Rules complaints, what do you hate about the 40k rules?

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.

**Shas'El Tigre**

What do you guys wish the 40k team would do a better job of writing? Personally I hate warlord traits, making them random is just such a stupid idea. This is supposed to be a skill your warlord has learned over their career, so why on earth wouldn't you know about it until the start of a battle?

And ugh, the whole psychic dice pool thing is just so annoying, these days a lone psyker can barely cast his own powers without help from another.

So, people, discuss!

**RazgrizOne**

I got used to random warlords traits and psychic phase. The peoblem IMHO is not the randomness but the inequality between traits and powers. I mean, I play IG and there are very good things like D3 outflanking units and +1 order but you can also end up with your warlord and his CCS being.... relentless!
More balance between features should do the trick I guess.

I am more annoyed by:
- reserves that you can't really choose the turn they come.
- Snap shots weapons if a vehicle uses an Ordnance weapons
- Ridiculously low number of weapons fired at full BS after moving 6" for a vehicle. That is so true; if a tank of the 41th millenia moves more than 10m (quick maths) or so, its hyper sophisticated aiming systems are jammed. I really hate that.
- The fact you can't disembark if you have moved more than 6".

I gueds I have an issue with vehicles rules in general

**Grubass**

1 Any rule written to sell minis over be fun to play
2 Invisibility
3 Stuff that points you to check one different codex and brb just to know meaning
4 Contradiction

**kodos**

That the game designers don't know what the actually doing.

- random results for everything (reserve, traits, movement etc)
- no fraction balance
- poor mission design which favours mobile lists together with limited movement for some fractions

- no FAQ's/Errata (because the rules are perfect and don't need changes....)

- a lot more

**SicSemperTyrannis**

I hate randomness.

- Random Warlord traits (so glad we houseruled that you can choose your trait)
- Random Charge Distance... hello 2" charge. ffs atleast make it 6+W6
- Stealing the initiative.
- It´s not a rule but anyway. The first sentence in every FAQ (linky) really REALLY fills my heart with searing hate.

**Peregrine**

It would be much shorter and more efficient to have a thread asking what rules people don't hate. Virtually the entire rulebook is full of awful game design that would drive most people to commit honorable suicide in shame.

**nullBolt**

Mass mechanisation is probably the cause of 90% of 40k's problems.

**Tinkrr**

Let's start with something simple like making rules clear and unambiguous, or at least putting out consistent and quick FAQs when there is confusion.

Just go to the Tau tactics thread an look at how every single discussion turns into a rule debate because of how poorly worded all of the special rules are.

**godardc**

Why is mass mechanization a problem ?

**Vector Strike**

How badly the rules are written.

**nullBolt**

godardc wrote:
Why is mass mechanization a problem ?

1. 28mm scale does not suit mass mechanisation.
2. In 99% of the fluff, mass mechanisation is not a thing especially amongst Space Marines.
3. Mass mechanisation wasn't a thing until a few editions in, so the ruleset is obviously not designed for it.
4. It really takes away from bad arse dudes doing bad arse things.
5. It's the slippery slope to giant mechasuits fighting each other on a 28mm play area.

**CthuluIsSpy**

1) No proof reading
2) Lack of internal and external balance
3) Beer and pretzels mentality
4) Rerollable 2+ saves
5) Poor flyer rules
6) The strange belief that random tables is a substitute for interesting game design. See - Knights Codex

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
It would be much shorter and more efficient to have a thread asking what rules people don't hate. Virtually the entire rulebook is full of awful game design that would drive most people to commit honorable suicide in shame.

Suicide? No. Being replaced by someone competant? Yes.
But this is games workshop; they only care about your attitude, not your skill. And by attitude I mean slavish loyalty to Kirby.

**the_scotsman**

1) No assault out of reserves/infiltrate/deep strike/outflank.

EITHER A) all those things should disallow shooting too, OR

B) you can admit that with random scatter and mishaps, interceptor, overwatch, reserve rolls, random charge distance, and not being able to come in T1, you take enough risks deep striking/reserving and your opponent has enough chance to play against you.

"But drop pods/WWP/some other specific thing will be broken!" So fix that. Make drop pods not assault vehicles. Disallow assault after WWP.

2) Roll assault move, move to base to base, then resolve overwatch before the first assault phase. No more shooting models to make the assault move harder.

3) consolidate as normal after assaulting a vehicle. This is just stupid and is just another unnecessary assault hamstring

4) change WS/WS table to be identical to S/T table. It's beyond ridiculous that there is in 99% of cases only a single die shift at stake between the skill of combatants.

4) and with all the buffs to assault: change sweep to cause the difference between the results as AP2 wounds rather than instantly removing the whole unit, and if a sweep is successful let the winner choose whether the enemy runs or they stay locked.

**bhollenb**

I'm fine with most of the rules except...the cover save system. Cover should be reduced or improved with modifiers and never simply ignored. Ignores Cover is a travesty that makes balance between shooting armies and assault armies simply impossible to acheive.

Nearly all weapons from IG, Spehss Mahreens, Tau, Eldar, etc. ignores Ork, 'Nid, etc armor. Add in Ignores Cover and all player interaction is gone. One player rolls dice, the other removes models.

If ignores cover is completly vital to some armies' playstyle then (they are poorly designed and hamstrung by over reliance on a single mechanic and) they should simply have enough methods to obtain modifiers that they functionally have ignores cover but are not guaranteed it.

Lastly if you don't like randomness you're playing the wrong game. The entire challenge of this game at all stages is discovering and mitigating sources of randomness through list efficiency, rerolls, and redundancy. I'm talking as bout the game now, not the fluff. I you love the fluff more power to you.

**Spetulhu**

The problem isn't any single unit or unit type as such (the mechanization gripe), it's the way GW designers just say "wouldn't it be cool" and include things without testing how it works or if it works at all.

Like the idiotic Challenges in melee, for example. To me it just looks like an extra bonus for melee guys - they get to single out and kill my sergeants first for free with characters that probably wouldn't care about the SGTs 1-2 extra attacks anyway. Apparently this is brave, honorable and in character, until the melee blender spots someone who could a) kill him or b) tank his blows in a challenge. Then it becomes a game of sacrificing sergeants so the big guy can kill softer targets instead! Well, someone who has an army with powerful melee characters might think it's a good thing...

**grrrfranky**

How poorly written they are. I can't think of another ruleset that is as full of contradictions and loopholes as 40k, to the point of becoming unplayable according to the rules as written. You have to have an hour long discussion before the game just to make sure you're both playing the same game.

If they sorted out that mess, it would then be a whole lot easier for them to actually write some good rules.

**SickSix**

How convoluted the entire system had become. Calling special rules 'special' is such a farce. How are they 'special' when literally every unit in the game has them. And then they keep adding units that negate all 'special' rules anyways.

Its a joke.

**keezus**

The game has too much bloat. There are far too many units types (usually all very similar) and too many USR exceptions. This is also a symptom of messy rules writing. USRs, if competently written should be able to approximate, or equal existing abilities. The entire ruleset very badly needs to be streamlined. IMHO, the best way to do this is by using an entire paradigm shift of the game:

1. Force organization needs to go out the window. The present state of the game and GW's unlocked "take everything" approach has really made the old Force Org a thing of the past. On the other hand: Formations are a great way of "keeping it in the faction". These are a part of the game now. I like the fact that they reward players for using fluffy combinations of units. I would propose that the new game is no force org, take anything you want (similar to AoS). Incentivize staying in faction with a faction bonus, and introduce potent formation bonuses for restricted choice formations within factions.

2. Collapse the unit entries. The game has too many unit entries. Using Space Marines as an example, one could easily collapse ALL THE ASTARTES infantry into the following categories:

(a) Scouts - one entry: +points for bike, weapon options covers all options.
(b) Marines - one entry: options for jump packs, bikes, attack bikes, pistol/ccw, multi-special/heavy weapons covers Devastators, Assaults and Tacticals and Bikes.
(c) Veterans - one entry: options for terminator armor, centurion armor, jump packs, bikes, attack bikes, pistol/ccw, multi-special/heavy weapons covers (Long Fang-like) Devastators, Vanguards, Sternguard and Bikes (Bike heavy chapters like Ravenwing, and White Scars), Terminators and Centurions.

HQs with the same statline could easily be compressed into one entry, with different options for wargear.

Each of the Astartes chapters could be given a faction bonus... BAM... Space Marines streamlined. You could easily do this with most factions where you have a lot of dudes sharing a statline... i.e. Firewarriors/Pathfinders/Stealth Teams, or Aspect Warriors (bonuses are wargear based).

3. I think Alternating unit activation might be something to consider.

**vipoid**

Peregrine wrote:
It would be much shorter and more efficient to have a thread asking what rules people don't hate. Virtually the entire rulebook is full of awful game design that would drive most people to commit honorable suicide in shame.

This.

Also, the fact that I can't shoot a Super Heavy or Gargantuan creature, because it's engaged with a squad of infantry who barely reach its shins. Oh and to add to the enjoyment, it can stomp my unengaged units up to 15" away. There is no middle-finger big enough.

**Grizzyzz**

I think the ultimate issue with 40k is the fact we have a BRB and army codex that combine to make the rule system. AoS for example, yes it has its own issues, but if you compare the size of its rules to 40k.. I would argue it plays a lot better in comparison.

The codex system is essentially designed as a way to make more money and introduce some modularity to add new forces at will without having to change the core system. however, I dislike how essentially every codex rewrites or alters the majority of the brb when it comes to ignoring general rules or adding new ones.

In general I think 40k has become a little fat and needs a little bit of a diet.

@the_scotsman. I am quoting essentially everything you posted, because I agree on most things, except for the first two points =)

the_scotsman wrote:1) No assault out of reserves/infiltrate/deep strike/outflank.

EITHER A) all those things should disallow shooting too, OR

B) you can admit that with random scatter and mishaps, interceptor, overwatch, reserve rolls, random charge distance, and not being able to come in T1, you take enough risks deep striking/reserving and your opponent has enough chance to play against you.

"But drop pods/WWP/some other specific thing will be broken!" So fix that. Make drop pods not assault vehicles. Disallow assault after WWP.

I think maybe.. if you walk on from reserves or come in on an assault transport from reserves. Anything deepstriking I think is fine as is. It would become too powerful. GKs deepstrike entire army, and get into combat on the same turn for example..

the_scotsman wrote:
2) Roll assault move, move to base to base, then resolve overwatch before the first assault phase. No more shooting models to make the assault move harder.

What would the point of overwatch be? You actively want to shoot your opponent out of range of assault, its the only viable strategy with overwatch. Generally speaking if a non melee unit gets into cc with a melee threat, you might as well just pick the unit off the table.

the_scotsman wrote:
3) consolidate as normal after assaulting a vehicle. This is just stupid and is just another unnecessary assault hamstring

100% agree with this. It has killed my units more times then I would like =(

the_scotsman wrote:
4) change WS/WS table to be identical to S/T table. It's beyond ridiculous that there is in 99% of cases only a single die shift at stake between the skill of combatants.

Again 100% agree the table needs rework. Maybe not exactly the same as S/T.. but something ws1 should not hit a ws10 unit on 5s, it should be EXTREMELY hard to hit at that extreme difference if not impossible.

the_scotsman wrote:
4) and with all the buffs to assault: change sweep to cause the difference between the results as AP2 wounds rather than instantly removing the whole unit, and if a sweep is successful let the winner choose whether the enemy runs or they stay locked.

As a tau player that usually loses units to nothing other then assault sweeps

I wouldn't mind some change. But I am unsure with generally how lack luster cc is in 40k, that changing anything would make cc units useless.

bhollenb wrote:I'm fine with most of the rules except...the cover save system. Cover should be reduced or improved with modifiers and never simply ignored. Ignores Cover is a travesty that makes balance between shooting armies and assault armies simply impossible to acheive.

Cover used to be different in previous editions right? I started in 7e so my knowledge is a little weak on older ones. I thought though that cover used to effect the range on a units weapon or something like that ?

the_scotsman wrote:
Lastly if you don't like randomness you're playing the wrong game. The entire challenge of this game at all stages is discovering and mitigating sources of randomness through list efficiency, rerolls, and redundancy.

100% agree, its based on dice, its random, get over it =D

**Kanluwen**

That Cover saves are lumped in with Jink saves, and that "Ignores Cover" magically makes it so shots are blowing through solid walls.

**vipoid**

Kanluwen wrote:
That Cover saves are lumped in with Jink saves, and that "Ignores Cover" magically makes it so shots are blowing through solid walls.

They were doing that before Jink even existed...

**Grizzyzz**

vipoid wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
It would be much shorter and more efficient to have a thread asking what rules people don't hate. Virtually the entire rulebook is full of awful game design that would drive most people to commit honorable suicide in shame.

This.

Also, the fact that I can't shoot a Super Heavy or Gargantuan creature, because it's engaged with a squad of infantry who barely reach its shins. Oh and to add to the enjoyment, it can stomp my unengaged units up to 15" away. There is no middle-finger big enough.

I am going to jump in here before anyone hopefully and say..

If you want to argue this (stompoing unengaged models etc) move to the YMDK thread discussing this.. it might even be on the first page of threads

@vipoid.. this is in no way directed at you.. but at anyone who wants to jack the thread and talk about this XD

cheers!

**Kanluwen**

vipoid wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
That Cover saves are lumped in with Jink saves, and that "Ignores Cover" magically makes it so shots are blowing through solid walls.

They were doing that before Jink even existed...

True, but previously "Ignores Cover" was much more rare. It's become far more common with the prevalence of "Jink" saves.

**Makumba**

The entire challenge of this game at all stages is discovering and mitigating sources of randomness through list efficiency, rerolls, and redundancy.

Which would be a great thing, if GW didn't forget to give those efficient options to some armies.

More or less this is the thing I hate the most. Changing my codex pre 7th to fit some JJ crazy streamline dream and then making 7th ed not about streamlining at all, to a point where the "OP" codex I had in 5th looks laughably weak and makes the whole new codex poinless. Unless of course GW goal was to make IG players miserable.

**Konrax**

Cover saves should be a to hit modifier for ranged attacks, and ignores cover should be a modifier of the ranged modifier. That way you can get some varience in cover saves.

Alternating unit activation is awesome and changes the game drastically, my friends and I play that way already and it makes the game fantastic.

Ranged attacks shouldn't have a max unless it's a las weapon, it should be to hit modifiers and strength / ap reductions.

Melee needs a lot of adjustments, many listed already are quite good.

**vipoid**

Kanluwen wrote:
True, but previously "Ignores Cover" was much more rare. It's become far more common with the prevalence of "Jink" saves.

True. There's also a lot more stacking cover saves these days (so that many units can easily get 2+ or 3+ cover even in the open).

It makes the game far too all-or-nothing for my tastes - with many units flipping between an amazing (possibly even rerollable) cover save, and no cover save at all.

I'd like to see fewer stacking cover saves, and also have Ignores Cover impose a penalty to cover saves - rather than just ignoring them outright.

**Martel732**

nullBolt wrote:
Mass mechanisation is probably the cause of 90% of 40k's problems.

Nope.

**niv-mizzet**

-Pre-battle randomness should not exist. (WL traits, powers, gifts etc.) People should be able to have their army set up pre game the way they want, not in a "I'm hoping to roll up X trait/power" gambit.

-schizophrenic double standards between shooting and assault needs to be fixed. (Shooters can appear from reserves and murder units, powerful guns that can start doing work on turn 1 cost much less than an equally powerful melee weapon that can't do anything until a couple turns into the game, and most of the time you are told you "can't shoot," they really mean you still hit on 6's, as opposed to assault where "can't assault" means "you can't freaking assault.")

-Normal Vehicles being too easy to kill or make irrelevant even when you don't kill them. Stunning/immobilizing a melee dreadnought, shaking a whirlwind, and popping the weapon off a vindicator for example. The armor mechanic was somewhat decent a long time ago, but haywire, grav, D, lance, gauss, melta, armourbane, and tank hunter being widespread has removed all but the most efficient armour (like 0 point transports) from the game.

-Hilarious miscosts and bad balance in general. See invis, wraithknights, canoptek spyders and wraiths, grav cannons, riptides, the list goes on...

-New things are just made better, while old things remain the same. If you like an older army such as marines or tyranids, most of your old stuff sucks. Old Tyranid MC's are mostly all stuck at 4 wounds, because that USED TO BE about as many wounds as something outside apocalypse would ever have. Nowadays it's surprising to see a new MC with less than 5, and they just won't go back and update old things to be have the same power level. Similarly, marine gun profiles haven't changed in cost or power in a very long time. Using any of the "old" heavy weapons like lascannons is now very point-inefficient.

-no 2+ Save outside of normal armor should exist. Rerollable saves shouldn't exist or should be extremely limited. (Example, corbulo's 1 per game reroll.)

-formations with free bonuses. GW already sucks at balance. Adding on formations made it much worse. Some of them give you 500 free points, some of them let your terminators run before shooting the turn they deep strike.

The game is fun to play, but you really have to navigate a mine field nowadays to avoid shattering the game at the list-building stage.

**Martel732**

Peregrine wrote:
It would be much shorter and more efficient to have a thread asking what rules people don't hate. Virtually the entire rulebook is full of awful game design that would drive most people to commit honorable suicide in shame.

EXALTED!