# Worst/Pointless Rule of 6th Edition (BRB)



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

to continue with the current trend of Worst ____ stuffs I thought that we could take it one step farther and just do the BRB.

NOTE: Please refrain from mentioning highly controversial/frustrating topics (like the Shooting "range" FAQ for instance)

----

I will start;

The "Fear" Special rule, is terrible. It does nothing, since more than half of the armies are immune to it, and the other half have high Ld where failing it is practically zero percent.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Worst as in least ineffectual? Gonna go with Fear or Mysterious Nouns.

Worst as in worst written/balanced? And They Shall Know No Fear, by a mile, with Combat Tactics being another big offender.

Midnight


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

Soul blaze is another pointless one, I have been sould blazed loads of times and the only thing it has ever done is take off 1 wound from a scarab


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

While Fear is a rather awfully designed rule it seeing as it almost universally useless vs. anything except CSM and DE of all things. Without a unit champion standard CSM/Whyches only have a LD of 8 so the chance of them failing is actually not that unlikely. Furthermore these two armies should not only be those best at making your opponent shit his pants they are also no pushovers in combat. This means that any excuse of Tau, IG most other things vulnerable to fear is pointless when you consider how all of these units pretty much always fold like paper if a unit of even vanilla marines makes contact. 
However, the telepathy spell that makes a unit afraid is does make some good use of the rule. Unfortunately the spell also sucks major balls since GW, in their infinite wisdom, found it reasonable that a spell which could override Fearless has no effect on And They Shall Know No Fear.

Ultimately though, I consider Soul Blaze to be the most useless rule in 6th:
1. The damage is so small that it never matters.

2. It only works on a 4+ so half the time it's a special rule that literally DOES NOTHING. Sure, lots of rules does that, like Fear, but at least Fear is fluffy. People in fireproof space suits catching fire isn't. 

3. It's only ever applied to mediocre or bad shooting attacks (or as a warlord trait, alongside one that gives Hatred. How do think Soul Blaze measures up against that?) to make them seem better/more interesting. Well, until you read what Soul Blaze does.

4. IT DOESN'T STACK! WHY THE HELL NOT?!

5. It's a lot of extra bookkeeping for something that always yields insignificant results. I personally never bother spending the time for such a miniscule advantage which begs the question of why this rule was introduced in the first place.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

In addition to those already mentioned, I would say Hit and Run is pretty bad, especially for large units. Nothing like having to be double tested for a rule to work; because even when you pass the I test(most units with the rule easily do), you have to roll far enough to actually escape. Easier said than done since every model has to move the same direction and can't just scatter into a circle around the other unit.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

I've had great success with soul blaze. It's free on the baleflamer, and can net a few additional kills on things like IG and Orks for free.

I'm really not a fan of not being able to assault out of reserve/rhinos. The edition already heavily favors shooting, and this just amplifies the problem. 

Also rhinos giving away first blood. Beyond stupid.


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

Place fortifications first.

Honestly, if someone puts an f-ing tree infront of my aegis one more time im gunna sue somebody.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

I have to agree with "Fear"... It grinds my gears because Typhus is stuck with it and most things are fearless... and if they are not they can auto rally or hit and run or they are just not worth a damn to assault unless there is no other target....


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

Ravner298 said:


> Also rhinos giving away first blood. Beyond stupid.


I think this is often more of an issue with many players not using/playing with enough cover and LoS blocking terrain on the table.

I think I agree that the fortifications before terrain placement order is crap (although many people forget that fortifications count as a piece of terrain for that board section's maximum and that there are restrictions on how close you can place terrain together)...I like that building the board can be part of the overall tactics of the game, but hate that you can negate spent points from someone's army without ever rolling a dice during the game.


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

And I fail to see how that would translate into an actual account, say, in a book or a game. 
Before battle:
Enemy: Hmm, so I get to place your bunker anywhere I want?
You: Thats right.
Enemy: I think I'll place it behind those lovely mountains over there in the distance.
You: You dick.... *sigh* Alright men, load up the bunker and move it to the mountains.
Your men: Seriously? Dafuq?

Somehow, I can't see that happening.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

I don't like first blood- before 1st turn was a decent bonus, but not game changing, mostly
Now, first turn effectively gives you a good chance at getting a, often game changing, victory point- it's just fair in the guy the dice like to piss all over-(me):cray:


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Not technically part of the main rules but the FAQ in the DE has a brilliant question to me:



> What does Drazhar's Ancient Incubus Warsuit do?
> 
> A: It gives Drazhar his armour save.


If you think I am joking check it out. It genuinely is there.


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

Hah that's amazing. And in fact I don't think it really matters who goes first and who gets first blood, I always aim to deploy second because I can sit all my units out a range and wait for the opponent come to me, then when it gets to my turn I have a lot more guys in range then he had so I can kill more.

With the fortifications thing, it sort of implies that the fortification was there before the trees or the really old looking ruin someone decided to put in front of it. I was playing this one guy once who want to do this really weird thing where u place a terrain piece then roll the scatter dice to decide where it finally lands - oh ho wI laughed when the dilapidated bastion moved right in front of his aegis line


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

falcoso said:


> here u place a terrain piece then roll the scatter dice to decide where it finally lands


that actually sounds cool, and if you put terrain down first seems very reasonable.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

For me it is the Allies. 

For something that had such great potential for some really cool armies it is way to sketchy in it's rules and each Codex released since then seems to be successively nerfing any usefulness it might have had.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

All the mysterious terrain and placement rules: sure it could add a lot of interesting twists to the game but its just too long winded to bother with. my gaming group simply CBA and I would guess that's true many places. If 40k is the same as WFb then even GW held tournies won't bother with it.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> For me it is the Allies.
> 
> For something that had such great potential for some really cool armies it is way to sketchy in it's rules and each Codex released since then seems to be successively nerfing any usefulness it might have had.


Yeah I'd have to agree. It essentially allows some armies to cover all there weaknesses (I'm looking at you imperials!) and then gives the finger to other armies.

It also has the potential to make the game less diverse, as some armies can produce excellent allied contingents that are almost auto-takes.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

First place: mysterious objectives. A pain to take note of those pesky useless effects.
Second place: warlord traits as they are given to us. Lots of potential, but 90% of the time is just a crappy ability. Wich you need to roll. Another goddam dice to roll.
Third place: the daemon codex being overwhelmed by charts, rolls to be mabe every turn, gifts to be rolled...

All of that summarized by my question: WHY the hell must I roll a crap load of dices for irrelevant matters?? Why GW developers still believe that "insane unbalanced random = fun" ?


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

Haha it used to be a lot lot more dice if I remember right, although I still love the old dmg charts for vehicles


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

neferhet said:


> All of that summarized by my question: WHY the hell must I roll a crap load of dices for irrelevant matters?? Why GW developers still believe that "insane unbalanced random = fun" ?


This is actually quite interesting since GW made a concerted effort to remove any "Bad effects" from random tables in CSM (even Spawndom is arguably not too terri-bad) then threw stupid crap like instability and self-exploding units in the Daemon one. You don't see Guardsmen getting panic-tables for just looking at the opponent.

I can't comment on the Daemon codex largely because I've not seen it in actual action, but my first glance was pretty much "Why is this a good thing for the game?" I get adding army flavor but at this rate we are going to see the ork codex be nothing more than a book of table after table to see what "Randwaaaagh" stuff happens starting with "Does your army even show up in the right place?" before the game starts. Seriously I can see it now; ork players roll a D6. On a 1 they "went to the wrong fight" and you lose.


----------



## Create Chaos (May 10, 2013)

Champion of Chaos.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Create Chaos said:


> Champion of Chaos.


Explain.

Midnight


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> Explain.
> 
> Midnight


I know a number of chaos players who dislike the auto-challenge rules, some dislike having to challenge with big nasties who then get tied up for a turn doing no damage to the squad (although a smart opponent will often challenge them anyway to tie them up) others dislike piddly characters like Sgts having to challenge (often against big nasties) and getting squashed. 

However, I have found that I end up in challenges with my characters most often anyway (in armies without auto-challenge) and there are some ways to keep your character out of challenges. I imagine it has far more to do with being forced to challenge than the challenges themselves.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

iamtheeviltwin said:


> I know a number of chaos players who dislike the auto-challenge rules, some dislike having to challenge with big nasties who then get tied up for a turn doing no damage to the squad (although a smart opponent will often challenge them anyway to tie them up) others dislike piddly characters like Sgts having to challenge (often against big nasties) and getting squashed.
> 
> However, I have found that I end up in challenges with my characters most often anyway (in armies without auto-challenge) and there are some ways to keep your character out of challenges. I imagine it has far more to do with being forced to challenge than the challenges themselves.


No, it's very, very rarely the forced challenges that are annoying. Smart opponents will challenge your Juggerlord with their sergeants anyway and you can usually play around this. It's annoying because the rewards table is shit. You can, with some luck I might add, get a free daemonprince just because your sergeant kills another in a challenge or you can have your überlord of death become a spawn for killing an ork nob.

If either of these things happen in a normal game the advantage it provides for one of the players is huge. And noone can do anything about it. 
Besides those 2, magnificiently stupid results, a very large portion of the table doesn't do anything. That's why the rule is stupid.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

They're actually pretty balanced. Apotheosis means you might get a Daemon Prince, because honestly it punts you out of combat and doesn't give you Wings. Therefore, death occurs pretty fucking rapidly. Spawnhood sucks, but the table balances out. I really like the rule, I don't see the problem with it - sure, it's random, but it's not bad random like the Warp Storm chart which has a major influence on the game. I doubt you'd win or lose many games based on what Boons you rolled.

Midnight


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

> sure, it's random, but it's not bad random like the Warp Storm chart which has a major influence on the game. I doubt you'd win or lose many games based on what Boons you rolled.


You could almost say.

*Puts on sunglasses*

It's a bit chaotic.....



YEAAAAAHHH


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Moonschwine said:


> Seriously I can see it now; ork players roll a D6. On a 1 they "went to the wrong fight" and you lose.


Reminds me of the old Ranger disruption tabe. Remember how fun that was? (more for opponents here. I aways had great fun using it.)


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Moonschwine said:


> You could almost say.
> 
> *Puts on sunglasses*
> 
> ...


You win the Internet for today. 

Having played with the daemon codex a handful of times all the randomness isn't too bad. Almost every roll is useful and the one that's not can be swapped out for something that is. The warp storm table has been pretty neutral as well. Not doing game breaking damage, and the daemon neutering rolls are fairly rare. 

Champion of chaos is kindof annoying I guess? If you're complaining about having to kill a Sargent with abaddon or something, bring a regular aspiring champion along to do the challenge? And if you don't like having to challenge calgar with your cultist champion, you might have brain damage because you'd be doing that anyway (plus a big nasty is wastin time with your crap units, so rejoice). It's not as stupid as people make it out to be.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Seriously, page 3 and no-one has mentioned flyers?

So, let me get this straight, in order to actually kill a flyer, I need to bring my own flyers? So then the entire game revolves around what planes show up first? And after that devolves into a frustrating "shoot your entire army at that one model and see it refuse to die" slog?

They should never have been in the game, flat. And if they had to be in the game, being hit on 6s by EVERYTHING is a fucking retarded idea.


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

If you have a bastion or an aegis defense line (or both in my case) the icarus lascannon on my bastion and the quad gun with my defense line both have interceptor and skyfire. With both of these rules, you can shoot a flyer at full BS. Just need another defense line with another quad gun and I think i'd be set against flyers. GW aren't complete idiots Sethis. Of course, if you're not willing to spend the points on these that is completely understandable.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Sethis said:


> They should never have been in the game, flat. And if they had to be in the game, being hit on 6s by EVERYTHING is a fucking retarded idea.


Tell us how you really feel, Sethis.

Mysterious Objectives can suck a nut. That rule is not only intentionally disregarded on my table, but I'd white out the section in my BRB if only that would actually make them disappear. I roll enough dice already.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Sethis said:


> So, let me get this straight, in order to actually kill a flyer, I need to bring my own flyers? So then the entire game revolves around what planes show up first? And after that devolves into a frustrating "shoot your entire army at that one model and see it refuse to die" slog?
> 
> They should never have been in the game, flat. And if they had to be in the game, being hit on 6s by EVERYTHING is a fucking retarded idea.


I agree totally with this. With the advent of 6th, every current codex should have been FAQed to give them access to something with skyfire. I know as new codecies come out the balance will be slowly redressed, but not quick enough. The likes of SWs and Sisters don't even have a flyer of their own to try and counter them without relying on allies.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

-Blind and soul blaze are obviously the most useless currently. Now stupidest rules would probably have to go to stuff like flyers ect. Although there are no shortage of seemingly negligible rules if you go through all the special rules, and the new codex's.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

"Conjuration" psychic powers for pointless.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Mossy Toes said:


> "Conjuration" psychic powers for pointless.


Another page for the White Out jar.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

DeathJester921 said:


> If you have a bastion or an aegis defense line (or both in my case) the icarus lascannon on my bastion and the quad gun with my defense line both have interceptor and skyfire. With both of these rules, you can shoot a flyer at full BS. Just need another defense line with another quad gun and I think i'd be set against flyers. GW aren't complete idiots Sethis. Of course, if you're not willing to spend the points on these that is completely understandable.


You know you can only take 1 Fortification, right? And that you have to place it before terrain, allowing your enemy to put a giant fuck-off hill in front of your quad gun, right? And that actually, a single double-autocannon with 2 wounds does precisely jack shit to 5+ AV11/12 flyers that all sport S7 or S9 guns and can shoot you the turn they arrive?

Oh, new contender for "Most stupid rule" - doubling the FoC chart at 2000pts.


----------



## King Gary (Aug 13, 2009)

Sethis said:


> Oh, new contender for "Most stupid rule" - doubling the FoC chart at 2000pts.


Seconded. Just a rule put in that's ripe for abuse by power players and those that like to stick to the letter of the BRB. If you want to use 4 elite choices or whatever, just ask me, it'll be fine. Personally, I'm likely to refuse you a game on principle if you pull that double foc chart at 2001+ points just so you can field them whilst sticking to the "rules".


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

King Gary said:


> Seconded. Just a rule put in that's ripe for abuse by power players and those that like to stick to the letter of the BRB. If you want to use 4 elite choices or whatever, just ask me, it'll be fine. Personally, I'm likely to refuse you a game on principle if you pull that double foc chart at 2001+ points just so you can field them whilst sticking to the "rules".


But it's in the rules that you can take 2 FOCs at 2000pts and above.

Midnight


----------



## King Gary (Aug 13, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> But it's in the rules that you can take 2 FOCs at 2000pts and above.
> 
> Midnight


I sure do appreciate that Sun, but you might have more fun playing with those guys over there. They care about the rules too. I'm here to have some fun :victory:


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Double FoC is in the rules, but I have yet to see a Tourney that allows it, and I know that at my local club it joins Mysterious Terrain, Board Setup order and several other stupid rules that we just ignore.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Strange, I've never seen it disallowed, mainly for the reason that if if someone's bothered to buy and paint 6 Ravagers or whatever, why shouldn't they be able to use them?

Midnight


----------



## King Gary (Aug 13, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> Strange, I've never seen it disallowed, mainly for the reason that if if someone's bothered to buy and paint 6 Ravagers or whatever, why shouldn't they be able to use them?
> 
> Midnight


There's no reason at all. If my opponent wanted to use just Ravagers, 100+ striking scorpions or a dozen Leman Russ tanks and nothing else then i'd be happy to work something out with them, infact that sounds awesome. I just don't feel that designing a build from conception, using that double foc at 2000 points just to get 6 ravagers onto the table is in the spirit of that rule. The reasion that rule was even though of imo is for people with large collections of minis, allowing them to use more of their collections on the table than they would otherwise, not so that someone can cheese an OP army list with 6 helldrakes.

They should either have not put a points limit on it at all and maybe required all 6 troops choices on the original be filled up, or put it in one of those 'creating a narrative' boxes as a suggestion, rather than a hard and fast rule.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

honestly The only time i have ever used double force org is when A) I am already using 2 HQ & 4 Troops B) when I need another Elite/FA/HS in one of my armies...

I never plan to take 6 heldrakes (since if i take 4 cultists and 2 lords i have 660 points to make sure the stuff i have on the board turn 1 and potentially 2 isnt dead.

and honestly I feel that you one was to do so, then he is an idiot. That goes for anything that you spam 6 of (besides troops)


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Double FOC is quite fun to do. I love my fast attack options (for many armies) and like that if I stretch on troops I can make more of them... as with many rules its good fun until people start to abuse it. If I take 6 FA choices the chances are its with 3 different units: I didn't want to make an either/or choice, not just spamming 1 'uber' unit. Something that would make my scream foul would be a necron army bringing 6 annihilation barges, would be ridiculous (and only ~500pts).


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Tim/Steve said:


> Something that would make my scream foul would be a necron army bringing 6 annihilation barges, would be ridiculous


Why so focused on warfare being fair? Maybe the full might of that Overlord revolves around his Annihilation Barges. Either way I don't see this as any worse for my marines than Leman Russ battle groups or whatever they're called and that's perfectly fine even without the double FoC.

I think that more often than not, the things people want to spam are the things that make GW more money. Of course they are going to make whatever-dollar 2k armies playable, they want to make that scratch.

The change to the Gets Hot rule kind of pisses me off. Plasma weapons being able to damage huge tanks made to house plasma weapons. On an individual model I can see how sustained fire would make it possible to damage the owner, but on a big ass tank that has cooling systems and fail safes? I'm not buying it.


----------

