Switch Theme:

Discussion: The worst 40k rule ever?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





Subfaction actually determining reliability of d3/6 weaponry.

No seriously catachan pays the same as tallarn on hellhounds Basis etc.
How's that fair or good rule writing?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Blastaar wrote:
Removal of blasts/templates- very cinematic and fun, and I think better for gameplay (alleged arguments aside) making positioning matter
Objectively False. Small Markers would only ever hit 1 model if spaced out correctly, 3 models at most. All Blast Markers and Templates did was cause games to last 6 hours because you needed to space your models out and allowed Burna Boyz to get 75 hits out of a Battlewagon. Neither were "cinematic" or "fun". The process of scattering caused more arguments than anything else. Positioning didn't matter, spacing did and spacing just caused tedium.

Now, was the replacement of "roll dice to see how many dice you roll" good? No. Ideally they should have made Small Blast weapons "Blast 3" and Large Blast weapons "Blast 6", where you roll 2 dice per shot and are limited to a maximum of hits equal to the number of models in the unit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/12 22:15:32


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO (122) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Stubborn Prosecutor





Warning: This turned into a wall of text, but I'm keeping it as-is

True. Line. Of. Sight.

I don't know if WH40k has always had this rule and maybe it once made sense from a collection of rules standpoint, but I don't think there is a more core rule that seems destined to create more arguments and uncertain game states.

Let's be clear about this - its a rule that requires you to determine if an object 1 - 4 inches above the tabletop can see a significant portion of an opposing model by asking both players to make a judgement from the object's point of view.

It sounds simple right up until you look at this 1" high head and realize that from your view, 2-4 feet above the table, you can't really know - even with a decent understanding of trigonometry. You can get a general idea by lowering you head to that of the model, but even then you'd need a bodycam on the bloody things to know for certain.

This is all pretty frustrating, but the real sin of the rule is the fact that it's one of the few (last?) rules in wh40k that doesn't abstract. Movement is abstracted, range, scattering, AOEs, Dropping in from orbit, all abstracted. But not line of sight. Its this one last dinosaur that forces players to either have the game state bog down or just hold some immediate negoations to at least partially ignore the rule.

You've all done it - notified an opponent that your intent is to hide a model from LOS rather than figure out if its possible. You've likewise moved a sniper into position declaring the intent to put something into LOS even though you aren't certain if the LOS is there or not. And we've all felt the frustration of having to agree because you really don't want to dig out the laser/drop you head down and risk bogging down the game only to risk something you might be wrong in. Walking away from a game wondering if that miracle between the buildings shots may or may not have been possible according to the actual rules.

It also is one of the main drivers of grump against custom/modded models. There's a general agreement that base size should be the same and that WYSIWYG is a general guideline, but the difference in profile (and therefore Line of Sight possibilities) is what people seem to get bent over. It wasn't that long ago that we saw an American tournament threaten to throw out crocodile riding roughriders completely on the basis that the 3d profile (and thus the area in which it could see and be seen) was lower and thus changed how the model performed on the tabletop.

I'm convinced this rule is almost single-handily responsible for the generally laissez-faire attitude the community has towards the rules in general. If you can't even agree on line of sight, the problem of oddly worded rules and strange loopholes seem minor.

Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.


 lolman1c wrote:
The ork train has no breaks mothersquiggor!
 
   
Made in ca
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





British Columbia

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removal of blasts/templates- very cinematic and fun, and I think better for gameplay (alleged arguments aside) making positioning matter
Objectively False. Small Markers would only ever hit 1 model if spaced out correctly, 3 models at most. All Blast Markers and Templates did was cause games to last 6 hours because you needed to space your models out and allowed Burna Boyz to get 75 hits out of a Battlewagon. Neither were "cinematic" or "fun". The process of scattering caused more arguments than anything else. Positioning didn't matter, spacing did and spacing just caused tedium.

Now, was the replacement of "roll dice to see how many dice you roll" good? No. Ideally they should have made Small Blast weapons "Blast 3" and Large Blast weapons "Blast 6", where you roll 2 dice per shot and are limited to a maximum of hits equal to the number of models in the unit.

The most annoying aspect is they have a system of more hits the bigger the unit with some of the Forge World weapons.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived




On moon miranda.

Several other non FW weapons have the same thing, Demolisher cannons for example.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 ChargerIIC wrote:
True. Line. Of. Sight.

I don't know if WH40k has always had this rule ...

It has. The specifics have changed slightly from edition to edition, most notably with how abstract things like Area Terrain are resolved within it, but every edition back to Rogue Trader has used true LOS for the core of the shooting rules.

And while the problems you listed are certainly issues with it, from my experience (over 20 years now) they rarely actually cause problems on the table. YMMV, particularly if you have a more nitpicky gaming group, but most of the issues I experienced came from disagreements over how much of a model was obscured in those editions where that mattered for cover (since determining 50% of a model is tricky with some models) rather than with determining whether something had LOS or not.

Most players (again, from my experience) realise that nitpicking over LOS is a two-way street, so tend to err on the side of just getting on with the game.

 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Probably Drunk




Colorado Springs

Being a xenos player in a store with a very high percentage of Marine players, God did I hate Sweeping Advance.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Virus outbreak.

I can’t believe this thread lasted more than two posts when there was once a rule that could kill an entire army before the game began.

Yes, I know it was mentioned already, and it should have been the last post in the thread.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/12 23:31:55


"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 skchsan wrote:
 oni wrote:
EASY question!!! Current edition W40K...

Character targeting rules for Matched play.

Worst evAr! Hands down, no contest!

Yeah. It should've been something like it can't be targeted if it has friendly units within 2" or something.


Yeah, I had a game where I couldn't shoot a Demon Prince, a Chaos Lord or Ahriman because there was one Chaos Marine who was closer, who was nowhere near either the lord or the Prince. That is fething dumb.

The deep strike rules for the monolith are pretty bad too.
Not only do you have to land 12" away from an enemy, you also have to measure from the hull due to the Hover rule. Why both? If it were 12", but measure from the center, I'd understand, but 12" AND Hover? Its as if GW doesn't want necron players to use their most iconic vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
5th edition tank shock rules.

Drive in a straight line through any number of non-vehicle units - up to 36" for some eldar tanks
Force a moral test on all those units
All units are unharmed, even if a land raider ran over them
Land on top of a unit, forcing it to move away, no rules to handle that movement, game broke down when the unit could not move
Death or glory response for a single model which had to destroy the tank or the model was gone. Not hit, not damage, not immobilize, DESTROY
You could also ram a vehicle and did more damage the more distance you covered. It also was a tankshock and you could destroy your own vehicle that way

Which meant that an eldar hovertank army could shock your army into a huge pile, force 6-10 moral tests and then put flamers and templates on them. You also auto-lost any game with more than 3 wave serpents alive because they could just tank-shock onto objectives, pushing your units off them.

Best thing to leave the game ever.


I'm pretty sure an imbolised result meant the tank ground to a halt directly in front of the Death or Glory Model.
And Fearless was a rule.


Yeah, pretty sure you can just immobilize. And death or glory was elective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Stormonu wrote:
Some of the unit/faction drawbacks over the years get a groan at least for me:

“We’ll Be Back” - Your entire Necron force gets tabled if at any time your down to less than 25% Warriors.

.


No, you're thinking of Phase Out.
We'll Be Back is what allows necrons to get back up. Its a different rule.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/09/12 23:50:48


What I have
~4100
~1660
: LM

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





Kildare, Ireland

 JohnU wrote:
Being a xenos player in a store with a very high percentage of Marine players, God did I hate Sweeping Advance.


Why? If your unit was caught and beaten in combat, how combat effective were you expecting it to be afterwards? I guess a couple of firedragons, retreating by a landraider or something?

Removing morale effects like 'falling back, pinned, rallying' sped up the game dramatically- my guess is Sweeping Advance was supposed to do the same by destroying crippled units and removing them from the board.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/13 11:07:49


 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fear was one of the dumbest rules because everyone built their lists to ignore Morale, ergo ignoring Fear by default.


I would argue that the other way around. 'Ignore morale' was the problem, not having psychology rules like fear.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in fi
Junior Officer with Laspistol







For me personally, the proliferation of tactical objective decks and stratagems, especially army-specific ones, was the straw that broke the camel's back. Armies now have access to dozens and dozens of special rules on-tap, meaning my turns are now bogged down in a massive mire of indecision because the amount of potential actions I can take has been increased sometimes by an order of magnitude (and the maths has become infinitely more complex), and likewise the predictability of opponents' turns has become far more nebulous, with them being able to pull off victories out of nowhere because of an interaction I've failed to prognosticate for, or forgotten about the implications of. It's all just so much more mentally taxing, and it killed my enjoyment of the game stone dead.

"The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas." 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Probably Drunk




Colorado Springs

 =Angel= wrote:
 JohnU wrote:
Being a xenos player in a store with a very high percentage of Marine players, God did I hate Sweeping Advance.


Why? If your unit was caught and beaten in combat, how combat effective were you expecting it to be afterwards? I guess a couple of firedragons, retreating by a landraider or something?

Removing morale effects like 'falling back, pinned, rallying' sped up the game dramatically- my guess is Sweeping Advance was supposed to do the same by destroying crippled units and removing them from the board.


Sure a squad of firewarriors getting punked by a couple of marines was annoying, but expected, but any mob of orks was dangerous as long as the PK nob was alive. Once that mob dropped below 11, they're probably running.

Mostly it was just frustrating since it was asymmetrical compared to marines. As a new player back then (4th) and not knowing their codex you learned all the BRB rules and it seemed like marines ignored half of them.

Sweeping Advance did speed up the game quite a bit when they played Khorne berserker rhino rush.
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Virus outbreak.

I can’t believe this thread lasted more than two posts when there was once a rule that could kill an entire army before the game began.

Yes, I know it was mentioned already, and it should have been the last post in the thread.
Yes, but to be fair GW themselves said in White Dwarf to tear it up and pretend it never existed. So.. now that I think about it, that's pretty much the worst rule ever if the designers themselves said yeah no, this was a mistake.

TLOS, while it has always existed, I don't ever recall it being an issue until recently. In 2nd and 3rd I don't ever once recall having an argument over LOS or nonsense like I can see a tiny piece of your model peeking out from a tiny hole in a ruin that's across a large forest so I can shoot you just as easily as if you were standing out in the open.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





Kildare, Ireland

 JohnU wrote:

Sure a squad of firewarriors getting punked by a couple of marines was annoying, but expected, but any mob of orks was dangerous as long as the PK nob was alive. Once that mob dropped below 11, they're probably running.


Didn't they use their number of models as LD? So with 8 models in the unit, they'd be LD8- same as marines? And if this was 3rd ed orks, their choppas allowed a max save of 4+ and struck at init 4 on the charge- both rules specifically designed to feth up marines. In order to lose combat v marines you'd have to either get super shot up on the way in or get charged/countercharged by a solid block of them ( and you couldn't shoot non pistol/assault weapons and charge- so they'd be giving up stand & doubletap to make that happen)

I broke ork squads that charged me with Templars, but that was their schtick.

My point was that sweeping advance was supposed to be a reward for clever charging and inflicting enough casualties to inflict heavy LD modifiers and break a unit. The real issue was that due to real-world meta reasons, you were playing against the army that ignored that rule the majority of the time but they could do it to you.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Templates and Scatter.

True Line of Sight.

Overwatch.

Large models with the capacity to regen and 3++ saves.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Come up with a cogent argument that doesn't just attack your opponent but rather attacks the points he is making, and show some understanding of what those against the table are saying (it's not about 'Lol complaining about a random table in a game about dice'), or leave the damned thread.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 =Angel= wrote:
Didn't they use their number of models as LD? So with 8 models in the unit, they'd be LD8- same as marines?
Mob rule. Ld equal to models, squads of 11+ fearless (4e). And the bosspole gave rerolls.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'd argue they should be target-able but able to shunt the wounds onto a unit within 3" unless the shooting unit has the Sniper keyword.

Then again I also for arguing for shooting through enemy units needing a BS modifier or having the misses roll to hit the unit in the way, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.


But then you're forcing characters to always be in balls aren't you?

You mean like we already do to form aura congalines or bubbles?

I fail to see how it changes the game from what we already have.


I get that we have bubbles, but there's a bit more than that.

Ahriman and DPs often run in configurations that don't keep them near a lot of units. Same with smash captains. Parking a character sniper by themselves is no longer possible. Assassins would be pretty useless. Is Trajan passing wounds off to tanks?

   
Made in eu
Courageous Beastmaster





Has anyone mentioned invisibility yet?




 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut



Ottawa

Dunno if this has been mentioned before, but I really think plasma guns should overheat on an UNMODIFIED roll of 1, like in Kill Team. Hit penalties should not make plasma more likely to overheat, and hit bonuses should not prevent it from overheating. Because it doesn't make a lick of sense for your gun to be more likely to blow up when shooting at an aircraft.

Also I really hate how re-rolls and penalties interact. The penalty should be applied before the re-roll, allowing you to re-roll dice that failed to hit as a result of the penalty.

Heroic Intervention really needs some fixing.

Yeah, my grievances are for the current edition, because I'm not an old-timer like some of you.

.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Jidmah wrote:
You could also ram a vehicle and did more damage the more distance you covered. It also was a tankshock and you could destroy your own vehicle that way
The old Dark Eldar torpedo charge - ram an enemy vehicle from across the board, blowing up the DE transport in the processess. The passengers could then charge out of the crater as they were technically not disembarking.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




SeanDrake wrote:
8th in general reeks of minimum effort meh it's good enough "game design" I mean not as bad as 1st ed AoS but it does feel like it was designed based on the assumption nobody would play it.


Yeah. So many 8th edition rules drive me crazy:

- New terrain rules (or lack thereof) in general, in particular the fact that area terrain doesn't block line of sight anymore.

- New line of sight and wound allocation rules that let out-of-sight models can be killed as though they're in the open when even only model is just partially visible to the shooter.

- New wound table that makes low toughness models harder to wound and high toughness models easier to wound compared to prior editions. E.g. S5 used to wound T3 on a 2+, but T7 on a 6+; now it wounds T3 on a 3+, and T7 on a 5+. Multi-shot mid-strength weapons became more anti-tank and worse at performing their actual job (killing infantry).

- Completely worthless blast weapon rules that heavily penalize armies with bad BS (which is the opposite of how it always used to be) and offer no disincentive to pack models around aura-generating characters or build deathball units. The old rules were too fiddly, but the new ones are just useless.

- Strategems encourage powergamers to prepare sick combos during the list-building phase rather than really playing tactically once the game has begun




Then there are some stinkers that have been with us for years:

- Detachments, which allow and encourage powergamers to craft soup armies that are un-fun to play against.

- Knights, for encouraging everyone to over-emphasize anti-tank weapons to counter them, which makes combined arms lists un-feasible because sub-Knight-sized vehicles are destroyed more or less immediately.

- Overwatch. Takes up time, never does anything significant, rarely ever does anything at all.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/13 17:58:25


 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Douglasville, GA

I think you might be using the Wound Table backwards if you're getting those results. A bog-standard S4 attack is gonna Wound T3 on a 3+ and T5 on a 5+. No idea how your low T models are fairing better than your high T ones, at least when it comes to Wounding.
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




Newcastle

 vipoid wrote:
I'll vote for Overwatch.

It has no strategy, no depth and most of the time it doesn't even do anything. But before every combat you have to roll a pile of dice (or sit around while your opponent rolls a pile of dice) and see if anyone gets lucky.

It's nothing but a shallow, time-killing mechanic that adds absolutely nothing to a game already bloated with pointless rolling.

And the reason I've picked Overwatch over Invisibility or random Warlord Tables or any of the other garbage 6th/7th brought with them is that Overwatch is still with us. For as horrendous as Invisibility was, at least GW learned their lesson and removed the bloody thing. Meanwhile, Overwatch is not only still with us but has apparently been breeding with something and has given birth to a raft of time-killing, bastard children (such as that rascal Random Number of Shots).


Interesting argument. I was going to disagree but I think you're right. The cinematic idea of overwatch is cool, but the defending unit's CC attacks can represent their desperate shots at the charging enemy just fine. Overwatch is an okay way of preventing a unit in 12" from always attempting a charge for the hell of it, but actually I don't think that matters much, and the time saved fishing for 6's would be better for the game. The only part of overwatch worth keeping would be flamer weapons; they should still get to shoot as they do. Otherwise get rid of it, it's not a terrible idea in theory just a nuisance in practice

Hydra Dominatus 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





Not Online!!! wrote:
You know what absolutely no one misses about templates and blast markers? The arguments about scatter direction. The arguments about what is vs. is not under it. The arguments about infinite columns. The arguments about how they interact with levels and ruins.

Us vets will have a lot of fond memories of them, but removing blast markers and templates has been a great thing.


Excuse me but WTF:
The removal of Templates has lead to the whole game beeing now how you can stack behind cover or around 1 HQ with aura / Relic aura.


The removal of templates/blasts also removed the need to space everything exactly 2" apart because otherwise some 5 point flamer would kill over ten times its points in a single round of shooting. You also seem to have forgotten that, on a properly spaced castle - yes those existed even back then - a blast would hit no more than 6 models, a small blast no more than 3. The only exception to this were barrage weapons which were accurate enough to hit whatever they want, for example shooting four artillery shells at the guy holding the lascannon in a squad of 10, without hurting anyone else.
It also removed that any melee unit was massacred after their first charge because they had not other choice but clumping up.
It also removed that deep strikers and passengers dropping put of vehicles were dying in droves, because there was no way to move them apart.
It also removed the odd thing where ten flamers would hit 5 out 30 guys standing clumped up due to a choke-point and the entire unit exploded.

Templates and blasts had so many implications you needed to play around, and most of those had nothing to do with damage scaling with unit size. It was a defunct mechanism that required everyone to waste extra time on movement and measurement and it's good that it's gone.
If you feel auras are broken, fix auras. Don't introduce another broken thing.
Last, but not least, there are plenty effects that punish bunching up - all those stratagems, powers and abilities that deal mortal wounds to everything within a certain point/unit. If you hate castles, run Mortarion into one and watch everything whither to his aura. Fun times.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 =Angel= wrote:
 JohnU wrote:
Being a xenos player in a store with a very high percentage of Marine players, God did I hate Sweeping Advance.


Why? If your unit was caught and beaten in combat, how combat effective were you expecting it to be afterwards? I guess a couple of firedragons, retreating by a landraider or something?

Removing morale effects like 'falling back, pinned, rallying' sped up the game dramatically- my guess is Sweeping Advance was supposed to do the same by destroying crippled units and removing them from the board.


Why?

Charge a unit of trukkboyz into tactical marines.
Tactical marines had higher initiative and kill 2 boyz.
Boyz kill one marine.
Boyz lose combat, 4+d6 will usually beat 2+d6, trukkboyz get wiped out.

"Crippled units" my green twerking ork but.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/13 17:43:58


 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removal of blasts/templates- very cinematic and fun, and I think better for gameplay (alleged arguments aside) making positioning matter
Objectively False. Small Markers would only ever hit 1 model if spaced out correctly, 3 models at most. All Blast Markers and Templates did was cause games to last 6 hours because you needed to space your models out and allowed Burna Boyz to get 75 hits out of a Battlewagon. Neither were "cinematic" or "fun". The process of scattering caused more arguments than anything else. Positioning didn't matter, spacing did and spacing just caused tedium.

Now, was the replacement of "roll dice to see how many dice you roll" good? No. Ideally they should have made Small Blast weapons "Blast 3" and Large Blast weapons "Blast 6", where you roll 2 dice per shot and are limited to a maximum of hits equal to the number of models in the unit.


Fun is subjective. You may have experienced 6 hour games, I never did, or arguments- never had a single one- we were actually capable of measuring in the proper direction, and using our eyes-and small blasts especially did some good work for me- maybe because we used lots of terrain. Nothing objective about either of our statements, just anecdotal experience and preference. But, as usual, BCB has such hatred of certain mechanics he gets triggered by their mere mention.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 flandarz wrote:
I think you might be using the Wound Table backwards if you're getting those results. A bog-standard S4 attack is gonna Wound T3 on a 3+ and T5 on a 5+. No idea how your low T models are fairing better than your high T ones, at least when it comes to Wounding.


I'm comparing to prior editions. It used to be that S5 wounded T3 on a 2+, S6 wounded T4 on a 2+, etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/13 18:00:30


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





'Templates are bad because people take too much time lining up their models to be nearly 2" apart.'

I've always hated this line of reasoning. It goes against a fundamental aspect of combat anytime the last few centuries...

Don't. Bunch. Up.

I get the fact that 40K isn't the greatest simulation for combat, but shouldn't something so elementary be represented better? Introduce a time clock, maybe? Alter coherency rules? Don't be that guy? I don't know what the best solution is, but my group still uses templates and we don't have this problem.

Templates punish a force for becoming too concentrated. Forcing units to keep spread out due to fear of becoming too dense makes it much harder to move larger units effectively or without harm - as it SHOULD BE. A rule set should allow for such possibilities, giving either side chances to inflict more harm at certain tactical choke points. If the rules don't allow for such outcomes, then don't pretend what is being played is a war game.

The aspect of game of seeing a game where units are piled together without any tactical meaning has the same appeal of watching a 2-year old eat oatmeal.

   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

 Earth127 wrote:
Has anyone mentioned invisibility yet?


Yeah, you must not have seen it

It never ends well 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Blastaar wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removal of blasts/templates- very cinematic and fun, and I think better for gameplay (alleged arguments aside) making positioning matter
Objectively False. Small Markers would only ever hit 1 model if spaced out correctly, 3 models at most. All Blast Markers and Templates did was cause games to last 6 hours because you needed to space your models out and allowed Burna Boyz to get 75 hits out of a Battlewagon. Neither were "cinematic" or "fun". The process of scattering caused more arguments than anything else. Positioning didn't matter, spacing did and spacing just caused tedium.

Now, was the replacement of "roll dice to see how many dice you roll" good? No. Ideally they should have made Small Blast weapons "Blast 3" and Large Blast weapons "Blast 6", where you roll 2 dice per shot and are limited to a maximum of hits equal to the number of models in the unit.


Fun is subjective. You may have experienced 6 hour games, I never did, or arguments- never had a single one- we were actually capable of measuring in the proper direction, and using our eyes-and small blasts especially did some good work for me- maybe because we used lots of terrain. Nothing objective about either of our statements, just anecdotal experience and preference. But, as usual, BCB has such hatred of certain mechanics he gets triggered by their mere mention.


Not to mention that templates could be really useful in 40k blob/Aura edition that we have now which maybe why they were removed.

Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: