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.

Let's see... from the top:

Page 14 - Dangerous Terrain. 1 = Death. I mean... does it make sense from a realistic perspective? Imagine, for a second...

Kurlos - Abomination of the Abyss - had reigned the Tanulch Sector for close to 3 thousand years. Under his cruel dominion, the forces of the Imperium had been destroyed, and his lord and master, Khorne, had granted him the gift of Daemonhood.

Now, upon the blighted plains of Derrimos IV, among the twisted limb-trees of the Forest of Torture, the upstart Tau had decided to make their claim. Kurlos would have none of this, and the blue-skins' commander would come to know the taste of the Daemon Prince's mighty Daemon Blade before the day was out.

Carefully and purposefully Kurlos did choose his steps through the twisted bone-roots of the hideous daemonic trees. Many'a warrior had fallen afoul of the vengeful entities that inhabited this wood. No doubt the blood-bark would taste Tau flesh today just as surley as Kurlos would slay their leader.

His faithful Chosen not far behind him, Kurlos spied a small gathering of the bird-like Kroot ahead. A grim smike etched its way across Kurlos' face - first blood would be his today. Kurlos raised his shining crimson Daemon Blade into the air and bellowed a challenge - 'Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne! You alien wretches will feel the wrath of the God of Slaughter!'.

And he charged... but his foot caught on a small bone-root, and Kurlos - slayer of A'dros the Mighty, defiler of Teylos Prime, and high Blood-Prince of Khorne - fell down, dying instantly.

Elsewhere, in the Warp, Khorne looked displeased.
'All he had to do was roll a 2...'

No, sorry. It's the 'no armour save' bit that always gets me with that rule.

Ok, moving on...


Pages 15-26. The whole TLOS that isn't, stupid things like majority toughness/armour, etc. All bad. All irrevocably stupid. All needlessly complex.

Page 30. The need to scatter every blast marker. Uhh...

Page 40. Sweeping Advances.

Page 42. This is less an issue with Page 42, and more with the way GW writes rules (ie. in a vacuum + overbalancing perceived problems rather than real problems). Case in point - Power Fists. Great in 4th. Marines and Chaos could get 'em for 15 points on Vet Sergeants/Asp Champs. Maybe a little too powerful? Well, along comes Codex Bland Angels and makes 'em 25. Ok, I can live with that. It balances out their power vs Cost. Then 5th Ed comes above and further 'balances' them, letting them lose an attack if you don't have a second power fist. Wait... so now they're worse, and I'm also paying more for them? Did the guys re-writing the rules for Power Fists look at their changed price tag? Did the guys writing every Marine Codex since notice that they've become less powerful, so putting their price up is a dumb idea? Overbalancing and rules in a vacuum - all represented wonderfully by Page 42.

Page 44. 'No Retreat'. Fearless is meant to be a boon, not a burden. I hate this rule.

Page 48. IC's auto-joining units. What if I don't want to?????

Pages 56-73. Yes, the entire vehicle section. Vehicles have gotten worse and worse in every edition of the game since 2nd Ed. In 3rd they were bunkers, sitting in cover because Hull Down was all or nothing and moving meant you couldn't fire anyway, so what was the point. In 4th, they became glass hammers, with cover doing very little, but you could move and shoot. And then in 5th they've gone two steps backwards, made cover an all or nothing affair once more, removed the point of moving vehicles with lots of guns, and further simplified the damage chart (it's amazing how we've gone from Datafax Cards for each vehicle to a SINGLE table). It's even more amusing when you consider that everyone whines about how modifiers shouldn't be part of 40K whenever you mention them for shooting, yet the vehicle chart has modifiers and everyone's fine with that...

Page 75. The Feel No Pain revision from 4th to 5th. Talk about wordy. FNP does this... except if this happens or if this happens or if this happens or if this happens or if this or this or this happens, but only on Tuesdays, and only during a full moon, assuming it's June-September, on an odd-numbered year, in the right hemisphere, and then only if your opponent's name is either Steve or Gonzavio. It worked before - why feth with it?

Page 80. You get +1 damage to a building when someone is standing on its roof because... because... uhh... because... because of arbitrary!

Page 91. Kill Points. I don't think I need to elaborate here.

Page 95. Deep Strike Mishap table. Yay. Thank you for adding yet another step in the Deep Strike process. How hard is it to say "Units that scatter onto either enemy or friendly models are moved the shortest possible distance and placed as normal. Units moved in this manner may do nothing until their next turn except defend themselves in Close Combat." There. Done. No tables. No nothing. Fixed.

And then after that it's just pretty pictures, mini-photos and John Blanche scribble-art.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Let's see... from the top:

Page 14 - Dangerous Terrain. 1 = Death. I mean... does it make sense from a realistic perspective? Imagine, for a second...

(snip story)

No, sorry. It's the 'no armour save' bit that always gets me with that rule.

Your anecdote seems to be using the dangerous terrain rules to apply to loose rubble. Why? Take the same story but have your plucky Chaos dude rushing over a lava field or through a burning, ruined building, and it the rule becomes a lot more clear.

Adding the armour save would make the rule worthless by the way - risk the perils of running over this lava flow, there's a one in six chance of death. No wait, sorry, forgot about the HBMC rules change, there's a one in sixth chance of having to roll an armour save, so there's a one in eighteen chance of your Chaos warrior taking a wound. Now you've got two rolls with a very low chance of doing anything, might as well just take dangerous terrain out of the game.

Page 30. The need to scatter every blast marker. Uhh...

As far as slowing the game down the rule has nothing on running, but you still make a fair point. It's a rule that belongs in a game with a high level of simulation detail, which 40K seems mostly to be trying to avoid. The issue isn't scattering blast markers, it's the weird mix 40K has between completely abstract and highly simulationist rules.

Page 42. This is less an issue with Page 42, and more with the way GW writes rules (ie. in a vacuum + overbalancing perceived problems rather than real problems). Case in point - Power Fists. Great in 4th. Marines and Chaos could get 'em for 15 points on Vet Sergeants/Asp Champs. Maybe a little too powerful? Well, along comes Codex Bland Angels and makes 'em 25. Ok, I can live with that. It balances out their power vs Cost. Then 5th Ed comes above and further 'balances' them, letting them lose an attack if you don't have a second power fist. Wait... so now they're worse, and I'm also paying more for them? Did the guys re-writing the rules for Power Fists look at their changed price tag? Did the guys writing every Marine Codex since notice that they've become less powerful, so putting their price up is a dumb idea? Overbalancing and rules in a vacuum - all represented wonderfully by Page 42.

Which would be damning indeed, if the powerfists weren't still decent value - which can be noted as they're still taken in large numbers. And they also give powerswords a look in, so they aren't simply the cheaper, crappier option that people take for fluff reasons.

We're actually at a point (finally) where powerfists are taken because the player has a plan for their use, not just because everyone gets one.

Page 44. 'No Retreat'. Fearless is meant to be a boon, not a burden. I hate this rule.

Agreed.

Page 48. IC's auto-joining units. What if I don't want to?????

Then keep your distance.

Pages 56-73. Yes, the entire vehicle section. Vehicles have gotten worse and worse in every edition of the game since 2nd Ed. In 3rd they were bunkers, sitting in cover because Hull Down was all or nothing and moving meant you couldn't fire anyway, so what was the point. In 4th, they became glass hammers, with cover doing very little, but you could move and shoot. And then in 5th they've gone two steps backwards, made cover an all or nothing affair once more, removed the point of moving vehicles with lots of guns, and further simplified the damage chart (it's amazing how we've gone from Datafax Cards for each vehicle to a SINGLE table). It's even more amusing when you consider that everyone whines about how modifiers shouldn't be part of 40K whenever you mention them for shooting, yet the vehicle chart has modifiers and everyone's fine with that...

It isn't amazing that they've moved from datafaxes with a multiple damage tables to a single damage table. That's part of the push to strip out the mess of detail that achieved nothing but slow the game down - and the only issue there has been GW's inability to follow through properly (why do we still have three rolls to determine if a shot kills someone? why are there four stats for melee combat?)

Page 75. The Feel No Pain revision from 4th to 5th. Talk about wordy. FNP does this... except if this happens or if this happens or if this happens or if this happens or if this or this or this happens, but only on Tuesdays, and only during a full moon, assuming it's June-September, on an odd-numbered year, in the right hemisphere, and then only if your opponent's name is either Steve or Gonzavio. It worked before - why feth with it?

It's a case of adding more detail and detracting from the game. It opened up an option for high strength, modest AP weapons, but then GW said AP1 and AP2 weapons stop FNP... so you can rely on the same AP2 weapons to beat FNP that you were using on high armour targets.

Page 80. You get +1 damage to a building when someone is standing on its roof because... because... uhh... because... because of arbitrary!

Because it's deemed open topped, as if it were a vehicle. I'm not sure it's a rule that's at all necessary, but it's hardly an issue.

Page 95. Deep Strike Mishap table. Yay. Thank you for adding yet another step in the Deep Strike process. How hard is it to say "Units that scatter onto either enemy or friendly models are moved the shortest possible distance and placed as normal. Units moved in this manner may do nothing until their next turn except defend themselves in Close Combat." There. Done. No tables. No nothing. Fixed.

So Deep Striking in crowded spaces shouldn't have any risk attached?

My least favourites:
Lash of Submission: Stupid, overpowered and irritating rule.
TLOS: That forest with the three trees on it is actually a representation of a massive tangled thicket. Which I should not be able to draw LOS through. I get into more arguments about TLOS than anything else. I'd much prefer it if area terrain blocked LOS like it used to- but then they'd probably have to do something to make CC less powerful, as that would bone shooting armies.

Also hate scattering every blast.

I always saw wound allocation as the balancing factor for MEQ armies, I used to get whole squads toasted per turn (by plasma or equivalent anti-meq weapons plus i hate transports so i suppose its my fault but I begrudge paying 15 quid for something as dull to build as a rhino) and with a low model count for marines it took its toll very quickly so now I can actually get assault marines and termis etc to combat without them being plasma'd to death and without having to spend hundreds on rhino's and razorbacks

Da Boss wrote:My least favourites:
Lash of Submission: Stupid, overpowered and irritating rule.
TLOS: That forest with the three trees on it is actually a representation of a massive tangled thicket. Which I should not be able to draw LOS through. I get into more arguments about TLOS than anything else. I'd much prefer it if area terrain blocked LOS like it used to- but then they'd probably have to do something to make CC less powerful, as that would bone shooting armies.

Also hate scattering every blast.

I agree on that one for sure. If you think about it, now every army has just as good a chance landing a blast marker shot, as the ORKS do. Congrats on all those years of hard, dedicated training, learning how to be a Space Marine, but uh... you have just as much a chance to get a direct hit as the Orks do


As far as my annoyance with the running rule. Im talking about rolling for run with 1 d6 on flat ground, vs rolling 2 d6 and picking the highest while trying to climb over and though blown up buildings. How the hell does that make sence? You get a better chance for a higher roll with moving through difficult terrain then you do for your run roll. That just baffles me

That gun drones from vehicles count for an extra Kill point even if I don't disembark them.

No Retreat has always been there, however people didnt care about it in 4th as, at most, you could take 5 wounds from it (4:1 outnumber, under 50%) which never happened to nids (30 gaunts dont get outnumbered very often) or Orks.

Now they have made combat more brutal. And you dont think Fearless is still a abenefit? OK, i;'ll let you not take NR! wounds if I can SA you after you take you Ld2 test. Happy now?

Kill Points - been there, had that argument. Can peeople answer this: how else do you balance objective missions, which reward MSU troops? VPs certainly DO NOT balance objectives.

Vehicles - sorry, how are they *more* vulnerable in 5th than they were in 4th? Er, no. They cannot get glancing 6'd to death any longer. WHy else are necron players whining?!

Lash isnt overpowered - as youre in a vehicle. right?

Powerfists are now a decent buy but not an OBVIOUS no brainer. Or, in other words *balanced* against power swords. Sorry, your argument is bunk there.

TLOS *is* there, with some abstraction for area terrain. Sorry, you cant have one tree and hide a LR behind it.

KingCracker wrote:

Da Boss wrote:My least favourites:
Lash of Submission: Stupid, overpowered and irritating rule.
TLOS: That forest with the three trees on it is actually a representation of a massive tangled thicket. Which I should not be able to draw LOS through. I get into more arguments about TLOS than anything else. I'd much prefer it if area terrain blocked LOS like it used to- but then they'd probably have to do something to make CC less powerful, as that would bone shooting armies.

Also hate scattering every blast.

I agree on that one for sure. If you think about it, now every army has just as good a chance landing a blast marker shot, as the ORKS do. Congrats on all those years of hard, dedicated training, learning how to be a Space Marine, but uh... you have just as much a chance to get a direct hit as the Orks do


As far as my annoyance with the running rule. Im talking about rolling for run with 1 d6 on flat ground, vs rolling 2 d6 and picking the highest while trying to climb over and though blown up buildings. How the hell does that make sence? You get a better chance for a higher roll with moving through difficult terrain then you do for your run roll. That just baffles me

Going over difficult terrain + running: 2d6(pick the highest) + 1d6 = a chance of moving anywhere from 2-12" a turn
Moving + running: 6" + 1d6 = anywhere from 7-12" a turn.

It IS faster, or rather has a higher chance of being faster. Makes perfect sense to me, anyway.

As for scattering blast templates, I actually rather like that rule, though that may be bacause my usual enemies are Tyranids, Imperial Guard, Orks, and (the oddball) Space Marines. I actually used to complain about my missle magically disappears and misses the sea of enemies, just because it didnt hit that unit.

KingCracker wrote:As far as my annoyance with the running rule. Im talking about rolling for run with 1 d6 on flat ground, vs rolling 2 d6 and picking the highest while trying to climb over and though blown up buildings. How the hell does that make sence? You get a better chance for a higher roll with moving through difficult terrain then you do for your run roll. That just baffles me

You don't move or run. You move then if you choose to you can run. So you compare moving over open ground to moving over land (auto 6" move vs 2D6 pick highest). And then you compare running over open ground to running over difficult ground (both 1D6).

Hi all.
The 40k rules go down hill from pg 3 onwards,(IMO) by pg 56 they have become irevocably over complicated for the simple game play of 40k...
This is because the rules are written in a restrictive way ,definening things in an exclusive NOT inclusive way.

40k rules fail because they ....do NOT define characteraistics to corolate directly with in game effects.
40k game play SHOULD be an even ballance of mobility, ranged attacks and close combat attacks.(IMPO)

The characteristic profile has NO value for movement, ONE value for ranged attacks, and FOUR values specificaly for close combat attacks.
(This sort of imballance works against the development of the game IMO.)

The abstract nature of the development means anything can be explained away no mater how appauling the 'WTF' moments in gameplay.
Most gamers prefer intuitive well defined rules.(Some gamers just like arguing interpritations of poorly defined rules, it takes all sorts.)
The easiest way to get complex interactions to be intuitive is to base the game play on known events,so the players can use a real world experiance to instinctivley follow in game events.(All GW best games follow this example.)

Unfortunatley 40k is developed to inspire short minature sales, not long term game play, hence the miriad of dumb rules.
Including ,
Unit types, (too many at 12, should be reduced to 3. ),

Characteristics,( not focused on the game play of 40k, but on the game play of WHFB.)

Game turn mechanic,(Army level IGO UGO Napoleonic game turn, not suited to 40k units and interaction.)

Movement, explained -defined exclusivley( over 10pgs)not inclusivley (4 pages.)

Shooting,confuses concealment with physical protection, list weapon abilities for infantry specific use, counter intuitive structure to wound allocation,fails to define in game effects acuratley etc...

Assaults, disproportionate amount of focus on this aspect of the game IMO, could have better defined results if focus shifted to the unit level maybe?

Moral , totaly undermined by special rules to accomodate massive casualties from ranged attacks on the way into close assault .... Rather than put something right they just broke something else to a similar extent.(Yay, balance )

Characters, generaly 2 dimentional close combat monsters.....rather than interesting leaders that improve a forces performance in a miriad of ways.

Vehicles, totaly unecisary seperate rules set .

Universal Special Rules, unecisary rules to try and fix the poorly concieved and implemented basic rules.

Currently 40k has more exeptions than rules, this is not good ...

TTFN
Lanrak.

Rules I hate?

Kill Points - Some armies benefit more some than others on this one.

TLOS - Does nothing but cause arguements on can they see or not see.

Wound Allocation - If the Heavy bolter dies, then someone else picks it up. Plus you are now able to take less auto-deaths from low AP weapon than before.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vehicles - sorry, how are they *more* vulnerable in 5th than they were in 4th? Er, no. They cannot get glancing 6'd to death any longer. WHy else are necron players whining?!

Yes they can, you just have to destroy all their weapons and then get another weapon destroyed roll or two immobilized rolls. It's less likely to happen now but it's still possible especially with how many shots necrons get. As an example, in one volley of fire from a 20 man squad of crons (rapid firing) against my buddies black templar dreadnought I destroyed all three weapons and immobilized it. Whiney necron players are just not playing them well I bet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dpredator666 wrote:nerco has many stupid rules. they are not fearless and can sweep out if they lose close combat. and the phase out rule....

i also do not understand, firing through one unit can give another unit CSV.

and IG has some crazy rules i can not think of now.

I thought the same thing too but I would rather have the rule (can't remember what it is called) where you can still run from CC but you auto-regroup and can go back to normal fighting with no sweeping advance allowed (as per black templars). Doesn't make sense to me how humans are more fearless than machines with no emotions at all (except the pariahs which are wasted points anyway).

*edit*
One rule I do hate though is that only troop choices can capture objectives.

Kevin *please* read posts more closely: I said they cannot get glancing 6'd to death any longer, i.e. 1 "6" wont kill the vehicle, unles it is AP1 or open topped. Which is why Necron players complain, as their odds of killing a vehicle in 1 volley is now very unlikely.

Again, people who "hate" kill points dont seem to come up with another system that BALANCED objective games where MSU troops choices are the no brainer option. Again, VPs DO. NOT. BALANCE. objectives.

Exhaust Cloud Cover Save - I mean c'mon, you get a 4+ Cover Save for a cloud thats BEHIND you, I play bikez and even I think its stupid. If anything the shape of the cloud would be pointing directly TO the orks.

pixxpixx wrote:Exhaust Cloud Cover Save - I mean c'mon, you get a 4+ Cover Save for a cloud thats BEHIND you, I play bikez and even I think its stupid. If anything the shape of the cloud would be pointing directly TO the orks.

lol same here. and i am a SM player, sometime i think if i can intentionally destory my bike's exhaust casing? so that i can benefit from 4+CSV for all time. since get the gas cloud behind you is a good thing.

Wound allocation really ticks me off. The main reason is because this once happened in a game of Nids vs. Grey Knights (Two players running Grey Knights vs. one player running Nids).

Genestealers emerge from the correct board edge on Outflanking and charge into a GKT squad. After the barrage of attacks, the GKs are left with 6 rending wounds and a handful of regulars. All six rends end up on one Grey Knight, while the other GKTs take about 5 saves each. And of that, only two died because of the 2+ armor save. How on earth does that happen? Was one stealer gifted with incredible power-claws?

Oh, and I also don't like the rules for cover saves in the matter that if you shoot at a unit that's behind another enemy unit, a passed save means that the shot just fizzled into midair. Why can't the shot resolve as a hit against the other squad? I can understand holding back if you're aiming through your own models, but honestly, your units aren't going to care if the shot misses the targeted squad and ends up killing someone from a different squad instead. On that note, I also think it's kind of silly that you can't place blasts or templates in a way that they would remotely touch your own units - with infantry, it's alright, but what about vehicles? That half power shot is going to do nothing against the front armor of a vehicle. And the odds of it scattering directly onto the vehicle are fairly remote. (Don't know any exact numbers, but I have seen a shot scatter onto an friendly vehicle once.)

One last point: as sebster pointed out, they call it dangerous terrain for a reason. If you haven't noticed, you don't take dangerous terrain tests for normal, foot-sloughing infantry if you walk through a forest. Yes, Jump/Jet Infantry, skimmers, and bikes have to, but that's also because there's always that off chance that the machinery propelling them will send them into a tree at 60 miles an hour. If you don't like the dangerous terrain rules, stay away from it, or have units that aren't concerned with taking the wound or becoming immobilized do it. Unless you play games over an active volcano where every step could mean tumbling into the lava, there should be no real need to risk it.

And dangerous terrain is SO powerful in ALL instances that it ignores ALL forms of armour, does it?

No. That's silly and far, far, far too simplistic.

Kill Points.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kevin *please* read posts more closely: I said they cannot get glancing 6'd to death any longer, i.e. 1 "6" wont kill the vehicle, unles it is AP1 or open topped. Which is why Necron players complain, as their odds of killing a vehicle in 1 volley is now very unlikely.

Again, people who "hate" kill points dont seem to come up with another system that BALANCED objective games where MSU troops choices are the no brainer option. Again, VPs DO. NOT. BALANCE. objectives.

Suppose I misunderstand your terminology. But really, if necron players are complaining that they can't kill a vehicle in one volley are just whining (and yes, I'm a necron player obviously). The fact that pretty much everything can glance a vehicle should more than make up for that but I suppose everyone wants to have the unbeatable army.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And dangerous terrain is SO powerful in ALL instances that it ignores ALL forms of armour, does it?

No. That's silly and far, far, far too simplistic.

See, if you had said that in the first place, I would have agreed with you. Instead, you just seemed to whine about how even the most dangerous terrain denies armor saves. Maybe I misread what you posted, but that's what I read it as (Your initial post).

While I agree that the system is way too simplistic, I think it might get too convoluted if the RAW try to interpret the AP value of terrain. Sure, there are basic ones that are obvious to use (Lava pits, acid or venom pits) but anything beyond that and we're back to the TableHammer 40k that previous editions seemed to use. Simply saying that dangerous terrain ignores armor is a way to speed up the game, along the same lines of dropping the number of deployments/missions to 3 each, making a single table for Vehicle Damage, and dropping all the cover rules of 4th Edition for TLOS. Is it right? No, it's way too simplistic for what it is. Does it speed up gameplay, which seems to be the motto of 5th Edition? Yes, it does.

That being said, I still think dangerous terrain is too uncommon to get worked up about. In my experience, I have seen precisely one piece of terrain that was designed to be dangerous - an acid pit that the owner of the FLGS made, and uses in all his games. Never have I actually seen it claim a casualty, since most players wouldn't take the risk of charging over it.

Oh, I did just think of a rule that I think is ridiculous. The -1 LD penalty for every wound you lose by in CC. Absolutely ludicrous and unnecessary and frustrating. Honestly my friend and I usually play without that rule (we make just a -1 for losing CC) because we both hate that rule, and he plays BT.

pixxpixx wrote:Exhaust Cloud Cover Save - I mean c'mon, you get a 4+ Cover Save for a cloud thats BEHIND you, I play bikez and even I think its stupid. If anything the shape of the cloud would be pointing directly TO the orks.

I have no idea how you're picturing how this works, but you're doing it wrong. Unless you think orks always ride in a neat line abreast,most of a unit is going to be obscured in the cloud behind the lead bikes.

Kevin949 wrote:Oh, I did just think of a rule that I think is ridiculous. The -1 LD penalty for every wound you lose by in CC. Absolutely ludicrous and unnecessary and frustrating. Honestly my friend and I usually play without that rule (we make just a -1 for losing CC) because we both hate that rule, and he plays BT.

It's to make combat more brutal and fast. Combat in 4th ed was often protracted, lasting until one side was wiped out, as the maximum penalty (and highly unlikely one!) was -5. Mostly it was -1, which even Ld7 guard had a good chance of passing.

this at least makes -3+ penalties more likely, making combats a lot quicker (as you now actually break troops, whcih is the point of differing Ld values....) and helping the game to flow better.

This is exactly how it works in fantasy, and is a far superior system to the old out numbering system.

Bookwrack wrote:

pixxpixx wrote:Exhaust Cloud Cover Save - I mean c'mon, you get a 4+ Cover Save for a cloud thats BEHIND you, I play bikez and even I think its stupid. If anything the shape of the cloud would be pointing directly TO the orks.

I have no idea how you're picturing how this works, but you're doing it wrong. Unless you think orks always ride in a neat line abreast,most of a unit is going to be obscured in the cloud behind the lead bikes.

Your forgeting that orks arent going in a straight line. Heck, they probally go backwards half the time for the fun of it.

To those people:

Lord of Worms wrote:Kill Points.

jbunny wrote:Kill Points - Some armies benefit more some than others on this one.

This is the answer:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, people who "hate" kill points dont seem to come up with another system that BALANCED objective games where MSU troops choices are the no brainer option. Again, VPs DO. NOT. BALANCE. objectives.

Seriously. Having more KPs reward you in 2 out of 3 scenarios! Again 2 out of 3. Why is it unbalanced to have only disadvantage in 1 (ONE) out of three?
Should they have it easier in 2 and not harder in 1?


If there is some rules I find stupid it's that the Orks have the best technological weapons of all. KFF, Deffrolla, Exhaust Cloud, 14AV? Sure d6 S10 hits after 1" Ram. Some strange field that grants area cover. Armour compared to super tough Land Rider. Why all the powerful and technologically advanced species don't put some pointy sharp crap on their vehicles? It's sooo much more powerful.
I know how Ork technology works but come on..

Well actually, the Deff Rolla question has already been answered.... by the main rulebook. Basically you can't Tank Shock a vehicle so it just doesn't work. But here is neither the place or the time.

I do agree; why do Orks have superior (or at least in many cases equal) technology to most of the other races? Kustom Force Fields topping the list. I can understand weapons like the Shock Attack Gun, which is unpredictable and silly, by Zzap! Guns can be more powerful than Lascannons (though I rarely see them), Mekks equal to or greater than Terminators, Killa Kans are nasty death machines akin to Dreadnoughts, and ramshackle vehicles with AV14?!

On the subject of Kill Points: Good idea, poor execution. Yeah, they only apply one out of three times, but that's actually quite often! So when you're making a competitive list for a competition, you can't NOT take that into account and have to immediately discount dozens of possible army configurations. However, I think the idea is valuable. Small "suicide" units have been a fluff bane in 40k, generally used by, imaginative, but poor gamers. Kill Points pretty much put a stop to that. The problem? Well, it just really hurts several armies that don't need to be further restricted or punished for their play style. Imperial Guard and Tau being the main two.

The deffrolla is a huge steam roller with spikes pushed by a huge battle wagon, so i expect it to do a lot of damage. also its not high tech, its just huge and heavy. the battle wagon gets 14 AV because its made ork so its full of scrap thrown on and its side and rear are 12 AV and 10 AV, so not like a land rader.

maxpower3579 wrote:The deffrolla is a huge steam roller with spikes pushed by a huge battle wagon, so i expect it to do a lot of damage. also its not high tech, its just huge and heavy.

Why would it do a lot of damage. Seriously. I could see it maybe doing some superficial damage to a Rhino or something, but it's not going to scuff a Land Raider or Russ. Besides, the rules don't allow it, so nothing to worry about.

Wait, NO! I'm not going to keep this going. OFF TOPIC!!!

Skinnattittar wrote:

maxpower3579 wrote:The deffrolla is a huge steam roller with spikes pushed by a huge battle wagon, so i expect it to do a lot of damage. also its not high tech, its just huge and heavy.

Why would it do a lot of damage. Seriously. I could see it maybe doing some superficial damage to a Rhino or something, but it's not going to scuff a Land Raider or Russ. Besides, the rules don't allow it, so nothing to worry about.

Wait, NO! I'm not going to keep this going. OFF TOPIC!!!

A selective reading of the rules (which has been FAQed against) doesn't allow it. A basic understanding of hyponymy does.

Locclo wrote:While I agree that the system is way too simplistic, I think it might get too convoluted if the RAW try to interpret the AP value of terrain.

Why not "If you roll a 1, take an armour save or suffer a single wound". There. Problem solved. Then the more dangerous the terrain, the more D6's you roll.