Top 3 MOST annoying things in WH40K rules?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Funny, i've been playing marines since 2nd ed and I still don't like the rule.
My gripe isn't along the "oh no, marines are better than me!" line, they're along the "the whole issue of morale in combat needs re-jigging and marines are the white-head on the pimple of the issue" line.
I love my marines, but I concede that this rule is plain daft when you look at the way morale works in combat. Every other aspect of it makes perfect sense (except perhaps that they SHOULD be able to rally with foes nearby).
The more I think about it it's not about how good ATSKNF is, it's more about how badly thought out morale in combat is.

[Dave Mcturk]

yep... mixed combat... every unit is affected by losses... very strange mechanic...

[Katharon]

I always thought that 40K should take a leaf out of WHFB's book and have it so that if a unit breaks from a failed morale check then any friendly units within a certain range (able to have seen why they broke) have to take a morale check of their own to see if they run too. Modifiers being that a unit that is already locked in combat does not have to take the test.

[Dave Mcturk]

no problem with the concept of 'spreading panic' ... but dont think twenty dead 'cannon fodder' types would seriously effect the morale of 'elite' units... mb a -1 modifier maximum for the units that 'lost' combat but didnt take ANY casualties...

[Katharon]

no problem with the concept of 'spreading panic' ... but dont think twenty dead 'cannon fodder' types would seriously effect the morale of 'elite' units... mb a -1 modifier maximum for the units that 'lost' combat but didnt take ANY casualties...

Can't make it too complicated; would rather have a simplified blanket system than a bunch of loop-holes, etc. SM would, naturally, be immune to these effects due to ATSKNF; so too would units that are Fearless -- but that's about it.