I hate random psychic powers because whenever i face a daemon player it takes an extra 10 minutes just to start a game.
That an it seems ridiculous to me that a master of some kind doesn't know what it is they've studied for years.

What are your opinions?

Everything about how WS works.

Not tied to this edition, but how transports swing back and forth. Each edition they are either required or crap. I mean, I get it. Point/dollar ratio, nothing beats a transport which means GW has to sell them to make the share holders happy.

But is the only way to do this to invalidate about 150 dollars of my army every other edition?

WS needs a 2+ and 6+ option. Elites should not be hitting only on 3+! Skarbrand should be skillfully knocking tau around!

On the whole, I've found 6th has less 'stupid' rules that previous, and fixed a lot of the issues, like highly trained marines just standing there and doing nothing while being charged by a mob of orks, or tanks effectively being no faster than infantry if they actually want to shoot something. I actually like the random powers as it forces you to adapt your strategy, rather than relying on a single power/combo from the start.

That said, the rules that do seem poor are how easily vehicles moving at high speed can be hit in CC, as although they are on the whole rather large, a guy with a slow, cumbersome power fist shouldn't be able to hit a moving tank 2/3 of the time. I also find the flier rules rather badly implemented, as supersonic aircraft should not be on the board for longer than a turn at most, or be able to be hit by small arms fire.

- Hitting vehicles on 3+ at least. Should vary a bit more depending on how fast the vehicle has moved.

- Placing Fortifications and then Terrain. Should be the other way round.

- Look Out Sir! should be restricted to 1-2 times per phase.

- Better variety of missions rather than just Objectives. Something like a Breakthrough or Meat Grinder missions from the 3rd/4th Ed rulebook would be better. The Battle Mission supplement didn't help at all, since 9/10 of the scenarios within the book are just Objective games with slightly different deployment zones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
- Also can't stand the stupid wording on Blast attacks, as the "unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit at least partially under the marker". This ruins the sense of realism in this part, as this means the wounds from a huge artillery strike can just take casualties from elsewhere in the unit. I imagine this was implemented to stop lists such as mass IG artillery-spam just sniping ICs and Characters but you already have Look Out Sir! for that, this is just...weird.

- No assault from stationary transports
- No assaults from outflankers/infiltrators.
- Losing if you have no units on the board at the end of the game turn


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:

- Also can't stand the stupid wording on Blast attacks, as the "unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit at least partially under the marker". This ruins the sense of realism in this part, as this means the wounds from a huge artillery strike can just take casualties from elsewhere in the unit. I imagine this was implemented to stop lists such as mass IG artillery-spam just sniping ICs and Characters but you already have Look Out Sir! for that, this is just...weird.

Considering that most of their arty is barrage, they can still snipe if they don't scatter.

I wish they would return movement values. Space Marines of all varients, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons, SOB, Tau, Chaos and their demons. All of their infantry move Six inches. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Make units with a high initiative actually MOVE faster. Oh sure they have fleet, but having the base move be higher based upon your army would be interesting and add a lot to the game.

ATSKNF
It just makes half the game useless

The 50% Reserves limit. It's not like there were any truly broken army setups using full Reserves, drop pods and flyers can still do it, but all the other "fluffy" armies you could take using this are no longer possible (Descent of Angels, Deathwing Assault, daemonic incursion).

SWEEPING ADVANCE!!!

Oh look, My single space marine survived the attack by your mob, and killed one model. Oh you lost moral and are running, and I catch you... Now my SINGLE SPACE MARINE, Kills your entire mob! WTF!

As said before, no assaults from stationary transports seems rather silly.

And coming from a meta with a LOT of area terrain, +2 cover save for going to ground in area terrain. Nothing is more annoying than orks going to ground in the crater of their battlewagon and having a 3+ cover save. Or the guard blob going to ground in a forest with scatterfield and having a 2+ save on 20 guys. After that I had a newfound respect for my whirlwind.

The turn system.

Player A moves all their units, then shoots with everything, then assaults, while Player B does little but roll saving throws and yawn. Then they trade places.

Epic Armageddon did things much better with this approach:

Player A moves / shoots / assaults with a single unit

Player B moves / shoots / assaults with a single unit

Player A moves / shoots / assaults with a single unit

etc

That allowed for much better strategy as your try to predict and counter each move, kept both players engaged in the game and generally flows smoother.
It also vastly reduces the impact of a shooting-heavy army getting first turn and wiping out swathes of units before they're even used.

Ralis wrote:
SWEEPING ADVANCE!!!

Oh look, My single space marine survived the attack by your mob, and killed one model. Oh you lost moral and are running, and I catch you... Now my SINGLE SPACE MARINE, Kills your entire mob! WTF!

Yeah this rule is silly. I think it should be limited to a rule that says you can only kill as many models as you have in your unit when you perform a sweeping advance. So if you outnumber them, then yeah they get slaughtered. But it should be a 1-1 ration. Or just each model causes 1 wound even.

The vehicle rules, hull points and assault rules especially. There's a reason that aside from flyers, AV13 jinking Necron skimmers and jinking 3+/4+ cover save Eldar/Tau skimmers, vehicles are increasingly rare.

 Icculus wrote:

Ralis wrote:
SWEEPING ADVANCE!!!

Oh look, My single space marine survived the attack by your mob, and killed one model. Oh you lost moral and are running, and I catch you... Now my SINGLE SPACE MARINE, Kills your entire mob! WTF!

Yeah this rule is silly. I think it should be limited to a rule that says you can only kill as many models as you have in your unit when you perform a sweeping advance. So if you outnumber them, then yeah they get slaughtered. But it should be a 1-1 ration. Or just each model causes 1 wound even.

You think that is bad, you should have been around when sweeps/consolidates could contact new units.

Flier rules.
No assault from rhinos
Chaos always have to challenge.

Other than that, I actually really like this edition.

I dont mind the no assult from rhinos there has to be some benefit to having open topped.

I think WS should be looked at again, what i dont like is for a set of special rules to be in the BRB and then over the course of the edition and through power creep all (or at least a good number )of these are ignored by some ability or another.

Maybe im just a bitter DE player

 pretre wrote:

 Icculus wrote:

Ralis wrote:
SWEEPING ADVANCE!!!

Oh look, My single space marine survived the attack by your mob, and killed one model. Oh you lost moral and are running, and I catch you... Now my SINGLE SPACE MARINE, Kills your entire mob! WTF!

Yeah this rule is silly. I think it should be limited to a rule that says you can only kill as many models as you have in your unit when you perform a sweeping advance. So if you outnumber them, then yeah they get slaughtered. But it should be a 1-1 ration. Or just each model causes 1 wound even.

You think that is bad, you should have been around when sweeps/consolidates could contact new units.

Well that sounds terrible. glad I don't have to deal with that.

 Icculus wrote:

Pretre wrote:You think that is bad, you should have been around when sweeps/consolidates could contact new units.

Well that sounds terrible. glad I don't have to deal with that.

3rd edition: When Blood Angels ruled the galaxy. Rhino Rush, move forward with your turbo boosted rhinos, disembark, assault, kill whatever you assaulted, consolidate into the next one. Rinse. Repeat.

Revise the nerf on assault

cammy wrote:I dont mind the no assult from rhinos there has to be some benefit to having open topped.

I think WS should be looked at again, what i dont like is for a set of special rules to be in the BRB and then over the course of the edition and through power creep all (or at least a good number )of these are ignored by some ability or another.

Maybe im just a bitter DE player

For open-topped vehicles/assault, let them charge if the vehicle moved 6" or less, but regular vehicle occupants may charge if the vehicle was stationary.

Ralis wrote:SWEEPING ADVANCE!!!

Oh look, My single space marine survived the attack by your mob, and killed one model. Oh you lost moral and are running, and I catch you... Now my SINGLE SPACE MARINE, Kills your entire mob! WTF!

Yeah, on the sweep thing, until they take their foot off of the necks of assault armies, they really shouldn't touch sweeps as it's one of the few reasons left to run an assault unit in the first place.

 pretre wrote:

 Icculus wrote:

Pretre wrote:You think that is bad, you should have been around when sweeps/consolidates could contact new units.

Well that sounds terrible. glad I don't have to deal with that.

3rd edition: When Blood Angels ruled the galaxy. Rhino Rush, move forward with your turbo boosted rhinos, disembark, assault, kill whatever you assaulted, consolidate into the next one. Rinse. Repeat.

At least if they swept into a new unit you could shoot at them. If they consolidated into your unit they were safe for another turn

Blast Weapons.

When an opponent rolls the scatter dice on the other side of the board, and you clearly don't agree with the direction the arrow is pointing or how many models are underneath the template, it just becomes obnoxious. Then it happens several times a turn.

If blast weapons were something simple like D3 hits for small and D6 for large, the game would go much faster as no one would be arguing about template placement or spending extra time moving their models so that they are exactly 2" apart to prevent getting hit by templates. I find them amazingly tedious.

 Oaka wrote:
When an opponent rolls the scatter dice on the other side of the board, and you clearly don't agree with the direction the arrow is pointing or how many models are underneath the template, it just becomes obnoxious. Then it happens several times a turn.

If blast weapons were something simple like D3 hits for small and D6 for large, the game would go much faster as no one would be arguing about template placement or spending extra time moving their models so that they are exactly 2" apart to prevent getting hit by templates. I find them amazingly tedious.

Roll the scatter near the place where the template is. MAGIC!

 Valkyrie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
- Also can't stand the stupid wording on Blast attacks, as the "unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit at least partially under the marker". This ruins the sense of realism in this part, as this means the wounds from a huge artillery strike can just take casualties from elsewhere in the unit. I imagine this was implemented to stop lists such as mass IG artillery-spam just sniping ICs and Characters but you already have Look Out Sir! for that, this is just...weird.

All the shooting rules are an abstraction. The blast marker does not represent the fall of a single shell but rather is an indication of how effective such artillery fire is on a widely or closely spaced unit. On this basis it doesn't matter where you take casualties from, provided there is a consistent method involved.

 Paradigm wrote:
On the whole, I've found 6th has less 'stupid' rules that previous, and fixed a lot of the issues, like highly trained marines just standing there and doing nothing while being charged by a mob of orks,

What I don't get is why people get their panties in a twist over this, but everyone is ok with "my army sits there and gets shot at because you roll first turn"

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
On the whole, I've found 6th has less 'stupid' rules that previous, and fixed a lot of the issues, like highly trained marines just standing there and doing nothing while being charged by a mob of orks,

What I don't get is why people get their panties in a twist over this, but everyone is ok with "my army sits there and gets shot at because you roll first turn"

The player turns are supposed to be simultaneous, so the marines aren't doing nothing, the previous shooting phase was them firing at the incoming mob.

The Chaos Daemons warpstorm table. It basically means I'm having to take Kairos every game in hopes I am not screwed over on turn one. Everyone tries to defend this by saying Chaos equates random, but that's not what the Chaos of 40k is. Chaos is anarchy and madness, the antithesis of order in the universe. Having my army lose 20% of it's units due to Khorne having issues does not represent the madness and destruction wrought by the daemons spilling into reality to slaughter everyone. It represents a writers poor understanding of the fluff, or a poor attempt to balance when it wasn't needed.

That and the removal of the plus one initiative of Furious Charge, the rules for Bloodcrushers and random wargear in Chaos Daemons.

 Flinty wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
On the whole, I've found 6th has less 'stupid' rules that previous, and fixed a lot of the issues, like highly trained marines just standing there and doing nothing while being charged by a mob of orks,

What I don't get is why people get their panties in a twist over this, but everyone is ok with "my army sits there and gets shot at because you roll first turn"

The player turns are supposed to be simultaneous, so the marines aren't doing nothing, the previous shooting phase was them firing at the incoming mob.

Yet GW fixes the one and leaves the parody of strategy that is first turn untouched.

Im a marines player and I think ATSKNF to some degree is stupid. It makes sense when compared to the fluff, but it eliminates a mechanic of the game that is huge for other armies.

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
On the whole, I've found 6th has less 'stupid' rules that previous, and fixed a lot of the issues, like highly trained marines just standing there and doing nothing while being charged by a mob of orks,

What I don't get is why people get their panties in a twist over this, but everyone is ok with "my army sits there and gets shot at because you roll first turn"

The player turns are supposed to be simultaneous, so the marines aren't doing nothing, the previous shooting phase was them firing at the incoming mob.

Yet GW fixes the one and leaves the parody of strategy that is first turn untouched.

Yet it is not usually a surprise who gets first turn, so the tactical challenge is to limit the opportunity of your opponent to do that damage. Is it totally fair, probably not, but it is part of the gaming challenge.

 Dakkamite wrote:
What I don't get is why people get their panties in a twist over this, but everyone is ok with "my army sits there and gets shot at because you roll first turn"

Who said everyone is ok with this? 40k's entire turn structure is just stupid, it should be updated to a system of alternating unit activations where both players move/shoot/assault at the same time.

 pretre wrote:

 Icculus wrote:

Pretre wrote:You think that is bad, you should have been around when sweeps/consolidates could contact new units.

Well that sounds terrible. glad I don't have to deal with that.

3rd edition: When Blood Angels ruled the galaxy. Rhino Rush, move forward with your turbo boosted rhinos, disembark, assault, kill whatever you assaulted, consolidate into the next one. Rinse. Repeat.

That was a nightmare for my gunline guard. It was like pacman...

 Flinty wrote:

Yet it is not usually a surprise who gets first turn, so the tactical challenge is to limit the opportunity of your opponent to do that damage. Is it totally fair, probably not, but it is part of the gaming challenge.

Theres very little means of doing this. Theres no LoS blocking terrain, no worthwhile way to conceal units behind others, no real choices to be made - you simply hope he doesn't roll a "hit" with his S10 AP1 pie plates and then watch your chances of victory slip away to nothing when he does.

The closest thing to a defense against this is reserves, but then he gets to use *his* key units right off the bat but yours still effectively miss a turn (or three)

Who said everyone is ok with this? 40k's entire turn structure is just stupid, it should be updated to a system of alternating unit activations where both players move/shoot/assault at the same time.

Very much this. IGOUGO is fine in some situations, such as Warmachine wherein theres very little ability to "alpha strike" the other guy before he gets a go, but with the range and power of 40k guns its a dreadful setup

 Dakkamite wrote:
Theres very little means of doing this. Theres no LoS blocking terrain, no worthwhile way to conceal units behind others, no real choices to be made - you simply hope he doesn't roll a "hit" with his S10 AP1 pie plates and then watch your chances of victory slip away to nothing when he does.

You don't play with LOS blocking terrain, fortifications, or even other units? Strange way to play 40k.

Very much this. IGOUGO is fine in some situations, such as Warmachine wherein theres very little ability to "alpha strike" the other guy before he gets a go, but with the range and power of 40k guns its a dreadful setup

I don't play WM/H but I thought one of the central tenets of WM was that you could do a first turn caster kill and win the game right off.

 Byte wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Icculus wrote:

Pretre wrote:You think that is bad, you should have been around when sweeps/consolidates could contact new units.

Well that sounds terrible. glad I don't have to deal with that.

3rd edition: When Blood Angels ruled the galaxy. Rhino Rush, move forward with your turbo boosted rhinos, disembark, assault, kill whatever you assaulted, consolidate into the next one. Rinse. Repeat.

That was a nightmare for my gunline guard. It was like pacman...

Cannot unsee/hear.

I miss the old waagh :(

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
WS needs a 2+ and 6+ option. Elites should not be hitting only on 3+! Skarbrand should be skillfully knocking tau around!

This. I think the WS table should be closer to the WHFB to wound table than it currently is now.

A few things come to mind....

Unwieldy...couldnt it have just been an inititive modifier...( I can move at the speed of light, but this damn hammer is SOOO HEAVY!! )

First Turn Alpha Strike...Your telling me that armies line up...wait for the whistle...THEN strike!!! I think its safe to assume that those skimmers were, just a moment ago moving at a pretty fast rate of speed.

And as others have said.. the you go , I go turn sequence..ive played the most recent edition of Epic as well and 40K wouold TOTALLY benefit from that style of turn play.

Markerlights making the tau a bs 10 army

zilka86 wrote:
Markerlights making the tau a bs 10 army

No, markerlights can potentially make a single unit in the tau army BS10. They cannot make the army BS10.

Statistically, you need 14 markerlights to get enough to make a single unit BS10. That's just not worth it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Statistically, you need 14 markerlights to get enough to make a single unit BS10. That's just not worth it.

zilka86 is a troll (and probably a previous troll returning under a new name), just look at their recent thread about how markerlights are "overpowered". Trying to argue with them is pointless.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
Markerlights making the tau a bs 10 army

No, markerlights can potentially make a single unit in the tau army BS10. They cannot make the army BS10.

Statistically, you need 14 markerlights to get enough to make a single unit BS10. That's just not worth it.

When you reply to the trolls, the terrorists win.

 pretre wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
Markerlights making the tau a bs 10 army

No, markerlights can potentially make a single unit in the tau army BS10. They cannot make the army BS10.

Statistically, you need 14 markerlights to get enough to make a single unit BS10. That's just not worth it.

When you reply to the trolls, the terrorists win.

So if a terrorist replies to a troll, does the universe implode?

 pretre wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Theres very little means of doing this. Theres no LoS blocking terrain, no worthwhile way to conceal units behind others, no real choices to be made - you simply hope he doesn't roll a "hit" with his S10 AP1 pie plates and then watch your chances of victory slip away to nothing when he does.

You don't play with LOS blocking terrain, fortifications, or even other units? Strange way to play 40k.

Seconded. From my very first forays into the game in the early-ish years it has been possible to use books as hills and random chunks of polystyrene as bunkers to break the battlefield up.

Not a troll just that markerlights are broken buy truning tau in to a bs 10 Army

zilka86 wrote:
Not a troll just that markerlights are broken buy truning tau in to a bs 10 Army

You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 pretre wrote:

You don't play with LOS blocking terrain, fortifications, or even other units? Strange way to play 40k.

The TO sets out the terrain at any given tournament (which is what I'm referring to, because friendly play you can homerule anything you like), and in most cases, this means an almost flat field with some token trees in a corner where they won't get in the way. Perhaps a partial ruin in the centre and some area terrain that give cover but do not block LoS, especially once unit movement is considered. And finally, with so much IG and IG allies around that flat out laugh at LoS... yeah, my point still stands.

With regards to other units, the keyword was "worthwhile". 5+ cover is not worthwhile.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
Not a troll just that markerlights are broken buy truning tau in to a bs 10 Army

You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:
The TO sets out the terrain at any given tournament (which is what I'm referring to, because friendly play you can homerule anything you like), and in most cases, this means an almost flat field with some token trees in a corner where they won't get in the way. Perhaps a partial ruin in the centre and some area terrain that give cover but do not block LoS, especially once unit movement is considered. And finally, with so much IG and IG allies around that flat out laugh at LoS... yeah, my point still stands.

As does mine. If your TO is not putting down 25% coverage with a mix of terrain, then he isn't doing his job (or really following the terrain rules). I would assist him in developing his terrain stock so he can put down real terrain.

With regards to other units, the keyword was "worthwhile". 5+ cover is not worthwhile.

Good thing there's fortifications!

Overwatch and not being able to charge out of non open topped vehicles. When I play against Tau and charge them and they get like 48 shots from rapid fire and supporting fire (or whatever it's called) my entire squad is pretty much dead once they get into combat. It is absurdly overpowered. Not to mention I don't get bonus attacks for charging them -_-

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
WS needs a 2+ and 6+ option. Elites should not be hitting only on 3+! Skarbrand should be skillfully knocking tau around!

This!

And carry it to Fantasy too, please, so WS can have some meaning in that game too.

Only being able to take 1 armour save or 1 invulnerable save or 1 cover save. Would the bullet not go through the wall, then go on to the shields, and if it manages to get through both, would the armour not stop the projectile travelling at a snails pace?!

 migs6357 wrote:
Only being able to take 1 armour save or 1 invulnerable save or 1 cover save. Would the bullet not go through the wall, then go on to the shields, and if it manages to get through both, would the armour not stop the projectile travelling at a snails pace?!

I used to think the same way, but let me tell you two reasons why i think they do this (and why though i used to agree with you, i now like that you can only take one).

1) This speeds up the game only having one save per entity means a cut down of die rolls (and a quickening of casualties)

2) Functionally it means you can pass out more invulnerable saves via terrain ruiles or just on the models period without worrying about defensive creep.


I like to think of it like this: if its strong enough to punch through a forcefield, the armor's got no chance of stopping it.

I mostly like 6th personally. Though things are rather dumb. I absolutely HATE challenges. It's such a stupid rule set imo. In fact everyone in our group doesn't even use challenges. It goes past bad rules writing, and even just feels weird fluff wise.

I hate how spotlights work. Really, I'm gonna fire my weapons and THEN fire up my spotter to light up my target? Really?

Yeah, the 1st turn "let me blow your gak up while you stand there in horror" thing is really annoying. Before we knew what the actual rules to the game were, my friends and I would just do:
P1 Move
P2 Move
P1 Shoot
P2 Shoot.

Looking back at it now, 2nd turn would have a pretty big advantage of being able to react to both P1 deployment and then subsequent movement, but I guess the shooting would still make up for it.

Then you could have a simultaneous assault phase where both players take turns declaring their assaults. Two units assaulting each other would both benefit from their assault bonuses and they move toward each other; resulting in less failed charges.

You could also have a cool rule where you can intercept assaulting units by declaring a charge against them, but this would deny overwatch to the unit they are intercepting for and you can't intercept more than one unit at a time.

You obviously can't fire overwatch if you're declaring an assault with that unit.

I think this would also fit in with the 6th edition paradigm of having shooting units supported by assault units.

Let see:

Champion of Chaos!
Nothing is "better" than forced challenges no matter the odds.
Also the challenge rules themselves. Why should I be penalized for refusing to fight a single character when I can eat up the entire unit in one go instead? :(

No charging out of rhinos also make my berserkers a little sad. Let them lose the extra charge attack or something if a limitation is necessary or give CSM more assault vehicles

ConsecratedIron wrote:
Im a marines player and I think ATSKNF to some degree is stupid. It makes sense when compared to the fluff, but it eliminates a mechanic of the game that is huge for other armies.

This. The rule does make sense from a fluff standpoint, but it needs to be toned down.

 pretre wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Theres very little means of doing this. Theres no LoS blocking terrain, no worthwhile way to conceal units behind others, no real choices to be made - you simply hope he doesn't roll a "hit" with his S10 AP1 pie plates and then watch your chances of victory slip away to nothing when he does.

You don't play with LOS blocking terrain, fortifications, or even other units? Strange way to play 40k.

Very much this. IGOUGO is fine in some situations, such as Warmachine wherein theres very little ability to "alpha strike" the other guy before he gets a go, but with the range and power of 40k guns its a dreadful setup

I don't play WM/H but I thought one of the central tenets of WM was that you could do a first turn caster kill and win the game right off.

That's a fault with WM/H, not the alternating unit system. I personally think 40k could benefit from this system, since IGOUGO slows the game down a bit and it definitely makes the inactive player bored in longer games (as opposed to alternating system, or an initiative based system like Force on Force where the "inactive" player still stays interested. I played 40k using FoF rules and everyone loved it)

 AL-PiXeL01 wrote:
Let see:

Champion of Chaos!
Nothing is "better" than forced challenges no matter the odds.
Also the challenge rules themselves. Why should I be penalized for refusing to fight a single character when I can eat up the entire unit in one go instead? :(

No charging out of rhinos also make my berserkers a little sad. Let them lose the extra charge attack or something if a limitation is necessary or give CSM more assault vehicles

Yeah actually, also it should've worked if you killed a squad, like pain tokens.

As it is you need the enemy to bring sarge's, and not alotta armies actually do that anymore.

Considering that Chaos is forced to take them, but yet C:SM and DA don't..It's just weird.

I really wish you could assault out of a vehicle if it hadn't moved yet that turn.

I'd like charge distances to be initiative (max 6) +d6

Marker lights should be assault weapons

Furious charge should still add +1 Init

BTW, I almost always choose to go last. I've regretted gong first, but never going last. What are you guys doing that going second is crippling you so?

 Lobukia wrote:
I really wish you could assault out of a vehicle if it hadn't moved yet that turn.

I'd like charge distances to be initiative (max 6) +d6

Marker lights should be assault weapons

Furious charge should still add +1 Init

BTW, I almost always choose to go last. I've regretted gong first, but never going last. What are you guys doing that going second is crippling you so?

I fight tau, mechdar, IG, necrons, space wolves. I generally fight against armies that make me regret going first.

stupid rules? someone using look out sir to negate a prescision fire shot

For me, already listed:

No assaulting from a stationary rhino

Unlimited LoS rolls

Hull point and vehicle damage mechanics. My 250 point, $75 US LR's never really get used anymore....

Not listed:

Jink given to vehicles that only move .0000001".

6th ed, theres really only 2 rules that i think are absolutely stupid.

1) Charging from reserves. I can understand for deepstrike since with the exception of Jump/Jetpack units theyre teleporting in and are probably a little disorientated or dont know exactly whats around them. But outflanking units should be allowed to charge since Overwatch and Interceptor is around and usually a big deal. Too many units became useless across the entire game when you could no longer charge from reserves (or infiltrate/scout).

2) Challenges.
Utter ridiculousness. All this does is make melee beasts stronger because the "autoattacking" character like a PK nob cannot possibly beat him in a challenge. I mean, even the idea is dumb. Wheres the glory in destroying an enemy captain instead of clearing out his platoon? A leader is soon replaced, a platoon is not.
Not to mention its not even close to balanced. You can usually assume exactly whats going to happen before the challenge happens. Challenges should be removed, or the character that lost is still able to perform 1 attack since they "clashed" in battle and the other was just faster. Being able to just remove enemy characters by default is slowed.

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
I wish they would return movement values. Space Marines of all varients, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons, SOB, Tau, Chaos and their demons. All of their infantry move Six inches. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Make units with a high initiative actually MOVE faster. Oh sure they have fleet, but having the base move be higher based upon your army would be interesting and add a lot to the game.

As long as no one makes initiative potato units move too much less. That would make me sad.

Also, on the topic of getting blasted first turn, some systems for fire reactions, like return fire at -1 bs or take cover by going to ground for the duration of your opponent's turn, movement in your turn being 1d6. Space marines are super humans, Tau go through years of military training before they are even deployed, eldar are older than... hell I don't know, but the only race I can see just taking fire are 'crons, everyone else should have the brains and initiative to do something

 migs6357 wrote:
Only being able to take 1 armour save or 1 invulnerable save or 1 cover save. Would the bullet not go through the wall, then go on to the shields, and if it manages to get through both, would the armour not stop the projectile travelling at a snails pace?!

To be fair, this would make it damn near impossible to kill some things through shooting, as well as increase the number of rolls needing to be made. Imagine trying to kill something like Lysander in Reinforced Ruins, 2+ armor, 3+ cover, 3+ invul, 4 wounds and Eternal Warrior, you'd need 216 wounds on average to kill him (or 648 BS4 bolter shots) if they didn't ignore cover/armor.

gealgain wrote:
stupid rules? someone using look out sir to negate a prescision fire shot

Yeah, because no one in history has ever been saved by a bodyguard moving them out of the way of a sniper's bullet and taking the shot for them. Even worse, no one in literature or film has ever used this idea in one of their stories. It is just completely unprecedented.

Assault rules that make you want to win in your opponents turn and not in your own. Counter-intuitive, 'gamey' and all round silly.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 migs6357 wrote:
Only being able to take 1 armour save or 1 invulnerable save or 1 cover save. Would the bullet not go through the wall, then go on to the shields, and if it manages to get through both, would the armour not stop the projectile travelling at a snails pace?!

To be fair, this would make it damn near impossible to kill some things through shooting, as well as increase the number of rolls needing to be made. Imagine trying to kill something like Lysander in Reinforced Ruins, 2+ armor, 3+ cover, 3+ invul, 4 wounds and Eternal Warrior, you'd need 216 wounds on average to kill him (or 648 BS4 bolter shots) if they didn't ignore cover/armor.

what if he goes to ground?

shouldnt one of the greatest warriors with the BEST defensive armor and shields in the BEST possible type of cover be nearly unkillable in shooting?

 Exergy wrote:
shouldnt one of the greatest warriors with the BEST defensive armor and shields in the BEST possible type of cover be nearly unkillable in shooting?

Yep, and each space marine should be worth 500 points of enemy troops, etc so on.

We let some things pass so that we can have a fun game that doesn't take 3 hours per shooting phase though.

That'd be terrible to allow every save available. Riptide hiding in ruins and getting 2+ armor, 3+ invul, 4+ cover, and then 5+ FNP if all those failed on a T6 W5 model. All it needs is It Will Not Die to try and see if the game can last forever.

The joke that Vindicator needs a DIRECT line of sight to the target, regardless the fact that it fires INDIRECTLY. The poor short-ranged building cleaner bugger is half-useless in 6th Ed, considering how many times it has a chance to fire, AND how much enemy fire it attracts across the table.

 Tigramans wrote:
The joke that Vindicator needs a DIRECT line of sight to the target, regardless the fact that it fires INDIRECTLY. The poor short-ranged building cleaner bugger is half-useless in 6th Ed, considering how many times it has a chance to fire, AND how much enemy fire it attracts across the table.

A vindicator doesn't fire indirectly. It is a direct fire artillery weapon. Similar to large cannons from the greater part of history. It is, in fact, the epitome of direct fire artillery in 40k. The thing is locked into a direct firing arc and I don't think that model could be represented to fire indirectly.

It's very much in fact based off the Sturmtiger, the gun and mount are practically identical, and that was a direct-fire assault gun.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's very much in fact based off the Sturmtiger, the gun and mount are practically identical, and that was a direct-fire assault gun.

This thread should be 'Worst misunderstandings of rules in 40k'.

Sweeping advance doesn't mean that the unit that got swept is summarily massacred. It just means they're routed.

Anyways, the worst rules for me are the ones that have double standards.

For example, vector strike is one of my most loathed rules. You can't assault a flier, but a flier can do close combat damage to you? In the movement phase? What?

Also, if a flier is moving directly towards a unit, the flier hits the ground unit at full BS (or +1 with strafing), but that same ground unit hits the flier at BS1? It should be equally difficult for the two units to hit each other in this case. The whole snap fire against fliers thing would make a lot more sense if it only happened when you were firing into its side arc, as it would actually be more difficult to hit then.

Also, we have pre-measuring and set-distance movement. Shooting attacks have a set-distance range. Assault has a random assault range. That's a terrible rules discrepancy that is as imbalanced as it is senseless.

Otherwise, the worst rule would have to be first blood. The fact that there are secondary objectives greatly dilutes the importance of primaries, which means that it's plenty possible to win by secondaries. And how do you best win on secondaries? First blood. So, what GW was thinking was that alpha-strike armies and gunlines needed to be BETTER. So stupid.

While 6th ed did, in fact, fix several unintuitive rules (like now a model can't fire a heavy weapon if it moved, rather than anyone in the squad moved), but there's still more cleaning up they could do.

And while few of the rules that nerf assault are, in themselves, stupid, I'd agree that it definitely could use a rebalancing.

 Ailaros wrote:

Also, we have pre-measuring and set-distance movement. Shooting attacks have a set-distance range. Assault has a random assault range. That's a terrible rules discrepancy that is as imbalanced as it is senseless.

fair points on all the rest, but I had a thought on this one. the standard movement rules are supposed to represent the models taking their time to traverse the terrain. Assault and run moves represent a model moving at a faster pace and taking less care and therefore more prone to slipping or stumbling or otherwise getting done in by the terrain. Perhaps the weird thing is that flat out and turbo-boosting moves are not random?

I guess it might have been more pleasing/intuitive to have a 6+D6 assault range rather than a flat 2D6.

On the other hand maybe CC should be harder? It is certainly the more decisive method of taking out enemy troops compared to shooting. In Stargrunt the unit that wants to charge into combat has to take a terror test becasue its an inherently scary thing to do

Just some random musing

 pretre wrote:

A vindicator doesn't fire indirectly. It is a direct fire artillery weapon. Similar to large cannons from the greater part of history. It is, in fact, the epitome of direct fire artillery in 40k.

I've always imagined that the Vindicator would fire in an arc, like a heavy mortar. Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't it a mobile artillery instead of a tank? Like Sturmtiger.

 pretre wrote:
The thing is locked into a direct firing arc and I don't think that model could be represented to fire indirectly.

Barrage special rule - problem solved. That'd make Vindicator actually a decent pick, if it would have that.

First Blood.

It's like a bonus point to whoever goes first because all you need to do is pop a weak transport.

 Ugavine wrote:
First Blood.

It's like a bonus point to whoever goes first because all you need to do is pop a weak transport.

I COMPLETELY concur with this one. We usually play without First Blood. Many times the games have been more fair.

 Tigramans wrote:

 pretre wrote:

A vindicator doesn't fire indirectly. It is a direct fire artillery weapon. Similar to large cannons from the greater part of history. It is, in fact, the epitome of direct fire artillery in 40k.

I've always imagined that the Vindicator would fire in an arc, like a heavy mortar. Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't it a mobile artillery instead of a tank? Like Sturmtiger.

The Sturmtiger didn't really fire indirectly, it needed LoS to its target. it was basically a rocket assisted snub-barreled field howitzer that was driven up relatively close to its target and engaged over open sights.

Worst Rule ever!

Fortifications go down BEFORE terrain.......

pure sillyness

Well, it's not that it's impossible to think of a reason why assault ranges could be random. I mean, if it were the other way around, where assault had a set distance and shooting range was determined randomly, you could come up with reasons justifying that as well.

Having either of them being random is dumb, but having but having one be random and one being not random is just a terrible rule.

Pulling it back to first principles, though, the whole game is random as it falls to random number generators to determine outcomes. Random charge distances are almost a save against getting charged in the same way that cover gives you a save against pretty much all shooting. Its just couched in a different way. The challenge for the player is to ensure that success or failure doesn't rely on a single dice roll. Or alternatively have funliving on the edge of risky maneuvers and danger close

You get armor and invul saves against both shooting and close combat. The only difference is cover saves, which there are guns that ignore them sometimes.

Moreover, the comparison isn't the same. A cover save lets you know how much damage you do, while failed range means you don't do any damage at all.

True Line of Sight, which turns any dynamically posed model into a "modeling for advantage" argument.

SJ

Been mentioned before:

Precision shots being look out sir'd. Whats the point in being lucky enough to get a 6, choosing a target, then they just get a 2+ to say 'lolnope'

Challenges should never have been put in the game. So many times an entire squad locked in combat unable to do anything while the leaders derp around failing to hurt eachother. Or being challenged or having to challenge myself, and losing a majority of my attacks that would have wiped out the squad easily.

But what I dont get is this:

Shooting a dreadnought from behind, you shoot its rear armour, right?
Charging it, it can turn around and overwatch you, and then fight you in close combat with its front armour only being attackable.

Wut? Why did you not turn around before when you were being shot at? Gotta wait for someone to yell at you for you to pay attention, dread?

 Tigramans wrote:

 pretre wrote:

A vindicator doesn't fire indirectly. It is a direct fire artillery weapon. Similar to large cannons from the greater part of history. It is, in fact, the epitome of direct fire artillery in 40k.

I've always imagined that the Vindicator would fire in an arc, like a heavy mortar. Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't it a mobile artillery instead of a tank? Like Sturmtiger.

 pretre wrote:
The thing is locked into a direct firing arc and I don't think that model could be represented to fire indirectly.

Barrage special rule - problem solved. That'd make Vindicator actually a decent pick, if it would have that.

It's an Assault Gun. It's purpose is to support infantry by annihilating Bunkers and other fixed defensive positions with direct fire HE. While it may be possible to indirect fire with them, it's certainly not what they were designed to do. If you want to make Vindicators better, a rule to enhance their ability to kill fortifications would be far more appropriate.

Is this just rules, or can I nominate the Burning Chariot of Tzeentch? Cool model, good weapons, but can't move and fire them. Other than D3 Snap Shots. . .

Other than that, I think Flyers/FMC should be able to hit other Flyers/FMC with Templates and Blast Markers. Just make it like different floors in a building. If it hits a flyer, it can't touch ground units. More of a rules wishing than worst rules.

I started multi-quoting when people made very good points. I ended up multi quoting about everyone who posted. GW needs to sit down and read many of these threads on dakka dakka and throughout the interwebs, its their job, they should not be doing half-assed with such a loyal fanbase.

Ralis wrote:
SWEEPING ADVANCE!!!

Oh look, My single space marine survived the attack by your mob, and killed one model. Oh you lost moral and are running, and I catch you... Now my SINGLE SPACE MARINE, Kills your entire mob! WTF!

Sweeping Advance
Snap Shots
All of the rules that severly Nerfed Assault armies
ALL of the new Vehicle rules...like haul points.

My wave serpent.... Haha flat out! I just moved 30 inches across the bourd!

And all you nead is 3+ to hit me in cc

Sigh.....

On the other side, the wave serpent can move .000001" and suddenly he's moving so fast, and is so hard to hit that it gets a 5+ jink save...

Honesly, they should only get a jink save if they moved flat-out the turn before. Or get rid of jink altogether and just give them better armor.

Swooping monstrous creatures getting a cover save from area terrain.

necronguardsmen wrote:
Swooping monstrous creatures getting a cover save from area terrain.

I'll trade you that for the grounding rule.

... that applies to one class of fliers (MCs) but not the other (vehicles).

 washout77 wrote:

ConsecratedIron wrote:
Im a marines player and I think ATSKNF to some degree is stupid. It makes sense when compared to the fluff, but it eliminates a mechanic of the game that is huge for other armies.

This. The rule does make sense from a fluff standpoint, but it needs to be toned down.

I respectfully disagree. ATSKNF does not make sense. Why exactly are those marines suddenly being able to run faster and shoot heavy weapons after moving just because they lost the fight \ were running back a while ago?
Decrease the disadvantages, sure, but don't give them bonuses because they failed their leadership.

I actually had ATSKNF used appropriately against me in my last game. I shot at some interceptors with bolt pistols and killed a few, preparing to charge them from inches away.

Then, rather than letting themselves get charged by Huron and a bunch of MoK marines, they strategically withdrew out of my charge range, leaving me flat-footed. Then they jumped back forward and hit me with a heavy incinerator.

That's exactly what ATSKNF is supposed to be about. It's about marines being smart and making a strategic withdraw from fights they know they can't win, and then regrouping and fighting on their terms. It's a neat rule, I think.

The problem is that for some reason only marines are able to master the art of combat and strategy. That and for some reason they think that all the buffs it offer is somehow worth about 1 point.

 Ailaros wrote:
... that applies to one class of fliers (MCs) but not the other (vehicles).

Considering both only apply to MCs, I think it's a fair trade.

I hate the rules for saves, so if your a space marine in cover you get to pick one save, you roll a cover save that fails and suddenly your armour doesn't work.

It might be a fair system but it never sat right in my mind.
!

 Ailaros wrote:
Sweeping advance doesn't mean that the unit that got swept is summarily massacred. It just means they're routed.

Anyways, the worst rules for me are the ones that have double standards.

For example, vector strike is one of my most loathed rules. You can't assault a flier, but a flier can do close combat damage to you? In the movement phase? What?

Also, if a flier is moving directly towards a unit, the flier hits the ground unit at full BS (or +1 with strafing), but that same ground unit hits the flier at BS1? It should be equally difficult for the two units to hit each other in this case. The whole snap fire against fliers thing would make a lot more sense if it only happened when you were firing into its side arc, as it would actually be more difficult to hit then.

Otherwise, the worst rule would have to be first blood. The fact that there are secondary objectives greatly dilutes the importance of primaries, which means that it's plenty possible to win by secondaries. And how do you best win on secondaries? First blood. So, what GW was thinking was that alpha-strike armies and gunlines needed to be BETTER. So stupid.

Oh god, seconding everything here. feth first blood in particular.

Also, the forementioned one save rule. Someone mentioned 600 shots to kill some dude, but really, if you had multiple saves obviously they'd each be a heck of a lot weaker.

-1 BS for cover, T4, 5+ forcefield and then 4+ armour... about 12 bolter shots per wound.

 Ailaros wrote:
I actually had ATSKNF used appropriately against me in my last game. I shot at some interceptors with bolt pistols and killed a few, preparing to charge them from inches away.

Then, rather than letting themselves get charged by Huron and a bunch of MoK marines, they strategically withdrew out of my charge range, leaving me flat-footed. Then they jumped back forward and hit me with a heavy incinerator.

That's exactly what ATSKNF is supposed to be about. It's about marines being smart and making a strategic withdraw from fights they know they can't win, and then regrouping and fighting on their terms. It's a neat rule, I think.

Except they dont have combat tactics, so didnt choose to do that did they? They were just lucky enough to fail their leadership test.

GW's insistence of giving Xenos cover saves and cover same improvements instead of armor. I'd rather have a more heavily armoured Eldar skimmer than all the cover shenanigans that are ignored in CC and by a lot of ranged weapons.

Also.. Flyers: hit on 6, can't assault.
Fast Skimmers (a lot which have limited flight capability): hit normally, dead in assault.

Hitting walkers only on front in CC, but a fast moving skimmer on the rear? Why... I always imagine the walker spinning around furiously trying to stop grenades from hitting the back..

 KingCracker wrote:
I mostly like 6th personally. Though things are rather dumb. I absolutely HATE challenges. It's such a stupid rule set imo. In fact everyone in our group doesn't even use challenges. It goes past bad rules writing, and even just feels weird fluff wise.

Challenges can be fun. They're not all that unfluffy either. However in terms of gameplay I feel they should be optional in the sense that there's no downside to declining them (because it's no fun putting your greatest hero there to be insta-killed thanks to the rarity of EW) or at least a far less severe downside, nor should there be rules that make challenging mandatory a la Emperor's Champion or Champion of Chaos. Good example of how this can fail... huge BT crusader blob with EC + Chaplain charges a nasty monstrous creature that is alone. Emperor's Champion challenges, the rest of the squad facepalms as dozens and dozens of attacks with rerolls go down the drain. Stupidly the right thing to do would be to detach the EC prior to charging, but then that makes the EC a free kill in the following turn. And of course a similar situation can happen for Chaos Marines where you can't exactly get rid of your aspiring champion, for example.

Anyway, my pet-peeve rules besides forced challenges:
- First Blood. Locally we've housed ruled this out of existence for the last six months or so.
- Like many others, the turn system. I started my tabletop gaming with BattleTech, and while a bit clunky and very slow in progression in many ways, the turn system was superior to 40k
- The vast array of rules nerfing assaults. I don't want assaults to be overpowered the way shooting is now, but with the restrictions on assaulting in general plus then army-specific rules such as those of the Tau to further nerf it, it's just gone too far in favor of shooting.
- I'll admit I find it silly that for example a terminator in area terrain isn't any better off than a terminator out in the open in terms of saving throws. It could either be two separate saves (taking the better one first, even if it's not the "logical" flow of events, would lessen rerolling), or just a difficulty modifier for to-hit rolls. Sadly the latter doesn't really work with the "single D6" skill system, while the former could make some things far too durable against shooting (again, at least with the single D6 system) even if it's just two saves (basically, cover + armor or invul, not all three).
- Random charge range. It's TOO random. When you roll double 1 or 1+2 for the second time in the same match when you need 3 and 4" respectively it gets really old, really fast. Especially when it tends to cost you the match. Funnily rolling double 1s needing 3" cost my side the victory in a ~30k points each side Apoc match back in February.
- Blast weapons having no snap-fire. What's with that? Suddenly the models are physically incapable of pulling the trigger, or what? Just make it always scatter and with no BS being reduced from scatter range.
- Sweeping Advances. Basically the biggest reason why people complain about ATSKNF, I reckon. Can't get sweeped no matter what. What I'd like to see is the ones running away taking a random amount of extra casualties or wounds (1D2 per 5 models on the winning side?) rather than the complete removal of the losing unit. Also the size of the squad doing the losing should have some bearing. Getting a 20-man CSM squad sweeped for losing a single model while not killing anything (as unlikely as that is)? Silly.
- Vehicles tend to lose too much firepower when moving.
- Fast Skimmers getting immobilized in difficult terrain. I mean come on! For example a Land Speeder can fly to like 100 meters up, just because its base is on uneven ground doesn't mean its hull is colliding with some random object on it and breaking the damn thing. Also said skimmers dying to assaults. "Oh yeah here I am able to hover high and all but I think I'll just let that angry mob tear me apart!" I mean seriously, not even a jink available? Quite potentially I was moving flat-out going at a nutty speed, being able to hit let alone damage in CC shouldn't be a given.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The problem is that for some reason only marines are able to master the art of combat and strategy. That and for some reason they think that all the buffs it offer is somehow worth about 1 point.

I have to disagree. Marines manage tactics and strategy in their way. To say they are the only race that can do so is silly. Other races possess some sort of tactic and strategy that they do better or differently than others, such as Eldar and their Battle Focus.

 Lobukia wrote:


I'd like charge distances to be initiative (max 6) +d6

It's very clear from this bit of information that you have an intense hatred for Orks. Why?

feel no pain: "i took this massive laser shot to the chest and it hurt at first, then, i just shrugged it off".

 pretre wrote:

You think that is bad, you should have been around when sweeps/consolidates could contact new units.

I wrecked many armies in 4th edition with berzerkers and deep striking bloodletters that could assault the turn they arrived, chew through a unit and consolidate into another. Made things tough for a gunline.

Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another great example!

Someone just above me complained about Feel no Pain. Feel No Pain doesn't represent a soilder shrugging off a mortal wound, it represents the soilder with the combat discipline(sp?) of shrugging off a shot to his gun arm and continuing to fight on. I think a lot of people think that after a battle everyone who I removed from the table is Dead. Wounds don't represent life but combat effectivness. If it represented Life there would be no special charcters in 40k because everyone has killed them off 1,000,000 times over in people's garages.

x13rads wrote:
Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.

The major beef with Jink, from my understanding, would be a skimmer that barely moves, or couldn't be imagined to take very fast evasive action (like a Ghost Ark creeping along) getting a 1/3 chance to evade a BEAM OF COHERENT LIGHT like a lascannon. The rule really needs at least a minimum move distance. Even 6" would be better than it is currently (although hardly more logical) just because it could force a trade-off for slower skimmers in terms of shooting their weapons.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.

The major beef with Jink, from my understanding, would be a skimmer that barely moves, or couldn't be imagined to take very fast evasive action (like a Ghost Ark creeping along) getting a 1/3 chance to evade a BEAM OF COHERENT LIGHT like a lascannon. The rule really needs at least a minimum move distance. Even 6" would be better than it is currently (although hardly more logical) just because it could force a trade-off for slower skimmers in terms of shooting their weapons.

Sigh

Mobility not speed.

You do realize there are skimmers that move no faster than tanks do. The Annihilation Barge comes to mind. A tank has tracks and is in constant contact with the ground creating friction. A skimmer does not. A skimmer doesn't get the Jink for moving fast but for the ability to dodge incoming fire due to increased MOBILITY. If I the player forget to move my skimmer the .0000001" you my opponent just caught me flat-footed.

As for the whole Lascannon Beam of Light thing, I can think of plenty of reasons why is would be possible 40,000 years into the future in a fantasy reality that my skimmer could avoid it.

My apoligies seeing how you even mentioned in your retort the Ghost Ark. I should have read you post a second time before I responded.

 xttz wrote:
The turn system.

Player A moves all their units, then shoots with everything, then assaults, while Player B does little but roll saving throws and yawn. Then they trade places.

Epic Armageddon did things much better with this approach:

Player A moves / shoots / assaults with a single unit

Player B moves / shoots / assaults with a single unit

Player A moves / shoots / assaults with a single unit

etc

That allowed for much better strategy as your try to predict and counter each move, kept both players engaged in the game and generally flows smoother.
It also vastly reduces the impact of a shooting-heavy army getting first turn and wiping out swathes of units before they're even used.

I am a relativily new player and wondered why turns don't work like this. Seems to be much more even this way. My son and i used tom play Heroscape (actually we still do sometimes) and it worked like this, but also had a mechanic where there were 3 turns in a round. Before the round started you would mark with a secret marker which unit would take a tunr 1st, 2nd , and 3rd. one units could take more than one tunr in a round if you wished. It felt like there was more strategy to moving/ taking turns with your figures.

x13rads wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.

The major beef with Jink, from my understanding, would be a skimmer that barely moves, or couldn't be imagined to take very fast evasive action (like a Ghost Ark creeping along) getting a 1/3 chance to evade a BEAM OF COHERENT LIGHT like a lascannon. The rule really needs at least a minimum move distance. Even 6" would be better than it is currently (although hardly more logical) just because it could force a trade-off for slower skimmers in terms of shooting their weapons.

Sigh

Mobility not speed.

You do realize there are skimmers that move no faster than tanks do. The Annihilation Barge comes to mind. A tank has tracks and is in constant contact with the ground creating friction. A skimmer does not. A skimmer doesn't get the Jink for moving fast but for the ability to dodge incoming fire due to increased MOBILITY. If I the player forget to move my skimmer the .0000001" you my opponent just caught me flat-footed.

As for the whole Lascannon Beam of Light thing, I can think of plenty of reasons why is would be possible 40,000 years into the future in a fantasy reality that my skimmer could avoid it.

My apoligies seeing how you even mentioned in your retort the Ghost Ark. I should have read you post a second time before I responded.

I'm not making commentary on my opinion here, I just think that you may be misunderstanding what is being said/represented. Nobody is arguing that the skimmer's don't have mobility, but what they ARE arguing is that the rule as used on the field isn't logical due to the extremely small movement taken. For example, an estimation of the distance of 1" in 40k (though it's nigh-impossible to tell with GW's scaling) is somewhere around 4 feet (a Guardsman, an "average" man which I am estimating at 5'10" or 6 foot rounded, is an inch and a half or so, thereby making 1 inch equal 4 feet).

Therefore, if a skimmer moves that little half inch "jink" to the side or forward or what have you, this is meant to represent it moving about 2 feet. No matter how rapidly or "mobily" it moves, the fact of the matter is it only moves, what, an eighth of its WIDTH? If someone shoots at a vehicle which is in the process of shifting itself 1/8 of its width to the side, odds are it's not going to randomly throw off the shot unless the attacker was, for whatever reason, aiming at the very edge of the vehicle.

Now, if I were to rewrite this rule in a non-GW format to "fix" it, I would simply say the vehicle must move at least its size in LENGTH to gain the benefit. This would then represent it "not being where it was before" with its movement. Theoretically if someone aimed at the front of the vehicle and did not move his aim, and it "jinked" forward a full inch per turn, the shot would still have a chance to hit it 4, 5, even 6 turns later, because as I said, no matter how quick or agile the movement is, it's not getting out of the way enough to "logically" get out of the way of the shot.

I suppose it could be argued that it is jinking up and down as well as forward or backwards, but then why couldn't it just do this while in place? The wording of the rule suggests that the cover save is from its forward-directional movement and maneuverability in that respect, not just some inherent agility, and I think therein lies the conflict.

I don't like that cover gives inv saves. Melta and Plasma guns go straight through Terminator armor and Tank plating, but when I lay low behind some ruins or even a hedge I get better protection than almost all rare power fields provide? I wish we could get back BS modifiers.

I don't like snap fire. Overwatch is ok in principle, but it existing along other melee nerfs is overkill. Against flyers I dislike that it's always BS1. So even a BS 6, 7 or even 9 can't hit that flyer any better than a orc boy or conscript? Again, I feel BS modifiers would work better and wouldn't overcomplicate the game as long as there aren't to many.

Not really a rule. Or maybe a lack of rules. But outside of suit commanders and a few exarchs there is no way to build a shooting character that feels as heroic as a melee character. I want space marine commanders shooting down guys left and right and IG gunslingers that get way more shots out of theirpistols than others. The exarch powers make some moves in the right direction, at least. But I wish I'd get more use out of those high BS values.

Yeah totally I get the mobility vs. speed thing. Like Yipyioh said though, you have a sizable vehicle that in game terms is barely moving. Meaning it must be making some really crazy and erratic maneuvers that on average put it 0.1" away from where it started but at the extremes take it far enough away that you actually have a chance of missing it.

Sure in theory you could do that, maybe your Annihilation Barge is flying a crazy figure-8 pattern 12 inches wide right over everyone's heads. Does it really make sense? Not in my opinion.

Same goes for bikes, doubly so in fact as they're not flying.

The end result in game terms is to make skimmers far more durable than ground vehicles with little justification. Jink saves are just gamey, and for me what little immersion there is in 40k is broken just a bit more whenever someone literally dodges a lascannon shot because they remembered to nudge their skimmer a tiny bit.

 Yipyioh wrote:

x13rads wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.

The major beef with Jink, from my understanding, would be a skimmer that barely moves, or couldn't be imagined to take very fast evasive action (like a Ghost Ark creeping along) getting a 1/3 chance to evade a BEAM OF COHERENT LIGHT like a lascannon. The rule really needs at least a minimum move distance. Even 6" would be better than it is currently (although hardly more logical) just because it could force a trade-off for slower skimmers in terms of shooting their weapons.

Sigh

Mobility not speed.

You do realize there are skimmers that move no faster than tanks do. The Annihilation Barge comes to mind. A tank has tracks and is in constant contact with the ground creating friction. A skimmer does not. A skimmer doesn't get the Jink for moving fast but for the ability to dodge incoming fire due to increased MOBILITY. If I the player forget to move my skimmer the .0000001" you my opponent just caught me flat-footed.

As for the whole Lascannon Beam of Light thing, I can think of plenty of reasons why is would be possible 40,000 years into the future in a fantasy reality that my skimmer could avoid it.

My apoligies seeing how you even mentioned in your retort the Ghost Ark. I should have read you post a second time before I responded.

I'm not making commentary on my opinion here, I just think that you may be misunderstanding what is being said/represented. Nobody is arguing that the skimmer's don't have mobility, but what they ARE arguing is that the rule as used on the field isn't logical due to the extremely small movement taken. For example, an estimation of the distance of 1" in 40k (though it's nigh-impossible to tell with GW's scaling) is somewhere around 4 feet (a Guardsman, an "average" man which I am estimating at 5'10" or 6 foot rounded, is an inch and a half or so, thereby making 1 inch equal 4 feet).

Therefore, if a skimmer moves that little half inch "jink" to the side or forward or what have you, this is meant to represent it moving about 2 feet. No matter how rapidly or "mobily" it moves, the fact of the matter is it only moves, what, an eighth of its WIDTH? If someone shoots at a vehicle which is in the process of shifting itself 1/8 of its width to the side, odds are it's not going to randomly throw off the shot unless the attacker was, for whatever reason, aiming at the very edge of the vehicle.

Now, if I were to rewrite this rule in a non-GW format to "fix" it, I would simply say the vehicle must move at least its size in LENGTH to gain the benefit. This would then represent it "not being where it was before" with its movement. Theoretically if someone aimed at the front of the vehicle and did not move his aim, and it "jinked" forward a full inch per turn, the shot would still have a chance to hit it 4, 5, even 6 turns later, because as I said, no matter how quick or agile the movement is, it's not getting out of the way enough to "logically" get out of the way of the shot.

I suppose it could be argued that it is jinking up and down as well as forward or backwards, but then why couldn't it just do this while in place? The wording of the rule suggests that the cover save is from its forward-directional movement and maneuverability in that respect, not just some inherent agility, and I think therein lies the conflict.

Ok last time and I will shut up. I apoligize in advance because I completely understand that everyone has their own pet peeves, this just happens to be one of mine. I don't want to hi-jack the thread any further so I will make my last case and then leave everyone else alone.

There are a lot of rules in 40k that are meant to simulate abilities using a mechanic that doesn't always make sense.

Jink = the ability to dodge shooting attacks

Ok so how do we implement the rule? If the vehicle gets Imobilized should it still be able to Jink? No. If the unit is caught off-guard should it be able to Jink(first turn)? No. Ok, so how should we implement it? How about this, as long as the player CAN and REMEMBER to move the vehicle it gets it's Jink save. What if the vehicle was moving real fast? Well in that case we will give it a bonus.

The mechanic is simply being able to, and remembering to move the vehicle/unit. We have all seen movies where there was a UFO just floating in the air apparently motionless when somebody fire a gun/laser at it. Then it effortlessly just moves to the side and keeps on hovering there. Then maybe someone shoots another laser from the backside and catches it offguard. This is what JINK simulates.

Is it perfect? No, but I think it is a pretty good implementation of what it is trying to represent on the table.

It's is like the guy tried to explain about the sweeping advance. That lone Space Marine didn't necesarily mow down the remaining 5 Necron Warriors, but he did do SOMETHING that caused them to be ineffective for the rest of the game...

1. maybe the got beamed back to the mothership
2. maybe they where dispersed to the point that they would not be effective for the remainder of the battle
3. maybe they were damaged enough not to get back up in time to keep on fighting
4. maybe he really did kill the rest of them all with a lucky grenade

All of these results are possible reasons why the rest of the squad got removed from the board. The Mechanics of the Sweeping Advance are just the best way to implement all of these types of outcomes.

And last...

Feel No Pain

Just because you got shot, wounded, and failed your armour save doesn't mean the guy died. He might have got his leg blown off or maybe his bolter blew up. Either way that guy will be combat ineffective for the rest of the game, so we remove him from the table. Feel No Pain represents the ability to shrug off wounds that would put other soilders on the helicopter back to the M.A.S.H. unit. It doesn't mean he took a Lacannon to the chest and lived to tell about it(however if he failed his FNP that might have been the outcome).

Ok I am done. I hope I might have opened someone's eyes to the fact that some rules in 40k are just the easiest way to implement the described abilities.

Forgot one:

Charging into cover without grenades makes you init 1. Way to invalidate the importance of stats. It makes sense to me that most Nids and banshees don't have grenades. In fact, I think way to many units come with grenades standart at the moment. But the way it is now, they are pretty much mandatory. The worst thing is, there's already a nice rule that's rarely used. Charging into a fortified position without tools to disperse the enemy formation? Sounds like a disordered charge to me. Yes, you're going to miss that bonus attack. But at least it isn't cripling and you get to use your high I stat.


In general, you can put me down as an enemy of any rule that invalidates actual stats. A DE Archon fights better than a guardsman, even if he suffers from a bout of fear. Slaaneshi chaos lords and eldar autarchs with Power Axes should be slowed down by the unwieldy weapon. But they should still be faster than some random Sarge with the same weapon or power claw wielding nob.

Officetemp wrote:
I hate how spotlights work. Really, I'm gonna fire my weapons and THEN fire up my spotter to light up my target? Really?

Worst rule? Maybe.
Stupidest rules? Oh my god yes.

CalgarsPimpHan wrote: it must be making some really crazy and erratic maneuvers that on average put it 0.1" away from where it started but at the extremes take it far enough away that you actually have a chance of missing it.

And yet, despite doing barrel rolls in place, the vehicle can still fire at full BS. At least with fliers, if the pilot engages in evasive maneuvers he also doesn't get to shoot very well.

Just another one of those glaring inconsistencies.

As for ATSKNF, I still don't get it. It's an army trait, no different than orks with waaaugh, or DE being able to see in the dark. It's not a broken rule because everybody doesn't have access to it.

I'd wager that the vast majority of armies out there would happily trade in their armies flavour rule for ATSKNF. It really is that damn good.

 Madcat87 wrote:
I'd wager that the vast majority of armies out there would happily trade in their armies flavour rule for ATSKNF. It really is that damn good.

Would easily trade in Champions of Chaos. 10/10 would trade again.

Idle Hands wrote:
I don't like that cover gives inv saves. Melta and Plasma guns go straight through Terminator armor and Tank plating, but when I lay low behind some ruins or even a hedge I get better protection than almost all rare power fields provide? I wish we could get back BS modifiers.

The book even tells you that they are moving around in those ruins/behind that hedge. When you can't see the enemy, you are shooting wild. And when you shoot wild, you are going to miss some shots, even vs something as huge as a terminator.

 Ailaros wrote:
As for ATSKNF, I still don't get it. It's an army trait, no different than orks with waaaugh, or DE being able to see in the dark. It's not a broken rule because everybody doesn't have access to it.

People won't complain so much about it if it was only one army. Almost half the armies are space marine flavored, and they all have the rule. I also view it as a strictly better fearless (the only time you get knocked off the board is if you lost combat near your board edge). Then again, if marines didn't have it, they would lose really easily, as unit sizes are so much smaller than for other armies, and points costs are higher per model to pay for the save. The day they cost less than 13 points is the day they better lose ATSKNF.

 Ailaros wrote:
I actually had ATSKNF used appropriately against me in my last game. I shot at some interceptors with bolt pistols and killed a few, preparing to charge them from inches away.

Then, rather than letting themselves get charged by Huron and a bunch of MoK marines, they strategically withdrew out of my charge range, leaving me flat-footed. Then they jumped back forward and hit me with a heavy incinerator.

That's exactly what ATSKNF is supposed to be about. It's about marines being smart and making a strategic withdraw from fights they know they can't win, and then regrouping and fighting on their terms. It's a neat rule, I think.

This ^.

Space marnes are supposed to be so much better than the chaff of other races/factions that it makes everyone else look completely inept by comparison. Quite frankly, they should be even better... but there is only so much you can do and still maintain game balance.
In a 2k game you may only have 30-40 infantry on the board, and if 25% or 50% of them just decided to route, get run down and "disperse" because they were demoralized or afraid... it would just be stupid. This does make sense for basically every other non-fearless trooper in the game though. I think ATSKNF is done just right.
Failing a SM LD check is not them fleeing from the enemy; it is tactically deciding to withdraw and adopt a better position. This is as opposed to 'Fearless', who are portrayed as simply being too berzerk or stupid to realize they should run away.

There are some great points made in this thread, and was an enjoyable read. As one commenter put it, if I were to multi-quote posts that I agreed with or thought has some validity, I would be quoting most of the thread. I personally would love and probably will play test many of the suggestions given.

My contrabution to the discussion:
UGOIGO: I know this is not a rule, but it is something that I have had a problem with for sometime with 40k. My displeasure with it has grown more as I've begun to play other games. Most new games (Infinity and Bolt Action are two I'm familiar with) have a turn system that keeps both players involved and allows for players to react and make changes when his oppoient does something. As I said, this system has always galled me, and it sometimes removes me from the game. It's not my turn so I just have to sit here and take what ever my oppoient dishes out.

Fliers: While I'm happy 40k is trying to introduce something new, I agree that it could be done better. "Balancing" and improving the fliers can be handled by providing more AA options, providing rules that would improve chances of hitting a flier, and re-working the fliers themselves.

ATSKNF: I don't understand the problem with this rule. I personally think it's one of the more boring army wide special rules. Space Marines stay in close combat most of the time which devolves most assaults into tar pits or slugging matches. Space Marines automatically re-group even if they didn't, their high leadership would make it almost automatic.

Challenges: I think this is a nice fluffy addition to the rules, and does actually add a very small bit of tactical thinking. However, I agree that it should not be a forced mechanic.

First Blood: I completely agree with everyone's statement. This is something that should be done away with.

Single Saving Throw: I agree that the saving system could be tweaked. WHFB allows for multiple saves; why doesn't 40k? There are simple ways to achieve this even in a d6 system. The modifier is the easiest and most generic way to do it. A unit is a -1 BS for shooting at something in "soft cover" and a -2 BS for shooting something in "hard cover" and so on. Then the shooting attack can be resolved as normal with a roll to wound and a roll to save. The BS modifier would reduce the number of hits a unit would be taking, and the roll to wound would further reduce the number to a number that would be a bit more easy to swallow.

Overall, there's little I can complain about except the actual turn mechanics of the game. Most of things I think are being brought up can be easily fixed with a quick home brew rulebook that is created, put out, and accepted by the community. It would be the "accepted by the community" that would kill any chance of trying to make a constructive change to the game.

 Ailaros wrote:

CalgarsPimpHan wrote: it must be making some really crazy and erratic maneuvers that on average put it 0.1" away from where it started but at the extremes take it far enough away that you actually have a chance of missing it.

And yet, despite doing barrel rolls in place, the vehicle can still fire at full BS. At least with fliers, if the pilot engages in evasive maneuvers he also doesn't get to shoot very well.

It really doesn't need to be such a dramatic move to make you miss. Your guy lines up his shot (to-hit) on a vital spot (penetrates) then right as he fires the skimmer drops 4 feet and 2 feet to the left and your shot misses or chips the paint (jink)

The reason a plane can't do that is because it's impossible to perform that degree of change when you have 800kph of forward momentum.

 Ailaros wrote:


As for ATSKNF, I still don't get it. It's an army trait, no different than orks with waaaugh, or DE being able to see in the dark. It's not a broken rule because everybody doesn't have access to it.

The problem with ATSKNF is that it allows half the armies in the game to ignore huge sections of the rules. Fear, morale checks are largely irrelevant unless your back is to the board edge, sweeping advances, regrouping rules don't apply. Whole sections of the rulebook simply do not apply to them.

Marines small size is not a defence as so many armies have similarly high cost units but do not have marines immunity to morale. Look at CSM for the most glaring example. 1pt cheaper than a tac marine and yet vulnerable to all the things the marines ignore.

Leadership and morale is a huge part of the game, unless you're a marine in which case you don't even need to read those sections.

As an aside, I love challenges. Melee could do with a small buff but frankly if you let marines get swept like everyone else in the game it'd cover most of the discrepancy. Maybe add some way for Storm Guardians and Banshees to actually get to combat, but that's a codex issue not a rules one.

Is there anybody left who is afraid to play against SM? They are mediocre on the table top at best... You all pretend that ATSKNF would create broken matches... When was the last time any of you did sweep advance anything anyway?

tommse wrote:
Is there anybody left who is afraid to play against SM? They are mediocre on the table top at best... You all pretend that ATSKNF would create broken matches... When was the last time any of you did sweep advance anything anyway?

2nd to last game with my csm, my last csm troops got swept as they lost the aspiring champion in a challenge and failed the break test. I had a full squad of 10 csm vs a sergeant and about 3 basic tactical marines. Turned a win into a draw. Given the difference in points cost for marines vs csm...

If it was possible to do it the other way round, I wouldn't mind.

tommse wrote:
Is there anybody left who is afraid to play against SM? They are mediocre on the table top at best...

Maybe that will change tomorrow?

Given that what was brought up was Combat Tactics, not specifically ATSKNF, the debate really will become moot at midnight GMT when the new SM codex hit the shelves and Combat Tactics vanishes into 40k's ancestral memory along with Sustained Fire Dice, Minor Psychic Powers, and not being able to fire through more than 2" of woods.

My pet peeve bad mechanic is the restriction on assaulting from Reserves. GW seems totally enamored with the idea that no one can ever launch an assault without eating a full round of fire and then a round of Overwatch. Then they get to roll for their charge distance, might fail their charge, and if they fail to sweep their opponent, will just get shot up a whole bunch more when the escapees rally.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Given that what was brought up was Combat Tactics, not specifically ATSKNF, the debate really will become moot at midnight GMT when the new SM codex hit the shelves and Combat Tactics vanishes into 40k's ancestral memory along with Sustained Fire Dice, Minor Psychic Powers, and not being able to fire through more than 2" of woods.

My pet peeve bad mechanic is the restriction on assaulting from Reserves. GW seems totally enamored with the idea that no one can ever launch an assault without eating a full round of fire and then a round of Overwatch. Then they get to roll for their charge distance, might fail their charge, and if they fail to sweep their opponent, will just get shot up a whole bunch more when the escapees rally.

Did I miss info on Combat Tactics? I was under the impression that they were not going away......

EDIT: Hmm, I swear I saw something that retained this ability but only if you took something specific.....can't find it now.

EDIT: Found it. Sounds like taking Calgar grants this ability as well as letting you select a single doctrine that you can use twice.

I hate how you have to roll for warlord traits:

Firewarriors: Commander! What are you good at?

Fireblade: Let me have a think...

[though it nice that SCs get pre-chosen traits]

 bkiker wrote:
Single Saving Throw: I agree that the saving system could be tweaked. WHFB allows for multiple saves; why doesn't 40k? There are simple ways to achieve this even in a d6 system. The modifier is the easiest and most generic way to do it. A unit is a -1 BS for shooting at something in "soft cover" and a -2 BS for shooting something in "hard cover" and so on. Then the shooting attack can be resolved as normal with a roll to wound and a roll to save. The BS modifier would reduce the number of hits a unit would be taking, and the roll to wound would further reduce the number to a number that would be a bit more easy to swallow.

While I was initially opposed to this system in 40K, thinking further on it makes me realize that it would make shooting significantly less powerful, which would help balance out alpha strikes and keep the game more interesting for the player going second. You could even go further and add in Fantasy's other modifiers (if we are ripping off their cover rules as well), and grant a -1 to hit for firing over half range. Too many modifiers (such as multiple shots and moving) would probably be a bad idea in 40K though, as it would really take the teeth out of Rapid Firing weapons. Obviously the next Tau codex would just remove all the negative modifiers for their units anyway, because thats just what they do, but still!

I do NOT think under any circumstances that Invulnerable saves should be treated like Ward Saves however. The fact of the matter is that in Fantasy Ward Saves are typically worse (a 4++ is rediculously good), and Armour Saves are weaker (since high strength negates armour saves). Applying this in 40K where Invulnerable Saves these days are typically 3++, and Armour is modified only by AP values... not a good idea for my sanity. Besides, there is already FnP for double layered saves.

EDIT:

I also think that the Flyer assualt rules are really lame. I personally think that Jetbikes, Jump Pack Units, and Flying Monsters should be allowed to assault fliers. For the Narrative. Maybe make them take a dangerous terrain test to do it or something.

The worst rule change has to be what the 6th editio have done with fleet. It used to make Eldar brilliant.

Leadership. Leadership has too much based on it, and makes no sense.

Why are psychic tests based on Leadership? If that's the case, why aren't deny the witch rolls based on leadership? Why does Leadership not determine warp charges?

Why is a Warlock, a member of the most psychic race in the galaxy, a master of psychic assault, leadership 8?

Also, why is a Space Marine, something that's pretty much spent it's life living within the context of scenarios laid out in a book verbatim (Yes, not everyone follows codex, but for simplicity) leadership 8, but then has ATSKNF to compensate and allow them to pretty much ignore all aspects of the negatives leadership 8 implies?

WHY ARE NECRONS LEADERSHIP 10!?! It essentially allows them to completely ignore anything having to do with leadership.

Tyranids I'm ok with pretty much ignoring everything having to do with moral. Makes sense, gives them synapse creatures which fit them and work well imo.

Leadership is clunky. It's a dump stat where tests that don't fit other stats are thrown into. I think it needs a reworking.

If it affects psychic ability, base it on psychic powers.

If it affects battlefield moral, base it around that.

The two serve very different purposes.

agent1320 wrote:
The worst rule change has to be what the 6th editio have done with fleet. It used to make Eldar brilliant.

Their new Battle Focus rule more than makes up for any utility lost from the changes to Fleet for the army as a whole and the majority of units.

deathmagiks wrote:
Leadership. Leadership has too much based on it, and makes no sense.

Why are psychic tests based on Leadership? If that's the case, why aren't deny the witch rolls based on leadership? Why does Leadership not determine warp charges?

Why is a Warlock, a member of the most psychic race in the galaxy, a master of psychic assault, leadership 8?

Also, why is a Space Marine, something that's pretty much spent it's life living within the context of scenarios laid out in a book verbatim (Yes, not everyone follows codex, but for simplicity) leadership 8, but then has ATSKNF to compensate and allow them to pretty much ignore all aspects of the negatives leadership 8 implies?

WHY ARE NECRONS LEADERSHIP 10!?! It essentially allows them to completely ignore anything having to do with leadership.

Tyranids I'm ok with pretty much ignoring everything having to do with moral. Makes sense, gives them synapse creatures which fit them and work well imo.

Leadership is clunky. It's a dump stat where tests that don't fit other stats are thrown into. I think it needs a reworking.

Ld is a consolidation of what once was 3 stats, Leadership (command ability), Intelligence (how smart and clever a unit was), and Cool (how calm troops were under fire). That's three stats that all too often were basically about the same and all represented mental fortitude of some kind, so were collapsed into just Ld. Ld works in most cases. Some things are a bit awkward, but it works mostly. Warlocks being Ld8 shouldn't be that big of an issue, yes they're psychic warriors, no, they're not the Masters that Farseers are, hence the lower Ld. Nobody else has an equivalent Psyker unit, it's unique to Eldar that they have such ubiquitous psykers, and not every psychic test needs to be the practical auto-assured Ld10. Necrons are Ld10 because for the most part they're mindless automatons that are controlled by an incredibly powerful external force of will, but not Fearless because they do have automated programming that can deduce odds and will attempt to withdraw if it believes it to be prudent. ATSKNF is a much complained about bugbear, but if SM's didn't have it, they'd just be given Fearless and make Ld largely pointless anyway because nobody wants genetically engineered super soldiers that run away.

That said, Ld8 being "bad" is a symptom of current 40k. In Fantasy, Ld7 in standard, Ld8 is above average, Ld9 very rare and Ld10 limited to expensive characters or attained through special rules. Ld7 represents things like a trained, professional soldier or an aggressive Ork. The problem is that in 40k, the baseline trooper is not a basic human soldier, but rather a genetically engineered, psycho-indoctrinated fearless super soldier in power armor wielding a rocket firing submachinegun often described accomplished ludicrous feats of arms. As a result, things tend to get...inflated.

double post

 akaean wrote:

 bkiker wrote:
Single Saving Throw: I agree that the saving system could be tweaked. WHFB allows for multiple saves; why doesn't 40k? There are simple ways to achieve this even in a d6 system. The modifier is the easiest and most generic way to do it. A unit is a -1 BS for shooting at something in "soft cover" and a -2 BS for shooting something in "hard cover" and so on. Then the shooting attack can be resolved as normal with a roll to wound and a roll to save. The BS modifier would reduce the number of hits a unit would be taking, and the roll to wound would further reduce the number to a number that would be a bit more easy to swallow.

While I was initially opposed to this system in 40K, thinking further on it makes me realize that it would make shooting significantly less powerful, which would help balance out alpha strikes and keep the game more interesting for the player going second. You could even go further and add in Fantasy's other modifiers (if we are ripping off their cover rules as well), and grant a -1 to hit for firing over half range. Too many modifiers (such as multiple shots and moving) would probably be a bad idea in 40K though, as it would really take the teeth out of Rapid Firing weapons. Obviously the next Tau codex would just remove all the negative modifiers for their units anyway, because thats just what they do, but still!

I do NOT think under any circumstances that Invulnerable saves should be treated like Ward Saves however. The fact of the matter is that in Fantasy Ward Saves are typically worse (a 4++ is rediculously good), and Armour Saves are weaker (since high strength negates armour saves). Applying this in 40K where Invulnerable Saves these days are typically 3++, and Armour is modified only by AP values... not a good idea for my sanity. Besides, there is already FnP for double layered saves.

EDIT:

I also think that the Flyer assualt rules are really lame. I personally think that Jetbikes, Jump Pack Units, and Flying Monsters should be allowed to assault fliers. For the Narrative. Maybe make them take a dangerous terrain test to do it or something.

Adding the invul save was a last second change of my mind, so I agree with you that modifying to hit rolls would work better than adding layers of saving throws. I think that as long as the modifiers where generic enough you could add quite a few. I turn to Bolt Action as an example. A unit suffers a -1 penalty to hit if they move and shoot, shooting something in cover, shooting long distance, if the target unit is "down", if the shooting unit is inexperience, if the unit has a pin maker.

The fliers in 40k are an odd duck. In some cases, they are treated and act like standard modern day fixed wing aircraft: an FA-18 or A-10. However, in other cases, they are treated and act like modern attack and transport helicopters. Clarifying the roles and how the fliers act would give a better picture on how the rules should work when interacting with them. I understand having a hard time shooting a flier and not being able to assault it if it is meant to act and actually does behave like an F-18. However, if fliers are supposed to act and fill the role of attack/transport helicopters, then the rules should it make it easier to shoot at them and assault them. I agree that "air" capable units such as flying monsterous creatures and skimmers should be able to engage a flier. I have a problem with jump pack and jetbikes engaging a flier as these units I feel have "limited" air capablity. Again, deciding what units can and cannot engage a flier would be better determined when a clear understanding of what role 40k fliers fill is presented.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ld is a consolidation of what once was 3 stats, Leadership (command ability), Intelligence (how smart and clever a unit was), and Cool (how calm troops were under fire). That's three stats that all too often were basically about the same and all represented mental fortitude of some kind, so were collapsed into just Ld. Ld works in most cases. Some things are a bit awkward, but it works mostly. Warlocks being Ld8 shouldn't be that big of an issue, yes they're psychic warriors, no, they're not the Masters that Farseers are, hence the lower Ld. Nobody else has an equivalent Psyker unit, it's unique to Eldar that they have such ubiquitous psykers, and not every psychic test needs to be the practical auto-assured Ld10. Necrons are Ld10 because for the most part they're mindless automatons that are controlled by an incredibly powerful external force of will, but not Fearless because they do have automated programming that can deduce odds and will attempt to withdraw if it believes it to be prudent. ATSKNF is a much complained about bugbear, but if SM's didn't have it, they'd just be given Fearless and make Ld largely pointless anyway because nobody wants genetically engineered super soldiers that run away.

That said, Ld8 being "bad" is a symptom of current 40k. In Fantasy, Ld7 in standard, Ld8 is above average, Ld9 very rare and Ld10 limited to expensive characters or attained through special rules. Ld7 represents things like a trained, professional soldier or an aggressive Ork. The problem is that in 40k, the baseline trooper is not a basic human soldier, but rather a genetically engineered, psycho-indoctrinated fearless super soldier in power armor wielding a rocket firing submachinegun often described accomplished ludicrous feats of arms. As a result, things tend to get...inflated.

I'm ok with what it has become in regards to how it sits right now. not ecstatic, but ok. That said, I believe it needs to be consistent. Right now I feel like leadership values either negatively affect psykers more than they help them (with both chances to fail and chances to wound yourself spectacularly whilst doing so) and, for the purposes of being used in game as a significant factor, are too minuscule. I feel like units breaking and running, or otherwise taking negative effects from losing leadership checks, is either an utterly game changing event, or is relegated to a position of relative uselessness. Whilst playing Necrons, for example, unless you're stacking Horrify, Terrify, and other things in a list specifically designed to mess with leadership values, it's essentially assumed leadership will not play a significant, or even noticeable, factor in how you play them.

Current worst rule IMO: MC getting cover from being in it, rather than obscured.

My biggest gripe with ATSKNF is that CSM do not have a comparable ability. Sure, they're 1 pt less, but I would gladly pay 1 pt for that ability.
Many baseline CSM are 10,000 year old veterans who have lived in hell for thousands of years. Why are they worse in every way than 50 year old newcomers?

 bkiker wrote:

Single Saving Throw: I agree that the saving system could be tweaked. WHFB allows for multiple saves; why doesn't 40k? There are simple ways to achieve this even in a d6 system. The modifier is the easiest and most generic way to do it. A unit is a -1 BS for shooting at something in "soft cover" and a -2 BS for shooting something in "hard cover" and so on. Then the shooting attack can be resolved as normal with a roll to wound and a roll to save. The BS modifier would reduce the number of hits a unit would be taking, and the roll to wound would further reduce the number to a number that would be a bit more easy to swallow.

As I think I mentioned before... it just wouldn't work that easily with the current single D6 system. For example it'd either completely invalidate shooting with Orks since they only have BS2. Even if it can be only lowered to BS1, it'd still be weird - suddenly BS3 models shooting against hard cover is equal to BS2 doing the same, which in turn would unfair towards the BS3 models. Etc.

herpguy wrote:
My biggest gripe with ATSKNF is that CSM do not have a comparable ability. Sure, they're 1 pt less, but I would gladly pay 1 pt for that ability.
Many baseline CSM are 10,000 year old veterans who have lived in hell for thousands of years. Why are they worse in every way than 50 year old newcomers?

Chaos Space Marines know that if they die their souls are due for a horrific fate. Ergo they absolutely do not want to die and thus fear crept it's way back into their minds.

 Kain wrote:

herpguy wrote:
My biggest gripe with ATSKNF is that CSM do not have a comparable ability. Sure, they're 1 pt less, but I would gladly pay 1 pt for that ability.
Many baseline CSM are 10,000 year old veterans who have lived in hell for thousands of years. Why are they worse in every way than 50 year old newcomers?

Chaos Space Marines know that if they die their souls are due for a horrific fate. Ergo they absolutely do not want to die and thus fear crept it's way back into their minds.

Except...many would welcome that?


"I can feel the Warp overtaking me...it is a good pain..."

WHY ARE NECRONS LEADERSHIP 10!?! It essentially allows them to completely ignore anything having to do with leadership

Because the majority of them are mindless robots.

 Vaktathi wrote:

because nobody wants genetically engineered super soldiers that run away.

Except for people who play Chaos Space Marines apparently. Our genetically engineered super soldiers run away all the time.

Sometimes it is pretty smart to run away, and it has nothing to do with fear. . .

Except when you lose one of your guys, lose the combat by 1 and roll a double 6.

Then get swept.

Then you feel the pain.

Worst rules?
Assault. You want an assault unit to be OK, but not brilliant. It needs to be able to hack an enemy unit to pieces in 2 turns, rather than one. Why? Because you want to win and sweep the enemy in THEIR turn, not yours. If you roll brilliantly in assault and decimate the enemy, then you're left in the open with nothing to help you.
The corollary is that if you are assaulted, you want to lose quickly and decisively, rather than giving your opponent cover from your shooting in the next turn.
Another corollary is that sometimes a shooty unit's best way of staying safe from harm is to assault another unit. That's something I do regularly with eg Crisis Suits, which are decent enough in combat that they can kill something like guardsmen but not so good that they'll win decisively in a single turn.


Other silly rules:
Leadership in general: so many units are fearless, effectively fearless, leadership 10, ATSKNF or otherwise gets around the general leadership rules, it really reduces the impact that Leadership rules have on the game.

Various 'this unit is fast' rules. There are so many fast movement rules between all units, because every fast unit seems to be fast in a different way than another unit is fast.

Secondary objectives: First blood is pretty much automatically for the person who goes first - especially with how weak most vehicles are when they haven't had an opportunity to move or pop smoke. Linebreaker is often a point for whoever goes second.

Primary objectives: I've gotten involved in WMH lately, and I love the way that objectives are scored during the game. Holding an objective for 4 turns is actually worth something - rather than in 40k, where you can hold an objective for 6.5 turns and lose it to a single turbo-boosting jetbike in the bottom of turn 7.

Trasvi wrote:
Other silly rules:
Leadership in general: so many units are fearless, effectively fearless, leadership 10, ATSKNF or otherwise gets around the general leadership rules, it really reduces the impact that Leadership rules have on the game.

I so agree! LD is so dumb in 40K its about who has the best H2H or the most ridiculous super warrior. I like the special rules that allow real leadership effects on your army like rearranging an opponents deployment or stealing initiative.

- J