fluger Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 What are some rules you hate in 7th edition? What would you like to see changed? Now, I'm not talking Codex-specific things, but more the general rules. 7th has been out for a while now so I think most of us have a handle on it and can see where things are working and where they are not. Also, let's avoid the obvious stuff like writing cleaner rules so we don't have debates like the one that just happened about ICs and assaults and units. We all know GW should write cleaner rules. 1. MCs should get cover like vehicles. Honestly, this was how they've worked since...3rd edition? The switch in 6th was pretty drastic, and, IMO, has been bad. Combine this with how GCs get the same type of save, and it's just ludicrous. 2. Better terrain rules. I get that they wanted to streamline terrain rules, but the lack of levels, the removal of area terrain (sorta), and some strange choices on buildings (why is it easier to destroy a building than it is a vehicle?) all add together to make a strange set of rules. I just wish they'd clarify a few more things and not force us to fill in the gaps. 3. Swarms should be eternal warrior, but take 3 hits instead of 2 from blasts/templates. I get how instant death makes sense for most things, but it doesn't really work (IMO) for a swarm. It'd be an easy fix and would make swarms better (not that anyone other than me is complaining that I can see). 4. Assault. I'd really like to go back to 5th edition style combat. I've been trying to figure out why my games are taking forever with my Orks and it dawned on me that assault in 7th is REALLY long because of all the different movements that take place in the assault phase. The little movements in each initiative step can get really tedious and complicated. I'm sure there are other things. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I like the pile in at initiative combined with the random charge length (need both in my opinion) but why do we need a pile in at the end? I'm not a fan of the complicated manner for assaults. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Night fight. Even when I remember to roll for it, I forget to use it. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huggies01 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Fluger I know you said not codex specific but I am going to blatantly and belligerently defy you. I would say get rid of the battle focus for eldar. I know eldarers love it but it is ridiculously time consuming to play in tournaments and really unfair for maelstrom missions where you vastly benefit from being on objectives turn one. Now getting back on track, I would say get rid of mysterious objectives, mostly because everyone forgets about the sabotage one. (conveniently I assume). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splinx Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I would love the opportunity to react to assaults similar to fantasy. Choosing to fall back a randomly rolled distance or stand and fight with over watch would be great. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarlessllama Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 You want a rule that I hate? Out of the BRB? I can't think of any myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 1: Jink should be a 5+ cover, just like smoke launchers, obscured by units and so forth. 2: Vehicles should get cover like MCs and GCs. It's so much easier to just say the model is touching the terrain and so has a save. None of this trying to figure out where 25% is on some of the mishapen 40k vehicles. 3: Vehicles should be on bases with clearly marked facings. Aside from the modeling advantages of having a base for diorama purposes, I'm sick of trying to know where the facings are of foreign (armies I don't play) vehicles . 4: and just throwing this out there: I love how super heavies don't ever suffer weapon destroyed or other results on the damage table. The model is on the table until it isn't. I don't need to model weapons that detach, or place my precious model on it's side when destroyed. I don't have to keep track of wrecks. I wish GW would have altered the vehicle and building damage tables to be like the super heavy one, alive until dead. So much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 5. Oh, and snapfire should just subtract from BS, and then add a rule for BS1 (for any reason) being unable to fire blast or template weapons. 6. Skyfire should work on jetbikes, jump infantry, and jet pack units (perhaps only after deep striking). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewgeddon Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Anyone else think the rules for challenges are hard to follow? I'm jumping back into 40k after being absent since 5th ed, and while I think the idea of challenges in 40K are fine, I had to re-read the rules a bunch of time. It might be that the rules are more intuitive in game (getting my first 7th game next week), or maybe it's just me being dumb, but I found the rules a lot harder to follow than their Fantasy counterpart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Anyone else think the rules for challenges are hard to follow? I'm jumping back into 40k after being absent since 5th ed, and while I think the idea of challenges in 40K are fine, I had to re-read the rules a bunch of time. It might be that the rules are more intuitive in game (getting my first 7th game next week), or maybe it's just me being dumb, but I found the rules a lot harder to follow than their Fantasy counterpart. They had them in 6th too, so you missed a bit. The 6th ed ones were broken, and the 7th are really good by comparison. I personally like them, but I can understand a dislike of them. Main change is that you no longer have the hidden power fist in tactical squads (which is mostly a good change). I agree, though, the fantasy versions work better. It has to do with WHFB being more character oriented than 40k, though. The 40k Warlord is hardly a WHFB General, and so forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andozane Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Get rid of the inability for a unit to assault in the following turn, who is embarked in a "non assault" transport, that is destroyed during the enemy turn. Obviously they have not gotten pinned or failed a morale test. It seems so silly that an enemy can shoot and blow up the rhino, the marines pile out, they start their movement phase outside the rhino, already disembarked obviously (as it is a heaping pile of twisted metal), but they cannot assault that turn. HATE THAT RULE 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewgeddon Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 They had them in 6th too, so you missed a bit. The 6th ed ones were broken, and the 7th are really good by comparison. I personally like them, but I can understand a dislike of them. Main change is that you no longer have the hidden power fist in tactical squads (which is mostly a good change). I agree, though, the fantasy versions work better. It has to do with WHFB being more character oriented than 40k, though. The 40k Warlord is hardly a WHFB General, and so forth. Yeah, I can see that. I'm sure the rules are fine, like I said I think they will probably just take a few games to get used to. Just reading through the BRB, I had to do a double take and figure out what was going on, with Glorious Intervention and all the differences for WHFB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Yeah, I can see that. I'm sure the rules are fine, like I said I think they will probably just take a few games to get used to. Just reading through the BRB, I had to do a double take and figure out what was going on, with Glorious Intervention and all the differences for WHFB. Basic summary as it pertains to actual games. You charge me and may declare challenge if you have a character. If you don't declare one, then I will if I have a character. Refusing a challenge means not getting to swing with a character, while still being able to have wounds allocated to you. Accepting means you can allocate hits directly to my character and vice versa. Then we fight in initiative order, same as the rest of the models involved in the melee. It's as if there are two combats being done at once. Initiative order still applies for both, especially regarding when effects like the dead apothecary's FNP would end for the character in the challenge (if not the apothecary). If one of us dies in the challenge, excess wounds do carry over to the attached unit (if any) and wounds actually lost in the challenge affect combat result. Glorious intervention only matters if we both survive the first round of the challenge and you really want your character out of it. I've attempted this, maybe once in all of 6th or 7th as my marines either don't want to flee a challenge, or don't last long enough to flee one. The whole pile in-stuff is mostly worthless and really only matters for large units, like Orks or tyranids. Just keep your units small and you don't need to learn it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huggies01 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I would also like to add the rule for assaults where you can consolidate into another assault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I would also like to add the rule for assaults where you can consolidate into another assault. I lived through that the first time. Never again! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewgeddon Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Basic summary as it pertains to actual games. You charge me and may declare challenge if you have a character. If you don't declare one, then I will if I have a character. Refusing a challenge means not getting to swing with a character, while still being able to have wounds allocated to you. Accepting means you can allocate hits directly to my character and vice versa. Then we fight in initiative order, same as the rest of the models involved in the melee. It's as if there are two combats being done at once. Initiative order still applies for both, especially regarding when effects like the dead apothecary's FNP would end for the character in the challenge (if not the apothecary). If one of us dies in the challenge, excess wounds do carry over to the attached unit (if any) and wounds actually lost in the challenge affect combat result. Glorious intervention only matters if we both survive the first round of the challenge and you really want your character out of it. I've attempted this, maybe once in all of 6th or 7th as my marines either don't want to flee a challenge, or don't last long enough to flee one. The whole pile in-stuff is mostly worthless and really only matters for large units, like Orks or tyranids. Just keep your units small and you don't need to learn it.... Thank you for the run down! Makes more sense to me now, heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterman Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 1. Flying MCs and inability to assault the turn they switch modes. 2. GCs getting cover like MCs. I disagree though that MCs should get cover like vehicles. It should represent an MCs ability to manuver and shift on the fly which a vehicle doesn't have. 3. GCs and super heavies -- blessings/maledictions should cost more to affect them 4. Swooping MCs getting cover like infantry. 5. Sky shield landing pad rules. They suck for so many reasons. Ditch the inv and make them a building instead of an indestructible block of stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Guess range...bring it back ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Guess range...bring it back ! Heeeeeellll no. Oh wait, premeasuring is a thing. Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Heeeeeellll no. Oh wait, premeasuring is a thing. Sure. Its my wish list and I'll cry if I want too 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbitron Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Invisibility. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intrizic Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Invisibility. I don't hate invisibility, i just wish there were more counters for it. HoW and DtW are not enough 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Oh, get magic resistance for 40k. It's crap that you require psykers to realistically deny psychic powers. Adamantium will is nice, but having only d6 dice is not enough. We need the WHFB Magic Resistance, where the targeted unit get's the MR value in extra dice each time they deny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentP Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 1. Should be able to assault from infiltrate on first turn. 2. Should be able to assault from an outflank move onto the board. 3. Should be able to assault from a deep strike arrival via a jump pack (but not from a teleport / summon / gate). 4. Any unit should able to declare this turn, that they will be skyfiring next turn. When that next turn arrives, they are at full ballistic skill for shooting at fliers, but snap shooting at anything else. 5. Perils should be much much scarier 6. All fear checks should be made on 3d6 7. A unit should fight at initiative step 1 only if the majority of the unit charged through cover, not just one model. 8. Who controls an objective should be determined by comparing the point values of the models within 3" of the objective (crazy you can contest an objective with 1 model against an entire unit). 9. Allies should never be allowed to use each other's transports 10. Random game length should die the death it deserves. Worst rule ever. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huggies01 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Assault does need a boost but I don't know about 1 turn assault off of infiltrate. That's pretty rough. I do agree that outlflank should be allowed to assault and FMC should be able to assault the turn they land. No assault off of deepstrike. Termies are scary enough with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.