PDA

View Full Version : fluffy and un-fluffy rules



Victomorga
09-11-2008, 17:25
what are some rules you see as un-fluffy, regardless of their necessity or contribution to game play, and what are some rules you think would be fluffy, even though they might not be fair?

example:

I think the rules for vehicles shooting and firing are incredibly unrealistic and unfluffy; however, the scale and gameplay of 40k require rules that sort of nerf tanks, or at least downplay the role they would play in a "real" battle.

also, I think the legion of the damned should have "hard to kill" special rules, like maybe two wounds instead of two attacks, and feel no pain. I'm not suggesting they should be given these changes, as they could be seriously overpowered, but I think it would be fitting.

similarly, I think strength 4 would more accurately depict an ork boy's physical prowess, but would really overpower the ork army list. and some armies (like tyranids and IG) seem like they ought to be able to fire into close combat, as they would have little concern over hitting their own troops (again, this would obviously screw up and unbalance the gaming dynamic, I just think it would be fitting of the background).

we've all seen and/or heard about the movie marine rules, so no need to get into anything that extreme, but lets hear about things you noticed either lacking from the rules or unconvincingly jammed into the rules that you didn't think fit the 40k universe.

Lord Damocles
09-11-2008, 17:30
what are some rules you see as un-fluffy
The True Line of Sight Rules!

Noserenda
09-11-2008, 17:32
Trying to make an abstracted ruleset "fluffy" is what caused all the problems with 3rd Ed :skull: And in any case, fluff has been known to wrap around rules as much as Rules alter for fluff!

Victomorga
09-11-2008, 17:37
Trying to make an abstracted ruleset "fluffy" is what caused all the problems with 3rd Ed :skull: And in any case, fluff has been known to wrap around rules as much as Rules alter for fluff!

I'm not looking for suggested changes to the existing rules, but we've all looked at some aspect of the BGB or a codex and said to ourselves "wait, that doesn't really go along with the background / supporting fiction." often there is a very good reason why, but one still notices the discrepancy.

you've never looked at a rule / unit description and thought "that doesn't really make sense"?

HsojVvad
09-11-2008, 17:39
What I find fluffy is the cover saves rules. You can fire at say the Genestealers but there is Gaunts in front of them for a meat sheild and you use them for a cover save, so if you saved your roll, there is no damage to the meat shield.

Just like what they do in Iraq and other places of the world, they do use humans for meatshields, but they Die when get shot. Very unrealsitic rule in my opnion. Goes for other 40K races too, but just used Tyranids for an example.

neXus6
09-11-2008, 17:49
The True Line of Sight Rules!

Unfluffy "True" LoS rules as they are not true in any way after basic target selection, you can kill things you can't see.
:rolleyes:

Also the rules create problems between having terrain pieces that block LoS and allow you to put the models down. Most specifically the model wood is now just a base with 2 trees on it rather than a wood/forest that you shouldn't be able to see anything through.

The whole "big monsters taking extra wounds because you killed a lot of small creatures near them" thing is pretty unfluffy.

totgeboren
09-11-2008, 17:49
Dark Reaper Exarch with Crack Shot and a Tempest Launcher.

All Exarchs are supposed to be really good, but being able to wipe out a squad of marines per turn, without even having LOS, I dunno, thats pushing it abit too far.

There is no model in the game that comes even close to how dangerous that specific model is to infantry point for point. I saw one battle with Eldar vs Imperial Fists. At the end of the battle, 32 Marines lay dead. The Dark Reaper Exarch had killed 24 of them.

Hmmm, well, thats my whine for fluff vs gameplay. The rest of the rules I think work ok. Some things are maybe abit off, but its just a game.

Kahadras
09-11-2008, 17:55
My main annoyance comes from the casualty removal issues. Yesterday my opponant could only see one Marine from my squad and yet managed to gun down five. In combat he swarmed me and despite me killing four from his squad he still got his full compliment of attacks due to the fact he removed the ones from the back that weren't actualy taking part in the combat. While it may work in games mechanics terms it just feels horrible IMHO.

Kahadras

arch_inquisitor
09-11-2008, 18:00
Really have to agree with HsojVvad on the meat shield cover save not taking any damage.

As for my own contribution the fact that Land raiders are like stupid powerful now makes good fluff sense as they are supposed to be the best armored vehicle the imperium had or has.
The fact that only SMs are allowed to field them mainly because they are too valuable to let the grunts use them, represents this as well.

Kalec
09-11-2008, 18:32
Cover saves replacing armor saves is absurd. Do my troops standing in cover take off their armor because they're hiding behind terrs?

Chem-Dog
09-11-2008, 18:44
I think strength 4 would more accurately depict an ork boy's physical prowess, but would really overpower the ork army list.

Thing is, if this kind of change were enacted at the codex writing stage the points values of various units could be changed accordingly. Personally I don't believe Orks should be weaker than Marines (or at least, no stronger than a Guardsman).

Bunnahabhain
09-11-2008, 20:20
The vehicle rules. Armour, weapons, movement, the whole lot.

The cover and LOS rules

The casualty removal rules.

The AP system

Ranges vs movement rates.

The ridiculosly compressed range of state. A 1-10 system is bad enough, then to make it worse, only bother using a small proportion of it.

The lack of a move stat


That's a majority of the seriously unfluffy things rooted in the main rules set.

The Guy
09-11-2008, 20:33
Falling back.
Squad takes fire, fails morale check [highly unlikely nowadays but I digress] and falls back.
Instead of moving to the nearby building where they can seek shelter, they will instead run across the middle of the board to their board edge :wtf:
Since when has running back [espcially in the guards case, where there are commissars waiting for you] to your own lines through a firefight been the safest No1 option?

Also as has been said, cover.

Not being able to throw grenades, and grenades having no effect on infantry in the open :wtf:

Tank side sponsons not being able to shoot multiple targets, which is pretty rediculous considering they are on opposite sides of the tank!

Warbosses with BS of 2. I know they're orks and all...but seriously...2?

Shotguns strength not changing dependent on the range...

C'tan.

weissengel86
09-11-2008, 20:43
The vehicle rules. Armour, weapons, movement, the whole lot.

The cover and LOS rules

The casualty removal rules.

The AP system

Ranges vs movement rates.

The ridiculosly compressed range of state. A 1-10 system is bad enough, then to make it worse, only bother using a small proportion of it.

The lack of a move stat


That's a majority of the seriously unfluffy things rooted in the main rules set. I second that. Almost every rule is unfluffy and unrealistic in the extreme even according to 40k "realism".
some of the most absurd are vehicle rules, the identical movement speed, the 1-10 stat system, and the save and cover system.

Santiaghoul
09-11-2008, 20:47
The range of weapons(both hand held and vehicle) and speed of vehicles.

Inquisitor Engel
09-11-2008, 20:51
Cover saves replacing armor saves is absurd. Do my troops standing in cover take off their armor because they're hiding behind terrs?

Um... you get to choose which save you take. Space Marines don't take a 4+ cover save because their armour is better, but would if they were being shot at by an AP3 better weapon.

Hicks
09-11-2008, 20:52
Well there is the stupidity of gaunts dying hurting MCs in close combat. Gaunts are meant to be a first wave and to tie down units until the big bugs arrive and I really don't think a carnifex is going to slit his wrists because a dozen roaches died infront of him, if anything he would plow through them to reach the enemy.

Then there is the if you interlock two units together they gain a cover save in the open rule. Imagine a bunch of grots who see another bunch of grots... do you really think they go "hey lets merge, we'll have feel no pain, but better against templates!".

JSJ: Chaos and Necrons can slow time down... but the Tau?

Faith and SOBs: I would think that Grey Knights, Imperial Guards, Space Marines and Inquisitors would have faith in the Emperor too, so how come whenever I kill 2 or 3 of those ladies the rest go all Hulk on me and become more powerfull than Primarchs!?!?

Force weapons: It doesn't work on anything worthwhile but nids, when did my Grandmaster become part of the Deathwatch again?

Templates: unreliability here we come, with luck they are godly, but if you are me, it makes a nice display of fireworks for the enemy and I don't just mean shots that miss all the time, my Leman Russes have now been nicknamed Kurt Cobain by my opponents :(.

totgeboren
09-11-2008, 21:20
Shotguns strength not changing dependent on the range...


got to agree with this. If a proper military rifle has a range of 24" and S3, a shotgun should have S3 within 6", and S2 between 6"-12". :P

Seriously, who in their right mind would bring a shotgun to a battlefield? Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I mean, they are used for hunting small animals, and their armour penetration power is horribly low.

Then again, this is a game where running towards each other with swords is generally a good idea, even if you have a gun. :)

weissengel86
09-11-2008, 21:29
got to agree with this. If a proper military rifle has a range of 24" and S3, a shotgun should have S3 within 6", and S2 between 6"-12". :P

Seriously, who in their right mind would bring a shotgun to a battlefield? Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I mean, they are used for hunting small animals, and their armour penetration power is horribly low.

Then again, this is a game where running towards each other with swords is generally a good idea, even if you have a gun. :) i guess you've never heard of a combat shotgun. Shotguns are widely prized for their usefulness in urban warfare and close in combat. If you think the armour penetration is low you should try using the military grade shotguns (especially the fully automatic ones) against something in current armour.

@Inquisitor Engel. Thats the whole point realistically you would get all of the saves except saves that are ignored from certain weapons. It makes little sense that having cover save nullfies armour saves or that better armour saves nullify cover saves.

cailus
09-11-2008, 21:54
The thing with cover saves is that they're usually more effective against heavy ordnance and less effective against small arms - this is truly ridiculous.

40K has become too abstract and too counter intuitive. The rules are arbitrary and often don't make any sense.

I can play Flames of War and understand why the rules work they do. For example, your tank is at long range so it's harder for me to hit you (+1 to Hit modifier) and my main weapon loses penetrative power (+1 to your tank's armour value).

I cannot understand any of the rationale behind 40K rules - why does a tank move at the same speed as infantry and cannot fire more than 1 weapon if it does so, why is it better in some instances to not be in cover, the absurd TLOS for shooting versus non-TLOS casualty removal.

None of the 40K rules have a satisfactory basing on reality. At the same time they don't make a good game system.

The Guy
09-11-2008, 22:02
Um... you get to choose which save you take. Space Marines don't take a 4+ cover save because their armour is better, but would if they were being shot at by an AP3 better weapon.

And therein lies more absurbity. So the ap3 weapon can penetrate the armour of the marine but not the hedge that's between them? :wtf:

Run. So in 3rd and 4th ed my models were walking around a battlefield where bullets, explosions and other nasty things are going off?

Grey knights shrouding.
"Oh what's that blur over there?"
"Probably a grey knight, don't worry though he's miles away, that's why we can't see him clearly."

Getting wounded before taking an armour save. :wtf:
"Argh! My Spleen!"
"Don't worry Dom, it's protected by carapace armour, you're pain is lifted"
"Phew"

Daemon hunters < Daemons...

Vindicares only being allowed to fire one of each special round a game.
Yea, so the best sniper in the game only brings three half decent rounds?

Ph4lanx
09-11-2008, 22:32
For me it's the rolling for saves part. If I'm in cover AND wearing say, Carapace Armour, why do I only get the highest save? I should get both. :D

But yeah, fluff-wise...

(Christ, imagine a Terminator with Storm Shield in cover!)

Eldoriath
09-11-2008, 22:57
Tau ethereals rule for "price of failure". Getting preferred enemy? Tau? The one who hates CC? Slow and purposeful would be more fluffy, showing how they slowly advance under a constante hail of fire filled of cold rage.

cailus
10-11-2008, 00:28
Tau ethereals rule for "price of failure". Getting preferred enemy? Tau? The one who hates CC? Slow and purposeful would be more fluffy, showing how they slowly advance under a constante hail of fire filled of cold rage.


In fact why send your valuable pheremone emitting head honcho on the field at all?

Victomorga
10-11-2008, 02:24
The thing with cover saves is that they're usually more effective against heavy ordnance and less effective against small arms - this is truly ridiculous.

40K has become too abstract and too counter intuitive. The rules are arbitrary and often don't make any sense.

I can play Flames of War and understand why the rules work they do. For example, your tank is at long range so it's harder for me to hit you (+1 to Hit modifier) and my main weapon loses penetrative power (+1 to your tank's armour value).

I cannot understand any of the rationale behind 40K rules - why does a tank move at the same speed as infantry and cannot fire more than 1 weapon if it does so, why is it better in some instances to not be in cover, the absurd TLOS for shooting versus non-TLOS casualty removal.

None of the 40K rules have a satisfactory basing on reality. At the same time they don't make a good game system.

I'm not really clear on why you play 40k at all if you don't like ANY of the rules.

I don't like only "troops" choices scoring; makes no sense at all. I suppose they instituted it more to effect the game dynamic than to make things more "realistic," although I don't think it improves the game in any way either.

bremmer925
10-11-2008, 03:07
Seriously, who in their right mind would bring a shotgun to a battlefield? Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Check out this site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_shotgun

LOTS of people want a shotgun on a battlefield.

As to unrealistic rules, how many soldiers go to war with only 2 weapons only one of which can be 2- handed.

cailus
10-11-2008, 03:25
I'm not really clear on why you play 40k at all if you don't like ANY of the rules.

Actually I'm getting closer and closer to pulling the pin on 40K. I played 4 games in a tournie yesterday and even the ones I won, I found the rules to be pretty bad and daft. Many people at the tournie thought so too - in fact we've had several vets quit 40K due to the 5th edition rules to focus on Fantasy or other systems.

It's a shame coz 40K has some of the best background and some awesome miniatures. Not to mention that 40K Orks are awesome!




I don't like only "troops" choices scoring; makes no sense at all. I suppose they instituted it more to effect the game dynamic than to make things more "realistic," although I don't think it improves the game in any way either.

I think they institituted it to force people to take more troop choices instead of loading up on elites, heavies etc. Fair enough but this could've been done in a much better manner such as modifying the force organisation chart.

It also increases model sales in two different ways:
1. People with existing non-Troop heavy armies had to buy more troop models in order to stay competitive.

2. People starting new armies have to buy more models because troops are less costly points wise than heavy suppot, fast attacks etc.

Lister of Smee
10-11-2008, 04:24
I think the accuracy of ordance weapons is crazy

How on earth can a leman russ fire forwards and hit its rear armour :confused:

it just makes no sense

squeekenator
10-11-2008, 11:37
(Christ, imagine a Terminator with Storm Shield in cover!)

You think that's bad? Turbo boosting Fortuned Farseer on a jetbike. How many lasguns shots does it take to kill that if saves stack? In case you don't want to do the maths, the answer is a positively miniscule 5832. If you somehow fit them all within rapid fire range, that's a mere 17,496pts worth of Guardsmen shooting to kill a single character. Personally, I don't mind saves not stacking up.

willydstyle
10-11-2008, 13:44
Someone mentioned the AP system as being inaccurate. I'll say that the AP system is actually something that makes a lot of sense.

In real life, most armor either protects you from an attack, or does not. Saving throw modifiers were the unrealistic option.

Ph4lanx
10-11-2008, 14:12
You think that's bad? Turbo boosting Fortuned Farseer on a jetbike. How many lasguns shots does it take to kill that if saves stack? In case you don't want to do the maths, the answer is a positively miniscule 5832. If you somehow fit them all within rapid fire range, that's a mere 17,496pts worth of Guardsmen shooting to kill a single character. Personally, I don't mind saves not stacking up.

Oh I completely agree. I'm just talking in terms of fluff :)

Dis_Pater
10-11-2008, 14:48
How about bikes/jetbikes getting locked in combat? I mean some dude turns up with a sword and tries to hit so you get of your bike to try and hit him back? wtf :rolleyes:

The Guy
10-11-2008, 16:13
How about bikes/jetbikes getting locked in combat? I mean some dude turns up with a sword and tries to hit so you get of your bike to try and hit him back? wtf :rolleyes:

How about bikes charging a squad of imperial guard, stopping dead in the tracks then using their fists to beat the guard to death...Pathetic.

totgeboren
10-11-2008, 17:29
Check out this site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_shotgun

LOTS of people want a shotgun on a battlefield.


I have read that article now, and still my point stands. "and can be effective at ranges as far as 70 m (75 yards)."

According to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

the effective range of an assault rifle from the 1930s was up to 200 meters, and has increased by quite alot since then.

Ok, maybe the shotgun should just be S3 within 3", and S2 within 6"?
Still assault 2 to represent its increased chance of scoring a hit.

Just had to point it out, since the scale of 40k just doesnt work for shotguns. On the other hand, everyone think shotguns are kewl, and the Rule of Cool always wins. :)

Miggidy Mack
10-11-2008, 17:45
Grey Knights and Sisters not having access to drop pods. In the fluff Grey Knights are just like any other chapter, except that they work closely with the Ordo Maleaus. The only reason they DON'T have access to Rhino's and Drop pods is because they were written during the 3rd edition Rhino Rush and STR 6 rush would have been ridiculous.

Sisters have a long history of deploying via drop pods too. Again, 3rd edition before they existed (drop pod assault was just deep striking then) so this is a clear point of update!

borithan
10-11-2008, 17:57
Someone mentioned the AP system as being inaccurate. I'll say that the AP system is actually something that makes a lot of sense.

In real life, most armor either protects you from an attack, or does not. Saving throw modifiers were the unrealistic option.HAd this discussion before, but...
Armour saves represent the overall protective value of the armour. It includes the amount that the armour covers the body (so some saves don't represent the armour failing itself, but the shooter hitting an unarmoured area), and also averages out varying thicknesses of armour. No soldier is going to be universally armoured across the body... simply impractical due to the shape of the human body, and designers would save protection on some areas to save weight, and so as to be able to use weight to give greater protection to other areas. Due to this some areas would be more vulnerable than others, and so some saves being failed does not mean that the thickest part has necessarily been hit and penetrated, but that a thinner area, which the weapon can actually penetrate, was hit.

Oh, and they shouldn't have the STR creates a save modifier either, except for particularly strong things (MC etc), as while I think that makes sense for warhammer, the different way armour and weapons work in 40k means it should be treated differently.

This is all averaged out into the armour save. Modifiers, because of this, make perfect sense. Take a lasgun. Take some power armour. The lasgun is obviously meant to be poor at penetrating armour. So, when the armour save is failed, it is unlokeyl it means that the weapon has penetrated the thick sections of armour, like the chest and shoulder plates. It would rely on hitting the weaker points on armour, such as the joints, and possibly the helmet and similar spots. Then take a grenade launcher, with krak grenades. These are obviously meant to have better pentrating values, as it has AP 4 compared to AP -. However, power armour gives exactly the same protection against it as against a lasgun. Why? Yes, it might not be able to penetrate all the bits of armour, but there are likely to be areas of the armour which were not vulnerable to the lasgun which the krak grenade could penetrate, making the armour less protecting. Averaging this out across the figure into an armour save should mean that it is reduced.

If you worked out the hits to different areas of the armour, then yes, you probably wouldn't need modifiers, but then you would have a more detailed representative of the armour, with different ratings on different parts of the armour.

The real problem with armour save modifiers was that every weapon had one, or at least any weapon of importance. In Rogue Trader everything but knives, bows and crossbows had one (and bows and crossbows could get one with the right ammo), and in 2nd Ed they only added autoguns to that list. Aside from the fact they wouldn't want to add more complexity to the rules, what they should do is return them, but only give it to heavy weapons, and particularly powerful small arms.

Gutlord Grom
10-11-2008, 19:39
If you think something doesn't work like it should, house rule it. If you want a model to do something it can't, houserule. Trust me, you'll have more fun then complaining on the interwebz.

cailus
10-11-2008, 22:46
How about bikes charging a squad of imperial guard, stopping dead in the tracks then using their fists to beat the guard to death...Pathetic.

I've always had an issue with this.

Bikes should have some sort of hit and run attack - basically they swoop in and decapitate things with chainswords and then drive though the enemy unit.

Either that or take away their close combat capability and make them more like vehicles - so they shoot only.

Koryphaus
10-11-2008, 23:37
Dark Reaper Exarch with Crack Shot and a Tempest Launcher.

All Exarchs are supposed to be really good, but being able to wipe out a squad of marines per turn, without even having LOS, I dunno, thats pushing it abit too far.

Thank God somebody feels the same way as I do!

adreal
11-11-2008, 00:01
Thank God somebody feels the same way as I do!

I have the same felling, but my usual eldar opponent, while using that combo wont be a git a place hte out of line of sight, so if my noise marines survive (or I get the first turn) two blastmasters usually either see this unit off or pin them

But its a dirty dirty combo

Dragonreaver
11-11-2008, 00:53
got to agree with this. If a proper military rifle has a range of 24" and S3, a shotgun should have S3 within 6", and S2 between 6"-12". :P

Seriously, who in their right mind would bring a shotgun to a battlefield? Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I mean, they are used for hunting small animals, and their armour penetration power is horribly low.

Then again, this is a game where running towards each other with swords is generally a good idea, even if you have a gun. :)

Say hello to my little friend...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7dKIZauSf5s

The Remmy he has at the start is badass enough, but the AA-12 is a truly terrifying beast. Wanna tell me their AP is horrible now? More importantly, wanna tell it to Mack? :p And the AA12 was being tested in 2004 (the original was designed in 1972, but has changed more than slightly since). What year the your Space Marine Scouts using it in? How much better have they made it over the years? ;)


If you think something doesn't work like it should, house rule it. If you want a model to do something it can't, houserule. Trust me, you'll have more fun then complaining on the interwebz.

As I understood it, the original intent of the OP was to create a thread about peculiar - but necessary - quirks in the game's rules that don't necessarily represent the background as accurately as you might expect. Not to 'complain'. Though of course, anything that can be seen in a negative light usually is on a forum like this, so...

cailus
11-11-2008, 01:08
Shotguns are good for close fighting such as trench clearance or house-to-house fighting but an assault rifle is still a more flexible weapon and generally preferable in any ranged combat situation.

Gutlord Grom
11-11-2008, 02:28
As I understood it, the original intent of the OP was to create a thread about peculiar - but necessary - quirks in the game's rules that don't necessarily represent the background as accurately as you might expect. Not to 'complain'. Though of course, anything that can be seen in a negative light usually is on a forum like this, so...

Err, sorry? Just pointing out a different point of view. Seems like the same rule complaint thread that comes up.

Daemonia
11-11-2008, 02:33
The Axes of Khorne. I think I will have to put down these beasts as my favourite thing in the last few years of 40k. Wiping out entire units with one very ridiculously lucky Champion is definitely a high point of gaming. Passing Bionics rolls 3 times in a single game on a character is also right up there.

Some rules aren't really overpowered as such, just they do have the potential -through sheer ludicrous luck- to pull off retarded things. I mean...think about it.

A bionic eyepiece being shot 3 times in the same game and keeping you going? That's some Medicare!

weissengel86
13-11-2008, 03:53
Shotguns are good for close fighting such as trench clearance or house-to-house fighting but an assault rifle is still a more flexible weapon and generally preferable in any ranged combat situation.
True, and thats why assault rifles are standard issue for just about every infantry person in every army in the world but the effectiveness of combat shotguns are not at all to be underestimated. If you were fighting in certain circumstances that are not that uncommon like urban combat or many other scenarios you would be all to eager to trade your M16 with its realtively low power 5.56 mm round for the awesome stopping power of a combat shotgun especially when it would be useless to line up shots over 100-150 yards away.

onermedboxer
13-11-2008, 05:59
frag grenades. the idea of hurling grenades at an enemy and all you have to show for it is the ability to attack first is kinda absurd.

Razarael
13-11-2008, 13:03
It appears to me that when considering 'fluffy' and 'un-fluffy' rules, people have been equating that to fluffy = real-world, which.... isn't the case, is it?

Anyway... to the person that said a Dark Reaper exarach killing a whole squad of marines not being fluffy - I'd beg to differ. A being who has dedicated their life and very soul to decimating heavy infantry from a distance without chance of retaliation doing so seems to fit.

But it's all a matter of perspective, right?

Silly thread. Not just another reason to gripe, I hope. ;)