PDA

View Full Version : Rules You Don't Like



Drunkencorgimaster
08-07-2009, 05:49 AM
What 40k rule drives you crazy? Is it a regulation limiting your army? Is it a sneaky rule your regular opponent uses? Is it some requirement that just does not make sense to you? Let's hear your thoughts. This could go in the rules section, but it is not a "help" question. Rather, it is a general attitude discussion.

MoeDakka
08-07-2009, 07:27 AM
Necron Phase Out. No question, the most army crippling rule ever.

ZenPaladin
08-07-2009, 08:58 AM
I'm not a big fan of Run. I don't mind some assault units and troop types having accelerated movement. But run alows that with a lucky roll all foot troops can move as quickly as vehicles and jump troops.

The old systems of troops having a movement value that could be doubled worked better for me.

Also not a fan of armor pentration and the vehicle rules. Sometimes it seems kind of arbitray to me what's a vehicle and whats not. Say Tomb Spyders... is that really a creature and not a walker of some sort? What's really the diffrence between Jetbikes and Landspeeders?

I think Vehicles could be well and better represented with wounds toughness and armor saves and some aditional special rules of some sort.

blueshift
08-07-2009, 09:12 AM
see also: we'll be back! should obviously be FNP.

i'm not really upset with the current rules, just the ones that were in third and fourth and didn't make it to fifth. i realize that they needed to streamline the game, blah blah, but i really enjoy the depth of the game and all the special rules.

the abolishment of access to an armory was pretty lame in my opinion, but i can roll with what is current.

Madjob
08-07-2009, 10:00 AM
Even though it's been this way for a LONG time, it still irks me that a Bloodthirster has just as hard of a time beating on a Guardsman as an Ork does. The WS table is just weird. It'd have killed them to throw a few 2+/6+ matchups on the furthest corners?

Kloud
08-07-2009, 10:12 AM
The Lash. and being able to have 2 of them even. Shouldn't even be able to have 1.

Tyranid Pychic powers immune to Phychic Hoods.

Inability of Vehicles to Fire effectivly on the move.

Compared to Troops, Vehicles do not move very Fast. Almost makin Transports a questionable Investment.

SM Dreadnought compared to Eldar Wraithlords. Dread should have Tougness, and Save instead of AV.

Scouts should have been made alot cheaper with their WS, and BS drop in last Codex.

BuFFo
08-07-2009, 10:17 AM
1) Rending.

Well, not Rending itself, but giving Rending to ranged weapons back in 4th edition.

Tyranids were the first to have rending, and it made SENSE! Fluff and balancewise, Rending for nids made sense and it worked. Then GW decided to pump up sales of Marines by giving *** Cannons rending.

Biggest game mistake ever.

Now, in 5th edition, due to the vicious backlash made to rending by GW because of the thousands of crying players who didn't like Rending on *** Cannons, the Tyranid's are basically half the army it used to be.

2) Range for casualties.

In an edition where True Line Of Sight prevails, we have this one rules anomoly where if one model in a unit is within range of another unit's weapons, casualties can be taken from anywhere in the unit, regardless of range.

What the hell?

In 4th edition casualties could only be taken from within weapon range. But now with true line of sight, casualties become the abstraction?

Whatever lol.

Gotthammer
08-07-2009, 10:59 AM
Lack of AP for HtH weapons - the all or nothing for power or not seems a bit off to me.

Similar to BuFFo, being able to kill guys you can't see, seems to fly in the face of true line of sight to me.

Dingareth
08-07-2009, 11:45 AM
AP instead of modifiers for saves, cover instead of modifiers to hit, range is never a factor. All movement is basically the same. Basically, if 40k was Fantasy skirmish in space I'd be a little happier.

crazyredpraetorian
08-07-2009, 12:10 PM
I do miss the days when the models under a template were the ones affected and not their squad mates.

warpcrafter
08-07-2009, 12:11 PM
The thing I hate most of all is Dawn of War deployment. It's a handicap just waiting to happen.
Next to that is the rule requiring you to shoot all the weapons on a vehicle at the same target, even if it means that one or more weapon may not shoot. Did the gunners all of a sudden leave their seat to look over the main gunner's shoulder while he shoots? Defensive weapons gunners should be able to shoot at any enemy they can see.

Aegis
08-07-2009, 12:19 PM
I gotta second the WS to-hit chart. That thing makes no sense to me, and my gaming friends always chuckle whenever it comes up, and I depart on some rant regarding it.

DevilUknow
08-07-2009, 12:42 PM
The Force Allocation Chart and the 1 HQ 2 Troop rule seems like a really lazy way of balancing the game.

Might be an interesting experiment trying to balance the armies (or at least a few of them) so be balanced without the need for the FAC.

Drunkencorgimaster
08-07-2009, 07:37 PM
Some great points being brought up here. I have two special rules that piss me off.

1) The "living metal" rule on the Necron monolith completely negates melta-weapons. What, AR 14 all-around is not tough enough?

2) I am a Nid player, but I think the idea that synapse Nids no longer suffer instant death is stupid. That means a Zoanthrope, which is little more than a big floating brain made of soft grey matter can take a direct hit by a groundshaker shell, but shake it off. The whole point of instant death is the colorful idea of somebody or something getting instantly blasted into tiny blobs, or torn into four peices, or something equally fun. Why mess with it?

In general I think "exception-to-the-rules-rules" create more confusion and harm than good.

Drunkencorgimaster
08-07-2009, 07:49 PM
I also have a more general gripe about the basic 40k and WFB hit and damage system. Most other tabletop miniature games I have played seem to have a more streamlined procedure. There are usually just two steps: 1) a to-hit roll & 2) some kind of armour save. GW's system complicates this with a semi-redundant to-wound roll based upon a vague notion of "toughness." Other games just treat a creature's or character's toughness as part of the inherent armour save. Why add the extra step? It also seems odd that you check to see if the creature or character is physically able to handle being wounded BEFORE you check to see if the projectile even made it through its suit of armour. I suppose it saves time by not having to pass the dice roll back and forth one more time, but again...why not just combine toughness and armour into a single defending-player dice roll?

Madjob
08-07-2009, 09:45 PM
Why add the extra step?

It allows for greater variety in unit capabilities. Obviously a T3 model with a 2+ save is easier to kill than a T4 model with a 2+ save.

Kloud
08-08-2009, 12:21 AM
In Fanatasy I've had alot of trouple with the WS to Hit chart.

most notably comparing Empire Milita men to Elf Sword Masters.

but to compare

Me being WS 4 can throw X number of punches at my Brother who is also WS 4, and I will actually hit him 50% of the time.

But me again being WS 4 can Throw X number of Punches at Chuck Norris who is WS 6, And I will still hit him 50% of the time.

But this is the Problem with using just a D6.

Drunkencorgimaster
08-08-2009, 05:31 PM
It allows for greater variety in unit capabilities. Obviously a T3 model with a 2+ save is easier to kill than a T4 model with a 2+ save.

I'm a bit slow when it comes to math so I am not sure I follow you. I understand your example, but still do not see why you need an extra step to create greater variety.

Madjob
08-08-2009, 06:04 PM
I'm a bit slow when it comes to math so I am not sure I follow you. I understand your example, but still do not see why you need an extra step to create greater variety.

What would the alternative be? How would you differ the two models in my example and keep it to a single statistic, or otherwise eliminating the to wound roll? I don't think it's impossible but most of the solutions I can imagine off the top of my head still involve multiple dice rolls for resolving a single hit, or the number of steps are reduced but become more complex (modifier charts for a single save, such as with Fantasy, except that still has toughness values anyways).

It's a very straightforward and simple way of allowing several degrees of unit 'toughness'. For another example - take a Carnifex with a toughness upgrade and an armor save upgrade (t7 and 2+) and compare it with a Terminator (t4 and 2+). A lasgun can only wound one of these two, and it all comes down to toughness, not armor.

Drunkencorgimaster
08-08-2009, 11:25 PM
What would the alternative be? How would you differ the two models in my example and keep it to a single statistic, or otherwise eliminating the to wound roll?

Well if this was an alternative tabletop game one might have the T3 +2 model save on a 2d6 roll of 8 or less and the T4 +2 save on a 2d6 roll of 10 or less. If two dice seem like a pain you could alternatively use a save of 7 on a 1d10 and a save of 8 on a 1d10. You have still allowed for different characteristics with one dice roll.

Have you ever played other table top games like Fire and Fury or the old D&D tabletop Battlesystem? There are plenty of degrees of difference between the quality of units (militia vs. veterans) and yet players use only two dice rolls rather than three. It probably sounds weird if you are used to Warhammer, but it actually works quite well in practice.

By the way, I am not trying to pick an argument with you, Madjob. Just expressing an opinion. I recognize that I might be missing something somewhere.

Madjob
08-08-2009, 11:35 PM
Well if this was an alternative tabletop game one might have the T3 +2 model save on a 2d6 roll of 8 or less and the T4 +2 save on a 2d6 roll of 10 or less. If two dice seem like a pain you could alternatively use a save of 7 on a 1d10 and a save of 8 on a 1d10. You have still allowed for different characteristics with one dice roll.

Have you ever played other table top games like Fire and Fury or the old D&D tabletop Battlesystem? There are plenty of degrees of difference between the quality of units (militia vs. veterans) and yet players use only two dice rolls rather than three. It probably sounds weird if you are used to Warhammer, but it actually works quite well in practice.

By the way, I am not trying to pick an argument with you, Madjob. Just expressing an opinion. I recognize that I might be missing something somewhere.

Don't worry, it'd be pretty stupid to take offense to someone taking an opposite stance on a simple rules discussion.

On the matter of your suggestion, I referred to that sort of solution in my last post, and I don't see how it solves what you seem to not like about the current system - the amount of dice you're rolling remains the same (two, or even likely even three of them the further you go with higher toughness/save combinations), just in a different order. It'd probably be harder to keep track of it in one go with larger amounts of saves - you'd have to roll each result for each model separately so as not to mix the results. I think that for a d6 system, what 40k has works pretty well.

Aldramelech
08-09-2009, 02:16 AM
Why are Space Marines shotguns strength 4 and Imperial Guard shotguns strength 3?????????????? Irritating!

Kahoolin
08-09-2009, 03:13 AM
Oops, just made a fool of myself. Ignore this post :D

The Plastic Surgeon
08-09-2009, 03:25 AM
Only troops can claim objectives.

So my 1st Company Veterans are now TOO COOL FOR SCHOOL to hold objectives? Nevermind the Emperor's mission! We are in Terminator Armour! Holding stuff and winning missions should be done by lowly Tactical Marines only! HAR HAR!

Kloud
08-09-2009, 01:59 PM
Space Marine Shotguns only recently became Strength 4.

However, If I wrote Rules for Shotguns they would be.

6" or less Assault 1 Strength 5.
6" to 12" Assault 2 Strength 4
12" to 18" Assault 3 Strength 3

If target unit is spread through different Ranges, Shooter picks Shotguns power.

ratpack
08-09-2009, 02:03 PM
Well, I go U go always make me itch. That initiative score can mean more than dexterity

Cheers,

ratpack

BuFFo
08-09-2009, 02:24 PM
Only troops can claim objectives.

So my 1st Company Veterans are now TOO COOL FOR SCHOOL to hold objectives? Nevermind the Emperor's mission! We are in Terminator Armour! Holding stuff and winning missions should be done by lowly Tactical Marines only! HAR HAR!

I respect your opinion, but in reality, making troops only turned the game into the 4th edition no-brain first turn win kill fest into a thinking mans game.

Chumbalaya
08-09-2009, 02:30 PM
Not a rule technically, but comp systems have always chafed with me.

It's a tourney, so bring the best list you can, but don't make it too powerful. That's like having a painting comp and knocking people for painting too well.

bartschy
08-09-2009, 02:34 PM
The wound allocation.

actually it is O.K. as such but the fact that giving 1 Nob a toy grot, the other a fancy wisthle and so on makes the whole unit more survivable is stupid.

i would like to take armor saves as if every model was different all the time and all would be good.

Thanks

Marko

BuFFo
08-09-2009, 02:35 PM
I agree.

Comp rules are a crutch for players to use as an excuse to over come / insult a better player.

Big Jim
08-09-2009, 02:39 PM
I hate the vehicle rules pertaining to shooting while moving. I hate having to pillbox my tanks to fire all their weapons.

We should be able to move and shoot all the weapons on a vehicle.

Aldramelech
08-09-2009, 02:52 PM
Space Marine Shotguns only recently became Strength 4.

However, If I wrote Rules for Shotguns they would be.

6" or less Assault 1 Strength 5.
6" to 12" Assault 2 Strength 4
12" to 18" Assault 3 Strength 3

If target unit is spread through different Ranges, Shooter picks Shotguns power.

Yep, that would work.

BuFFo
08-09-2009, 02:54 PM
Well, who cares if marine shot guns are stronger than IMperial Guard shot guns...

Imperial training produces BS4 Ratlings while gene seed perfected Marines and their training only produces BS3 Scouts...

lol.

Drunkencorgimaster
08-09-2009, 03:41 PM
Don't worry, it'd be pretty stupid to take offense to someone taking an opposite stance on a simple rules discussion.

On the matter of your suggestion, I referred to that sort of solution in my last post, and I don't see how it solves what you seem to not like about the current system - the amount of dice you're rolling remains the same (two, or even likely even three of them the further you go with higher toughness/save combinations), just in a different order. It'd probably be harder to keep track of it in one go with larger amounts of saves - you'd have to roll each result for each model separately so as not to mix the results. I think that for a d6 system, what 40k has works pretty well.

Yeah, I guess that you are right. You only make two rolls, but you'd still use three dice now that I think about it.

Chris Copeland
08-09-2009, 09:37 PM
The True Line of Sight in 5th Edition of 40K drives me nuts. I used to be able to use forests and other large pieces of terrain to manuever because we couldn't see past terrain pieces. Now everyone has almost unlimited ability to shoot anywhere on the board (even though 4+ cover saves are granted).

(sigh)

Copeland

The Plastic Surgeon
08-09-2009, 10:09 PM
I respect your opinion, but in reality, making troops only turned the game into the 4th edition no-brain first turn win kill fest into a thinking mans game.

That may be the case but one can still take spam armies and win. I just find it to be lack lustre rules design if the only way to turn a game into a 'thinking man's game' was to pretty much arbitrarily declare perfectly good forces on your table to be too cool for school to hold objectives. It conceptually does not make sense. It's like one big plot hole that kills the movie in my opinion.

Drunkencorgimaster
08-10-2009, 07:37 AM
I thought of another one.

I do not like the way non-vindicare snipers deploy in units. They ought to be able to deploy as single figures or two-man units.

BuFFo
08-10-2009, 09:59 AM
I thought of another one.

I do not like the way non-vindicare snipers deploy in units. They ought to be able to deploy as single figures or two-man units.

lol.... Ratlings come in 3 man squads... Close enough eh?

johnny_trash
08-10-2009, 11:51 AM
I really, really hate the rules for Fearless units in an assault. Say I have 2 squads of Black Templar in an assault with some other squad, my first squads deals 2 wounds, takes none; however my second squad suffers 4 wounds. Suddenly BOTH squads have to take extra saves? How does the performance of squad B effect squad A? Most of the other plays at my FLGS hate this rule as well, to the point that we allocate Fearless-based extra wounds on a squad-by-squad basis, not total combat.

All the random Tyranid rules that seem to ignore basic principles. I.E. Psychic Hoods don't work on them, Instant Death doesn't work on them, and their Ordance cannon-thing doesn't get half-strengthed by scattering off a vehicle. This seems broken.

And I agree about the WS chart.

avatar8481
08-10-2009, 12:04 PM
The fact that the rule aren't internally consistent, don't use regularized terms, definitions or phrases. That they aren't written for rigorous examination/playstyles but amount to little more than hobbyist hand-waving.

Pay a real designer to write and update thorough and rigorous rules, give them away for free or comprehensively play test them prior to release (so they're worth paying for), responsively update them as new information/more play testing is available and discovers conflicts, poor wording and errors (which it will).

Skeletay
08-10-2009, 01:29 PM
AP instead of modifiers for saves, cover instead of modifiers to hit, range is never a factor. All movement is basically the same. Basically, if 40k was Fantasy skirmish in space I'd be a little happier.

Totally agree. I liked the rules better way back in 2nd ed. They weren't meant for the huge games people play these days, but I think they've dumbed it down a little too much.

Rangerrob
08-10-2009, 02:25 PM
Deathrollers...hate the rules for them.

Hit automatic? ummm what? A Bloodthrister misses a gretchin 1/3 of the time, but Jain Zar can't hop out of the way of an Orc Tank? mmmmK. Should have tied it right in with the rules for Tank Shocking, fail your roll take the hits, but no...you get hit automatically.

Then at S10...so basically takes 2 steps out of the wounding process, leaving only the armor save. Not much else in the game can do that.

inkzoo
08-10-2009, 03:17 PM
Kill Points. So, my 450pt, 10 man Terminator squad is worth 1 kill point, just like your 50pt, 10 man Guardsman squad?! Really?

johnny_trash
08-10-2009, 04:28 PM
Kill Points. So, my 450pt, 10 man Terminator squad is worth 1 kill point, just like your 50pt, 10 man Guardsman squad?! Really?

I prefer the 4th edition version of point totals...makes more sense.

bartschy
08-11-2009, 06:41 AM
I prefer the 4th edition version of point totals...makes more sense.

I am the exact oposite in fact its what I hate the most about Fantasy.

Sfter the game is over we sit there for anothe 30 minutes counting points trying to figure who won.

I much rather count killpoints and move on.

Grumpy Ripper
08-11-2009, 07:14 AM
how a mob of gretchin str 3 can cause no retreat wound on a t7 or 8 critter if they win combat with the small things around the massive critters feet

L192837465
08-11-2009, 07:16 AM
I am the exact oposite in fact its what I hate the most about Fantasy.

Sfter the game is over we sit there for anothe 30 minutes counting points trying to figure who won.

I much rather count killpoints and move on.

I think a good balance of the two would be better. I'm mainly a hardcore fantasy player, and yes, the VP usually does irk me as it leads to humongous units of 1500+ points in a single block with characters, which you'll never kill.

Chris Copeland
08-11-2009, 09:12 AM
I CANNOT STAND that my drop pods give kill points to my opponents. I use 5 every game. That is 5 free kill points that my opponent gets just for playing me... grrrrrrrr....

L192837465
08-11-2009, 09:20 AM
I CANNOT STAND that my drop pods give kill points to my opponents. I use 5 every game. That is 5 free kill points that my opponent gets just for playing me... grrrrrrrr....

They aren't dead though? Do the vehicles just have to be immobilized to get KP? since it's a dedicated transport, is its cost included in the unit price?

Blowupologist
08-11-2009, 09:49 AM
Man, here we go...

1) The lack of a 'stand and shoot' option for assault. Units should be able to forgo their attacks in assault for a free round of shooting. It would make Tau a wee bit more survivable.

2) Kill Points. A 45 point Deffkopta should not be worth the same as a 900 point nob biker squad. I'm sorry but math is not hard. If it's really that arduous divide the points by 10 (or 100!) and then round up.

3) Hidden power fists killing ICs. My Space Marine commander who has fought for countless centuries gets pasted by a sergeant with an oversized glove? Stupid. Independent characters should be able to target specific models when fighting close combat.

4) ICs being forced to retreat because the squad they're with fails a morale check and is below half strength. A general should be able to rally his troops to fight on regardless of the situation.

5) Vehicles moving and shooting. I think defensive weapons should be expanded to STR 5 and also include template weapons regardless of their strength.

6) Anything involving Necrons, especially WBB.

7) No retreat wounds. Fine, make them no retreat HITS, or no retreat ATTACKS, but no retreat WOUNDS is just dumb!

8) That stupid rule where a Lictor HAS to take a dangerous terrain test for arriving the way he's supposed to.

9) Wound allocation rules. They desperately need to fix this problem. Wargear should not determine whether or not a model is special; after all wouldn't a soldier pick up a flamer or meltagun if his buddy died while carrying it?

Madjob
08-11-2009, 10:16 AM
1) The lack of a 'stand and shoot' option for assault. Units should be able to forgo their attacks in assault for a free round of shooting. It would make Tau a wee bit more survivable.

4) ICs being forced to retreat because the squad they're with fails a morale check and is below half strength. A general should be able to rally his troops to fight on regardless of the situation.

5) Vehicles moving and shooting. I think defensive weapons should be expanded to STR 5 and also include template weapons regardless of their strength.

Just addressing the ones I have anything to say about:

1) I'd agree with this, Fantasy has a similar option as well and it seems like something 40k could use. Perhaps limit on what sort of guns can be fired/how they can be fired - Inviting a full round of rapid fire just to attempt an assault seems too harsh a penalty, but a regular round of shooting seems more reasonable to me. Or maybe the unit has to pass a leadership check to attempt to stand and fire.

4) The sort of thing you're talking about fluffwise would be the in-game benefits of using their Ld value for said morale checks or any Ld related special rules he grants them.

5) I definitely do not agree with template weapons being defensive regardless of strength, a simple look at a lot of the non-heavy flamer templates fielded by vehicles should make this apparent. You really want a Banewolf to be able to fire its template as well as something like a Melta in a single turn?

Nabterayl
08-11-2009, 11:46 AM
5) I definitely do not agree with template weapons being defensive regardless of strength, a simple look at a lot of the non-heavy flamer templates fielded by vehicles should make this apparent. You really want a Banewolf to be able to fire its template as well as something like a Melta in a single turn?

Er ... it already can. The chem cannon is S1, which definitely qualifies as a defensive weapon.

Madjob
08-11-2009, 12:39 PM
Er ... it already can. The chem cannon is S1, which definitely qualifies as a defensive weapon.

Silly me, I hadn't even considered that when thinking about it.

DangerouslyGeeky
08-11-2009, 08:03 PM
Necron Phase Out. No question, the most army crippling rule ever.

Completely agree. I've lost games where I had the opposing player player down to one unit when he manages to kill enough "Necron" units to cause phase-out and win.

Also GW new vehicle damage rules, which completely nerfed Necrons along with many other non-space marine units I've discovered. And they refused to even address it in a new FAQ.

Chumbalaya
08-11-2009, 08:50 PM
1) The lack of a 'stand and shoot' option for assault. Units should be able to forgo their attacks in assault for a free round of shooting. It would make Tau a wee bit more survivable.

How about the Tau player stops playing a gunline and gets into a Devilfish? You're supposed to get punished for stupid stuff like that.


2) Kill Points. A 45 point Deffkopta should not be worth the same as a 900 point nob biker squad. I'm sorry but math is not hard. If it's really that arduous divide the points by 10 (or 100!) and then round up.

This, I can see the intend behind KPs, but it's implemented so poorly.


3) Hidden power fists killing ICs. My Space Marine commander who has fought for countless centuries gets pasted by a sergeant with an oversized glove? Stupid. Independent characters should be able to target specific models when fighting close combat.

There's a reason 3rd edition was Hero-Hammer, part of the reasons why it sucked. Don't rush your vulnerable IC into powerfists, duh. Or take an Eternal Warrior, they're giving it out like candy these days. Powerfists already got nerfed, isn't that enough for you?


4) ICs being forced to retreat because the squad they're with fails a morale check and is below half strength. A general should be able to rally his troops to fight on regardless of the situation.

Not all ICs are your generals and you should protect them better.


5) Vehicles moving and shooting. I think defensive weapons should be expanded to STR 5 and also include template weapons regardless of their strength.

I'd like to see it, though combined with how tough vehicles are now things might get out of whack.


6) Anything involving Necrons, especially WBB.

Stupid, crippled army needs all the help it can get.


7) No retreat wounds. Fine, make them no retreat HITS, or no retreat ATTACKS, but no retreat WOUNDS is just dumb!

This.


8) That stupid rule where a Lictor HAS to take a dangerous terrain test for arriving the way he's supposed to.

Dear God, this!


9) Wound allocation rules. They desperately need to fix this problem. Wargear should not determine whether or not a model is special; after all wouldn't a soldier pick up a flamer or meltagun if his buddy died while carrying it?

It's a balance between making all your guys bullet sponges for the special weapons or being able to pick them out, it's just really clunky.

blueshift
08-12-2009, 12:15 PM
i think wound allocation is a total pain in the arse. I know it is designed to balance those squads padded with bolter-fodder, but it just adds time and is a pain the in ***.

"There's a reason 3rd edition was Hero-Hammer, part of the reasons why it sucked. Don't rush your vulnerable IC into powerfists, duh. Or take an Eternal Warrior, they're giving it out like candy these days. Powerfists already got nerfed, isn't that enough for you?"

speaking strictly from the standpoint of codex stats, we're playing third edition with much stronger units.

you are now allowed to infiltrate on every mission, as well as deepstrike. outflaking is also a gigantic boost to certain. units.

overall, i like the new tactical and strategic focus our game has, but on the other hand, i think our codexes are a little bit too simplified. i like the days of the armories!

but i digress.

boo wound allocation, boo removal of attacker and defender (i guess its back with planet strike, but i've missed it nonetheless!)

-=Lazuli=-
08-12-2009, 12:59 PM
All the ones that don't benifit my army :)

johnny_trash
08-12-2009, 07:19 PM
"overall, i like the new tactical and strategic focus our game has, but on the other hand, i think our codexes are a little bit too simplified. i like the days of the armories!"

This is why I still play Black Templar. Is it so hard for GW to believe that some people actually enjoy picking what weapons and gear our IC's want? And yeah, the new wound allocation system is rather silly. Units are trained to use other weapons, why can't my normal marine pick up a power sword? ALSO, the new rules for power fists and thunder hammers. WHY, or why, does a model have to have 2 of said weapons to get +1 attack?

MasterM
08-13-2009, 08:18 AM
Totally agree that I liked picking out of the armoury section - part of the fun. I may be dating myself here but liked the 2nd edition Overwatch rules; would be a nice alternative for shooty units who don't assault or run. Also liked the strategy cards or some element of random events.

Agree that it's crazy a vehicle has to fire all it's weapons at the same target- and you can only fire 1 at a certain speed (what's wrong with to-hit modifiers?). Does an extra layer of complexity really turn off players? Who does GW's focus groups on this? We enter this hobby for many reasons other than speed of play. We're all probably more obsessive-compulsive than most people- painting our little men (ok maybe just me) so little more realism/rules probably wouldn't hurt the fanbase; or make some alternate optional advanced rules as part of the rulebook and leave it up to the old grognards like me to use or not.

johnny_trash
08-13-2009, 05:01 PM
oh man, I totally forgot about Overwatch. It would be awesome to get that back. I wish they would stop trying to bring back 3rd Editions Herohammer. The stats on the new special characters in C: SM make me sick...standard Marines just shouldn't be that powerful IMHO. Why is Papa Smurf stronger than Dante, even though Dante is far older and more experienced? Stuff like that just erks me.

Madjob
08-13-2009, 05:14 PM
oh man, I totally forgot about Overwatch. It would be awesome to get that back. I wish they would stop trying to bring back 3rd Editions Herohammer. The stats on the new special characters in C: SM make me sick...standard Marines just shouldn't be that powerful IMHO. Why is Papa Smurf stronger than Dante, even though Dante is far older and more experienced? Stuff like that just erks me.

People with talent and experience do not all follow the same curve throughout their lives. I'd expect that applies to genetically modified super-humans as well.

Drunkencorgimaster
08-13-2009, 08:46 PM
Who does GW's focus groups on this?

God I SO wish I could believe GW uses focus groups!:rolleyes:

Have anyone ever seen any hint of evidence that they bother to do this? Or even playtest rules?

therascalking13
08-14-2009, 08:56 AM
I agree that having a huge armory would be nice for most armies. Tweaking the little details is what makes my Tyranids so fun. I've got a few other gripes though.

Broodlords not having fleet makes no sense. You can take the awesome, huge, upgraded, infiltrating genestealer of doom and pain... but he slows the other 300 points of genestealers down to a crawl. How that makes sense I'll never know.

Also, kill points. One or two space marine can weather above-12'' rapid fire, so as soon as the Snikrot hits the fan, they can just turn and haul *** into a corner. Assuming no lascannons or lucky bolter rounds hit them you can deny the kill point. same thing if the rhino is still alive and prevents the kill point or if the lone man gets back in the rhino and hauls *** across the board. It's too easy to deny them. And don't get me started on my three squads each of whom has a single Land Speeder...

I'll also throw my hat in for Phase Out. My brother plays Necrons and never, ever wins. Can you remember the last game you won with ANY army that wouldn't be in danger of being below 25% force strength at the end of the game? Sure we all have the occasional sweeping "I still have 85% and you're tabled on turn 3" game, but it just doesn't make sense in a fifth edition world.

EmperorEternalXIX
08-14-2009, 11:42 AM
1) Rending.

Well, not Rending itself, but giving Rending to ranged weapons back in 4th edition.

Tyranids were the first to have rending, and it made SENSE! Fluff and balancewise, Rending for nids made sense and it worked. Then GW decided to pump up sales of Marines by giving *** Cannons rending.

Biggest game mistake ever.

Now, in 5th edition, due to the vicious backlash made to rending by GW because of the thousands of crying players who didn't like Rending on *** Cannons, the Tyranid's are basically half the army it used to be. I always found this to be a really stupid complaint (not yours -- I mean the general argument about the assault cannon's rending). It was the only rending in the game at the time that was ranged, and it was also the only rending that gave you a cover save. That, and the fact that the infamous 9-assault cannon theoryhammer list never was witnessed almost anywhere...

The nerf to rending needed to happen, Nids should have power weapons. And that is the one rule that bugs me -- how can the tyranids, an exclusively close combat army, have such a lack of power weapons? I suppose at the time, rending was enough to fill the void, but still. They also have no invulnerable saves whatsoever, which seems a little wonky to me.

Though I generally find very little if any fault with the game, honestly.


Have anyone ever seen any hint of evidence that they bother to do this? Or even playtest rules? The fact that every game goes differently and can usually be won by either player involved? (assuming competent generalship and decent lists, of course).

Drunkencorgimaster
08-15-2009, 11:00 AM
Though I generally find very little if any fault with the game, honestly.


Of course you don't.;)

Drunkencorgimaster
08-04-2012, 05:39 PM
Don't worry, it'd be pretty stupid to take offense to someone taking an opposite stance on a simple rules discussion.

On the matter of your suggestion, I referred to that sort of solution in my last post, and I don't see how it solves what you seem to not like about the current system - the amount of dice you're rolling remains the same (two, or even likely even three of them the further you go with higher toughness/save combinations), just in a different order. It'd probably be harder to keep track of it in one go with larger amounts of saves - you'd have to roll each result for each model separately so as not to mix the results. I think that for a d6 system, what 40k has works pretty well.

Check out Mantic's Kings of War rules if you get a chance and are still on this forum. There is no toughness save. This is what I was trying to explain three years (minus four days) ago.

Alesso's rules are basically what I was talking about.


PS. Did I get the last word on this subject 1,000 days later?

Denzark
08-04-2012, 07:28 PM
No My Lord Threadcromancer, you didn't...