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.

Hi dakka I was just wondering about what is your guys least favorite rule in warhammer 40k. Now let me clarify what this means. I do not mean griping about how you lost a battle because of some rule you didn't know or didn't read or something like that this is a strictly friendly thread and I'm trying to see if people out there agree that some rules GW comes up with don't make sense.

My least favorite rule is actually 2 rules.

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.

2. I don't like how hard it is now to destroy vehicles. Currently in 40K I think the metagame is definitely vehicles. Back in 4th Lascannons used to be very effective but now (at least with my roll's ) in 5th I find Lascannons to be very uneffective. It seems Meltaguns are the way to go but I miss the days of having a predator be able to reek havoc in my opponents army. (I however do not miss how overpowered Eldar were lol)

Anyway, let me get your guys opinions on any rules you don't like, or you find don't make sense, or even rules you miss from earlier additions.

+1 on the vehicle damage chart for AP1 weapons. It made the meltagun the obvious default weapon of choice and as such it is spammed everywhere. Also all most new weapons seem to be AP1 for no reason at all except for the bonus to the damage chart. Its stupid.

I much prefered back in 4th ed where an AP1 weapon turned a glancing hit to a penetrating hit. You actually saw different weapons other than melta guns on the table.

Second most hated rule is the run rule. I hates it I tell you. Now everyone has 4th ed fleet and 5th ed fleet has significantly reduced game effect. Because we all know that Eldar guardians really want to jump into combat. Its justa slap in the face for those who have it (old codexs) but never want to use it.

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

1. As primarily a Tau player I must disagree. I feel that in the present edition the CC vs. Ranged is mostly balanced.

2. Partially Agree. Although I can understand how there might be an issue with lascannons or lances, Railguns annihilate enemy vehicles, especially when tl on a broadside suit or with markerlights. Again though, most armies don't have S10 AP1 at Range 72", so I see how this could get annoying.

As for my own least favorite rule? Sweeping Advance in some extremes. Although I can understand some things (say, my fire warriors getting wiped out), why is it that 5 assault marines can cut down 30 orks? Maybe limit the number of kills in a sweeping advance to the number of attacks a squad gets (including bonuses for extra CC weapons but not for charging into close combat). It wouldn't effect most CC, but would prevent some unrealistic scenarios.

As a Guard player, I don't like how in CC, vehicles get hit on their rear armor. Doesn't mean that it is a bad rule or isn't balanced or anything. I still don't like it, though .

Jayden I totally agree with you that there is too much melta on the table its insane that its like the only thing you see now. Scuicide squads are almost a must have now for Space Marines and IG and even Orkz.

Blitza falling back does suck but it makes sense though because a unit would get disheartened to see his comrades slaughtered. (Now I am a mostly Space Marine player and my Guard rarely run, they just get wiped out lol, so I don't really know just how bad running can be )

Alphapod Railguns are amazing and I wish my Marines had something like that but I know one of my friends would disagree that CC vs. Ranged is mostly balanced. He actually thinks CC is still overpowered (to which I disagree), he plays Tau and he hates them. In one tournament he had Tyranids overun and wreck him.

I've always hated the turn sequence.

Nurglitch wrote:I've always hated the turn sequence.

This.

I have always hated(even knowing it is an abstraction) my army patiently waiting for the opponent to move, and shoot me and maybe launch an assault or 2 before i get to do the same to him.

The game would have more tactical options; along with being more realistic with a given turn being broken down like this:
First Player starts the Turn; begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
Second Player begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
First Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
Second Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
First Player makes assault moves
Second player makes assault moves
Close combat begins for each unit in Close combat.

This would also even up the other issue I have always had: There are twice as many assault Phases as there are Shooting phases(making Close combat actually more powerful than shooting, along with the ubiquitous cover).

I don't think there are any rules I hate... but there are a lot I feel could work better.

Major one for me is movement and squad coherency. Moving pieces is definitely one of the biggest time sinks in 40k, Especially with hoards. If you're playing against someone who is pedantic about measuring, or you have to be pedantic about it, because your opponent keeps cheating, then it can get really tiresome. I'm not going t derail the topic by suggesting ways to fix it. But I think it's a bit pointless to try and streamline the game (which GW has been doing) without seriously addressing movement.

Break tests could certainly be better. I frequently forget about them, my opponents frequently forget about them. And it's really irritating when you are already in the combat phase and someone notices that a squad took 25% casualties in shooting and we forget to take a break test...

Though my biggest gripe is with armour penetration. i don't see why someone couldn't sit down and think up one straight forward system for armour pen that covers both tank armour and infantry armour.

I'd like a better way of handling harming things under one system. Toughness/Save vs. AV is awkward.

sonsoftaurus wrote:I'd like a better way of handling harming things under one system. Toughness/Save vs. AV is awkward.

The point of doing so many checks is to balance out lucky rolls without taking away the chance to perform better, or worse, than average entirely.

I think my least favorite rule concerns the movement of vehicles and how many weapons they can fire. Combat tanks are simply immobile, and that defeats the whole point of putting guns on tracks.

Kommissar Kel said:

The game would have more tactical options; along with being more realistic with a given turn being broken down like this:
First Player starts the Turn; begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
Second Player begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
First Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
Second Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
First Player makes assault moves
Second player makes assault moves
Close combat begins for each unit in Close combat.

I totally agree with this I think the game would go much better given simultaneous turns and I agree that CC is very powerful due to the fact that there are twice as many rounds of it (perhaps thats why GW stopped the whole consolodate into combat thing).

As for vehicles I think we can all agree that Melta aside it is incredibly hard to kill vehicles. I've seen armies that are CC oriented WITH Melta-bombs and other anti-tank weapons get ripped apart because when they assaulted the vehicle they need insane rolls to hit and then their rolls failed to destroy the tank. I don't understand why GW can't do some sort of structure point system similar to vehicles in Apocolypse. They could do something like this,

If you glance you roll a dice and follow the normal rules for the damage chart.

But if you penetrate the vehicle you take away automatically 1 structure point and then roll a dice and add the normal damage chart affect as well, and if your opponent happens to roll a 6 then your vehicle is automatically destroyed (maybe the unit got a lucky shot) and then on a roll of a 5 maybe the vehicle loses yet another structure point.

That way instead of me firing my Lascannon penetrating and then rolling a 1 every freakin time at least I know I would be helping to wittle the vehicle down instead of just watching it buzz around (unless its a LR darn PotMS).

I think the rules for hitting moving vehicles in CC are completely slowed.
My absurdly high weapon skilled model can only hit the gigantic tank on a 6 with no modifiers? Yeah, nice one GW.

Kommissar Kel wrote:I have always hated(even knowing it is an abstraction) my army patiently waiting for the opponent to move, and shoot me and maybe launch an assault or 2 before i get to do the same to him.

The game would have more tactical options; along with being more realistic with a given turn being broken down like this:
First Player starts the Turn; begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
Second Player begins movement phase(reserves and all similar rules for that player happen now); tokens are used to denote who moved
First Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
Second Player begins shooting phase; tokens are used to denote who fired heavy or Rapid fire weapons, or ran(i.e. those units that cannot assault)
First Player makes assault moves
Second player makes assault moves
Close combat begins for each unit in Close combat.

This would also even up the other issue I have always had: There are twice as many assault Phases as there are Shooting phases(making Close combat actually more powerful than shooting, along with the ubiquitous cover).

Vaguely similar to 1st edition Epic. Place a counter by each unit for orders, charge, advance or overwatch. Do the charge moves, advance moves, overwatch fire, advance fire, close combat.

What annoys me is the concept that vehicles hit in cc turn 1 are autohit as they didn't move the previous turn because there wasn't one, even if they scout moved. Just how long were they parked there 100 feet from all those genestealers?

I hate that a vehicle that deepstrikes onto enemy (or friendly) models suffers a deep strike mishap-I'm pretty sure a land raider (I do play BA) that lands on my opponents unit of kroot will smoosh said kroot into little piles of gak...rather than blow up from falling on them. Seriously...the monolith has it right-push enemy troops out of the way-they scatter from a falling vehicle. Or count it as a tank shock. Or things like drop pod rules-but mishapping from falling on troops is complete gak. It should turn into a tank shock if hitting troops, or ramming if hitting another vehicle. Just my 2 cents on a great topic idea!

Arson Fire wrote:I think the rules for hitting moving vehicles in CC are completely slowed.
My absurdly high weapon skilled model can only hit the gigantic tank on a 6 with no modifiers? Yeah, nice one GW.

\

A gigantic tank Zooming by...

hard to hit a squishy spot with only 2 seconds to aim your attack and swing ;-)


I dont care for the your turn my turn thing.

should be i activate a unit, move, shoot, assault with it, then you activate a unit etc. till all units have moved that turn.

Hand's down. The rule if you close off a transport and it explodes the unit inside dies.

DarkHound wrote:

sonsoftaurus wrote:I'd like a better way of handling harming things under one system. Toughness/Save vs. AV is awkward.

The point of doing so many checks is to balance out lucky rolls without taking away the chance to perform better, or worse, than average entirely.

I think my least favorite rule concerns the movement of vehicles and how many weapons they can fire. Combat tanks are simply immobile, and that defeats the whole point of putting guns on tracks.

Seconded, why put buttloads of guns on your tank if you have to stay at the far end of the table to actually fire them?

Shadowbrand wrote:Hand's down. The rule if you close off a transport and it explodes the unit inside dies.

Wait what?

There is no rule like that, the only thing that happens is the unit gets a S4 hit...

(well, unless It is army specific...)

Oh God. With 5th Ed it's just too hard to pick one!

True LOS (that isn't).

Scatting every single blast market.

The vehicle rules, in toto.

Kill Points!

The Chaos Codex. All of it. Every single fething word.

It happens when a transport is entirely surrounded and then wrecked. Since the infantry cannot disembark because enemy models are in the way the entire squad is destroyed.

EDIT: H.B.M.C. is still kicking around? I haven't seen him post in ages.

Fearless wounds and Orks. I understand some sort of counterbalance is needed, but Orks are bloody screwed over by fearless wounds and are screwed without Fearless to keep them fighting.

If Mob Rule allowed the Ork player to re-roll the saves for Fearless wounds, it might not be so bad.

So you'd prefer fearless to running away and being SA'd on Init 2?

Ork KFF. I have enough problems killing vehicles at range without a bloody 4+ save....

I think consolidating into a new combat is a little over powered, for sure. A good CC unit could kill half an army. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if you could consolidate into a new assault, but not fight it until the next assault phase, but count as charging. Essentially, you could take cover in the assault during your opponents shooting phase.


In general, I like the 5th edition rules, though my least favorite is the single target shooting restriction. If I've got a lascannon in my Tac squad, why would that Marine waste his shot on the squad of traitor guardsmen his bolter armed buddies are gunning down when there's a perfectly threatening vehicle off to the side?

You should, as a general rule, be able to able to split shots between targets by wargear, ala Wound Allocation rules. i.e. In a standard Tactical Squad, the missle Launcher Marine can have one target, all the bolter marines can have could have a different target, the sergeant can have a different target, and the flamer marines can have a different target. It'd still be pretty unwise to spread fire too much. As a principle, you want to roll as many dice as you can.

Assault restrictions are also annoying. Why can we only assault what we shoot? I suppose it makes sense that your unit is too focused on the one enemy unit, but if you wipe it out with shooting, you should be able to assault a different target.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you'd prefer fearless to running away and being SA'd on Init 2?

How about they just rework combat resolution to something fair that doesn't go out of it's way to screw horde armies over while holding an 'I hate hoards!' sign, yelling into a microphone about how much hoards suck in 40k and signing it's autographs 'Hoard Hater'? Just purely counting number of wounds done with no other considerations and then arbitrarily screwing one side, hard, sideways, without lube and with fiberglass is just total bollocks. I know it's a shocking concept, and you should probably sit down before I hit you with this. You done? Ready? OK here it comes, brace yourself. Last chance to make sure you're ready. Hoard armies have a lot of wounds. BAM OMG ARE YOU OK I'M SORRY I THOUGHT YOU WERE READY.

Commander Endova wrote:I think consolidating into a new combat is a little over powered, for sure. A good CC unit could kill half an army. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if you could consolidate into a new assault, but not fight it until the next assault phase, but count as charging. Essentially, you could take cover in the assault during your opponents shooting phase.


In general, I like the 5th edition rules, though my least favorite is the single target shooting restriction. If I've got a lascannon in my Tac squad, why would that Marine waste his shot on the squad of traitor guardsmen his bolter armed buddies are gunning down when there's a perfectly threatening vehicle off to the side?

You should, as a general rule, be able to able to split shots between targets by wargear, ala Wound Allocation rules. i.e. In a standard Tactical Squad, the missle Launcher Marine can have one target, all the bolter marines can have could have a different target, the sergeant can have a different target, and the flamer marines can have a different target. It'd still be pretty unwise to spread fire too much. As a principle, you want to roll as many dice as you can.

Assault restrictions are also annoying. Why can we only assault what we shoot? I suppose it makes sense that your unit is too focused on the one enemy unit, but if you wipe it out with shooting, you should be able to assault a different target.

#

Oh yes, Definitely think we need to be able to split fire by weapon type, "Brother! use the squad's lascannon on the Traitor's Predator while we hold them off!" "No, the rules won't let me"

And yes why can't centuries old highly trained fighters concentrate on more than one thing at a time with regards to shooting & assaulting, Christ even I can multitask, right now I'm working and whingeing

And overwatch needs to come back...

I'd really like to streamline the turn sequence... I mean really games like Warmachine have it down, it feels really fluid. Also why can't we pick our targets? I don't even think it would be overpowered...

DarkHound wrote:EDIT: H.B.M.C. is still kicking around? I haven't seen him post in ages.

I'm part of the furniture man.

By far the one I hate the most is the Sweeping Advance rule, because if you think about it it just doesn't make any sense for half the armies out there. There is no reason for most of the armies raised in the Grimdark world to flee when they start losing a small fist-fight scuffle. Space Marines are battled hardened veterans of centuries of fighting so I highly doubt they're one to turn tale and get shot down while fleeing. Necrons don't fear death, they work for him, and it says they only retreat when tactically advantageous. Tyranids can just make more so they wouldn't care about being slaughtered in combat. Chaos Space Marines are generally so crazy they've lost a primal fear. The only armies who can logically be affected by sweeping advance, to me, would be the Tau and the Eldar. But even then Tau would stay for 'The Greater Good'.

I don't like how easy vehicles are to kill in CC, Kroot should not be able to harm a chimera ever, under any circumstances.

Disruption pods KFF and the like, its railroading all guard players into one style of play, and thats melta vets. I want big tank battles!