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.

Infantryman - this is to remove the frank stupidity of LOS and range sniping from 4th ed Hideous, hideous rule set 4th ed.

Right, there are some rules that make less sense when seen in the light of reality, but make more sense in terms of game mechanics. With a few exceptions, 5th ed cleaned up most of the stupidity and garbage of 4th ed (because SMF would be my answer to the least favorite rule question if it were posed a couple of years ago. Thanks for fixing that, GW).

I rather like drange and line of sight sniping. It gave the game a nice tactical edge. The new version expands the strategic possibilities though, so there's that.

Mind you, what's hilarious is the colour justification given for the new casualty selection vs the old, it's basically a complete flip-flop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler:

Actually, I think they'll integrate Hit and Run into the main rules in the next edition, much like how they integrated Running. There's been a number of universal special rules like Fleet that have have been re-cut to have their success depend on some characteristic of the model, and I think the plan is to integrate these slowly into the main rules over a slow progression rather than risk the backlash that happened in the switchover from 2nd to 3rd.

That damn stupid rule that skimmers that aren't tanks can't ram.

Any vehicles that is not a tank cannot ram. It's part of, you know, TANK shock....

nosferatu1001 wrote:HBMC - since you have failed to refute, I accept your concession.

What do you think this is, Space Battles?

The OP asked for our least favourite rule. A few of us said what our least favourite rules were. You don't agree with what a few of us have said, so have it stuck in your tiny little head that you must get all Internet Tough Guy on us and 'prove us wrong'.

My lack of reply is not a concession, it is simply me doing something I learnt a long time ago on this board when arguing with idiots like JHDD and FW - you cannot argue with a wall, because a wall cannot be moved. You can, however, walk away from the wall, because walls cannot follow you.

You are a wall.

I am walking away.

Good luck.

You sure showed him...

Oh feth off Nurglitch.

Great contributions as usual HBMC.

Speaking of least favourites, except on topic where the rules are concerned, Fearless was a rule that really got my goat in 3rd edition and 4th edition because it broke the Morale system. 5th edition really squared it well with No Retreat, and if anything it would be better to square Sweeping Advance with No Retreat than to retain the current Sweeping Advance rule (though I have a thread on it in the Proposed Rules wastes so I probably should be arguing for such a change here).

I tend to disagree, No Retreat! has two major problems as a form of combat resolution. The 'reality' of it is that it is much, much more harsh, by multiple orders of magnitude, in resolving against the horde armies that are out there and I feel that making it armor saves as opposed to some other form of 'punishment' is weighted very poorly as not everyone runs around with a 3+ save on their standard troops.

Horde armies by definition are going to have a whole lot of dudes to throw into the meat grinder and, by their very nature, already accept that they will have lots and lots of losses for every action. It's sort of why they're horde armies. Punishing them twice for designing the codex that way is just uncool.

That being said I'm willing to entertain debate on the previous two points. Forum, opinion, discussion etc. etc. The absolutely despicable rule that I will never, ever even begin to allow an sort of excuse for existence is No Retreat! wounds and multiple assaults. That combination is just complete and utter bollocks that needs fixed.

It beats the 'All or nothing' of Sweeping Advance, from a design point of view, and it really beats the 'Automatic All' that Fearless used to convey.

While I might agree that forcing each unit to suffer the loss suffered by every unit in combat, this is actually a good thing from a game perspective. It used to be that shoving Fearless units into combat was a no-brainer, especially against units that could beat the piss out of them. There was no reason not to throw a couple of Termagants into combat with a Tactical Squad being assaulted by a Carnifex. The risk of doing so now complements the benefit of doing so, and it helps to square close combat with shooting so that combat is risky with a high payoff while shooting is not as risky but considerably less rewarding.

Lets keep it civil in here guys I meant this to be a place to vent frustration out on GW more than anything. We obviously all love the game or we wouldn't be playing it thats a fact. I was merely asking what rules you didn't like from the standpoint of you think they either make certain armies worse or don't make any sense. That being said, I thank all of you for your input and would love to hear more.

I notice a lot of hatred at Sweeping Advance and No Retreat and I'll agree that those two rules could use some tweaking, but lets all be grateful that Terminators can't sweeping advance or Necrons would have some SERIOUS issues against me !

HBMC - i disagreed with you stating that MSU was a 5th ed construct, showing you where you were wrong (or, perhaps, where Aus just didnt use the same term) and how, in fact, MSU was a construct designed to help with VP games. Its one of the reasons KP are needed, because VPs do not balance the inherent advantage MSU has in objective games.

Sorry you are too....within yourself to see that. There's only one "wall" here.

Agreed on fearless *finally* having a drawback. The new morale results mean that assault is high risk / high reward, shooting is very low risk (except gets hot, and even that has been generally reduced in risk) with very variable reward.

Sweeping advance is so harsh because, in my opinion, essentially fighting another round of combat, as some have suggested, already takes a very protracted phase and would just add more to it.

I just find it a really hard sell to count up the number of wounds done to a Terminator Squad and compare it to the number of wounds done to a brood of Termagants or a unit of Ork Boyz with choppas. If the latter take five wounds in a turn of assault their response is "that's it?". If the Terminators suffer five wounds, do you think he's going to notice it?

I don't think it should be that way but that's not my decision so I've learned to live with it and play around it. However I will never agree with No Retreat! wounds transferring from one unit into another. If you're going to screw someone in a wildly disproportionate fashion is it really necessary to do it twice? Then on top of that have the screwing travel on, typically to a death-star type unit, and completely side-step their defenses, stats, capabilities and abilities? Just "Wham bam thank you ma'am, here's your screwing. Enjoy!" Think about how that feels to be on the receiving end of a couple times.

I hate the Melta rule, if only because I'm getting so sick and tired of seeing the damned things.

SumYungGui:

One thing about Fearless and No Retreat is that it's proportionate to the unit's save, so the wounds suffered do not circumvent the suffering unit's characteristics. Indeed, those characteristics are required to win combat. I rather like the way it rewards 'doubling down' on the risk of a charge by making a multi-charge. The downside is certainly fierce, but it's within the control of the player to decide whether they want to face that downside. In other words, if the puck went in the net, then it's not the net being too big, it's the goalie's fault.

Nurglitch - I've tried that line of reasoning before, but got told that player incompetence doesnt make a bad rule good - despite showing it isnt actually a bad rule.

Apparently tactics dont matter, just throw it all in against the wrong target and be annoyed at the result.

In a straight up one-on-one assault then yeah, stats are sort of a part of it in that better stats will result in less wounds to begin with. In multiple assaults though that line of thinking goes out the window. Charge into fifteen Termagants with ten terminators and one that just 'happens' to make base contact with the Hive Tyrant standing next door, devote every single attack to the Termagants without even looking at the Hive Tyrant then watch as he just drops over dead of a heart attack when he takes armor saves because the Termagants lost. His stats didn't mean anything, he didn't get to defend against it because every single attack went into Termagants. He just takes more armor saves than any model can be expected to survive at any armor value and drops over dead.

That's a really, really harsh way to punish someone twice and it seems completely out of whack. That brood or Termagants can be completely replaced with some decent rolling on a Tervigon. It means very little to have them all die. Now if a Terminator squad takes fifteen unsaved wounds people are going to notice real quick. There's a gaping chasm in the 'value' of wounds from model to model, but they're all lumped together and called the same thing for combat resolution. One extra step to account for this difference in values would go a loooooong way.

So don't let 400pts of Terminators multi-charge 75pts of Termgants and 250+pts of Hive Tyrant? It is harsh. It should be harsh, considering the Terminators outnumbered you 4:3. That's not out of whack, that's what should happen if they can pull of the multi-charge with more points worth of assault troops.

Bubble-wrapping Monstrous Creatures with Termagants isn't hard, and it's actually good since the Terminators will wipe out the Termagants and leave themselves open to Paroxysm and a charge by the Tyrant next turn.

But we should discuss this in Tactics, and leave this thread for rules that people don't like, rather than explanations for why their dislike may be irrational.

Just a minor rule I have a problem with...

I don't like the "I go, you go" system where one player uses his entire army to beat the crap out of you and then...it's your turn.

Some form of alternating activations for units would be much better.

When half of your hidden squad dies because your opponet can see a foot of one of the guys. TLOS my butt.

whocares wrote:Just a minor rule I have a problem with...

I don't like the "I go, you go" system where one player uses his entire army to beat the crap out of you and then...it's your turn.

Some form of alternating activations for units would be much better.

A few friends and I wanted to experiment with hybrid turns that weren't back and forth and really it's quite easy. It takes very, very few homebrew rules. You move a unit, I move a unit, back and forth until done. Determine results of shooting with the assumption that all shooting is simultaneous. Anybody that dies gets laid down until it's their turn to fire. End of the shooting phase remove casualties. The only really big problem we had was the assault phase. Movement rules saying you have to stop one inch away were problematic, because as soon as you moved to threaten someone with assault they moved six inches away, plus the one inch you had to maintain. We also didn't want to change anything to accommodate assault that would shut down the target's shooting. So determining who got to assault and when was difficult. We tried a few different setups but never came to any elegant solution that all players enjoyed.

Yeah, I've tried it too. I'm glad I'm not the only one!

I liked this way:

Choose a unit. Move it, shoot with it, and declare assaults with it. Just like you would during a normal turn, only it's only one unit. The only real difference is you don't work out the assault.

Then your opponent chooses a unit and does the same thing.

Go back and forth until all units are activated.

Then resolve all assaults simultaneously like in a normal turn at the end of the phase.

Some units will shoot before other units, but you don't have an entire army going at once. And yes, you can lock people in assault to prevent their shooting, but you can do that already.

SumYungGui wrote:

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

Hah, yea it is. BUT I agree with him, the friggin things dont die.

I think my biggest issue thus far encountered is being able to trap a unit of jumpack troops. I don't think my Interogator chaplain cares if he's pinned in cc, he'll fire up his pack and go over everyones head.

I agree with how hard it is to kill vehicles at any sense of range and how tanks, Land Raiders excepted, are basically bunkers. I know they look WWI era-ish but I would think they would have some advanced tech over modern day. I mean, marines main weapon is a burst fire .75 cal armor piercing rocket propelled grenade launcher and you mean to tell me my tank cant move and shoot? I know this is the same universe where people travel in kilometer long spaceships so they can hit green people with swords but cmon...

I think the rules for hurting vehicles in cc is somewhat accurate, though there are outstanding situations certaintly, but being able to toss a grenade in a vent (notably on Rhinos) is certaintly going to do a lot more damage than hacking at the part where the armor is thickest.

I disagree with the consoldating into cc because it buffs cc armies a rediculous amount. I do tend to find the cc vs range to be fairly balanced for the most part. From my experience Marines do miserably when they are spaced out just because you can't bring enough fire to bear where it needs to be being so spread out and we all know the marines will be the last to be nerfed (unless they really want to sell Wolf and Vamp goodies). Also, I tend to think the turns as taking place over a period of time, if you have one unit shredding multiple units in one round, that doesn't make any sense at all to me for the time spent.

My $.02

Luco wrote:I think my biggest issue thus far encountered is being able to trap a unit of jumpack troops. I don't think my Interogator chaplain cares if he's pinned in cc, he'll fire up his pack and go over everyones head.

What do you mean by this? Units in close combat are never pinned, and if a unit that has Gone to Ground either voluntarily or via pinning is charged then it automatically loses pinning. Units, excluding all non-walker vehicles, are locked if any of their models are engaged in close combat.

Ah, surrounded not pinned. I forget the actual term. Lose combat and have the unit completely surrounded and thus destroyed.

The more observant of those among this thread may have noticed my first army is Tyranids. Before the kick-to-the-balls FAQ I always felt jump pack infantry should get some kind of resistance to the Mawloc. I dunno about you, but if I'm tooling along with a jet pack strapped to my armor and something starts going all 'Tremors'-movie on my ass I know for damn sure what I'm gonna do and it doesn't involve me getting hurt at all.


Course now everybody gets cover saves against his attack so screw 'em.

Luco - you're thinking of sweeping advance. And Marines dont really suffer from it - ATSKNF kicks in and they take NR! wounds instead if the get caught by SA!

I'll have to find it in the book, I dont think it was Sweeping Advance, then again it was one of my earlier games so I mightve just been punk'd. Or does Sweeping Advance cover when you try to fall back but run into another unit in the processs>

Nope, SA is when you break from combat. It;s an init+D6 roll off. Losing it (as the unit breaking) kills the entire unit.