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.

 DeffDred wrote:
The entire 3.5 Chaos codex. Greatest thing GW ever wrote.

only for the chaos player

jokes aside, it felt how Chaos was supposed to feel. Altough balance was so far off it ain't even funny.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
The entire 3.5 Chaos codex. Greatest thing GW ever wrote.

only for the chaos player

jokes aside, it felt how Chaos was supposed to feel. Altough balance was so far off it ain't even funny.

Currently, I think it is one of the few things appearing in both of these threads, depending on whether you used it or faced it.

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
The entire 3.5 Chaos codex. Greatest thing GW ever wrote.

only for the chaos player

jokes aside, it felt how Chaos was supposed to feel. Altough balance was so far off it ain't even funny.

Currently, I think it is one of the few things appearing in both of these threads, depending on whether you used it or faced it.

I did both.

To say that conceptually it represented Chaos best is equally as fair as stating it is invisibility level broken gak Tier.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
The entire 3.5 Chaos codex. Greatest thing GW ever wrote.

only for the chaos player

jokes aside, it felt how Chaos was supposed to feel. Altough balance was so far off it ain't even funny.

Currently, I think it is one of the few things appearing in both of these threads, depending on whether you used it or faced it.

I did both.

To say that conceptually it represented Chaos best is equally as fair as stating it is invisibility level broken gak Tier.

I'm starting to suspect that the latest marine codex will be similar in that regard, great at representing them, but at least until other codexes get updated, at least a bit op

 skchsan wrote:
Inspired by another thread by BCB.

Outside of broken rules, what are/were some of the best rules you enjoyed over the years?

One of mine is characters that unlocked some FOC into troops choice. It made for a really cool, fluffy lists that helped mitigate the headache of always having to have at least 2 worthless troops.

I too enjoyed the Characters making units Troops system. Makes more sense when the game was single FoC of course.

Quite possible. Altough it will suck for the updated csm.

Rule 0.

Or maybe Red Paint.

Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.

Oh man, I know this is a positive thread, but I *hated* that guy. Deep Striking him with a (Mycetic Pod? I can't remember what they were called) was the worst kind of cheese and turned every game against Tyranids into a "Can I get past that 3+ invuln with my handful of S8+ weapons, or am I screwed?"

My favorite rule would have to be late 4th/5th edition Shokk Attack Guns. The gun was a total crapshoot, but all the random results and possible outcomes were hilarious fun to toy around with.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.

Actually, I remember he wasn't a Zoanthrope so he technically didn't have a 3++.

The Parasite of Mortrex felt like it was put in there just for me!
I was so happy to see it...then...gone!
I Spent hours kitbashing my own, out of Metal. It was the crown of my all Ripper list.
I truly wish they'd kept it, or at least will bring it back for Legends.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.

Actually, I remember he wasn't a Zoanthrope so he technically didn't have a 3++.

I have a friend who played Tyranids, I can assure you he had a 3++. It didn't come from being a Zoanthrope, it came from a special rule that both Zoanthropes and he had.
Incidentally, something that might belong in the "Worst 40k rule ever" had it ever come up in a real game was the clusterfeth that was Apocalypse units borrowing special rules from Codices, but not being FAQed or updated when those codices were updated. I don't have the book on hand to check, but IIRC the 5th edition version of a Tyranid ability gave something like a 3+ (or maybe 2+?) armor save and a 5++ invuln, and this rule was given to Heirophants to in-game explain why they had a 5++.
When the 6th edition codex came out, the codex included a rule of the same name, but it was the rule that gave Zoanthropes their 3++. Meaning that the Heirophant technically had a 3++ going at all times.
Had anyone cared about Apocalypse balance, this might have been a serious problem.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.

Actually, I remember he wasn't a Zoanthrope so he technically didn't have a 3++.

I have a friend who played Tyranids, I can assure you he had a 3++. It didn't come from being a Zoanthrope, it came from a special rule that both Zoanthropes and he had.
Incidentally, something that might belong in the "Worst 40k rule ever" had it ever come up in a real game was the clusterfeth that was Apocalypse units borrowing special rules from Codices, but not being FAQed or updated when those codices were updated. I don't have the book on hand to check, but IIRC the 5th edition version of a Tyranid ability gave something like a 3+ (or maybe 2+?) armor save and a 5++ invuln, and this rule was given to Heirophants to in-game explain why they had a 5++.
When the 6th edition codex came out, the codex included a rule of the same name, but it was the rule that gave Zoanthropes their 3++. Meaning that the Heirophant technically had a 3++ going at all times.
Had anyone cared about Apocalypse balance, this might have been a serious problem.

I actually just went and checked the codex to see if I was misremembering. Nope, I wasn't. Page 58 of Codex: Tyranids (5th edition) states for the Doom of Malan'tai

Page 58 of Codex: Tyranids (5th edition) wrote:Special Rules: Instinctive Behaviour - Feed, Psyker, Fearless, Shadow in the Warp, Warp Field (see page 44)

Flipping to page 44 we see the special rule, Warp Field

Page 44 of Codex: Tyranids (5th edition) wrote:Warp Field: Zoanthropes project constant psychic barriers to protect themselves, absorbing and deflecting incoming attacks. These mental shields are invisible but for a slight shimmer when small-arms and heavy-weapons fire alike patters harmlessly against them.

A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save.

The key line here is "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." The Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope, so it has a rule saying "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." which does nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save. The key line here is "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." The Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope, so it has a rule saying "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." which does nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai unit.

Oooh, I see what you're saying. I misunderstood and had forgotten about that technicality. Ah, 5th edition! You were my favorite, for all your jank.


Edit: This reminds me of another rules technicality, where you could call a WAAAGH! after all your units had ran because Fleet of Foot said you could charge after running, not that it modified your run in any way. (Which was handy because you could see if you looked close enough to charge, THEN call a waaagh without wasting it on a maybe.) When I was but a wee teenager, I did this at a tournament and got in some trouble with the TO because my opponent reported me for cheating after the game. Fun times.

He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.

This is the same for all units like that, Ymgarl had a similar thing also, they had a rule that didnt effect IB, but it was on the genestealer page. This was a normal thing for 5th to do.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.

This is the same for all units like that, Ymgarl had a similar thing also, they had a rule that didnt effect IB, but it was on the genestealer page. This was a normal thing for 5th to do.

I am certain I remember some form of Tournament FAQ having to change the rule to allow it to work.

Can you give me a page reference to where in the 5e Rulebook it says "you dont need to share names to share rules"?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.

This is the same for all units like that, Ymgarl had a similar thing also, they had a rule that didnt effect IB, but it was on the genestealer page. This was a normal thing for 5th to do.

I am certain I remember some form of Tournament FAQ having to change the rule to allow it to work.

Can you give me a page reference to where in the 5e Rulebook it says "you dont need to share names to share rules"?

Sadly i can not, b.c i dont have my 5th book anymore, I could look for and DL it later tho i guess, but i promise you some of the units in the game had rules like that wouldn't even be playable if it didnt (in the literally sense). A good 15% of the units where like that, most elites and many characters. Example The Baron, he wouldnt have a skyboard if that wasnt the case.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.

It wasn't about sharing names. He had a rule that applied a benefit to a specific unit, despite him not being that unit. So technically, while he had the rule, it conveyed no benefit to him.

That being said, this was only an issue on forums. On the table, people assumed that him having the rule suggested that he was supposed to be able to use it. And, fluffwise, the Doom was a modified Zoanthrope, even if the rules section didn't specify him as such. So that was good enough for most players.

4th edition Kill team.

Everything about it was fantastic, from the kitbashing your models to the presented missions.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.

Lost 1500 points of Eldar to him in a 2k game the turn he came on the first time I met him.

It was brutal.

 insaniak wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.

It wasn't about sharing names. He had a rule that applied a benefit to a specific unit, despite him not being that unit. So technically, while he had the rule, it conveyed no benefit to him.

That being said, this was only an issue on forums. On the table, people assumed that him having the rule suggested that he was supposed to be able to use it. And, fluffwise, the Doom was a modified Zoanthrope, even if the rules section didn't specify him as such. So that was good enough for most players.

GW did official events, he had it at their events, but b.c i can not prove it i didnt first say it, going to one of the events with their rules i could use him and he had a 3++ just like my Ymgarl had the Genestealer rules, just like, etc.. etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of characters, the Doom of Malan'tai. It was an ability that hit in both players shooting phase, roll 3D6 for each enemy unit within 6", deal 1 wound (basically a MW) to each unit for each point rolled over their LD, gain X wounds equal to the damage, can not go above 10 wounds, he had a 3++ (He is a Zoanthrope), unless you ID him he wouldnt die.

Lost 1500 points of Eldar to him in a 2k game the turn he came on the first time I met him.

It was brutal.

Yeah he was brutal.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.

It wasn't about sharing names. He had a rule that applied a benefit to a specific unit, despite him not being that unit. So technically, while he had the rule, it conveyed no benefit to him.

That being said, this was only an issue on forums. On the table, people assumed that him having the rule suggested that he was supposed to be able to use it. And, fluffwise, the Doom was a modified Zoanthrope, even if the rules section didn't specify him as such. So that was good enough for most players.

GW did official events, he had it at their events, but b.c i can not prove it i didnt first say it, going to one of the events with their rules i could use him and he had a 3++ just like my Ymgarl had the Genestealer rules, just like, etc.. etc...
.

That's why I said it was only an issue on forums. Technically he couldn't benefit from the rule, but everyone just dismissed that as an unintended loophole and played him as intended. Or never actually noticed the discrepancy in the first place.

 insaniak wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
He did have a 3++............... 5th worked different than 8th does you dont need to share names to share rules, you got the rules that it said you got. It said he had warp field so he got warp field.

It wasn't about sharing names. He had a rule that applied a benefit to a specific unit, despite him not being that unit. So technically, while he had the rule, it conveyed no benefit to him.

That being said, this was only an issue on forums. On the table, people assumed that him having the rule suggested that he was supposed to be able to use it. And, fluffwise, the Doom was a modified Zoanthrope, even if the rules section didn't specify him as such. So that was good enough for most players.

GW did official events, he had it at their events, but b.c i can not prove it i didnt first say it, going to one of the events with their rules i could use him and he had a 3++ just like my Ymgarl had the Genestealer rules, just like, etc.. etc...
.

That's why I said it was only an issue on forums. Technically he couldn't benefit from the rule, but everyone just dismissed that as an unintended loophole and played him as intended. Or never actually noticed the discrepancy in the first place.

But EVERY codex was set up that way, go read any 5th codex, all units with multi units with same rules where like that, as i already said, it would make some units literally unplayable. I understand that you are saying it was only on the internet that it was argued, but being on the internet back the, going to official GW events, i've never seen or heard anyone say otherwise. There was no keyword system back then, if it had it on its rules page, it had it.

Again, it's nothing to do with Keywords. If you don't have red hair, and you have a rule that says 'Redheads get a free hat' what benefit do you get from the rule?

The answer is, clearly, none. You're not a redhead. No hat for you.

That was the problem with the Doom. He wasn't a Zoanthrope, but he had a rule that conveyed a specific thing to Zoanthropes. He had the rule, but the rule didn't do anything for him.


I have a vague recollection of them addressing it in an FAQ at some point, but it wasn't really necessary since we all knew what they meant anyway... but it did spark some 'lively' rules discussions.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Can you give me a page reference to where in the 5e Rulebook it says "you dont need to share names to share rules"?

Wouldn't an enlish grammar or basic text analysis actually answer this for you. The Doom of Malantai is a character's name. He is a zoanthrope. He is unlike other zoanthrope in the same fashion Tigrius is different from other Space Marines. The Doom of Malantai is thus a zoanthrope, but not all zoanthrope are the Doom of Malantai. I don't see how you can't understand this basic form of textual entailment.

epronovost wrote:
The Doom of Malantai is a character's name. He is a zoanthrope.

The problem was, nowhere in his rules did it say he was a Zoanthrope. It only mentioned in his fluff entry that he was a 'unique adaption of the Zoanthrope'.

Again, that was enough for us all to know what they meant, but from a strict RAW standpoint it was a glitch.


But, really, there's probably not much to be gained by continuing to debate over rules from 3 editions back... If anyone's particularly keen to check out the rules debates on the issue from the time, they'll still be back there in the depths of YMDC.

You are really trying hard to push literal wording in 5th lol.

Doom of M is a named Zoanthrope.
Just like
Deathleaper is a named Lictor.

Keywords didn't exist.

TLDR: 5th edition had INV Saves can only be taken on wounds. What ment RIP vehicles (did not have wounds).
The Space Wolf character dread had a changed wording on to effect glancing and penetrating hits.

5th ed has some of the worst English.

Doom of M = funtime as pre snowflake nerf FAQ, he effect units in vehicles, as you measure to hull.

5th RAW has to be the most broken game out of all editions, it's not even a contest, there was likes 100's of game ending bugs with RAW.

I see your 5th and raise you 6th

 captain collius wrote:
I see your 5th and raise you 6th

6th is the worst by far, it was so bad it didnt even last 2yrs.

I enjoyed the first half of sixth edition. It was quite good to Guard players that didn’t want to run Mech Vets *ALL THE TIME!*

For me, 7th made me actively consider selling my collections, and got me trying other game systems, notably WMH. Had my group been more willing to give it a go, I’d probably be playing that as my main game.

As it is, the lustre has worn off of 8th for us. We’re playing Magic these days as our main game. I play the odd game of Kill Team, and I enjoy that much more than typical 40k.

I just wish WMH was more accessible... but now I really wander from the OP. As much as it pains me to say, I really miss the old deep strike rules. As a Guard player.