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.

Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:ATSKNF is required to make marine units even playable. If your 5 point unit can sweep a 14-60 point unit (yes, 60 points, that's how expensive some of our gak can get) then what's the point?

There's a reason CSM players don't use CSM.

Most powerful rule is Ignore Cover and Battle Focus. ATSKNF doesn't even change anything in terms of winning or losing other than making marines even worse. "Oh no, those Dark Angels know no fear! How will I ever win now?" said no player ever.

You've never played with any of the Eldar armies I see. With, not against. Try having units that are more expensive that Marines, with lower T and lower Sv and no ATSKNF to fall back on. It's a bit painful picking 200+ points off the table due to a single Ld roll.

Battle Focus is good, but it's not even close to the most powerful because it acts on 12-18" weapons most of the time. If Tau, Guard or Marines had Battle Focus it would be a completely different story because they've got long ranged weapons.

ductvader wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
And They Shall Know No Fear. No question in my mind.

This rule is much too powerful for what it does and for that fact the so many armies have it

Indeed, nearly all the benefits of Fearless and none of the drawbacks with addition that stuff that removes fearless - does not remove ATSKNF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or maybe Battle Focus is the most powerful since it takes completely useless units and makes them not only somewhat worth their points, but also interesting. I write somewhat, 'cause I'm still not sure Guardians are worth more than 6 points each.

 Orblivion wrote:

NamelessBard wrote:
You're being cheated then. Can't take fnp vs instant death.

He got cheated twice, because you can't take a cover save and an invulnerable save for the same wound.

Sheesh your kidding right? This guy was rolling cover saves, invul, then FnP

With lasguns hitting he was rolling cover saves, armour saves, invul, then FnP. Sure its not some special Tyranid thing to get more saves?

 scommy wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:

NamelessBard wrote:
You're being cheated then. Can't take fnp vs instant death.

He got cheated twice, because you can't take a cover save and an invulnerable save for the same wound.

Sheesh your kidding right? This guy was rolling cover saves, invul, then FnP

With lasguns hitting he was rolling cover saves, armour saves, invul, then FnP. Sure its not some special Tyranid thing to get more saves?

Nope. You my friend have been played finely. Sorry to be so unsubtle

anyways, I would choose Deep Strike for the most powerful rule. But that's mainly due to the amount of armies I've seen split by Deep Striking units...

G.A

Obviously Destroyer.

I can't see how some people think Ignores Cover is better?

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
ATSKNF is required to make marine units even playable. If your 5 point unit can sweep a 14-60 point unit (yes, 60 points, that's how expensive some of our gak can get) then what's the point?

You've never played IG or Tau! You have no idea how many men i have lost to sweeping advances over the years when they clearly had a numerical advantage but they got beat by a leadership roll. 50 man blob? Nope, all dead because a handful of lucky space marines caused you to fail and you rolled crummy on your leadership.

Return to 2nd Ed again? If you break from combat, each model in the winning side gets one automatic hit with their strongest weapon? Presuming they roll high enough Initiative on the Sweep and all?

Jayden63 wrote:6th edition is just the beginning of the end as its just like what 2nd edition was at its end. Powercreep is getting to high for the current rule set to support and the "extra" supplements etc. are just like all the old crap you had to keep track of.

Yeah, everyone's complaining about how that new Tyranid codex is jsut another example of Codex Creep.

I do find it funny that we moan for years about Codex Creep, and when they bring out a new dex that's not instantly overpowered everyone moans anyway...

nobody wrote:
In the main rulebook: Interceptor. It can swing a game to the point where player A is playing at one point level, and his/her opponent is playing at another.

Using a flyer? Unless it has a ton of HP, obscenely high armor, or an invuln save, it'll be destroyed when it comes on against some armies.

Using deep strikers? Not only do you get to deal with the possibility of mishaping, you also get to deal with opponents potentially wiping out that unit that just came in, before it gets to do anything.


Adding in the supplements I'd have to say Destroyer.

Totally agree. Most powerful, but fair. When several units have it, for cheap *cough EWO it can go from potent to cheese real quick. A close second would be a tie between Battle nFoucus or Ignores.Cover. ignores cover is much like interceptor.one or two units with bit is powerful etc.

I'm quite amused by those who seem to think ATSKNF is better than a rule that permits units to shoot without worry of return fire

Core rulebook interceptor it makes reserves style armies very unappealing and flyers usually paper thin armor won't often survive interceptor skyfire shots.
every other book destroyer easily

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
ATSKNF is required to make marine units even playable. If your 5 point unit can sweep a 14-60 point unit (yes, 60 points, that's how expensive some of our gak can get) then what's the point?

You've never played IG or Tau! You have no idea how many men i have lost to sweeping advances over the years when they clearly had a numerical advantage but they got beat by a leadership roll. 50 man blob? Nope, all dead because a handful of lucky space marines caused you to fail and you rolled crummy on your leadership.

Return to 2nd Ed again? If you break from combat, each model in the winning side gets one automatic hit with their strongest weapon? Presuming they roll high enough Initiative on the Sweep and all?

Jayden63 wrote:6th edition is just the beginning of the end as its just like what 2nd edition was at its end. Powercreep is getting to high for the current rule set to support and the "extra" supplements etc. are just like all the old crap you had to keep track of.

Yeah, everyone's complaining about how that new Tyranid codex is jsut another example of Codex Creep.

I do find it funny that we moan for years about Codex Creep, and when they bring out a new dex that's not instantly overpowered everyone moans anyway...

Well honestly I'm just sad they made the pyrovore worse....

Anyways.... I have a list.
-Ignores Cover
-Interceptor
-Battle Focus
-DESTROYER!
-Fear......

Honorable Mention:
-Fething And they Shall Know no Fear + Chapter Tactics. Good gosh hit the lottery? And how much does it cost? 1 point! That's what GW calculates it all to be. AtSKnF isn't really bad but it deserves mention for being oddly cheap.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
ATSKNF is required to make marine units even playable. If your 5 point unit can sweep a 14-60 point unit (yes, 60 points, that's how expensive some of our gak can get) then what's the point?

There's a reason CSM players don't use CSM.

Most powerful rule is Ignore Cover and Battle Focus. ATSKNF doesn't even change anything in terms of winning or losing other than making marines even worse. "Oh no, those Dark Angels know no fear! How will I ever win now?" said no player ever.

You've never played IG or Tau! You have no idea how many men i have lost to sweeping advances over the years when they clearly had a numerical advantage but they got beat by a leadership roll. 50 man blob? Nope, all dead because a handful of lucky space marines caused you to fail and you rolled crummy on your leadership. THAT is a huge pain in the butt if i ever saw one. Ignore cover is pretty strong but it won't insta gib a massive squad based off of two dice. Its close though!

A good idea that many players utilize is to invest in a way to make the blob Fearless. Like you said, it's a huge investment (not really, you should see how expensive marine units can get, 250 points is normal) so protect that investment. I don't see why you think it's fine for a 250+ point unprotected blob should not be swept but a 250+ point marine unit like 20 CSM should be okay to be swept.

I also don't know if I find it ironic, amusing, or maddeningly soul-crushing that Tau and Eldar players have the gall to say that marines are at an advantage to them with a straight face.

TORRENT, always TORRENT.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
I also don't know if I find it ironic, amusing, or maddeningly soul-crushing that Tau and Eldar players have the gall to say that marines are at an advantage to them with a straight face.

Do you know why is it possible? That may be because we are talking about a single rule, not about whole units, codexes etc.
Each and every discussion must end in: "but you are Eldar \ Tau so you must apologise for everything!!"?
Geez, how much pity do some of the players need..

Yes, most units are more powerful, that does not mean each and every SM rule is so weak that comparing them is "maddeningly soul-crushing". Really? Those are the words you use to compare ATSKNF to Ignore Covered? Drama much?

Ignores cover. It used to be rare, but now it can be damn near anywhere. It's pretty much broken the game...

It's honestly come to a point where I feel like I'm some sort of a douchebag just for playing Eldar, regardless of the years I've spent collecting them.

ATSKNF is definitely much better than Battle-Focus and bordering broken, as they touch so many rules that work for every other army out there, except Marines. While Battle-Focus just adds extra usefulness to certain units. Same as Bladestorm. And funny how you see no one complaining about those two rules when they complain about Eldar. It's usually just Serpents.

 Voidwraith wrote:
Ignores cover. It used to be rare, but now it can be damn near anywhere. It's pretty much broken the game...

Roll on the edition of no AP better than AP3!

Terminators rejoice!

You will be free again!1one

Iranna.

Im gonna go ahead and toss in the Psyker special rule cuz 2++ reroll...

Oh and soul blaze ofc just look at anything in the current csm dex ever.

Preferred Enemy

I've always hated ATSKNF for the fact that half the armies get to ignore much of the leadership/morale part of the game.

I don't know if its the most powerful, but its on my list.

Tough question, because it always depends on the squad.

For example:
Relentless is one of my favourites, but so many units wouldn't care less (Assault Marines with their pistols, Eldar with Assault 2 guns).

So I'll go with ATSKNF for it's overall usefulness. Any squad that isn't Fearless wants it and many times I'd change Fearless of it (not always tough).

 Jimsolo wrote:
And They Shall Know No Fear. No question in my mind.

I agree with this guy. Smash gets an honorable mention.

In my opinion there isn t a most powerful special rule, there are only to many armies who can spam and combine some special rules for cheap to become OP.

Tau with theire marker lights and LOS ignoring smart missiles making cover completely obsulete + EWO.
Eldar with pseudo rending and run&fire.

There are also some bad combinations of special rules:

Helldrakes - Flyer, fnp, torrent AP3, 360°, ignore 1-3 on the vehicle demage table.



Well I dont think ATSKNF is to strong.

It's Smash to me. Renders most of my anti-TMC stuff laughable, which isn't exactly cool.

 SarisKhan wrote:
It's Smash to me. Renders most of my anti-TMC stuff laughable, which isn't exactly cool.

Let's say its a standard MC (S6 with 5 attacks on the charge)

5th Ed (S6 + 2d6) = 5 attacks with an average of S13
6th Ed (S10 + d6) = 3 attacks at an average of S13.5

Smash makes MCs dangerous against T4/T5 stuff, but it's actually less dangerous against vehicles than the old ruleset.

As for TMCs, Carnifexes are S9, so they care naught.

Just important to note.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Zealot might be worth mentioning because it's a two for one deal.

I'm surprised not having read Reanimation Protocols yet... It's rather frustrating when you shoot a gozillion rounds,kill all but one scrawny warrior and then they rise again.

That aside, atsknf in this edition is a bit less powerful, since close combat is not so "encouraged"...

Battle focus and Support Fire are intense, too

My vote goes for ignore cover. ATSKNF is hyper-overrated and I question the objectivity of anyone who picks this rule. Ignore cover and smash both have bigger game effects than ATSKNF. If your opponent lets ATSKNF be a factor, that's on them, not ATSKNF being good. Because my lowly BA overcome lists with ATSKNF all the time. I don't need to sweep marines or worry about them regrouping if I *kill* them.

I've played without this rule in effect several times and rarely missed it.

Destroyer.

I want to say Ignore Cover, but I agree with one of the previous comments that 2+ cover should not be possible and definitely not in the amounts I've seen it. I honestly think that Ignores cover should only ignore terrain based cover.
For example: You have a unit in ruins with shrouded. It gets hit with a cover ignoring weapon and negates the 4+ from the ruins and changes the cover save from a 2+ to a 5+. It reduces the durability significantly, while not entirely negating the cover mechanic for units that pay a lot of points for their cover boosts.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I want to say Ignore Cover, but I agree with one of the previous comments that 2+ cover should not be possible and definitely not in the amounts I've seen it. I honestly think that Ignores cover should only ignore terrain based cover.
For example: You have a unit in ruins with shrouded. It gets hit with a cover ignoring weapon and negates the 4+ from the ruins and changes the cover save from a 2+ to a 5+. It reduces the durability significantly, while not entirely negating the cover mechanic for units that pay a lot of points for their cover boosts.

The 2+ started being a thing, especially en masse, because of ignores cover.

That doesn't seem like it makes sense. Because the increase in things that ignore cover, people brought units that had a higher cover save ignored?

I remember seeing lots of 2+/3+ cover before the Tau and Eldar got updated.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
That doesn't seem like it makes sense. Because the increase in things that ignore cover, people brought units that had a higher cover save ignored?

I remember seeing lots of 2+/3+ cover before the Tau and Eldar got updated.

They ignored my cover, so I am taking more units that need cover ignored, tau are only ignoring cover on 2 or 3 units tops.

having more of it means they struggle more and you can even dictate their targets to an extent.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I want to say Ignore Cover, but I agree with one of the previous comments that 2+ cover should not be possible and definitely not in the amounts I've seen it. I honestly think that Ignores cover should only ignore terrain based cover.
For example: You have a unit in ruins with shrouded. It gets hit with a cover ignoring weapon and negates the 4+ from the ruins and changes the cover save from a 2+ to a 5+. It reduces the durability significantly, while not entirely negating the cover mechanic for units that pay a lot of points for their cover boosts.

Which benefits MEQ the most as a result.