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.

 Lobukia wrote:
I really wish you could assault out of a vehicle if it hadn't moved yet that turn.

I'd like charge distances to be initiative (max 6) +d6

Marker lights should be assault weapons

Furious charge should still add +1 Init

BTW, I almost always choose to go last. I've regretted gong first, but never going last. What are you guys doing that going second is crippling you so?

I fight tau, mechdar, IG, necrons, space wolves. I generally fight against armies that make me regret going first.

stupid rules? someone using look out sir to negate a prescision fire shot

For me, already listed:

No assaulting from a stationary rhino

Unlimited LoS rolls

Hull point and vehicle damage mechanics. My 250 point, $75 US LR's never really get used anymore....

Not listed:

Jink given to vehicles that only move .0000001".

6th ed, theres really only 2 rules that i think are absolutely stupid.

1) Charging from reserves. I can understand for deepstrike since with the exception of Jump/Jetpack units theyre teleporting in and are probably a little disorientated or dont know exactly whats around them. But outflanking units should be allowed to charge since Overwatch and Interceptor is around and usually a big deal. Too many units became useless across the entire game when you could no longer charge from reserves (or infiltrate/scout).

2) Challenges.
Utter ridiculousness. All this does is make melee beasts stronger because the "autoattacking" character like a PK nob cannot possibly beat him in a challenge. I mean, even the idea is dumb. Wheres the glory in destroying an enemy captain instead of clearing out his platoon? A leader is soon replaced, a platoon is not.
Not to mention its not even close to balanced. You can usually assume exactly whats going to happen before the challenge happens. Challenges should be removed, or the character that lost is still able to perform 1 attack since they "clashed" in battle and the other was just faster. Being able to just remove enemy characters by default is slowed.

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
I wish they would return movement values. Space Marines of all varients, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons, SOB, Tau, Chaos and their demons. All of their infantry move Six inches. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Make units with a high initiative actually MOVE faster. Oh sure they have fleet, but having the base move be higher based upon your army would be interesting and add a lot to the game.

As long as no one makes initiative potato units move too much less. That would make me sad.

Also, on the topic of getting blasted first turn, some systems for fire reactions, like return fire at -1 bs or take cover by going to ground for the duration of your opponent's turn, movement in your turn being 1d6. Space marines are super humans, Tau go through years of military training before they are even deployed, eldar are older than... hell I don't know, but the only race I can see just taking fire are 'crons, everyone else should have the brains and initiative to do something

 migs6357 wrote:
Only being able to take 1 armour save or 1 invulnerable save or 1 cover save. Would the bullet not go through the wall, then go on to the shields, and if it manages to get through both, would the armour not stop the projectile travelling at a snails pace?!

To be fair, this would make it damn near impossible to kill some things through shooting, as well as increase the number of rolls needing to be made. Imagine trying to kill something like Lysander in Reinforced Ruins, 2+ armor, 3+ cover, 3+ invul, 4 wounds and Eternal Warrior, you'd need 216 wounds on average to kill him (or 648 BS4 bolter shots) if they didn't ignore cover/armor.

gealgain wrote:
stupid rules? someone using look out sir to negate a prescision fire shot

Yeah, because no one in history has ever been saved by a bodyguard moving them out of the way of a sniper's bullet and taking the shot for them. Even worse, no one in literature or film has ever used this idea in one of their stories. It is just completely unprecedented.

Assault rules that make you want to win in your opponents turn and not in your own. Counter-intuitive, 'gamey' and all round silly.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 migs6357 wrote:
Only being able to take 1 armour save or 1 invulnerable save or 1 cover save. Would the bullet not go through the wall, then go on to the shields, and if it manages to get through both, would the armour not stop the projectile travelling at a snails pace?!

To be fair, this would make it damn near impossible to kill some things through shooting, as well as increase the number of rolls needing to be made. Imagine trying to kill something like Lysander in Reinforced Ruins, 2+ armor, 3+ cover, 3+ invul, 4 wounds and Eternal Warrior, you'd need 216 wounds on average to kill him (or 648 BS4 bolter shots) if they didn't ignore cover/armor.

what if he goes to ground?

shouldnt one of the greatest warriors with the BEST defensive armor and shields in the BEST possible type of cover be nearly unkillable in shooting?

 Exergy wrote:
shouldnt one of the greatest warriors with the BEST defensive armor and shields in the BEST possible type of cover be nearly unkillable in shooting?

Yep, and each space marine should be worth 500 points of enemy troops, etc so on.

We let some things pass so that we can have a fun game that doesn't take 3 hours per shooting phase though.

That'd be terrible to allow every save available. Riptide hiding in ruins and getting 2+ armor, 3+ invul, 4+ cover, and then 5+ FNP if all those failed on a T6 W5 model. All it needs is It Will Not Die to try and see if the game can last forever.

The joke that Vindicator needs a DIRECT line of sight to the target, regardless the fact that it fires INDIRECTLY. The poor short-ranged building cleaner bugger is half-useless in 6th Ed, considering how many times it has a chance to fire, AND how much enemy fire it attracts across the table.

 Tigramans wrote:
The joke that Vindicator needs a DIRECT line of sight to the target, regardless the fact that it fires INDIRECTLY. The poor short-ranged building cleaner bugger is half-useless in 6th Ed, considering how many times it has a chance to fire, AND how much enemy fire it attracts across the table.

A vindicator doesn't fire indirectly. It is a direct fire artillery weapon. Similar to large cannons from the greater part of history. It is, in fact, the epitome of direct fire artillery in 40k. The thing is locked into a direct firing arc and I don't think that model could be represented to fire indirectly.

It's very much in fact based off the Sturmtiger, the gun and mount are practically identical, and that was a direct-fire assault gun.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's very much in fact based off the Sturmtiger, the gun and mount are practically identical, and that was a direct-fire assault gun.

This thread should be 'Worst misunderstandings of rules in 40k'.

Sweeping advance doesn't mean that the unit that got swept is summarily massacred. It just means they're routed.

Anyways, the worst rules for me are the ones that have double standards.

For example, vector strike is one of my most loathed rules. You can't assault a flier, but a flier can do close combat damage to you? In the movement phase? What?

Also, if a flier is moving directly towards a unit, the flier hits the ground unit at full BS (or +1 with strafing), but that same ground unit hits the flier at BS1? It should be equally difficult for the two units to hit each other in this case. The whole snap fire against fliers thing would make a lot more sense if it only happened when you were firing into its side arc, as it would actually be more difficult to hit then.

Also, we have pre-measuring and set-distance movement. Shooting attacks have a set-distance range. Assault has a random assault range. That's a terrible rules discrepancy that is as imbalanced as it is senseless.

Otherwise, the worst rule would have to be first blood. The fact that there are secondary objectives greatly dilutes the importance of primaries, which means that it's plenty possible to win by secondaries. And how do you best win on secondaries? First blood. So, what GW was thinking was that alpha-strike armies and gunlines needed to be BETTER. So stupid.

While 6th ed did, in fact, fix several unintuitive rules (like now a model can't fire a heavy weapon if it moved, rather than anyone in the squad moved), but there's still more cleaning up they could do.

And while few of the rules that nerf assault are, in themselves, stupid, I'd agree that it definitely could use a rebalancing.

 Ailaros wrote:

Also, we have pre-measuring and set-distance movement. Shooting attacks have a set-distance range. Assault has a random assault range. That's a terrible rules discrepancy that is as imbalanced as it is senseless.

fair points on all the rest, but I had a thought on this one. the standard movement rules are supposed to represent the models taking their time to traverse the terrain. Assault and run moves represent a model moving at a faster pace and taking less care and therefore more prone to slipping or stumbling or otherwise getting done in by the terrain. Perhaps the weird thing is that flat out and turbo-boosting moves are not random?

I guess it might have been more pleasing/intuitive to have a 6+D6 assault range rather than a flat 2D6.

On the other hand maybe CC should be harder? It is certainly the more decisive method of taking out enemy troops compared to shooting. In Stargrunt the unit that wants to charge into combat has to take a terror test becasue its an inherently scary thing to do

Just some random musing

 pretre wrote:

A vindicator doesn't fire indirectly. It is a direct fire artillery weapon. Similar to large cannons from the greater part of history. It is, in fact, the epitome of direct fire artillery in 40k.

I've always imagined that the Vindicator would fire in an arc, like a heavy mortar. Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't it a mobile artillery instead of a tank? Like Sturmtiger.

 pretre wrote:
The thing is locked into a direct firing arc and I don't think that model could be represented to fire indirectly.

Barrage special rule - problem solved. That'd make Vindicator actually a decent pick, if it would have that.

First Blood.

It's like a bonus point to whoever goes first because all you need to do is pop a weak transport.

 Ugavine wrote:
First Blood.

It's like a bonus point to whoever goes first because all you need to do is pop a weak transport.

I COMPLETELY concur with this one. We usually play without First Blood. Many times the games have been more fair.

 Tigramans wrote:

 pretre wrote:

A vindicator doesn't fire indirectly. It is a direct fire artillery weapon. Similar to large cannons from the greater part of history. It is, in fact, the epitome of direct fire artillery in 40k.

I've always imagined that the Vindicator would fire in an arc, like a heavy mortar. Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't it a mobile artillery instead of a tank? Like Sturmtiger.

The Sturmtiger didn't really fire indirectly, it needed LoS to its target. it was basically a rocket assisted snub-barreled field howitzer that was driven up relatively close to its target and engaged over open sights.

Worst Rule ever!

Fortifications go down BEFORE terrain.......

pure sillyness

Well, it's not that it's impossible to think of a reason why assault ranges could be random. I mean, if it were the other way around, where assault had a set distance and shooting range was determined randomly, you could come up with reasons justifying that as well.

Having either of them being random is dumb, but having but having one be random and one being not random is just a terrible rule.

Pulling it back to first principles, though, the whole game is random as it falls to random number generators to determine outcomes. Random charge distances are almost a save against getting charged in the same way that cover gives you a save against pretty much all shooting. Its just couched in a different way. The challenge for the player is to ensure that success or failure doesn't rely on a single dice roll. Or alternatively have funliving on the edge of risky maneuvers and danger close

You get armor and invul saves against both shooting and close combat. The only difference is cover saves, which there are guns that ignore them sometimes.

Moreover, the comparison isn't the same. A cover save lets you know how much damage you do, while failed range means you don't do any damage at all.

True Line of Sight, which turns any dynamically posed model into a "modeling for advantage" argument.

SJ

Been mentioned before:

Precision shots being look out sir'd. Whats the point in being lucky enough to get a 6, choosing a target, then they just get a 2+ to say 'lolnope'

Challenges should never have been put in the game. So many times an entire squad locked in combat unable to do anything while the leaders derp around failing to hurt eachother. Or being challenged or having to challenge myself, and losing a majority of my attacks that would have wiped out the squad easily.

But what I dont get is this:

Shooting a dreadnought from behind, you shoot its rear armour, right?
Charging it, it can turn around and overwatch you, and then fight you in close combat with its front armour only being attackable.

Wut? Why did you not turn around before when you were being shot at? Gotta wait for someone to yell at you for you to pay attention, dread?

 Tigramans wrote:

 pretre wrote:

A vindicator doesn't fire indirectly. It is a direct fire artillery weapon. Similar to large cannons from the greater part of history. It is, in fact, the epitome of direct fire artillery in 40k.

I've always imagined that the Vindicator would fire in an arc, like a heavy mortar. Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't it a mobile artillery instead of a tank? Like Sturmtiger.

 pretre wrote:
The thing is locked into a direct firing arc and I don't think that model could be represented to fire indirectly.

Barrage special rule - problem solved. That'd make Vindicator actually a decent pick, if it would have that.

It's an Assault Gun. It's purpose is to support infantry by annihilating Bunkers and other fixed defensive positions with direct fire HE. While it may be possible to indirect fire with them, it's certainly not what they were designed to do. If you want to make Vindicators better, a rule to enhance their ability to kill fortifications would be far more appropriate.

Is this just rules, or can I nominate the Burning Chariot of Tzeentch? Cool model, good weapons, but can't move and fire them. Other than D3 Snap Shots. . .

Other than that, I think Flyers/FMC should be able to hit other Flyers/FMC with Templates and Blast Markers. Just make it like different floors in a building. If it hits a flyer, it can't touch ground units. More of a rules wishing than worst rules.

I started multi-quoting when people made very good points. I ended up multi quoting about everyone who posted. GW needs to sit down and read many of these threads on dakka dakka and throughout the interwebs, its their job, they should not be doing half-assed with such a loyal fanbase.