The rule you think is the most crappy

[Aspiring executioner]

The rule that says the flyers die if they flee and land on a forest. What they can't dodge it? Fly over it? Especially bad with Dragons and such. Normally you would expect the Dragon to either just keep on flying over it or simply land and crush the trees under its bulk but for some reason one of the biggest baddest monsters in the world dies from leaves and maybe some sticks poking into it (not to mention the rider as well)... Ok maybe the rule makes sense for dense jungles like Lustria or something like that but still things like harpies or furies could just cling on to them or hide in the canopies.

I would propose to change it to any flying model that flees into a wood will be placed just after the wood or even just before it or hell even treating it just like everyone else. Just as long as flyers will no longer fear the dreaded forests of the Warhammer world...

[Colonel]

I think the same holds true for flyer over-run and persuit into woods causing death. You can always choose to do so with ground movement though.

Cannon accuracy also bugs me. It should scatter left or right like d6-1 inches or something. It is much easier to hit a lone character on foot in the woods with a cannon than a bow??

[Dalamar]

If you overrun/pursuit with a flier and your move puts you inside a wood, you stop in front of that wood.

If you flee and move puts you inside of a wood, you die.

[Ehakir]

If you overrun/pursuit with a flier and your move puts you inside a wood, you stop in front of that wood.

If you flee and move puts you inside of a wood, you die.

I have had a lot of fuss about that once at a tournament, where my opponent and the tournament organisers said that my dragon would be dead after overrunning having killed the Tomb King of my enemy. Luckely I found the page which said the Dragon would just stop in front of the wood...

[Caboose]

Ok....Here's one....

WoC wizard casts "Call to Glory," another caster makes the new hero make a charge move with "Steed of Shadows." The CC phase comes around, the WoC hero issues a challenge and since he charged, he strikes first, does his damage, then the first caster "ends" the spell before my Character can attack back....And since it (the BRB) states remains in play spells may be ended at "any time" the caster feels like, it seems like a bit of an exploit in the rules IMHO. I would like to see this changed.

Has this been addressed in an FAQ anywhere? Just seems to me like although that is what it says, it isn't the "spirit" of the rule is meant to be. What do you all think? IMHO, I feel like there are people just trying to find loops holes in the rules and just exploiting them in unsportsmanlike manners. But that's just me.....I can't speak for anyone else.

[Bounce]

I second Colonel's idea. Why is it that Cannons and other warmachines are most effective against lone heroes, Fast cavalry, Knights and Flying Monsters?
All of these targets would be way to fast in a battle to have any chance of hitting them. Rather than a simple I will shoot your sorceress, bang on target for range, dead sorceress. To me this is absurd. Cannons and Catapults should be for large ranks o slow moving infantry or archers.

The WoC Call to Glory also sucks.
My troops become completely frnezied and are forced to charge the nearest enemy as well as taking D6 hits but then can't claim the extra attack in combat. Seems a bit pointless to me

[Layne]

It's really only cannons. The rest won't go exactly where you point them, they scatter or you just plain miss. It does seem out of order that you can't miss with a cannon, only really over or undershoot. Perhaps something like, roll to hit first, then if you miss, d6-BS to left or right randomized, then your artillery rolls. Of course, that would be a serious nerf for cannons, and you'd see them coming in a lot cheaper.

So that illustrates the real trouble with cannons. There's the hell of a lot of things that ouhgt to modify their performance, and taking account of them all would be a massive pain in th'ass. Imagine, modifiers for how far the target has moved in the previous turn, or for flyers, or whatever.

[Rabidnid]

Well, on a purely personal note I hate the fact that witches and Exes can't take magic 50 point magic banners. I would love to run my withces with the ASF banner, but can't without adding a ridiculous 200 point BSB to the unit. BG wouldn't be as common as they are if their was more scope in the banner selection.

I still thing the BG should be rare with a 75 point banner option while the more mundane witches and exes are special with 50 point banners. It would make both BG and Hydras less of a no-brainer.

[Krupp]

Cannon sniping is lame, but what I find crappy is these undispellable warmachines like the cauldron, Engine of the Gods. Nothing in warhammer should be automatic or unstoppable, these warmachines should work like bound items. I was going to mention the Dwarf anvil, but I think without Thorek, its reasonable.

[Layne]

A Cauldron that worked like a bound item would make the DE magic phase even more dangerous. Also, without a Sorceress or two to draw out dice and scrolls, it would render the Cauldron pretty well useless. The balance between the two would be rather difficult to achieve, and would probably also be most abusable. It's better, and safer, as it is.

I agree with Rabidnid that BG should have been rare. There really is no good reason why four units of BG should appear in one army unless Malekith himself is there. Also, as noted, it would make the BG and Hydra less obvious choices, and increase the viability of Khainite troops. [We only consider them scum compared to Black Guard]. Also, Shades were an unlimited unit in the old book, then they were revised to max. 15, and now they've gone and made the same mistake again. Now that's some crappy rulewriting.

[Caboose]

I agree with Rabidnid that BG should have been rare. There really is no good reason why four units of BG should appear in one army unless Malekith himself is there. Also, as noted, it would make the BG and Hydra less obvious choices, and increase the viability of Khainite troops. [We only consider them scum compared to Black Guard].

To be honest, I am glad they made them a special choice. I never used them when they were a rare choice. Let's face it, if you had to choose between either a hydra at 175pts, 2 RBT's at 200pts, or a BG unit....I wouldn't choose the BG. Bolt throwers have too much potential and the hydra is a solid rare choice. You can use any other troop selection to get just about the same effect as a BG unit.

So I disagree. I think it was good they moved them out of the rare slot. But I will agree with you on the fact there shouldn't be 4 BG units on the table. I think they should have been kept to a 0-1 choice, as they were in the past....Except when Malekith is leading the army.

Just my 2 cents.

[Bassman76]

I agree with Rabidnid that BG should have been rare. There really is no good reason why four units of BG should appear in one army unless Malekith himself is there. Also, as noted, it would make the BG and Hydra less obvious choices, and increase the viability of Khainite troops. [We only consider them scum compared to Black Guard].

To be honest, I am glad they made them a special choice. I never used them when they were a rare choice. Let's face it, if you had to choose between either a hydra at 175pts, 2 RBT's at 200pts, or a BG unit....I wouldn't choose the BG. Bolt throwers have too much potential and the hydra is a solid rare choice. You can use any other troop selection to get just about the same effect as a BG unit.

So I disagree. I think it was good they moved them out of the rare slot. But I will agree with you on the fact there shouldn't be 4 BG units on the table. I think they should have been kept to a 0-1 choice, as they were in the past....Except when Malekith is leading the army.

Just my 2 cents.

Yes, but you're talking about 6th edition, that makes an HUGE difference.
Once I'd prefer 4 bolt throwers to black guard and hydra but now..... black guard is a no brainer choice.
It really depends on your playing style but now Black guard could be even better than hydra and bolt throwers.
I think Black Guard as a special could be reasonable but I quote who say it could be a 0-1 option.

[Krupp]

Oh yah, just remembered the poison bolt thrower madness!
Lost 6 Knights and a master BSB to one shot, with no rolling needed after the 6 to hit. (only the d3 wounds on the master).
This might get FAQ'd when they look into Lizardman.

[Rabidnid]

With BG, the silliest thing is that they are strength 3 when exe and CoK are strength 4. I would have much prefered they as a S-5 rare halberdier

[Dalamar]

Oh yah, just remembered the poison bolt thrower madness!
Lost 6 Knights and a master BSB to one shot, with no rolling needed after the 6 to hit. (only the d3 wounds on the master).
This might get FAQ'd when they look into Lizardman.

You don't need a FAQ for it, poison only works on the first hit as you don't roll to hit for following ranks.

[Krupp]

I believe your right Dalamar, but with no word from "on high"
people will argue with this. Theres nothing in the BRB that states that poison is lost after passing through the first model. The roll to hit has already been made, and if it's a poison shot why does the poison go away after the first wound?

Your explaination is almost the same as the pro-poison arguement. Except they say the roll to hit has already been made.

[@1elbow]

I don't like the S7 rule on chariots. If a S7 hit doesn't kill a two wound goblin hero, why would it totally destroy a chariot in one hit? Odds are, many S7 hits will probably take out a chariot with multiple wounds inflicted (like from a war machine) but I think it is silly for a model charging with a lance to take out an entire chariot with one hit.

I think this is an example of a quick solution to the problem of chariots being potentially too-powerful and GW settling for an "easy" answer. I'd rather see S7+ hits doing double wounds or something (including war machines).

[Sulla]

I don't like the S7 rule on chariots. If a S7 hit doesn't kill a two wound goblin hero, why would it totally destroy a chariot in one hit? Odds are, many S7 hits will probably take out a chariot with multiple wounds inflicted (like from a war machine) but I think it is silly for a model charging with a lance to take out an entire chariot with one hit.
.

Well, the whole idea of wounds is absurd really. Take your two wound goblin hero for example; If you were to sneak up behind him while he was sleeping, pull out your blunderbuss and fire it right between his eys the result would be... he loses a wound. You can never kill him with that blunderbuss in a single shooting phase, no matter how good your shot is.

The game is full of silly abstractions like that. Hopping on a horse somehow makes you better protected...WTF? It should make you easier to kill (or at least incapacitate), since you only have to aim at the horse now, not a man.

And why do knights get rank bonuses? Are the horses in the back rank really pushing the ones in the front like infantry do?

Tactical wheeling to pull skirmishers out of a forest is pretty idiotic too, but no more idiotic than a unit of skirmishers fleeing and pulling the enemy across the field to expose their flank because of an exploit of how the skirmisher fleeing rules work.

[Cathel]

The game is full of silly abstractions like that. Hopping on a horse somehow makes you better protected...WTF? It should make you easier to kill (or at least incapacitate), since you only have to aim at the horse now, not a man.

It does, since if you shoot the horse the guy on top is out of business, at least with rank and file troops.
In reality some DR crouching behind their dead horse for cover and peppering lightly armoured troops with rxb fire would not be ignored.
Also the idea of infantry troops entering the field five wide and four deep only for a full regiment is absurd.

[Layne]

I'm afraid it's not absurd, but merely abstract. Like a five tree forest. Now, collecting and painting ten thousand miniatures and creating an outsize bonsai garden to play your fantasy wargames, that, my dear fellow, is absurd.

Besides, hopping on a horse does make you better protected. Even being bigger, what with moving a lot faster you're a more difficult target. Having a better armour save is a wierd way to represent that, I grant, but at least it's something. A to hit mod for all cavalry would be much more valuable, and thus close to unplayable.

If you are truly upset about the way the Warhammer system abstracts battles, you might like to play LotR, which is much closer, or WHF Skirmish, which might take a week for a 1000pt battle. And twenty pages of notes.

The overall point of this rant has been, that it's close to useless to worry about the abstractions of battle situations. In this thread, you'll do better to stick to picking out rules that bend or break easily.

[Sadisticity]

I feel the Outnumbering Enemy rule for combat resolution is unrealistic and sometimes just blatantly wrong.

I've encountered situations where I've "Outnumbered" my opponent by a unit strength of 1 and vice versa and thus get a +1 bonus for combat resolution.
This is not realistic especially when you see 19 Models vs 18 Models.

The very idea and concept of outnumbering which forces you to lose courage is when you have to fight sheer number of enemy units. Like the movie 300 where The Spartans fought with bravery and skill to defend their city.

The outnumbering is also vulnerable to exploits... Like for example, I revealed my Assassin in my unit after the combat is over to gain an additional Unit strength just to outnumber my opponent by 1 unit.... lawl.

[Svennh]

The outnumbering is also vulnerable to exploits... Like for example, I revealed my Assassin in my unit after the combat is over to gain an additional Unit strength just to outnumber my opponent by 1 unit.... lawl.

I think that if you reveal your assassin you got to remove a model.

I don't like the S7 rule on chariots. If a S7 hit doesn't kill a two wound goblin hero, why would it totally destroy a chariot in one hit? Odds are, many S7 hits will probably take out a chariot with multiple wounds inflicted (like from a war machine) but I think it is silly for a model charging with a lance to take out an entire chariot with one hit.

Why is this rule not for warmachines? If a chariot is destroyed by a S7 hit, why not a canon or a goblin boltthrower?

[Rork]

I think that if you reveal your assassin you got to remove a model.

You'd think wrong.

(And yes, I checked)

[Ehakir]

but then again.. you can only reveal assassins at the start of a turn or at the start of a close combat phase

[Dalamar]

The outnumbering is also vulnerable to exploits... Like for example, I revealed my Assassin in my unit after the combat is over to gain an additional Unit strength just to outnumber my opponent by 1 unit.... lawl.

You played it wrong, you can't reveal an assassin after the combat is over.