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.

Waaaghpower wrote:
On the subject of terrain, I much prefer the 5th edition way that things worked. You set up terrain so that both you and your opponent are happy, and THEN roll off to pick sides. You would have to put of fortifications after picking sides and deploying terrain for this version, but it created a far more balanced game because you had to make sure both sides were about equal. (So you wouldn't be screwed over by getting the wrong side.)

This is the only house rule my group uses.

I thought the terrain set up rules were rubbish as well.

UNTIL WE ACTUALLY TRIED THEM.

Now, my friends and I use the terrain set up rules in every game we can. it really adds another dynamic to the game, and is a ton of fun.

Don't read it and judge, actually do it. It adds a lot more to the game.

- often we forget night fighting
- barrage and cover saves in area terrain (I always forget if this works or not).

It's funny because I thought the terrain placement rules were really good until I actually tried them.

Is it just the fortification thing people don't like or is there more to the dislike of the new terrain placement rules people don't like?

1. Opponent puts large flat piece of terrain in middle of board to make it difficult to block line of sight
2. I put line of sight blocking terrain in front of opponent's Quad Gun
3. Opponent puts the nice big ruin piece on their side of the board so I can't have it

The terrain placement rules encourage players to be jerks and I don't think that's a good way to start off the game.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
1. Opponent puts large flat piece of terrain in middle of board to make it difficult to block line of sight
2. I put line of sight blocking terrain in front of opponent's Quad Gun
3. Opponent puts the nice big ruin piece on their side of the board so I can't have it

The terrain placement rules encourage players to be jerks and I don't think that's a good way to start off the game.

No more or less than doing it any other way really. Frankly doing that I think that acting like that with the terrain (or really anything in the game) breaks the whole "don't act like a dick" thing basically outlined in the "Spirit of the Game" bit at the start of the rulebook, which talks about the game being a thing that needs to be enjoyable for BOTH players. Which really needs to be a rule (kind of like how Warmachine has that page about basically not being a dick in their rulebook) just to get people approaching the game in a manner that isn't "how can I screw over my opponent so I can win easier?"

I'd rather just use narrative terrain setup than having to deliberately handicap myself and rely on my opponent to do the same just to make a system work.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'd rather just use narrative terrain setup than having to deliberately handicap myself and rely on my opponent to do the same just to make a system work.

I fail how setting up a fair and balanced table under the new rules is any different than the narrative set up or how it puts you at a disadvantage. All it takes is some decent sportsmanship and not acting like a dick.

davethepak wrote:
I thought the terrain set up rules were rubbish as well.

UNTIL WE ACTUALLY TRIED THEM.

Now, my friends and I use the terrain set up rules in every game we can. it really adds another dynamic to the game, and is a ton of fun.

Don't read it and judge, actually do it. It adds a lot more to the game.

- often we forget night fighting
- barrage and cover saves in area terrain (I always forget if this works or not).

I do use the new rules. All the time. And I stand by my statement that calling them slowed is rather accurate. For creating a scenic looking battlefield, it's just awful. For creating an interesting layout, its awful. Assault armies always block Line of Sight in a big line down the middle of the board, and shooty armies always stick every big piece of terrain in the corner where it is useless. If you use the official rules any other way, you are handicapping yourself. The only terrain placement style that is rewarded ends up with stupid, un-fluffy boards. If you want a decent looking board, you have to A. Not give yourself any help for the upcoming game and B. Pray that your opponent cares about looks.

The one thing EVERYONE gets wrong is thinking the way they believe the rules should be played, is the only way to play the 40k game.

40k is not written as a clearly defined instruction to play a specific game.(As most other games on sale are.)

But rather a group of ideas roughly shaped into a GUIDE LINE on how you COULD play the game.

The 40k rules DEPEND on mutually agreeing on interpretation/changing of rules, what selection of units you are going to include, and how competitive you are going to play.

For groups that meet regularly , this is not so much of a problem.But for pick up games it can cause quite a few 'issues'.

'The only important rule then is the rules are not all that important.'

But I suppose if you are paying a premium price for a book that said it is a 'rule book', some people could believe the rules have to be important .
Otherwise you might as well just download free rules off the internet and house rules them to fit your idea of what 40k should play like.

Just a thought...

 welshhoppo wrote:
And yet we have Khorne Berzerker rather than Khorne Berserkers.

Pshht.
We all know it sounds more violent with a Z instead of an S.
>.>
<.<
*whispers* "I think they bought it."

That or they can't spell.

WELL.
They can. But you know what I mean.

It is Berzerker because Z's are cool. Besides, in America it is spelled "berserk" not "berzerk".

 Happyjew wrote:
It is Berzerker because Z's are cool. Besides, in America it is spelled "berserk" not "berzerk".

...
Oh.
>.>
I thought it was the other way around.

ClockworkZion wrote:Terrain set up largely makes sense (out side of fortifications honestly, but thats fixed by just setting up the table and replacing an appropriately sized piece of terrain with the fortification) and I have no real issues with them. 5th edition's standard of terrain always felt too sparse for me and too heavilly favored immobile gunlines. I'd much rather have a board with a lot of heavy terrain than get tabled before I can cross the table because my opponent is running a Tau gunline.

Leonus wrote:As the first thing my group does is set up an attractive board, regardless of the terrain placing rules, I never realized quite how idiotic the real rules are. Glad we house rule that to place fortifications after terrain.

Galorian wrote:I usually just grab what terrain pieces fit the board and try to set them up in a way that would be roughly symmetric in practical terms (though often looks quite distinct), oftentimes before my opponent even arrives.

I do not recall anyone ever complaining.

I always use narrative setup too, but I think the important thing to remember is that, by the rules, a 6th edition 40k table should now have an average of twelve bits of significantly-sized terrain (with scatter terrain counting in group of three). That's a lot more than 5ed....

 ArbitorIan wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:Terrain set up largely makes sense (out side of fortifications honestly, but thats fixed by just setting up the table and replacing an appropriately sized piece of terrain with the fortification) and I have no real issues with them. 5th edition's standard of terrain always felt too sparse for me and too heavilly favored immobile gunlines. I'd much rather have a board with a lot of heavy terrain than get tabled before I can cross the table because my opponent is running a Tau gunline.

Leonus wrote:As the first thing my group does is set up an attractive board, regardless of the terrain placing rules, I never realized quite how idiotic the real rules are. Glad we house rule that to place fortifications after terrain.

Galorian wrote:I usually just grab what terrain pieces fit the board and try to set them up in a way that would be roughly symmetric in practical terms (though often looks quite distinct), oftentimes before my opponent even arrives.

I do not recall anyone ever complaining.

I always use narrative setup too, but I think the important thing to remember is that, by the rules, a 6th edition 40k table should now have an average of twelve bits of significantly-sized terrain (with scatter terrain counting in group of three). That's a lot more than 5ed....

I like to set up buildings so that their fronts align into a "street" that bisects the map, sometimes with an administratum building with an open square in front of it in the middle. A large gate with walls stretching to either side of it would be the "town limits" with mostly natural terrain beyond it. I then add sandbags and the like in likely places so it'll look like the place was previously defended and thuroughly trashed in previous battles (usually the lines would be facing the city gate and/or cutting off streets/alleys).

Too bad most of my terrain is unpainted (not to mention most of my buildings are butchered naked cardboard boxes and duct tape)...

So to add on to what I was saying before about Fear.

I talked to a couple of mates (there was a tournament going on today, and I was surprised when a Tau player told his opponent to roll for Fear after charging with his Riptide). Here are a few of the things that were said:

I generally don't bother, it doesn't affect things much.
What is "Fear"?
Dude, you're thinking Fantasy, 40K doesn't have Fear.

 Happyjew wrote:
So to add on to what I was saying before about Fear.

I talked to a couple of mates (there was a tournament going on today, and I was surprised when a Tau player told his opponent to roll for Fear after charging with his Riptide). Here are a few of the things that were said:

I generally don't bother, it doesn't affect things much.
What is "Fear"?
Dude, you're thinking Fantasy, 40K doesn't have Fear.

Thinking of Fear, I think we need a "Terror" rule in 40k. Things like Greater Daemons, the Swarmlord and generally monsters of that caliber (either big and extra dimensional or so identifiable, like the Swarmlord, that it can make you crap your pants through reputation alone).

Additionally, I'm fine with Space Marines ignoring Fear, I can even handle the "Can't Be Swept in Close Combat" part of the rule (which needs to be it's own rule like "Stand Your Ground!" to make it more universal, for like CSM who should have that bonus), but that auto-rally nonsense needs to go. That is some literal BS that is making ATSKNF broken for how much it basically costs Marines. Make it a seperate rule, give it to special elite units in armies and not just Marines if you want it on the table (preferably only as long as there is a character in the unit too) or get rid of it.

Sorry, ATSKNF bugs me because as a rule it gives way to many benefits in a single rule.

I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?) but it is also quite difficult to balance gamewise.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?)

I disagree. When marines run, even if it is not out of fear, they are just as likely to get stabbed in the back as anyone else. So, no sweep immunity. When marines run, it takes them just as much time as everyone else. So, no free turn after regrouping. I am okay with auto-rallying. Just not with the awful broken combo rule ATSKNF is now.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?) but it is also quite difficult to balance gamewise.

Even if it's fluffy it should not be a rule with 3 unique effects, it should be three separate rules that they basically pay for each of. ATSKNF is the only rule that has three different effects like that. It's like the Interceptor problem all over again, if GW wanted a rule for shooting at incoming reserves units and a rule for shooting at ground targets if you're a model who has Skyfire they should have been two different rules instead of one.

But looking past the fact that different effects warrant different rules, the regroup is too strong. It's not just a regroup, it's a free regroup followed by no penalty for movement, shooting or assaulting the turn. So Marines fall back and then get a 3" move followed by being allowed to move 6"....why? Why can they suddenly get to move 9" that turn in a game where Infantry moves 6"? It throws off the balance of the game and makes Marines faster that they should be.

I'm not too pleases with the "can't be swept" bit because there are lots of units and armies that shouldn't able to be swept by their own fluff. I mean, what about the careful calculating nature of the Necrons? They'd ever retreat if it'd put them in more danger than staying and you can still cut down their units by Sweeping Advances. Why are Marines the only ones who are immune to this? They don't even have the most expensive units in the game, so why are they getting such preferential treatment to this one rule?

Heck, even the immunity to Fear is weirdly overpowered. It's not a "per model" basis, but something you can buff whole units of Guardsmen with by loaning them a Independent Character. It hardly needs to be that strong and a "per model" application of Fear would just mean that in the same situation the Guardsmen would be able to go to WS1, but the Marine would be immune.

ATSKNF should have been just that, and been a rule that makes Marines immune to Fear (which is why we need Terror in the game so at the very least they can be unnerved by stuff that is a step above "I wee'd a little" and is in firmly "bring my brown pants" territory).

And thinking of Fear: entirely too many units are getting Fearless as a thing this edition. It's like Fifth Edition and it's obsession with handing out FnP and EW. I really hopes GW knocks that off because it's making what should be a cool and fluffy rule basically useless.

I agree. Fear is something that we just don't recognize in most games we play. I've had one person within the last year have me roll a fear check on MC, the rest of the times we just never remembered or never bothered.

Just like soul blaze. I've had to remind people that some weapons actually have soul blaze thrown on them and nobody seems to remember. Most of the time it just takes up extra time because we have to look up the rule to remember what it does just to roll and see that it does nothing. Ever. I don't think I've seen a single wound caused by it and it's just too much hassle to keep up with.

Oh and my two cents on ATSKNF and sweeping, I can't think of a good justification that a lot of HQ units like Crisis Suit commanders would get shived in the back while Tactical Marine Expendicus the 27th stands and fights.

On topic the one rule I've seen used wrongly the most is deep striking drop pods and units staying 1" away. Had lots of times where people tried slipping between models.

Line of Sight has to be one of my new favorites. Not many people seem to grasp the concept in my area. Your EW Iron Hand Chapter Master on a bike is the closest model, but I can't see him with any unit so the rest of his squad takes wounds instead of him.

I always remind my opponents about THEIR models having Preferred Enemy, and to re-roll their Ones for hitting AND wounding.

Sometimes I'm a nice guy.

I was hanging out at my FLGS yesterday (don't worry, I gave them most of my money on Friday so it's not like I'm one of those people who just freeloads off of them ) and I was taking a break from painting and wandered over to see how the Apoc game (which had a single Knight in it as its lone Superheavy, it was mostly massive collections of models which was cool) was going. I ended up explaining how Overwatch in an open-topped vehicle works to the Ork player who was running a Battlewagon because they didn't know that all their models could shoot if it's charged.

And apparently no one at the table was 100% how it worked out of like 6 people. I was a little saddened by this.

It took my opponent and I at least 7 minutes of rule arguing to figure out how to emergency disembark from a vehicle. He thought they all died for some reason, don't remember why.

It's mostly from the fact that combat and transports are rare this edition, and now combat with transports is even more rare.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
It took my opponent and I at least 7 minutes of rule arguing to figure out how to emergency disembark from a vehicle. He thought they all died for some reason, don't remember why.

It's mostly from the fact that combat and transports are rare this edition, and now combat with transports is even more rare.

Yeah, people seem to forget that GW made it harder to kill units off by blocking the doors.

With how much "Ignores Cover" that's being handed out (I'm looking at you Tau, Eldar and now that new Guard tank) I'm starting to wonder if people are just going to stop bothering with Cover Saves pretty soon.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?)

I disagree. When marines run, even if it is not out of fear, they are just as likely to get stabbed in the back as anyone else. So, no sweep immunity. When marines run, it takes them just as much time as everyone else. So, no free turn after regrouping. I am okay with auto-rallying. Just not with the awful broken combo rule ATSKNF is now.

That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.

They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.

They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.

But why is it that Space Marines are able to get this army wide and even confer it to non marine units?
Why are Crisis suits lead by a commander thrown into complete disarray and over run by cultist while a few tactical marines can turn back around and fight a Carnifex that just ate the rest of their squad?
I agree that there is a reason fluff wise on why they would have it. I disagree that fluffwise no other units would get these benefits.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?)

I disagree. When marines run, even if it is not out of fear, they are just as likely to get stabbed in the back as anyone else. So, no sweep immunity. When marines run, it takes them just as much time as everyone else. So, no free turn after regrouping. I am okay with auto-rallying. Just not with the awful broken combo rule ATSKNF is now.

That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.

They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.

Yes, because necrons, a race of machines who calculate everything and are driven by cold logic, would totally drop them guns and run to the hills when a guardsman whacks one over the head with his lasgun.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?)

I disagree. When marines run, even if it is not out of fear, they are just as likely to get stabbed in the back as anyone else. So, no sweep immunity. When marines run, it takes them just as much time as everyone else. So, no free turn after regrouping. I am okay with auto-rallying. Just not with the awful broken combo rule ATSKNF is now.

That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.

They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.

And there are a lot of units who should be doing the same exact thing, that's why it's such an egregious error for it to be buried under ATSKNF and not available to other units. Either everyone has potentially the same access to it no one should. It shouldn't be nested inside of a rule that doesn't really fit the effect.

Hell, Necrons don't panic and break by their fluff, they make tactical retreats only when it's the best option (using complex probabilities and math most likely to know for sure) and yet we can mow down whole units of them.

Then again I think the Sweeping Advance rule should basically be changed to the Sweeping Unit getting a free attack for every model in it's unit on the unit that's trying to flee and they stay locked in combat (if the fleeing unit lives).

The word is pronounced 'egreeeegious' (egregious for spelling) - egress means exit.

I also get tired of ATSKNF sillyiness, but that's GW for you