What Rules annoys you the most?

  • The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
Speaking as a wood elf, the free wood is only in Pitched Battles and my Wood Elf army gets no woods at all on the table more than half the time. (we use 6th ed scenarios an terrain placement/selection rules and wood elf rules apply to woods and forests only, not jungle, not brush, scrub, oases,...)

No single rule annoys me, instead it is the shoddy writing and inconsistent wording in general which results in ambiguity too often.
 
ArchMagosAlchemys said:
Speaking as a wood elf, the free wood is only in Pitched Battles and my Wood Elf army gets no woods at all on the table more than half the time. (we use 6th ed scenarios an terrain placement/selection rules and wood elf rules apply to woods and forests only, not jungle, not brush, scrub, oases,...)

Good for you. I admire your noble attempt to level the playing field.
Unfortunately for your point, the vast majority of players are using seventh edition, in which all games are Pitched Battles unless a scenario's been specifically designed for the occasion (unless there are some hiding in the back of the Big Red Book - I wouldn't know, I only have a Baby Red Book).
Also, people's terrain collections tend to include more hills and woods than anything else. So... yeah. There'll usually be at least three woods in my experience.

Any particular objections to "an extra wood or equivalent terrain piece if one or no such terrain pieces are already present?"
 
I have an objection to it. Firstly, it's not the rule's fault that you have too many woods, you are free to make agreements with your friends to include whatever terrain you like in your selection.

Secondly, they're Wood Elves from Athel Loren, I don't think one or two little collections of trees in the middle of nowhere really count.

The Dwarf dispel dice thing doesn't bother me either (I am a Dwarf player though ;)) While it COULD make more sence that the dwarfs get MR instead of the 2 DD, it could make the magic phase very difficult for the Dwarfs. Runesmiths are the only source of DD after the basic dice are considered and Anvil of Doom aside they are pretty useless. Unlike the normal Wizard they provide no tactical assistance to the army and they can not affect anything outside of CC. Enemy characters can usually beat them easily in combat. So in order to have any real magic defense they would have to spend a lot of points on characters which have limited influence on the battle field. Obviously the 1 extra DD for each unit is useful, it is a lot of extra point which will be wasted unless the enemy casts a single spell at each dwarf unit (unlikely). Furthermore Dwarfs major weakness is the movement phase, having a lesser defense against move spells could be drastic to say the least.

Now, the fluff reasoning behind this is that the large gathering of dwarfs stiffles the winds of magic. In a similar way to a large amount of death attracting the wind of death. So it still makes sense. In fact I think it should be 1DD per 1000 points. at low points values the 2dd is overpowered and at higher levels it starts to fall short, and it makes more sense with the fluff. but hey that's me.


The only rule that really annoys me is the HE ASF. I like the concept but I think it should work similarly to the pike special rule. ie only on the first turn of combat, only to the front, and magical asf overrides it. This explains "skill" a little better imo (ie training and skill rather than a magical ability) and still enables tactics like flank charges to have full benefit.
 
Even with the standard rules, your opponent can limit things to two or three woods and then the free wood and with the central no-go area in the standard scenario, that seems OK to me. You choose sides after the terrain so you still have to be careful.

Plan B, deploy buildings of your own. That's -3 to hit. It's hard to shift units out of buildings.
 
Either way, it's a Wood Elf unit that's best at taking buildings, so advising placing buildings to hinder the Wood Elves isn't that big a deal for them ;)
 
I don't agree, especially since I play Asrai.

We have a lot more shooting than building assault units, so tactical use of buildings MAY be advantageous. It certainly does depend on the Asrai build and buildings are great for Asrai too.

We are undead, so we can only be moved out of buildings by being killed, so the initial assault is very likely to fail. There is no CR, only wounds, so that limits 'crumble'. Overall, I think buildings are an advantage.
 
Buildings are far less of a hindrance to Wood Elves than most other armies (Which all have cavalry, monsters, chariots etc. as well), and Wood Elves have the best infantry for taking buildings. This is fact, and you know this. Most Wood Elf armies take 3 or more units of Dryads, often supported by one or more units of Wardancers. Dislodging a unit of Wardancers or Dryads is nigh-on impossible, short of sending in a Vampire Lord with Red Fury. Undead aren't bad at holding buildings either due to their unbreakability, true... but Wood Elves are better. Their high initiative also means they will usually strike before enemies charging them as well- unlike the undead.

Best VC unit for taking buildings? Spirit Hosts/ Wraiths. But Dryads will smash through them like nothing.

If a table consisted of buildings and forests, that benefits Wood Elves more than anyone. Undisputable.
 
Autohitting.

Ratling guns. Organ guns. Runefangs. Dreadlance. Anything that autohits is broken IMO.

I have this super-armor or ability (manflayers or armor of night as examples) that makes me harder to see and shoot... unless you are a ratling gun or an Organ Gun, in which I'll just become a cloud of fine red mist.

I'll see your magic armor of -1 to hit, zombie dragon, cloud of flies and Word of Pain on me (so I'm WS1) but because I'm holding onto this Runefang I get to hit you 4 times anyways. You may be strong, fast, have cool remains in play spells that you had to cast and other demonic abilities, but I paid 60-100 points for this sword. Take that.

It's a dice game and you play to stack the probibilities in your favor and avoid unfavorable match ups if possible. Items that negate probability have no place here, IMO.
 
Hatred, to a point, is rather a silly rule as it only applies to the first round of combat. So a dwarf and a goblin fighting will hate each other less if they are still alive after the initial attack? Come on! If I hate something you better believe I'll be swinging for the fences every time.

~Roke
 
The Organ Gun isn't auto hit. You have to roll for hits on the artillery dice. Okay it's not affected by - modifiers, but on the other hand it has a 1/6 chance of misfire which helps to make up for that.

I see what you mean though.
 
I agree on that, if someone is stood try shoot you with an arrow and finding it really difficult then you would have thought someone with a cannon would find it as equally hard if not more so, I think something along the lines of re-rolling the artillary dice or have to roll or 4+ or target something else etc.
 
Ogre Leadbelchers not auto-hitting. They fire scrap out of their cannons, but need to aim each individual piece? Makes no sense at all to me.
 
Over-guessing with warmachines, and ridiculously slow pace that non-skirmishing units move through terrain (although the only time I get annoyed is when I play WE).

If you haven't experienced it, you have no idea how annoying tree singing gets. One spell takes out a unit for the game (as they have to turn, move, then slowly march around it). So thankful for black knights now, and the vampire 6" march rule. Will truly help mitigate this problem.
 
It really is amazing how bothersome that little Treesinging spell can be. Especially when you let the spell go through and it moves 4" in front of you...
 
EvC said:
That is what is considered "auto-hitting"...

Well it shouldn't be. A runefang auto hits, there is no rolling to see how many hits you get, you always get maximum. The OG rolls to see how many hits it gets, it doesn't always get the maximum of 10.

The dice gods are assumed to work out the details.


Obviously the two mechanics are seperate and shouldn't be lumped together.
 
The Dead of Night said:
Well it shouldn't be. A runefang auto hits, there is no rolling to see how many hits you get, you always get maximum. The OG rolls to see how many hits it gets, it doesn't always get the maximum of 10.

The dice gods are assumed to work out the details.


Obviously the two mechanics are seperate and shouldn't be lumped together.

A Runefang doesn't auto-hit it just auto-wound, at least to my memory.
 
well the point is that you don't require a roll. There are auto hit items out there (I'm sure there is a Dwarf MR with this effect, though I've never seen it used).
 
The Dead of Night said:
Well it shouldn't be. A runefang auto hits, there is no rolling to see how many hits you get, you always get maximum. The OG rolls to see how many hits it gets, it doesn't always get the maximum of 10.

What? Auto-hitting means automatically hitting, i.e. circumventing a normal "to hit" roll. That still applies to any weapon with a random number of hits, and marks the difference between the way an Organ Gun works and how Leadbelchers work. Auto-hitting is disliked by many because there is nothing the victim can do to reduce the likelihood of being hit, e.g. by hiding in hard cover. A Runefang auto-wounds, it doesn't auto-hit.

You might be working under another idea of what auto-hitting means, but if a weapon automatically hits with every shot, that is what it means to everyone else, regardless of whether you use an artillery dice to determine how many shots it is...
 
well I suppose it depends on your idea of what the artillery dice is doing then. Why it would be deciding how many shots you take, is beyond me. "Oh you know what boys? I don't really feel like shooting the full 10 shots against those Orcs over there. I think we've been a little too harsh on those poor Orcies I think I will only load in two shots".... wtf?

No, the dice is determining how many hits occur.

You may want to mark the difference between how a Leadbelcher works and how an OG works, what about marking the difference between an OG and something that actually auto hits?

Regardless, as I already have stated I understand the concern people have over weapons that don't take multipliers into account. Though I think it makes sense for an OG, imagine some light cover, ie a few twigs stopping an OGs cannon balls... lol. Even hard cover would struggle against the power of an OG imo, but hey that is me.

I don't really see it being a problem either, I think that in most cases the "annoying rules" are not that bad, almost all have their counters, and the ones that don't are hardly game breaking.
 
The Dead of Night said:
You may want to mark the difference between how a Leadbelcher works and how an OG works, what about marking the difference between an OG and something that actually auto hits?

Name one ranged weapon that does so.
 

About us

  • Our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best.

Quick Navigation

User Menu