainless you can be with Fearless.

You really need to stop phrasing things in terms of other people's failings, it makes you sound like a jerk.

And no, it doesn't allow people to be brainless with Fearless. It allows tarpitting to work again.

Now you actually have to think and set up your army.

Actually, with a tarpitting unit you've got to ensure you target a quality enemy unit with few attacks, then you've got to make sure you engage the enemy without him maneouvering elsewhere or countering with a unit with a load of close combat attacks. It was never a 'brainless' strategy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or you could just nerf the ONLY downside to fearless troops so 6pt nids dont die so easily. Lol

Umm, the downside is that for six point all you're getting is a wound. The stat line is poor and unlikely to inflict any real damage, and they sure aren't durable. They can contest objectives, and in a rules environment that allows for tarpitting they can tarpit. That's it.

SumYungGui wrote:So no retreat is 'balanced' because it forces players to treat ten wounds in a mob of Ork Boys the same as it does ten wounds in a SS/TH Terminator squad? And anyone that disagrees with that assessment just needs to learn how to play because they are obviously an inferior player incapable of thinking, nothing more than grist to be ground down before the steely gaze of those superior players who chose not to play a horde army?

Glad we got that sorted out.

if you are getting 10 no retreat wounds on terminators, you are doing something wrong, very wrong and your opponent is either very kind or very stupid, anything which can do that kind of damage should be hitting the terminators.


now as for amphibious, it's actually very handy, just no one has any rivers, lakes or marshes as terrain pecies, i have the same thing happen for me in 7th ed fantasy

SumYungGui wrote:So no retreat is 'balanced' because it forces players to treat ten wounds in a mob of Ork Boys the same as it does ten wounds in a SS/TH Terminator squad? And anyone that disagrees with that assessment just needs to learn how to play because they are obviously an inferior player incapable of thinking, nothing more than grist to be ground down before the steely gaze of those superior players who chose not to play a horde army?

Glad we got that sorted out.

Need some cheese with that?

You treat them the same: they are wounds. However a small elite army (marines) is more resilient to the NR! wounds. So they arent the same, as the same number of NR! wounds will result in fewer dead Termies than it does Orks. Oh, and not to mention that it is generally harder to cause such a huge combat res swing with marines that it is with Orks anyway.

Given I *play* a horde army, with termagaunts and fexes (i just love screamer killers, fluff bunny that I am) your final assertion is not only hideously wrong, as ever, but also so far off the mark its funny.

I also play an 8 man squad bezerker army, so I know allo about Fearless and how to treat it in 5th, with horde or elite. Sorry for reality biting you, again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You treat them the same: they are wounds.

So ten unsaved wounds on a mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's has the same value as ten unsaved wounds on a unit of SS/TH Terminators?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Given I *play* a horde army, with termagaunts and fexes (i just love screamer killers, fluff bunny that I am) your final assertion is not only hideously wrong, as ever, but also so far off the mark its funny.

I also play an 8 man squad bezerker army, so I know allo about Fearless and how to treat it in 5th, with horde or elite. Sorry for reality biting you, again.

What exactly do you think my final assertion is, if you don't mind me asking? I think you're getting something misconstrued in a dogged attempt to prove me wrong somehow while constantly throwing out the 'you just suck at this game I'm so much better than you cause I can play better and here's how' responses. So let's try to avoid the personal attacks and bringing in irrelevant conversation topics shall we?

eg0u80bf wrote:
if you are getting 10 no retreat wounds on terminators, you are doing something wrong, very wrong and your opponent is either very kind or very stupid, anything which can do that kind of damage should be hitting the terminators.

That's sort of my point. How badly do you have to get curb stomped in a fight to suffer those ten wounds on a SS/TH unit? Now compare that to the Ork Boys, what kind of fight results in them taking ten wounds? Yet they're given precisely the same value in assault resolution. This is far from an idea solution and it just snowballs really, really poorly into the No Retreat rules piling insult onto injury.

ok SumYungGui what are you taking about you got me confused??

so in your oppinion are 10NR on orks better or worse than 10NR on terminators?

why aren't they equal?

why can't people use real world examples, i've put 10 no retreat on both terms and orks isn't that some use instead of just going 10 on orks vs 10 on terms, with no input onto what done it?

also looking at some of your other posts it seems like you want something like terms don't care if tacticals die, is this correct?

There's two kinds of wounds in consideration, assault resolution wounds and No Retreat wounds. No Retreat is the end result of a wonky system. The wounds I'm concerned with are assault resolution.

The example I'm using is Orks and Terminators but any two wildly disparate value models can be used. A full unit of Imperial Guard Conscripts attacking a unit of three Carnifexes. A big pile of Hormagaunts attacking Sanguinary Guards with Mephiston and all the bells and whistles. Any type of unit comparison you like. One super cheap horde of piddling little dudes and one elite, face-stomping pack of super dudes.

If the Ork Boys/Conscripts/Hormagaunts take X number of wounds as a result of combat, why is that the same as the Terminators/Carnifex/Mephiston taking X number of wounds for assault resolution? The first unit could trip over itself waking up in the morning and take that number of wounds with nobody noticing, while the second unit is a power house of face stomping hurtiness yet the assault resolution wounds count for precisely the same.

Or to put it more succinctly, ten unsaved wounds on a mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's has the same value as ten unsaved wounds on a unit of SS/TH Terminators?

right i see, i'm gonna have to give since i have no way to articulate what i want to say, but it boils down to apples and oranges

SumYungGui wrote:There's two kinds of wounds in consideration, assault resolution wounds and No Retreat wounds. No Retreat is the end result of a wonky system. The wounds I'm concerned with are assault resolution.

The example I'm using is Orks and Terminators but any two wildly disparate value models can be used. A full unit of Imperial Guard Conscripts attacking a unit of three Carnifexes. A big pile of Hormagaunts attacking Sanguinary Guards with Mephiston and all the bells and whistles. Any type of unit comparison you like. One super cheap horde of piddling little dudes and one elite, face-stomping pack of super dudes.

If the Ork Boys/Conscripts/Hormagaunts take X number of wounds as a result of combat, why is that the same as the Terminators/Carnifex/Mephiston taking X number of wounds for assault resolution? The first unit could trip over itself waking up in the morning and take that number of wounds with nobody noticing, while the second unit is a power house of face stomping hurtiness yet the assault resolution wounds count for precisely the same.

Or to put it more succinctly, ten unsaved wounds on a mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's has the same value as ten unsaved wounds on a unit of SS/TH Terminators?

I think I see your point.

To make things simple:

4 terms (4 wounds total)
vs
20 gaunts (20 wounds total)

Let's say 10 gaunts die (10 unsaved wounds) and 2 terminators die (2 unsaved wounds)
Each unit lost 50% of its wounds
The gaunts lose combat badly under current rules
I view this as a tie

(above numbers were picked for easy math)

The strength of the gaunts is in their numbers and I don't see why they should be punished for that. I expect to lose a lot of gaunts against terminators, but then again, they cost much less than terminators do.

Maybe the assault winner should be determined by % of wounds inflicted?

I'm not whining or complaining at alll; I'll happily play under the current rules. This is just an observation / thought.

mgraham wrote:
I think I see your point.

To make things simple:

4 terms (4 wounds total)
vs
20 gaunts (20 wounds total)

Let's say 10 gaunts die (10 unsaved wounds) and 2 terminators die (2 unsaved wounds)
Each unit lost 50% of its wounds
The gaunts lose combat badly under current rules
I view this as a tie

(above numbers were picked for easy math)

The strength of the gaunts is in their numbers and I don't see why they should be punished for that. I expect to lose a lot of gaunts against terminators, but then again, they cost much less than terminators do.

Maybe the assault winner should be determined by % of wounds inflicted?

I'm not whining or complaining at alll; I'll happily play under the current rules. This is just an observation / thought.

yet by points the gaunts win, lose 50 compared to the terminators 80 (untill no retreat gets round) and tactically if 100 points hold up 160 points of terms, win for the gaunts

not to mention doing it by percentages can screw some elite stuff over

thats why i'm having a hard time putting words to what i want to say, lets try it's an arbituray rule which arbitarily applies equally to what happens, the day when a terminator costs the same as a gaunt, is the day when NR is a bad rule

Having been on both sides of the story, and having (I admit) whined my ass off over NR and orks, I have to say that all you'd need to silence a fair deal of people is a cap as to how many NR wounds you force a unit to take - say 7.

That said, a recent trick I learnt to counter the problem is a less than obvious one - pair up your boyz mobs if you're versing a CC heavy army. While you can't (highly unlikely) get 60 boyz in assault range of those 6 elite CC monsters and you take double the NR wounds, per say, the rollover of models is greater and the chance of them slipping out to charge your second unit if you'd left them seperate is reduced.

the_ferrett wrote:Having been on both sides of the story, and having (I admit) whined my ass off over NR and orks, I have to say that all you'd need to silence a fair deal of people is a cap as to how many NR wounds you force a unit to take - say 7.

That said, a recent trick I learnt to counter the problem is a less than obvious one - pair up your boyz mobs if you're versing a CC heavy army. While you can't (highly unlikely) get 60 boyz in assault range of those 6 elite CC monsters and you take double the NR wounds, per say, the rollover of models is greater and the chance of them slipping out to charge your second unit if you'd left them seperate is reduced.

yeah same here, both nids and thousand sons, however i have never had to take more than 5 NR wounds before saves, you learn to play with it and to actually pick your targets, if you are consitantly ending up with a lot of NRs you have to look at your game, i often outflank genestealers and multi assult atleast 3 units and win combat by 10 and destroying a good part of a flank, next time i play the person they are often more weary and it isn't anywhere as bad

and besides it really does have to be a wtfrolfstomp to get anywhere near +10 combat res.

NR is perfectly balanced, the elite side wins, the horde dies faster, the horde wins elites have to take a few extra under the overwhelming numbers, but point for point with the same combat res losses to NR = about the same points

from earlier on 10 NR ork boys 8.6 dead = 51.6 points
10NR on termies 1.6 dead = 64 points

The other thing I had to learn was that PDF version BA was still a CC based army - boyz squads aren't meant to laugh through those kinds of enemies.

SumYungGui wrote:Or to put it more succinctly, ten unsaved wounds on a mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's has the same value as ten unsaved wounds on a unit of SS/TH Terminators?

Why are you ignoring the vast difference in expected casualties from 10 wounds on a boyz and their 6+ save, compared to terminators?

That is the nice thing about No Retreat, or at least what I like about it, that it ties in with a unit's ability to win combat and doubles up the value of its best saving throw. Fearless Terminators such as Deathwing, for example, are going to benefit from Fearless far better than generic trash like Ork Boyz, Imperial Guardsmen, and Termagants.

You aren't going to beat a unit of Death in a 1:1 fight by more than 4 because there are only 5 models in the unit, whereas beating a unit of Orks by 15 can wipe out the unit in an impressive blood-bath.

TMIR is in close running for me, as well.

If both people playing a game agree to change something, there is no need for a rule to allow that change.

If there is not an agreement, it does not even apply.

TMIR?

not being able to shoot into units locked into close combat.
Orks juiced up on Waagh energy would let loose a mad minute. My Chaos Space Marines swarm would love to slaughter whatever it can.

kronk wrote:TMIR?

I believe it's "The Most Important Rule" from the BRB.

Melchiour wrote:

kronk wrote:TMIR?

I believe it's "The Most Important Rule" from the BRB.

Correct, in the box on page 2.

In 7 pages, I suspect this has already been said, but WBB is my least favorite rule. I dislike it not because it's a bad rule (compared to everything out there), but because the rule has NOT aged well with the shift to 5th edition. It is really complex, and does not mesh well with the new core ruleset. I especially hate the whole "they get back up and join the nearest unit business." It would be so much easier if they got something like this:

-FNP 4+
-Proximity to Res-orb/'lith allows FNP to be made regardless of restrictions.
-Tomb Spyder may self-wound (no saves allowed) to grant an FNP re-roll to a unit for a turn.

...but of course I guess that's better placed in Proposed Rules.

Just wanted to throw that out there as my least favorite rule.

Sumyungguy - you asserted that I was someone looking down on people who choose to play horde armies. I PLAY a horde army and manage NR! perfectly well, thus proving your assertions:

1) That I dont play a horde army, and look down on people who do
2) THat horde armies suffer unduly from NR! (I dont)

as incorrect. Carry on whining if you want, but horde armies CAN manage NR! perfectly well.

AS to your "then theyre equal", you keep on failing to acknowledge the saves each unit has. FNP Terminators would lose, on average, 0.8 of a model. 35 points, for arguments sake. Thus those 10 wounds, while equal in number, are not equal in VALUE.

In addition: how are you getting 10 wounds -ve combt res on TH/SS? Somehow you have put them into a combat they cannot win, and not only do they fail to win they do so by a HUGE margin. So why shouldnt they be punished for losing a fight that badly and wanting to stick around? THATS THE POINT of NR! - you stay in a fight you shouldnt stay in.

When you can go one post without saying 'You're wrong because I'm better than you, here's why' I will consider any point of view you put in the aforementioned post. Until then you're trolling and arguing.

When you can stop whining that NR! is unfair to horde armies, you'll stop trolling.

NR! isnt unfair to horde armies. Not at all.

I wish vehicles were easier to destroy. Basically, give us back the 4th edition vehicle damage tables or at least a compromise between the two where glancing hits are only a -1 on the vehicle damage roll (in 4th penetrating hits destroyed vehicles on a 4,5, or 6 and glances destroyed on a 6.) Combined with all the new codices dropping the points for transports (rhinos and chimeras both dropped 20 points or so in cost and became better at the same time) and now the 40k meta is all MECHMECHMECH and I'm a little tired of it, it's a little stale when there is only 1 competitive army format for most (arguably all) armies.

No, please dont.

Vehicles are now worth taking. Instead of death traps (when the standard deployment in 4th ed was to stand behind your vehicles in case they got blown up you know something is wrong) you now have vehicles that can STILL be one shotted, assuming you can pen, but it is only 1/3rd of the time, 1/2 if you are AP1. (which makes AP1 weaponry only slightly less effective than 4th ed)

Vehicles are already easy enough to destroy. The rules there are OK. And as for the only competitive armies being mech? People in your area just can't be trying hard enough, thats really not true.

Mech is a touch overpowered at the moment. No argument from me there. Going back to 4th edition rules is a bit much though. Transports really were death traps on wheels. I'm almost tempted to say 'make it a pinning test when a vehicle is destroyed' but then I remember how worthless psychology is in the entirety of 40k. I also think it's a little harsh to just automatically pin people coming out of a destroyed transport. Losing the entire turn and being bunched up real nice and tight for that whole turn just isn't cool either. That being said, I do believe people should lose the ability to shoot or assault.

It's the pinnacle of frustration to have your opponent be happy you took out his transport when it allows him MORE freedom because his guys can move, shoot, run, assault and everything like normal. I just can't wrap my head around why it helps the other guy. Moving and running is cool, give the victims a chance to run for cover and do something. That's kosher. Got no arguments there. Giving my opponent a boost by destroying a transport? Not kosher.

Maybe the best way to limit mech would be to bring back the old Vehicle Annihilated result that destroyed the vehicle (shrapnel maximum distance) and killed ALL models in a transport.

Make it so you need a result of 7, so only AP1 penetrating hits or open-topped transports can be Annihilated.

Of coarse, that just makes AP1 even more powerful compared to AP2+...

SumYungGui wrote:

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

haha this is going in my signature

Grakmar wrote:Maybe the best way to limit mech would be to bring back the old Vehicle Annihilated result that destroyed the vehicle (shrapnel maximum distance) and killed ALL models in a transport.

Make it so you need a result of 7, so only AP1 penetrating hits or open-topped transports can be Annihilated.

Of coarse, that just makes AP1 even more powerful compared to AP2+...

Can't say I agree with this, and I'm a Tyranid player! Something does need to be done for certain but rolling death traps just aren't cool.

alspal8me wrote:
haha this is going in my signature

why thank you

Don't generally hate any individual rule, just don't particularly like the way that some are a bit what ... confuzzling.

I read over the immobilized walker and pivot rule a fair few times before I just gave up and decided to go with it can't ...

First, the d6 system that is used, I'd prefer a d10 system.

Second, the AP rules, I'd be happier with armor save modifiers instead of straight out ignoring armor.

Third, cover, should provide a to hit modifier, or have a % to stop the shot after it hits but before it wounds.

Fourth, I'd prefer a system similar to fantasy where you can take armor save, and then inv save or fnp.

Xyon wrote:Third, cover, should provide a to hit modifier, or have a % to stop the shot after it hits but before it wounds.

I'd agree with this in principle. However, I can't think of a good way for it to work practically.

You can't just drop the BS of a model as a set number. That would bother Orks a whole lot more than Marines.

And, you can't just drop the BS by a %. How do you roll for a GEq shooting at a model with a 4+ save? He needs a 5.5+?

NR wounds spilling from one unit to another. With tyranids you cannot support smaller bugs with bigger bugs because all the other player has to do is put all the attacks on the little bugs know that all those wounds will spill over on to the MCs or warriors etc.

WEll, all those attacks where his models arent only in btb with your MC. Those attacks have to be directed at your MC.

Which is why when you multicharge (and you shouldnt be getting multicharged, as it is fairly easy to prevent when you have cheap gribblies) you make sure you are very careful how you do it. REquires some set up, and planning ahead, but this is a game which should, and does, reward this.

Xyon - 1) will never happen, D6s are too convenient. Its why even when they need more than 12 results they use a D66 table.

2) This isnt fantasy. AP allows a greater range of Strength values to be used, which is crucial when you also have Armour Values in the game. Thus a weapon can be S10 Ap4 and not worry marines but have a hope of hurting tanks. Modifiers makes this impossible. It also doesnt make sense compared to how armour works in practice -good armour stops everything up to a certain penetration, at which point it fails entirely. Its one area that is "realistic"

3) That would hit, % hits wise, low BS armies far more harshly than high BS ones. A -1 modifier to hit drops Ork succesful shots in half, but only affects marines by 1/4.

4) Well, you CAn take armour and FNP. Its just that until recently in fantasy you could take armour, ward and regen...whch was silly. Not too much of an issue with invulnerable, although it would make TH/SS treminators essentially unkillable. Esspeciallly BA ones.

Vepr wrote:NR wounds spilling from one unit to another. With tyranids you cannot support smaller bugs with bigger bugs because all the other player has to do is put all the attacks on the little bugs know that all those wounds will spill over on to the MCs or warriors etc.

It is pretty crap to have your enemy just 'happen' to make contact with a MC using one guy out of the entire unit, plow every single attack into nothing but the gribblies and then just watch the MC just, I don't know, get scared and have a heart attack? Never figured it out. Just know No Retreat is crap from the ground up and needs reworked. Preferably starting at the assault resolution part of the entire daisy chain of unfortunate rules.

Yeah, it sucks when your opponent out-maneuvers you. Learn how to judge distances.

Shh Nurglitch, you'll be accused by the NR! Troll of looking down with a steely gaze at people who choose to play horde armies and dismissing them as being lacking in skill.

Even if you play a horde army, like myself, apparently there are no ways to control NR! so that doesnt happen. Nope, none at all.

Nurglitch wrote:Yeah, it sucks when your opponent out-maneuvers you. Learn how to judge distances.

Yeah, that's true for serious 40k players. Some of us don't manage to get in all that many games, so we sometimes struggle with judging distances.

I think that's where the problem lies. Multi-squad combat and NR can really screw over a newer player who is using a horde army more than someone of equal skill level using an elite army.

Fortunately a game of 40k is not a life or death situation, and newer players have the opportunity to adapt and overcome. It's unreasonable to be a new and inexperienced play and still expect to win.

I really dont like bikes getting rentless, corect me if im wrong but every race with bikes can only take assault weapons except SM, so it just seems odd that it would be a general rule.

Well, considering which races that can take them is...
Space Marines: Bolters help
Eldar: It won't help.
Orks: Won't help.
Dark Eldar: Actually have rapid fire weapons.
So it help 1/2, which isn't that bad. It should really only be "bike mounted" weapons IMO. I think it's rather silly that marines can relentlessy fire Plasma guns from the hip.

My most hated rule...don't know actually, isn't something I really dislike...Ok, maybe Dawn of War, not really a rule though

My most hated rule?
The lame GW responce to the Stormshield issue for older Dex's.

Eldar does get a hand, as the autarch can take a heavy weapon in there...

EmilCrane wrote:I don't like how easy vehicles are to kill in CC, Kroot should not be able to harm a chimera ever, under any circumstances.

Disruption pods KFF and the like, its railroading all guard players into one style of play, and thats melta vets. I want big tank battles!

Minor Minor Minor consolation for how much harder vehicles are to kill at range, and how much more effective they are in the game.