# Dumb Rules



## Beaky (Dec 15, 2006)

Ok guys i've been thinking about the game recently wondering what's pathetic about it. 

My main major gripe is the rediculous Tank Shock rules. How and why the hell can't you ram the shit out of people like in 2nd edition?

So what annoys you the most about the current rules set.

What would you like to be 'developed/changed' by GW to make the game more fun and realistic?


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

Movement. The way it works at the moment really doesnt sit right with me. Thats one aspect of 2nd edition i actually miss


----------



## Ravensoul (Dec 14, 2006)

Movement is definately high on my priorities for an overhaul. 

Mostly i'd like to see more advance vehicle damage tables. Maybe a 2D6 chart with a few more effects.

Damaged tracks for 2" less move per turn for example.


----------



## DeathForce (Dec 21, 2006)

Ravensoul said:


> Movement is definately high on my priorities for an overhaul.
> 
> Mostly i'd like to see more advance vehicle damage tables. Maybe a 2D6 chart with a few more effects.
> 
> Damaged tracks for 2" less move per turn for example.


I like this sort of suggestion.


----------



## sportman (Dec 22, 2006)

1) Twin-linked- O I have an extra shot but since I already hit, I'm not going to shoot it

2) Point-blank- There's a 20 foot carnifex in front of me that's two inches away. O crap, I missed my lascannon shot.

3) Two handed weapons- I have a bolt pistol that does the same damage as my power fist. Cool.

Many other things have problems, but I've learned to deal with it.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

you cant use a pistol 2 handed


----------



## FrozenOrb (Dec 23, 2006)

cccp_one said:


> you cant use a pistol 2 handed


He's referring to the extra CCW giving a Power Fist etc an extra attack.

Here's a couple posts I made in the past regarding 40k problems:



> I've never been happy with how rend works on vehicles; and high toughness good save models - the Wraithlord being the best example.
> 
> Have it so that a rending 6 gives +1 to damage a vehicle, not a D6. This for example would mean a Terminator with Assault Cannon could only damage a Land Raider with the Tank Hunters skill. It would also make the missile option a little more desirable (especially if rend is also toned down versus non-vehicles). Fans of Daemonettes will cry foul that they can only harm 11 armour. Perhaps Demons could get an additional +1 versus vehicles. *shrug*
> 
> Also have it that a rend adds 2 to your strength for wounding versus non-vehicles, and the save is -2. So a rend from an Assault Cannon wounds a Wraithlord on a 4+ (instead of a 6) and the Wraithlord gets a save of 5+ (instead of 3+).





> One example I find silly is Space Marines with their great leadership and their And They Shall Know No Fear. If they fail a leadership test in CC and aren't outnumbered 2-1 it's like they passed. In other words if they aren't outnumbered, there's no point rolling the dice...
> 
> It should start at one save, then be, 2 for 2-1, 3 for 3-1, and 4 for 4-1. And it shouldn't stop at 4-1. It should go all the way up to 10-1.
> 
> Having to take 10 3+ saves because you are insanely outnumbered... where's the harm in that?


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

I hate with a passion that you could field a imperial guard army with nothing but lascannons its so cheap and annoying, if i could change a rule it would be put a limit on how many you could have of a certain heavy weapon like 0-5 lascannons or 0-6 misslie launchers.

p.s. sorry if this sounded a bit ranty


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

it does im afraid. the strengths of guard are its firepower, otherwise theyre crap. i would never take a guard list with more than 3 squad based lascannon, most of the time i go with missile launchers or heavy bolters, and replace the ML with an autocannon for horde armies
plus, having a limit on heavy weapons defeats the object of the fire support squads and other suchlike


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

cccp_one said:


> it does im afraid. the strengths of guard are its firepower, otherwise theyre crap. i would never take a guard list with more than 3 squad based lascannon, most of the time i go with missile launchers or heavy bolters, and replace the ML with an autocannon for horde armies
> plus, having a limit on heavy weapons defeats the object of the fire support squads and other suchlike


very true but lascannon heavy armies still annoy me


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

yeah
too many lacannons are a waste of points imo, as unless your'e playing an armour heavy list they just arent effective


----------



## FrozenOrb (Dec 23, 2006)

An army of Lascannon heavy Guard would be ripped to pieces by my Dark Eldar.


----------



## Hudge (Dec 24, 2006)

"Damn I only have 7 blood claws, none of them can fight"
"I'm going to shoot this guy. Damn he's out of range, even though my gun is loaded still I can't shoot anyone"
WTF?


----------



## Cilionelle (Dec 24, 2006)

Sorry, slightly off topic, but doesn't the "And They Shall Know No Fear" rule refer to regrouping _after_ falling back? Not about whether they fall back or not in the first place? They automatically regroup? No? Am I way off base with that reading of the rules? And is this too many questions in a row for one post? Hmmm...


----------



## Skcuzzlebumm (Dec 21, 2006)

with ATSKNF they will auto regroup once they fall back and then may act as normal.

What ppl forget is the regrouping is done at the start of your turn, you then get a 3" consolidate then instead of your move but are otherwise free to act as normal. SM's are slightly differnet in the the RAW wording f thier rules says they can get the 3" and then MOVE AS NORMAL - effectivly been able to move 9"! But kiddies remember if a SM unit falls back and is still within 6" of an enemy model at the start of the Sm turn then they keep running.

"nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide"


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

That sig kicks me in the knackers every time Skcuzz!


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

FrozenOrb said:


> An army of Lascannon heavy Guard would be ripped to pieces by my Dark Eldar.


Exactly. You can't take a bunch of anti tank weapons and not anti-infantry weapons.


----------



## Badkarma (Dec 27, 2006)

Where did Overwatch go?....(at least for Rapid Fire weapons if nothing else) When a group of howling maniacs are running at you and you haven't moved or fired that turn, your gonna what? a) invite them in for tea and biscuits...or b) Shoot the S**t out of them.

Movement..But that's already been covered.

Range modifiers should be in the Rules...

I've said this on another Forum, but i reckon that they should release an Advanced Rules Supplement, that allows for more a complex set of rules, so if you want the short blast away version you can stick with the main rules, and if you like more of a strategic game (ok would last longer than 15 nano seconds) then use the Advanced Supplement.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

when they released 3rd edition that was actually the idea, but i guess that got let behind at some point.


----------



## WarEagle (Dec 22, 2006)

two things 

1-why do assault marines only hit fast tanks on a 6? they arnt lnad units they can fly up to it grab hold and smake the crap out of it.

2-I want to be able to use my land raider and assault aunother tank you know plow right over that chaos rhino


----------



## FrozenOrb (Dec 23, 2006)

WarEagle said:


> 2-I want to be able to use my land raider and assault aunother tank you know plow right over that chaos rhino


Hmm. Hadn't thought about this but you bring up a good point. That would be fun.


----------



## pathwinder14 (Dec 27, 2006)

GW should really remove the turn based style of play. It should be:

Both players roll for iniative. The player that rolled the highest gets to move one unit/vehicle then the other player moves a unit/vehicle until all movement is done. Shooting would work the same way. Close Combat would work teh same way; the unit that charged gets the bnonus attack.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

it would add a very different tactical element to the game


----------



## Badkarma (Dec 27, 2006)

> Both players roll for iniative.


Our gaming group does that for BFG and it works really well. Doing it for 40k would also improve it, think we'll add that to our House Rules......which is now 4 A4 pages long.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Beaky said:


> My main major gripe is the rediculous Tank Shock rules. How and why the hell can't you ram the shit out of people like in 2nd edition?


People, funnily enough, don't just stand there when a few hundred tonnes of screaming metal doom is bearing down on them. They run. And they run in an organised fashion, having been held together by the strong leadership of their immediate boss, or flee in terror and disorganisation. Funnily enough this is covered almost perfectly by the current tank shock rules.

On the other hand, I'd think ramming between things with armour value shgould be allowed, since it's much easier to just run than fire up the left track, spin it forward, spin the right track backwards, stop the engines, fire up the engines, change gear, and move forwards. It's probably just a matter fo what it'd do to already-established vehicle point costs, and the fact that GW has learned a valuable lesson in regards to single-source retonning.




Lord Sinkoran said:


> I hate with a passion that you could field a imperial guard army with nothing but lascannons its so cheap and annoying, if i could change a rule it would be put a limit on how many you could have of a certain heavy weapon like 0-5 lascannons or 0-6 misslie launchers.
> 
> p.s. sorry if this sounded a bit ranty


Cheap, no. For that one lascannon, I could take a few heavy bolters, or a missile laucher or two, or even a half squad of guardsmen.

Annoying, no. Unless your army is Deathwing, you should hardly care. And if it is Deathwing, you should be experienced enough to avoid this problem.



Hudge said:


> "I'm going to shoot this guy. Damn he's out of range, even though my gun is loaded still I can't shoot anyone"
> WTF?


You mistake the shooting processes. The way it works, the guys aim and start shooting, represented by you declaring targets. Then, either they're within range, and get hit, or beyond effective range, and nothing really happens. You can't take back a bullet that's left the barrel.




Hudge said:


> "Damn I only have 7 blood claws, none of them can fight"


I don't get this one.





WarEagle said:


> why do assault marines only hit fast tanks on a 6? they arnt lnad units they can fly up to it grab hold and smake the crap out of it.


The day you can fly what is basically a rocket strapped to your back accurately enough that you can fly through the utter havoc that is war at eighty kilometres per hour, drop out of the sky on top of a vehicle that is travelling at eighty kilometres per hour and doing its level best to stop you coming close to it, with such incredible efficiency that you can do it flawlessy with but a single explosive device, is the day I give you this point. 
Hint: This won't happen.


As for the people advocating a change in the turn sequence, you would be bollocksing about for no other reason than you don't feel comfortable with the concept of disassociated time. The turns of 40K are supposed to represent simultaneous movement on the batttlefield, which, as we all know, can't actually happen. The way the game's been snce creation has been player turns, and that you'd want to make such an incredibly huge change for such a simple reason indicates to me that you don't know what would happen to the entire rules system to balance this seemingly small feature. Some house rules may be close, but I've yet to see one set without a large and fairly obvious flaw.


----------



## Badkarma (Dec 27, 2006)

> As for the people advocating a change in the turn sequence, you would be bollocksing about for no other reason than you don't feel comfortable with the concept of disassociated time. The turns of 40K are supposed to represent simultaneous movement on the batttlefield, which, as we all know, can't actually happen. The way the game's been snce creation has been player turns, and that you'd want to make such an incredibly huge change for such a simple reason indicates to me that you don't know what would happen to the entire rules system to balance this seemingly small feature. Some house rules may be close, but I've yet to see one set without a large and fairly obvious flaw.


Excellent..!! So you've obviously tried it then...how did it go and what "Flaws" were apparent then?
To me wondering weather i'm going to win the next initative round adds more of a tactical game, as you have to postion your units whilst bearing in mind that you might not get to go first again the following round.
It means that you have to plan ahead, and Overwatch comes into it's own (we only allow rapid fire weapons to go into Overwatch).
It seems to me that you like to stick to the Rules and not deviate from them, that's fine but I would highly recommend the Iniative turn sequence to other players, after all the Rules are basic and after a while kinda boring, which has given me an idea for a new thread


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

My problem is that each and every house rule plays with how much certain models are worth, more so depending on the scale of the changes they introduce. Changing the turn sequence would screw around dramatically with the value of units, for little appreciable gain. At the end of the day, all you've gained from the switch is a less systematic and more luck-based turn sequence. As it is, the system is set, allowing players to make strategic decisions on their deployment and playing knowing that they or their opponent will get one movement, shooting, and assault phase before they can react. Changing the system would take the irritating uncertainty of the deployment phase, and jam it into every single part of the game. If you can present to me a reason why this is worth this cost, I'll listen. As of yet, though, I've yet to see a single positive advantage to the game itself other than shutting up the people who're too hyperactive to sit around for the unbearably long half an hour of an average turn.


As for overwatch, that's a horrible idea. This addition would make close-combat armies, quite simply, unplayable. Overwatch especially would break any game with a reasonable amount of terrain in half, and turn it into a match of 'sit and wait', oir against combat armies, 'total slaughter'. Again, like the turn sequence, it is only an advantage for those people who cannot think of time as being anything other than perfectly linear. These people, obviously, must have never touched a book, movie, or game plot in their lives.


----------



## Wrath of Khaine (Dec 29, 2006)

The tank shock rules are pretty good, but I think more carnage should happen to unit that gets hit by one. True, units don't stand there and take it, but in a massive battle, you might not see it until it's running you over through the fog and constant vibration of war. Fast vehicles even moreso. The style of turns and movement create tank shock in this way, as tanks do not launch across a battlefield without you responding though. Tank shocking other vehicles is a nice touch our old gaming club had, as well titans getting stomp attacks. I don't care how fast you are, because if a titan manages to get his foot in the middle of your unit, some unlucky bloke is gonna be pudding.

I agree that the back-and-forth movement could massively hurt some people's armies. Of course, it will also improve others. With necessary changes it could work well, but I feel it would become a game of firing at the squad that just moved or will move next.

On Overwatch, only certain squads should get them. Only few armies should be able to use it at all, as most units aren't calm and collected enough to sit there and wait. I'd say only units with 5 men or less, as most units would be participating in the battle leaving the minor ones to guard flanks, gaps, etc. I'd also say only units led by some veteran-type character or an independent character can use it. It might seem to limit overwatch, but if it isn't done like this, you'll have a Starcannon army overwatched all game, same with lascannon armies. Small units w/ someone of character leading them in almost an in-game subplot seems to fit the bill of overwatch.

-Khaine-


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

A Challenger 2 travels just under 37 miles per hour. 

If you can dodge that you probably shouldn't be in the army...


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

I think the drop pod assault rules are a little on the dumb side. A landing drop pod just sort of bumps intervening terrain and models out of the way. Now, it seems to me like if a 100-ton capsule fired from orbit were to hit you, even if it's bled off most of its velocity, it'd still crush whatever it landed on top of, not just sort of bump them aside. Sometimes, there's nowhere to go, even if you do see the thing coming. They're supposed to hit the ground quite hard despite slowing down after entry anyway... seems to me like if they doubled (or heck, even tripled) the cost of a drop pod and made it so that if it lands on a vehicle it causes a penetrating hit, and on infantry it'd be S8 AP2 for any model that fits under the drop pod model itself, just as if the drop pod were an ordinance template.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Jezlad said:


> A Challenger 2 travels just under 37 miles per hour.
> 
> If you can dodge that you probably shouldn't be in the army...


You show me the military assault where a Challenger, in the middle of a bombed-out city with rubble strewn around the streets, enemy forces in every building, and friendlies on each side, is moving at that speed. Again, it doesn't happen. You can't talk about what it can do if it won't do it.

As for overwatch, I do think some special units should be able to do it. Perhaps it could be a veteran ability, given to specialised units, such as Marine scouts, Stormtroopers, Dire Avengers, and anything with the discipline, control, and tactical nous to realise shooting in a few seconds may be better than shooting now. It'd have to be a rare ability, cost a fair few points, and not be able to cause pinning for it to be balanced, though


As for droppodboy there, your idea is, while somewhat sensible in terms of universe mechanics, ridiculous under game mechanics. s8 ap2 is better than a Battlecannon shell, and if any orbitally-launched vehicle hit at that velocity, it'd explode and kill everyone on board. Even at something more reasonable, say s5 ap5 and a blast template (the size of the drop pod itself), it's just too good. That you could drop a high-power unit (and don't forget, every unit that can use these is high-powered) into a squad, hit it and kill half of them, then jump out and kill the rest, is just too much. Then, you have a real-world mechanics problem. It's very hard to miss a giant flaming meter flying through the sky at hypersonic speeds, and if it's even close to where you are, you'd probably move out of the way. I don't know about you, but I certainly would. The day you manage not to notice a half-ton of screaming metal doom falling out of the sky and making a horrific noise on the way until it's too late to avoid is the day you win the point.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

uberschveinen said:


> You show me the military assault where a Challenger, in the middle of a bombed-out city with rubble strewn around the streets, enemy forces in every building, and friendlies on each side, is moving at that speed. Again, it doesn't happen. You can't talk about what it can do if it won't do it.


How can you say it doesn't happen? 

Say for argument sake the turret was blown clean off by a flukey RPG. The secondary armnament - 7.62 chaingun is also gone. The driver is the only person left, the only weapon he has is the vehicle itself - suddenly it _does_ happen it _does_ do it...

I've driven an AS90 through war torn Bosnia, they do it mate.


----------



## smiley (Dec 31, 2006)

i think if u were like withing 2" of an enemy you should get +1bs because its kindof easier to hit something 2 meters away rather than 20 meters away....if this makes sense


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Jezlad - When your vehicle has taken two Armanent Destroyed results, then yes, you will probably flee, or try to ram people. People who have noticed the huge lump of metal, people who are already in cover, and people who are heading there. The 40K battlefield is about as convoluted as a modern city combat scenario, and would you try ramming someone at full speed there? Hell, _could_ you be successful without having your tank embedded in a wall afterwards? You'd have to be outright obvlivious not to notice the tank until it's too late to get to a place it doesn't want to go.

That and 40K tanks are slower, most likely since they're a hell of a lot heavier.


While a lot of people think that there should be close and distant range bonuses, the problem with a 2" one is that at that range, you're usually trying too hard not to get stabbed to kneel, aim and fire. That somewhat makes up for the closeness.


----------



## smiley (Dec 31, 2006)

even when behind an unaware squad? trying to get stabbed by troops that dont know your there....
or getting stabbed by a tank


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

That would just add unneccesary complexities to the game. Rolling for awareness, distractedness, hunger, skill, vision, and all that before you even fire your gun would make this game unplayable.


----------



## smiley (Dec 31, 2006)

-.-" whatever im not gonna bother with u


----------



## Tahaal (Dec 22, 2006)

Oh, nice way to drop out of the argument.

What do I wish they had? at least 33% terrain, rather then the 25%. Makes using vehicles SO much easier 8)


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

uberschveinen said:


> That would just add unneccesary complexities to the game. Rolling for awareness, distractedness, hunger, skill, vision, and all that before you even fire your gun would make this game unplayable.


You kind of rebuked your own arguement. 

These factors would ake the game more lengthy, possibly boring and dull, yet these are factors in reality.

I realize most things woud run the hell away from a tank, but say you are in some extremed, focused, stressful situation. You might not notice the tank until its a bit close when you hear the rumble and droning it mkes.


----------



## Tahaal (Dec 22, 2006)

How did he rebuke himself? That whole post was about how adding such things would make it to complicated.


----------



## TwistedDarkness (Jan 1, 2007)

I don't like the "Open topped vehicles don't count as open topped anymore when crewed by Marines" rule.


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

Tahaal said:


> How did he rebuke himself? That whole post was about how adding such things would make it to complicated.


Im aware of that.

But the way he did so showed points that are very relevant to the "I might/might not see the tank coming at me" arguement that support the opposing view of "I might not see the tank comming at me."


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

Tanks shock rules are crap, the fact u could possible avoid a tank knowing it was driving at you is besides the point. Maybe a mechanic in place that made it likely that a model would get away would therefore make more sense. However that doesn't mean tank shock rules are good as they stand.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

What I'm trying to get across, seemingly spectacularly unsuccessfully, is that the current Tank Shock rules are the best combination of simplicity and realism I have yet to see, out of all its suggested modifications and outright replacements.

And Twisted, I agree. It seems somewhat... odd... that wearing enourmously protective armour somehow makes what you're riding in tougher than usual.


----------

