Rules that could be better.

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.

**Tactical_Genius**

Super Ready wrote:
pantsonhead wrote:
People have said this many times over the years, but saves work in deeply weird ways.

Back in 2nd ed, it worked very differently. Cover reduced your BS, so reduced your chance to hit to begin with. AP reduced your save rather than the yes/no mechanic we have now... and Invulnerable saves worked more or less the same, but weren't called Invulnerables yet and only came as special rules or wargear, so they were much less common.
Terminators still had a 3+... but on two dice. So they still had a chance to save against weapons as strong as even lascannons, which were a whopping -6 AP (enough to knock out anything else bar Invulnerables).

This made more sense - but trying to apply it to the sizes of armies we have now would just make things take way too long. You'd have to split wound pools according to each weapon and *then again* for mixed saves if it applied... a lot of the time you'd be taking saves individually. It was one of the biggest changes moving from 2nd to 3rd ed, and all things considered I'm kind of glad about it.

I started a thread a while ago in proposed rules talking about cover saves and how they make no sense at all

People got very angry

**Fafnir**

This entire book could be a lot better.

**Dragonzord**

Challenges are another thing that i hate.

Whats that? You've got an awesome hq that you charged into combat to kill a group of my dudes? Nah, my sergeant will challenge you, and if you say no, you sit in the back whimpering. Better waste that 250 points even more!

Now when given the option, i dont take any characters in a squad, just to ignore challenges.

**Experiment 626**

Dragonzord wrote:
Challenges are another thing that i hate.

Whats that? You've got an awesome hq that you charged into combat to kill a group of my dudes? Nah, my sergeant will challenge you, and if you say no, you sit in the back whimpering. Better waste that 250 points even more!

Now when given the option, i dont take any characters in a squad, just to ignore challenges.

Bring a Sergeant of your own. Laugh as your blender lord still gets to swing away...

Not seeing the issue here at all.

Seriously, the challenge rules are a nice little tarpit you use to catch silly people who think running a blender lord into your unit on their own is a smart move...