Outside of broken rules, what are/were some of the best rules you enjoyed over the years?
One of mine is characters that unlocked some FOC into troops choice. It made for a really cool, fluffy lists that helped mitigate the headache of always having to have at least 2 worthless troops.
That said, it's probably an obsolete rule given that I probably wouldn't be able to go over Ro3 on any given type of tank nowadays and I can take a detachment of just heavy supports to make sure I have slots for all the tanks I want. It was mostly relevant back when you only had 3 Heavy Support slots, so that I could have more than 3 vehicles collectively.
I like the new Marine rules a lot, but that seems a little too easy. Shield of Faith was probably my favorite for a long time just because it meant my Exorcists could potentially stick around in the game longer.
I enjoyed playing with the old Rage mechanic, but that was more because it was hilarious to funnel my Repentia into the enemy with some careful positioning and watching them paste whatever they hit.
Core mechanic wise I miss the old "wrecked = leave it dead on the table, explodes replace it with a crater" mechanic we had for vehicles.
I think it is often over looked, but I do like that movement doesn't affect attacking (some weapons not withstanding) as well as standing still does not inherently giving a bonus. A lot of miniatures games before I started playing 40k would often give aim bonuses or require an action that could otherwise be used to attack. These often led to more static games. With 40k, movement is often given for free at least trying to encourage maneuver even if the rest of the rules don't.
Honorable mention, to previous editions giving space marines few reasons to seek cover. As player that has their models hug terrain as a SOP, it was refreshing to say, "Screw it! Charge across open ground!"
It might not be the best rule but the one I miss the most is AV facings and vehicle firing arcs. One thing that has really been lost this edition is position or placement meaning anything.
HoundsofDemos wrote: It might not be the best rule but the one I miss the most is AV facings and vehicle firing arcs. One thing that has really been lost this edition is position or placement meaning anything.
I don't miss it because it meant that positioning only mattered when it came to vehicles. And that's not even getting into the AV facing arguments whenever the vehicle wasn't a square.
The game either needs to go all in on positioning mattering or leave it off the table completely.
As with my worst rule, I have to go back to 2nd edition, where it's a toss-up between Ork Battlewagons being able to carry as many models as you could physically pile on top (with the caveat that any model that fell off when you moved the wagon took a wound!) or the original Necron Scarab rules, which allowed them to nibble away vehicle armour or alternatively explode on command...
The playability of a lot of those rules was... frustrating. Every game I played against that codex was a chore, usually feeling like I wasn’t getting anywhere until they phased out. Not the biggest fan.
Still, the greatest name for a rule came from that book, as C’tan were “Immune to Natural Law.”
Second best rule name was for Alaitoc pathfinders: Worldweary. It just made them fearless, but it conjures these hard bitten ancient elves, separated from their home, smoking unfiltered cigarettes and shrugging off the deaths of comrades or the horrors of the universe. That’s how you do grimdark proper.
My favorite rules were those of battlefleet gothic, specifically the Eldar fleet.
Andy chambers said to Jervis "make them annoyingly gittish" and he did that magnificently.
Move, shoot move, 2+ save against direct fire/ordnance, column shift against battery fire etc.
They were actually presented as fast, accurate and hard to hit.
I DONT like the current Eldar 40k rules -shooting after running is not how you show fast hit and run, it's something you only need when your units have short ranged guns and literally have to run closer to shoot you...
He
I liked the speed hit modifiers in 2nd ed.
If a unit moved 10" or more, you were at -1 to hit them.
And lo and behold, Eldar and nids were scary because they all had a move stat of 5"minimum, making their run and charge values 10".
HoundsofDemos wrote: It might not be the best rule but the one I miss the most is AV facings and vehicle firing arcs. One thing that has really been lost this edition is position or placement meaning anything.
I don't miss it because it meant that positioning only mattered when it came to vehicles. And that's not even getting into the AV facing arguments whenever the vehicle wasn't a square.
The game either needs to go all in on positioning mattering or leave it off the table completely.
It SHOULD be important how you position your vehicle. A vindicators cannon only points one direction (forward).....
You want a dirt simple way to handle AV facings, whatever the shape of your vehicle? Here use this:
Front = X
Side/Rear = Y
Top = Z (if exists, should only apply against shots being fired indirectly (mortars & such))
front
------------------------------------
side/rear (vehicle)
See that dotted line? Its traced across the front edge of whatever the vehicle is.
Shots coming from in front of the line hit the front AV.
Shots coming from anywhere else hit the side/rear value.
In the cases where you find a squads fire coming from both sides of the line you should roll separately for specific weapons/groups as needed.
Small children can tell the difference between front/side with this system. 99% of the time it works at a glance.
So you'd think adults armed with tape measures & navigating the CP system should be able to handle it.....
If you have arguments & debates with this system either you're a moron, you're arguing against one, or both.
Sadly a lot of players today would never be able to handle the randomized Orkyness that used to define Oks.
I mean look at them. They can't handle vehicle fire arcs anymore. Just imagine if their units would randomly blow up/attack one another/etc. And they'd never be able to account for a units value via mathhammer.
I always liked how Synapse worked in prior editions.
Oof, strongly disagree there.
8th edition synapse may be a bit boring and simple. There's certainly much more that could be done with it. But at least tyranids are no longer completely fethed over by their own army rules.
Every other army had their own unique rules that let them do good and interesting things. (barring necrons phase out of course) Nids just had a set of tables featuring creative ways of screwing themselves over if they ever found themselves out of synapse. Killing each other, running away, cowering in a hole, etc.
If they had a strong benefit to offset this then Maybe that would have been fine, but instead they just got fearless. Which was useless on the monsters, and could be actively harmful on the gaunts (the 5th edition No Retreat rules in particular were dreadful, and in many cases worse than having to take a sweeping advance check). Practically everything else in the game had innate fearless (or better) anyway.
Sorry, as a long time tyranid player, that touched a nerve
So the “front” of a Necron croissant is the front two points of the croissant? That’s a tricky definition of front.
Putting vehicles on rectangular bases? That’s an easy solution.
My favourite rules would be orders for Guardsmen. To be honest, a simple +1 to hit “order” would have been very simple, but GW made each order situational instead. The point is, I liked having the leaders create buffs for their followers. That made me happy.
HoundsofDemos wrote: It might not be the best rule but the one I miss the most is AV facings and vehicle firing arcs. One thing that has really been lost this edition is position or placement meaning anything.
I don't miss it because it meant that positioning only mattered when it came to vehicles. And that's not even getting into the AV facing arguments whenever the vehicle wasn't a square.
The game either needs to go all in on positioning mattering or leave it off the table completely.
It SHOULD be important how you position your vehicle. A vindicators cannon only points one direction (forward).....
You want a dirt simple way to handle AV facings, whatever the shape of your vehicle? Here use this:
Front = X
Side/Rear = Y
Top = Z (if exists, should only apply against shots being fired indirectly (mortars & such))
front
------------------------------------
side/rear (vehicle)
See that dotted line? Its traced across the front edge of whatever the vehicle is.
Shots coming from in front of the line hit the front AV.
Shots coming from anywhere else hit the side/rear value.
In the cases where you find a squads fire coming from both sides of the line you should roll separately for specific weapons/groups as needed.
Small children can tell the difference between front/side with this system. 99% of the time it works at a glance.
So you'd think adults armed with tape measures & navigating the CP system should be able to handle it.....
If you have arguments & debates with this system either you're a moron, you're arguing against one, or both.
Flames of War uses that system and it works fine, though the tanks are universally rectangular because real tanks are largely universally rectangular.
That said, there are vehicle and vehicle-esque units that you'll definitely have a hard time defining a clear line to be the front of in 40k. The triarch stalker comes to mind as not having a well defined front, and the Ravager IIRC has two pointy bits somewhere on its hull that were added because the arcs were too ambiguous on the original model.
And then there's units that should also count as vehicles then, since there's no real adequate explanation for why you can flank a Dreadnought but can't flank a Carnifex; or a Knight is a vehicle but Riptide is a monstrous creature, and there's really no easy place to draw a front line across a Riptide or Carnifex. Even Knights had a considerable amount of ambiguity in where the arcs were; we traditionally used the frontmost point of the shoulder pads which is still considerably behind the actual forward-most point of the model.
Anyway, position means a lot in this game anyway for infantry and for tanks. I don't think it lost much of anything except in simultaionism.
HoundsofDemos wrote: It might not be the best rule but the one I miss the most is AV facings and vehicle firing arcs. One thing that has really been lost this edition is position or placement meaning anything.
I don't miss it because it meant that positioning only mattered when it came to vehicles. And that's not even getting into the AV facing arguments whenever the vehicle wasn't a square.
The game either needs to go all in on positioning mattering or leave it off the table completely.
It SHOULD be important how you position your vehicle. A vindicators cannon only points one direction (forward).....
You want a dirt simple way to handle AV facings, whatever the shape of your vehicle? Here use this:
Front = X
Side/Rear = Y
Top = Z (if exists, should only apply against shots being fired indirectly (mortars & such))
front
------------------------------------
side/rear (vehicle)
See that dotted line? Its traced across the front edge of whatever the vehicle is.
Shots coming from in front of the line hit the front AV.
Shots coming from anywhere else hit the side/rear value.
In the cases where you find a squads fire coming from both sides of the line you should roll separately for specific weapons/groups as needed.
Small children can tell the difference between front/side with this system. 99% of the time it works at a glance.
So you'd think adults armed with tape measures & navigating the CP system should be able to handle it.....
If you have arguments & debates with this system either you're a moron, you're arguing against one, or both.
The way it worked was by drawing an X through the vehicle to divide it into Arcs. Works fine for squares, but on other tanks it became an argument.
And like I said, either everything should have to deal with facings or nothing because the vehicle only method made little sense as it was.
So I actually need to change my vote: my favorite rule was the 4th ed Endless Swarm. Yeah, you had to pay more to use it, but I liked that rule more than it was actually worth.
HoundsofDemos wrote: It might not be the best rule but the one I miss the most is AV facings and vehicle firing arcs. One thing that has really been lost this edition is position or placement meaning anything.
I don't miss it because it meant that positioning only mattered when it came to vehicles. And that's not even getting into the AV facing arguments whenever the vehicle wasn't a square.
The game either needs to go all in on positioning mattering or leave it off the table completely.
It SHOULD be important how you position your vehicle. A vindicators cannon only points one direction (forward).....
Here's the issue, when there's potentially a dozen, or two dozen, of these things on the table, add in issues with TLOS and hull shapes, and the fact that literally no other unit type in the game had to deal with facings or arcs (not monsters, not immobile artillery, not heavy weapons units, not giant mecha or monstrous power armor suits, etc), and it became a major issue to balance around and was tactically awkward for the scale the game plays at and with the arc/AV system GW employed.
When an Exocrine, multimelta toting 2-person Attack Bike, Virbrocannon, IG heavy weapons team or Mek Gun didn't have to care about arcs or facings, it's kinda silly to insist on a Vindicator caring.
Dealing with determining AV on something like a dynamically posed Knight on a round oval base isn't fun.
It was actually a terrible rule, but I liked how the rules for disembarkment points in 3rd or 4th interacted with Orks being allowed to scratch-built vehicles led to it being possible to deliver ork boys into melee turn 1 by building battlewagons like castles with 20" drawbridge doors that actually opened. It was my favorite example to use as proof that GW either had zero clue what they were doing or genuinely didn't give a flying ___ about game balance.
That's the issue with going back to any rules you enjoyed in previous editions - you remember the pieces you want to remember. Vehicles facings were cool, but from a game-design standpoint very problematic and put Vehicles in a poor place since they were the only ones who suffered from them.
Same thing goes for templates. Neat idea, but watching someone space out every one of their 120 Ork boys so they were precisely 1.98" apart to minimize templates was...obnoxious. It's about the same silliness as auras and buffs.
Vehicles facings were cool, but seeing tanks back up to the edge of the board (where the battlefield magically ends), or watching two tanks shimmy down the board sideways with their butts to each other, etc....was equally dumb. Every rule that GW has ever written has been abused.
It's why 40K barely registers as a real wargame (and never has in its history). It's a vague abstract tale of heroes, little more. The closest it ever came was 2nd edition, an edition with so many rules that 90% of players missed a lot of them while playing. It worked because you were expected to spend 3-5 hours playing, and model counts were lower.
That was the last edition where infantry facing mattered, you could actually hide (and had to be detected with wargear or Initiative value), you could move crew around inside of vehicles or disembark them and fight on foot (fear my five guardsmen with las pistols!), you reduced penetration over distance, etc. It was a wildly different and complex game.
Vehicles had turning arcs and speed bands, etc. Just a different time. I still play and enjoy 2nd but that stuff just doesn't fit in the modern version of 40K. It's....Epic on a 6x4 table now.
I really like the basic concept behind the rules for movement.
The ability to move my units across the battlefield makes the game far more dynamic than they were without it.
myUserName wrote: I really like the basic concept behind the rules for movement.
The ability to move my units across the battlefield makes the game far more dynamic than they were without it.
What game do you play that doesn't have rules for movement? MTG?
As much as I hated it, I also loved it in equal measure my old Chaos Daemon codex back in 5th ed, WHOLE army deep struck, scattered (Unless the first wave had a icon or two survive) and the mishap table shafted you seven days to sunday.
BUT if the dice gods were somewhat merciful it really did feel like a full on Daemonic incursion, random hordes of Daemons popping up left right and centre and the opponents carefully deployed 'battle line' means nothing when that bloodthirster popped up behind his tank!
I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It helped a lot with making armies look like armies, a proper combined arms approach.
The change to move, shoot, assault also made the game much better than the old move and shoot, stay still and shoot, run or charge situation.
I loved the 4th edition Ork Shokk Attack gun rules, where every double did a different effect.
I liked the chaos rules from 7th where the model gains chaos gifts by winning combats, and can become a daemon prince!
I loved the old build-a-tyranid rules, where you had sooooo many options (and by combining monstrous creature, furious charge and rending, you had a maximum armour penetration roll on a carnifex of 28!!).
I loved vehicles pre-hull points, where your vehicles can keep pottering around, losing weapons and function, just by rolling luckily. Hull points made it too easy to kill vehicles, and then going over to wounds is just a meh cop-out to make the rules too easy.
If I had to pick one thing to bring back to the game, it would be vehicle facings & firing arcs. the new system is too abstract, especially if the idea is to forge a narrative!
My two best rules actually aren't very good but they are funny.
First one is, " It's a grots life " from orks, always made me laugh made me think of " It's a hard knocks life " song.
The second and I've enjoyed it greatly the rule of " It's for your own good " where if a commissar was in a unit with a psyker when they perils he executes them to avoid the perils. It changed a bit over time but I loved it, it felt so good.
Many is the psyker of mine that has died to my own commissars because they dared to perils.
Personally, if they perils and fail me, they are worthless things that deserve to die so I'm glad the commissar does his duty. I used to always be sure they were in the same squads as my psykers. I know, it was a negative but I don't take failure lightly in my army.
Edit: Old shock attack gun rules, they were amazingly fun and my favorite ork unit by far. Now they are boring dull. How many times did I roll the double where the gots of a snotling are shot at the enemy ? Too many, and I don't even own orks but I would borrow them just to shoot those guns.
My favourite has to be the First Prince rule from 7th edition Corsairs.
Basically, a Corsair Prince would pick a single power from a table to make him more focused. None of them were overpowered (in fact, many even came with drawbacks), but you had some many options and so much flavour. You could have a Prince with FNP and IWND (but he suffers if he fails the IWND roll), you could have a Prince with Rampage, you could have a Prince able to use demonic magic (but pray you never roll Perils), you could have a Prince with an artefact from the Eldar, DE or Harlequin books. What's more, each power had lesser abilities that could be applied to your other HQs (for a price) if you so chose. e.g. characters in the same army as a Prince with an artefact could pay 10pts to make one of their weapons Master Crafted.
I have yet to see anything even come close to the First Prince rule in terms of either flavour or sheer customisation (and bear in mind that Corsair Princes weren't lacking in wargear options either).
The same book also gave us:
Reckless Abandon - Corsair units that fired at an enemy within 12" could immediately move 6" away from that enemy (6+d6" with a Jetpack or Jetbike). This, combined with the fact that *every* Corsair infantry model could take a Jetpack and/or Jetbike really made Corsairs *feel* mobile. You really felt like you were playing a fast, agile army. They really were everything I wanted Dark Eldar to be.
The Corsair Fleet Raiding Company - this detachment bears some resemblance to the current Dark Eldar one (where you get 4CPs if you take 3 patrols). The difference is that for Corsairs it actually worked.
I have yet to see anything even come close to the First Prince rule in terms of either flavour or sheer customisation (and bear in mind that Corsair Princes weren't lacking in wargear options either).
IA 13 demagogue devotions for renegades and heretics.
Jidmah wrote: Old Zogwort turning enemy characters into squigs.
Ohhhh, I miss old Zogwart. I still tell my fond story of going to an unfamiliar game club in 5th and ending up against the one guy standing around with nobody wanting to play him, and he had the competitive draigostar list and was also cheating in like a dozen different ways, but right at the end of the game I squigged Draigo and he got UNBELIEVABLY pissed off.
Wonderful rule. I loved that it didn't give you the Warlord Kill - you still had to go get the squig as it was still trying to command the enemy army.
The best 40k rule... when some units were apocolypse only. I don't mind titanic vehicles and things liek warhounds, stompas and larger models in larger narrative games. I would have preferred imperial knights, wraith kinights, storm surges and other large models not be part of general 40k. To me 40k was the smaller part of a battle where 2 armies of infantry tanks and a few small robots did battle, not an army vs like 3 big robots. I do realize that train has left the station and there is no going back.
Before 8th I was always peeved by monsters not suffering any of the disadvantages of vehicles. I mean a Dreadnought should be something akin to a Wraithlord. However the former could be destroyed with one shot, immobilized, stunned, weapons destroyed etc when the latter just strode along with full effectiveness until it lost its last wound. Now they are both on par and vehicles and monsters alike suffer from degrading profiles.
So one could say one of my favorite rules is in fact the abolishment of vehicle facings, firing arcs, and (penetrating hit) damage tables.
I think my fave rules that are no longer with us were:
• Area terrain blocking LoS unless you were inside it
• Having to shoot the nearest enemy unit unless you pass a Ld test
Were those both in 4th? I'm old and all the previous editions are kinda jumbled up in my head now.
Oh and asymmetrical objectives from the cards in 2nd.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh I'm really keen on the return of Split Fire in 8th. Always hated having to shoot my Tac Squad Bolters and Lascannon all at the same thing.
I always liked the rule that gave you an extra attack in close combat if you hadn't shot any weapon. It always felt a really tough decision whether to take the guarenteed shots or bank on the CC attacks doing more damage.
When the game was much smaller, the flavor was far stronger. Flavor was set aside in favor of more models = more sales = more money.
You know....I've played 2nd edition once or twice.
I really do like the breadth of options you have for what your models can do during a turn, and I like the combat involving vehicles a LOT. It is....NOOOOOOOOOT balanced. Like if you think 8th, or 7th, or whatever, is bad, 2nd edition 40k is literally like "Roll on tables to see what happens, the game."
I really strongly disagree that armies had more 'distinct flavor' in 2nd than in 8th.
Let's take a look at ork rules in 2nd edition.
1) Stats. Orks in 2nd edition had a base statline of M4, WS3 BS3 S3 T4 W1 I2 A1 Ld7. They had the same wargear as space marines (started with Bolt Pistols and Axe/Sword as base weapons, any ork could take Chainswords, Power Axes, Power Swords, Plasma Pistols etc. The only distinction was Space Marines got Boltguns as standard, while Boltguns were lumped into the Special Weapon list for Orks alongside Flamers meltas Plasmaguns etc.) Note that the only distinction in statline between a guardsman and an ork boy was 1 point of toughness more on an ork, and 1 point of initiative more on a guardsman.
All the different unit options (Stormboyz, Goff Skarboyz, Madboyz, Blood Axe Kommandos) tended to be slight stat-swaps. Nobz for example were WS4 LD8 and BS4, and they could all take special weapons and wore 4+ instead of 6+ armor.
Only Ork Boyz could choose which clan they were. Certain clans gave different options, for example Boyz from Snakebites could take Boars, and Bad Moonz boyz could take all special weapons, meaning "Shoota Boyz" only existed within Bad Moonz.
All Kommandos had to be Blood Axes. All Skarboyz had to be Goffs.
2) Units that don't exist anymore. Madboyz, Boars as a transport option, Snotlings, Ogryns, and several special characters including Ghazzy's standard bearer Makari, Wazdakka Gutsmek, Zodgrod the super-runtherd, and Nazdred Ug Urdgrub no longer exist.
However, it is worth noting that the only vehicles to exist are war bikes, nob bikes, war buggies, war trakks, and battlewagons, and then there's an Ork Dreadnought and Grot Artillery list. Battle wagons are not what they are today, they're just War Buggies that have the ability to transport an unlimited number of orks rather than having a gun.
War Buggies and War Trakks have the same weapons as Space Marine Razorbacks (Twin HB's, Heavy Plasma Gun, multi-Melta, Twin Autocannon). They were functionally identical, just having slightly different speeds and one following the rules for Wheeled Vehicles (making it more susceptible to different terrain).
in 2nd edition, each individual model had vastly more wargear freedom, it's true. However, in terms of how distinct my ork army is in practice to my opponent's army, they play much different in 8th than they do in 2nd, and in terms of having wargear that other factions don't have access to, orks now are far more distinct than orks then, and the same tends to hold true for all armies.
It is REALLY cool to shoot a gun at something, roll on a location table and see "Vehicle flips over, killing crew. The wreck comes to rest D6" away in a random direction, any model under it when i lands takes D3 S6 Ap-2 hits" or be able to randomly hit the crew and have a gunner die. it is a fun skirmish game system for sure. But I think if you look at 8th and you say "OK, my army of Raven Guard space marines, how different is it from an army of Orks and how different is it from an army of Ultramarines space marines" it'll be more distinct than the same thing in 2nd.
Weazel wrote: Before 8th I was always peeved by monsters not suffering any of the disadvantages of vehicles. I mean a Dreadnought should be something akin to a Wraithlord. However the former could be destroyed with one shot, immobilized, stunned, weapons destroyed etc when the latter just strode along with full effectiveness until it lost its last wound. Now they are both on par and vehicles and monsters alike suffer from degrading profiles.
So one could say one of my favorite rules is in fact the abolishment of vehicle facings, firing arcs, and (penetrating hit) damage tables.
Which mostly means units with degrading state line are not taken unless they are super cheap or super efficient.
Don't agree that the armies were less distinct back then. While the stat lines were similar and the weapon names the same they played very differently. tactics that worked well for one were not as good for the other army. Whatever the reasons for this were, I suspect they were similar to historical wargames where the sides are often very similar in terms of stats and equipment yet often play very differently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: However, in terms of how distinct my ork army is in practice to my opponent's army, they play much different in 8th than they do in 2nd, and in terms of having wargear that other factions don't have access to, orks now are far more distinct than orks then, and the same tends to hold true for all armies.
Don't agree that the armies were less distinct back then. While the stat lines were similar and the weapon names the same they played very differently. tactics that worked well for one were not as good for the other army. Whatever the reasons for this were, I suspect they were similar to historical wargames where the sides are often very similar in terms of stats and equipment yet often play very differently.
The best rule to have ever been introduced is more of a system...
The Keyword system.
Boom! Done. Winner!
I agree with this. I just wish they really flesh out this system, along with a glossary of terms.
Yeah, weapons could've benefited from further implementation of it from a TYPE perspective, even if attaching things like Bolt, Melta, Flame, Plasma had no rules directly attached, they could've served as elegant anchors for other rules (looking at you, Bolter Discipline...)
That's a nice opinion, but not one that I share. I don't think armies feel that different now beyond powerful stratagems or "I can re-roll this, and you can re-roll that". 2nd edition to me, really does feel far more thematic than current editions. You don't have to agree, but that's the beauty of opinions.
That's a nice opinion, but not one that I share. I don't think armies feel that different now beyond powerful stratagems or "I can re-roll this, and you can re-roll that". 2nd edition to me, really does feel far more thematic than current editions. You don't have to agree, but that's the beauty of opinions.
That is true. And there are definitely some aspects - particularly "what weapon is my model holding" that are much more free and loosey-goosey in 2nd edition. It is neat to be able to have a Genestealer Cult land raider supported by brood brothers carrying bows and arrows, that's....a thing you can do for sure.
But when it comes to "statistically, what is the difference between my regular joe schmoe guardsman, a monstrous alien hybrid genestealer cult acolyte, an ork boy, and an eldar guardian" the difference is usually something like "Well, one inch of movement here, a couple points of initiative there, and the Guardian can have a lasgun/laspistol/chainsword/power axe/power fist/power sword/hand flamer/needle pistol, while the Ork boy can have an axe/sword/power fist/power axe/chainsword/autopistol/bolt pistol"
Some of that is just the greatly reduced scale of the game, where a Land Raider is basically the biggest tank in the game, but it's also due to the high level of overlap in what different factions have. At that point in the game, most factions had a bunch of footslogging special characters, a psyker, some foot infantry, some bikers/cavalry, a medium walker, a transport, a medium tank, and some static artillery.
I liked that if squads of infantry were being blown to gak in previous editions, it was done from the front working back, which would make sense. Not this selecting which models die. It makes zero sense to have a force shooting you full pelt and you start removing models from the back of the pack.
Rationalize it as people from the back ranks moving forward to fill the spots of their fallen pals, if you want.
I can see why they did it, myself. 1) so CC units could actually cross the board the be useful. Kinda sucks to have your 5" Move units, who are already crawling across the board, lose the first two ranks to shooting and how you got another 2"+ further to move before you can be useful. 2) so a lucky Overwatch doesn't make a Charge impossible, even though you started within 12".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Course, it became less of an issue once everyone and their mother was teleporting and deepstriking everywhere, so it's a bit more of a valid complaint than it could have been.
Without Number. I loved being able to recycle dead gak troops to be able to put pressure on my opponent who could kill me wholesale, but at least I could stay in the game. Reminded me of the good old Tyranid Attack rules.
Flyers starting in reserves/flying off into Ongoing Reserves. It required vehicle facings to really matter but it also made them feel like airplanes that had to set up their shots instead of weird blimps wandering about the board in a square for some reason.
Nurglitch wrote: Without Number. I loved being able to recycle dead gak troops to be able to put pressure on my opponent who could kill me wholesale, but at least I could stay in the game. Reminded me of the good old Tyranid Attack rules.
Recycling dead stuff (even if you had to pay extra before hand) was a fun mechanic. I just wish we didn't have to pay CPand reinforcement points to do it now.
Having only played in LATE 7th through to now, I don't have a wide range to work with. But my favorite is Headshot because it's swung so many games for me.
Nazrak wrote: I think my fave rules that are no longer with us were:
• Area terrain blocking LoS unless you were inside it
• Having to shoot the nearest enemy unit unless you pass a Ld test
Were those both in 4th? I'm old and all the previous editions are kinda jumbled up in my head now. .
4th edition required you to shoot the closest unless you passed a LD test. 2nd edition required you to shoot the closest, with an allowance for heavies to target vehicles, or for anyone to ignore the closest enemy in favour of a mission objective.
Funnily enough, the 2nd edition version was just taken as part of the game, while the 4th edition version was almost universally reviled. I think largely because hinging it on a LD test just made it apply unevenly to different armies.
Elfric wrote: I liked that if squads of infantry were being blown to gak in previous editions, it was done from the front working back, which would make sense. Not this selecting which models die. It makes zero sense to have a force shooting you full pelt and you start removing models from the back of the pack.
It was always intended to be an abstraction (the unit not actually being made up of motionless statues welded to giant discs) rather than representing the specific guys at the back dying. Casualties from the front seemed like a good idea on paper, but just led to characters and special weapons having to be buried at the back of the unit instead of up the front where they were actually useful and/or fluffy. With more streamlined Look Out Sir rules (and applying them to special/heavy weapons) it would have been fine, although would still lead to micromanagement of model placement.
Bobthehero wrote: Super accurate deepstrike, a shame it has to be 9'' away.
That's what I don't get. Because of the 9" buffer zone (and now effectively no turn 1) it means that an army with proper screens will all but negate any chance of a deep strike on their side of the board so it just serves as a glorified late deployment (which in 8th means it sit out of shooting for a turn or two). In my mind that 9" buffer zone completely negates the purpose of a deep striking unit which is to put a unit in a place the opponent doesn't want or expect an enemy unit to appear.
Bobthehero wrote: Super accurate deepstrike, a shame it has to be 9'' away.
That's what I don't get. Because of the 9" buffer zone (and now effectively no turn 1) it means that an army with proper screens will all but negate any chance of a deep strike on their side of the board so it just serves as a glorified late deployment (which in 8th means it sit out of shooting for a turn or two). In my mind that 9" buffer zone completely negates the purpose of a deep striking unit which is to put a unit in a place the opponent doesn't want or expect an enemy unit to appear.
Yeah, GW didn't think it through. I think they playtest small games with marines or something, so they don't get how easy board control is at larger games and with fodder armies. It should be like a 6" zone or something.
JohnnyHell wrote: Tanks flipping over when they died and landing on stuff from 2nd. Stupid. Hilarious.
Partly spiritually represented by Does It Blow Up? (aka Explodes) in 8th.
This is 1,000% the best part of 2nd, and honestly, if anyone has not played 2nd edition I recommend you do so at least once just to experience the glory of absolutely every unit from a bike up having a dedicated, customized "What the feth happens when you get hit by an antitank weapon" table.
Here's an example for y'all. This is just a Space Marine Whirlwind tank. Here's its defensive stats in 2nd edition:
Ram: Str 7, Dam D12, Save mod -5
Speed: 8" slow, 18" combat, 25" fast
Armor Locations:
D6 Result
1: Location Track. Front 15, Rear/Side 15
2-4: Location Hull. Front 20, Rear/Side 18
5-6: Location Turret. Front 20, Rear/Side 18
(To damage a vehicle in 2nd, you made a Penetration roll, which was typically the strength of your weapon plus the damage stat. So if you were ramming another tank with your Whirlwind, you would roll to see what location you hit, check which side you were on, and roll 7+D12 to see if you equaled or exceeded that location's armor value. Then, you would roll on one of these tables down below, which are different for EVERY VEHICLE)
Track damage table
D6 result
1: May only move at slow speed for the rest of the game
2-5: Track is blown off. Vehicle moves out of control next turn and then comes to a halt for the rest of the game.
6: Track is blown off and the vehicle is flipped over. Wreck comes to a rest D6" away in a random direction. Any model it lands on takes D6 S7 hits with a -2 to save modifier. Roll a D6 for each model aboard, on a 4+ they are slain in the crash. Surviving models may Disembark as normal.
(What? Passengers in a Whirlwind you ask? No sir, in 2nd edition your vehicles had fething CREWMEN who were unarmed space marines that came with the tank, one driver+1 for each gun. And if the tank dies, in some cases they might be allowed to get out and start punching melon-fethers.)
Hull damage table
D6 Result
1: Driver is slain. Unless his position is taken over, the vehicle moves out of control for the rest of the game.
2-3: Explosion rips through the crew compartment: Each crewmember must roll a 4+ on a D6 to avoid being slain.
4: Engine explodes, killing crew instantly. The vehicle is supun around to face a random direction, then comes to a halt for the rest of the game.
5: Fuel tank explodes, killing all models on board. Vehicles goes out of control next turn then explodes, every mdoeel within 3" suffers a hit from a heavy flamer.
6: Ammunition explodes and the vehicle is destroyed. Models inside are slain, and any model within 3" suffers D6 S10 hits with a -3 save mod.
Turret Damage Table
D6 Result
1: Multi-launcher is damaged, may not be fired indirectly, and may only be fired if you first roll 4+ on D6.
2: Multi-launcher goes haywire, fires a barrage at a random target. Roll a scatter die to determine the direction of the barrage. Place the 3" blast marker on the first model within range and in its path and work out the effects as normal. The rockets are expended and the multilauncher may not be fired until next turn.
3: Turret gunner is slain
4-6: Ammunition explodes; The vehicle is destroyed. All crew are slain and the turret is blown off, flying 2d6" in a random direction. Anything under the spot where it lands suffers D6 S9 hits with a -6 save mod.
It may not be especially high impact, but the way Ork Nobz interact with casualty attrition... "The beatings will continue until morale improves" indeed!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, GW didn't think it through. I think they playtest small games with marines or something, so they don't get how easy board control is at larger games and with fodder armies. It should be like a 6" zone or something.
For my part, I like how charging immediately after deep-striking is possible, but not reliable. A 6-inch zone would make it too easy. (As you may guess, I say this as someone who's more often a target of deep strike than a user.)
I miss flamer templates. Or just templates in general (especially for Manticores!), though I also have some appreciation for the simplicity of the current system. Let's say I'm ambivalent.
A small, specific rule I really like is the Kabal of the Obsidian Rose's stratagem, Failure Is Not An Option: if you fail a morale test, choose which models will flee, and they get to attack or shoot one last time; if they kill anything, nobody runs!
Bobthehero wrote: Super accurate deepstrike, a shame it has to be 9'' away.
That's what I don't get. Because of the 9" buffer zone (and now effectively no turn 1) it means that an army with proper screens will all but negate any chance of a deep strike on their side of the board so it just serves as a glorified late deployment (which in 8th means it sit out of shooting for a turn or two). In my mind that 9" buffer zone completely negates the purpose of a deep striking unit which is to put a unit in a place the opponent doesn't want or expect an enemy unit to appear.
Yeah, GW didn't think it through. I think they playtest small games with marines or something, so they don't get how easy board control is at larger games and with fodder armies. It should be like a 6" zone or something.
Strongly disagreed. It is well thought through. The risk-reward ratio is fantastic. It's not an easy roll to get a charge off, but there are ways to increase your chances. You can deep strike with precision, but your opponent can zone out areas and deny you good targets. An opponent that spends resources and effort to zone you out also probably doesn't have other units in their best positions. I think it's great because 40k is a game about positions right now, and the "best" place to be isn't always the same place from game to game or turn to turn or isn't even maybe where you think it is. Deep strike as it is right now, I think, is fantastic.
For reference, a 6+" DS would give a mob if Evil Sunz Boyz somewhere around a 92% chance of successfully charging. Even as an Ork player, I can't really argue that would be a good thing.
JohnnyHell wrote: Tanks flipping over when they died and landing on stuff from 2nd. Stupid. Hilarious.
Partly spiritually represented by Does It Blow Up? (aka Explodes) in 8th.
This is 1,000% the best part of 2nd, and honestly, if anyone has not played 2nd edition I recommend you do so at least once just to experience the glory of absolutely every unit from a bike up having a dedicated, customized "What the feth happens when you get hit by an antitank weapon" table.
Here's an example for y'all. This is just a Space Marine Whirlwind tank. Here's its defensive stats in 2nd edition:
Ram: Str 7, Dam D12, Save mod -5
Speed: 8" slow, 18" combat, 25" fast
Armor Locations:
D6 Result
1: Location Track. Front 15, Rear/Side 15
2-4: Location Hull. Front 20, Rear/Side 18
5-6: Location Turret. Front 20, Rear/Side 18
(To damage a vehicle in 2nd, you made a Penetration roll, which was typically the strength of your weapon plus the damage stat. So if you were ramming another tank with your Whirlwind, you would roll to see what location you hit, check which side you were on, and roll 7+D12 to see if you equaled or exceeded that location's armor value. Then, you would roll on one of these tables down below, which are different for EVERY VEHICLE)
Track damage table
D6 result
1: May only move at slow speed for the rest of the game
2-5: Track is blown off. Vehicle moves out of control next turn and then comes to a halt for the rest of the game.
6: Track is blown off and the vehicle is flipped over. Wreck comes to a rest D6" away in a random direction. Any model it lands on takes D6 S7 hits with a -2 to save modifier. Roll a D6 for each model aboard, on a 4+ they are slain in the crash. Surviving models may Disembark as normal.
(What? Passengers in a Whirlwind you ask? No sir, in 2nd edition your vehicles had fething CREWMEN who were unarmed space marines that came with the tank, one driver+1 for each gun. And if the tank dies, in some cases they might be allowed to get out and start punching melon-fethers.)
Hull damage table
D6 Result
1: Driver is slain. Unless his position is taken over, the vehicle moves out of control for the rest of the game.
2-3: Explosion rips through the crew compartment: Each crewmember must roll a 4+ on a D6 to avoid being slain.
4: Engine explodes, killing crew instantly. The vehicle is supun around to face a random direction, then comes to a halt for the rest of the game.
5: Fuel tank explodes, killing all models on board. Vehicles goes out of control next turn then explodes, every mdoeel within 3" suffers a hit from a heavy flamer.
6: Ammunition explodes and the vehicle is destroyed. Models inside are slain, and any model within 3" suffers D6 S10 hits with a -3 save mod.
Turret Damage Table
D6 Result
1: Multi-launcher is damaged, may not be fired indirectly, and may only be fired if you first roll 4+ on D6.
2: Multi-launcher goes haywire, fires a barrage at a random target. Roll a scatter die to determine the direction of the barrage. Place the 3" blast marker on the first model within range and in its path and work out the effects as normal. The rockets are expended and the multilauncher may not be fired until next turn.
3: Turret gunner is slain
4-6: Ammunition explodes; The vehicle is destroyed. All crew are slain and the turret is blown off, flying 2d6" in a random direction. Anything under the spot where it lands suffers D6 S9 hits with a -6 save mod.
Never played 2e, since I joined in 5e. That said that sound like the old Avalon Hill game Tobruk which I have played.
It was definitely slow, and having like 30 lookup tables. IIRC first you consulted the firing factors table to know what your hit probability was against a given target at a given range. Then you rolled to hit, and consulted a chart and rolled again to determine the hit location on the vehicle. Then you rolled to penetrate, and if you did, checked the vehicle's damage matrix, referencing a table of the weapon and the hit location and another die roll to determine the effect, followed by sometimes another die roll to determine the severity of the effect or confirm the effect.
It was definitely slow, though the level of detail can make a game fun. That said, I also wouldn't call it depth, just detail.
JohnnyHell wrote: Tanks flipping over when they died and landing on stuff from 2nd. Stupid. Hilarious.
Perhaps my best moment in 2nd - a particularly lucky guard sergeant blowing a skorchas front wheel off with a bolt pistol, only to then see it flip across the table, over the top of a bunker, and flatten the warboss and his retinue.
In 1st edition, since a Whirlwind was just a Rhino with a multi-launcher bolted to the roof, it retained the transport capacity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the point of view of gameplay, dropping templates is one of the best innovations.
From the point of view of narrative entertainment, the Tyranid pre-game charts from 2nd edition ("Jones is acting strangely …") or the Ork Shokk Attack Gun target effect tables from 1st edition. That was only one of the "roll on a chart to see which chart to roll on" mechanics that made playing Orks in late 1st edition almost impossible, but it led to such gems as snotlings teleporting inside a Terminator suit - leading to anything from a Fly--like fatal merging of snotling and target to the snotling defecting in the target's ear causing him to flail about randomly, to the target simply biting the snotling's head off and carrying on.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, GW didn't think it through. I think they playtest small games with marines or something, so they don't get how easy board control is at larger games and with fodder armies. It should be like a 6" zone or something.
For my part, I like how charging immediately after deep-striking is possible, but not reliable. A 6-inch zone would make it too easy. (As you may guess, I say this as someone who's more often a target of deep strike than a user.)
I miss flamer templates. Or just templates in general (especially for Manticores!), though I also have some appreciation for the simplicity of the current system. Let's say I'm ambivalent.
A small, specific rule I really like is the Kabal of the Obsidian Rose's stratagem, Failure Is Not An Option: if you fail a morale test, choose which models will flee, and they get to attack or shoot one last time; if they kill anything, nobody runs!
.
My experience WRT to templates is that the more of them you used, the more glad you are they're gone.
As a Guard player, I can say that while it was emotionally satisfying to put the green circle over something, the new system has so many fewer arguments, hurt feelings, and is much faster. I would bring two yardsticks and roll right next to the target to make sure that I was close, and I've had people try to tell me that I was measuring wrong and it actually went off in a direction 45 degrees of from the way the die was pointing. I generally give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, since I've got like 15 of these things to go, but I won't be taken advantage of if you're claiming something ridiculous. Also, the old 4" scatter + radius 2.5" template over a tank 4" wide at it's narrowest point, and being told "that missed". I'm not stupid you know.
And then there's the Wyvern, which had 2 Heavy 2 Twin Linked Small Blast weapons, which took like 15 minutes to resolve each time it came up.
The viscerality of the blast has been traded for efficiency and ease of play, and I think it's a fair trade.
Heavy 1: Blast 5 -> Roll 1 to-hit roll. If it hits, resolve 5 hits against the target unit.
Heavy 3: Blast 3 -> Roll 3 to-hit rolls. For each successful hit roll, resolve 3 hits against the target unit. (ie 2 successes = 6 to-wound rolls)
But that would have been my wishlist. For me, Blast weapons were more of an all-or-nothing kind of weapon. Instead of having an average number of hits, you went big or you went home.
My experience WRT to templates is that the more of them you used, the more glad you are they're gone.
As a Guard player, I can say that while it was emotionally satisfying to put the green circle over something, the new system has so many fewer arguments, hurt feelings, and is much faster. I would bring two yardsticks and roll right next to the target to make sure that I was close, and I've had people try to tell me that I was measuring wrong and it actually went off in a direction 45 degrees of from the way the die was pointing. I generally give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, since I've got like 15 of these things to go, but I won't be taken advantage of if you're claiming something ridiculous. Also, the old 4" scatter + radius 2.5" template over a tank 4" wide at it's narrowest point, and being told "that missed". I'm not stupid you know.
And then there's the Wyvern, which had 2 Heavy 2 Twin Linked Small Blast weapons, which took like 15 minutes to resolve each time it came up.
The viscerality of the blast has been traded for efficiency and ease of play, and I think it's a fair trade.
Wyverns where probably the breaking point for a lot of people when it came to blast weapons. GW probably didn't playtest a squadron of them when they wrote the rules for them, especially at their point value. That said I always enjoyed using my Grotzooka Kanz who could potentially spew out 12 small blasts per unit. Coming from an Ork perspective, blast weapons where less about maximizing firepower against a single unit but instead being able to reliably deliver damage to something in an area, it just might not be to what I was originally aiming at.
As for the whole measuring thing, I tend to find that people who where shady about measuring blasts where also shady about measuring LoS, movements, charges, unit cohesion, determining cover, etc. Same thing for those who argue excessively about measurements.
Heavy 1: Blast 5 -> Roll 1 to-hit roll. If it hits, resolve 5 hits against the target unit.
Heavy 3: Blast 3 -> Roll 3 to-hit rolls. For each successful hit roll, resolve 3 hits against the target unit. (ie 2 successes = 6 to-wound rolls)
But that would have been my wishlist. For me, Blast weapons were more of an all-or-nothing kind of weapon. Instead of having an average number of hits, you went big or you went home.
I always considered them a reliable mid performance weapon. It was a good, reliable option that rarely screwed up and almost always hit, but was hamstrung by the fact that a 203mm artillery shell that could flip a tank or tear its turret off couldn't put down a fleshy thing that should have been bloody gibbets.
Kind of the opposite of go big or go home: very consistent, but rarely stand-out.
My experience WRT to templates is that the more of them you used, the more glad you are they're gone.
As a Guard player, I can say that while it was emotionally satisfying to put the green circle over something, the new system has so many fewer arguments, hurt feelings, and is much faster. I would bring two yardsticks and roll right next to the target to make sure that I was close, and I've had people try to tell me that I was measuring wrong and it actually went off in a direction 45 degrees of from the way the die was pointing. I generally give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, since I've got like 15 of these things to go, but I won't be taken advantage of if you're claiming something ridiculous. Also, the old 4" scatter + radius 2.5" template over a tank 4" wide at it's narrowest point, and being told "that missed". I'm not stupid you know.
And then there's the Wyvern, which had 2 Heavy 2 Twin Linked Small Blast weapons, which took like 15 minutes to resolve each time it came up.
The viscerality of the blast has been traded for efficiency and ease of play, and I think it's a fair trade.
Wyverns where probably the breaking point for a lot of people when it came to blast weapons. GW probably didn't playtest a squadron of them when they wrote the rules for them, especially at their point value. That said I always enjoyed using my Grotzooka Kanz who could potentially spew out 12 small blasts per unit. Coming from an Ork perspective, blast weapons where less about maximizing firepower against a single unit but instead being able to reliably deliver damage to something in an area, it just might not be to what I was originally aiming at.
As for the whole measuring thing, I tend to find that people who where shady about measuring blasts where also shady about measuring LoS, movements, charges, unit cohesion, determining cover, etc. Same thing for those who argue excessively about measurements.
Blasts were exceptionally subjective compared to other things to be shady about, though, and if I sit down with a parallelogram tool, it can always be claimed to be the angle (or that the scatter was touched)
Funny enough, I left Bolt Action when they introduced templates and started 40k with they stopped. I obviously can't comment on their use in either game. However, I can say that one of my least favorite mechanics in Dust Battlefield was templates.
Dust Battlefield kept it simple with unit coherency in that the squad (3, 5 or 6 man squads only existed in Battlefield) had to fit under a template. Which worked well enough when targeting a single squad. It became for involved when hitting multiple units which was a hassle. And all this was without scatter. What I never did like was the shooting around corners or through walls effect templates could as long as part of one visible unit was under the template.
I am so very glad 40k doesn't have them anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wasn't ever a fan of the old wound table. It just felt like something you memorized and got used to. I think the current wounding calculation is very elegant, though; I can see it just doesn't have the range to cover everything in 40k with at the volume of attacks units can sometimes throw out.
I mostly play Kill Team and the wound system works fine and is easy to explain to new players. I have introduced it a dozen times to new players and they rarely had any issues picking up it right way. I can see the issues it has in full 40k though.
jokes aside, it felt how Chaos was supposed to feel. Altough balance was so far off it ain't even funny.
Currently, I think it is one of the few things appearing in both of these threads, depending on whether you used it or faced it.
I did both.
To say that conceptually it represented Chaos best is equally as fair as stating it is invisibility level broken gak Tier.
I'm starting to suspect that the latest marine codex will be similar in that regard, great at representing them, but at least until other codexes get updated, at least a bit op
Outside of broken rules, what are/were some of the best rules you enjoyed over the years?
One of mine is characters that unlocked some FOC into troops choice. It made for a really cool, fluffy lists that helped mitigate the headache of always having to have at least 2 worthless troops.
I too enjoyed the Characters making units Troops system. Makes more sense when the game was single FoC of course.
jokes aside, it felt how Chaos was supposed to feel. Altough balance was so far off it ain't even funny.
Currently, I think it is one of the few things appearing in both of these threads, depending on whether you used it or faced it.
I did both.
To say that conceptually it represented Chaos best is equally as fair as stating it is invisibility level broken gak Tier.
I'm starting to suspect that the latest marine codex will be similar in that regard, great at representing them, but at least until other codexes get updated, at least a bit op
Quite possible. Altough it will suck for the updated csm.
Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.
Amishprn86 wrote: Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.
Oh man, I know this is a positive thread, but I *hated* that guy. Deep Striking him with a (Mycetic Pod? I can't remember what they were called) was the worst kind of cheese and turned every game against Tyranids into a "Can I get past that 3+ invuln with my handful of S8+ weapons, or am I screwed?"
My favorite rule would have to be late 4th/5th edition Shokk Attack Guns. The gun was a total crapshoot, but all the random results and possible outcomes were hilarious fun to toy around with.
Amishprn86 wrote: Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.
Actually, I remember he wasn't a Zoanthrope so he technically didn't have a 3++.
The Parasite of Mortrex felt like it was put in there just for me!
I was so happy to see it...then...gone!
I Spent hours kitbashing my own, out of Metal. It was the crown of my all Ripper list.
I truly wish they'd kept it, or at least will bring it back for Legends.
Amishprn86 wrote: Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.
Actually, I remember he wasn't a Zoanthrope so he technically didn't have a 3++.
I have a friend who played Tyranids, I can assure you he had a 3++. It didn't come from being a Zoanthrope, it came from a special rule that both Zoanthropes and he had.
Incidentally, something that might belong in the "Worst 40k rule ever" had it ever come up in a real game was the clusterfeth that was Apocalypse units borrowing special rules from Codices, but not being FAQed or updated when those codices were updated. I don't have the book on hand to check, but IIRC the 5th edition version of a Tyranid ability gave something like a 3+ (or maybe 2+?) armor save and a 5++ invuln, and this rule was given to Heirophants to in-game explain why they had a 5++.
When the 6th edition codex came out, the codex included a rule of the same name, but it was the rule that gave Zoanthropes their 3++. Meaning that the Heirophant technically had a 3++ going at all times.
Had anyone cared about Apocalypse balance, this might have been a serious problem.
Amishprn86 wrote: Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.
Actually, I remember he wasn't a Zoanthrope so he technically didn't have a 3++.
I have a friend who played Tyranids, I can assure you he had a 3++. It didn't come from being a Zoanthrope, it came from a special rule that both Zoanthropes and he had.
Incidentally, something that might belong in the "Worst 40k rule ever" had it ever come up in a real game was the clusterfeth that was Apocalypse units borrowing special rules from Codices, but not being FAQed or updated when those codices were updated. I don't have the book on hand to check, but IIRC the 5th edition version of a Tyranid ability gave something like a 3+ (or maybe 2+?) armor save and a 5++ invuln, and this rule was given to Heirophants to in-game explain why they had a 5++.
When the 6th edition codex came out, the codex included a rule of the same name, but it was the rule that gave Zoanthropes their 3++. Meaning that the Heirophant technically had a 3++ going at all times.
Had anyone cared about Apocalypse balance, this might have been a serious problem.
I actually just went and checked the codex to see if I was misremembering. Nope, I wasn't. Page 58 of Codex: Tyranids (5th edition) states for the Doom of Malan'tai
Page 58 of Codex: Tyranids (5th edition) wrote:Special Rules: Instinctive Behaviour - Feed, Psyker, Fearless, Shadow in the Warp, Warp Field (see page 44)
Flipping to page 44 we see the special rule, Warp Field
Page 44 of Codex: Tyranids (5th edition) wrote:Warp Field: Zoanthropes project constant psychic barriers to protect themselves, absorbing and deflecting incoming attacks. These mental shields are invisible but for a slight shimmer when small-arms and heavy-weapons fire alike patters harmlessly against them.
A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save.
The key line here is "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." The Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope, so it has a rule saying "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." which does nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai unit.
A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save. The key line here is "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." The Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope, so it has a rule saying "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." which does nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai unit.
Oooh, I see what you're saying. I misunderstood and had forgotten about that technicality. Ah, 5th edition! You were my favorite, for all your jank.
Edit: This reminds me of another rules technicality, where you could call a WAAAGH! after all your units had ran because Fleet of Foot said you could charge after running, not that it modified your run in any way. (Which was handy because you could see if you looked close enough to charge, THEN call a waaagh without wasting it on a maybe.) When I was but a wee teenager, I did this at a tournament and got in some trouble with the TO because my opponent reported me for cheating after the game. Fun times.
He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.
This is the same for all units like that, Ymgarl had a similar thing also, they had a rule that didnt effect IB, but it was on the genestealer page. This was a normal thing for 5th to do.
Amishprn86 wrote: He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.
This is the same for all units like that, Ymgarl had a similar thing also, they had a rule that didnt effect IB, but it was on the genestealer page. This was a normal thing for 5th to do.
I am certain I remember some form of Tournament FAQ having to change the rule to allow it to work.
Can you give me a page reference to where in the 5e Rulebook it says "you dont need to share names to share rules"?
Amishprn86 wrote: He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.
This is the same for all units like that, Ymgarl had a similar thing also, they had a rule that didnt effect IB, but it was on the genestealer page. This was a normal thing for 5th to do.
I am certain I remember some form of Tournament FAQ having to change the rule to allow it to work.
Can you give me a page reference to where in the 5e Rulebook it says "you dont need to share names to share rules"?
Sadly i can not, b.c i dont have my 5th book anymore, I could look for and DL it later tho i guess, but i promise you some of the units in the game had rules like that wouldn't even be playable if it didnt (in the literally sense). A good 15% of the units where like that, most elites and many characters. Example The Baron, he wouldnt have a skyboard if that wasnt the case.
Amishprn86 wrote: He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.
It wasn't about sharing names. He had a rule that applied a benefit to a specific unit, despite him not being that unit. So technically, while he had the rule, it conveyed no benefit to him.
That being said, this was only an issue on forums. On the table, people assumed that him having the rule suggested that he was supposed to be able to use it. And, fluffwise, the Doom was a modified Zoanthrope, even if the rules section didn't specify him as such. So that was good enough for most players.
Amishprn86 wrote: Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.
Lost 1500 points of Eldar to him in a 2k game the turn he came on the first time I met him.
Amishprn86 wrote: He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.
It wasn't about sharing names. He had a rule that applied a benefit to a specific unit, despite him not being that unit. So technically, while he had the rule, it conveyed no benefit to him.
That being said, this was only an issue on forums. On the table, people assumed that him having the rule suggested that he was supposed to be able to use it. And, fluffwise, the Doom was a modified Zoanthrope, even if the rules section didn't specify him as such. So that was good enough for most players.
GW did official events, he had it at their events, but b.c i can not prove it i didnt first say it, going to one of the events with their rules i could use him and he had a 3++ just like my Ymgarl had the Genestealer rules, just like, etc.. etc...
Amishprn86 wrote: Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.
Lost 1500 points of Eldar to him in a 2k game the turn he came on the first time I met him.
Amishprn86 wrote: He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.
It wasn't about sharing names. He had a rule that applied a benefit to a specific unit, despite him not being that unit. So technically, while he had the rule, it conveyed no benefit to him.
That being said, this was only an issue on forums. On the table, people assumed that him having the rule suggested that he was supposed to be able to use it. And, fluffwise, the Doom was a modified Zoanthrope, even if the rules section didn't specify him as such. So that was good enough for most players.
GW did official events, he had it at their events, but b.c i can not prove it i didnt first say it, going to one of the events with their rules i could use him and he had a 3++ just like my Ymgarl had the Genestealer rules, just like, etc.. etc...
.
That's why I said it was only an issue on forums. Technically he couldn't benefit from the rule, but everyone just dismissed that as an unintended loophole and played him as intended. Or never actually noticed the discrepancy in the first place.
Amishprn86 wrote: He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.
It wasn't about sharing names. He had a rule that applied a benefit to a specific unit, despite him not being that unit. So technically, while he had the rule, it conveyed no benefit to him.
That being said, this was only an issue on forums. On the table, people assumed that him having the rule suggested that he was supposed to be able to use it. And, fluffwise, the Doom was a modified Zoanthrope, even if the rules section didn't specify him as such. So that was good enough for most players.
GW did official events, he had it at their events, but b.c i can not prove it i didnt first say it, going to one of the events with their rules i could use him and he had a 3++ just like my Ymgarl had the Genestealer rules, just like, etc.. etc... .
That's why I said it was only an issue on forums. Technically he couldn't benefit from the rule, but everyone just dismissed that as an unintended loophole and played him as intended. Or never actually noticed the discrepancy in the first place.
But EVERY codex was set up that way, go read any 5th codex, all units with multi units with same rules where like that, as i already said, it would make some units literally unplayable. I understand that you are saying it was only on the internet that it was argued, but being on the internet back the, going to official GW events, i've never seen or heard anyone say otherwise. There was no keyword system back then, if it had it on its rules page, it had it.
Again, it's nothing to do with Keywords. If you don't have red hair, and you have a rule that says 'Redheads get a free hat' what benefit do you get from the rule?
The answer is, clearly, none. You're not a redhead. No hat for you.
That was the problem with the Doom. He wasn't a Zoanthrope, but he had a rule that conveyed a specific thing to Zoanthropes. He had the rule, but the rule didn't do anything for him.
I have a vague recollection of them addressing it in an FAQ at some point, but it wasn't really necessary since we all knew what they meant anyway... but it did spark some 'lively' rules discussions.
BaconCatBug wrote: Can you give me a page reference to where in the 5e Rulebook it says "you dont need to share names to share rules"?
Wouldn't an enlish grammar or basic text analysis actually answer this for you. The Doom of Malantai is a character's name. He is a zoanthrope. He is unlike other zoanthrope in the same fashion Tigrius is different from other Space Marines. The Doom of Malantai is thus a zoanthrope, but not all zoanthrope are the Doom of Malantai. I don't see how you can't understand this basic form of textual entailment.
epronovost wrote: The Doom of Malantai is a character's name. He is a zoanthrope.
The problem was, nowhere in his rules did it say he was a Zoanthrope. It only mentioned in his fluff entry that he was a 'unique adaption of the Zoanthrope'.
Again, that was enough for us all to know what they meant, but from a strict RAW standpoint it was a glitch.
But, really, there's probably not much to be gained by continuing to debate over rules from 3 editions back... If anyone's particularly keen to check out the rules debates on the issue from the time, they'll still be back there in the depths of YMDC.
You are really trying hard to push literal wording in 5th lol.
Doom of M is a named Zoanthrope.
Just like
Deathleaper is a named Lictor.
Keywords didn't exist.
TLDR: 5th edition had INV Saves can only be taken on wounds. What ment RIP vehicles (did not have wounds).
The Space Wolf character dread had a changed wording on to effect glancing and penetrating hits.
5th ed has some of the worst English.
Doom of M = funtime as pre snowflake nerf FAQ, he effect units in vehicles, as you measure to hull.
5th RAW has to be the most broken game out of all editions, it's not even a contest, there was likes 100's of game ending bugs with RAW.
I enjoyed the first half of sixth edition. It was quite good to Guard players that didn’t want to run Mech Vets *ALL THE TIME!*
For me, 7th made me actively consider selling my collections, and got me trying other game systems, notably WMH. Had my group been more willing to give it a go, I’d probably be playing that as my main game.
As it is, the lustre has worn off of 8th for us. We’re playing Magic these days as our main game. I play the odd game of Kill Team, and I enjoy that much more than typical 40k.
I just wish WMH was more accessible... but now I really wander from the OP. As much as it pains me to say, I really miss the old deep strike rules. As a Guard player.
greatbigtree wrote: I enjoyed the first half of sixth edition. It was quite good to Guard players that didn’t want to run Mech Vets *ALL THE TIME!*
For me, 7th made me actively consider selling my collections, and got me trying other game systems, notably WMH. Had my group been more willing to give it a go, I’d probably be playing that as my main game.
As it is, the lustre has worn off of 8th for us. We’re playing Magic these days as our main game. I play the odd game of Kill Team, and I enjoy that much more than typical 40k.
I just wish WMH was more accessible... but now I really wander from the OP. As much as it pains me to say, I really miss the old deep strike rules. As a Guard player.
My 2c:
5th edition was a very solid ruleset but suffered badly from badly imbalanced codices, with each new army being more unfair than the last.
6th edition tried to start selling people on collecting multiple armies and was mostly successful, but had a few serious problems with the core rules that gave major advantages to armies which could exploit them. (The introduction of flyers, in particular, turned the meta into a haves-and-have-nots system where anyone who could spam flyers would crush anyone who lacked AA.)
7th edition was a better basic ruleset than 6th, since it was very similar to 6th edition but with more refinement (and one of the edition changes where there were the fewest differences from one to the next,) but it suffered massively from supplements that tried to fix problems and consistently made them worse.
Of the editions I've played (excluding 8th), I think 6th was probably the worst ruleset, but had the closest thing to balance because the codices were the least out of whack. 5th was definitely my favorite to play.
greatbigtree wrote: I enjoyed the first half of sixth edition. It was quite good to Guard players that didn’t want to run Mech Vets *ALL THE TIME!*
For me, 7th made me actively consider selling my collections, and got me trying other game systems, notably WMH. Had my group been more willing to give it a go, I’d probably be playing that as my main game.
As it is, the lustre has worn off of 8th for us. We’re playing Magic these days as our main game. I play the odd game of Kill Team, and I enjoy that much more than typical 40k.
I just wish WMH was more accessible... but now I really wander from the OP. As much as it pains me to say, I really miss the old deep strike rules. As a Guard player.
I might be more biased because my main armies are Nids and DE. DE in 6th was so utterly unplayable, i was tabled turn 1 a few times, with only a 5+ save and 3 HP's, being Open top and having most of your units inside die i had to give up all venom's and raiders completely, then went the dick route and did Beaststar when CWE book came out, it at least worked for a little bit and i was able to win some games, but its just 1 super unit that eats up 1/4 of your points, the Reavers and Talos was just there to live or take objectives if i could.
The broken, wasn't in the context of strength. I mean broken as not playable, the game had hundreds of exploits that would crash the game, an make it have an unplayable gamestate. These aren't even on the level of TFG there is a failure of basic English in 5th.
6th was just window dressing on 5th that had slight changes. However the meta shifted to things because this was still a slow release for codexs and that 5th ed points did not work with the changes of 6th.
7th is just a redo of 6th, with it's own quirks (early best Psychic phase ever. Later unlimited summons, I quit b4 the formations peeps say broken/op.)
8th is an attempt that backfired to make simple ruleset, an is just an updated 7th.
