Discussion: The worst 40k rule ever?

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.

**TheFleshIsWeak**

amanita wrote:
'Templates are bad because people take too much time lining up their models to be nearly 2" apart.'

I've always hated this line of reasoning. It goes against a fundamental aspect of combat anytime the last few centuries...

Don't. Bunch. Up.

In that case, shouldn't you also be arguing against unit coherency? Because that was the other part of the problem and the reason it took so long to set up units.

The problem wasn't just having to make sure your models were spaced out. It was having to ensure that your models were spaced out but still within 2" of each other.

**Amishprn86**

Snake Tortoise wrote:
vipoid wrote:
I'll vote for Overwatch.

It has no strategy, no depth and most of the time it doesn't even do anything. But before every combat you have to roll a pile of dice (or sit around while your opponent rolls a pile of dice) and see if anyone gets lucky.

It's nothing but a shallow, time-killing mechanic that adds absolutely nothing to a game already bloated with pointless rolling.

And the reason I've picked Overwatch over Invisibility or random Warlord Tables or any of the other garbage 6th/7th brought with them is that Overwatch is still with us. For as horrendous as Invisibility was, at least GW learned their lesson and removed the bloody thing. Meanwhile, Overwatch is not only still with us but has apparently been breeding with something and has given birth to a raft of time-killing, bastard children (such as that rascal Random Number of Shots).

Interesting argument. I was going to disagree but I think you're right. The cinematic idea of overwatch is cool, but the defending unit's CC attacks can represent their desperate shots at the charging enemy just fine. Overwatch is an okay way of preventing a unit in 12" from always attempting a charge for the hell of it, but actually I don't think that matters much, and the time saved fishing for 6's would be better for the game. The only part of overwatch worth keeping would be flamer weapons; they should still get to shoot as they do. Otherwise get rid of it, it's not a terrible idea in theory just a nuisance in practice

As someone that plays a LOT of melee, OW in 8th is a dangerous thing you need to watch out for actually. I guess it depends what/who you are fighting, b.c it can change the game.

**edwardmyst**

My two cents and nothing new (also, most of this post is hyperbole)

1: True Line of Sight. But for me people have ignored the terrain issue. The models are supposed to be scaled at X, but terrain NEVER is. One example; A marine scaled Mulberry tree would cover a huge portion of a table (like 15%). They never do. To play true line of sight you need the entire range and terrain scaled correctly (or at least within 10%) which does not happen even between models (a rhino holds 10 of these marine figures? Really? Do they amputate parts?)

2: The plasma overheat thing. Please, only on a 1. It being dark doesn't make weapons break more often.

3: Random shots. Not good, slows game down, doesn't add anything for me.

4: Super heavies in normal game. So shoot me. I can't stand it. Immersion breaking. The USS new Jersey didn't sail into a small inlet to help 20 guys from a platoon search a village. (I know, ridiculous example...and gunfire from off board? Great!) but far beyond that, this game has balance issues, and one of them is there is ZERO way to ever balance units who can range from 4-10 points with units that are 250+ (or whatever number you like, I think about 200 is where it can be really bad either way) ((Plus, I hate seeing a knight list, because for me rarely is the game competitive beyond turn 1, one way or the other (although this might be 8th in a nutshell))

5: The whole invuln/mortal wounds mechanic. Lower the amount of AP in game, raise armor saves (with 1 always fails) and eliminate both of these please. I am not a fan of any rule my tactics cant counter (meaning, I position perfectly to get say my rough riders charging your hero, oh but nevermind, you made all your 2++ so the way I out thought you, maneuvered, etc didn't matter)

**jeff white**

oni wrote:
Invisibility was very bad yes. Worse however was Shifting Worldscape.

Ugh... I'm having nightmarish flash backs of Matt Ward and how everything associated with him was a complete dumpster fire.

For those who don't know the name he was GW's pariah. He literally (no exaggeration) nearly put the whole company in ruin.

He is back as you know, having been responsible for (I think) part of the new Sisters codex

**Not Online!!!**

jeff white wrote:
oni wrote:
Invisibility was very bad yes. Worse however was Shifting Worldscape.

Ugh... I'm having nightmarish flash backs of Matt Ward and how everything associated with him was a complete dumpster fire.

For those who don't know the name he was GW's pariah. He literally (no exaggeration) nearly put the whole company in ruin.

He is back as you know, having been responsible for (I think) part of the new Sisters codex

God no, please no, isn't it enough that we allready have 108 documents of rules?!?

**jeff white**

ChargerIIC wrote:
Warning: This turned into a wall of text, but I'm keeping it as-is

True. Line. Of. Sight.

I don't know if WH40k has always had this rule and maybe it once made sense from a collection of rules standpoint, but I don't think there is a more core rule that seems destined to create more arguments and uncertain game states.

Let's be clear about this - its a rule that requires you to determine if an object 1 - 4 inches above the tabletop can see a significant portion of an opposing model by asking both players to make a judgement from the object's point of view.

It sounds simple right up until you look at this 1" high head and realize that from your view, 2-4 feet above the table, you can't really know - even with a decent understanding of trigonometry. You can get a general idea by lowering you head to that of the model, but even then you'd need a bodycam on the bloody things to know for certain.

This is all pretty frustrating, but the real sin of the rule is the fact that it's one of the few (last?) rules in wh40k that doesn't abstract. Movement is abstracted, range, scattering, AOEs, Dropping in from orbit, all abstracted. But not line of sight. Its this one last dinosaur that forces players to either have the game state bog down or just hold some immediate negoations to at least partially ignore the rule.

You've all done it - notified an opponent that your intent is to hide a model from LOS rather than figure out if its possible. You've likewise moved a sniper into position declaring the intent to put something into LOS even though you aren't certain if the LOS is there or not. And we've all felt the frustration of having to agree because you really don't want to dig out the laser/drop you head down and risk bogging down the game only to risk something you might be wrong in. Walking away from a game wondering if that miracle between the buildings shots may or may not have been possible according to the actual rules.

It also is one of the main drivers of grump against custom/modded models. There's a general agreement that base size should be the same and that WYSIWYG is a general guideline, but the difference in profile (and therefore Line of Sight possibilities) is what people seem to get bent over. It wasn't that long ago that we saw an American tournament threaten to throw out crocodile riding roughriders completely on the basis that the 3d profile (and thus the area in which it could see and be seen) was lower and thus changed how the model performed on the tabletop.

I'm convinced this rule is almost single-handily responsible for the generally laissez-faire attitude the community has towards the rules in general. If you can't even agree on line of sight, the problem of oddly worded rules and strange loopholes seem minor.

Laser pointers plus common sense civility and "My deamon prince is moving up to and crouching behind this 2 story wall, so his wingtips (though on the model pointing out) should be drawn in and not visible - OK?" ... "OK."

**vict0988**

jeff white wrote:
Laser pointers plus common sense civility and "My deamon prince is moving up to and crouching behind this 2 story wall, so his wingtips (though on the model pointing out) should be drawn in and not visible - OK?" ... "OK."

Nope, not okay. If I can see any part of him with any part of my model I can see him. When you start doing things according to roleplaying rules instead of wargaming rules you introduce uncertainty where none is needed. Get a DP on foot if you want him to hide, those wings are too cheap, being harder to hide is a small additional price. If you think your model should be able to physically hide but you don't want to drag the game out you can play by intention by asking your opponent if they can see it. Either your opponent will say he can't see it or he can help direct you as to put it in a position where it can't be seen.

**Not Online!!!**

vict0988 wrote:
jeff white wrote:
Laser pointers plus common sense civility and "My deamon prince is moving up to and crouching behind this 2 story wall, so his wingtips (though on the model pointing out) should be drawn in and not visible - OK?" ... "OK."

Nope, not okay. If I can see any part of him with any part of my model I can see him. When you start doing things according to roleplaying rules instead of wargaming rules you introduce uncertainty where none is needed. Get a DP on foot if you want him to hide, those wings are too cheap, being harder to hide is a small additional price. If you think your model should be able to physically hide but you don't want to drag the game out you can play by intention by asking your opponent if they can see it. Either your opponent will say he can't see it or he can help direct you as to put it in a position where it can't be seen.

Accordingly to killteam rules, where you explicitly are allowed to ignore non fundamental parts.
It ain't as clear cut. Though I agree with you.

**skchsan**

The worst offender is "anything can hurt anything" wound chart, coupled with "these models have T3 or S3 weapons, so they're at least 50% cheaper than models with T4 or S4 guns."

**Not Online!!!**

skchsan wrote:
The worst offender is "anything can hurt anything" wound chart, coupled with "these models have T3 or S3 weapons, so they're at least 50% cheaper than models with T4 or S4 guns."

Honestly the wound Chart is just euugghhh.

Even for a csm player, which can with VotLW abuse the Chart like no one else.

**Pointed Stick**

Yeah like why fix what wasn't broken, right? I don't recall anyone ever complaining about the old wound chart. The fact that a lasgun couldn't hurt a Rhino was fine. Tanks--even light APCs--should not be vulnerable to small arms fire. Having no chance to damage the rhino saved time, too (of those 18 Lasgun shots that you're going to roll, do you really think any wounds will squeak through?).

Likewise when a Heavy Bolter is failing to wound light infantry 1/3 of the time... I dunno man, it's just wrong.

**Vankraken**

Pointed Stick wrote:
Yeah like why fix what wasn't broken, right? I don't recall anyone ever complaining about the old wound chart. The fact that a lasgun couldn't hurt a Rhino was fine. Tanks--even light APCs--should not be vulnerable to small arms fire. Having no chance to damage the rhino saved time, too (of those 18 Lasgun shots that you're going to roll, do you really think any wounds will squeak through?).

Likewise when a Heavy Bolter is failing to wound light infantry 1/3 of the time... I dunno man, it's just wrong.

I'm fairly certain its because of people being upset at all Knight lists making most weapons useless against them since they where all AV13 and AV12. Of course GW being pants on head probably thought that the problem was that lasguns where useless against Knights instead of the more obvious problem of an all Knight army.

**BaconCatBug**

Vankraken wrote:
Pointed Stick wrote:
Yeah like why fix what wasn't broken, right? I don't recall anyone ever complaining about the old wound chart. The fact that a lasgun couldn't hurt a Rhino was fine. Tanks--even light APCs--should not be vulnerable to small arms fire. Having no chance to damage the rhino saved time, too (of those 18 Lasgun shots that you're going to roll, do you really think any wounds will squeak through?).

Likewise when a Heavy Bolter is failing to wound light infantry 1/3 of the time... I dunno man, it's just wrong.

I'm fairly certain its because of people being upset at all Knight lists making most weapons useless against them since they where all AV13 and AV12. Of course GW being pants on head probably thought that the problem was that lasguns where useless against Knights instead of the more obvious problem of an all Knight army.

Agreed. Even before Knights they experimented with needing double 6 to penetrate to cause a glancing wound to address the "problem".

**insaniak**

It's a problem that comes from the game allowing for such a wide range of different unit types. It's less than ideal to have large chunks of a players army rendered completely irrelevant due to the composition of the other player's army. Realistically, it forces a choice between limiting the range of armour available, or making sure that all (or at least most units have some way of hurting all other units.

I do agree though that the current method wasn't the best way to go about that. Lasguns shouldn't be able to hurt titans, even if the chance is kept fairly remote... because if you make it a remote enough chance, then you're just adding extra rolls for no real practical benefit. The better solution (if we work on the assumption that vehicle-heavy armies are just a thing now) would have been to leave the wound chart as it was and ensure that units armed with small arms also always have access to equipment that can be used to damage heavy armour.

**skchsan**

insaniak wrote:
It's a problem that comes from the game allowing for such a wide range of different unit types.

Which makes us wonder the design intent behind Escalation and why it has become the norm for 40k and not off-shoot campaign.

**TheFleshIsWeak**

skchsan wrote:
The worst offender is "anything can hurt anything" wound chart, coupled with "these models have T3 or S3 weapons, so they're at least 50% cheaper than models with T4 or S4 guns."

If you don't want a game system where anything can hurt anything, remove the damn super-heavies.

**insaniak**

skchsan wrote:
insaniak wrote:
It's a problem that comes from the game allowing for such a wide range of different unit types.
Which makes us wonder the design intent behind Escalation and why it has become the norm for 40k and not off-shoot campaign.

Because including them in the standard game sells more models.

**Jidmah**

amanita wrote:
'Templates are bad because people take too much time lining up their models to be nearly 2" apart.'

I've always hated this line of reasoning. It goes against a fundamental aspect of combat anytime the last few centuries...

Don't. Bunch. Up.

I get the fact that 40K isn't the greatest simulation for combat, but shouldn't something so elementary be represented better? Introduce a time clock, maybe? Alter coherency rules? Don't be that guy? I don't know what the best solution is, but my group still uses templates and we don't have this problem.

Templates punish a force for becoming too concentrated. Forcing units to keep spread out due to fear of becoming too dense makes it much harder to move larger units effectively or without harm - as it SHOULD BE. A rule set should allow for such possibilities, giving either side chances to inflict more harm at certain tactical choke points. If the rules don't allow for such outcomes, then don't pretend what is being played is a war game.

The aspect of game of seeing a game where units are piled together without any tactical meaning has the same appeal of watching a 2-year old eat oatmeal.

Thing is, either you kept those 120 boyz 2" apart, or you lost the game to a imperial artillery killing 12-14 of them per shot. It was mandatory to keep units 2" apart because all blast were priced as if they were, and therefore I spend a great deal of my game time spacing out models, while my opponents spent a great deal of their game time watching me space out models. Zero tactical decision involved, spacing out 2" was best at all times.

As long as horde units are part of the game, you need to make them playable. Adding both additional time on those units and enforcing chess clocks means just removing them, and thus entire armies, from the game.

The alternative is increasing the cost of all blasts to account for the maximum possible hits, so any large blasts is costed as if it were heavy 14 and any small blast as if it were heavy 7. LRBT would be 200 points, a squad with plasma cannon devs would be 289. Or, in other words, just remove all blasts units from the game. You can bring blasts, but you will lose the game, just like those horde units which have to be spaced out but are on a chess clock.

Oh, and in case you missed it - WH40k has stopped being a wargame a long time ago. In none of the four editions I played real tactics mattered.
5th was all about wound allocation, last turn objective grabbing and autocannons were the best weapon to kill anything except landraiders
6th was the edition where you couldn't do anything about the daemons and tyranids flying around you, and invincible psykers couldn't be scratched by and entire artillery battalion shooting at them for five turns.
7th was the edition where commanders hoped that their enemy didn't kill too many tactical squads, otherwise they would have to dump all their transport in space before the next battle. Also, a single guy could join a unit to give them awesome skills - which they would forget in an instant when he left to join the other squad right next to them. Also, a guy in great armor could protect up to forty guardsmen by running up and down their lines and catching every single bullet, laser and missile aimed at any of them with his armor.

But yeah, "tactical meaning" of spacing out all models 2"...

**Peregrine**

IGOUGO.

Other rules problems come and go, IGOUGO remains an idiotic idea that does more to damage the game than any other issue. Even if you fixed all of the other problems mentioned here IGOUGO would still make 40k a

game.

**BaconCatBug**

Peregrine wrote:
IGOUGO.

Other rules problems come and go, IGOUGO remains an idiotic idea that does more to damage the game than any other issue. Even if you fixed all of the other problems mentioned here IGOUGO would still make 40k a game.

What is even more hilarious is that in the Apocalypse Field manual they even explicitly call out IGOUGO as being bad.

**jaxor1983**

Amphibious.

**ThatMG**

Did not read entire thread however honourable or dishonourable mentions.

Unlimited Daemon Summoning.
Snap Shots/Original Flyers (can only be hit on a 6.)
Original Destroyer Weapons (It kill you no saves of any kind allowed.)
Vortex Rules (Removes models AND terrian regardless of stats)
Wound Allocation (That allowed you to share wounds in a unit so long as they have different equipment.)
Invulnerable Saves (In a previous edition RAW, INV only applied to wounds, vehicles did not them.)

My TOP RATED rule that is the worst and something I want completely removed form the game.
The Morale Phase.
-It does not fit in 40k universe and is a complete waste of time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
At True Line of Sight post.

In a previous edition they had it so that only the body counted.

However there was a funny rule in one edition where RAW models had to "SEE" using eye level to hit the enemy.
-There are lots of units that don't have eyes so, raw they can't see anything can thus can't hit anything.

**insaniak**

ThatMG wrote:

However there was a funny rule in one edition where RAW models had to "SEE" using eye level to hit the enemy.

That wasn't one edition... it was every edition prior to the current one.

**ThatMG**

insaniak wrote:
ThatMG wrote:

However there was a funny rule in one edition where RAW models had to "SEE" using eye level to hit the enemy.

That wasn't one edition... it was every edition prior to the current one.

I sure the wording was different. One edition gave model's a height value. Size 1-3 or something...
Seen 3rd,4th,5th, start of 6th, start of 7th, 8th so far. Memory is a bit off.

**Grimtuff**

ThatMG wrote:
insaniak wrote:
ThatMG wrote:

However there was a funny rule in one edition where RAW models had to "SEE" using eye level to hit the enemy.

That wasn't one edition... it was every edition prior to the current one.

I sure the wording was different. One edition gave model's a height value. Size 1-3 or something...
Seen 3rd,4th,5th, start of 6th, start of 7th, 8th so far. Memory is a bit off.

It is. As I have already stated, every single edition of 40k used TLOS. The sole exception was the rules for area terrain in 3rd and 4th. 4th also added a height category, but this only applied to models in area terrain.

3rd ed. Rulebook page 36- "Sometimes it may be hard to tell if a LOS is blocked or , so players must stoop over the table for a "model's eye view". This is the best way to see if LOS exists...
Enemy models and all vehicles, friend or foe, do block a unit's LOSif they are in the way, just like buildings and other terrain. enemy models will block the LOS to other models up to twice their height."

2nd ed. rulebook page 26- "However in some cases it will be difficult to tell if a LOS is blocked or not, and players must stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is always the best way to determine if LOS exists- some players even use small periscopes or mirrors to check the views from their models!..."

**greatbigtree**

I'm pretty sure the height thing in 4th blocked LOS regardless of "True" Height. I remember forests being "infinitely tall" so even if a Wraithlord could see over the trees, they could not shoot a unit behind them.

I was a BIG fan of 4th edition terrain rules.

**insaniak**

greatbigtree wrote:
I'm pretty sure the height thing in 4th blocked LOS regardless of "True" Height. I remember forests being "infinitely tall" so even if a Wraithlord could see over the trees, they could not shoot a unit behind them.

Yes, that was the point of it. You could model your area terrain however you wanted, and it still counted as the height it was assigned.

You still took LOS from the model's eyes, with the Height categories simply determining which area terrain and close combat scrums you could see over.

**Not Online!!!**

insaniak wrote:
skchsan wrote:
insaniak wrote:
It's a problem that comes from the game allowing for such a wide range of different unit types.
Which makes us wonder the design intent behind Escalation and why it has become the norm for 40k and not off-shoot campaign.

Because including them in the standard game sells more models.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.
Infact the whole ca move and pledges to improve balance is basically just there to maintain the knight Primarch arms race.

**vict0988**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Infact the whole ca move and pledges to improve balance is basically just there to maintain the knight Primarch arms race.

Could you explain in more detail? I'd think the intention was to allow more army diversity to stop discouraging people from getting vast collections and just limiting themselves to a nasty 1750 list and maybe a few softer units for casual play and instead open up options for people to get 3 of everything. You don't really need CA to create an arms race, that's exactly what's happening in the absence of CA isn't it? It's also what's been happening since 5th edition because of the absence of CA pts balancing.

**Karol**

vict0988 wrote:
jeff white wrote:
Laser pointers plus common sense civility and "My deamon prince is moving up to and crouching behind this 2 story wall, so his wingtips (though on the model pointing out) should be drawn in and not visible - OK?" ... "OK."

Nope, not okay. If I can see any part of him with any part of my model I can see him. When you start doing things according to roleplaying rules instead of wargaming rules you introduce uncertainty where none is needed. Get a DP on foot if you want him to hide, those wings are too cheap, being harder to hide is a small additional price. If you think your model should be able to physically hide but you don't want to drag the game out you can play by intention by asking your opponent if they can see it. Either your opponent will say he can't see it or he can help direct you as to put it in a position where it can't be seen.

okey but this favours people who resculpt their models. GW loves to put stuff on stupid scenic bases. The new raven guard claw character for example, is 1/3 taller then a normal space marine, because GW planted a litteral wall on his base. As with birds, a demon with wing would have his folded when it lands, else there would be a big risk of them being damaged. People should really not be punished for GW deciding that their infantry should have a gigantic horn or a bell on top of their head making them twice as high.