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

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

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

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

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

go play old nids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ above.
2.

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

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

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

Jack

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

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

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

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

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

My new least favourite rule is 'The Red Thirst'

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

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

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

Seizing Initiative.

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

kronk wrote:Seizing Initiative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Maybe it's a dud?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phase out... nuff said.

stjohn70 wrote:Least favorite rules:
The entire Tyranid FAQ

This was a close second for me initially as well.

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

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

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