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.

Mysterious Terrain. this was one of those rules which really should NOT have been in the core rules. great idea for a narritive campaign thing, but just a silly idea for the CORE rules.

Apocalypse units in normal games

7th edition mob rule, 6th edition serpent shield, D-weapons, necron phase out rule, sweeping advance, random psychic powers, invisibility, killpoints, 4th edition c'tan

 Talamare wrote:
Apocalypse units in normal games

Agreed, once 28mm scale 40k armies started turning into super grimdark robot wars Gundam battle!!!!!!!!! It started becoming a bit too silly. I like 8th a lot so far so I'm willing to deal with it. But I wish they never brought them into regular 40k.

Still the 3rd edition phase out. Aribitraly lose the game if %75 of your "necron models" are killed. Oh ya, so many units at the time weren't "necron". So stupid.

Formations, or at least multiple formations. I thought the macro formations like the decurion of gladius were fine, but they didn't take into account that players would just take multiple formations (usually the best of each) plus other detachments from other codexes. If they had just made it so a single macro formation was all you could take (outside of choosing a normal CAD) you would have had so much less cheese.

Formations in general.
ATSKNF. As a special way to ignore fear or maybe avoid falling back it would have been fine but as it was it was far too good.
Grav. Why was it implemented as it was? And more to the point, why did it have such daft rules? It was basically a 'kill everything' gun that never seemed to fail, and the way it worked made no sense either.

Worst rules would be ones that render something unplayable. Legion of the Damned couldn't even function as a full army, due to starting in reserve with no ability to arrive first turn.

2nd edition Vortex Grenades, Assassins and Solitares.
Also, 2nd edition Stratagem Viral Bombardment or something like that. Would kill basically any non marine unit before the game started.

Basically, 2nd ed.

Hull points. Who in the world thought that giving vehicles pseudo wounds was a good idea? Especially as they essentially had less than MC's, lost toughness when flanked and could still be OHK'ed by penetrating attacks and suffered crippling results every time the enemy got higher than the minimal 'too wound' roll. Oh, and vehicles (barring a couple) had no saves, armour or invulnerable.
Couple that with the fact that moving a vehicle cost it firepower when moving MC's didnt, and that MC's could also gain cover with ease and you have a recipe for disaster.

 Talamare wrote:
Apocalypse units in normal games

Quoted for truth and exalted.

So many good ones already pointed out.
These are all current and bad IMO:
Infantry can move through solid walls.
Vehicles can get locked by infantry models.
Conscripts kill tanks with rifles.

Rolling for difficult terrain before reaching it and possibly not being able to even reach it if you rolled low enough.

The 7th edition Tyranid synapse tables where your units would eat themselves.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hull points. Who in the world thought that giving vehicles pseudo wounds was a good idea? Especially as they essentially had less than MC's, lost toughness when flanked and could still be OHK'ed by penetrating attacks and suffered crippling results every time the enemy got higher than the minimal 'too wound' roll. Oh, and vehicles (barring a couple) had no saves, armour or invulnerable.
Couple that with the fact that moving a vehicle cost it firepower when moving MC's didnt, and that MC's could also gain cover with ease and you have a recipe for disaster.

It sounds like you're angrier with MC rules than with Vehicle rules.

Besides, Vehicles still have Hull Points. Just because the symbol changed from HP to a W, doesn't change that. Tho I can understand your longer list of reasons.

Tau being part of 40k is silly.

Space Marines being a part of 40k is silly. They should be squatted immediately, in order to make room for armies that actually fit in the setting.

 Talamare wrote:
Apocalypse units in normal games

December to remember

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

24" range, str 4 minus to 2 to the save with a single Sustained Fire dice that could net you up to 3 shots each.

Better than any other hand gun/rifle in the game.

On a really, really cheap model that let you spam and become one of the best armies in 2nd edition.. Ugh I can certainly call that the worst rule in a sense.

4th edition Transport rules when concerning Ordnance where it had an option to destroy the transport and everything in it.

And yet you rarely ever saw Guardians and never saw Dire Avengers at all. And if you did they were a meat shield for the other units that made 2nd ed a hth and heavy weapon unbalanced nightmare. The Core Rules and balancing was pretty good actually for most units....Just the preponderance of unkillable characters and the game ruled by heavy weapons made the 'spam' anything but basic troops.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hull points. Who in the world thought that giving vehicles pseudo wounds was a good idea? Especially as they essentially had less than MC's, lost toughness when flanked and could still be OHK'ed by penetrating attacks and suffered crippling results every time the enemy got higher than the minimal 'too wound' roll. Oh, and vehicles (barring a couple) had no saves, armour or invulnerable.
Couple that with the fact that moving a vehicle cost it firepower when moving MC's didnt, and that MC's could also gain cover with ease and you have a recipe for disaster.

Now moving vehicles and stationary vehicles are just as easy to hit. Try that one on.

I just remembered another one.

Grey KNIGHTS not being allowed to take Storm Shields for at least two edition straight. I was legit perplexed when I realized that I couldn't use Draigo as a generic Grand Master because he's the only one in the entire army allowed a shield.

Especially so since normal sword-wielding GKs have an extra hand free, so they could wield a Storm Shield realistically without sacrificing a weapon.

You have to remember that a lot of things are abstract. Troops aren't just moving and then standing still to be shot since it's not their turn. Why is it hard to think of vehicles the same way? They are constantly in motion, moving around cover, getting clear shots, etc. Vehicle Toughness and wounds as a single number is like taking the average of facings and hull points since the vehicle is considered to always be reacting to the enemy like infantry does.

True Line of Sight. It's terrible. I played a game where an opponent's defiler was able to fire it's battlecannon through the windows of 2 buildings and wipe out almost an entire unit of Chaos marines because they could see the torso of 1 model.

I've played so many games where TLoS has caused an argument that could have been avoided. Nowadays I don't even contest an opponent who claims dubious line of sight, I'm just so sick of arguing it.

TLOS has been in every edition. You might as well say using a tape measure is the worst thing about the game.

I have to agree about allies. I hate how now anyone can essentially take any unit to fix a hole that existed in one's army. I feel that people choose army for a specific reason and should get the good and the bad that comes with that army.

Other than "no premeasuring," or barrages using to be "guess range" weapons, how come nobody has mentioned Maelstrom yet? A system that gives you random, occasionally unwinnable objectives ("Slay an enemy Psyker." "But I'm fighting Necrons" "Y U No Gud at Strategy?"), and just in case this system was noncompetitive enough, many of the objectives gave you a random number of Victory Points. Imagine playing a game like Settlers of Catan where each Settlement you build gives D3 Victory Points and each City gives D6. I doubt Klaus Teuber would have won Spiel de Jahres were that the case

UrsoerTheSquid wrote:
I have to agree about allies. I hate how now anyone can essentially take any unit to fix a hole that existed in one's army. I feel that people choose army for a specific reason and should get the good and the bad that comes with that army.

Allies in theory let you do fluff builds that didn't make the cut after GW said "no" to Chapter Approved; 30k has Rites of War like the Army of Dark Compliance that show that "ally armies" can be thematic without breaking the game, if implemented with care. If it was handled more on a two-tier system (main factions and mercenaries) or so, the system would generate less hate than the Scatpack/Riptide Wing/Culexus trinity of 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
You have to remember that a lot of things are abstract. Troops aren't just moving and then standing still to be shot since it's not their turn. Why is it hard to think of vehicles the same way? They are constantly in motion, moving around cover, getting clear shots, etc. Vehicle Toughness and wounds as a single number is like taking the average of facings and hull points since the vehicle is considered to always be reacting to the enemy like infantry does.

There's a difference between abstracting infantrymen being able to hipshoot, crouch, etc, versus abstracting an Imperial Bastion or a Baneblade in a narrow street being able to spin around and shoot everything like it's a gorramn Beyblade.

For me was the melee rules in 3rd & 4th (I don't remember the edition exactly). I started playing 40k in 3rd edition with a Tau army. Every one of my games turned out exactly the same way.

1) Shoot every gun at every unit that tried to charge me.
(kill the assault guys off the table, 5-10% of the time)
2) Get assaulted.
3) Die as enemy units consolidated from one Tau unit to the other, as I was unable to shoot at any assaulted units.

I remember in some editions bringing an Etherial along just so I could reroll my leadership values when I passed. I'd much rather have my unit die in my enemies combat phase so I could get a chance to shoot them before getting assaulted again. Then GW posted an FAQ forbidding that tactic.

I played 6th a lot. I enjoyed Tau then. I switched to a heavy Battlesuit army, and the ability to shoot and move again let me dodge a lot of Close combat.

Never played 7th edition, but I greatly enjoy 8th. Battlesuits lost the extra move after shooting, but the ability to Fall Back more than makes up for it. Even if the unit that fell back can't shoot, everyone else nearby can.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
TLOS has been in every edition. You might as well say using a tape measure is the worst thing about the game.

Fairly sure it wasn't in 3rd or 4th. I get those two mixed up a lot though. Anyway one of those editions had a much more abstract LoS rule, which I much preferred over 6th/7th.

Special mention to sweeping advance, which could allow a single grot to wipe out an entire unit.

 Verviedi wrote:
Space Marines being a part of 40k is silly. They should be squatted immediately, in order to make room for armies that actually fit in the setting.

Like Girlymarines!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Special mention to sweeping advance, which could allow a single grot to wipe out an entire unit.

Worth mentioning a few more times.
That grot tho, he was especially big.

right now for my faction the worst rule in our index has to be the Battlewagons Mobile Fortress rule. This rule allows the vehicle to move and shoot heavy weapons as if it were stationary. This would be amazing if it applied to passengers, GW has since FAQ'd this to confirm that NO it doesn't benefit passengers. So why is it trash? Well the only Heavy Weapons a Battlewagon can take are

Zzap Gun (18pts): Heavy 1, range 36. Strength 2D6 -3AP 3 Damage. on an 11 or 12 it causes 3 mortal wounds and the Wagon suffers a mortal wound. So you are going to pay 18pts for a weapon that will statistically hit 1 out of every 3 shots, and even then will only average S7, So its 7pts cheaper then an Space Marine lascannon, has shorter range, will hit literally 1/2 as often and even when it does do work is only 3 damage OR 3 mortal wounds and hurts yourself. Yeah, I want this....

Lobba (18pts): Heavy D6, range 48 S5 0AP and 1 damage. So this is a weaker, no AP, single damage longer ranged version of a Kill Kannon and with -2 strength, the loss of -2 AP, half as much damage GW still thought it needed to be priced at 18pts.

Kannon (15pts): Heavy 1 or D6 S8 or S4 range 36 -2 AP or 0 AP and D6 damage or 1 damage. This is sadly the best heavy option you can take on a battlewagon and it is still utter trash. You would be better off in every way taking 2 big shootas and saving 3pts.

Kill Kannon (27pts): Heavy D6 range 24 S7 -2AP 2 damage. Average D6 roll is 3-4 which means 1 S7 hit a turn for 27pts at 24in range. Who the hell in GW wrote this and thought "yes this seems good". Kill Kannonz were terrible last edition and this edition with the huge nerf to blast weapons it got even worse. If you play against an Ork army and they bring a Kill Kannon just know that they aren't playing competitively at all.

So a special rule giving Wagonz the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons at full BS is kind of crap. Especially when you remember that Ork BS Is 5+