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.

Just a poll on what you think of the current rulebook. Multiple choice enabled.

voted all except its fine and we need a new rulebook
Needs just some updating in general.
Then someone like Gwar! needs to go through it with a fine tooth comb (although with Gw's reputation it may not need be fine!!)

The rulebook is fine. It's not idiot-proof, but if they tried to make it idiot-proof, the forums would simply breed a stupider breed of idiot.

Nurglitch wrote:The rulebook is fine. It's not idiot-proof, but if they tried to make it idiot-proof, the forums would simply breed a stupider breed of idiot.

QFT

I would like to see them take the ambiguity out of some of the rules so there is no room for interruption. There are some situations that there are no RAW answer to,

They just need to get their term definitions consistent, then it will be all good with me.

A better scope of USR would be nice alowing you to make your own charactors that can be priced up points wise farely (a codex thing that one), removle of wound alocation and make it you hit the minies closet to the firering minies, make las-cannons good again and redo the tank damage table properly, but other than that its alright

I like wound allocation......but I play ork. I would like to see moral checks and sweeping advances changed though. I hate that one model can wipe 9 nobz.

Hi all.
Rules should be written with clarity ,brevity and wit.According to Rick Priestley.

So thats a total re-write then!

If a rule set can not cover all the game play with the basic rules , something has gone a bit wrong somewhere IMO.

Most other rules sets deliver more gameplay than 40k with far fewer rules....

TTFN

Geemoney wrote:I like wound allocation......but I play ork. I would like to see moral checks and sweeping advances changed though. I hate that one model can wipe 9 nobz.

Agreed. Sweeping advance is my biggest aggravation.

This rulebook is mostly fine with a few points that could use small changes. The biggest issue I have with the current edition is the use of the fantasy like test moral at a negative modafier equal to how much you lost by is that most armies have either no way or very limited ways to effect that roll. If every army had a way to get stubborn on some units, or add modafiers to the role(ala fantasy ranks, standards, outnumbering, items thatgrant a bonus, etc) it would be more reasonable.

I would also be happier with a vehicle ruleset that didn't encourage stationary gun platforms on everything but fast tanks.

A few standard definitions would go a long way (like the now 2X occurance of psychic ability grants cover save to all units within X distance and the constant a vehicle is a unit but isnt obscured so it doesnt get a save debates, etc).

Scenarios could be better to avoid the need for the awkward scoring mechanisim that is killpoints wouldn't be needed to balance out the other two missions.

Other than that I think 5th is a pretty good clear set of rules. Armies that were not updated to match the current rules is not a fault of the ruleset, just a fault of the comapny that doesnt want to see as many people buying necron and tau stuff.

Nurglitch wrote:The rulebook is fine. It's not idiot-proof, but if they tried to make it idiot-proof, the forums would simply breed a stupider breed of idiot.

This, this, this 10 times over

ceorron wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:The rulebook is fine. It's not idiot-proof, but if they tried to make it idiot-proof, the forums would simply breed a stupider breed of idiot.

This, this, this 10 times over

QFT

I hear that about sweeping advances. It is simply too easy to loose a close combat by one man. Then role badly on a leadership test then lose a large chunck of points in your army. Maybe introduce a USR that gives some elite units (like nobz) no retreat wounds on sweep like marines have. Or just make that the rule for all units.

I also don't like wound allocation, allocations rules need to be consolidated such that multiple wounds is not written as extra incoherent waffle bit but consolidated into one part that covers models with "wound(s)". Also having models allocate based on the differing weapons they hold is stupid. Allocations should be made based on the names/type of each model this will simply make it easier for everyone.

For example Nob mob includes 1 painboy, 5 nobz with mixed weapons and a Warboss. You could have one wound on the painboy, one on the nobz and 2 on the warboss before you HAD to take a model. Admitedly running round with a warboss with 1 wound is a pretty stupid idea but you get what i mean.

(I also think having a painboy with 2 wounds is stupid also but thats outside of the control of the rulebook)

Ah, another thing that annoys me is how IC's attached to a unit are dealt with in CC. It's pretty dumb that the IC is dealt with independently if it is detrimental to you (the player) or as part of the squad if it is detrimental to you (the player). Attacks are resolved separately, can be singled out, everything like that, BUT when it comes to testing morale and getting sweeping advanced, he's part of that unit again. Hm, go figure.

main complaint is Wound Allocation, and kill points. A few others but they escape me right now.