6th edition changes you would like?

[lattd]

Well with a rumour for 6th edition next year what rule changes would you like to see and what would you want to keep.

Personally I like the TLOS rules and want them to stay but the cover system should be modified. I would love to see a you move i move system introduced however as i feel that would flow a lot better and feel more engaging and cinematic.

So what are your views?

[Connjurus]

I think high AP weapons should apply negative modifiers to cover saves, myself.

[Whoop!]

Id like to see deep striking become less risky. Perhaps I just have no stomach for risk. Or perhaps allow armies oter than SM first round deep strike deployment.

a rule that requires showering before attending tournaments or the game shop?

[Connjurus]

a rule that requires showering before attending tournaments or the game shop?

Hear hear!



Also, I'd like it if the distinction between offensive and defensive weapons could be tweaked...

Like only Heavy weapons are offensive - everything else is defensive.
That might just be me, though. :P

[Lemt]

I think high AP weapons should apply negative modifiers to cover saves, myself.

I'd rather it be that cover work like FNP (a roll in addition to your armor/invulnerable), but the base cover would be lower.

[Whoop!]

I'd rather it be that cover work like FNP (a roll in addition to your armor/invulnerable), but the base cover would be lower.

I think as far as realism goes you r right, but lets not make power armor that much more powerful!

[lattd]

What about weapons over strength 7 ignoring cover saves?

[Connjurus]

I don't know about "ignoring"...the BRB makes the careful distinction of cover doing two things - absorbing the hits that would hit your little guys, and making it so that the people shooting at your little guys don't quite know exactly where they are, so the shots are still fired, they just miss.

After all, popping smoke won't block an autocannon shot, but it makes your tank a lot harder to see, hence the 4+ cover save.

[Connjurus]

Also, HQ choices should be able to make all their available saves, damn it.

Or at least Special Characters. Not that the lack of that rule particularly affects me, seeing as how my friends and I have houseruled that in anyway.

[DrLove42]

Don't want the fliers rules in the main game, keep them to Apoc

The LoS/area terrain, cover needs clarifying more simply for all those idiots out there who play "I'm behind this piece of razor wire, 4+ save for me!" or "You're in a building, but since theres no terrain between my guys and your you get no save"

I want to see the remove from play mechanics get better regulated and fairer, like getting saves (that won't happen thanks to the codices with this in though)

On a personal note for my armies, improvements to skimmers would be nice, after the nerf bat in 5th.

Sure there are others

[isotope99]

Some thoughts:


Assaulting through difficult terrain rule becomes score is how far you can move through difficult terrain so that units can't hide <1" into terrain and still claim the benefit.

Exception to no consolidating into combat for enemies turfed out of their transports.

No immunity to pinning tests due to fearless or special rules for units in transports that get destroyed, unless open topped, even rock hard units need to pull themselves out of the wreckage.

Infantry have to get out of their transports to actually claim an objective

(as you can tell, I am not a fan of people using transports as bunkers or objective grabbing missiles and feel that there should be some greater penalty for escaping a burning wreck)

Units can't claim an objective (only contest) if they went to ground in the previous turn.

Some sort of challenge rule such that an IC can't be picked out in combat by special weapon models unless they can also be picked out (so no more sucker punching people with hidden power fists which is so anti-climactic :mad:) - In practice, this probably isn't possible without changing points costs in all the books.

Monstrous creatures don't take no retreat wounds (tyranids need a little help).

Some sort of cap on wound allocation for squads only partially visible to enemy shooting (not sure how this would work) to reduce one model's arm being exposed and yet the shooting killing the whole squad.

Units can't shoot assault weapons and use offensive grenades in the same turn, gives back some benefit to cover.

No more than one IC in a squad, to reduce deathstar units

And the big one that would need the most playtesting:

Standard cover save lowered form 4++ to 5++

[Connjurus]

Some thoughts:


Assaulting through difficult terrain rule becomes score is how far you can move through difficult terrain so that units can't hide <1" into terrain and still claim the benefit.

Exception to no consolidating into combat for enemies turfed out of their transports.

No immunity to pinning tests due to fearless or special rules for units in transports that get destroyed, unless open topped, even rock hard units need to pull themselves out of the wreckage.

Infantry have to get out of their transports to actually claim an objective

(as you can tell, I am not a fan of people using transports as bunkers or objective grabbing missiles and feel that there should be some greater penalty for escaping a burning wreck)

Units can't claim an objective (only contest) if they went to ground in the previous turn.

Some sort of challenge rule such that an IC can't be picked out in combat by special weapon models unless they can also be picked out (so no more sucker punching people with hidden power fists which is so anti-climactic :mad:) - In practice, this probably isn't possible without changing points costs in all the books.

Monstrous creatures don't take no retreat wounds (tyranids need a little help).

Some sort of cap on wound allocation for squads only partially visible to enemy shooting (not sure how this would work) to reduce one model's arm being exposed and yet the shooting killing the whole squad.

Units can't shoot assault weapons and use offensive grenades in the same turn, gives back some benefit to cover.

No more than one IC in a squad, to reduce deathstar units

And the big one that would need the most playtesting:

Standard cover save lowered form 4++ to 5++


I like the Monstrous Creature/no retreat thing.

To fix the wound allocation for units partially visible, the fix is painfully obvious - only the models that can be seen can have wounds allocated to them.

Don't agree with the shooting assault weapons/offensive grenade rule. Doesn't make any sense.

The anti-sucker punch rule is a good idea, and one I agree with. Would take a bit of tweaking, yes.

Units not being able to claim an objective by going to ground also doesn't make sense. Just because you're crouching on a piece of crucial ground doesn't mean you can't hold it.

[Dalleron]

I would like to modify the TLOS/cover rule. It's too all encompassing and boring. Just being in cover shouldn't give you a cover save if there isn't anything blocking line of sight.

But cover saves are my major gripe about 5th ed and LOS are my "things" I don't like. Go back to 4th ed and I'd be fine with that.

[Connjurus]

But cover saves are my major gripe about 5th ed and LOS are my "things" I don't like. Go back to 4th ed and I'd be fine with that.

What, where anyone within 2" of a wall could shoot, even if there wasn't anything to shoot through? No thanks.

[Mr.Pickelz]

i would like to see some simple "to hit" shooting and assaulting modifiers for cover/area terrain along with the cover saves. also have it set up where you could destroy terrain like buildings/ruins/forests/etc..
If your charging into rubble, there is no gaurentee that it won't slip out beneath your feet. or a fallen log, collapse uinder your weight(i'm lookin at you power-armored pplz)
also some melee tweaks to that system, i don't see why a blood thrister needs 3's to hit guardsmen, or regular marines for that matter!

i'd like to see MC's and Dreadnoughts do multiple wounds (D3) to certain units like infantry(including sub-categorys) beasts,calvery.

Bring back and update the 3rd. ed. rulebook's mission selection! That will offer TONS of variety.

[HsojVvad]

What I would like to see in 6th edtion? A rule book that actually caters to newbies and not needing to know anything about any previous edtions. Also CLEAR, COINSICE written rules where we don't have to debate, or argue about.

Also have all the rules in one section. If it deals with moving a mini, have all the rules in ONE section, not having rules in the movement section, then more rules on movement in Deep Striking section and maybe somewhere else I already have missed. I also hated how in movement I read for 6" of movement, but then had to flip flip flip flip flip more pages to get to movement that uses 12" and then trying to read rules for jumpjets or what not. Rules for beast were different to, but everything should be in ONE chapter, not spread out.

Agian, make it for people who never played before. GW relies too much on people playing previous edtions so when I was reading the rules for 5th editon, I was scratching my head because I didn't know how 4th edtion worked. I don't care how4th edtion worked, I care for how 5th edtion worked. so it doesn't matter if 4th was done this way. This is 5th.

[MaltonNecromancer]

I genuinely wouldn't change anything. I really like 5th ed, and frankly don't want to have to shell out £25 a pop for new codicies. I can't actually imagine what they'll change.

Possibly the "immobilised vehicle in a squadron = destroyed" rule, though I can see that nicely limits tank squadrons from being ridiculously overpowered.

The TLOS and cover save things are great IMO. Anything that's simple and easy to administrate works for me, but then I prefer games to simulations. They should probably rename "cover saves" to assist with giving gamers a better mental picture of what it's abstractly trying to represent. I can't think of what, but something... :)

[isotope99]

also some melee tweaks to that system, i don't see why a blood thrister needs 3's to hit guardsmen, or regular marines for that matter!

i'd like to see MC's and Dreadnoughts do multiple wounds (D3) to certain units like infantry(including sub-categorys) beasts,calvery.

Bring back and update the 3rd. ed. rulebook's mission selection! That will offer TONS of variety.

1. I'll second that, 2+ if you have twice (or more than twice) the WS of your opponent.

2. I disagree on MCs but D3 wounds for DCCW could make the fight slightly less one-sided.

3. Some more missions would be interesting, although I can't remember 3ed to comment on that.

A bigger question on missions for me is whether the random game length should be changed :confused:. I like its unpredictability, but in most close objective games I've played, it becomes the most important roll of the game by far.

[gcsmith]

I would like to see Instant death be changed to say d3/d6 wounds like in fantasy, I mean really, there is a chance alto a small chance that that rail mearly knocks your arm off and allows you to fight.

Secondly assault needs to be curbed slightly, shooting armies have no way to stay out of assault whereas combat armies can avoid being shot. Maybe being able to shoot into combat. or stand and shoot special rule.

So guard and tau have 'hold the line' special rule, this allows them to shoot one barrage before combat initiates.

[Connjurus]

If close-combat was such an issue for Guard, they wouldn't be one of the top armies right now.

Also, a Rail Gun hitting your arm would be generating so much force, and traveling so fast, you'd probably be lit on fire and die of shock. So no, instant death should stay the way it is.

[fuzzbuket]

hmm in the book more missions/special rules ala 4rth ed

rules for integrating BFG and epic

casual VDR

fixing wound allocation

making HQ+elites be able to take all kind of saves but if they fail a IV they lose it and if they fail theire armour they get a negative bounus?

put in terrain rules for water.

make it less... simpleconfuddling! what i mean is its a simple game but things like ramming, speed cover saves and the like as well as gone to ground could be streamlined a bit (e.g. ramming was less abuseable: read skimmers+star engines+ S16 eldar skimmers!)

oh and put consolidating into cambat back that was fun!!

oh and a rule that says units under deepstriking units have to do 'death or glory!' that'd make it fun!!

oh and most of the suggestions above!

[Scion_of_Terra]

Let's have lance weapons be a -1 modifier to all armor values (minimum of AV10) instead of 'higher than 12 counts as 12.' GW should have done this back when they got rid of 'heavy close combat weapons.'

Also, in order to combat the more mech-heavy armies, why don't we introduce a rule where passengers inside a vehicle that has suffered a penetrating hit have to take D6 wounds that allow armor saves? This would represent the enemy shot ricocheting around inside the vehicle or sending shrapnel into the passengers. The strength of each hit could be equal to the roll on the vehicle damage chart with a -1 modifier. Blast and template weapons could roll 2D6 and select the higher number for the number of wounds caused. If the vehicle explodes, this number could be doubled.
-Example A: A Chimera takes a penetrating hit from a lascannon, and a '3' is rolled. The vehicle loses a weapon, and the passengers take D6 S2 wounds, with armor saves.
-Example B: A Raider takes a penetrating hit from a plasma cannon, and a '4' is rolled. With the modifier for being open-topped, the Raider is wrecked, and the passengers take the higher of 2D6 S4 wounds.
-Example C: A Land Raider takes a penetrating hit from a melta gun, and a '6' is rolled. With the modifier for AP1 weapons, the Land Raider explodes, and the passengers take D6x2 S6 wounds.

Finally, I would suggest, as others have, that cover saves, especially those gained from having other squads between the shooters and the targets, be reduced to a 5+, and be taken in addition to regular saving throws.

[doom-kitten]

I'd like to see them fix the KP (kill points), thats stuffs ridiculous come on a five unit marine army (or eldar for those peoples who hate marines XD) vs a twenty unit army of gaurd lose three units to the gaurds lose of eight and they WIN? WTF that insane, or say a drop pod army losing because of it's drop pods counting a kill points because their automatically immobolised, plus dedicated transports counting as a seperate unit even though something like a rhino, raider, even a chimera is pretty easy to kill. Oh and the sqaudron rules, immobolised counts as destroyed thats just awesome eh it should be the vehicles destroyed the instant it is no longer in coherency not immediately. Cover mods for high AP weapons would be nice I imagine a Lascannon would blow right through your little wooded fence but there should be cover mods for BS as well to balance that out. Oh and I didn't feel like quoting but a Railgun hitting your arm would likely rip your entire torso is half and continue on through everone behind you and the pathetic dirt fortress you dug, this thing is a magneticly charged and accelerated round it's not slow ask the Decepticons it HURTS XD.

[gcsmith]

u realise pods are not auto kills, since Imobalised doesnt count as dead unless in squadrans.

[doom-kitten]

u realise pods are not auto kills, since Imobalised doesnt count as dead unless in squadrans.

Oh sorry didn't know that, all the marine guys I play with say they are XD my bad.

[Lerra]

I also want to see Kill Points go away. You get one kill point for two Tau gun drones or one kill point for 55 stubborn guardsmen in cover with power weapons who re-roll their leadership. Or ten terminators with FnP. It's also extremely frustrating to face an army with 6 KPs (like land raider spam lists) when you are running 15 KP or more. You can nearly table your opponent and still lose handily.

I'd like to see cover saves turn into a ballistic skill modifier, like -1 BS if they are in cover. -2 BS if the target has stealth or is in bolstered ruins. This makes it worthwhile to have a BS greater than 5, and it makes good sense. It's hard to see someone who is in cover, but if you shoot right at them, your melta gun is not going to be stopped because the target is behind a tree.

I'd also like to see 6th ed encourage the use of reserves and alternate deployment methods (outflank, infiltrate, deep strike, etc). The games go faster when there are reserved units on both sides, and it's more fun imo. Allowing armies to have slightly more control over reserves and making deep strike less risky would make those options more popular. It also would reduce the overcrowding you see with two 2k+ point armies on the table.

[Defenestratus]

Hear hear!



Also, I'd like it if the distinction between offensive and defensive weapons could be tweaked...

Like only Heavy weapons are offensive - everything else is defensive.
That might just be me, though. :P

Do away with the 5e definition of defensive.

A flying tank should be able to move 12" and fire all of its guns despite what strength they are.

Use some other mechanic for determining how many guns a tank can use - not how fast it goes. I'm sick of seeing plastic box parking lots.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Again, I wouldn't change Kill Point at all. The examples quoted seem fine to me; I see no unfairness. I detest the whole "Superman and Batman are in a white room with nothing in it - who would win?" mentality, which Kill Points goes wholeheartedly against. If you've got a five KP list going up against a 16KP list, well, that's something to consider when you build your army, yes? Why are you including so many KP's? Despite what people seem to think, there are ways to build competitive lists that deal with that issue - it's just another aspect of generalship. Tau are also a poor choice of example, because they're dealing with a very dated codex by comparison to every other army, so of course the odds are stcked against them.

I like how it forces asymmetrical warfare (which is something I feel often lacks in the game), as well as forcing you to think far more tactically. It's certainly better than the execrable system from 4th ed.



Also, in order to combat the more mech-heavy armies, why don't we introduce a rule where passengers inside a vehicle that has suffered a penetrating hit have to take D6 wounds that allow armor saves?

1.) I'm not sure why I'd want to combat mech-heavy armies. Firstly, they make the company more money, so they don't want to curb their abilities. Secondly, tanks are pretty damn hardcore IRL, so I think the new mech heavy thing is fairly appropriate.

2.) The system you suggest is interesting, but overcomplicated. I remember the days of 1st ed and it's days of tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables and tables...

I don't want to go back there. You can't make me go back there. I won't go back there!

I think the gripe people have is that tanks (and especially cheap transports) "feel" overpowered, because they are hard to shift. I don't see it myself. It's a tank; it's supposed to be hard to shift! I much prefer useful tanks to 4th ed's Exploding Box Of Dead Infantry situtation.

[msg101]

Well with a rumour for 6th edition next year what rule changes would you like to see and what would you want to keep.

Personally I like the TLOS rules and want them to stay but the cover system should be modified. I would love to see a you move i move system introduced however as i feel that would flow a lot better and feel more engaging and cinematic.

So what are your views?

I like the idea of way turns are run changing. Like LOR, with turn priority and you move/I move, you shoot/I shoot, I assault/you assault.

[gcsmith]

i like many tanks, but I would like to see the passanger annilated result be brought back :p

[UltramarineFan]

I think high AP weapons should apply negative modifiers to cover saves, myself.

Agreed, maybe have AP1 ignore it completely? I can easily imagine AP1 type weapons going straight through the cover and the armour of the guy being shot. Meltabombs should be AP1 too, not sure why they're not atm.

[mstingray]

I would like to see you able to choose the middle two results on the penetrating table, as so many times you roll an immobilised on a predator/vindicator or a weapon destroyed result on a rhino and you feel as if you've wasted a shot. IMO you would aim at the tracks of a rhino, not the tiny storm bolter on top doing next to nothing (although I did kill a Bloodthirster with one once)

[Chris Copeland]

True Line of Sight has been very bad for 40K. It has made the game less tactical and sucked a lot of realism away from the game. Entire battlefields have become open killing fields with no place to hide since we were hit with TLOS (sure, you get a 4+ cover save but that isn't nearly as important as actually being able to hide).

The worst part of TLOS is that it has almost removed forests from the game. In the real world you CAN'T see through forests. Units can use them to conceal themselves from the enemy. You can hide in forests in real life. There is no good way that I've seen to make forests for a tabletop that do what real forests do. Tabletop forests are always highly representational... sometimes just some green felt and a few tree. With TLOS you can always be seen... forest are amongst the most open parts of the board at most places I play (as far as True Line of Sight goes).

So there is my rant. True Line of Sight must die.

[Lerra]

Consider that most "forests" in 40k are actually just clumps of trees, maybe 30 feet across. It seems reasonable to be able to see through them.

[gcsmith]

TLOS gets rid of bickering, makes the game quicker and is more tactical. It means you have to risk things rather than just hold objectives Out of los, it gives shooting armies like tau a chance.

[Chris Copeland]

Lerra, as you can see from my post, I think TLOS has made the game less tactical. Except for the 4+ cover saves, most 40K battlefields I've seen have turned in to free fire killing fields. There should be places to hide on battlefields.

[Defenestratus]

Lerra, as you can see from my post, I think TLOS has made the game less tactical. Except for the 4+ cover saves, most 40K battlefields I've seen have turned in to free fire killing fields. There should be places to hide on battlefields.

Its been the opposite in my experience. Sure I can't hide my huge squad of jetbikes anymore from being shot - but they also take a lot less casualties while moving into position to strike.

In 4e:
Start Jetbikes behind a building, wait for enemy to move into threat range - then attack using JSJ.

in 5e:
Start Jetbikes in cover. Move anywhere on the board while being almost guaranteed a 4+ cover save. Direct forces where they are most effective instead of having to wait for something to come to me.

I was a HUUUGE opponent of TLOS because of my experience of "soft cover vs heavy cover" arguments in 2ed. Thankfully, 5e did away with that for the most part and most arguments are simply over whether vehicles get cover saves or not.

[Gotthammer]

Use the area terrain rules for forrests so anyone shooting into or through one gives a cover save. It's in the 5th ed rulebook pg 22.

[Galadren]

Move the story forward.

.....


HAHAHAHAHA! Like that'll ever happen...

[DarkLink]

True Line of Sight has been very bad for 40K.

So there is my rant. True Line of Sight must die.

TLOS is awesome. When an entire section of the rulebook can be summed up in one single sentence, you know you're doing something right. "If you can see it, you can shoot it".

The problem isn't the rule, it's that people still try and play with 4th ed terrain. Just cut up some cardboard and make a few buildings. Not that hard, and you've got instant LOS blocking terrain. Put a few in the center of each table and any problems you had should disappear.


Lerra, as you can see from my post, I think TLOS has made the game less tactical. Except for the 4+ cover saves, most 40K battlefields I've seen have turned in to free fire killing fields. There should be places to hide on battlefields.

As we can see from your post, you need to start putting in buildings and actual real LOS blocking terrain:p.


Use the area terrain rules for forrests so anyone shooting into or through one gives a cover save. It's in the 5th ed rulebook pg 22.

Exactly. TLOS can be summed up as "if you can see it you can shoot it", and cover can be summed up as "if you can see it but there's stuff in the way, it gets a cover save".

[Mr.Pickelz]

So true darklink, many LGS' keep all the old terrain sets and don't have (5th ed.) terrain available.
And that is what leads to my hate of TLOS.
so when i do get out and go down to play a game, i'm stuck playin where snipers are just giddy with excitement and it turns into who can out shoot who.

Something i tried, and it worked hilariously was, get the Fantasy castle walls and have each player put/assign ladders to their side of the walls, 1 ladder per section. the other player won't know till their used where they are. and we have the walls cut through the middle of the board, with gates and holes spread out for multiple entry ways for tanks/vehicles. played with 1500 points and it was a blast!

[Ssyrie]

What I would like to see in 6th edtion? A rule book that actually caters to newbies and not needing to know anything about any previous edtions. Also CLEAR, COINSICE written rules where we don't have to debate, or argue about.

Also have all the rules in one section. If it deals with moving a mini, have all the rules in ONE section, not having rules in the movement section, then more rules on movement in Deep Striking section and maybe somewhere else I already have missed. I also hated how in movement I read for 6" of movement, but then had to flip flip flip flip flip more pages to get to movement that uses 12" and then trying to read rules for jumpjets or what not. Rules for beast were different to, but everything should be in ONE chapter, not spread out.

Agian, make it for people who never played before. GW relies too much on people playing previous edtions so when I was reading the rules for 5th editon, I was scratching my head because I didn't know how 4th edtion worked. I don't care how4th edtion worked, I care for how 5th edtion worked. so it doesn't matter if 4th was done this way. This is 5th.

I have to disagree strongly about having all the rules in one section. I've read rules for dozens of different wargames and every time someone writes the rules the way you suggest I usually get lost halfway through because the rules keep getting sidetracked and go off in 20 different directions dealing with every different type of unit. That actually makes it more difficult for new players to learn the rules. It's better to write the rules for the most common type of unit players will use. From there new players can learn to play new types of units, with the rules for that unit all together in one place.

[Chris Copeland]

Darklink, please show me a picture of a forest (that is playable) that actually blocks line of sight. I've yet to see one. Even then thickest tabletop bramble always leaves little gaps that one can peer through. Sure, you get a 4+ cover save... but 5th edition removed the more realistic tactics of maneuvering around big things to keep them from getting any shots at you at all.

I live in the Texas hill country. There are woods around here that you wouldn't be able to see five feet through. I can't imagine how dense truly spectacular forests are... places like the Black Forest in Germany. So, my complaint (in my original rant) is that TLOS has neutered forests. However, if you disagree, please post a picture from your local gaming group of a forest piece of terrain that completely blocks line of sight.

We play with a lot of great terrain around here. There are some excellent terrain builders in the greater San Antonio area. I love their bombed out buildings and crumbling Gothic cathedrals. However, I don't want every game of 40k to be set in a city scape just to have terrain that actually blocks line of sight. I'd like a battle in a swamp every once in a while. I'd like to duke it out in a rain forest. I'd like to be able to tactically hide my troops behind terrain without the capriciousness of a 4+ cover save being the only thing between them and instant death from afar. Cheers.

PS I won't be holding my breath waiting for a picture of a forest that completely blocks line of sight. ;)

[DarkLink]

The way the BRB is laid out is ok, though there are some things that could be improved. For one thing they could do some thorough editing and cut out the unnecessary fluff, and instead of 90 pages of rules we'd have 20-30. That would be much, much easier to read through and find what you needed.

The real problem has to do with how loose the rules are, though. I play 40k and I play Warmachine, and Warmachine's rules are infinitely tighter than 40k's. Just as fun, too, though it's a very different type of game. Warmachine always precisely defines everything. 40k does not. This is the source of most of 40k's rule problems. Everything is so ill defined that there are little grey areas everywhere. Every time a new codex comes out, there are a few dozen more issues that pop up because of how loosely the rules fit together.

40k is still plenty of fun despite this, but I think this is the single area that can see the biggest improvement. Simple, precisely worded rules would save everyone, noobs and vets alike, a ton of time otherwise spend arguing over rules that they could instead be having fun actually playing the game.

Incidentally, this is why I like streamlined USRs and rules like TLOS. You don't have to worry about clause 3, paragraph 12, section 54 of the BRB. You can just play and have fun instead of getting caught up on annoying little details.

[DarkLink]

Darklink, please show me a picture of a forest (that is playable) that actually blocks line of sight. I've yet to see one.

Found this on google :p

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_R7msJ1g6bX8/TVFp_0tdViI/AAAAAAAAAWs/4ttHY1_Uzo4/s1600/p4.JPG



I live in the Texas hill country. There are woods around here that you wouldn't be able to see five feet through. I can't imagine how dense truly spectacular forests are... places like the Black Forest in Germany. So, my complaint (in my original rant) is that TLOS has neutered forests. However, if you disagree, please post a picture from your local gaming group of a forest piece of terrain that completely blocks line of sight.


I live up in the mountains in California, so I know what you're talking about. There are some areas where you can't see through 10 feet of underbrush. Makes for great paintballing. There are also areas where there are plenty of trees, but they're open enough that you can see as far as the hills will allow you to.

You can model forests to fully block LOS, though it makes it tricky to place models in there. I could think of a few ways of doing it, though.

There are plenty of other ways to block LOS, though, and you don't even have to use buildings. This is one of the boards we have at our gaming group: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/243963.page

Scroll down, and you'll see a bunch of nice volcanic rocks and los blocking terrain, like this:
http://www.figurepainters.com/cmon/lava/lava39.jpg

We've got some even better stuff now, though I don't have pictures of it.



So, yeah, I agree that there are some modeling issues going on, but I'd rather have nice simple rules and have to be creative with the terrain than the other way around. Simple rules benefit everyone, while terrain only takes a bit of work to overcome.

[Vaktathi]

First thing, above and beyond anything else.

REMOVE KILL POINTS ENTIRELY

I'd like to see transport rules remain mostly the same but with Explosions being a bit more scary. I'm thinking something like an Init test or take a wound with no armor saves allowed, reroll successfull init tests for *passengers* if the vehicle moved over 12".

Aura effects (e.g. KFF, IG Orders, Sanguinary Priest FNP, etc) I'd also say should subtract 2 or 3" from their area if embarked in a transport to compensate for the increased effect area of the vehicles hull.

I'd like to see troops be able to interact with the board more like in Flames of War (e.g. dig in, stand to repel spot for heavy guns, etc). This would help make non-mechanized infantry a bit more practicable. If infantry could say, dig in anywhere, hide themselves, and prepare to repel a charge (e.g. gain a cover save, count as being under nightfight conditions, and gain counterattack) after spending a turn or two digging in and preparing (or starting the game like that), it would make them frightening indeed, and mitigate many of the calls to "nerf transports".

I'd like to see the vehicle shooting rules redone, along the lines of the following:

Stationary: Fire everything.

Moved 6" or less. Fire one weapon normal BS, all others -1 BS.

Moved 6-12". Fire one weapon -1BS, all others -2 BS.

Moved over 12". One weapon -2 BS, all others -3 BS.

Defensive Weapons: Allow defensive weapons to actually be *defensive* and target a different target from the rest of the vehicle, and be allows to shoot against attackers in CC.


For CC against vehicles, I'd make it so that you only get to strike against rear armor if you reduce your attacks to 1 as per Grenades, otherwise hit normal facing. Let's be honest, that Nob on a bike with his Powerklaw isn't exactly taking his time to find weak spots as he jets by that Predator, he's just whacking it as hard as he can and hoping to tear something off, not taking the time to specifically try and tear open the drivers viewport or anything. Likewise a Carnifex isn't exactly aiming for weakspots either, it's barrelling into a tank at full speed and brute forcing it's way to killing it.

Alternatively, another thing that could be cool would be a "crush and grind" mechanic. Allow vehicles to hit back by running over attackers or grinding them beneath tracks. Something like a WS1 hit at S3+1 for every frontal AV above 10. Assaulting tanks and vehicles in real life is extremely dangerous, and for some of the scenarios in 40k (e.g. attempting to attach an explosive grenade to a hovering tank moving at highway speeds) utterly suicidal.

Fix vehicle squadrons. As is, the rules for vehicle squadrons are horrifically punitive, there's a reason you rarely see them and even then generally only on rather cheap platforms. With 3 LRBT's in a squadron, it's possible to inflict an 2d6 AP1 penetrating hit on a Leman Russ 22" away from a 12" range meltagun. Additionally, the "immobilized=dead" rule was just lazy game design on Alessio's part, the anchoring from 4th edition worked just fine. There was no reason to include that. If they got rid of "immobilized=dead" and only allowed hits to be allocated to vehicles in range and LoS, it would make vehicle squadrons for anything that isn't already somewhat sacrificial a bit more worth it, even if there's still huge diminishing returns from having to all fire at the same thing and be allocated hits as one.


Change more cover to 5+ and/or introduce BS modifiers. Alternatively, go the Flames of War route for cover where instead of a different save, a vehicle would have to pass an AP test (roll equal or over the AP of the weapon) to penetrate the cover and harm the troops. That way, troops in ruins against small arms would be incredibly hard to kill (bolters would have to hit, wound, penetrate cover on a 5+ then troops get any applicable saves), but a Demolisher cannon is going to wreck them (hits, wounds, penetrates cover on a 2+, then penetrates armor saves), like it should. Makes cover much more realistic.

Also change the area terrain rules, get rid of the stupid bit where just being behind it doesn't give you a save, you have to be between two trees or whatever. Nobody pays attention to it really anyway.

Allow Grenades to be used against MC with the same rules as for Walkers (e.g. hit on a 6).

When it comes to CC, add in modifiers for outnumbering. Perhaps not counting it towards winning, but at least mitigating losing. If you lose combat by 7 but outnumber your foe 3-1, reduce the result to 4 instead of 7.

Likewise, when it comes to No Retreat, this should be changed so that wiping out a squad of dire avengers should not inflict 8 hits on the Avatar that took no wounds in combat and killed 3 Grey Hunters. For the purposes of No Retreat, this should only count that single units role in the combat, not all units involved.


Redo wound allocation. Either return it to 4E with a better mechanic for multiple saves, or allocate and resolve all wounds in order of AP (e.g. allocate and resolve AP2 wounds, then allocate and resolve AP3 wounds, etc) to reduce the abusiveness of different multiwound models as well as mixed AP situations where *more* shooting often equates to *fewer* casualties.

Normalize psychic defense, either it all works against stuff in transports or none of it does (e.g. psychic hood vs shadow in the warp).

With regards to Blast Weapons and Barrages, I'd change cover rules for blast weapons. If there is cover intervening, instead of the unit getting a cover save, do one of two things. Either roll the save and the shot gets through or it doesn't (so if it fails the unit gets no individual cover saves) to represent the cover stopping the shell on its way in, or do not allow BS subtraction for Scatter (representing the intervening cover throwing off the aim). It makes little sense for a cover save as they are now to be granted to a unit that's not in cover for a shell that lands amongst them for something in between them and the firer. As to Barrages, lets just get rid of the flipping thing, it'd fiddlyness for the sake of fiddlyness and that's about it.

Get rid of the restriction on Ordnance weapons not allowing other weapons to fire. The restriction exists in the first place because of the Leman Russ after the changeover from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition. The Leman Russ now has a special rule ignoring it as it's a rather silly rule given that Ordnance weapons are not the scary powerhouses they were in 2nd edition or even as scary as they were in 3rd edition due to army changes since then. The only thing this rule really has any effect on at this point is the Defiler. It's not like IG indirect fire ordnance platforms are going to be hitting much with their heavy flamer if they shoot their Earthshaker cannon anyway.

FNP unfortunately has the same problem Rending did in 4E. IT was fine on a couple specialized units. Now that its handed out like Candy it's just too much. Make FNP a 5+ or restrict its availability.

For Skimmers, get rid of the whole "hopping" thing, get rid of dangerous terrain test for ending movement over terrain if they are floating over it.

Make biker Turboboost saves 4+ cover, 3++ makes them a wee bit too no-brainer to jet out in front without any precautions.

Change "Eternal Warrior" from being immune to ID to taking only D3 wounds instead.

Return Force Weapons to what they were originally designed for. They really are supposed to be specialized anti-Daemon weapons, but unfortunately currently are no better than a combat knife, rifle butt, or fist against Daemons due to Daemons having Invul saves and being immune to ID.

Allow more board interaction in general. Let players destroy terrain, attack buildings, deploy minefields, wire fields, trenches, spore chimneys, etc.

[HsojVvad]

The thing with FNP I don't like is, it slows the game down. I guess anytime someone with FNP rolls to see if they save, they should roll 2 different coloured dice at the same time.

One say white is your normal save so if you make it, you make it, the other is a different colour die and it's your feel no pain. So if you fail the regular white one, then what ever the other coloured FNP one is rolled at the same time, so it doesn't slow down the game. It eliminates the roll wait see what it is, and then roll if you fail. This way if you pass, ignore the FNP roll, if you fail, then see what the FNP roll is and then pass or fail from that roll.

I think this would speed up the game.

[Chris Copeland]

Darklink, that terrain looks nice. I'm not sure how much it blocks line of sight but it looks nice. I'd say that the link you provided goes more to a tree than to a forest. Forests on table tops have to be a bit abstract... Too dense and one just can't move models through them. I liked battles that had lots of maneuver and I feel that 5th edition dumbed it down and turned everything into a big wide open shooting gallery.

In my opinion, the 4th edition line of sight rules were clear and easy to follow... and they allowed for more maneuver thus making the game more tactical. Cheers. Goodnight, all...

[Lockark]

Many of the changes in 5th ed were ones that made sense to me.

-Make Tanks threatening
-Importance on troops.
-ect.

If I was going to complain about anything it's that you can't consolidate into a unit from a transport you've killed in CC. I like that you can't consolidate into CC anymore, but this is the one exception I belive that is appropriate. It would also go a long way to helping armies that don't benefit from cheap meltaguns.

[dethangel]

i would like to see flier rules. like up to 36"moves still fires atleast 1 weapon. flat out moves gain bonus move in assault phase and cant be assaulted as they fly and are moving duh. can leave table and return 1 comptete turn later. must land to embark and disembark troops.( excluding teleporters). cant assault fliing vehicals unless the flier lands. can only take off and move or move and land or just move in a turn.
..............
i would like to see the twin linked rule changed from a rerolled die, to X2 shooting ie. twinlinked lascannon would be heavy 2. i think the game needs more shooting
i would like to see destroyable terain assign a AV to the terian and give it a damage chart and removing cover saves.
.........
get ride of the stupid GETS HOT rule. im not even gonna get started on this one...
.........
allow players to shoot into CC. roll for hits then roll for each hit 123 opponants model is hit and 4+ your model is hit. then roll to wound and each player rolles saves accordingly.
...........
models that were in a blown up transport are pinned no save.
.........
bring back the ability to use alli units in your army.
.........
power weapons are rending for vehical pen.
.........
tank shock inflicts 1 wound to every model in its path strength didtated by length of shock attack
..........

[lattd]

What about a change to force organisation chart, i prefer the fantasy system as it is less restrictive.

[Telepfenion]

Some points that came to my mind. Not in very linear order and I'm aware that I haven't thought them all to the end but... here it goes.

- Phase based turns are nice but do slow game down a bit. Wouldn't mind thought.

- Reorganizing saves: instead Armour/Cover/Invulnerable save and Feel no Pain it would be Armour Save / Feel no Pain and Cover/Invulnerable save. First pair is withstanding damage, other is avoiding it all together.

- Poison to ignore Feel no Pain as is not the pain that cripples the target.

- Any natural 6 for Invulnerable save shuts it down for rest of the turn.

- Sniper, Lance and AP 1 weapons ignoring cover.saves from terrain.

- Each successful cover save gained from unit between.. causes hit to covering unit.

- Models ”Going to Ground” may not be targeted with direct fire if within or behind terrain.

- All wounds suffered must be allocated for models within weapons range.

- TLOS to remain with exception of forests declared dense. Dense forests are practically impossible to place models while terrain piece simply presenting dence forests are simply too scanty. No LOS to inside of dense forest if further than 12” away from it, only models within dense forest can see out from there and no way to see through of such terrain.

- Destroyable terrain.

- Ability to run after used assault weapons. Ranged way to pull out hit-and-run.

- Overwatch. Voluntarily giving up shooting, unit would be able to shoot if assaulted during opponent's turn. We already have option for reflexive action during opponent's turn, so this wouldn't be ground breaking.

- Excluding walkers, any natural 1 to hit against moving vehicles wounds attacker on 4+. If vehicle is moving faster than 12”, any miss wounds attacker on 4+.

- Wider (ten steps sounds nice) vehicle damage table; 1d6 for glancing hit, 2d6-1 for penetrating. Other modifiers varies.

- Skimmers and jetbikes ability to end movement hovering over difficult terrain instead moving in.

- Introducing Warp Infantry and Fly Infantry. Warp Infantry (daemons, terminators...) ability to return to reserve. Fly Infantry (vespids, swooping hawks...) move like jetbikes but without toughness boost.

- Hovering models optional 3+ save to avoid being assaulted or rammed by ground forces. Why anyone would let assault terminators beat them if they can be easily out of their reach?

- Terminator armours would prevent running. There is reason for inbuilt teleporting system and land raider's transport capacity.

- More focus for grenades. ”Assault grenades” as range 6” assault 1 pinning blast weapon instead automatic cover-denial.

- Merely hits from pinning weapons causes checks.

- Fearless doesn't prevent pinning tests caused by barrage weapon or being inside wrecked construction – it is hard to ignore blast wave and debris, no matter how brave one would be.

- Ability to set ambushes; troops 'situated' secretly in terrain without placing the models, just writing down the location. Unit revealed only if enemy moves to terrain piece or unit desires to perform any other action apart using sniper weapons.

- Ability to set traps; same way as ambushes but anyone moving in takes hits instead.

There were also something usage of firing points and returning fire but can't recall what it was exactly about...

With Best Wishes,
Telepfenion

[DrLove42]

This thread can be summarised thusly;

1 or 2 good ideas
3-4 ideas that show potential
50 posts that contain some of the worst ideas ever, and show why GW write the rules, not the fans.

[Lockark]

@ Telepfenion:

Whao. No offense man, But at that point your not even playing 40k anymore. Your playing something eals.

[Connjurus]

Some points that came to my mind. Not in very linear order and I'm aware that I haven't thought them all to the end but... here it goes.

1- Phase based turns are nice but do slow game down a bit. Wouldn't mind thought.

2- Reorganizing saves: instead Armour/Cover/Invulnerable save and Feel no Pain it would be Armour Save / Feel no Pain and Cover/Invulnerable save. First pair is withstanding damage, other is avoiding it all together.

3- Poison to ignore Feel no Pain as is not the pain that cripples the target.

4- Any natural 6 for Invulnerable save shuts it down for rest of the turn.

5- Sniper, Lance and AP 1 weapons ignoring cover.saves from terrain.

6- Each successful cover save gained from unit between.. causes hit to covering unit.

7- Models ”Going to Ground” may not be targeted with direct fire if within or behind terrain.

8- All wounds suffered must be allocated for models within weapons range.

9- TLOS to remain with exception of forests declared dense. Dense forests are practically impossible to place models while terrain piece simply presenting dence forests are simply too scanty. No LOS to inside of dense forest if further than 12” away from it, only models within dense forest can see out from there and no way to see through of such terrain.

10- Destroyable terrain.

11- Ability to run after used assault weapons. Ranged way to pull out hit-and-run.

12- Overwatch. Voluntarily giving up shooting, unit would be able to shoot if assaulted during opponent's turn. We already have option for reflexive action during opponent's turn, so this wouldn't be ground breaking.

13- Excluding walkers, any natural 1 to hit against moving vehicles wounds attacker on 4+. If vehicle is moving faster than 12”, any miss wounds attacker on 4+.

14- Wider (ten steps sounds nice) vehicle damage table; 1d6 for glancing hit, 2d6-1 for penetrating. Other modifiers varies.

15- Skimmers and jetbikes ability to end movement hovering over difficult terrain instead moving in.

16- Introducing Warp Infantry and Fly Infantry. Warp Infantry (daemons, terminators...) ability to return to reserve. Fly Infantry (vespids, swooping hawks...) move like jetbikes but without toughness boost.

17- Hovering models optional 3+ save to avoid being assaulted or rammed by ground forces. Why anyone would let assault terminators beat them if they can be easily out of their reach?

18- Terminator armours would prevent running. There is reason for inbuilt teleporting system and land raider's transport capacity.

19- More focus for grenades. ”Assault grenades” as range 6” assault 1 pinning blast weapon instead automatic cover-denial.

20- Merely hits from pinning weapons causes checks.

21- Fearless doesn't prevent pinning tests caused by barrage weapon or being inside wrecked construction – it is hard to ignore blast wave and debris, no matter how brave one would be.

22- Ability to set ambushes; troops 'situated' secretly in terrain without placing the models, just writing down the location. Unit revealed only if enemy moves to terrain piece or unit desires to perform any other action apart using sniper weapons.

23- Ability to set traps; same way as ambushes but anyone moving in takes hits instead.

There were also something usage of firing points and returning fire but can't recall what it was exactly about...

With Best Wishes,
Telepfenion

I've assigned numbers to your posts so I can order my response correctly.

1 - You've hit the nail on the head - slows the game down too much for games that focus on larger battles like 40k.

2 - I'm not sure what you mean with this - like, you can always take a pair of saves? Well, most of the time anyway.

3 - Feel No Pain doesn't JUST mean you're immune to pain - it means you're so tough that you shrug off wounds that would fell a normal man. It's the name of the rule, not just what the rule applies to.

4 - This doesn't make sense except for a very few amount of wargear options - why would Daemons suddenly stop being made of warpstuff? Why would Assassins suddenly forget how to dodge?

5 - I made a post a while back as to why cover isn't just to represent the weapons hitting the cover instead of the model - the rulebook is very clear in that it also assigns not being able to get a clear shot on that dude in the bunker.

6 - One again, read the BRB.

7 - Makes sense.

8 - See, this makes sense at first glance, but after a bit of thought, it doesn't. Why would a lascannon shot just STOP at 48"? Why would a bolter round suddenly fall to the ground at 24", momentum suddenly gone, inertia sapped? The arbitrary ranges in 40k are more to represent the range at which people will assign their shots, not the maximum effective range of weapons.

9 - Elaborate.

10 - You can already destroy buildings, but I agree, other terrain should be destructible to one extent or another.

11 - Maaaaaaaaaaaybe. That could possibly make units with Fleet a bit too powerful. Would require extensive play-testing.

12 - Used to be in the game. I see this as being more of a codex-based ability, than a game-wide rule. Quite a few of your suggestions seem like they'd fit better as codex-specific rules.

13 - Makes sense. Would require some play-testing.

14 - Would bog the game down too much. I think it's fine the way it is.

15 - Elaborate.

16 - Once again, these should be codex-specific rules. Also, vespids and assault marines don't move as fast as jetbikes and skimmers.

17 - Maaaaybe. Would require quite a bit of extensive play-testing.

18 - Eh, maybe. At least let them move D3", if not the full D6".

19 - Would throw the game too heavily in the favor of units staying in cover.

20 - Why?

21 - Maybe. It would be easier if they reintroduced rules for entanglement. As far as blast-waves...eh.

22 - Too easily abused. Imagine everyone setting up ambushers, on both sides of the deployment.

23 - Might be cool.

[Connjurus]

This thread can be summarised thusly;

1 or 2 good ideas
3-4 ideas that show potential
50 posts that contain some of the worst ideas ever, and show why GW write the rules, not the fans.

Which ones do you think were the good ideas? :P

[Lerra]

I like the idea about destructible ruins. Ruins with 3 or more floors are a pain in the rear, especially when there is an objective on the top floor. It's also odd that a Dreadnought can climb up to floor 4, but bikes and calvary can't. That reminds of one game I watched between an all-bike army and a shooty foot Eldar army that deployed 100% in ruins on the second floor or higher. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

[mstingray]

I reckon GW would do the random scenery table like in Fantasy, so there might be destructable terrain or forests that completely obscure LoS.
I remember some GW person saying grenades used to be blasts that you would throw, but this became too long and complicated so they kept it as it is. Probably because most warriors would sustain little damage, move away from the grenade (like the rules now) or just throw it back (thinking Orks here)

[Brass Scorpion]

My biggest concern when 6th Edition 40K is released is the consideration given to compatibility for the existing expansions. If Cities Of Death, Planetstrike, Battle Missions get trashed by 6th Edition it will be most annoying. Apocalypse is easy to adjust, especially when playing with friends, but the others might genuinely feel obsolete if they are not careful.

[HsojVvad]

I want Movement Stats back again. SM move 4" Termies should more 3" they should be slower than other units, that is why they are in vehicles. Pretty stupid that SM or Terminators move half the speed of vehicles.

Also how does, you move, I move, you shoot, I shoot slow the game down? You still spend the same amount of time moving. If anything you can react to you oppents movement makes the game more tactical. Heaven forbid we make 40K more tactical. More thinking. Also have Priority or what ever you want to call it like in 40K.

I have played a few games of 40K now, and I find it so lame of I always do everything first, you do everything last or vice versa, it gets pretty stale pretty fast. Alot of people have been doing this for over 15 years or more of this?

I guess I am different that way.

[Connjurus]

I want Movement Stats back again. SM move 4" Termies should more 3" they should be slower than other units, that is why they are in vehicles. Pretty stupid that SM or Terminators move half the speed of vehicles.

Also how does, you move, I move, you shoot, I shoot slow the game down? You still spend the same amount of time moving. If anything you can react to you oppents movement makes the game more tactical. Heaven forbid we make 40K more tactical. More thinking. Also have Priority or what ever you want to call it like in 40K.

I have played a few games of 40K now, and I find it so lame of I always do everything first, you do everything last or vice versa, it gets pretty stale pretty fast. Alot of people have been doing this for over 15 years or more of this?

I guess I am different that way.

I'll tell you what, you try doing "you move, I move, you shoot, I shoot" in a game with a friend of yours and tell me what happens.

Or I could beat you to the punch and tell you 40k isn't built for that kind of system, and it would require reworking the entire game. And it doesn't add more tactics, it takes away chess and adds RTS.

And yeah, I guess you are different that way. You could always play LotR.

[Mr.Pickelz]

Grenades use to work as blast templates that could be tossed as far as the thrower's strength stat was. aka, if a marine tosses a frag grenade he can toss it 4". a guardsmen would be able to toss it 3". Etc...

[Defenestratus]

I'll tell you what, you try doing "you move, I move, you shoot, I shoot" in a game with a friend of yours and tell me what happens.

Or I could beat you to the punch and tell you 40k isn't built for that kind of system, and it would require reworking the entire game. And it doesn't add more tactics, it takes away chess and adds RTS.

And yeah, I guess you are different that way. You could always play LotR.

Yeah I don't think IGUG would work in 40k. Certain strategies like rhino drive-by's would fall by the wayside.

[DrLove42]

Important thing to remeber when wishlisting new stuff...

It HAS to be compatable with all past codexes as they are. Yes 5th ed hurt a lot for some armies (Necrons, imma lookin at you), but all the codexes still worked.

Adding things like movement values for models would means all the codexes needed re-doing.
Change FNP rules? The DE codex (and the BA to a certain extent) would need almost completly repointing
You move, i move, you shoot, 1 shoot? Far too complex, as people would be hardpressed to remember who did what, when their turns don't follow on

[dethangel]

bring back Overwatch...they never should have taken it out. at my local game store ive told lots of new(5ed only) players about the old 1st and 2nd edition rules(2nd was the best) and every one ive talked to about overwatch is like "why did they get rid of that" or "that would be awsome".but it should be a basic rule not a codex exclusive to be fair.

i must reiterate destroyable terrain. when a bunker( or vehical)is destroyed it loses its cover save and any models in it are hit like a transport explosion and auto pinned.. cuz its stupid that i can smash a transport it explodes an everyone in side is totally unaffected (as a s4 hit for being in the middle of an explosion is not enough) and then assaults me from out of a burning crater.

[Connjurus]

I fail to see an edition where you could have Strength 5, Toughness 5, Initiative 7 Librarians was the best edition...

[dethangel]

I fail to see an edition where you could have Strength 5, Toughness 5, Initiative 7 Librarians was the best edition...

one or two cool things does not make up for lost "quality" game content. it added a bit of realizm to our table top game. stuff like overwatch is just commonsence. if im dug in at an objective. im not moving or shooting that turn as i have nothing to shoot at. and some idiots decide to charge me realistly i would shoot them during the charge not just sit there and watch them come.
rules like this add flavor and realizm. thats my point..

[SotonShades]

I'd like to see more models and more Codicies in 6th Ed, not to mention a quicker turn around updating all the codicies for the new edition. I'd also like to see a longer period of time when all codicies are updated for the current edition before moving on to the next edition...

In terms of the actual rules, well that's a bit more tricky. In gneneral I really like how 5th Ed plays. If I didn't then I wouldn't play it. I still know a few people who play 3rd Ed using 3rd Ed Codicies because they prefer the way the game plays. All power to them, but not for me.

I quite like the idea of something like overwatch, or a stand-and-shoot reaction to being charged. Maybe not exactly how overwatch used to work, or how stand and shoot works in fantasy, but something of that ilk; perhaps being able to fire pistols or assault weapons at a reasonably high initiative if you are charged, rather than fighting with the models normal CC attacks.

I don't like models in vehicle squadrons getting destroyed for being immobilised. Then again I didn't like vehicle squadron's being locked in place in 4th Ed. Maybe say the vehicle is immobilised so long as the unit stays in coherency with it, but destroyed as soon as they move away, allowing the player to chose to sacrifice the some of the unit's firepower for manoeuvrability or vica versa

I'd be tempted to see how swapping out the FOC for something akin to the percentage composition rules in fnatasy would work. Don't get me wrong, I like how simple the FOC is, but it seems strange to me you are limited only a certain number of elite, fast attack or heavy support options rather than a certain amount of you force being from those catagories... not sure if I'm explaining what i mean that well lol

I do think passenger in vehicles are a little too safe when their transport explodes. However I wouldn't want to go back to 4th Ed where starting a unit inside their transport was practically putting them in their coffins. Some happy median would be nice.

Finally; Kill Points. I know there is a way to design for giving away the mimum kill points in pretty much all the armies, but I really do think this has massively reduced the number of competitive builds some armies can field for tournaments, even those where kill points will only have an effect in less than a third of the games. Personnally I never had a problem with Victory Points but I can fully understand that a lot of people did and still do (especially back when barely anyone had mobiles, and almost as few carried a calculator with them to games... but that was another era). Again, I'm not sure quite what the solution would be, as I wouldn't want to play purely objective based games all the time and I would like to see armies made of several full platoons of guardsmen being able to take on much smaller, elite forces and still win when there is only a single enemy left compared to half the guardsmen.



Oh, I'd also like to see the small version of the rulebook (as per black reach) availible seperately. I'd probably buy both the full rulebook and the small one because i do like reading all the background and the like, seeing the illustrations and the like. I know when I was starting out, the hobby section in the 3rd Ed rulebook was invaluable to me, so a return to the big book being a complete hobby manual of sorts would be nice, while the slimmer, leaner pure rules version would again be so much nicer for karting around to games and tournaments.

[sangrail777]

I really hope my Blood Angel codex will still be good in another year. I hope all the codexes they recently have done and will do this year will still be good next year.
I would like to see flyer rules.
I would like to see rules for water or toxic waste
boarding action rules would be great
I think even fearless troops can get snagged in an exploded tank

ADVANCE THE STORY LINE.
AT LEAST FLUFF THE RESULTS FOR THE LAST EYE OF TERROR CAMPAIGN

Chaos Primarchs are running wild. Let at least one or 2 Loyal primarchs continue the fight.

[Rissan4ever]

I'd like to see the return of charge reactions (Stand & Fire or Retreat). This got dumped way back in 3rd ed., and it never made sense to me. If I have a gun, and you run at me screaming, why don't I get a chance to shoot you before you reach me? Likewise, if a huge monster I know I can't hurt charges me, why would I stand and fight, especially if I know I've got 20 buddies nearby that would shoot the thing dead?

I also think there should be a bonus to assaulting pinned units. That bonus would be that the pinned unit is not allowed to Stand & Fire as above. Alternatively, a pinned unit would be disallowed from benefiting from being in cover, or they'd be at -1 to hit. The point is that if someone is cowering in a trench or curled up behind a wall, they are in no position to properly receive an assault and will often be slaughtered.

I'd also like to see a return of Overwatch.

[Connjurus]

Chaos Primarchs are running wild. Let at least one or 2 Loyal primarchs continue the fight.

For someone who wants to advance the fluff, you sure don't mind disregarding it. :P Besides, just one Loyal Primarch would change the face of the Imperium - they wouldn't let the dystopia it's turned into stand. It would tear the Imperium apart.

[weeble1000]

It's not practical and won't happen, but I'd like to see alternate unit activation.

In general, I think the rules would be better if they were more streamlined and precise with more options for units during the game. I'd like to see players having to make important decisions and having more flexibility to alter tactics.

I like the idea, for example, of being able to throw grenades or use assault weapons before assaulting.

I also like the idea of charge reactions.

I'd like to be able to measure anything at any time.

I would definitely like to see a broader standard mission section.

I also like the idea of suggested ways to incorporate specialist games into campaigns, or even a simple version of the rules for specialist games included in the core book.

[Chuck777]

Something that's always bugged me is the potential power of going first. In many games, the player who goes first doesn't get to attack his opponent directly but in 40k, the person who goes first has the (potential) power to decimate his opponent's army. I watched a Guard army a few days ago single-handedly destroy a Space Marine player's army (save for 6 models) on the first turn. To me, that isn't right. Where's the fun in winning before your opponent even has a chance to play the game? There's definitely no fun in loosing that way.

I've seen many people propose ideas on how to rectify this (and other problems), reactive playing (you move one, I move one, you shoot one, I shoot one, etc.), to players moving units by their I (each player "owns" every other turn, Owning player moves all his models with a particular I, then the other player does the same, so on and so forth until everything has moved; repeat for shooting), to swapping the player turn every other turn (I go and then you go, next turn you go, then I go, next turn I go then you go, etc.), etc.

Some of the other ideas I've read here and else where would be charge reactions, which amount to what, in D&D, we'd call "Redying an Action" so that if a certain criteria has been met, a unit gets to immediately react (such as "If my unit is charged, I want to shoot the unit charging me. Or If I am shot, I want to move away, etc.). I really like this idea though I could see how it could both slow the game down and needlessly bog the game down. The easy solution for that would be to come up with a set number of reactions that any one unit can declare.

[Vaktathi]

Battletech worked really well at that, with basically each player moving their units alternatively one at a time, declaring what will shoot at what, then shooting alternatively, then all damage was actually *resolved* after everything on both sides shot, thus negating the "turn 1 no response alpha strike".

That said, it required a bit of record keeping.

[DarkLink]

I doubt that would work well on the scale of 40k. There's too much stuff going on for me to trust people to keep track of everything accurately and in a timely fashion to make it work. Otherwise, I like the way that system works.

Though if they made a set of things like this and you bought enough of them you could make it work (just replace "focus" with "wounds"):
http://images.frpgames.com/products/product_56488.jpg

[Mycroft Holmes]

Walkers/Monstrous Creatures should hit the AV they are in contact with (rather than rear.)

All Walkers(w/ DNCCW)/Monstrous Creatures should have the ability to "Hold" vehicles in place based on a (some kind of) STR v AV test similar to the Magna Grapple. Possibly instead of making attacks and is never guaranteed to succeed.

Sweeping Advance resulting in wounds equal to the number of (models X attacks) on the winning side.

Str 5 Defensive Weapons on vehicles

Force weapons do not do ID, but instead remove models and ignore Eternal Warrior

Greater variety in the included missions

[Connjurus]

Force weapons do not do ID, but instead remove models and ignore Eternal Warrior


Eternal Warrior was put into the game so that exceptionally important characters, fluff-wise, wouldn't be easily killed by 150 point no-name Librarians.

[Vaktathi]

Eternal Warrior was put into the game so that exceptionally important characters, fluff-wise, wouldn't be easily killed by 150 point no-name Librarians.

Which is silly, because we now have special rules to ignore special rules that ignore other rules...

It's doubly silly when Force Weapons were conceived of, designed and have generally been presented specifically as anti-daemon weapons, moreso in previous editions perhps, but now are no better against them than a combat knife or a fist.

EW was ok on a handful of mighty icons of the 40k universe. It's on far too many things now.

[andrewm9]

Which is silly, because we now have special rules to ignore special rules that ignore other rules...

It's doubly silly when Force Weapons were conceived of, designed and have generally been presented specifically as anti-daemon weapons, moreso in previous editions perhps, but now are no better against them than a combat knife or a fist.

EW was ok on a handful of mighty icons of the 40k universe. It's on far too many things now.

What army has more than two EW models besides Daemons? Can you think of one? I can't. I think that people are overestimating the presence of Eternal Warrior in games. People play the models that have it because it sucks to lose your expensive point cost model to one unlucky save.

[Lerra]

Hmm. There isn't an easy solution to the Top-of-Turn-One alpha strike problem. It may be more of a codex problem than a game system problem though (I'm looking at you, Imp Guard).

The only solution I can think of is that, on turn 1, the player who goes first only gets to "activate" half their army. So only half of their army's units can move/shoot/assault, and then the opponent can respond with their full army on the bottom of the turn, and then the rest of the game goes on as normal.

[Connjurus]

Hmm. There isn't an easy solution to the Top-of-Turn-One alpha strike problem. It may be more of a codex problem than a game system problem though (I'm looking at you, Imp Guard).

The only solution I can think of is that, on turn 1, the player who goes first only gets to "activate" half their army. So only half of their army's units can move/shoot/assault, and then the opponent can respond with their full army on the bottom of the turn, and then the rest of the game goes on as normal.

Well, the player that gets first turn is the "attacker" right? To represent them "attacking", howabout they're forced to hold half their army in reserve on the first turn, to have their forces just arriving at the battle, just engaging with the other player's defensive line, and then have the ones that the first-turn player DOESN'T want to be actually "in reserve" arrive at the END of the turn?

[Lerra]

I really like that idea.

[Mycroft Holmes]

Hmm. There isn't an easy solution to the Top-of-Turn-One alpha strike problem. It may be more of a codex problem than a game system problem though (I'm looking at you, Imp Guard).


There actually IS a solution present in the 4rth Ed rules.
I'm more than a little surprised that ALL missions didn't get the "Concealment" special rule. Most things deployed on the table turn 1 would be able to claim cover saves (even when not in cover!) as long as you haven't taken any actions yet.

This is a valid way to limit the turn 1 alpha strike. Unfortunately it will make assault/mid range armies stronger as they can get to their preferred ranges with less damage.

[Galadren]

There actually IS a solution present in the 4rth Ed rules.
I'm more than a little surprised that ALL missions didn't get the "Concealment" special rule. Most things deployed on the table turn 1 would be able to claim cover saves (even when not in cover!) as long as you haven't taken any actions yet.

This is a valid way to limit the turn 1 alpha strike. Unfortunately it will make assault/mid range armies stronger as they can get to their preferred ranges with less damage.

Yeah, but if you go second on turn 1 and you're already down a sizeable portion of your army, and you still need to cross the table.

[Mycroft Holmes]

Yeah, but if you go second on turn 1 and you're already down a sizeable portion of your army, and you still need to cross the table.

That's the way it is currently. Going second on turn 1 with an army that really wants to start on the table, against a much better shooting army, often leads to large chunks of your army never even getting a turn. Concealment would give most of those units some form of cover save; probably a 5+ or even some kind of free "Stealth" to a unit that hasn't moved/shot/ran yet.

This means that the person going first will have less effective shooting and the person going second will have much more effective shooting due to not losing as many units/models and no Concealment for enemy units that took actions.

[doom-kitten]

Welp in Flames of war the player who goes first is unable to fire any of their artillery on the first turn they can move it and such but can't shoot, this is meant to represent the guns locating their targets and preparing their ammunition supply. It wouldn't be difficult to incorporate this into 40k they'd just have to specify what is artillery, additionally I think units should be able to do more when gone to ground, historically they didn't lie their being shelled, they'd poke their heads up to take shots. And pinning, pinning really needs to be revised just because your fearless doesn't mean your stupid and when your being torn up by bullets you don't just go meh.

[Archduke]

I really like 5th edition rules overall, things I might change are really just the rules for mission deployment and such.


Spearhead + bases almost always equals a draw. Dawn of War is just not fun. KP is stupid, VP is significantly better which is why tournaments almost exclusivly use VP instead because KP rules are really wierd when some armies can bring a 3-5 kp army at 1850 (marines, Ig using platoons, etc). Two of the deployment varients in the book are pretty much the same most of the time (bases and d3+3 objectives). Maybe something where you must keep your hq alive or something might be fun instead (maybe called headhunter).

I terms of rules besides that I am pretty happy with them. Generally I think most imbalace in 40k comes from the codeces rather then the rule book.

[DarkLink]

None of those solutions are fair to the player with first turn. The answer to avoiding alpha strikes is already in the rulebook, under the "play smart" section;).

Seriously, though, an appropriate amount of LOS blocking terrain on the board and intelligent deployment on behalf of the second turn player should mitigate the damage. Yeah, sure, you might get really lucky and blow their whole army off the board because your dice are on fire and they can't make a cover save, but that's just unavoidable variability in the dice. Screwing over the player with first turn is not the answer to the problem.

And frankly it's not really all that much of a problem. IG and DE can alphastrike, but DE are also way fragile so they need to be able to do a ton of damage quickly. And IG are very potent, but they're not unbeatable by any means.

[msg101]

That's the way it is currently. Going second on turn 1 with an army that really wants to start on the table, against a much better shooting army, often leads to large chunks of your army never even getting a turn. Concealment would give most of those units some form of cover save; probably a 5+ or even some kind of free "Stealth" to a unit that hasn't moved/shot/ran yet.

This means that the person going first will have less effective shooting and the person going second will have much more effective shooting due to not losing as many units/models and no Concealment for enemy units that took actions.

I like this idea. I also think this is why you need to play the game with a at least 25% (preferably more) of the table having terrain. This allows both players to hide their units and avoid getting shot to hell in the first turn.

[Connjurus]

None of those solutions are fair to the player with first turn.

And yet the Daemon codex does my suggestion anyway, only worse...

[DarkLink]

That's to balance out the fact that they must always deepstrike, combined with the fact that they have little long range shooting.

[Brettila]

Take out all of the things that were supposed to, "Speed up the game" but really cause slowness and angst.

TLOS is total BS, and even Cavatore admitted it. Everyone on the table should not have a 4+ cover save as it makes the cost paid for power armor virtually meaningless.

Get rid of the stupid Fantasy-style combat resolution. These are 'trained' warriors with headsets, etc. They should not run as quickly as Medieval peasants. Also, if a running unit outnumbers the pursuer by 2 to 1 or more they should not be wiped out. One assault guy should not kill a 25 man unit. The pursuer could count as charging again or something, but currently it is silly.

Wound allocation needs to go. It is realy slowing, abusable, and penalizes players for shooting successfully. I know in my heart it does not work as was envisioned originally. "Wow, Larry, you did awesome. Twenty wounds from one unit! Too bad all 4 melta guns hit this one puke over here..." In close combat as well. Rol the dice, roll the saves, owner removes the appropriate number of models. There has not been an army for quite a few generations that did not have every member of a squad conversive with the use of all weapons in the squad. Don't give me that, "The weapon is destroyed...every single time..." garbage they say in the book.

And personally, I hate the rules for blast markers. Let me shoot my plasma cannons, etc. based on my BS. That is why I have the stat in the first place.

[HsojVvad]

Something needs to be done about units hiding and cowering in vehicles. It is not fair a unit can be in a vehicle, it can fire at someone and it can't be touched in return.

This really makes the Space Marines pretty cowardly in my opnion. Just as Bad as Klingons have to hide and cower in a cloaked ship to attack an opponent, It is just not the Klingon way to hide like a Romulan, it's just not like a Space Marine to hide in a vehicle like a human Guard, they should be out, in the thick of battle.

Also they need something to speed up the game. Pretty bad, I roll to hit you, I roll to see if I wound you, then you roll for armour save.

It should be, I roll to hit you, you roll to armour save, anything left over is to see if I wound then. This way less and less dice are rolled each time. I find it rediculous, how can I wound you, but you save a wound. Then again, alot of people don't like the I move you move, so I guess this wouldn't fly either.

Also the number of dice that can be rolled is getting a bit rediculous now. A 30 devilgaunt Tyranid brood can shoot 90 dice, while some Orks can shoot100+? Someone got upset with me when I tried to roll 20 dice all at once instead of in groups of 10. Then trying to pick out what hit, what missed, gets a tedious with that many dice. While it seems exciting, just to count that many dice, slows the game down. What can take it's place, I have no idea.

If we are to keep the I move, I shoot, I assault, there should be a rule as was said before, about where a person can inderect his move. Something like in Lord of the Rings where a person has a Heroic move where he moves out of phase and can't move or shoot when it's his turn. We already have counters for these things or make some new ones so this shouldn't be that bad then. Have leaders declare a heroic move so you can move out of phase or turn.

Also what can we use for victory conditions? I like objectives and KP. To bad people just refuse to adapt. Maybe 6th edtion can still keep it and have side objectives or victory condtions as well, just besides the main one. Our club seems to be doing this now. There is the main objectives in the BRB and they add in side objectives too so you can get the minor victory in. Not sure if this is for people who can't get out of 4th edtion. Never played 4th edtion so I will not know.

[DarkLink]

Nothing wrong with units in vehicles. GW just buffed vehicles too much and made vehicles too cheap after how weak they were in 4th. Rhinos and Chimeras are worth now what they were in their 4th ed renditions thanks to the buffs to vehicle, but now they're cheaper on top of that.



TLOS is total BS, and even Cavatore admitted it.

The comune (municipality) in the Province of Alessandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavatore) announced they didn't like TLOS? Weird.



And personally, I hate the rules for blast markers. Let me shoot my plasma cannons, etc. based on my BS. That is why I have the stat in the first place.

Warmachine works better. If you hit normally, you don't scatter. If you miss, then you do scatter.

[Mauglum.]

HI all.
I would like a complete re-write!
There is NOTHING in 5th edition that could not be replaced with something FAR better.

At what point does using Napoleonic game mechanics makes sense for use with modern unit types?

Its like writing the rules for football, basing them on the rules for golf!

Lots of exceptions and very few actual rules .....just like 40k 5th ed:D.

TTFN

[Telepfenion]

@ Lockark
Heh. I know game would be way different from current due lots of curiosity I mixed in.

@ Connjurus
My post wasn't refined, just listing of ideas that got in my head when I did read about topic. Lacking the numbering was basic error and still I made it. Thank you for fixing it up. I originally meant to write some deeper thought about each suggestion but after few points my head was flooded by ideas. Too slow keep up with them.

1. Nail in the head if favors speed over strategies. Both simply have their aspects.

2-5. Feel no Pain has become quite regular 'special' rule, giving extra layer of defense due additional saving throw. So two-save system (Warhammer has three layers at best) is already pretty common even supposed to base on selective one-save system. So evolving this to selective two-save system would give everyone possibility to two saves and four aspects to counter if wishing direct kill. Currently light armours has no real use at all while high invulnerable save doesn't give just protection but freedom of movement.

Making each type of save prone for different factors, and if well balanced, number of rolls would stay the same while tactical aspect would increase. Pairing FnP and Armour save would make models either truly tough or well-armoured, allowing shrug off the harm. Pairing Cover and Invulnerable saves would be extra 'miss chance' for shots.

If each save has its own weaknesses, even assault terminators with FnP could end situation where they would want to be within a cover against shooting. That is why I listed poison to negate FnP (maybe poison destroys genetics or causes crippling mutations etc), more cover denying weapons and unstable Invulnerable saves (Can't trust warp stuff and maybe assassin just trips oneself while dodging a bullet?).

Of course, my listing without clear connection made those look like stand-alone changes and it didn't truly served the point. While ”more saves”, I also wanted to more ways to counter them.

6, 10. Actually, point six's note should be extended to cover saves from terrain too. One wouldn't need to separately target terrain to destroy it but it would get razed to ground as side-effect of firefight. Trooper is hiding behind roof-supporting pillar and pillar is hit instead him... Currently lascannon would have power to destroy that pillar if it would be originally aimed to it but because it hits it just accidentally, nothing happens. If result would transfer forward, whole building could go down, even if not originally intended to.

8. True, not necessary weapon's actual maximum range but kind of odd if only target within optimal range is specific individual and unit gets order to bring it down. However, after all hits and wounds, only futherest enemies are down and aimed target at gun point isn't even scratched. Or if shooting vehicle in squadron, vehicle almost twice over weapons 'effective' range away gets blown up instead the one in point blank.

11. True, it would be potent with models with fleet, but not sure how many units have all three required qualities (serious assault weapon capacity, fleet and close combat potential) to be truly dangerous. Well, fleeting terminator squad maybe, but idea of running terminators is odd for me anyhow. Most of other case it would give only few extra shots.

12. Maybe so. However, fleet was originally codex spesicif version of running and then it become available for everyone. I would expect this happen eventually for overwatch too, thus why let non-imperial armies to wait new codex?

14. Oh well. Maybe true. But at least on extra result as 7+ is still possible, maybe even bigger explosion that also kills all passenger if any.

15, 17: Simply creating third dimension for the game. They have technology for it.

16. There is currently just jet packs and jump packs known by rules but there could be also warp packs and fly packs as well? I know assault marines doesn't fly but currently their jump packs (technically ”leap-enchanters”) are used as guideline for ”flying” units as well yet apart humans, closest thing anyone else has to actual jump packs are ork rockets...

18. Once again, sounds cruel. On other hand, if working with suggestions from 2-5 and 16, terminators would be giving up running ability for teleporting and use both armour and invunerable saves against every shot (unless those, of course, somehow denied).

19. Maybe. However, doesn't space marines and imperial guards get assault grenades for free, while rest of armies has to 'buy' them ir available at all?

20. Why not? It would allows 'stun' gear that doesn't need to kill to have effect. Decide, which one is more likely cause unit to go to ground – sniper shot that silently kills last man in queue or shot that knocks off a helmet but doesn't kill the victim?

21. Sounds fair. As long as fearless doesn't make immune effects that aren't mental.

22. True. Haven't thought it to the end. Scouts units with ability to delay enemy reserves`instead entering the battle with risk of getting destroyed?

@ General

About alpha-strikes.

I liked idea about halved attacking force to prevent 1st turn wipe-out. But, on other hand, shooting-heavy armies would go second, trying wipe out opponent's first half before second comes in... Going to hurt a lot if attacker is actually assault focused army. Not only to withstand wrath of almost full enemy army, it has only half of its forces to go against it.

No real experience from Flames of War but doom-kitty's suggestion inability to use artillery on first turn wasn't too bad. In this case, artillery could mean heavy weapons – after all, only few armies rely on actual artillery pieces... It would give attacker time relocate, turbo-boost, some small-arm shooting etc. and still have full force on table once opponent opens fire.

Heh, Actually made me wonder how 40k factions would transfer to FoW rulesetting... Oh well, it doesn't belong here.

with best wishes
Telepfenion

[DarkLink]

I liked idea about halved attacking force to prevent 1st turn wipe-out. But, on other hand, shooting-heavy armies would go second, trying wipe out opponent's first half before second comes in... Going to hurt a lot if attacker is actually assault focused army. Not only to withstand wrath of almost full enemy army, it has only half of its forces to go against it.

Outstanding point. When you make rules, you have to think out the consequences, or you end up with things like this. You design the rules to fix a problem that doesn't really exist, only to create a much bigger problem than you had in the first place.

A player takes first in order to attempt to alpha strike the opponent's army. A player takes second in order to force the other guy to deploy first, and to get the last word when it comes to taking objective. This balances itself pretty well.

[MrGiggles]

Lots of good and interesting ideas for sure.

On Kill Points, my main issue is how often they seem to come up when I wind up rolling for the mission. Honestly, that's not the mechanic's fault. That being said though, I'm open to trying new ways of killing stuff.

Cover saves, I actually like, but the mechanic really needs to be fleshed out more. The fact of the matter is that pretty much everything winds up being a 4+ cover save these days whether it should be or not. Some more time and clarification would probably fix that right up.

I think the idea of vehicles that move and shoot has been pretty well done in this edition, but I also think vehicles wind up being just a little too hard to crack in 5th. The net result is the rule of thumb 'Never get off the bus unless you're really, really sure.' I'd just like to see some danger added to being embarked. The flip side is that I don't think vehicle squadrons are quite right either. I don't really have an issue with the idea of the squadron wandering away from their immobilized companions. I think that's fine and that counting the orphan as destroyed works well. Would it be too much to ask to allow me to stop and try to fix the broken vehicle if I've got a Mekboy or Techmarine around?

My final bit though, I'd like to see Perils of the Warp get more interesting. They're pretty simple now, which is fine. With all of these crazy, new psychic powers popping up though, I'd really like to see some more interesting things happening when a psyker blows it. I'd still like it to be relatively simple to run though, maybe a hilarious table for doubles or something.

[DrLove42]

Cover saves, I actually like, but the mechanic really needs to be fleshed out more. The fact of the matter is that pretty much everything winds up being a 4+ cover save these days whether it should be or not. Some more time and clarification would probably fix that right up.


But they don't right now! If people actually use the rule book theres different cover that offers different saves! Not everything gives a 4+, just thats how most people seem to play it!

[Skragger]

I think high AP weapons should apply negative modifiers to cover saves, myself.

Hello! I have a strength D, titan killing weapon. You have a low hedge. You still get a chance to live.
Therefore: Titans are easier to break than low hedges.

[Paul]

Hello! I have a strength D, titan killing weapon. You have a low hedge. You still get a chance to live.
Therefore: Titans are easier to break than low hedges.

Admittedly, Str. D ignores cover, but a better example:

I have a demolisher siege cannon, famous for turning Land Raiders and the toughest concrete bunkers into piles of debris.

You have a low hedge. You have a chance to live.

Therefore, Land Raiders and the galaxy's toughest concrete bunkers are easier to break than low hedges.

OR, to illustrate why weapons having AP values is hilarious:

I have a Manticore. You are a Space Marine. You get a 3+ Save, but I pen a Land Raider with d3 Templates on a 5 or 6 on 2d6 and pick the highest.

Therefore, Marines are tougher than Land Raiders.

[Skragger]

[QUOTE=SotonShades;125706]I'd like to see more models and more Codicies in 6th Ed, not to mention a quicker turn around updating all the codicies for the new edition. I'd also like to see a longer period of time when all codicies are updated for the current edition before moving on to the next edition...

In terms of the actual rules, well that's a bit more tricky. In gneneral I really like how 5th Ed plays. If I didn't then I wouldn't play it. I still know a few people who play 3rd Ed using 3rd Ed Codicies because they prefer the way the game plays. All power to them, but not for me.

I quite like the idea of something like overwatch, or a stand-and-shoot reaction to being charged. Maybe not exactly how overwatch used to work, or how stand and shoot works in fantasy, but something of that ilk; perhaps being able to fire pistols or assault weapons at a reasonably high initiative if you are charged, rather than fighting with the models normal CC attacks.

/[QUOTE]

The idea of the charge reactions from Fantasy bring some interesting ideas to the board in the 40K universe. Do I stand and shoot with my tau firewarriors, and hope for the best? Or do we break rank and fall back? 40K got started with the Death or Glory idea, but it could be pretty nicely flushed out for infantry charges. The prevailance of guns in the 40K universe CAN make this more one-sided for shooty armies, but you limit it by saying "if they shot during their turn, no stand and shoot option", or "they fire maybe half the number of guns" or something, I don't know.. its half baked.

[Skragger]

Admittedly, Str. D ignores cover, but a better example:

I have a demolisher siege cannon, famous for turning Land Raiders and the toughest concrete bunkers into piles of debris.

You have a low hedge. You have a chance to live.

Therefore, Land Raiders and the galaxy's toughest concrete bunkers are easier to break than low hedges.

OR, to illustrate why weapons having AP values is hilarious:

I have a Manticore. You are a Space Marine. You get a 3+ Save, but I pen a Land Raider with d3 Templates on a 5 or 6 on 2d6 and pick the highest.

Therefore, Marines are tougher than Land Raiders.

Might kudos sir! You managed to make me cry from laughter at work. Now people are looking at me strange. Warhammer 40,000: 1, corporate structure: 0! :D:D

[Connjurus]

Admittedly, Str. D ignores cover, but a better example:

I have a demolisher siege cannon, famous for turning Land Raiders and the toughest concrete bunkers into piles of debris.

You have a low hedge. You have a chance to live.

Therefore, Land Raiders and the galaxy's toughest concrete bunkers are easier to break than low hedges.

OR, to illustrate why weapons having AP values is hilarious:

I have a Manticore. You are a Space Marine. You get a 3+ Save, but I pen a Land Raider with d3 Templates on a 5 or 6 on 2d6 and pick the highest.

Therefore, Marines are tougher than Land Raiders.

If it was Strength 10, but had AP 3 or 2, and did D3 extra blast markers, it would have to cost a ridiculous amount to balance it. Also, I see it as the blast-wave having AP4 - the Space Marine who fails his save is the guy the missile landed on.

[Paul]

If it was Strength 10, but had AP 3 or 2, and did D3 extra blast markers, it would have to cost a ridiculous amount to balance it. Also, I see it as the blast-wave having AP4 - the Space Marine who fails his save is the guy the missile landed on.

Lol; it's still silly that I can make the crew of a land raider scream for mercy as rockets arc downwards from the sky...

and make a space marine squad go "WOT WAS THAT?" while dusting themselves off and picking up their boltguns in a slightly irritated manner.

[Connjurus]

Alrighty, then have fun with your 375 point tank if you want it to be AP3 or AP2. ;)

[Lockark]

Alrighty, then have fun with your 375 point tank if you want it to be AP3 or AP2. ;)

You might as well take a achilles land raider or a Baneblade for that point cost.

XD

[Admiral Kenaris]

It is too easy to kill vehicles in assualts. I think they should make assualting vehicles a one swing per model affair whether you use grenades or not.

[SotonShades]

It is too easy to kill vehicles in assualts. I think they should make assualting vehicles a one swing per model affair whether you use grenades or not.

Maybe one swing if you want to hit against rear armour, but multiple swings just to hit the armour you are facing to better represent warriors carefully placing their attacks against weak spots or just smashing wildly at the armour.

[Connjurus]

It is too easy to kill vehicles in assualts. I think they should make assualting vehicles a one swing per model affair whether you use grenades or not.

That's the thing, though...if you can get up close to a vehicle like a tank IRL, all it takes is a shaped charge to disable it. It's why tanks aren't very good in urban environments, and why they have infantry screens. I think it's fine the way it is now, because it's a good representation of what will happen if your infantry-screen DOES get smashed and your tanks are left vulnerable to infantry with anti-tank charges.

[Paul]

That's the thing, though...if you can get up close to a vehicle like a tank IRL, all it takes is a shaped charge to disable it. It's why tanks aren't very good in urban environments, and why they have infantry screens. I think it's fine the way it is now, because it's a good representation of what will happen if your infantry-screen DOES get smashed and your tanks are left vulnerable to infantry with anti-tank charges.

This is not 100% true. By 40k Logic, bayonets would've been our most effective anti-tank weapon. Here's why:

Premises:
1) The Leman Russ tank is made of adamantine-plassteel armor
2) The German Tiger II was not.
3) The rear armor of said Leman Russ is 10.
4) The rear armor of a Tiger II, therefore, is at maximum 9.
5) A Regular Human in 40k is Strength 3.
6) With sufficient flailing, a Regular Human could 'glance' the rear armor of a Tiger II.
7) Tiger IIs were never fielded singly, only in 'squadrons' or 'platoons'.
8) You can kill a tank in a squadron with a glancing hit.

Conclusions:
1) A Regular Human can destroy a Tiger II with sufficient flailing.
2) A Regular Human can rip the main gun off of a Tiger II with sufficient flailing.
3) A Regular Human can immobilize a Tiger II permanently with sufficient flailing.
4) A Regular Human can scare the crew of a Tiger II into not shooting or moving the tank with sufficient flailing.
5) A Regular Human can scare the gunner(s) of a Tiger II into not shooting, yet leave the driver unfazed, with sufficient flailing.


Additional: Note that tanks are NOT as bad in terrain as they seem in 40k. For example, tanks would regularly tank shock infantry in real life, and lose very few of their numbers to specialized, tank hunting infantry units armed with proper equipment. Do not overestimate the effectiveness of a person against a tank.

Additional 2: Note that in 40k ranges are much shorter than in real life, considering the average charge distance of a foot-borne man is 1/6th the maximum range of the tanks gun (12"). Therefore, a departure from real life is required in order to properly represent the role of tanks (that is to say, not armored transports which seem to be all the rage these days).

[Connjurus]

This is not 100% true. By 40k Logic, bayonets would've been our most effective anti-tank weapon. Here's why:

Premises:
1) The Leman Russ tank is made of adamantine-plassteel armor
2) The German Tiger II was not.
3) The rear armor of said Leman Russ is 10.
4) The rear armor of a Tiger II, therefore, is at maximum 9.
5) A Regular Human in 40k is Strength 3.
6) With sufficient flailing, a Regular Human could 'glance' the rear armor of a Tiger II.
7) Tiger IIs were never fielded singly, only in 'squadrons' or 'platoons'.
8) You can kill a tank in a squadron with a glancing hit.

Conclusion:
A Regular Human can destroy a Tiger II with sufficient flailing.

A D6 game-system is also an imperfect translation of real-world physics, but my point stands that close-combat against vehicles shouldn't be nerfed at all.

Besides, Khorne Berzerkers on the charge chopping their way through a Leman Russ is an awesome mental image and I can totally picture it in my head.

[Paul]

A D6 game-system is also an imperfect translation of real-world physics, but my point stands that close-combat against vehicles shouldn't be nerfed at all.

Besides, Khorne Berzerkers on the charge chopping their way through a Leman Russ is an awesome mental image and I can totally picture it in my head.

Go get a chainsaw and hit even 30mm of steel. Tell me what happens.

Then tell me that the same chainsaw, wielded by an admittedly much stronger person, can penetrate 200mm of adamantine-plassteel armor (the front of a Leman Russ).

If you think the Khorne Berzerker is going to slow his charge, leap onto the tank, climb several feet to the hatch, and then start hacking away, then MAYBE I could see it happening. If the tank was sitting still and defenseless. Maybe.


Additional: If the d6 system isn't a good reflection of the real world, why use the real world as an example of what to do in a very specific situation?

[Connjurus]

Go get a chainsaw and hit even 30mm of steel. Tell me what happens.

Then tell me that the same chainsaw, wielded by an admittedly much stronger person, can penetrate 200mm of adamantine-plassteel armor (the front of a Leman Russ).

If you think the Khorne Berzerker is going to slow his charge, leap onto the tank, climb several feet to the hatch, and then start hacking away, then MAYBE I could see it happening. If the tank was sitting still and defenseless. Maybe.


Additional: If the d6 system isn't a good reflection of the real world, why use the real world as an example of what to do in a very specific situation?

Because if they didn't look to the real world for what happens in situation A), the same people complaining about this rule now would be complaining about the lack of realism. Also, considering that Space Marines can lift trucks, I see it more as them punching the armor paneling, maybe exploiting a previous glancing blow, peeling back the armor, and just generally going apepoop crazy. Also, climbing several feet for a Space Marine isn't that bad at all.

[Paul]

Because if they didn't look to the real world for what happens in situation A), the same people complaining about this rule now would be complaining about the lack of realism. Also, considering that Space Marines can lift trucks, I see it more as them punching the armor paneling, maybe exploiting a previous glancing blow, peeling back the armor, and just generally going apepoop crazy. Also, climbing several feet for a Space Marine isn't that bad at all.

Ah, the super human punching tanks to death because he can lift a truck.

Lifting != Punching, at all. The forces and effort involved in each are completely different.

And climbing several feet isn't bad for the Marine, unless that which he is climbing is moving 30kph and he is being shot at by other tanks.

That's something else which bugs me. If you're going to climb on a tank, you expose yourself to the unmitigated HE and MG fire from the other tanks. In this game, since you line up around the tank instead of climbing on it, you get a 4+ cover save from same.

[soupcat]

I would like to point out paul that stat wise the average human in this game would be S2, the S3 used in this game is used to stat the peak of normal human strength, ie cadians, the top 10% of a world where everyone is raised from birth to serve in the guard or eldar/dark eldar a race of ancient highly evolved race.
Sorry to interrupt just a pet peeve

[Paul]

I would like to point out paul that stat wise the average human in this game would be S2, the S3 used in this game is used to stat the peak of normal human strength, ie cadians, the top 10% of a world where everyone is raised from birth to serve in the guard or eldar/dark eldar a race of ancient highly evolved race.
Sorry to interrupt just a pet peeve

I would like to counter-point out that Mordians, Cadians, Tallarn, Steel Legion, etc. are all Str. 3.

So, it seems that anyone with the (admittedly rigorous) Imperial training regimen is Str.3.

I would argue that the average Roman Legionary, or American soldier, would pass the strength and fitness requirements to serve in the Imperial Guard.

[HsojVvad]

Why nerf the Tyranids and I believe Deamons even more with trying to take out a vehicle?

[Skragger]

I would like to counter-point out that Mordians, Cadians, Tallarn, Steel Legion, etc. are all Str. 3.

So, it seems that anyone with the (admittedly rigorous) Imperial training regimen is Str.3.

I would argue that the average Roman Legionary, or American soldier, would pass the strength and fitness requirements to serve in the Imperial Guard.

Fully agreed. The Imperial Guard aren't taking slightly overweight, clumsy clouts like myself (creed aside..), they take people like me, and train them to be better. Take any professionally trained soldier (the french aside..), or battle hardened people (i.e Spartans, Vikings), and you'd get the stats for your average Guardsman. Just my 2 cents (CDN!)

[Occam]

Apparently, this was a rule in 4th that got removed from 5th.

Destroyed/blow-ed up vehicles auto-pin the units embarked inside. "Wrecked" vehicle's occupants may automatically disembark/run 3" or something if they so choose. But especially that first one.

When I was in a car accident on Thanksgiving two years ago, I was dazed for a while and more than a bit out of it. I didn't just open the car and be like "WHO'S FOR CHINESE!" Now, imagine your car explodes. You don't dust yourself off and go into work, you either die, are horribly maimed or, by some miracle, you survive, but you don't shrug it off as a bloody nuisance like most armies seem to do. I'm looking at you, Spess Mehrines!

Oh, and allow maybe another army or two to deep strike on first turn. But that's more of a codex issue than a core rule issue.

[BrokenWing]

Yeah it was a rule, and it was terrible and destroyed transport vehicles and a few armies in the process.

[DarkLink]

No, what destroyed transports is that you had to disembark after any penetrating hit, and vehicles were more expensive and much more fragile, and you had the autopinning. All those things together were horrible. The current mech rules, combined with only 5+ cover and auto pinning only if the transport is wrecked or destroyed would be much more balanced. Old vehicles weren't good enough, new vehicle are too good, so we settle on some middle ground.

[BrokenWing]

I actually forgot about all that crap because my group house ruled it out about 5 seconds after reading the 4th edition rulebook for the first time.

[DarkLink]

Actually, a thought I just had was that it could be a sort of 'half-pinning' for a wrecked or destroyed vehicle. The unit wouldn't be able to move since they're busy bailing out of a burning wreck, but they can shoot or something.

Or that could be a benefit to being fearless. Fearless dudes don't give a #$%, so while they may still get tripped up and not be able to move far they can still shoot people and assault.

Either way, transports are too good now so they need a bit of a nerf. 5+ cover and autopinning after wrecked/destroyed results would be just about right to bring them down a notch without making them useless.


I could also see passangers not being able to shoot if any damage result is suffered, as they don't want to stick their heads out while bullets are bouncing off their transport's hull. Again, Fearless models could maybe ignore this.

[BrokenWing]

Why not just make it a standard pinning test? Auto pinning reminds me of being yelled out by a Blood Angels player early in 4th for blowing up his rhino, resulting in his best squad being completely destroyed as it spent a turn pinned in the middle of the table.

As for not being able to shoot out of a vehicle because it took some minor amount of damage...wouldn't that just make all tank guard even more powerful? It would damage them a little sure, but what about all the other armies that rely on shooting out of their transports so they don't get blown to hell by giant templates of doom?

[jorz192]

True Line of Sight has been very bad for 40K. It has made the game less tactical and sucked a lot of realism away from the game. Entire battlefields have become open killing fields with no place to hide since we were hit with TLOS (sure, you get a 4+ cover save but that isn't nearly as important as actually being able to hide).

The worst part of TLOS is that it has almost removed forests from the game. In the real world you CAN'T see through forests. Units can use them to conceal themselves from the enemy. You can hide in forests in real life. There is no good way that I've seen to make forests for a tabletop that do what real forests do. Tabletop forests are always highly representational... sometimes just some green felt and a few tree. With TLOS you can always be seen... forest are amongst the most open parts of the board at most places I play (as far as True Line of Sight goes).

So there is my rant. True Line of Sight must die.

Well the actual problem with forests is the way they are modeled. The trees used for terrain are tiny and if they were taller and broader, more in scale to the models then forested areas would be perfectly feasible.
It just requires more effort to model usable wooded areas.

And I like TLOS:p

[BrokenWing]

Forests shouldn't be a problem, they are very clearly area terrain as defined in the rulebook, so if you are not a vehicle and are in a forest, you get a cover save. If you aren't using them as area terrain, then yes, forests are useless.

[tactica]

To be honest I think they more or less had it spot on with 4thed. I would be happy if we went back to that

[BrokenWing]

Me too, when it comes to line of sight. I like the idea of true line of sight, but it causes so many arguments.

[darthken]

id like to be able to shoot with my troops out of an open topped vehicle that moves 12"

as it stands now i can move my raider 12" get out, then rapid fire. but i can't move 12" and fire out of it????????

to me that dosen't make much sense,

[Mauglum.]

Do any rules in 40k make sense?

Comparing 40k to previous editions just shows the cyclical nature of the development.

Comparing 40k to other rule sets shows how overcomplicated and abstract the rules realy are.

[Xas]

I'd like to change it from one phase for every unit then another phase and then the other player to the following:

player A chooses one unit that then does a move, shoot, assoult phase then player B chooses one unit and so forth.

after that an activation marker could be placed on each unit and once all units are activated the markers are removed.



then some special orders could be used like overwatch/coverfire.

overwatch would mean that a unit would forego shooting and asosult and instead could stoot at a later point in time after an enemy unit has moved in their LOS/weapon range.

coverfire would mean that a unit would support another unit and automatically shoot at the first enemy unit to shoot/assoult (could be two modes) the supported unit, probably even forcing that unit to switch target to the covering unit (lds check with modifiers based on number of wounds caused before saves would be a good idea).

[Azrell]

I'd like to change it from one phase for every unit then another phase and then the other player to the following:

player A chooses one unit that then does a move, shoot, assoult phase then player B chooses one unit and so forth.

after that an activation marker could be placed on each unit and once all units are activated the markers are removed.



then some special orders could be used like overwatch/coverfire.

overwatch would mean that a unit would forego shooting and asosult and instead could stoot at a later point in time after an enemy unit has moved in their LOS/weapon range.

coverfire would mean that a unit would support another unit and automatically shoot at the first enemy unit to shoot/assoult (could be two modes) the supported unit, probably even forcing that unit to switch target to the covering unit (lds check with modifiers based on number of wounds caused before saves would be a good idea).

I think your just playing the wrong game...

[HsojVvad]

id like to be able to shoot with my troops out of an open topped vehicle that moves 12"

as it stands now i can move my raider 12" get out, then rapid fire. but i can't move 12" and fire out of it????????

to me that dosen't make much sense,

What doesn't make sense is that vehicles are the end all protection for people inside. They can shoot out of but can't be hit then? Even with Psychic powers? I say get rid of vehicles because I find it Pathetic the All mighty Space Marines have to hide and cower inside them espically to claim an objective.

That rule needs to go.

[BrokenWing]

Um...you want to remove vehicles?

[DarkLink]

id like to be able to shoot with my troops out of an open topped vehicle that moves 12"

as it stands now i can move my raider 12" get out, then rapid fire. but i can't move 12" and fire out of it????????

to me that dosen't make much sense,

Ok, go take your jeep, and have your buddy drive you out to some forest somewhere. Now have him floor it over some rough terrain, while you hang out the window with your rifle. Try and hit something.

For safety reasons, don't actually do that. It would be stupid and dangerous to try.

[HsojVvad]

Um...you want to remove vehicles?

I play Tyranids, why do I need them? All they are is a place for the Mighty Space Marines to hide and cower in. I just don't like rules that are Saftey Bubbles where you can't get hurt from with no worries but can do damage then.

This has nothing to do with Sprit Leach rule. I just don't like how Psychic hoods can effect units in vehicles but Shadows in the Warp can't.

While it hasn't happened yet, I just don't like how SW can use JofWW be in a vehicle but there is no defence agaisnt it at ALL. You already hiding in a vehcile, the unit or mini can't be touched, no defence agaisnt it.

Something needs to be done about SM hiding in vehicles and still be able to claim objectives. I hate that so much. That goes agaisnt the fluff so much, I don't like it and it's not much fun.

[BrokenWing]

But guard doing it twice as much you have no problem with? Vehicles are a necessary and interesting part of the game. If it weren't for guard being so crazy good at shooting, you wouldn't see people hiding in vehicles all the time. As it is, it's the only way for alot of other armies to actually stand a chance against them. As for you not needing vehicles so why have them....there are other people and other armies in this game, sorry.

As for their being no defense...I'm *really* surprised you can't deal with vehicles as Tyranids...and can't see downsides to them like getting hurt when they explode, or possibly being pinned when they're wrecked, or being stuck in place when they're immobilized.

[Schlitzaf]

I've only played late 4th and now the entire time of 5th edition, but what I would like to change the most is mission variety.

I don't know about others but I'm kinda anwoyed playing same 9 missions over and over again (which is why I prefer Battle Missions Ultimate Mission Table (1-3 reg 4-5 themed 6 random) (except I always roll Vangaurd :( ).

Cover is ok, being a Marine Player (BT to be exact) I could care less if it got worse, but I can understand how other armies need it.

Decrease the amount of "easy" first turn charges (Turboing Ravens comes to mind), new USR, or simply more variety everything has Furious Charge or Feel no Pain (more so then not), some variety is nice imho

pardon any fail grammer or spelling

[BrokenWing]

You can't charge on the same turn you turbo boost in a storm raven.

[GrenAcid]

Do any rules in 40k make sense?

Comparing 40k to previous editions just shows the cyclical nature of the development.

Comparing 40k to other rule sets shows how overcomplicated and abstract the rules realy are.
+1 but not in 100%, we play abstract game of super-humans shooting aliens with laser guns and at the same time scream for "real" rules?? Its called madness...or Sparta.


I just don't like how Psychic hoods can effect units in vehicles but Shadows in the Warp can't.
Why it cant?? siting in vehicle is still being on battlefield so why not?

While I read Goatboy wishlist about rules it strikes me that more than half on them are just plain stupid and make this game even more complicated. What could be done is made rules in steps, Alfa-just basics with no fancy and unnesesary rolls kinda like we have it now in 5ed, then Gamma- with some advanced rules(more precise and "real") and then Omega-total hardcore rule set for those who want spend their friday nigthts studing them. Bang we have solution everyones happy, world moved on.

[Mauglum.]

GrenAcid.
Its not like GW made a great game about the 40k universe , using elegant intuitive rules that were in synergy with the background and player expectations...Oh that right they did! it is called Epic Armageddon...:D

Just because we use fantastical looking minatures and background set 1,000s of years in the future.
Its no excuse for poor rules writing , driven by marketing the latest releases is it?

We can call for clarity and brevity in rule sets no matter what the game setting.
And ask for general expectations to be followed to make the rules intuitive.
And if the developers use the most apropriate game mechanics and resolution methods that can make an intelegent and elegant rule set.

But while the GW plc chairman belives they are '... in the buisnes sof selling toy soldiers to kiddies...' I am not hopeful of any actual improvment in the 40k rule set any time soon.

[HsojVvad]

Why it cant?? siting in vehicle is still being on battlefield so why not?


GW nerfed Shadows in the Warp in the Tyranid FAQ so while a psychic hood can effect units in vehicles, SintW can't because of the FAQ.

[Defenestratus]

I'd like them to bring back racial movement rates. You could make it really simple.

Humans, 4" move,
Adeptus Astartes, 5" move,
Orks, 4"
Small bugs, 6", big bugs 4"
Eldar, 6"
etc.

[GrenAcid]

@Mauglum.
Im aware of that:(:(

@HsojVvad
:eek::eek: That is just rubbish faq rule, "haha Im gonna pass sector wide shadow by hiding in to a metal can and send cry for help....those tyranids neva see it comin" I think we could just scrap that rule and play normal cuz its sily.

@Defenestratus
Sounds like 2ed.....and more stuff to remember....

[Defenestratus]

You're right it sounds like 2nd. Some people don't like how incredibly dumbed down the game has become. Army-wide movement rates wouldn't add anything really to remember beyond what the WS a model is.

[Lockark]

If I wanted to play 2nd ed, I would play necromunda.


Things I think would improve a 6th ed version of the game:
-I want to see terrain clarified in a more simple and clear way to support TLoS better.

-Glancing hits become only a -1 on the damage chart to counter vheclies cheaper coasts, and the durability transports give troops.

-I want to see the rules better organized so related rules are on the same page.

But for me the big one would be:
-Condense 40k into 20 to 30-ish pages of rules, Vs. the 100 pages of rules we have now. The simpler and easier to learn the rules, the better. Helps stop rules arguments and misunderstandings. (Alessio Said himself if thier was anything he would of re-done about 5th ed, that was it. And in all honesty I think that whould of been a good idea.)

[GrenAcid]

You're right it sounds like 2nd. Some people don't like how incredibly dumbed down the game has become. Army-wide movement rates wouldn't add anything really to remember beyond what the WS a model is.
TBH your right......

I miss penalty for Ld from shooting.....

[Mauglum.]

Hi again.
If we agree the closest real world analoge for 40k is modern warfare.
Then MOBILITY ,FIREPOWER , AND ASSAULT, should all be equaly important and representative.

Mobility to take objectives, firepower to prevent-slow down enemy units movement.Assault to contest objectives.

As 40k uses HALF the characteristic values on assault, ONE for ranged attacks , and NONE for mobility.
We can see why it is so abstract and counterintuitive...:eek:

My new rule set is only 14 pages long.(Its just a rough outline ATM.)
I simply took the game play I wanted from 40k, and used the most apropriate game mechanics and resolution methods I knew of to get the game play in the most straight forward way possible.

However, I am waiting to see what Alessio Cavatore does within his new sci fi rule set 'Warpath.'(For Mantic Games.)
If it better than mine,(it probably will be ,) Ill just use his...:D

[murrburger]

40K is almost nothing like modern warfare.

This is a game where space knights fly over a planet with their battle church and shoot down cans full of space knights.

Then, the space knights shoot .75 caliber two-stage RPGs at each other until they can charge and fight with chainsaw swords.

Even the Imperial Guard fight nothing like modern forces. I think the Cadians are as close as you are possibly going to get. (If I remember correctly, they're based on the CFs.)

Honestly, if you want 40K to be complicated and have rules for suppression and overwatch, you're trying to get the wrong thing out of this system. It's beautiful in its simplicity.

That's not to say the rules could be better written. I hate how the rulebook is laid out.

[HsojVvad]

That's not to say the rules could be better written. I hate how the rulebook is laid out.

I think that is what GW needs to do. Lay out the book and have it better written. No more interpeting rules and use proper language that will not be misinterpeted by the different English Language and have way less more debates on the interent forums.

Also explain everything. If a unit in a vehicl can not take any wounds then say so. It seems 90% of people think (maybe because of prior editions) that a unit in a vechicle can't take any wounds, but no where does it say this in the 5th edtion rules and alot of arguments happen.

So write clear consice rules and explain what you Can and CANNOT do, not just what you CAN do and then figure out what you CANNOT do then.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

All the calls for clearer rules are a good idea. Do any of you ever see those old Avalon Hill Rulebooks from the 1960s-1980s? Those things were boring as hell to read but (and this is a big but) they were REALLY clear. There was not much room for argument after you and your opponent looked up "Movement: Rule 2.36/9A-3d."

PS. On a more minor point, I'm also not crazy about "Eternal Warrior" as I like the idea of a superhero getting blown into chunks by a lowly grunt with a rocket launcher.

[winters SEO]

All the shouts for clearer rules can only be agreed with.

Personally I would like to see...

...fleet become more fleet - 2D6 for running.
...supressing fire - infantry can always move and fire one shot to maximum range at -1BS, no penalty for assault weapons.
...tanks firepower tweaked - turret mounted weapons +1BS if stationary, +2BS if shot uses scatter dice. Plus tanks should be able to move 6" and fire all guns (modern tanks are pretty good at shooting on the move).
...less risky deepstrike - hell, make it 50/50 and sell the whole community a new scatter dice for DS only. I know this would probably trigger a wave of nerdrage, but I'd pay. GW have always been modest with they're pricing (say £10. Finecast naturally).
...make forgeworld units officially official - that is to say that units that take heavy/fast/troop slots etc, according to FW rulebooks, can be officially included in standard games. They would probably make a bunch of money off that one, and you wouldn't have to wait 9 years for a new codex/new models you could use, and people would stop *****in when I field my lucius pattern pods - which are awesome when used by an ironclad.

I agree with 50% of previous posts, but I won't go repeating it.

Love and sausages everyone

[Mauglum.]

Just to re-cap.
You want clear concise rules...
Spread over several sets of independant diffuse rule sets , that take up more space than necissary?:confused:

Core rules.
And then USRs for the bits the core rules dont cover.
And then VEHICLE rules for the units the core rules and USRs dont cover.
And Codex Special rules for the stuff the core rules USRs and Vehicle rules dont cover...

Why not just use a set of well defined core rules that cover ALL the game play ,like other games do?;)
Rather than borrow a game mechanics from WHFB and abstract them to the point on nonsensicle ...


Just a thought.

[winters SEO]

Changes to vehicle rules and other tweaks to the main rulebook. Some shooty tweaks, cover tweaks. Fearless units popped from transports should certainly roll for pinning. Auto pinning for all units? Or disembark to claim objectives? Hmmm.

And also written straight into the main rulebook, a provision that states, probably in the force organisation bit, that forgeworld (non super heavy) units, stuff like quad launchers or elysian drop lists with demo robots running all over, is allowed. Who doesn't own a nice chunky hardback with at least one unit in it they would love to field? And who doesn't wanna go up against the more funky stuff. Doesn't seem too complicated.

Dude brings funky unit A to the table. You've never seen it before. Dude tells you what it does. Game on. It's just what I'd like to see in 6th, in answer to the original question.

Guess tournament players might worry there's a danger of unbalancing the game but how balanced is it? Now there's an open can of worms. Dunno how large that portion of our community is? (Another open can?) And isn't there also the possibility it could broaden tournament lists? Increase the variables / choices / types of lists. Leafblowers up against Ork liftadroppa lists. Ace. Just a thought.

I can't see it as that complicated. People would go and buy all sorts of cool toys. It's what we do right, burn money, buy cool toys.

[Denzark]

Weapon strengths and save modifiers.

To hit modifiers for speed and cover etc.

Race type movement stats.

The hth 'to hit' table meaning incredibly powerful combat gods actually perform properly.

A man with a bolt pistol and a bit of luck technically able to destroy vehicles in squadrons when he is stood next to the front armour 16 metres away.

The crap layout of the codexes where some rules are in unit entry, some in the armoury and some referring you back to BRB.

[BrokenWing]

Armor save modifiers for weapon strengths work in Fantasy because you don't generally run into 15+ high strength weapons in a single army list like you can in 40k. If you did this in 40k, no one would ever get armor saves and Space Marines would be *massively* over priced as a result. The one argument I think you could make is to apply this to close combat, where there are certainly fewer high strength weapons. Still not sure I'd agree with that either though. 40k Just isn't Fantasy and as much as I like Fantasy, I don't want to see the Fantasy rules copied and pasted into the 40k rulebook.

But yes, PLEASE fix codex layout.

[Hive Mind]

The rules are perfectly clear, it isn't GW's fault that people are too stupid to understand plain language or that some people (you know who you are and you're a moron) will just ignore what is written in favour of their own tedious interpretation (that coincidentally makes their unit/model much better).

[Mauglum.]

Hive Mind.
Which rules are you refering to exactly?

The core rules in the rule book.
Or the USRs in the rule book,
Or the Vehicle rules in the rule book.
Or the Codex specific rules spread over multipole codexes.

The core rules in 40k ARE clear and easy to understand.
It ALL the £*"&ing exceptions that cause confusion.:D