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.
2021/05/02 10:27:41
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
If that happened to me, I'd feel totally entitled to ignore it and carry on. If you've agreed to it, fine - I've used something like it in an Apocalypse game across two tables where any weapon with sufficient range could fire from one to the other - but it's no different to me going over to that other table and taking all the terrain away.
"unlimited range" isn't a rule allowing you to play in a different game, no matter what idiots online think.
2021/05/02 14:38:37
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
I can't see how one could legit make the case that two separate game's can impact each other. Things that go "off the table" are considered out of play.
Certainly if players involved in multiple games agree to it, sure, anything goes. But as an actual enforceable rule? I don't think so.
Yeah, I can understand that you didn't run across it. I think it's mainly because most people just never thought about it as being a legitimate option in play. It eventually became an escalation rule for the two shops that I frequented at the time, or something that was viable for team play in coordinated play. (i.e. When one team member took control of a specific terrain piece during their game, and the rules dictated that they could fire the one shot.)
As for me, I've been on the receiving end of this, and yes it did suck. It wasn't a deathstrike though thankfully. So there are some good upsides to some of this in the end.
I don't mind this being a friendly thing, but the idea of someone "phoning up" and saying their launching a Deathstrike missile onto their table is just the definition of troll. How could you be certain that they're even playing a game wherever they're calling from? How could you tell they didn't just make up the whole thing?
Also, there's also the narrative issue. 40k takes place across the entire Milky Way galaxy and potentially across completely different time periods. That means both players on the table would have to agree that they are playing on the same planet and same time period as the person making the unlimited range attack.
What's to say I couldn't aim a 72" railgun or battlecannon off my table edge and claim a percentage of its range has managed to reach their sector? What if my Marine devastator sat on the table edge and fired their lascannon "off the board edge" then claimed their laser hit another players centrepiece model.
It's just too open to abuse, doesn't make sense outside narrative play, and just doesn't seem fair to whoever is hit with it. This was never a rule, if you played with it in store it was certainly a house rule.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I miss the game having vehicles. Current 'vehicles' aren't much different from anything else.
I don't hate how they changed vehicles to wounds rather than AV but I do think vehicles in general need to be more tankie. Something like:
- More wounds. Things like a Leman Russ should be something like 14 wounds minimum, or a Land Raider should be 18 wounds.
- Anything that had an AV of 14 should have an armour save of 2+: Land Raiders already do, but Baneblades and Macharius Heavy Tanks don't. Even if those tanks only get a 2+ save against shooting attacks and a 3+ save in engagement range to represent the old "hit rear armour in melee."
- The Terrain rules need to be tweaked: Models with 18 wounds or more can be seen normally. This should be changed to 20 wounds or more. - Some kind of bonus against chip damage for heavier vehicles: Something like light vehicles don't ignore any AP. Medium vehicles (10 - 15 wounds) treat AP-1 as AP0. Heavy vehicles (16 wounds or more) treat AP-2 as AP0.
Something needs to be done to make vehicles feel like vehicles again. Big Guns Never Tire was a step in the right direction but not enough to really do anything about vehicle durability in an edition where everything is becoming more deadly.
Same goes to Blast. It's a nice concept, but not enough to really swing anything unless its 11+ models. It should really be changed to trigger at 5 models instead of 6, and simply apply to every D6 of damage rather than per weapon.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/04 03:24:38
2021/05/05 02:50:43
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
I really miss the Goff Rockers. Or the Weird boy that could have gotten possessed by a chaos entity (all the way up to a greater daemon). I miss the wargear card "ablative armour" and "rad grenade", hell, i miss Wargear cards in general.
I miss the 3rd edition BA codex as a whole. I loved that black rage wasn't a guaranteed unit purchase (unless you took lemartes or a chaplain *i think*) but comprised of the random chance of the units in your army succumbing to the rage and joining the death company.
I miss terminators saving on 2d6. lol.
I miss the liber daemonic and the grimoire of true names on an inquisitor in the 4th edition demon hunters codex. actually, I just miss that codex. that was a great book for the kind of just doing what you wanted and moving in a direction that you liked. it was a really wide open (and i suppose abusable book).
Oddly enough, i actually miss the old armor penetration system from 2nd edition. I didnt mind using different dice (D20, D12, etc etc) for armour penetration because it created a much mroe granular approach to armour penetration.
I think mostly, i miss the rule where a multimelta could be used as a heavy flamer if you wished it so.
oh, and robots.
like, program before you play robots. no castellans. real imperial robots. and the imperial assassian. the one with tabi-boots on. I need to find that model. Calgar on his throne, and the 3 pack of land raiders for like 20.00.
lol. what a wild and absolutely enjoyable ride this hobby has given me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 02:51:27
2021/05/06 19:44:35
Subject: Re:Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Units not allowing you to get other units. Might sound odd but I love the old chaos gods rules for instance. If you pick Tzeentch deamons you may not pick Khorne deamons. Same with Nurgle and Slaanesh. The rival gods hate each other and their units don’t mix. I think Abaddon let you break that rule. Inquisition had a rule that if you picked deamonhosts you where not allowed to pick grey knights. Commander farsight only allowed one of each tau codex entry, with the exception of battle suits. You could bring all the battle suits.
Some faction specific rules like space wolves having hatred (+to hit in melee) for Dark angels and thousand sons. All blood angels having furious charge... in fact most of the old blood angels rules. Red thirst and such. Guards doctrines and space marine... what where they called? Tactics? I guess the stuff that made armies feel particularly unique, even though they where poorly executed sometimes.
Only special characters with your opponents consent, and only within certain point limits.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/05/06 19:51:41
His pattern of returning alive after being declared dead occurred often enough during Cain's career that the Munitorum made a special ruling that Ciaphas Cain is to never be considered dead, despite evidence to the contrary.
2021/05/07 00:09:23
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
quite a few people saying "Special characters by opponent's permission only" and I'm curious... how many of you have turned away opponents' special characters? and how often did it come up?
Nerak wrote: Units not allowing you to get other units. Might sound odd but I love the old chaos gods rules for instance. If you pick Tzeentch deamons you may not pick Khorne deamons. Same with Nurgle and Slaanesh. The rival gods hate each other and their units don’t mix. I think Abaddon let you break that rule. Inquisition had a rule that if you picked deamonhosts you where not allowed to pick grey knights. Commander farsight only allowed one of each tau codex entry, with the exception of battle suits. You could bring all the battle suits.
Some faction specific rules like space wolves having hatred (+to hit in melee) for Dark angels and thousand sons. All blood angels having furious charge... in fact most of the old blood angels rules. Red thirst and such. Guards doctrines and space marine... what where they called? Tactics? I guess the stuff that made armies feel particularly unique, even though they where poorly executed sometimes.
Only special characters with your opponents consent, and only within certain point limits.
The rival gods were Khorne vs Slaanesh and Tzeentch vs Nurgle.
I remember fondly the 2nd edition vehicle damage system. Once my dreadnought took out a chaos biker with an assault cannon. The bike careened out of control and hit the dreadnought, destroying the assault cannon.
2021/05/07 00:48:26
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Rihgu wrote: quite a few people saying "Special characters by opponent's permission only" and I'm curious... how many of you have turned away opponents' special characters? and how often did it come up?
It never came up. No one wanted to be 'that guy' (by bringing SCs).
For most of that rule's existence no one, not even GW, pretended that most of them weren't horribly broken. They were for WD showcase articles and narrative campaigns about whichever SC smacking down NPCs. (Or setting up a duel between two broken characters for the laughs)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/07 00:50:58
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2021/05/07 00:58:53
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Rihgu wrote: quite a few people saying "Special characters by opponent's permission only" and I'm curious... how many of you have turned away opponents' special characters? and how often did it come up?
It never came up. No one wanted to be 'that guy' (by bringing SCs).
For most of that rule's existence no one, not even GW, pretended that most of them weren't horribly broken. They were for WD showcase articles and narrative campaigns about whichever SC smacking down NPCs. (Or setting up a duel between two broken characters for the laughs)
Doesn't that just kinda make them a waste of Codex space, then?
Wouldn't it be better to just make them balanced and therefore not an issue? (Or, even better, make it so they're just specific builds of highly customizable generic characters.)
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/05/07 01:59:06
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Rihgu wrote: quite a few people saying "Special characters by opponent's permission only" and I'm curious... how many of you have turned away opponents' special characters? and how often did it come up?
It never came up. No one wanted to be 'that guy' (by bringing SCs).
For most of that rule's existence no one, not even GW, pretended that most of them weren't horribly broken. They were for WD showcase articles and narrative campaigns about whichever SC smacking down NPCs. (Or setting up a duel between two broken characters for the laughs)
Doesn't that just kinda make them a waste of Codex space, then?
Wouldn't it be better to just make them balanced and therefore not an issue? (Or, even better, make it so they're just specific builds of highly customizable generic characters.)
Waste of codex AND designer time AND production capacity. I can see why they dropped that rule.
Oborosen wrote: This is something that I've always been somewhat interested on hearing for some time. It happens that I was going through some of my older books, codices, imperil amour.. etc etc.
I managed to go down a rather interesting rabbit hold of rules, abilities, and just a few other interesting tidbits that made those armies so fun back in the day.
The one that really got a laugh out of me, and to that point made me wonder just what GW was thinking at the time. Was the *infinite range* rule for some wargear/weapons.
Now this may not seem like much to some of you, but some of the older players like myself. May have memories of using this rule to play some rather funny shenanigans against the enemy. One of my favorites being the fact that most shops that ran organized play, would allow you to use this rule on another table's army. FULL STOP.
In you could see another game going on at another table, then there was very little stopping you from launching your vortex missiles onto their board, and into their troop formations.
It may seem weird, or outlandish, but the premise also held true with GW shops as well. And if you so happened to call them up from several states away, they would most likely honor the rule.
I've been playing for decades, and I've never heard or seen anyone play with this rule.
Triggerbaby wrote:In summary, here's your lunch and ask Miss Creaver if she has aloe lotion because I have taken you to school and you have been burned.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:I too can prove pretty much any assertion I please if I don't count all the evidence that contradicts it.
2021/05/07 06:38:38
Subject: Re:Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Nerak wrote: Units not allowing you to get other units. Might sound odd but I love the old chaos gods rules for instance. If you pick Tzeentch deamons you may not pick Khorne deamons. Same with Nurgle and Slaanesh. The rival gods hate each other and their units don’t mix.
The rival gods were Khorne vs Slaanesh and Tzeentch vs Nurgle.
Oh, haha. What a mistake, that’s pretty basic lore.
Rihgu wrote: quite a few people saying "Special characters by opponent's permission only" and I'm curious... how many of you have turned away opponents' special characters? and how often did it come up?
What I liked about this rule is two things. First that GW accepted that special characters are very powerful. Second that it normalized a no special Characters policy at events and tournaments. You’d be hard pressed to find an event that doesn’t allow special characters today. Today you might think of it as a way to incentivize keyword diversity. The strongest special character comes with a keyword tax that leads to less army (and Colour scheme) diversity. Of course keywords didn’t exist back then but a similar logic applies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/07 06:39:08
His pattern of returning alive after being declared dead occurred often enough during Cain's career that the Munitorum made a special ruling that Ciaphas Cain is to never be considered dead, despite evidence to the contrary.
2021/05/07 10:10:06
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
if there was one crime comitted by GW than it was that they decided to hand out subfactions rules despite knowing that a price tag was needed to balance them, for free.
FWIW, the Arch demagogue devotions work as a an singular upgrade to the R&H command squad leader. He automatically has to be the warlord of your army if that happens:
So what excactly did these devotions do?
Basically they came associated with a pts cost, varying depending upon type of devotion you chose.
They then generally modified your Demagogue, rangeing from somewhat insignificant to quite a hefty switch in model. (heretek magus gave t4 SV 3+ and a 6+++ up from a generic commander profile) Others just gave a mark for free and fanatic (morale interaction) .
However most of these also modified your army in a specific way via unlocking specific equipment options and having other stipulations: one of my favourite exemples was the "Master of the horde". (Was a 20 pts upgrade and no effect on your Demagogue, however it increased the max squad size for militia to 30. ) Vs "bloody handed reaver"
However any Militia squad having more than 15 models at the start of the game under such a demagogue could if destroyed or fled roll a d6. On a 5+ the full squad reentered active reserve and would show up again.
So what exactly is militia: Basically think of it as a Conscript, without armor. 10-20 per Squad. 3-5 squads form a platoon. They got upgrades though, bulk upgrades infact with fixed cost. F.e. Militia training for 10 pts which increased their 5+/5+ BS / ws to guardsmen 4+/4+. This made a platoon troop choice, into something that you actually wanted to field and not in a MSU style, which was a huge paradigm change compared to any other army.
Meanwhile the militia under the bloody handed reaver got turned into traitor guardsmen, yes including bulk upgrade unlocked for actual flak armour. However he also forced you to buy militia training on all units. So you have suddendly two differing playstyles, tied to cost albeit with different uses within one upgrade differentiation. Which you then could customize of course to your liking.
And you know what, that wasn't even the most radical modification you could do.
Platoon structure.
Advisors.
Customizable troop units.
The no special carachter rule also allowed for generic charachters to have some specific modifications to your FoC slot and overall lead to more customizable charachters and more time invested into equipement options and other such things for them. Nowadays it's all about those big centerpieces dominating whole factions and playstyles... and i don't think it's good .
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/07 10:50:32
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2021/05/07 17:17:54
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Oborosen wrote: This is something that I've always been somewhat interested on hearing for some time. It happens that I was going through some of my older books, codices, imperil amour.. etc etc.
I managed to go down a rather interesting rabbit hold of rules, abilities, and just a few other interesting tidbits that made those armies so fun back in the day.
The one that really got a laugh out of me, and to that point made me wonder just what GW was thinking at the time. Was the *infinite range* rule for some wargear/weapons.
Now this may not seem like much to some of you, but some of the older players like myself. May have memories of using this rule to play some rather funny shenanigans against the enemy. One of my favorites being the fact that most shops that ran organized play, would allow you to use this rule on another table's army. FULL STOP.
In you could see another game going on at another table, then there was very little stopping you from launching your vortex missiles onto their board, and into their troop formations.
It may seem weird, or outlandish, but the premise also held true with GW shops as well. And if you so happened to call them up from several states away, they would most likely honor the rule.
I've been playing for decades, and I've never heard or seen anyone play with this rule.
Because it isn't a rule. Matches on different tables aren't part of one big, continuous game that communicate with one another simply because a unit has 1:1 range on the other. GW themselves use the " table edges are the walls of the universe" idea all the time (even literally typing so in one of the 8th FAQs when people got silly). Affecting other tables is COOL, when it's a special rule in a one-off event that has simultaneous games running in parallel, but the idea being pushed here as some universal truth is utter bogus.
Nowadays it's all about those big centerpieces dominating whole factions and playstyles... and i don't think it's good .
Agreed. I'm really not into the centerpiece model thing.
well, considering GW's trackrecord with them.....
They also seem even less able to balance them..
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2021/05/10 02:51:33
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
I liked the collection of rules that prevented first turn charges. Couldn't assault out of deep strike, had to deploy more than X inches away from opponents.
Rihgu wrote: quite a few people saying "Special characters by opponent's permission only" and I'm curious... how many of you have turned away opponents' special characters? and how often did it come up?
Didn't turn away SC's, though I do remember a few incarnations of SC characters being broken (Dante for a bit, I think?). Considering AC spam at the time and that 80% of people playing were the smurfs, I can see how people would not want to be dealing with that every match.
Thematically, though, it completely ruins the experience that every battle has Marneus Calgar or Eldrad or the tau tank guy, etc. leading the forces. I remember seeing Eldrad in every Eldar list for a while, which was interesting because this was quite a few years after the 13th Black Crusade and Eldrad was dead at the time but kept showing up in the codex.
Kind of how Space Marines ruin the setting thematically in that how they're a small number of extremely elite troops but show up to every minor skirmish. After a while, one kind of has to wonder how the Imperium is on the ropes since they seem to have more smurfs than 'Guard and now they have super space technology rivaling everyone but (arguably) Necrons.
2021/05/10 17:14:39
Subject: Re:Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Oborosen wrote: This is something that I've always been somewhat interested on hearing for some time. It happens that I was going through some of my older books, codices, imperil amour.. etc etc.
I managed to go down a rather interesting rabbit hold of rules, abilities, and just a few other interesting tidbits that made those armies so fun back in the day.
The one that really got a laugh out of me, and to that point made me wonder just what GW was thinking at the time. Was the *infinite range* rule for some wargear/weapons.
Now this may not seem like much to some of you, but some of the older players like myself. May have memories of using this rule to play some rather funny shenanigans against the enemy. One of my favorites being the fact that most shops that ran organized play, would allow you to use this rule on another table's army. FULL STOP.
In you could see another game going on at another table, then there was very little stopping you from launching your vortex missiles onto their board, and into their troop formations.
It may seem weird, or outlandish, but the premise also held true with GW shops as well. And if you so happened to call them up from several states away, they would most likely honor the rule.
I've been playing for decades, and I've never heard or seen anyone play with this rule.
Because it isn't a rule. Matches on different tables aren't part of one big, continuous game that communicate with one another simply because a unit has 1:1 range on the other. GW themselves use the " table edges are the walls of the universe" idea all the time (even literally typing so in one of the 8th FAQs when people got silly). Affecting other tables is COOL, when it's a special rule in a one-off event that has simultaneous games running in parallel, but the idea being pushed here as some universal truth is utter bogus.
We allowed this once during a campaign we ran way back in 5th shortly after Planet Strike came out. Was 8 player campaign with 3 being IG and they jokingly asked if one players basilisks could provide fire support to the other table due to them having the range. Everyone decided yes they could, but full scatter unless a MOO was in line of sight and shots had to occur in the same game turns on each table. Provided some fun and interesting moments for the campaign.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/12 12:12:36
"Elysians: For when you absolutely, positively, must have 100% casualties"
2021/05/14 17:13:31
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Blast templates! I know they aren't great for fast play or competitive play, but they were a lot of fun on casual game nights...
I used to love things like Vortexes of Doom or Deathstrike Missiles -- They weren't as deadly as say a ranged D-Weapon, but like, they had such a huge chance to change the game.
Also -- scatter deepstrike. It made deepstrike more finicky, but more fun for me? I used to love dropping in Seraphim with hand flamers. it was super risky, so when it would happen it was super cool, and when it didn't it would be like, "Well, happens, at least it was cool!"
...I guess I really liked the dumb cinematic rules lol
2021/05/16 23:58:10
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Duskweaver wrote: The gloriously random Ork Madboyz rules from the RT era. I'm not normally a fan of rolling on random charts, but for Madboyz it just felt right.
A Madmob could, for example, suddenly develop a violent hatred of the colour purple and attack the nearest unit featuring that colour in their banners or uniforms. Or start copying the behaviour of a randomly chosen enemy unit, moving to mirror their moves, shooting when they shoot, and so on. They might even split up into two separate units due to irreconcilable philosophical disagreements.
Yep. On more than one occssion I had a large group of them all throw away their grenades.
2021/05/17 00:52:13
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
I don't mind this being a friendly thing, but the idea of someone "phoning up" and saying their launching a Deathstrike missile onto their table is just the definition of troll. How could you be certain that they're even playing a game wherever they're calling from? How could you tell they didn't just make up the whole thing?
Also, there's also the narrative issue. 40k takes place across the entire Milky Way galaxy and potentially across completely different time periods. That means both players on the table would have to agree that they are playing on the same planet and same time period as the person making the unlimited range attack.
What's to say I couldn't aim a 72" railgun or battlecannon off my table edge and claim a percentage of its range has managed to reach their sector? What if my Marine devastator sat on the table edge and fired their lascannon "off the board edge" then claimed their laser hit another players centrepiece model.
It's just too open to abuse, doesn't make sense outside narrative play, and just doesn't seem fair to whoever is hit with it. This was never a rule, if you played with it in store it was certainly a house rule.
Abuse and making sense outside of narrative play, isn't exactly something that Warhammer has the best history with. As it appears, this was something that arose with some strange sub-culture within the game, and other making use of the total absurdity of the games setting. As it was originally something that I ran across during convention play and unfortunately, most of that rule set was widely shifting through the first decade that I played.
Since I started this thread, I decided to go hunting for something that could shine some light on this "infinite range" issue, and I did come across an interesting story. It's anecdotal, but it still makes for an interesting thought experiment. http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/19749704/
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seabass wrote: I really miss the Goff Rockers. Or the Weird boy that could have gotten possessed by a chaos entity (all the way up to a greater daemon). I miss the wargear card "ablative armour" and "rad grenade", hell, i miss Wargear cards in general.
Ooooo wargear cards...
Nothing like a grot on an attack bike, popping in due to polymorphine wearing terminator armor and armed with a power fist. All because someone at GW forgot to take RAW as an issue.
Those certainly were weird times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: quite a few people saying "Special characters by opponent's permission only" and I'm curious... how many of you have turned away opponents' special characters? and how often did it come up?
I believe it depends mostly on which character was being played. Because I've had a player request that I not play kaldor Draigo and he even took it to the tournament holder at the time.
This is something that I legitimately have no issue with. If you want to play any character, so long as they're legal for the format then more power to ya. As someone who's had four leviathan dreadnoughts in an Iron Hands detachment, dropped on his nose. I can tell you that named characters are not the worst that a player can throw at you.
Nowadays it's all about those big centerpieces dominating whole factions and playstyles... and i don't think it's good .
Agreed. I'm really not into the centerpiece model thing.
well, considering GW's track record with them.....
They also seem even less able to balance them..
For those of us who were around to see papa smurf be re-released in his new form... yeah. Balance was far and away in the back of their minds when they decided to release that thing.
Oborosen wrote: This is something that I've always been somewhat interested on hearing for some time. It happens that I was going through some of my older books, codices, imperil amour.. etc etc.
I managed to go down a rather interesting rabbit hold of rules, abilities, and just a few other interesting tidbits that made those armies so fun back in the day.
The one that really got a laugh out of me, and to that point made me wonder just what GW was thinking at the time. Was the *infinite range* rule for some wargear/weapons.
Now this may not seem like much to some of you, but some of the older players like myself. May have memories of using this rule to play some rather funny shenanigans against the enemy. One of my favorites being the fact that most shops that ran organized play, would allow you to use this rule on another table's army. FULL STOP.
In you could see another game going on at another table, then there was very little stopping you from launching your vortex missiles onto their board, and into their troop formations.
It may seem weird, or outlandish, but the premise also held true with GW shops as well. And if you so happened to call them up from several states away, they would most likely honor the rule.
I've been playing for decades, and I've never heard or seen anyone play with this rule.
I keep hearing that, so I'm starting to wonder if it only creeped up in certain situations. I first heard about it in the early 90s, during a convention and I was able to see it used at that same convention. So I'm starting to go back and look up exactly where it came from.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 01:09:18
One has to wonder. Do the Tyranids consider drop-assault troops... fast food?
2021/05/17 02:34:18
Subject: Re:Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
I’ve seen this happen at the 40k friendly event at adepticon. Anyone with a death strike was allowed to fire at another table so people were bribing them with swag/gift cards/booze.
2021/05/17 17:23:25
Subject: Are there any old rules that you remember fondly?
Rihgu wrote: quite a few people saying "Special characters by opponent's permission only" and I'm curious... how many of you have turned away opponents' special characters? and how often did it come up?
It never came up. No one wanted to be 'that guy' (by bringing SCs).
For most of that rule's existence no one, not even GW, pretended that most of them weren't horribly broken. They were for WD showcase articles and narrative campaigns about whichever SC smacking down NPCs. (Or setting up a duel between two broken characters for the laughs)
Doesn't that just kinda make them a waste of Codex space, then?
Wouldn't it be better to just make them balanced and therefore not an issue? (Or, even better, make it so they're just specific builds of highly customizable generic characters.)
In practice, it just meant you didn't use special characters in your pick-up games. They were reserved for narrative campaigns and mutually arranged battles.
It's only a waste of codex space if you consider anything not suited to Matched Play to inherently be a waste.
I think I preferred when special characters weren't such a core part of the game, but that's just me. The balance was cleaner (see: Mars with Cawl, or Guilliman with Ultramarines) and it reinforced the Your Dudes aspect. I would have been fine with that idea you suggest of having them be specific builds of customizable characters.
MoshJason wrote: Blast templates! I know they aren't great for fast play or competitive play, but they were a lot of fun on casual game nights...
I used to love things like Vortexes of Doom or Deathstrike Missiles -- They weren't as deadly as say a ranged D-Weapon, but like, they had such a huge chance to change the game.
Also -- scatter deepstrike. It made deepstrike more finicky, but more fun for me? I used to love dropping in Seraphim with hand flamers. it was super risky, so when it would happen it was super cool, and when it didn't it would be like, "Well, happens, at least it was cool!"
...I guess I really liked the dumb cinematic rules lol
I really miss rules that made certain tactical decisions a risk/reward balance like scatter deepstrike. How close do you want to try and land your deepstrike? Close for instant use or farther away for safety? I lost many a squad of Elysian's to gutsy drops, but I won many a game because of a drop going perfectly.
Blast scatter goes here as well. Seeing my Elysian's demo charge scatter back and kill the whole squad to seeing a basilisk scatter off the intended target just to bullseye a different enemy squad and wipe them instead.
"Elysians: For when you absolutely, positively, must have 100% casualties"
All praise snake-eyes