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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Blasts sucked and only certain Large Blasts were good. Why are people remembering differently?

Blasts generally sucked because people automatically spread their models out to avoid getting killed by blasts and templates.
You really noticed it when playing lash princes, tankshock immolators, and other strategies that could neatly bunch up your models before firing.

 xeen wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

You know what absolutely no one misses about templates and blast markers? The arguments about scatter direction. The arguments about what is vs. is not under it. The arguments about infinite columns. The arguments about how they interact with levels and ruins.

Us vets will have a lot of fond memories of them, but removing blast markers and templates has been a great thing.

Excuse me but WTF:
The removal of Templates has lead to the whole game beeing now how you can stack behind cover or around 1 HQ with aura / Relic aura.

HURR DURR MAXIMUM SKILLZ .

Sure template removal did make it easier, you know however this is still a wargame. Stacking around a HQ model should be something done in a 1400-1900 Wargame, not in 40k .

Next time Roboute is donning a fething Shako and his soldiers grenadier caps and sings god save the Emperor whilest marching in a line at me or what?

IT's bs, it leads to massive balance problems thanks to AURA's TM and in general is just plain not needed.

Especially if someone goes just LOL SPAM (chaff unit of your choice) win by objective not by playing smart. (because scuse me but winning at the list level by taking a pure skew listis not skill.)

It removed actuall punishment of such moves. It removed depth of the game and most importantly it just is atm outright stupidly easy to build a gunline.
(it also put Melee armies that can't first turn charge via movement shenanigans in a spot where they might aswell just stop playing because they lack the tools to propperly break and punish such castles often)

The arguments about blasts (scatter etc.) existed, but outside of the most competitive games, were not really all that common in my experience. The thing I hated the most about blast markers was not even the use of the blast marker. It was playing the ork or guard player who had 150 models and every move phase had to make sure there was 1' between each model because god for bid I got an extra model or two under a blast. I agree that blasts are cool, and "castling" is really a problem in 8th, but the trade off is just not worth it and I am glad blasts are gone. Just my opinion

Well now we have the opposite, ain't much better.

Maybe some of the weapons should have a rule that lets them hit units around the targeted unit. Like, for example, "Units within 3 inches of the target unit take so and so many hits at such and such stats" or something. Not perfect but the absurdity of having an artillery round only hit one of the units in a tightly packed blob ain't any better.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
5th dangerous terrain rules. A roll of 1 kills a X wound model when going over a fence. I;d seen 200pt models die b.c they tripped and rolled their ankle.

The Rebel Alliance formerly stationed in Hoth would like to have a word with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
From my point of view, it is a tie between not being able to deep strike turn 1, and having to deploy same number of points in deep strike and on the table.

Null deployment was arguably worse.

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Blasts sucked and only certain Large Blasts were good. Why are people remembering differently?

Blasts generally sucked because people automatically spread their models out to avoid getting killed by blasts and templates.
You really noticed it when playing lash princes, tankshock immolators, and other strategies that could neatly bunch up your models before firing.

Yes but given 8th is the Aura/Blob edition leaving blasts as they were would have given them an actual purpose and provided some risk v reward to both them and the Blobs, but GW going to GW and they removed a counter to a mechanic they were introducing that they now have had to start creating a counter for (See RavenGuard).

Not Online!!! wrote:

You know what absolutely no one misses about templates and blast markers? The arguments about scatter direction. The arguments about what is vs. is not under it. The arguments about infinite columns. The arguments about how they interact with levels and ruins.

Us vets will have a lot of fond memories of them, but removing blast markers and templates has been a great thing.

Excuse me but WTF:
The removal of Templates has lead to the whole game beeing now how you can stack behind cover or around 1 HQ with aura / Relic aura.

HURR DURR MAXIMUM SKILLZ .

Sure template removal did make it easier, you know however this is still a wargame. Stacking around a HQ model should be something done in a 1400-1900 Wargame, not in 40k .

Next time Roboute is donning a fething Shako and his soldiers grenadier caps and sings god save the Emperor whilest marching in a line at me or what?

IT's bs, it leads to massive balance problems thanks to AURA's TM and in general is just plain not needed.

Especially if someone goes just LOL SPAM (chaff unit of your choice) win by objective not by playing smart. (because scuse me but winning at the list level by taking a pure skew listis not skill.)

It removed actuall punishment of such moves. It removed depth of the game and most importantly it just is atm outright stupidly easy to build a gunline.
(it also put Melee armies that can't first turn charge via movement shenanigans in a spot where they might aswell just stop playing because they lack the tools to propperly break and punish such castles often)

I do think auras were a mistake. IMO more stuff like My Will Be Done (i.e. abilities that only affect a single unit) would have a lot better. It would have allowed HQs to support units without the need to cluster as many units as possible around them. I also think that these rules should really have been limited to buffing infantry. Maybe stuff like Techpriests could buff vehicles but other commanders should really be focused on the infantry side.

 Jidmah wrote:
5th edition tank shock rules.

Drive in a straight line through any number of non-vehicle units - up to 36" for some eldar tanks
Force a moral test on all those units
All units are unharmed, even if a land raider ran over them
Land on top of a unit, forcing it to move away, no rules to handle that movement, game broke down when the unit could not move
Death or glory response for a single model which had to destroy the tank or the model was gone. Not hit, not damage, not immobilize, DESTROY
You could also ram a vehicle and did more damage the more distance you covered. It also was a tankshock and you could destroy your own vehicle that way

Which meant that an eldar hovertank army could shock your army into a huge pile, force 6-10 moral tests and then put flamers and templates on them. You also auto-lost any game with more than 3 wave serpents alive because they could just tank-shock onto objectives, pushing your units off them.

Best thing to leave the game ever.

I'm pretty sure an imbolised result meant the tank ground to a halt directly in front of the Death or Glory Model.
And Fearless was a rule.

the "Good old days" editions had some truly hilarious rules if applied to today's standards. Let's look at everyone's favorite sacred cow, 2nd edition.


You are allowed to Run (Doubling your move, not getting to shoot) only if no enemy models are within 8". However, you may Charge (Doubling your move, not getting to shoot) at any time. Charging rule specifies that you must "engage the closest model" but it is never actually defined what "engage" means.

Think the Line of Sight rule definition in 8th is bad? Well 2nd edition has you covered: It has no definition. "Models must be able to draw Line of Sight to their targets." That's it, baby.

Blast weapons must be positioned such that most of the models hit are from the target unit. That means if the unit you want to target is nearby a more numerous unit, it might be illegal to shoot a blast or template weapon targeting that unit.

or how about "Large Targets"? Firing at a large target grants +1 to hit. What is a large target, 2nd edition Warhammer 40,000? Well it's a target larger than an elephant. That is literally the rule.

Or how about "It's gonna blow!"? Models in base to base contact with a vehicle that gets hit by a weapon that "Causes it to blow up" get a free move. I'm sure "blow up" has some clearly defined definition somewhere in the rules. Nope! There are unique, narratively described results for all catastrophic vehicle damage, vehicles can go flying, explode, flip over, lash out in their death throes, etc, etc. Is any effect that could cause damage to nearby models "blowing up?" is it only when it describes some kind of explosion?

In order to fight a model in close combat, you must be in base-to-base contact. However, there is a bonus of +1 if your model is standing on higher ground than their opponent. How can bases be in contact while one model is one higher ground? Who knows.

"Fumbles" are defined in the close combat table as a -1 modifier to your combat result. In the text of the rule, however, it says each Fumble grants your opponent +1.

Models attacking vehicles "Must obviously be in base-to-base contact as normal." Therefore vehicles without bases in 2nd edition are immune to all melee combat.

When you charge a vehicle, you can use a gun your model is equipped with rather than a melee weapon (as long as it's not a Move Or Fire or Sustained Fire weapon) and you still get to add the physical strength of the model holding the gun. Also, you score a number of hits with that gun equal to the attacks stat of the model. It also says "The attacker must specify the location struck - with certain logical restrictions!"

 skchsan wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
5th dangerous terrain rules. A roll of 1 kills a X wound model when going over a fence. I;d seen 200pt models die b.c they tripped and rolled their ankle.

The Rebel Alliance formerly stationed in Hoth would like to have a word with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
From my point of view, it is a tie between not being able to deep strike turn 1, and having to deploy same number of points in deep strike and on the table.

Null deployment was arguably worse.

Yes b.c a starwars thing is equal to 40k, where a 9" tall super soldier that trained and fought for many years in almost all terrain dies from stepping over a 1" tall rock. but no, this doesnt just happen once, but multi-time sin a battle. sure ok.

the_scotsman wrote:
the "Good old days" editions had some truly hilarious rules if applied to today's standards. Let's look at everyone's favorite sacred cow, 2nd edition.


You are allowed to Run (Doubling your move, not getting to shoot) only if no enemy models are within 8". However, you may Charge (Doubling your move, not getting to shoot) at any time. Charging rule specifies that you must "engage the closest model" but it is never actually defined what "engage" means.

Think the Line of Sight rule definition in 8th is bad? Well 2nd edition has you covered: It has no definition. "Models must be able to draw Line of Sight to their targets." That's it, baby.

Blast weapons must be positioned such that most of the models hit are from the target unit. That means if the unit you want to target is nearby a more numerous unit, it might be illegal to shoot a blast or template weapon targeting that unit.

or how about "Large Targets"? Firing at a large target grants +1 to hit. What is a large target, 2nd edition Warhammer 40,000? Well it's a target larger than an elephant. That is literally the rule.

Or how about "It's gonna blow!"? Models in base to base contact with a vehicle that gets hit by a weapon that "Causes it to blow up" get a free move. I'm sure "blow up" has some clearly defined definition somewhere in the rules. Nope! There are unique, narratively described results for all catastrophic vehicle damage, vehicles can go flying, explode, flip over, lash out in their death throes, etc, etc. Is any effect that could cause damage to nearby models "blowing up?" is it only when it describes some kind of explosion?

In order to fight a model in close combat, you must be in base-to-base contact. However, there is a bonus of +1 if your model is standing on higher ground than their opponent. How can bases be in contact while one model is one higher ground? Who knows.

"Fumbles" are defined in the close combat table as a -1 modifier to your combat result. In the text of the rule, however, it says each Fumble grants your opponent +1.

Models attacking vehicles "Must obviously be in base-to-base contact as normal." Therefore vehicles without bases in 2nd edition are immune to all melee combat.

When you charge a vehicle, you can use a gun your model is equipped with rather than a melee weapon (as long as it's not a Move Or Fire or Sustained Fire weapon) and you still get to add the physical strength of the model holding the gun. Also, you score a number of hits with that gun equal to the attacks stat of the model. It also says "The attacker must specify the location struck - with certain logical restrictions!"

Oh nostalgia how you have lied to me.

The 6th Edition Daemon Codex Warpstorm chart.

I don't think I have ever rolled more dice for little purpose, and when it did well it was too big a deal and not something that was a tactical choice by the player. I saw it responsible for so many feel bad moments. It was either
I rolled a bunch of dice and nothing happened, or Swarm lord dies turn 1 because I rolled lucky.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
5th dangerous terrain rules. A roll of 1 kills a X wound model when going over a fence. I;d seen 200pt models die b.c they tripped and rolled their ankle.

The Rebel Alliance formerly stationed in Hoth would like to have a word with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
From my point of view, it is a tie between not being able to deep strike turn 1, and having to deploy same number of points in deep strike and on the table.

Null deployment was arguably worse.

Yes b.c a starwars thing is equal to 40k, where a 9" tall super soldier that trained and fought for many years in almost all terrain dies from stepping over a 1" tall rock. but no, this doesnt just happen once, but multi-time sin a battle. sure ok.

Infantries never took difficult terrain tests though - only for dangerous terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rules regarding Challenges were pretty bad too.

Sometimes I just like to imagine how hardcore RAW-types would react to half of the beardy wargames I end up playing when I go to conventions with my dad. I've played historical games where units move 12" per turn and bows have 2" of range because "any real damage is impossible at ranges higher than 10 meters and this is a 1/64 scale game so..." or games where you have to roll to see enemy tanks through the "fog of war" so your anti-tank gunners can fail to spot a panzer positioned 1" away from their faces. There was one WW1 game where the author tried to represent those crazy stories of a single soldier going nuts and murdering a whole trench full of guys by allowing you to activate a fixed number of times per turn but placing no limit on the number of times you could activate one model. When the GM said that my opponent and I just looked across from each other and mutually understood that this entire game would be the two of us selecting our favorite looking miniature and having him sprint around like the protagonist in an FPS game splattering a dozen enemies every turn and moving a total of 75" on a 4'x6' table.

Breng77 wrote:
The 6th Edition Daemon Codex Warpstorm chart.

I don't think I have ever rolled more dice for little purpose, and when it did well it was too big a deal and not something that was a tactical choice by the player. I saw it responsible for so many feel bad moments. It was either
I rolled a bunch of dice and nothing happened, or Swarm lord dies turn 1 because I rolled lucky.

This is up there, next to overwatch..
I not sure anyone cared enough about the game at that point to want to wait for rolling on daemon charts, any of them. It’s like they see the word random and forgot everything about design on that book.

Yet for all the weird rules of the past, I don't recall ever having a LOS discussion or feeling it was unfair in 2nd. Maybe because without the rules being so wide, people just applied common sense.

It's great fun to read about the editions I never got to experience.

I think the current rules for the Monolith and NIght Scythe are the worst ever. "I'm not going to pay 4 CP to destroy your 220 pt unit." That's what I heard in a battle report I recently saw between Necrons and Dark Eldar, does that sound fair or fun? How about if your unit inside your flyer automatically died unless you used a Stratagem that can be negated by some factions? Oh wait, that's how flyers worked in 6th and 7th except you had no way to save them, 5/6 just died, except for Necrons because they were supposed to be these super badass highly advanced androids. That's something Eldar or the Imperium should deal with, using an over-engineered solution to a problem that could be solved in much simpler ways. Why teleport troops to the battlefield if the loss of your teleporters means you lose access to those reinforcements when you could've just put the reinforcements inside the flyer and have them hop out and 5/6 would survive? How about before the emergency protocol stratagem was made or before they changed it so it could be used turn 1? Your flyer died? Your unit died. It's just a huge flavour fail when Necrons seem so much less advanced than what Astra Militarum get with parachutes.

Virus bombing Orks into oblivion? It should have been a mission scenario something on turn 5 or 6 probably, but it's not really a flavour fail. I'd say Iyanden's tactic that makes it ideal for Guardian hordes is right up there in terms of worst rules because it's the opposite of what Iyanden does, or maybe it's a secret flavour win because it's such an effective tactic, but it leads to all the Guardians dying. For me I want to try my hardest to win and have a fun thematic experience while doing it rather than broken stuff that just makes you want to quit (like invisibility) I don't think that's actually the biggest problem because the problem there could have been fixed by rearranging the numbers around and making it harder to cast, whereas flavour fails uses stupid mechanics that have to be entirely rewritten. A bad rule isn't just one that hasn't been properly balanced and playtested, but one that no matter what values you put on the ability, it won't make sense.

 flandarz wrote:
I started in 8th, so I can't say anything about previous editions, but the sheer abundance of giant robots and vehicles with 3++ Invuln Saves is crazy. It's pretty bad that I have a better chance of dealing damage to a Riptide with a Boy Blob hitting it with knives than I do with a Rocket Launcher designed for the purpose of taking down big things.

Which kinda just goes to my biggest gripe of volume of attacks/shots being more important to taking down anything than using weapons designed for those targets.

That's a problem because of shield drones which IMO are poorly written, they should've worked on a 4+ instead of 2+, as is it's basically impossible to kill a Riptide with quality shooting. On top of that even if the weapon does D3+6 damage the Drone still only takes one mortal wound and ignores it on a 5+. Ork Boys also do a tonne of damage pretty reliably and rockets are underpowered.

 Grimtuff wrote:
6th/7th ed casualty removal rules.

Spoiler:

I know, let’s put a rule that would be at home in a skirmish game in a clunky company level game that grinds everything to a halt with stupid things like characters tanking saves and having to break out the callipers to find out who is closest.

Dumbest fething rule ever.

I liked those, I think the flaw was with the character rules rather than the wound distribution rules. Assuming no character shananigans the closest model to the firing unit is going to die first, so unless you are being assaulted from multiple sides the unit is going to die one model at a time. 8th is elegant, but it's also pretty dumb. Oh, this guy? No he's still alive despite the conga-line leading to the main blob of his squad being dead, I need to remain in range for my aura abilities. I don't think I've ever brought calipers to a 40k game, if it's down to less than a milimeter you can roll off.

 Stormonu wrote:
Some of the unit/faction drawbacks over the years get a groan at least for me:

“Spirit Vision” - Eldar wraith constructs that aren’t within 6” of a Spiritseer have a 50% chance to stare off into space and do nothing.

I liked this one as well, it was very thematic IMO, sad to see it leave. It was a needed special rule when they came out with the flamers and again at the beginning of 8th with Ynnari Wraith flamer spam.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
5th dangerous terrain rules. A roll of 1 kills a X wound model when going over a fence. I;d seen 200pt models die b.c they tripped and rolled their ankle.

I hated this so much, my Monoliths got stuck half the time I tried to move over something. The only good design choice for the 7th ed Decurion Detachment was Move Through Cover so my Monoliths stopped getting stuck on a piece of wire. The worst part was having to move through the same piece of terrain two turns because the Monolith is so slow.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Surpression. /Pinning

Spoiler:

95% of the time, never came into play.
5% completely crippled a unit.

It would have been a good rule if it where not so Binary and not 95 % of the time completely useless...

I feel like a pinning system would have been better compared to the undead mechanic that everybody follows currently.

 slave.entity wrote:
The terrain rules in 8th are really, really bad, even if you're just playing casually. I've have so many little micro arguments over what constitutes cover, where it's possible to place models, and how to abstract very tall 2nd floor ruins into usable space. Even if we always just house rule it on the spot, it always sours the mood a bit when things don't go your way.

You need to read the rules more clearly, they are super clear. No house rules required, just lots of LOS-breaking terrain. I recommend you go back over the terrain rules and read them carefully, maybe read an article on how exactly they work instead of trying to make them work the way you want them to work. It's also a good idea to go over terrain before the game begins. Purging terrain that creates arguments from your collection by way of donation might be a good idea.

Wayniac wrote:
Yet for all the weird rules of the past, I don't recall ever having a LOS discussion or feeling it was unfair in 2nd. Maybe because without the rules being so wide, people just applied common sense.

I'm sorry, but in the english language there is only one definition for the term "Elephant" and my small plastic carnifex is clearly NOT larger than a 20-foot tall multi-ton pachyderm, and unless you can source somewhere in the RULES that it says we should imagine some kind of scaled-down "Model elephant" we play the game as WRITTEN, not your CAAC rules as intended bs interpretation!

the_scotsman wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yet for all the weird rules of the past, I don't recall ever having a LOS discussion or feeling it was unfair in 2nd. Maybe because without the rules being so wide, people just applied common sense.

I'm sorry, but in the english language there is only one definition for the term "Elephant" and my small plastic carnifex is clearly NOT larger than a 20-foot tall multi-ton pachyderm, and unless you can source somewhere in the RULES that it says we should imagine some kind of scaled-down "Model elephant" we play the game as WRITTEN, not your CAAC rules as intended bs interpretation!

African Bush Elephants top out at 11' at the shoulder.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'd argue they should be target-able but able to shunt the wounds onto a unit within 3" unless the shooting unit has the Sniper keyword.

Then again I also for arguing for shooting through enemy units needing a BS modifier or having the misses roll to hit the unit in the way, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

But then you're forcing characters to always be in balls aren't you?

You mean like we already do to form aura congalines or bubbles?

I fail to see how it changes the game from what we already have.

Nurglitch wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yet for all the weird rules of the past, I don't recall ever having a LOS discussion or feeling it was unfair in 2nd. Maybe because without the rules being so wide, people just applied common sense.

I'm sorry, but in the english language there is only one definition for the term "Elephant" and my small plastic carnifex is clearly NOT larger than a 20-foot tall multi-ton pachyderm, and unless you can source somewhere in the RULES that it says we should imagine some kind of scaled-down "Model elephant" we play the game as WRITTEN, not your CAAC rules as intended bs interpretation!

African Bush Elephants top out at 11' at the shoulder.

I'm gonna quote the incredibly sarcastic and amazing FAQ from the 2nd edition rulebook here:

"I got it wrong - sometimes I wonder how I sleep at night!"

Oh, here's another fun rule from the FAQ:

"Q: Some models are allowed to dodge shooting and hand-to-hand attacks on an unmodified die roll. Can you dodge a psychic attack?

A: This really depends on the kind of attack, so it needs a bit of common sense and interpretation. Basically, is the psychic attack is something which affects the target's mind or body, you can't dodge it. If the psychic attack blasts the target with a burst of physical energy, then the model can try to dodge it like any kind of attack."

OG Soulburst, because people didn't hate Eldar enough already

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Ward almost single-handedly destroyed WHFB.

Sorry, that goes to Alessio Cavatore. The damage he caused to the game festered for yeaaaaaaars.

You have an odd way of spelling Mat Ward.

Let's leave the WFB stuff aside. That horse is dead and buried anyways.

Doesn't change the fact that his shoddy army book writing slipped the game into that death spiral.

Also: Ranks & Flanks - Never Forget.

Dysartes wrote:*raises head above the parapet*

As an opponent, the v3.5 Chaos Codex.

*ducks down behind the parapet again*

I desperately want to put the Black Templars' "Fall Forward" rule as the worst in 3rd, but the Blood Angels Codex exists. There's literally NOTHING good about that Codex. However, I will agree with you on Chaos 3.5 because it set a precedent for an arms race that literally never abated.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
5th dangerous terrain rules. A roll of 1 kills a X wound model when going over a fence. I;d seen 200pt models die b.c they tripped and rolled their ankle.

The Rebel Alliance formerly stationed in Hoth would like to have a word with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
From my point of view, it is a tie between not being able to deep strike turn 1, and having to deploy same number of points in deep strike and on the table.

Null deployment was arguably worse.

Yes b.c a starwars thing is equal to 40k, where a 9" tall super soldier that trained and fought for many years in almost all terrain dies from stepping over a 1" tall rock. but no, this doesnt just happen once, but multi-time sin a battle. sure ok.

I always assumed that dangerous terrain represented things like unstable ground (said Asartes vanishes into a newly formed hole, unhurt, but unable to regroup in time to continue fighting), mines, or some other thing that could maim or remove someone from action but not always kill them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:
the "Good old days" editions had some truly hilarious rules if applied to today's standards. Let's look at everyone's favorite sacred cow, 2nd edition.


You are allowed to Run (Doubling your move, not getting to shoot) only if no enemy models are within 8". However, you may Charge (Doubling your move, not getting to shoot) at any time. Charging rule specifies that you must "engage the closest model" but it is never actually defined what "engage" means.

Think the Line of Sight rule definition in 8th is bad? Well 2nd edition has you covered: It has no definition. "Models must be able to draw Line of Sight to their targets." That's it, baby.

Blast weapons must be positioned such that most of the models hit are from the target unit. That means if the unit you want to target is nearby a more numerous unit, it might be illegal to shoot a blast or template weapon targeting that unit.

or how about "Large Targets"? Firing at a large target grants +1 to hit. What is a large target, 2nd edition Warhammer 40,000? Well it's a target larger than an elephant. That is literally the rule.

Or how about "It's gonna blow!"? Models in base to base contact with a vehicle that gets hit by a weapon that "Causes it to blow up" get a free move. I'm sure "blow up" has some clearly defined definition somewhere in the rules. Nope! There are unique, narratively described results for all catastrophic vehicle damage, vehicles can go flying, explode, flip over, lash out in their death throes, etc, etc. Is any effect that could cause damage to nearby models "blowing up?" is it only when it describes some kind of explosion?

In order to fight a model in close combat, you must be in base-to-base contact. However, there is a bonus of +1 if your model is standing on higher ground than their opponent. How can bases be in contact while one model is one higher ground? Who knows.

"Fumbles" are defined in the close combat table as a -1 modifier to your combat result. In the text of the rule, however, it says each Fumble grants your opponent +1.

Models attacking vehicles "Must obviously be in base-to-base contact as normal." Therefore vehicles without bases in 2nd edition are immune to all melee combat.

When you charge a vehicle, you can use a gun your model is equipped with rather than a melee weapon (as long as it's not a Move Or Fire or Sustained Fire weapon) and you still get to add the physical strength of the model holding the gun. Also, you score a number of hits with that gun equal to the attacks stat of the model. It also says "The attacker must specify the location struck - with certain logical restrictions!"

Oh nostalgia how you have lied to me.

Nostalgia is good at that.

Nurglitch wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yet for all the weird rules of the past, I don't recall ever having a LOS discussion or feeling it was unfair in 2nd. Maybe because without the rules being so wide, people just applied common sense.

I'm sorry, but in the english language there is only one definition for the term "Elephant" and my small plastic carnifex is clearly NOT larger than a 20-foot tall multi-ton pachyderm, and unless you can source somewhere in the RULES that it says we should imagine some kind of scaled-down "Model elephant" we play the game as WRITTEN, not your CAAC rules as intended bs interpretation!

African Bush Elephants top out at 11' at the shoulder.

Back in my day elephants were 25 feet tall and they had rows and rows of razor-sharp teeth as well! Or was that the Glabbernarkl?

"Reroll misses means reroll before modifiers!"

Fiddly. Ambiguous. Throws open a whole giant array of questions about what other effects trigger on the natural roll v. the modified roll, which requires extra under-the-hood knowledge about what the FAQs have said about what different abilities. All of which is 100% pointless bloat.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Reroll misses means reroll before modifiers!"

Fiddly. Ambiguous. Throws open a whole giant array of questions about what other effects trigger on the natural roll v. the modified roll, which requires extra under-the-hood knowledge about what the FAQs have said about what different abilities. All of which is 100% pointless bloat.

Yeah, that rule is up there as being unintuitive, clunky and something most people forget since it's not at all how anything involving modifiers has worked, ever.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Reroll misses means reroll before modifiers!"

Fiddly. Ambiguous. Throws open a whole giant array of questions about what other effects trigger on the natural roll v. the modified roll, which requires extra under-the-hood knowledge about what the FAQs have said about what different abilities. All of which is 100% pointless bloat.

I understand why they felt the need to do it, but they really should have let modifiers work on it. I mean if modifiers work on Gets Hot or exploding 6s in most cases why not let it work on rerolls?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Reroll misses means reroll before modifiers!"

Fiddly. Ambiguous. Throws open a whole giant array of questions about what other effects trigger on the natural roll v. the modified roll, which requires extra under-the-hood knowledge about what the FAQs have said about what different abilities. All of which is 100% pointless bloat.

I understand why they felt the need to do it, but they really should have let modifiers work on it. I mean if modifiers work on Gets Hot or exploding 6s in most cases why not let it work on rerolls?

Because regardless of whether the maths pans out or not, it doesn't "feel" nice for your unit with a -1 to hit to suddenly allow your opponent to re-roll both 1's and 2's with a "re-roll 1's" ability, or to let your opponent re-roll more dice than they "should".

The gradual change from re-roll misses to just re-roll anything is welcome.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Reroll misses means reroll before modifiers!"

Fiddly. Ambiguous. Throws open a whole giant array of questions about what other effects trigger on the natural roll v. the modified roll, which requires extra under-the-hood knowledge about what the FAQs have said about what different abilities. All of which is 100% pointless bloat.

I understand why they felt the need to do it, but they really should have let modifiers work on it. I mean if modifiers work on Gets Hot or exploding 6s in most cases why not let it work on rerolls?

Because regardless of whether the maths pans out or not, it doesn't "feel" nice for your unit with a -1 to hit to suddenly allow your opponent to re-roll both 1's and 2's with a "re-roll 1's" ability, or to let your opponent re-roll more dice than they "should".

The gradual change from re-roll misses to just re-roll anything is welcome.

And that's why I get why they did it, I just feel like there should be more uses of "unmodified" in the rules than we currently have (namely Gets Hot and Exploding 6s).

Hmmm....

Hull points- many dead vehicles from S6 spam

Mortal Wounds- a band-aid instead of actually balancing hordes vs. elite units

Removal of blasts/templates- very cinematic and fun, and I think better for gameplay (alleged arguments aside) making positioning matter

Destroyer weapons.... just... WHY.....

Fixed rolls as standard