Old Rules You Miss?

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.

**niv-mizzet**

Stable assault distance.

Non-random psychic powers.

Assault from normal transports if they didn't move.

More narrative-style missions, as opposed to "you both show up at this field with 3 objectives..."

Take wounds on who you want, because someone else will just pick up that dude's missile launcher when he goes down.

Foc swaps. Loved being able to run actually creative lists instead of having tax-tical marines.

On the topic of the non random powers, here's my shameless plug for a recent video batrep: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/626521.page

**Formosa**

anyone who said old wound allocation best not be talking about 5th's legal cheating mechanic, while now might not be perfect its a damn sight better than THE most complained about rule I have ever seen.

When 6th got announced all you would hear is "i hope they change wound allocation" every single page.

rant over

What I miss is Dark angels weaken resolve, it was a fun little thing.

**vipoid**

Formosa wrote:
When 6th got announced all you would hear is "i hope they change wound allocation" every single page.

I believe the requests were to *improve* wound allocation - not make it worse.

**Blacksails**

There was a simple fix to 5th's wound allocation problem.

The solution, I can assure you, was not random and removing from the front.

**the_Armyman**

Blacksails wrote:
There was a simple fix to 5th's wound allocation problem.

The solution, I can assure you, was not random and removing from the front.

And that's the root of 40K's problems: don't FIX, simply CHANGE. If I fix something you already own, I can't make money. But if I change it..

**ArmageddonBorn**

Guess distances!

**Midnightdeathblade**

I miss the old 4+ FNP

I also miss universal 6 inch charge. I think in seventh they should change 2D6 to 6 inches +D6. It was so reliable to be able to judge what units would make it into combat and planning accordingly. Plus im doomed to failing every charge ever. I failed a 3 inch charge with genestealers...and they get to re-roll a dice... So Id rather have that 6 inches back

**docdoom77**

Midnightdeathblade wrote:
I miss the old 4+ FNP

I also miss universal 6 inch charge. I think in seventh they should change 2D6 to 6 inches +D6. It was so reliable to be able to judge what units would make it into combat and planning accordingly. Plus im doomed to failing every charge ever. I failed a 3 inch charge with genestealers...and they get to re-roll a dice... So Id rather have that 6 inches back

I agree with this as well. I've grown accustomed to the random charge and I don't hate it anymore (don't like it either.... just meh), but a minimum would make it so much better. Even 4 + d6 would be an improvement. I could live with 5-10 inches for the range.

**vipoid**

Midnightdeathblade wrote:
I also miss universal 6 inch charge. I think in seventh they should change 2D6 to 6 inches +D6. It was so reliable to be able to judge what units would make it into combat and planning accordingly. Plus im doomed to failing every charge ever. I failed a 3 inch charge with genestealers...and they get to re-roll a dice... So Id rather have that 6 inches back

I think 6+d6 would be too much.

But, 3+d6 or 4+d6 could work - just so you don't get screwed over by rolling snake-eyes on what should be an easy charge.

**Grimtuff**

Formosa wrote:
anyone who said old wound allocation best not be talking about 5th's legal cheating mechanic, while now might not be perfect its a damn sight better than THE most complained about rule I have ever seen.

Ignoring the fact only a handful of units (that admittedly were popular) could truly exploit it. This is another case of the internet hyperbole machine in full effect. On 99% of other units it was fine.

**Lobokai**

1). Assaulting from reserve
2). Focus fire
3). 12 man drop pods
4). Old furious charge
5). Old FNP
6). Old Daemon

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, old T and save for Bloodcrushers

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:
Formosa wrote:
anyone who said old wound allocation best not be talking about 5th's legal cheating mechanic, while now might not be perfect its a damn sight better than THE most complained about rule I have ever seen.

Ignoring the fact only a handful of units (that admittedly were popular) could truly exploit it. This is another case of the internet hyperbole machine in full effect. On 99% of other units it was fine.

I really like the current wound allocation system. I hope it stays for years to come.

**Grimtuff**

Lobukia wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:
Formosa wrote:
anyone who said old wound allocation best not be talking about 5th's legal cheating mechanic, while now might not be perfect its a damn sight better than THE most complained about rule I have ever seen.

Ignoring the fact only a handful of units (that admittedly were popular) could truly exploit it. This is another case of the internet hyperbole machine in full effect. On 99% of other units it was fine.

I really like the current wound allocation system. I hope it stays for years to come.

Nope. It's crap. Wound allocation like you currently have works fine for a skirmish game but not for a game having models per side that can run into triple figures. Why should I have to make exactly sure where the 7th bolter guy of the second squad is in relation to the meltagunner as you have to make sure he's not he closest. Terribly terribly pernickety and not suitable for a game of 40k's scale in any way.

**vipoid**

Grimtuff wrote:
Nope. It's crap. Wound allocation like you currently have works fine for a skirmish game but not for a game having models per side that can run into triple figures. Why should I have to make exactly sure where the 7th bolter guy of the second squad is in relation to the meltagunner as you have to make sure he's not he closest. Terribly terribly pernickety and not suitable for a game of 40k's scale in any way.

Agreed.

Also, I feel LoS should either be automatic (as in, you *have* to roll), or else there should be a rule that if you choose not to make a LoS roll, you can't make any more for the remainder of the turn.

None of this nonsense when an IC stands at the front of the squad, choosing exactly which bullets his squadmates intercept for him, and which he tanks himself.

**coinbiter**

Save modifiers and different movement for the different models like in fantasy as fleet doesn't really reflect the fact the genestealer or guardian is just naturally faster than a guardsman.

**docdoom77**

coinbiter wrote:
Save modifiers and different movement for the different models like in fantasy as fleet doesn't really reflect the fact the genestealer or guardian is just naturally faster than a guardsman.

Agreed. But I would bring the standard move up to 5 or 6, since 4 was just sooooo slow. I'd change running to an extra 3" of movement and do it IN the movement phase, so we don't have to move that mob of 30 orks twice each turn.

I'd also give most basic weapons no save mod. I mean 3+ armor was basically 4+, because nearly everything imposed a -1.

**Formosa**

Current wound allocation is an improvement over 5ths, but still isn't very good I'd agree

**Zewrath**

4th edition's wound allocation was far superior IMO. Best of both worlds, you pick which one that gets the wound but you're forced to locate to the same model that already has a suffered wound. The LOS USR should be changed so that characters/IC wouldn't be forced to get located wounds on to them, if they already had one. If precision shots allowed no LOS and with the addition of the challenge system in CC, you won't be having problems singleling them out from a squad.

**vipoid**

Formosa wrote:
Current wound allocation is an improvement over 5ths, but still isn't very good I'd agree

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this - I'd take 5th's system any day.

**koooaei**

Grimtuff wrote:
Lobukia wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:
Formosa wrote:
anyone who said old wound allocation best not be talking about 5th's legal cheating mechanic, while now might not be perfect its a damn sight better than THE most complained about rule I have ever seen.

Ignoring the fact only a handful of units (that admittedly were popular) could truly exploit it. This is another case of the internet hyperbole machine in full effect. On 99% of other units it was fine.

I really like the current wound allocation system. I hope it stays for years to come.

Nope. It's crap. Wound allocation like you currently have works fine for a skirmish game but not for a game having models per side that can run into triple figures. Why should I have to make exactly sure where the 7th bolter guy of the second squad is in relation to the meltagunner as you have to make sure he's not he closest. Terribly terribly pernickety and not suitable for a game of 40k's scale in any way.

And i like the new wound allocation much better. It makes positioning way more tactical. I've always found:"Take casualties from anywhere you want" a bad thing cause it makes flanking/rearing useless other than shooting at vehicles. And maneuvring is supposed to be the most important part of a tactical game.

**Blacksails**

If maneuvering was important, we'd be playing on a much bigger board, or with drastically fewer models.

The added layer of 'tactics' micro managing the position of your sergeant and melta gunner added is not worth the tediousness and reduced game pace.

Which also brings in the question of why the position of your melta gunner matters, when anyone else can pick it up and use it.

If you want tactics from maneuvering, you add in bonuses to attacking from behind or the flanks, not tedious micro management of every model.