# Most Hated 5th Edition Rule



## morfangdakka (Dec 31, 2006)

No edition has gotten anything perfect and people have their favorite editions. I think most players will agree that 5th edition is a pretty fun game. However, there are rules in this edition that don't make sense or are difficult to understand or really have no place in the game.

So what are the rules you hate the most. The ones you hope are changed in the next edition. These can be anything simple from you want cover saves to go back to being more than 4+ everywhere. To more important rules in the game.

For me I hate wound allocation and how it creates a thinking. It is my biggest issue with 5th edition. I just want it to go back to you apply all wounds to one model until it is dead then move to the next one. 

So what is your most hated rule?


----------



## aboytervigon (Jul 6, 2010)

monsterous creatures needing 50% cover for a cover save as i play nids and chaos its not fair  also that means i hjave alot of monsterous creatures


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Kill points - (I play mech IG, but even if i didn't...killpoints)


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I would have to say the FoC. I wish it was something more along the lines of a total of 9 units from elite, fast attack and heavy support, but anything over the first 3 from any 1 section counts double.
My tyranid army has loads of cool elite options, but nothing at all in the fast attack or heavy support that I care about. My necrons need to have pairs of units to make WBB work, so destroyers and wraiths are basically mutually exclusive (same with flayed ones and immortals... if I could afford the models). The option to have 6 slots of a single type at the cost of other 'support' type units would be cool.


----------



## Primarch Lorgar (Jul 11, 2009)

force orginization, definetly!:biggrin:


----------



## aboytervigon (Jul 6, 2010)

foc is balancing imagine what it would do to the i.g with 9 hs


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

ItsPug said:


> Kill points - (I play mech IG, but even if i didn't...killpoints)


Also Kill Points... because my best friend collects Imperial Guard and we had just coaxed him back into playing with the release of the new codex when GW took his army out back shot it in the head.

Second to that is True Line of Sight: if my models cannot change posture then what anyone can see is modelling not rules!


----------



## Don_Keyballs (Jan 14, 2010)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> Second to that is True Line of Sight: if my models cannot change posture then what anyone can see is modelling not rules!


I agree, whole heartedly. I placed Eldrad behind a big walled building away from the single window, but my opponent moved his tank so he could get an angle where he saw eldrad. It looks like I'm going to start modelling all of my units in the prone position for games where I go up against retarded power gamers.


----------



## Ascendant (Dec 11, 2008)

I like some of the changes, TLOS, wound allocation, the running. 

I guess 4+ cover saves seem a bit too generous to me, it's annoying how hard it is to shoot anything to death. Killpoints have also got to go.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Tim/Steve said:


> I would have to say the FoC. I wish it was something more along the lines of a total of 9 units from elite, fast attack and heavy support, but anything over the first 3 from any 1 section counts double.
> My tyranid army has loads of cool elite options, but nothing at all in the fast attack or heavy support that I care about. My necrons need to have pairs of units to make WBB work, so destroyers and wraiths are basically mutually exclusive (same with flayed ones and immortals... if I could afford the models). The option to have 6 slots of a single type at the cost of other 'support' type units would be cool.





Primarch Lorgar said:


> force orginization, definetly!:biggrin:


It's hardly a 5th Edition rule though, it's been that way since 3rd Edition.

I'm not a big fan of the way 5th encourages over use of mech forces, it's like the game hasn't reached that happy balance where infantry, partial mech, and full mech can all be equally valid army choices.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

aboytervigon said:


> foc is balancing imagine what it would do to the i.g with 9 hs


Thats why I suggested downsides to multiple choices from a single FoC type. So if facing a IG army with 6 HS but that couldnt take any elite or fast attack that would be fine- an IG army that sacrificed marbo, valks, vendettas, ogryns, ratlings, hellhounds and the rest to have a few more leman russ, basilisks and manticore would be a pretty bad army.


While Im not saying my 10s idea is perfect, it is certainly a different way of looking at force organisation... and many ways to balance forces. Having 1 FoC and forcing all the armies to the same structure is very confusing to me... if nothing else I dont understand why the FoC is the same for every army out there. Doing something like giving Eldar more fast attacks slots, Tau more heavy support and nids more elite would be fluffy and wouldnt unbalance the game... especially since those FoC changes would be included in the codex, so balancing would be done as part of the re-write (ok, we all know thats a fallacy).
... all said and done, I just dont like the current FoC rulles/structure- it could be worse, but it could be a hell of a lot better.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Baron Spikey said:


> It's hardly a 5th Edition rule though, it's been that way since 3rd Edition.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of the way 5th encourages over use of mech forces, it's like the game hasn't reached that happy balance where infantry, partial mech, and full mech can all be equally valid army choices.


As much as I dislike KP and TLoS this is something I cannot agree more on.
Vehicles generally seem too unreliable, no matter who's using them or fighting them. 1 lucky shot and will get blown to scrap on the first turn, other times they are blessed with godlike survivability. I wish they were more like MCs. You pretty much know what you have to do to get rid of them and how much yours can take before they go down. The damage table makes the survivability of vehicles much more unpredictable, which I feel makes them a bit annoying. But that is just me I guess.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Yeah, that does annoy me about vehicles- I tended not to use land raiders just because that 1 lucky lascannon shot will hit you some games and blow you up first turn... before you even get in range of the melta... while in other games a simple rhino can survive everything the enemy army can fire at it.
Non-mech armies just dont work in 5th: anytime I take my nids out (I dont mean them) and face a non-mech army I know I'll steam roller it, but if there are tanks then its a hard fight. Same thing is true of my daemons... mech is hard to beat, infantry is easy. I guess there must be armies that are the other way round, finding mech armies easy and infantry hard but I havent played them yet (even my most A-T based lists have been able to cope with everything other then total hoard infantry, while not totally rolling mech lists).


----------



## ninja skills (Aug 4, 2009)

the 4+ cover everywhere does seem a little over generous, 5+ would seem more sensible. 

also i agree with people about the mech thing, i think the baron had it right when he said all the builds should be viable, its just that transports are too cheap for what they do compaired to the few men you could get instead with the points.


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

Kill points and TLOS are horrible enough, but the "no consolidating/sweeping advance into HtH" is just as bad. I really hate it when my wyches wipe out a squad a game then get massacred by 2 squads 2' away from the first one. It really sucks when you are penalized for being too good. It just seems stupid for you to be rooting for your opponent to make just one save on your turn (and then pass his LD test) so you can kill him on HIS turn and then assault into another unit. Hey, if you're gonna pack your army so tightly together, YOU should pay the price not me.


----------



## shadowzarch (Mar 16, 2010)

I agree with the "no HTH after conslidation" is a stupid rule. It's really stupid that i run units so i can hurt you enough not to kill you, just wound you enough so i can kill you next turn. It limits the strategic play of the game to "ill sacrifice this unit so i can destory yours next game" ...oh i didn't know we were playing checkers...not chess...


----------



## ServiceStud (Mar 1, 2008)

Emergency disembarcation. It is so dumb, it's not fun.


----------



## Nave Senrag (Jul 8, 2010)

Kill Points are the bane of my Guard army. I lost my last game (a three way 1000) against two SM armies, I reduced one army to 3 models, and the other to 10. However, I ended up in third place because I lost 5 squads to one opponent, and 3 to the other. It seems like the only way for a IG army to win an annihilation game is to completely wipe out all other armies.

As for the loss of consolidation, imagine if every unit in my guard army got to have another round of shooting every time it killed one of your units.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

Baron Spikey said:


> I'm not a big fan of the way 5th encourages over use of mech forces, it's like the game hasn't reached that happy balance where infantry, partial mech, and full mech can all be equally valid army choices.


Except it has. Certain armies are more prone to mech hybrid or foot bulds than others but Hybrid/Foot/Mech built right are all very competitive lists but you can't just take any book and willy nilly try and make a foot list. Most of the older books for example can't do this due to inapporpriate point costing but do make excellent mech lists (only exception jumping to mind would be Hybrid Tau). Again harking back to my armies I've got 3 foot (Blood Rodeo/BA Jumper/Tyranids), 2 Mech (SM/Eldar), and 3 Hybrid (Fast'N'Slow/Thunderbubble/Tau) armies and the only one I'd say is consistently better than the rest is Tau. Looks like a fair balance to me.

For example, Vanilla SM is very mech oriented they still have non-mech armies & hybrids such as Thunderbubble, Fast'n'Slow variants & Pure Biker; IG/SW/BA are very hybrid oriented but SW & BA have some excellent foot builds like Loganwing, TWC, Blood Rodeo & Jumper variants.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Tim/Steve said:


> ...something like giving Eldar more fast attacks slots, Tau more heavy support and nids more elite would be fluffy and wouldnt unbalance the game....


They have already tried this with 3rd Edition Chaos Space Marines, or the Space Marine codex variations, then gone back again.

I have not heard any horror stories about those armies eating the planet, so I am not sure if it was a balance issue or a ease of codex issue.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

ServiceStud said:


> Emergency disembarcation. It is so dumb, it's not fun.


OMG, we have a winner. How could I have forgotten the most stupid rule of them all. Oh no, I'm trapped in my transport by a ravening hoard of genestealers... thats ok, I'll just cut my way out through the engine block without losing any actions/turns at all... score.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I agree! Gotta say Ramming though. _Tanks do not ram!_

Midnight


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> _Tanks do not ram!_
> 
> Midnight


Not true, in WW2 russian T-34 often rammed German Tigers and King Tigers as this was almost the only way to stop them. This happened allot at the battle of Kursk, one of the largest tank battles in history.

SMs might not normaly ram, IG might do it only in dire situations (when aren't guard in a dire situation?), ect. but Orks? Saying Orks don't ram is like saying Orks don't like to fight.


----------



## Yllib Enaz (Jul 15, 2010)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> They have already tried this with 3rd Edition Chaos Space Marines, or the Space Marine codex variations, then gone back again.
> 
> I have not heard any horror stories about those armies eating the planet, so I am not sure if it was a balance issue or a ease of codex issue.


I thought it had a lot to do with Iron Warrior lists with 4 heavy support choices including basilisk, vindicator and 2 defilers....


----------



## Black Consuls (Jul 14, 2010)

put it this way GW wants you to buy more stuff specialized to their tailored rules. but it even states in the front of the 5th edition rules that this book in no way negates previous rules. as long as both parties are willing, me and my mate jim still use third ed rules.


----------



## Farseer_Iowan (Jun 25, 2010)

I hate the rule where it says everyone lets bitch about the 5th Edition Rules when the truth is the rules are broken more so because there are some old Codex's that don't mesh with the rule book... It's like trying to play a windows 95 game on Vista... good luck....


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Yllib Enaz said:


> I thought it had a lot to do with Iron Warrior lists with 4 heavy support choices including basilisk, vindicator and 2 defilers....


As far as I know four rather than three CSM Heavy choices has not caused problems.

Allowing them to take Basilisks does cause more of a problem; however, that is an issue of balance between Codices rather than with interaction of units within the same Codex.


----------



## Farseer_Iowan (Jun 25, 2010)

Mr. Hobbit, I agree completely they really need something, even a PDF would be nice to change around some of these Codex issues...


----------



## Yllib Enaz (Jul 15, 2010)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> As far as I know four rather than three CSM Heavy choices has not caused problems.
> 
> Allowing them to take Basilisks does cause more of a problem; however, that is an issue of balance between Codices rather than with interaction of units within the same Codex.


That may be, however at the time this unique Iron Warrior ability to both take 4 heavy support choices and steal units from other peoples codexes (ie vindicator and basilisk) was very much complained about by most 40k players I knew at the time. On the other hand the Night Lord ability to take an extra fast attack choice was hardly seen used at all...


----------



## Grimskul25 (Feb 17, 2009)

I personally don't like how they did fearless as a special rule, seeing as now its more of a hindrance than a boon due to the god awful "fall over dead rule" if you lose combat, it makes fearless hordes so much more vulnerable; I understand they want a weakness to prevent it from being O.P. but it would have made more sense if they made the penalty less severe especially when you lose a lot of your numbers. Like whenever you lose combat you take a take a toughness test and if you fail you take D3 or D6 wounds at the most. The only other thinm I don't like about 5th ed is how the movement and shooting of the vehicles work out, they seem more like buildings nowadays than battle tanks and transports, you should be able to shoot everything at 6", 1 non-defensive weapon and all defensive weapons at 9" and at 12" only defensive weapons. Plus they should have made defensive weapons count at S5-6.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> As far as I know four rather than three CSM Heavy choices has not caused problems.
> 
> Allowing them to take Basilisks does cause more of a problem; however, that is an issue of balance between Codices rather than with interaction of units within the same Codex.





Yllib Enaz said:


> That may be, however at the time this unique Iron Warrior ability to both take 4 heavy support choices and steal units from other peoples codexes (ie vindicator and basilisk) was very much complained about by most 40k players I knew at the time.


We need further evidence then: Did anyone else ever face an Iron Warriors army without a Basilisk? If so, was the extra Heavy Support still overpowered?


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

I think that the 5th edition rules are great, but I have only been in the hobby since the 5th edition...

But the Iron Warriors, can they chose Basilisks? Do the CSM Codex allow you to take more uber stuff, like Basilisks? Do they have some Legion specific stuff?


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Doelago said:


> ...Iron Warriors, can they chose Basilisks? Do the CSM Codex allow you to take more uber stuff, like Basilisks? Do they have some Legion specific stuff?


Not any more. They did in the previous codex.


----------



## Lord Rahl (Mar 13, 2010)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> We need further evidence then: Did anyone else ever face an Iron Warriors army without a Basilisk? If so, was the extra Heavy Support still overpowered?


Never came across a basilisk heavy iron warriors lists in the previous, it was more the ability to take as many oblits as you wanted, normal CSM list were limited to 1 unit of them.

In 5th i hate the fact everybody plays mech and how Gw have forced mech upon people with the new rules, all my armies have been built around the previous rule sets, and now i have to spend out loads of money to support the 5thed rules stupid Mech rules.


----------



## nocturnalK (Jun 15, 2010)

the rule for having 2 blood talons on a Blood angel dread, that rule is so outrageous its not funny .

Ive not been hit by it but i watched the effect of it the other day and talk about way over powered...... the rule should be written... if the dread goes into close combat, remove the enemy before any dice rolls because they are dead..... no saves are allowed.


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

as i dont play that often i havent had to much trouble with most rules, but 1 i dont really like is the casualties rule, 25% dead in 1 phase and they have to take a moral check, i find this highly annoying as i would expect this rule to be 50% dead before moral check especially for a csm like myself, with them been mentally strong(couldnt think of a better way if explaining), i lost a csm tac squad cause of that, 10 men, 3 died, had to take a moral check failed and they fell bk of the table i mean seriously id expect marines to take 75% of casualties in one phase to take a moral check, anyway i dont know if this was in 4th as i started playing just as 5th was coming out
oh yer i play a heavy foot-slogging csm army, i only 1 transport and thats a landraider for my khornate termies


----------



## Jdwoogie (Jan 13, 2010)

I personally hate the ability of the space wolves invulnerable to the sweeping advance rule. Pisses me off

woog out!


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

It is minor but I really hate the new rending rules. I have a habit for rolling lots of 6's to hit with my harlies-just a shame that under 4th ed they killed more enemies than 5th ed.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

From where do you all find something that supports Mech armies in the rules? I just dont find anything that would support them... Personally I just started a DH army, with no vehicles of any kind, just GKs and an Inquisitor with retinue... So would my list get driven flat in a GT? In turn 2 or 3?


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

yanlou said:


> as i dont play that often i havent had to much trouble with most rules, but 1 i dont really like is the casualties rule, 25% dead in 1 phase and they have to take a moral check, i find this highly annoying as i would expect this rule to be 50% dead before moral check especially for a csm like myself, with them been mentally strong(couldnt think of a better way if explaining), i lost a csm tac squad cause of that, 10 men, 3 died, had to take a moral check failed and they fell bk of the table i mean seriously id expect marines to take 75% of casualties in one phase to take a moral check, anyway i dont know if this was in 4th as i started playing just as 5th was coming out
> oh yer i play a heavy foot-slogging csm army, i only 1 transport and thats a landraider for my khornate termies


The 25% has been there for loads of editions and I think its mroe to represent the fact that loosing a quarter of your fighting force may make a squad start to think about taking cover or moving backwards. 50% casualties would be a horrendous amount in current warfare. It would be nice if they had midifiers thought, such as if you were in cover you get a +1 LD.


----------



## Lord Rahl (Mar 13, 2010)

Doelago said:


> From where do you all find something that supports Mech armies in the rules? I just dont find anything that would support them... Personally I just started a DH army, with no vehicles of any kind, just GKs and an Inquisitor with retinue... So would my list get driven flat in a GT? In turn 2 or 3?


Yes i believe you would get creamed, as the DH as far as i know dont have that much anti-armour weaponry, at a GT your opponant would just steam roller over you. Also i dont think you would be able to field much in the way of modals.

Like i said everybody seems to take Mech these days and Gw has made the Mech world more duriable in the 5thed.


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

I thought I had nothing to add to this thread because I didn't think I hated any one rule in 5th Ed. enough to rant about it. Well besides the continuing over-simplification and dumbing down of the rules set to make it easier for 12 year olds to play.

But then I remembered something that comes up almost every game I play and I can never get it in my head because it's so f-in stupid.

I absolutely hate the new rules for Rapid Fire Weapons, specifically the fact the if you fire them at all you can't Assault in that turn. Why can't I just fire my las-guns once then charge? I guess my guys can't figure out the fire rate selector switch anymore? I think it's just a dumb over-simplification or parhaps it was changed to make Assault weapons that much better. It's cool that I can move & fire twice at 12" but then just to have to stand there and get charged seems stupid. I don't know, maybe it's just me, I just know I don't like it at all.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Thanks Lord Rahl, I almost guessed that...


----------



## KarlFranz40k (Jan 30, 2009)

Capt.Al'rahhem said:


> I absolutely hate the new rules for Rapid Fire Weapons, specifically the fact the if you fire them at all you can't Assault in that turn. Why can't I just fire my las-guns once then charge? I guess my guys can't figure out the fire rate selector switch anymore? I think it's just a dumb over-simplification or parhaps it was changed to make Assault weapons that much better. It's cool that I can move & fire twice at 12" but then just to have to stand there and get charged seems stupid. I don't know, maybe it's just me, I just know I don't like it at all.


Um, was it not exactly the same in 4th?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Literal TLOS, Kill points, treatment of *TANKS*, not transports TAAAANNNKKKSSS, boring missions, how causalities are determined "I can see 1 out of 10 men...so I can kill 10 men", ramming (Orks yes I can understand, but Eldar...marines...tau...I don't think so), template scatter rules.


----------



## Llamafish (Mar 3, 2009)

the fact that chaos/orks etc cant shoot into combat any more

sorry i think i talking from 2nd ed..... it was a few years since i rejoined the crack...


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> Literal TLOS, Kill points, treatment of *TANKS*, not transports TAAAANNNKKKSSS, boring missions, how causalities are determined "I can see 1 out of 10 men...so I can kill 10 men", ramming (Orks yes I can understand, but Eldar...marines...tau...I don't think so), template scatter rules.


Thats half the damn rule book! And I still have to see a post where you dont complain about the game... But why could not the Space Marines ram? I have a clear vision of a Space Wolf sitting in a Land Rider, shouting "For Da Allfatha, Da Big Wolf and da holiest thing ever, Bugmans XXXXXX!!!!!!" and pushing the pedal to the metal, and the Tau hippies in front of the tank have barely time to say "Damn" before they and their Hammer`eads fins themselves below the tracks of a few dozen tons of metal... But with Eldar and Tau, just if they are like a 100 percent suicidal or desperate... The missions are fun, and the battle missions supplement kicks ass even if I dont own it yet, in fact, I dont own a single supplement yet... :thank_you:


----------



## Jdwoogie (Jan 13, 2010)

Capt.Al'rahhem said:


> I thought I had nothing to add to this thread because I didn't think I hated any one rule in 5th Ed. enough to rant about it. Well besides the continuing over-simplification and dumbing down of the rules set to make it easier for 12 year olds to play.
> 
> But then I remembered something that comes up almost every game I play and I can never get it in my head because it's so f-in stupid.
> 
> I absolutely hate the new rules for Rapid Fire Weapons, specifically the fact the if you fire them at all you can't Assault in that turn. Why can't I just fire my las-guns once then charge? I guess my guys can't figure out the fire rate selector switch anymore? I think it's just a dumb over-simplification or parhaps it was changed to make Assault weapons that much better. It's cool that I can move & fire twice at 12" but then just to have to stand there and get charged seems stupid. I don't know, maybe it's just me, I just know I don't like it at all.



I think you're misreading that rule and your friends you play with are enjoying watching you stand still after you fire your las guns once. You can only not assault if you Rapid fire the weapon that turn. Not single fire it. I'm about 100% sure that is how it works. If i'm wrong then i think i might just hop on a canoe, paddle across the "pond" and kick the shit out of everyone in the GW building from the doorman up because that would be plain stupid. :ireful2:

woog out!


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

You cant do that! You would get "Bugamnned" on the way there, and then you would get "Jervisised". And if Bugman, the beer guy (Dwarf) and Jervis, the avatar of the dice god, arent enough, then you would stomped on by Phil Kelly, the great devour... You see, GW is unstoppable!


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

Jdwoogie said:


> I think you're misreading that rule and your friends you play with are enjoying watching you stand still after you fire your las guns once. You can only not assault if you Rapid fire the weapon that turn. Not single fire it. I'm about 100% sure that is how it works. If i'm wrong then i think i might just hop on a canoe, paddle across the "pond" and kick the shit out of everyone in the GW building from the doorman up because that would be plain stupid. :ireful2:
> 
> woog out!


Better get out your canoe and start paddling brother. 

p.28 BRB last sentance in the Rapid Fire Weapons rule section "Models that shoot with rapid fire weapons in the Shooting phase cannot assault into close combat in the ensuing Assault phase.

I made them show it to me when the said that's the way it was & I'm about as laid back gamer as you can get.

That's why SM carry bolt pistols, even if they froget to bring their combat blades.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Well, I actually find it a bit stupid that blast weapons can scatter over onto the very unit that fired them. How strong a hurricane are you firing into if that is ever going to happen with your shells. 
I don't the scatter rules, just find this particular sideeffect rather dumb. But sometimes it's really funny when it happens.


----------



## Jdwoogie (Jan 13, 2010)

... i am dumbfounded. Unless they have the slow and purposeful or that rule that allows them to fire any weapon and still assault they can't? My friend is going to be pissed! He dropped all of his pistols for his Space pups to swap them out for Bolters! It was very effective! WOW! I'll see you guys in the UK in about 12-18 months. 

woog out!


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

KarlFranz40k said:


> Um, was it not exactly the same in 4th?


I have to admit your right about that, looked it up. I have always though you could chose to fire one shot up to 12" and still assault.

I guess my rant was about 4th Ed. after all, 5th Ed. is fine.


----------



## Jdwoogie (Jan 13, 2010)

so let me get this straight again... this really hurts my head. So if a space marine takes 1 shot at 24 inches from their bolter, they can't assault? 

woog out?


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

Correct. Any use of rapid-fire weapons prevents you from assaulting. It's why Smurfs carry bolt pistols along with their bolters. Sidearms ftw and all that.

If nothing else, it makes shotguns slightly less terrible, if only by comparison.


----------



## Jdwoogie (Jan 13, 2010)

There should be a shotgun type template. About three to four to six inches in length that goes out straight for one to three inch and then spreads out in a wide Y patter but filled in. But that's just my dumb idea. Either way... That's a uber stupid rule and i just realized i'm way to fat and lazy to paddle across the atlantic ocean. I'll just fire mind bullets at them from here instead... 

woog out!


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

Jdwoogie said:


> so let me get this straight again... this really hurts my head. So if a space marine takes 1 shot at 24 inches from their bolter, they can't assault?
> 
> woog out?


They couldn't do that anyway, they can only assault the unit the shoot at. No SM with a bolter is gonna charge 24".


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

That's not true. My homemade chapter, the Carnivorious Kings, can charge 30 inches, RF their guns at another target, even one in CC and they have 7 attacks base. And no, they are not imba one bit even though they only costs 14½ points each.


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH said:


> That's not true. My homemade chapter, the Carnivorious Kings, can charge 30 inches, RF their guns at another target, even one in CC and they have 7 attacks base. And no, they are not imba one bit even though they only costs 14½ points each.


So your saying you based them on SW? :laugh:


----------



## hippypancake (Jul 14, 2010)

I hate the fact you're not able to consolidate into close combat anymore...I use to wipe out entire armies with 6 full stealer squads that came in the edges and front and just one by one wiped out entire squads :*(


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

hippypancake said:


> I hate the fact you're not able to consolidate into close combat anymore...I use to wipe out entire armies with 6 full stealer squads that came in the edges and front and just one by one wiped out entire squads :*(


Right, so you wiped out the other army without any chance of them even being able to shoot you... wonder why they could possibly have changed that one


----------



## Jdwoogie (Jan 13, 2010)

Tim/Steve said:


> Right, so you wiped out the other army without any chance of them even being able to shoot you... wonder why they could possibly have changed that one


Yeah i know... god forbid you'd beable to make a guerilla army based entirely on close combat! 

woog out!


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Capt.Al'rahhem said:


> So your saying you based them on SW? :laugh:


Yeah, how did you know?


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

hippypancake said:


> I hate the fact you're not able to consolidate into close combat anymore...I use to wipe out entire armies with 6 full stealer squads that came in the edges and front and just one by one wiped out entire squads :*(


With all the good things about 5th to bitch about and you choose this? Really? :shok:


----------



## hippypancake (Jul 14, 2010)

it was meant as a joke xD


----------



## deathbringer (Feb 19, 2009)

hippypancake said:


> it was meant as a joke xD


SURRREEEEE :shok:

Most hated hmmm difficult
I think its the line of sight rules, they benefit my tau but the, i can shoot a tiny tiny part of your crisis suit thus i can shoot it with my lascannon and you only get a 4+ cover.

It's irritating as hell


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

mine isn't so much the rules(i started play 40k in the 5th edition so i can't compare really), it's the old codexs that just age. Necrons and Dark Edlar are prime examples. I mean did Blood Angels really need that codex at that time? Could it just have wated to the new year or november etc?


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

They were doing most of the new sm dexes so it would make sense to to them all around the same time since they all have similar rules.... Tbh I think they should have done them all right there.


----------



## Jdwoogie (Jan 13, 2010)

i'd like to change mine. I don't like the new wound allocation rules. The fact that you can suffer more unsaved wounds in a complex unit then you actually have to remove models for kinda pisses me off. I was just rereading them and realize the sillyness of it all.
woog out!


----------



## CaptainBudget (Jun 14, 2010)

To be honest, half the new rules were unnecessary:

*Kill points:* 
Don't get me started

*Scatter templates:*
unnecessary, and if I fire a plasma cannon at a unit, how does is scatter 8" and end up round a corner or on my own unit? It's a ball of semi-liquid horrible death not a sodding Boomerang!

*Tanks:*
4th edition rules were fine, they should have left them alone!

*True LOS*
OK, I'm a bit ambivalent about this one. This is pretty much what me and my mates have played since 3rd edition and it worked fine. However the new rules take this a bit too far, where as deathbringer said you end up drawing LOS to an aerial or a set of horns and wiping out the entire unit. Silly and pointless. We play with an early Lord of the Rings version of this, where you have to see at least the target's head, preferably torso to get a shot off.

*See one you can see all, Wound Allocation:*
Who thought this was a good idea? Leave it how it was in 4th: you can only kill those you can see! Wound allocation does make silencing heavy weapons easier, but it's still overly complex and annoying.

*Fearless:*
Should have been left how it was (if you're outnumbered 2:1, take a save, 3:1 two saves etc.), though even with the new rules I refuse to play against Daemons as they're no fun to play against and overpowered so you have to write a dedicated Daemon-hunting list for an interesting game, forcing people to tailor lists to specific armies is NOT how 40k should be played!

The only rule I really welcome is the consolidation rule. It means I have a chance of pulling the game back if my opponent gets into my lines rather than watching him roll down it completely powerless. This does not nerf the tactic completely as a coordinated assault can still do horrendous game-winning damage, it just simply requires more thought than using a "point and shoot" (well, slash) unit.

Jaws:
The Dark Eldar one should have been re-done in 4th, never mind 5th! Necrons now do need an update as they haven't had one since 3rd and are horribly outclassed in comparison. They're the second oldest on the shelf.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

While I too am not fond of quite a few of the 5th ed rules, I can deal with all of them except True LOS. 

Whoever thought True LOS was a good idea is going to the deepest pit of hell with all the murders, rapists and GW accountants.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

CaptainBudget said:


> To be honest, half the new rules were unnecessary:
> 
> *Kill points:*
> Don't get me started
> ...


Give DE and Necrons some love GW. They deserved it more than, well anything. Inquisition might be an exception.


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

As an Eldar player who really, really wants a new codex, I have to agree that love for the DE and 'crons is a must.

I personally like the vehicle rules, since the rise of the mech is the only thing that has kept Eldar competitive. We just can't keep up with newer codii... except our cars, if a teensy bit overpriced, are clearly better cars that the tin boxes on wheels that everyone else has. Maybe making a 1 or a 2 on the chart be a crew shaken, so that extra armor/spirit stones were actually needed if things are going to penetrate and glances are slightly less useless?

Kill points are stupid, but a solid initial idea. I dislike the way that kill points worked out (devilfish being worth 2 kp, space marines getting to decide whether they want squads to be 2 squads or one during deployment but next to no one else getting that, etc.). Having the rules be, 1/3 of the time, something that penalizes behavior that the other 2/3 of the time is a good idea is actually a solid idea.

TLOS is another one of those cool ideas that has some very "special" effects.

Ultimately, my problems with 5th ed really come down to the details of how rules work out in the game. The rules themselves are all rock solid in principle itself.


----------



## BucketWalrus (Jul 14, 2010)

Rapid fire weapons. They should be assault 1 at 12 inches, or rapidfire 2 at twelve inches, or rapidfire 1 at 24 inches (lets people who don't have pistols get a shot in before assaulting.)
Though since chaos marines have both I'm unhindered, but my friend rapidfired all of his bolters at me and then tried to assault, only to find it doesn't work. He instantly started making little coffins for his men for my turn.


TLOS: I choose not to beat the dead horse this time.

Any codex that isn't 5th. They are all at a disadvantage (some more then others, *cough* DA, crons *cough*) to the 5th'ers. 3 of the SM and variant armies have already been updated and there's more due soon (the DH, WH codices has been removed from the GW site, as well as DA). I know the space marines are the most popular, but everyone deserves a bone now and then Like the orks JUST getting updated to 4th, then 5th pops out a few months later leaving them in the dust.
Same goes for CSMs and tau. and the dust keeps piling on the DA and crons (the dustbunnies have evolved into dust-bears)

Mech metagame: they're everywhere, I havn't had a single fight where a tank or transport isn't taken and not every army can deal with the bigger ones, and some of them just screw you over anyway. Mechs are meant to be support, not primary force. (fire prism spam, rhino rush, lunchbox parade, Tanks that dont even need to see you, 7 lascannon russes... etc..)

My last most hated thing about 5th edition would be 5th edition tyranids
Tervigons: Can be taken as an Hq, 1 may be taken per squad of 10+ gaunts, that means up to 5 tervigons (thats 3 squads of 10+ gaunts, alloweing 3 tervigons, and 2 hq tervigons). A tervigon is a 6 toughness, 6 wound, spine shooting whore of a monsterous creature. Each turn it may spawn 3d6 gaunts (potential 18) but if a double is rolled it may not spawn again, this balences it sort of but if you have a friend who is F***ING lucy with his rolls. That means 5 sets of 3d6gaunts are being spawned EACH TURN (assuming he rolls 1-2 doubles, he still has 3 more spawners next turn) 
Now what makes this retarded is that these gaunts come with a special rule that they ALWAYS use the tervigons 10ld no matter how far. These same gaunts are armed with guns so they can shoot you and assault you. These same gaunts are scoring units. AND TO TOP IT OFF, THESE SAME GAUNTS DON'T GRANT ANY KP.
That means. every turn, 5 tervigons are shitting out dozens of gaunts that can take objectives, shoot you, keep you in combat while the mother walks up to you to bitchslap you, and killing them gives NOTHING but waste your shots/time.
Ill leave it at that, since the stench of beardie cheese is getting to me.

and DON'T get me started on Nid drop pods, Trygons, and retarded OP tyrants.

Same goes for the BA dreadnaught assaulting 30 boyz, and it keeps on rolling and rolling and rolling, oh look a 5 attack model just killed 30. (blood claws should only add extra attacks for the FIRST SET OF WOUNDS, not EVERY SINGLE ONE, 5 attacks, all hit, all wound, 5 more attacks, 4 hits, 4 wounds, 4 more attacks, 4 hit, 4 wound MOMMY MAKE IT STOP D:

Marines getting updates every year pretty much, becoming more and more OP then their
Chaos cousins (srsly, if we cant have iron halos, vehicle variants, lybrarians, orbital bombardment, combat tactics, storm bolters, assault cannons, plasmacannons just for some shitty non-flavourful summoned daemons, possessed, marks (expensive for what they do, which isn't very much, khorn should grant 1 attack and furious charge. nurgle should grant 1toughness and FNP, slaanesh should grant 1I and fleet, Tzeench should grant a 4+invuln, 3+ on lords/sorcerers/princes), and thats about it.

The amount of stuff the CSM's get for what they give up is HORRIBLE. Like comon, they somehow lose all of their tactics and tank varients? they some how lose all their drop pods(they existed before the heresy so they SHOULD get them, dreadclaws DON'T COUNT, 5 times the price and apoc only. no thanks) They lose their artifacts and ancient weaponry?(mastercrafted, iron halos, thunder hammers and storm shields) They have an option to pay 2-5 marines worth of points for a MINISCULE upgrade. 

I'm NOT saying chaos should have EVERYTHING marines have and chaos stuff, im just saying chaos needs a buff in what they DO have (GIVE US BACK DAEMON TYPES), and maybe a few more vehicle types to choose from (preferably custom ones that don't resemble imperial variants, like a rhino that can hold twice the men, but now is treated as open topped. or a vindicator that can fire its gun 5 times, but must resolve the last shot ontop of itself, if it does not suffer a wrecked, or explodes result. it is now immobilized and may not shoot for 1 turn. or a chaos landspeeder. and buff auto cannons (assault cannons are 4 shots str6, rending. auto cannons only get 2 shots at str7 and no rending. autocannons should atleast get 3shots rending for their price.

I know ive gone off subject, but 5th edition really irks me when i see the space marines and nids getting all that cool stuff while the other races are left in the dark.
/rant


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 15, 2010)

BucketWalrus said:


> Rapid fire weapons. They should be assault 1 at 12 inches, or rapidfire 2 at twelve inches, or rapidfire 1 at 24 inches (lets people who don't have pistols get a shot in before assaulting.)
> Though since chaos marines have both I'm unhindered, but my friend rapidfired all of his bolters at me and then tried to assault, only to find it doesn't work. He instantly started making little coffins for his men for my turn.
> 
> 
> ...


I hope this doesn't sound critical, but nids are far from unbeatable. As a nid player myself I find the codex to be decent. Will it hold up once most armies have been converted to 5th? Maybe maybe not. But Nids are certainly not unbeatable.


----------



## Imperious (May 20, 2009)

I have a problem with the expression "true line of sight."

Here's the deal... If you can see something, then it's in your line of sight. Period. True line of sight is like "true pregnant." TLOS is redundant. 

I don't blame everyone. I blame the GW writers for this one.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

True Line of Sight is a nightmare, easily exploited. Or maybe only my area has that kind of cheese-dick.
Not fond of people being able to beat/ break a squad and walk it off the board (I really miss Last Man Standing as well).


----------



## Izzleydill (Jul 11, 2010)

Area terrain makes the *TLOS* that much more ridiculous. Because Area terrain is representing something that isn't fully there, how do you treat it with *TLOS*. Unfortunately while i don't like the system used right now, I don't think the previous system worked that well either, and certainly had its ways that it was exploited. My main beef with 5th edition is just the fact that codex's are released one by one instead of one giant release with equal codex's all made to fit within the ruebook. No more strong ork codex made stronger by the new rules or necrons killed killed by the new rules.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

My main gripe with 5th ed is that only troops are scoring units. This makes no sense- why can my civilian guardians hold objectives, but my dark reapers who are professional soldiers only contest it?


----------



## Oldenhaller (Nov 28, 2008)

The only thing I can say I actually hate is the use of the word Blood in the blood angel's codex. Not just the use of it...but the over use. I mean really, does one need a dreadnought closebloodcombatbloodweapon to bloodbe renamed as a bloody bloodbloodfist?

Idiotic


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

I like 5th, obviously it has problems but nothing too serious.

Wound allocation I get what they are doing and when it works in your favour it is awesome, when it doesn't it sucks lol.

True line of sight is a B*tch though. In my last game we spent 15 minutes arguing becase my Daemon Princes arm was showing a little from behing a wall ... ugh. 

Vehicles are tricky, I think they have it right, you have to hit it, penetrate it (he he) and then roll on the damage table, so not so bad.

What is unbalanced IMO is Tyranid MC's. The prime example being; a Tyrgon Prime comes up behind my Vindicator, so my Vindi naturally turns around and fires at him, boom direct hit with a demolisher Cannon ..... congratualtions its lost 1 wound out of 6 and next turn that Vindicator is screwed. There needs to be some weapons IMO that get bonuses vs MC's.


----------



## Flindo (Oct 30, 2010)

morfangdakka said:


> No edition has gotten anything perfect and people have their favorite editions. I think most players will agree that 5th edition is a pretty fun game. However, there are rules in this edition that don't make sense or are difficult to understand or really have no place in the game.
> 
> So what are the rules you hate the most. The ones you hope are changed in the next edition. These can be anything simple from you want cover saves to go back to being more than 4+ everywhere. To more important rules in the game.
> 
> ...


I agree, allocation means you have more of a chance to risk your captians death over one of the people in the unit hes in.


----------



## Izzleydill (Jul 11, 2010)

Anything shooting at a *MC* really should get one added to their *BS* if not shooting with a blast weapon. Blast weapons should be given the option to fire against it like it was a normal one shot weapon and not have to scatter.


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

Grenades. I miss how you were actually able to throw them back in they day. Now, they are just a special rule and not a damage dealing weapon. Dumb. I want to throw explosives around like a lunatic. 

Vehicle rules have never been very good for 40k. That has always been a weak point in the rules writing area. Either they are over complicated and not easy to use, or they are so over simplified they detract from the fact that a huge tank can be destroyed with a lucky shot. 5th edition vehicle damage rules and the damage chart are too minimal in my opinion. Unfortunately, there is a very fine line between too soft and too hard when it comes to vehicle rules and how they work, and GW has a hard time finding the balance.

A man portable heavy weapon should have different stats then a vehicle mounted weapon of the same name/type. For example, a lascannon being carried by a marine should have far less penetration power then one mounted on a land raider. This would reflect the power cells and/or the physical size of the weapon and its power output. The only rule I can find were they made the weapon different for vehicles is the "gets hot" usr, vehicles are not affected by it. I would like to see man portable weapons be lessened and vehicle mounted types get more powerful or fire more shots per turn.

I would like to see TLOS be shit canned too. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better way to do it as they have it. Is it a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't?"

I honestly never understood why pistols that are used in CC do not use the weapons strength and armor modifiers values. Does that reflect the fact that a person in hand to hand combat is going to use his awesome plasma shooting pistol as a rock and club his foe over the head with it instead of trying to squeeze off a shot into his face? Just never made much sense to me. And this goes all the way back to Rogue Trader rules!


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Is the pistol rule you're talking about Unforgiven; not supposed to represent the holder firing it as they charge, or firing a pistol whilst in the masses of combat.

If I was in the middle of a huge combat, hell - I'd be swinging my chainsword and shooting my bolter at anything.




Izzleydill said:


> Anything shooting at a *MC* really should get one added to their *BS* if not shooting with a blast weapon. Blast weapons should be given the option to fire against it like it was a normal one shot weapon and not have to scatter.


I disagree; If anything, they should get BS reduced.. MCs are shot down far too easily.. they're supposed to be *Monstrous Creatures* - they go down too easily


----------



## search116 (Aug 9, 2010)

The only thing I have a problem with is Fleet as I laugh at the genestealers when there to far to assault only to find out my opponent rolls a 6 and tears through my squads the following assault phase.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Fleet is a brilliant representation.. A genestealer is clearly faster and more agile than a marine - and as they're the same unit type.. should they be able to move the same speed?

Can't think of a better way to do this, other than change genestealers to Beast type, which is a stupid idea. :laugh:


----------



## search116 (Aug 9, 2010)

ROT said:


> Fleet is a brilliant representation.. A genestealer is clearly faster and more agile than a marine - and as they're the same unit type.. should they be able to move the same speed?
> 
> Can't think of a better way to do this, other than change genestealers to Beast type, which is a stupid idea. :laugh:


I know fleet rule was to make it realistic but because of that rule outflanking genestealers make me twitch whenever I see them:wacko:.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

We have to pay a fair amount of points for 'stealers, and they are a very competitive unit - Don't blame fleet for that. :laugh:

I think if anything it's the rending that makes they a real bargain; MTC, Fleet and Rending; that's insane for the price you pay (Similar to a marine).


----------



## Vanchet (Feb 28, 2008)

I honestly like the rules 
work well for me (specially Emergency disembark so tornament tricks don't work on you


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

ROT said:


> Is the pistol rule you're talking about Unforgiven; not supposed to represent the holder firing it as they charge, or firing a pistol whilst in the masses of combat.
> 
> If I was in the middle of a huge combat, hell - I'd be swinging my chainsword and shooting my bolter at anything.


While in close combat... not in the shooting phase.
The point I am trying to make is, why do I revert to the units base strength with an Ap- in close combat when he is armed with a strength 7 plasma pistol that is AP2? I can understand swords, axes and other choppy weapons, but a pistol should use its stats when in CC no matter if it is more or less powerful than the user that is wielding it. This has irked me for 20+ years.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

I agree with the contesting issue fo sho. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to make measly core troops the only unit able to score? Seriously? Its only encouraging players to waste points on choices that are generally useless compared to the rest of the army.

I can understand why they would do it for SOME units (Reapers for example, camping is their specialty), but for most non-troop choices, its a rather stupid idea.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Unforgiven302 said:


> While in close combat... not in the shooting phase.
> The point I am trying to make is, why do I revert to the units base strength with an Ap- in close combat when he is armed with a strength 7 plasma pistol that is AP2? I can understand swords, axes and other choppy weapons, but a pistol should use its stats when in CC no matter if it is more or less powerful than the user that is wielding it. This has irked me for 20+ years.


That makes a lot of sense actually... 

Something that got to me recently, the dangerous terrain tests for tanks. Roll a one and it stops immediatly on the OUTSIDE of the terrain. It really makes no sense, thats like saying, oh, my car broke down because of water in the engine, before it got into the terrain. I guess it makes a little sense for tank tracks, but surely you'd have to be deep enough into the terrain for that to happen... 

Also, the fact that grenades a ridiculous, you can only use them against a tank? Seems a bit strange, the fact that in the army they teach you to throw them at the enemy. Seems a tad retarded, you could do more with a melta grenade against a squad of troops than against one attack... Ah well!

Deep Strike rule, if you're dropping down from a thunderhawk, or being teleported onto to the battlefield, I would assume that you would be looking for assault rather than shooting, seems a bit retarded that you come down, then you lock on with a weapon, when it's probably easier to get into combat straight away?

Thats a few gripes I've got...


----------



## sartan2002 (Apr 15, 2010)

me being the loving deepstriking Nid player I am don't like the fact that my lictors can not assault when they deepstrike....


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Yeah, I'm with you on DSing; You'd have to be a complete retard if you got dropped down; next to a unit... and not assault them.

Would love to see that changed to assault and can't shoot.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

TLOS is a pain.

It takes some tactical skill out of the game. There used to be a point to sneaking around behind area cover, maybe lose a turn of shooting but stay in one piece for the approaching scuffle. Now footsloggers just march slowly towards each other knowing that the 4+ save is coming anayway. Hence the rise of mech!


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> Literal TLOS, Kill points, treatment of *TANKS*, not transports TAAAANNNKKKSSS, boring missions, how causalities are determined "I can see 1 out of 10 men...so I can kill 10 men", ramming (Orks yes I can understand, but Eldar...marines...tau...I don't think so), template scatter rules.


can you give me your reasoning for the "treatment of tanks" & template scatter rules? im confused but it is also 3:30 am ATM.



ROT said:


> Yeah, I'm with you on DSing; You'd have to be a complete retard if you got dropped down; next to a unit... and not assault them.
> 
> Would love to see that changed to assault and can't shoot.


personally id like the DS rules to be something along the lines of "you can move, then shoot, but not assault; OR not move, shoot & assault" i think that it would allow for "on the fly" tactical changes - well sh*t, not sure how far off i am from that unit, do i chance the assault that may not make it, & if i dont im most likely dead...or redeploy & maybe live but should be able to make an assault next turn.

i think that this is a great house rule idea

Edit: oh ya, forgot my hated rule - template scatter - HOW THE F*CK DID IT LAND ALL THE WAY OVER THERE!!?


----------



## louisshli (Aug 19, 2010)

One rule that's been around since well, forever (not sure about Rogue Trader) is every infantry unit moves the same amount. How hard is it to imagine Eldars moving an inch or so more, compared to Marines & Orks? It takes a big piece of the speed element some armies rely on out of the game.

I think it's been said here already, but I liked it more when rending allowed you to bypass the roll-to-wound when a 6 is rolled on to-hit. 

And this one, I might be completely on my own, but have anyone thought how it'd made so much more sense by rolling to hit, opponent saves, all failed saves are then picked up and roll-to wound? Armour is supposed to stop the shot from wounding the wearer, correct?

But it is what it is, I guess. Sometimes I would really like to see some of the details being back in the game, as it's what makes the game more flavorful. However, GW is trying to entice the young'uns to get into the hobby as well... so I can see why they dumb things down sometimes...

Oh well, that's why there's houserules....


----------



## Yllib Enaz (Jul 15, 2010)

louisshli said:


> One rule that's been around since well, forever (not sure about Rogue Trader) is every infantry unit moves the same amount. How hard is it to imagine Eldars moving an inch or so more, compared to Marines & Orks? It takes a big piece of the speed element some armies rely on out of the game.


Actually it was one of the innovations of third edition. Prior to that different races moved different amounts. 4 inches for humans for example.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Yllib Enaz said:


> Actually it was one of the innovations of third edition. Prior to that different races moved different amounts. 4 inches for humans for example.


There were also modifiers for carrying various things: Las-cannons are heavy so you move 3" less, unless you have suspensors which each offset 1/2" Movement penalty, and so on.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

I honestly would have liked that better....


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Im not a fan of true line of sight. I felt the 4th edition rules made gameplay easier, and more enjoyable. Being able to hide units was always nice, now its "I can see that quarter inch area of your tank, you get a 4+ cover while i shoot it through 3 buildings"


----------



## Ninja D (Nov 9, 2010)

I always had a problem with deep strike myself. With deep strike they should have at least made the rule something along the lines of making them one step deeper. If you had the rule Deep Strike, you can shoot, but not move or assault. If you had Deep Strike [Assault], then you can assault but not move or shoot. This way they could have had specialized paratrooper style units (assault terminators, storm boyz, whatever constitutes a close combat horror from below in the 'nid codex, etc.). It would still make deep striking a risky thing, but worth it if you landed within charge range.

As for TLOS, I always like the head/torso/leg thing. If the model's head, torso, or legs were visible, you could hit the model. If just its arms or weapons were visible, you can't. Being a prior military, I can tell you that you simply tucked your arms and weapons in when you were up along the edge of a wall or obstacle. It's easy and trained into you so much you don't even think about it. If you stuck your head out, it was a perfectly viable target. Wargaming models are static and generally posed in cool looking configurations and a modeller should not be penalized by a crappy rule when he gives his army action poses.

As an old school Ork player who used to eat two thirds of my opponent's army with near impunity, I actually like the idea of not being able to consolidate into new close combats. Makes you think a little more about unit positions, maneuvering, and overall strategy.


----------



## Loli (Mar 26, 2009)

Dont like the idea of TLOS, but since the boards me and my friends play on barely have any terrain its never been an issue, but my god TLOS sounds terribled.

I dont like not consolodating into combat. I hate the fact that I use my Hormagaunts overwelming number to kill a unit after 2-3 turns of marching up the board taking countless fire, then win something in combat just to get raped following turn. More so with my Genestealers, I always sho my oppenent my list before hand so that they can see whats what, so they know im packing 'Stealers. So why should i imo get penalised for outflanking sucessfully and slaughting a single squad (which since i play against gunline guard) they are small and pitiful squads. Its stupid imo.

Deep striking is a huge bug bare of mine i cant stand it, i love the concept but the lack of abaility to assult really irritates me. If it was a standard DS then i accept is-ish. But if its from a Drop Pod or Spore it really irritates me, if they have the ability to land sucessfull (im on about the reduce the amount to scatter thing here) then the unit inside should be fit enough to charge if they wish. So why you dont get the option to assult instead of shoot i just dont understand. I mean the movement has been done so leaving assult is fine, which is you scatter badly then your fine from any chance fo assult.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

I don't see how TLOS is a bad idea.. If you can't see an enemy, you can aim at them surely? If it's a matter of perspective you can't deal with; buy a laser-pointer? :biggrin:

There is no more logical way of doing it.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

I think it has something to do with players 'cheating' by posing their models prone or in certain stances, then positioning their models in such a way that vitals are covered by cover.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

ROT said:


> I don't see how TLOS is a bad idea.. If you can't see an enemy, you can aim at them surely? If it's a matter of perspective you can't deal with; buy a laser-pointer?
> 
> There is no more logical way of doing it.





Alsojames said:


> I think it has something to do with players 'cheating' by posing their models prone or in certain stances, then positioning their models in such a way that vitals are covered by cover


the only issue id have with TLoS is when some1 makes EVERY model in their army special, hiding behind a wall here, barrel there, etc. 

WTF!? i know thats the model, but i cant SEE the model. :scratchhead:

now i didnt play anything other than 5th Ed, but in CoD i think TLoS would be a mess.

id like to think that if 50+% of a unit is in cover, then you can only kill the members of the unit OUT of cover, be it only 1 guant & you shoot a heavy bolter or other multi-shot weapon.

i wouldnt mind if Rapid fire weapons could charge D6 inches (a little fantasy mix-mash, or random charges all around)

the only other thing i wouldnt mind is for turret guns to be able to shoot @ a separate target...but i can see how that would over power tanks even more.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I just hate TLOS because it means you are hardly ever safe from shooting, and it can be a pain in the ass.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Yeah it encourages people to hide all their models in cover where they can't be shot. Quite frankly, it's a pain.


----------

