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.

Ralis wrote:
SWEEPING ADVANCE!!!

Oh look, My single space marine survived the attack by your mob, and killed one model. Oh you lost moral and are running, and I catch you... Now my SINGLE SPACE MARINE, Kills your entire mob! WTF!

Sweeping Advance
Snap Shots
All of the rules that severly Nerfed Assault armies
ALL of the new Vehicle rules...like haul points.

My wave serpent.... Haha flat out! I just moved 30 inches across the bourd!

And all you nead is 3+ to hit me in cc

Sigh.....

On the other side, the wave serpent can move .000001" and suddenly he's moving so fast, and is so hard to hit that it gets a 5+ jink save...

Honesly, they should only get a jink save if they moved flat-out the turn before. Or get rid of jink altogether and just give them better armor.

Swooping monstrous creatures getting a cover save from area terrain.

necronguardsmen wrote:
Swooping monstrous creatures getting a cover save from area terrain.

I'll trade you that for the grounding rule.

... that applies to one class of fliers (MCs) but not the other (vehicles).

 washout77 wrote:

ConsecratedIron wrote:
Im a marines player and I think ATSKNF to some degree is stupid. It makes sense when compared to the fluff, but it eliminates a mechanic of the game that is huge for other armies.

This. The rule does make sense from a fluff standpoint, but it needs to be toned down.

I respectfully disagree. ATSKNF does not make sense. Why exactly are those marines suddenly being able to run faster and shoot heavy weapons after moving just because they lost the fight \ were running back a while ago?
Decrease the disadvantages, sure, but don't give them bonuses because they failed their leadership.

I actually had ATSKNF used appropriately against me in my last game. I shot at some interceptors with bolt pistols and killed a few, preparing to charge them from inches away.

Then, rather than letting themselves get charged by Huron and a bunch of MoK marines, they strategically withdrew out of my charge range, leaving me flat-footed. Then they jumped back forward and hit me with a heavy incinerator.

That's exactly what ATSKNF is supposed to be about. It's about marines being smart and making a strategic withdraw from fights they know they can't win, and then regrouping and fighting on their terms. It's a neat rule, I think.

The problem is that for some reason only marines are able to master the art of combat and strategy. That and for some reason they think that all the buffs it offer is somehow worth about 1 point.

 Ailaros wrote:
... that applies to one class of fliers (MCs) but not the other (vehicles).

Considering both only apply to MCs, I think it's a fair trade.

I hate the rules for saves, so if your a space marine in cover you get to pick one save, you roll a cover save that fails and suddenly your armour doesn't work.

It might be a fair system but it never sat right in my mind.
!

 Ailaros wrote:
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.

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.

Oh god, seconding everything here. feth first blood in particular.

Also, the forementioned one save rule. Someone mentioned 600 shots to kill some dude, but really, if you had multiple saves obviously they'd each be a heck of a lot weaker.

-1 BS for cover, T4, 5+ forcefield and then 4+ armour... about 12 bolter shots per wound.

 Ailaros wrote:
I actually had ATSKNF used appropriately against me in my last game. I shot at some interceptors with bolt pistols and killed a few, preparing to charge them from inches away.

Then, rather than letting themselves get charged by Huron and a bunch of MoK marines, they strategically withdrew out of my charge range, leaving me flat-footed. Then they jumped back forward and hit me with a heavy incinerator.

That's exactly what ATSKNF is supposed to be about. It's about marines being smart and making a strategic withdraw from fights they know they can't win, and then regrouping and fighting on their terms. It's a neat rule, I think.

Except they dont have combat tactics, so didnt choose to do that did they? They were just lucky enough to fail their leadership test.

GW's insistence of giving Xenos cover saves and cover same improvements instead of armor. I'd rather have a more heavily armoured Eldar skimmer than all the cover shenanigans that are ignored in CC and by a lot of ranged weapons.

Also.. Flyers: hit on 6, can't assault.
Fast Skimmers (a lot which have limited flight capability): hit normally, dead in assault.

Hitting walkers only on front in CC, but a fast moving skimmer on the rear? Why... I always imagine the walker spinning around furiously trying to stop grenades from hitting the back..

 KingCracker wrote:
I mostly like 6th personally. Though things are rather dumb. I absolutely HATE challenges. It's such a stupid rule set imo. In fact everyone in our group doesn't even use challenges. It goes past bad rules writing, and even just feels weird fluff wise.

Challenges can be fun. They're not all that unfluffy either. However in terms of gameplay I feel they should be optional in the sense that there's no downside to declining them (because it's no fun putting your greatest hero there to be insta-killed thanks to the rarity of EW) or at least a far less severe downside, nor should there be rules that make challenging mandatory a la Emperor's Champion or Champion of Chaos. Good example of how this can fail... huge BT crusader blob with EC + Chaplain charges a nasty monstrous creature that is alone. Emperor's Champion challenges, the rest of the squad facepalms as dozens and dozens of attacks with rerolls go down the drain. Stupidly the right thing to do would be to detach the EC prior to charging, but then that makes the EC a free kill in the following turn. And of course a similar situation can happen for Chaos Marines where you can't exactly get rid of your aspiring champion, for example.

Anyway, my pet-peeve rules besides forced challenges:
- First Blood. Locally we've housed ruled this out of existence for the last six months or so.
- Like many others, the turn system. I started my tabletop gaming with BattleTech, and while a bit clunky and very slow in progression in many ways, the turn system was superior to 40k
- The vast array of rules nerfing assaults. I don't want assaults to be overpowered the way shooting is now, but with the restrictions on assaulting in general plus then army-specific rules such as those of the Tau to further nerf it, it's just gone too far in favor of shooting.
- I'll admit I find it silly that for example a terminator in area terrain isn't any better off than a terminator out in the open in terms of saving throws. It could either be two separate saves (taking the better one first, even if it's not the "logical" flow of events, would lessen rerolling), or just a difficulty modifier for to-hit rolls. Sadly the latter doesn't really work with the "single D6" skill system, while the former could make some things far too durable against shooting (again, at least with the single D6 system) even if it's just two saves (basically, cover + armor or invul, not all three).
- Random charge range. It's TOO random. When you roll double 1 or 1+2 for the second time in the same match when you need 3 and 4" respectively it gets really old, really fast. Especially when it tends to cost you the match. Funnily rolling double 1s needing 3" cost my side the victory in a ~30k points each side Apoc match back in February.
- Blast weapons having no snap-fire. What's with that? Suddenly the models are physically incapable of pulling the trigger, or what? Just make it always scatter and with no BS being reduced from scatter range.
- Sweeping Advances. Basically the biggest reason why people complain about ATSKNF, I reckon. Can't get sweeped no matter what. What I'd like to see is the ones running away taking a random amount of extra casualties or wounds (1D2 per 5 models on the winning side?) rather than the complete removal of the losing unit. Also the size of the squad doing the losing should have some bearing. Getting a 20-man CSM squad sweeped for losing a single model while not killing anything (as unlikely as that is)? Silly.
- Vehicles tend to lose too much firepower when moving.
- Fast Skimmers getting immobilized in difficult terrain. I mean come on! For example a Land Speeder can fly to like 100 meters up, just because its base is on uneven ground doesn't mean its hull is colliding with some random object on it and breaking the damn thing. Also said skimmers dying to assaults. "Oh yeah here I am able to hover high and all but I think I'll just let that angry mob tear me apart!" I mean seriously, not even a jink available? Quite potentially I was moving flat-out going at a nutty speed, being able to hit let alone damage in CC shouldn't be a given.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The problem is that for some reason only marines are able to master the art of combat and strategy. That and for some reason they think that all the buffs it offer is somehow worth about 1 point.

I have to disagree. Marines manage tactics and strategy in their way. To say they are the only race that can do so is silly. Other races possess some sort of tactic and strategy that they do better or differently than others, such as Eldar and their Battle Focus.

 Lobukia wrote:


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

It's very clear from this bit of information that you have an intense hatred for Orks. Why?

feel no pain: "i took this massive laser shot to the chest and it hurt at first, then, i just shrugged it off".

 pretre wrote:

You think that is bad, you should have been around when sweeps/consolidates could contact new units.

I wrecked many armies in 4th edition with berzerkers and deep striking bloodletters that could assault the turn they arrived, chew through a unit and consolidate into another. Made things tough for a gunline.

Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another great example!

Someone just above me complained about Feel no Pain. Feel No Pain doesn't represent a soilder shrugging off a mortal wound, it represents the soilder with the combat discipline(sp?) of shrugging off a shot to his gun arm and continuing to fight on. I think a lot of people think that after a battle everyone who I removed from the table is Dead. Wounds don't represent life but combat effectivness. If it represented Life there would be no special charcters in 40k because everyone has killed them off 1,000,000 times over in people's garages.

x13rads wrote:
Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.

The major beef with Jink, from my understanding, would be a skimmer that barely moves, or couldn't be imagined to take very fast evasive action (like a Ghost Ark creeping along) getting a 1/3 chance to evade a BEAM OF COHERENT LIGHT like a lascannon. The rule really needs at least a minimum move distance. Even 6" would be better than it is currently (although hardly more logical) just because it could force a trade-off for slower skimmers in terms of shooting their weapons.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.

The major beef with Jink, from my understanding, would be a skimmer that barely moves, or couldn't be imagined to take very fast evasive action (like a Ghost Ark creeping along) getting a 1/3 chance to evade a BEAM OF COHERENT LIGHT like a lascannon. The rule really needs at least a minimum move distance. Even 6" would be better than it is currently (although hardly more logical) just because it could force a trade-off for slower skimmers in terms of shooting their weapons.

Sigh

Mobility not speed.

You do realize there are skimmers that move no faster than tanks do. The Annihilation Barge comes to mind. A tank has tracks and is in constant contact with the ground creating friction. A skimmer does not. A skimmer doesn't get the Jink for moving fast but for the ability to dodge incoming fire due to increased MOBILITY. If I the player forget to move my skimmer the .0000001" you my opponent just caught me flat-footed.

As for the whole Lascannon Beam of Light thing, I can think of plenty of reasons why is would be possible 40,000 years into the future in a fantasy reality that my skimmer could avoid it.

My apoligies seeing how you even mentioned in your retort the Ghost Ark. I should have read you post a second time before I responded.

 xttz wrote:
The turn system.

Player A moves all their units, then shoots with everything, then assaults, while Player B does little but roll saving throws and yawn. Then they trade places.

Epic Armageddon did things much better with this approach:

Player A moves / shoots / assaults with a single unit

Player B moves / shoots / assaults with a single unit

Player A moves / shoots / assaults with a single unit

etc

That allowed for much better strategy as your try to predict and counter each move, kept both players engaged in the game and generally flows smoother.
It also vastly reduces the impact of a shooting-heavy army getting first turn and wiping out swathes of units before they're even used.

I am a relativily new player and wondered why turns don't work like this. Seems to be much more even this way. My son and i used tom play Heroscape (actually we still do sometimes) and it worked like this, but also had a mechanic where there were 3 turns in a round. Before the round started you would mark with a secret marker which unit would take a tunr 1st, 2nd , and 3rd. one units could take more than one tunr in a round if you wished. It felt like there was more strategy to moving/ taking turns with your figures.

x13rads wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.

The major beef with Jink, from my understanding, would be a skimmer that barely moves, or couldn't be imagined to take very fast evasive action (like a Ghost Ark creeping along) getting a 1/3 chance to evade a BEAM OF COHERENT LIGHT like a lascannon. The rule really needs at least a minimum move distance. Even 6" would be better than it is currently (although hardly more logical) just because it could force a trade-off for slower skimmers in terms of shooting their weapons.

Sigh

Mobility not speed.

You do realize there are skimmers that move no faster than tanks do. The Annihilation Barge comes to mind. A tank has tracks and is in constant contact with the ground creating friction. A skimmer does not. A skimmer doesn't get the Jink for moving fast but for the ability to dodge incoming fire due to increased MOBILITY. If I the player forget to move my skimmer the .0000001" you my opponent just caught me flat-footed.

As for the whole Lascannon Beam of Light thing, I can think of plenty of reasons why is would be possible 40,000 years into the future in a fantasy reality that my skimmer could avoid it.

My apoligies seeing how you even mentioned in your retort the Ghost Ark. I should have read you post a second time before I responded.

I'm not making commentary on my opinion here, I just think that you may be misunderstanding what is being said/represented. Nobody is arguing that the skimmer's don't have mobility, but what they ARE arguing is that the rule as used on the field isn't logical due to the extremely small movement taken. For example, an estimation of the distance of 1" in 40k (though it's nigh-impossible to tell with GW's scaling) is somewhere around 4 feet (a Guardsman, an "average" man which I am estimating at 5'10" or 6 foot rounded, is an inch and a half or so, thereby making 1 inch equal 4 feet).

Therefore, if a skimmer moves that little half inch "jink" to the side or forward or what have you, this is meant to represent it moving about 2 feet. No matter how rapidly or "mobily" it moves, the fact of the matter is it only moves, what, an eighth of its WIDTH? If someone shoots at a vehicle which is in the process of shifting itself 1/8 of its width to the side, odds are it's not going to randomly throw off the shot unless the attacker was, for whatever reason, aiming at the very edge of the vehicle.

Now, if I were to rewrite this rule in a non-GW format to "fix" it, I would simply say the vehicle must move at least its size in LENGTH to gain the benefit. This would then represent it "not being where it was before" with its movement. Theoretically if someone aimed at the front of the vehicle and did not move his aim, and it "jinked" forward a full inch per turn, the shot would still have a chance to hit it 4, 5, even 6 turns later, because as I said, no matter how quick or agile the movement is, it's not getting out of the way enough to "logically" get out of the way of the shot.

I suppose it could be argued that it is jinking up and down as well as forward or backwards, but then why couldn't it just do this while in place? The wording of the rule suggests that the cover save is from its forward-directional movement and maneuverability in that respect, not just some inherent agility, and I think therein lies the conflict.

I don't like that cover gives inv saves. Melta and Plasma guns go straight through Terminator armor and Tank plating, but when I lay low behind some ruins or even a hedge I get better protection than almost all rare power fields provide? I wish we could get back BS modifiers.

I don't like snap fire. Overwatch is ok in principle, but it existing along other melee nerfs is overkill. Against flyers I dislike that it's always BS1. So even a BS 6, 7 or even 9 can't hit that flyer any better than a orc boy or conscript? Again, I feel BS modifiers would work better and wouldn't overcomplicate the game as long as there aren't to many.

Not really a rule. Or maybe a lack of rules. But outside of suit commanders and a few exarchs there is no way to build a shooting character that feels as heroic as a melee character. I want space marine commanders shooting down guys left and right and IG gunslingers that get way more shots out of theirpistols than others. The exarch powers make some moves in the right direction, at least. But I wish I'd get more use out of those high BS values.

Yeah totally I get the mobility vs. speed thing. Like Yipyioh said though, you have a sizable vehicle that in game terms is barely moving. Meaning it must be making some really crazy and erratic maneuvers that on average put it 0.1" away from where it started but at the extremes take it far enough away that you actually have a chance of missing it.

Sure in theory you could do that, maybe your Annihilation Barge is flying a crazy figure-8 pattern 12 inches wide right over everyone's heads. Does it really make sense? Not in my opinion.

Same goes for bikes, doubly so in fact as they're not flying.

The end result in game terms is to make skimmers far more durable than ground vehicles with little justification. Jink saves are just gamey, and for me what little immersion there is in 40k is broken just a bit more whenever someone literally dodges a lascannon shot because they remembered to nudge their skimmer a tiny bit.

 Yipyioh wrote:

x13rads wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Skimmers don't get a Jink save because of how fast they moved, but for how fast they CAN move. You are complaining about the mechanic used to justify the use of the ability. The Jink save is improved by Flat Outing because the vehicle was allready in the process of moving ultra fast. Jink represtents MOBILITY not speed. A non-moving skimmer doesn't loose it's jink because it has lost mobility, it looses it's Jink for being cought flat-footed. If you don't think my reasoning is sound, just take a hard look at the description for fliers and evading.

A matter of fact a lot of these rules complaints to me just sound like misunderstanding of what the game mechanic is trying to represent on the table.

The major beef with Jink, from my understanding, would be a skimmer that barely moves, or couldn't be imagined to take very fast evasive action (like a Ghost Ark creeping along) getting a 1/3 chance to evade a BEAM OF COHERENT LIGHT like a lascannon. The rule really needs at least a minimum move distance. Even 6" would be better than it is currently (although hardly more logical) just because it could force a trade-off for slower skimmers in terms of shooting their weapons.

Sigh

Mobility not speed.

You do realize there are skimmers that move no faster than tanks do. The Annihilation Barge comes to mind. A tank has tracks and is in constant contact with the ground creating friction. A skimmer does not. A skimmer doesn't get the Jink for moving fast but for the ability to dodge incoming fire due to increased MOBILITY. If I the player forget to move my skimmer the .0000001" you my opponent just caught me flat-footed.

As for the whole Lascannon Beam of Light thing, I can think of plenty of reasons why is would be possible 40,000 years into the future in a fantasy reality that my skimmer could avoid it.

My apoligies seeing how you even mentioned in your retort the Ghost Ark. I should have read you post a second time before I responded.

I'm not making commentary on my opinion here, I just think that you may be misunderstanding what is being said/represented. Nobody is arguing that the skimmer's don't have mobility, but what they ARE arguing is that the rule as used on the field isn't logical due to the extremely small movement taken. For example, an estimation of the distance of 1" in 40k (though it's nigh-impossible to tell with GW's scaling) is somewhere around 4 feet (a Guardsman, an "average" man which I am estimating at 5'10" or 6 foot rounded, is an inch and a half or so, thereby making 1 inch equal 4 feet).

Therefore, if a skimmer moves that little half inch "jink" to the side or forward or what have you, this is meant to represent it moving about 2 feet. No matter how rapidly or "mobily" it moves, the fact of the matter is it only moves, what, an eighth of its WIDTH? If someone shoots at a vehicle which is in the process of shifting itself 1/8 of its width to the side, odds are it's not going to randomly throw off the shot unless the attacker was, for whatever reason, aiming at the very edge of the vehicle.

Now, if I were to rewrite this rule in a non-GW format to "fix" it, I would simply say the vehicle must move at least its size in LENGTH to gain the benefit. This would then represent it "not being where it was before" with its movement. Theoretically if someone aimed at the front of the vehicle and did not move his aim, and it "jinked" forward a full inch per turn, the shot would still have a chance to hit it 4, 5, even 6 turns later, because as I said, no matter how quick or agile the movement is, it's not getting out of the way enough to "logically" get out of the way of the shot.

I suppose it could be argued that it is jinking up and down as well as forward or backwards, but then why couldn't it just do this while in place? The wording of the rule suggests that the cover save is from its forward-directional movement and maneuverability in that respect, not just some inherent agility, and I think therein lies the conflict.

Ok last time and I will shut up. I apoligize in advance because I completely understand that everyone has their own pet peeves, this just happens to be one of mine. I don't want to hi-jack the thread any further so I will make my last case and then leave everyone else alone.

There are a lot of rules in 40k that are meant to simulate abilities using a mechanic that doesn't always make sense.

Jink = the ability to dodge shooting attacks

Ok so how do we implement the rule? If the vehicle gets Imobilized should it still be able to Jink? No. If the unit is caught off-guard should it be able to Jink(first turn)? No. Ok, so how should we implement it? How about this, as long as the player CAN and REMEMBER to move the vehicle it gets it's Jink save. What if the vehicle was moving real fast? Well in that case we will give it a bonus.

The mechanic is simply being able to, and remembering to move the vehicle/unit. We have all seen movies where there was a UFO just floating in the air apparently motionless when somebody fire a gun/laser at it. Then it effortlessly just moves to the side and keeps on hovering there. Then maybe someone shoots another laser from the backside and catches it offguard. This is what JINK simulates.

Is it perfect? No, but I think it is a pretty good implementation of what it is trying to represent on the table.

It's is like the guy tried to explain about the sweeping advance. That lone Space Marine didn't necesarily mow down the remaining 5 Necron Warriors, but he did do SOMETHING that caused them to be ineffective for the rest of the game...

1. maybe the got beamed back to the mothership
2. maybe they where dispersed to the point that they would not be effective for the remainder of the battle
3. maybe they were damaged enough not to get back up in time to keep on fighting
4. maybe he really did kill the rest of them all with a lucky grenade

All of these results are possible reasons why the rest of the squad got removed from the board. The Mechanics of the Sweeping Advance are just the best way to implement all of these types of outcomes.

And last...

Feel No Pain

Just because you got shot, wounded, and failed your armour save doesn't mean the guy died. He might have got his leg blown off or maybe his bolter blew up. Either way that guy will be combat ineffective for the rest of the game, so we remove him from the table. Feel No Pain represents the ability to shrug off wounds that would put other soilders on the helicopter back to the M.A.S.H. unit. It doesn't mean he took a Lacannon to the chest and lived to tell about it(however if he failed his FNP that might have been the outcome).

Ok I am done. I hope I might have opened someone's eyes to the fact that some rules in 40k are just the easiest way to implement the described abilities.

Forgot one:

Charging into cover without grenades makes you init 1. Way to invalidate the importance of stats. It makes sense to me that most Nids and banshees don't have grenades. In fact, I think way to many units come with grenades standart at the moment. But the way it is now, they are pretty much mandatory. The worst thing is, there's already a nice rule that's rarely used. Charging into a fortified position without tools to disperse the enemy formation? Sounds like a disordered charge to me. Yes, you're going to miss that bonus attack. But at least it isn't cripling and you get to use your high I stat.


In general, you can put me down as an enemy of any rule that invalidates actual stats. A DE Archon fights better than a guardsman, even if he suffers from a bout of fear. Slaaneshi chaos lords and eldar autarchs with Power Axes should be slowed down by the unwieldy weapon. But they should still be faster than some random Sarge with the same weapon or power claw wielding nob.

Officetemp wrote:
I hate how spotlights work. Really, I'm gonna fire my weapons and THEN fire up my spotter to light up my target? Really?

Worst rule? Maybe.
Stupidest rules? Oh my god yes.

CalgarsPimpHan wrote: it must be making some really crazy and erratic maneuvers that on average put it 0.1" away from where it started but at the extremes take it far enough away that you actually have a chance of missing it.

And yet, despite doing barrel rolls in place, the vehicle can still fire at full BS. At least with fliers, if the pilot engages in evasive maneuvers he also doesn't get to shoot very well.

Just another one of those glaring inconsistencies.

As for ATSKNF, I still don't get it. It's an army trait, no different than orks with waaaugh, or DE being able to see in the dark. It's not a broken rule because everybody doesn't have access to it.