40k 6th Edition

[Polaris]

Ok, so I know it might not be for another year or two until we see a 6th edition rule set. That wont stop me from wondering though!

What would you folks like to see in 40k 6th edition?

Personally, I content with our current rules but feel like they could be streamlined a bit more.

[Mike X]

Year or two? So far, the 40K rule books have come every 4-6 years. Fifth edition has only been out since... what, 2008? We've got years to go...

And none of us want to think about 6th edition yet... that's such a damn downer.

[DarkLink]

Streamline 5th is all it needs to be. Reduce cover saves, improve ramming and tank shock, a few other tweaks here and there. Keep assaults as brutal as they are now, but make shooting more dangerous to even it out. I'm thinking more moral modifiers for casualties, so people actually fail morale tests on occasion.

Personally, tank shocks need to be actually able to kill something, not just force leadership tests. I say they should force an Initiative test, and any models that fail take, say, a STR 8 hit, or something similar.

I'd also like to see Ramming improved. It's an awesome mechanic, but really almost never does anything. Tanks should be exploding left and right, ramming into each other all over the place.

[Polaris]

And none of us want to think about 6th edition yet... that's such a damn downer.


I was unaware the spokes person of every member of this forum was such a negative Nancy! :p


Personally, tank shocks need to be actually able to kill something, not just force leadership tests. I say they should force an Initiative test, and any models that fail take, say, a STR 8 hit, or something similar.

Agreed. I would like to see more common sense rules. Smashing someone with a tank should yield more, horrific, results. haha

[Mike X]

I was unaware the spokes person of every member of this forum was such a negative Nancy! :p

It's not really negative. Can you imagine the uproar if GW released 6th edition so soon?

[eagleboy7259]

Do something about leadership, its like a broken mechanic in the game. Sure thats more of a per codex issue but with so many high leadership, stubborn, and fearless units out there not to mention stuff like Embolden, Book of St. Lucius, Bonding Knifes, ATSKNF, Mobs, etc. I feel like no one ever has to deal with it and that rolls over into pinning, tank shocking, and everything.

Make fearless into a good thing again rather mixed bag / almost negative that it's become.

I'd like to see the pistol mechanic come back into the game. Just so there is eventually a reason to take plasma pistols and assault marines again.

I'd also like to go back to the old rules for combat weapons. A power fist and a pistol should give +1A in my mind but this is just a preference more than an effect on game play type reason.

Cover. Get rid of intervening models, I preferred target priority to this junk. 50% of the time vs. hordes AP value does nothing for me. I might as well trade my bolters for shootas or lasguns.

[fuzzbuket]

i'm still playing 4(1/2) ed (my 4th knowlege and my mates common sense)

can pistols give a extra attack anymore if no FIX back to 6th ed

i'd like to see kill-team but simple (plug'n'play 40k?)

i know its not true but how about "proper (truescale) 40k" with a bolter being a submachine gun rather than a silly bb gun make the guard pansies but give them INFANTRY ect,ect

[Axel]

Make small arms shooting more effective! If you lose men to incoming fire there should be negatives to your morale check depending on how badly you were mauled, how many directions the fire is coming from etc. Pinning from ordnance fire would also be nice...

At present morale checks are a joke unless it's from losing an assault. Then it's hard to pass if you didn't pick the fight.

I would also suggest increasing the number of shots "machine gun" weapons like the Heavy Bolter get. With 3 shots per weapon it is difficult to justify it against popcorn enemies - a blast template will mostly yield a greater number of wounds.

The cover system is good for the moment, but I'd rather see target priority for intervening squads too. If you're shooting through you're own squad you grant the enemy a 4+ save (or perhaps a +1 to their normal save to make it valuable to power armour?).

[Melissia]

i'm still playing 4(1/2) ed (my 4th knowlege and my mates common sense)

can pistols give a extra attack anymore if no FIX back to 6th ed

i'd like to see kill-team but simple (plug'n'play 40k?)

i know its not true but how about "proper (truescale) 40k" with a bolter being a submachine gun rather than a silly bb gun make the guard pansies but give them INFANTRY ect,ect
Lol, yes, they do-- but some weapons don't get an extra attack unless you have multiples of the same weapon-- power fist, power klaw, thunder hammer, etc. So a pistol and power weapon? Pistol and CCW? Sure, Pistol and two-handed weapon? No. Pistol and power fist? No.

[Lord Azaghul]

5th ed is awesome.

Cover is great and does need to be everwhere -MEQ players just need to learn to use cover.

Target prior was a waste of time

Leadership is fine - guard are mainly 7's and 8's, marines are 8's and 9's. most units with fearless are pretty easy to take out (even 30 ork mobs) - this isn't fantasy most of the game mechanics work just fine for most armies

I don't think it need fixing, except to make assults against vehicles hit on side armour instead of rear.

[Melissia]

Right, rather than focus on the rulebook they should pump out more codices :P

[Lord Azaghul]

Right, rather than focus on the rulebook they should pump out more codices :P


Agreed!

[Melissia]

After they get all the other codices out, I'd like to see a Lost and the Damned codex, focusing on mutants, apostates, assaulty GEQ, psykers, and so on. You know, the REAL army of chaos, none of this marine bullcrap.

[Lord Azaghul]

After they get all the other codices out, I'd like to see a Lost and the Damned codex, focusing on mutants, apostates, assaulty GEQ, psykers, and so on. You know, the REAL army of chaos, none of this marine bullcrap.

I've often wondered about that. I've got a guy in my club who's a chaos nut, but doesn't think CSM are the 'core' of the chaos taint. So he's building a trator guard army - throwing bits from his CSM army in, adding a few mutant bits, painted them with a blood red theme - I think it'll look real neat, and it beats the 'traitor guard' option/list in the witchhunters/greyknights book. But I really don' think they'll (gw) ever to it.

[Melissia]

CSM haven't been the main army of chaos since the Horus Heresy, just like loyalist SMs haven't been the main army of the Imperium since the Horus Heresy. CSMs are so far from being the main army of chaos that it's almost laughable that someone would suggest that.

[RocketRollRebel]

I for one am very happy with 5th edition, a nice improvement from 4th. I'm really not sure what I would change tho. We've got a great edition on our hands here lets not jinx it! haha But with current GW trends I would imagine we could expect a new edition of 40k in 2012.

[B_Steele]

I love 5th Edition, but a few changes I would make to the rule system (codex changes notwithstanding):

1> Allow ANYONE to choose to break from combat in a panic. Getting caught up by an Ironclad or Soulgrinder that you CANNOT hurt and waiting to die is the stupidest thing ever.

2> Leadership penalties from massive shooting casaulties.

3> Fearless counting as Stubborn in Close Combat.

4> A revised Sweeping Advance that does not kill an entire fleeing unit necessarily. Perhaps inflict casualties equal to the base number of Attacks the chasing unit has? That way a single marine cannot chase down and kill eleven Fire Warriors on a single Initiative roll?

5> Adding a "0 = no effect" to the Vehicle Damage Table, making it less likely to constantly glance the shooting away from vehicles.

6> Make Assaulting into cover more difficult on the chargers; perhaps -1 to hit or even -1 attack? There are so many frag grenades (or eq.) out there, it rarely matters.

Those are my ideas! :)

-Bry

[Brass Scorpion]

Year or two? So far, the 40K rule books have come every 4-6 years. Fifth edition has only been out since... what, 2008? We've got years to go...
And none of us want to think about 6th edition yet... that's such a damn downer.
I'll second that emotion. 5th Edition has only been around for about 16 months. It's got a lot of life left in it and I am not inclined to think about the next version for at least a couple more years.

[MVBrandt]

Victory Points replace Killpoints

Objective mission draws broken by victory points standard, or prevent "any unit" from contesting

Remove wound allocation; I understand the point, but it allows too many tricks and slows the game down; let people allocate wounds after failed saves. It should never render a squad "safer" to fire a few pistols at it in addition to those flame templates.

Give vehicles damage points ... wound equivalents ... to solve the problem of vehicle randomness and monstrous creature vs. vehicle imbalance issues

Everything else is working pretty fine. I have no idea what one poster meant going after improved ram/tankshock ... this edition is mech-encouraging enough as it is. No need to go even more in that direction.


Also, while I think it's much "Cooler," I would get rid of TLOS. Terrain levels were much simpler, and generated far less argument. You're behind that building? Can't see you, k, move along.

Lots of positives in 5th edition, just some tweaks to get it up to a better and more balanced place.

[Lord Azaghul]

TLOS: I actually really like true line of sight. I think it leads to far less arguments. A player just squats down - looks from behind the models head...yup I can see you. This allows for a must more dynamic table to be fielded.

[Rapture]

The need more differentiation between the armies. Everyone dislikes the idea of D10 but I think it would really open up the game.

[ggg]

Fear and terror rules would be fun - terror causing pinning, fear reducing leadership of affected units.
fewer FOC limitations
stratergy ratings for armies
Reworking of the missions - particulary kill points which blows.

And not being brought in for some time to come as I am happy enought with 5th ed at the moment.

[Lord Azaghul]

Fear and terror rules would be fun - terror causing pinning, fear reducing leadership of affected units.
t.


Absolutely not! Proliferation of Fear and Terror are what has ruined warhammer fantasty. You'd see people fly there deamon princes right into the middle of a horde army want watch half the army fail the check and not be able to do anything. Some of the main appeals to 40k for me - is how much more balanced the game is -and the lack of the much abused magic and psycology sections.

[Melissia]

I'm definitely glad that fearless has penalties if they lose close combat. Most fearless units shouldn't really be losing close combat in the first place anyway, but still, if it did get insanely strong as suggested by RocketRollRebel, I'd want all fearless units to be increased by quite a bit per model.

[BuFFo]

Make Tank Shock have the same ability as Deff Rollas so that Tank Shocking Fearless units actually means something....

Other than that, forget 6th edition... Its too early to even think about wanting to care.

[Duke]

I actually think that moving from d6 to d10 would make a lot of sense... Also, you could have more varience in skill levels because of that. It would mean things like storm troopers have a better chance to hit than guardsman, but not as great as Marines... And penal legion would be below them all.

Seriously, the game would be so much easier with d10 and a 1-10 stat level.

Oh, and improve the WS chart!!! I can't believe that some people can hit people with a ranged weapon on a 2+ but the best CC fighter in the galaxy can only hit on a 3+??? WTF! LAME

Just my two cents and I know it will never happen, but one can wish.

Duke

[Melissia]

I wouldn't mind the move, but then there'd be a lot of arguments about the change I'd think. At least it's not as bad as the arguments over the d100 stats of Dark Heresy at any rate.

[Duke]

I actually like the D100 system... It makes a lot of sense

I just think that it is a little silly that a basic guardsman is only one stat point away from a Marine in most respects. Also based on the fluff I find it hard to believe that the marine only hits his target 16% more often than a basic guardsman.

Im not saying that marines should be 'movie marine,' in stats but in a D10 system you could have a Guardsman be BS 4 (roll d10 under 4 to hit) while a marine might be something like BS 6-7 meaning they would hit 20%-30% more often. It would also allow room for all the elite forces to find their own niche because right now the steps of BS 3 vs BS4 doesn't quite do it, I think.

Duke

[Melissia]

Which would be nice, I suppose, but then they'd have to actually more accurately define the differences between the various races and power armors and so on and so forth, which they seem hesitant to do in the tabletop.

[Duke]

I think a little differentiation between all the things like Stats and armour would be great... Just think how suck it would be if tanks only had AV 1-6. going up to 14 allows for a lot of variation (in theory cause AV 1-9 is worthless)

Duke

[Melissia]

True I suppose. But it would suck if they did something stupid like retcon Sororitas armor so that it's worse than Astartes armor (it's been stated to be equal to Astartes armor for around five editions now, including rogue trader). And things like that are what I'd hate if they changed it to a D10 system.

[Lord Azaghul]

While d10 is probably more accurate of a fluff perspective: I think it would slow the game way down. Imagine rolling 40 dice in a CC and haveing to scan for all your 4's 5's 6's 7's 8's 9's 10's. Not to mention the power and comparison levels would be a nightmare untill all books were moved over to the system. I also think it would be a bit more of hassle to acquire a nice block of evenly color d10's to match my army paint scheme! I'm also not convinced that d/10 would be that much of a service -the game would still probably suffer the same issues it does now.

Weapons skill chart: nah that aint no thing! Any better then a 3+ in most cases and cc becomes far to harsh - it already recieved a signifant boost this ed.

[Xas]

5th is good.

all we need now is a PS/CoD like book that adds balanced missions and a lot of them and we are set.

maybe modify tankshoking a bit.

maybe modify the WS chart a bit. along the lines of: if you are equal both hit on 4+. if you are one better you hit on 3+, they on 4+. if you are 2 points better you hit on 3+ and they on 5+, if you are 3 points better you hit on 2+ and they on 5+. if you are 4 or more points better its 2+/6+.


this would really make the WS stat more important.

additionally things that have double strenght should auto wound and not only on 2+.

beeing more numberous should grant a plain +1 bonus to combat res (like fantasy).


the game itself should be kept as is (whoever thinks about d10 must have forgetten about orks. a d10 takes about 4 times as much space as a d6 in a dice box so good luck carrying 50~ around!)

[Lerra]

I'm definitely glad that fearless has penalties if they lose close combat. Most fearless units shouldn't really be losing close combat in the first place anyway.

I think Fearless works well most of the time (in 1v1 games) but it really breaks down in 2v2s or team Apoc games.

I was playing Deathwing allied with Imperial Guard versus Space Wolves and Tyranids. Ragnar Blackmane and his 15 Blood Claws charged into my ally's 55-man IG infantry squad. Both sides stuck in combat the first round. The next turn, my fearless terminators charged and joined the assault. Ragnar and friends killed ~30 Guardsmen that round (Saga of the Warrior Born is amazing versus hordes). My terminators killed all of the surviving Blood Claws and knocked Ragnar down to 1 wound. I lost combat by 20 and took 20 fearless wounds, even though my Deathwing didn't take a single wound from combat and nearly wiped out their opponents >_< The silly guardsmen made me lose most of the squad to fearless. I should have just let them die!

Things I'd love to see in the next edition (or even in a 5th ed supplement book):

Many more standard missions - 6 deployment types, 12 mission types at least
A variety of multiplayer missions
A tested set of multiplayer rules - can allies enter each others' transports? Can Independent Characters join units owned by an ally? What about army-wide buffs? etc.
A set of skirmish missions for games at <800 points

[Melissia]

So rather than make fearless overpowered, how about having that particular rule only apply it to your own forces in team battles, rather than all friendly forces? *shrug* Having Fearless become Stubborn in close combat would be stupidly overpowered given the current points costs IMO...

[Lord Azaghul]

So rather than make fearless overpowered, how about having that particular rule only apply it to your own forces in team battles, rather than all friendly forces? *shrug* Having Fearless become Stubborn in close combat would be stupidly overpowered given the current points costs IMO...

There's no reason you can't do that in your own games. Just make a nice little house rule for team battles.

edit: additional thought.

Auto wounding: this should not happen. Auto things make the game not for the other player - there should always be a chance of failure.

[mstingray]

I agree with the modifiers for the shooting and think they should change it to something like:
-1 for losing more than half your unit in one turn
-1 for getting shot at (not necessarily wounds)
-1 for taking at least a wound from ordnance. (you're going to get scared if the guy next to you blows up)

Just a thought, a unit should be able to provide suppressing fire, something along the lines of the unit taking half its shots (rounding down) but the unit getting shot at counts as being in cover for purposes of moving.

[doublek666]

5th edition has streamlined the game, made less argumments, and the game has expanded in exciting ways. There are some legitmate concerns and perhaps some tweaks might help. But are the suggestions here to help the game or the armies and situations some individuals believe would help them win. Use house rules if you want.

6th edition will be a huge event, "The Return of the Emperor", a worldwide expansion and event, writing the course of history and dictating the next evolution of the game. There will be Primarchs. newly re-discovered vehicles and weapons, new scenarios, missions and battles, new characters and units for eatch army, a big supplement , like APOCALYPSE. This will be in about 6 years from now. There won't be much of a rules change, and despite some grand arguments, 40k will always be a D6 based game. I think there will be more space ships/fighters and bombers as time goes on.

[DarkLink]

So rather than make fearless overpowered, how about having that particular rule only apply it to your own forces in team battles, rather than all friendly forces? *shrug* Having Fearless become Stubborn in close combat would be stupidly overpowered given the current points costs IMO...

The real problem with fearless is that currently, No Retreat is a bigger drawback than almost all the benefits of being Fearless in the first place.

I play some allied sisters, and I can only remember failing one or two Leadership tests (with stubborn Ld 9), like, ever. And yet sisters suffer absolutely no drawbacks to failing combat, but passing their leadership.

I think that No Retreat should work like this: the fearless unit takes a leadership tests like everyone else. If it is passed, they're ok. If they fail, due to modifiers or whatever, they stay in combat but take no retreat wounds.

Otherwise, Fearless needs a buff in other parts of the game to make up for the severe drawback of No Retreat. If only shooting were more brutal, and actually let you pin or for force units to fall back regularly, without the aid of units like the Psyker Battle Squad. Then Fearless would be great.

[Dark_Templar]

CSM haven't been the main army of chaos since the Horus Heresy, just like loyalist SMs haven't been the main army of the Imperium since the Horus Heresy. CSMs are so far from being the main army of chaos that it's almost laughable that someone would suggest that.

Well, you could always have a Chaos supplement to the C:SM, since I highly doubt that the various tainted marines hand back their munitions before going to the dark side.

[DarkLink]

Loyalist Marines only rarely go traitor. Likewise, there are very, very few CSM's that have survived since the Heresy, and most of them are Lords/Daemon Princes in one form or another.

The vast majority of CSM's are recruited just the same as loyalist Marines, are trained by their legion or warband, and equipped by forgeworlds controlled by chaos forces.

The reason CSM's have inferior equipment is because they don't control forgeworlds capable of producing, say, storm bolters. They might get a handful from new traitors, but not enough for there to be a significant number of storm bolters. Thus, they still use combi-bolters.

[Melissia]

I think that No Retreat should work like this: the fearless unit takes a leadership tests like everyone else. If it is passed, they're ok. If they fail, due to modifiers or whatever, they stay in combat but take no retreat wounds.What's the point of even taking the test if no matter what the result is the same?

[jimbobjeff]

I'd like to see more Moral effects from shooting since leadership seems a really underused stat at the moment. To achieve this I'd change two things:

1. a squads leadership is permanently modified by the number of casualties it has taken this game

2. reduce the ever present cover save to a 5+ but make going to ground give +2 to cover saves, this way going to ground becomes a valid option for units that arent sat on an objective, opening up more strategies involving supressing the enemy before flanking/assaulting.

I'd also like to see small arms fire made more deadly, a squad caught in the open in front of the enemy should really pay for it, this could maybe be counterbalanced with the addition of rules for smoke grenades that give the user a cover save or something similar.

[memnarch_129]

What Darklink is suggesting is that if you have fearless and succeed with your LD test that you dont take anywounds and just stand there. Where if you fail the test you take the No Retreat wounds like you do now. Right now most units with Fearless are outnumbered a good deal of the time and so are takeing wounds. And with most of these units being pricey it severly hurts them more than helps.

While i dont look forward to seeing a 6th Edition any time soon there is one thing i would like to see fixed in it. Rending. No one actually complained about rending on the to hit roll when only CC weapons had it (or most ppl didnt). Id like to see rending go back to the to hit roll. What needs to be done is it needs to be removed from ranged weapons (especially the Assault Cannon)

[Shadoq]

I HATE that Bolters are rapid fire weapons. To me SMs should be able to fire bolters and charge into combat, that is just the way I visualize them. Obviously that would be way overpowered but could compensate that by allowing Tau to fire at 15" instead of that 12" nonsense or at BS4 standard.

I'd like to see(already mentioned) additional modifiers for being shot up. Perhaps -2 for losing 30%, -3 for losing 50%+...

Ramming needs a revision imo.

TLOS I think is pretty freakin' awesome.

Overall, 5th Edition is pretty good but needs a few tweaks.

[DarkLink]

What's the point of even taking the test if no matter what the result is the same?

Well, the point was that if they pass the test, they didn't suffer from No Retreat wounds.

Regardless, I think the real solution is to beef up shooting. If shooting was scarier (aka many more negative leadership modifiers to actually cause people to occationally fail tests), then Fearless would be more of a benefit than a drawback, like it kinda is now.

[Tacoo]

Cover:through models, NO. 4+, no,
Fix, maybe grant armour saves even if hit by higher ap or somtin similar yes

Ramming:Ld, what does tha hgave to do with anything, is it seeing if ur a deer and fail to realise that ur bout to get hit? scrap it. instead i would say Inative test and all that fail it have to make a save, unless rammed by front 14.

Walkers. do somthin to make walker on walker combat more intresting then just who has higher Inative, same with mosterious creature vs walker

allow eldar to fleet 2d6, or somtin like that, and put the eldar rules in there dex, not in rulebooks

put all weapon summeries in armourys, im tired of this lazy thing where its look at page XX to find discreption, it slaws the game down.

make it harder to fail LD test in melee and easier to fail it at range

make eternal warrior activate on a 4+

ether go to 2 differnt vechicle damage charts(1 glancing and 1 penatrating) or make it so that on a 1 or below 1 is rolled that nothing happens.

switch to a D10 system (i know it wont happen)

[Cryl]

I'd like to see more Moral effects from shooting since leadership seems a really underused stat at the moment. To achieve this I'd change two things:

1. a squads leadership is permanently modified by the number of casualties it has taken this game

2. reduce the ever present cover save to a 5+ but make going to ground give +2 to cover saves, this way going to ground becomes a valid option for units that arent sat on an objective, opening up more strategies involving supressing the enemy before flanking/assaulting.

I'd also like to see small arms fire made more deadly, a squad caught in the open in front of the enemy should really pay for it, this could maybe be counterbalanced with the addition of rules for smoke grenades that give the user a cover save or something similar.

I agree that leadership is underused in addition there's too many armies that are fearless or stubborn or have some sort of character modifier that gives immunity to leadership / morale tests or somesort of static high ld. value.

I'm not sure I agree with your first point though it works for say guard or orks but marines, csms, sob, eldar etc just wouldn't react like that.

I do like the idea of reducing the cover save and increasing the benefit from GtG. I can count on one hand how many times I've seen GtG used since 5th came out. That could be to do with playstyles where I game though although I just don't see that a +1 cover save is worth losing an entire turn in a 6 turn average game.

[Melissia]

1. a squads leadership is permanently modified by the number of casualties it has taken this game
Why? To be Martyred in the name of the Emperor is to be blessed above all of His servants. Even the lowliest slave becmes great in his/her martyrdom, greater than the most noble of living heroes. Do not seek death, but embrace it when it comes, for all beings must die-- and those that die fighting His enemies die a blessed death.

From the Sisters' perspective, this rule makes no sense.

[Polaris]

Quote:
1. a squads leadership is permanently modified by the number of casualties it has taken this game


Why? To be Martyred in the name of the Emperor is to be blessed above all of His servants. Even the lowliest slave becmes great in his/her martyrdom, greater than the most noble of living heroes. Do not seek death, but embrace it when it comes, for all beings must die-- and those that die fighting His enemies die a blessed death.

From the Sisters' perspective, this rule makes no sense.



I agree with Melissia on that one. If anything I think a some squads should get some sort of bonus when they take casualties. They fight with more vigor to avenge their fallen!

[DarkLink]

Well, at least for Sisters, a bonus makes sense. I could see this: Book of St Lucius: these holy litanies inspire sisters to martyrdom. Whenever a unit takes a casualty, they gain +1 LD, to a max of 10.

Or something like that.



Anyways, the problem with cover in 5th was that it was horrible in 4th, and GW overcompensated. We went from occational 5+ saves, to extremely common 4+ saves. It should have been one or the other. Either make cover saves more common, OR make them a 4+ rather than a 5+.

[Jive Tyrant]

I like 5th rules just the way they are. Lets the new codexes tweak things as they are released.

For the next "Edition" I'd prefer they re-did AoBR with Marines and a different race other than Orks, new base scenario and models, but same 5th rules. It would re-invigorate the sales for first-timers, and be a nice "battleforce" for the two included races.

I know I bought the hardback BRB and 2 AoBR sets. But I am GW's dream customer. :)

[Melissia]

I'd prefer they redid AoBR with no Marines at all, but that blissful day would probably never happen.

[Lerra]

I'd like to see the next starter set with Imperial Guard and Tyranids. Or maybe Necrons vs. Dark Eldar to jumpstart those armies around the time when their codices are released.

[jimbobjeff]

The leadership modifiers for taking casualties do make more sense for some armies than others, for example it works much better for guard than marines but then I'm a proponent of balancing the game around a guardsmans stats rather than a marines stats, makes str4, t4 a very good set of stats to have and helps marines seem more like the badasses they are portrayed as in the background.

Essentially the leadership modifier would be in the core rules then you give other armies special rules where it seems appropriate, And they shall know no fear could be altered for example. Darklink's suggestion also makes sense for sisters.

[Cryl]

I'd love to see the game rebalanced around 3 rather than 4 as the 'normal' stat point. Instead of a guardsman being poor and a marine or aspect warrior being average you'd have a guardsman being average and an aspect warrior being elite which makes a bit more sense to me.

On that note I'd also like to to see the full 1 to 10 range used for stats, there's barely anything below a 2 and hardly anything above a 6 used these days (aside from a very few exceptions). There's not much point having such a range if you constrain yourself to 4 or so different values.

[BuFFo]

I'd love to see the game rebalanced around 3 rather than 4 as the 'normal' stat point. Instead of a guardsman being poor and a marine or aspect warrior being average you'd have a guardsman being average and an aspect warrior being elite which makes a bit more sense to me.

Thats how it is now.

[Melissia]

I'd love to see the game rebalanced around 3 rather than 4 as the 'normal' stat point.That would require them to not focus on Marines as their primary army.

As long as the focus is on Marines, then the balance will be on 4 as the "normal" stat point.

[Cryl]

Thats how it is now.

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. The space marine 'all 4s' stat line is the stick against which other armies are measured whereas it should be the guardsman 'all 3s' statline. Example is that Eldar are considered fragile because they're T3 rather than them being considered average and a marine being considered tough.


That would require them to not focus on Marines as their primary army.

As long as the focus is on Marines, then the balance will be on 4 as the "normal" stat point.

That's almost certainly the issue. I'd like to see it happen, I doubt it will.

[BuFFo]

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. The space marine 'all 4s' stat line is the stick against which other armies are measured whereas it should be the guardsman 'all 3s' statline. Example is that Eldar are considered fragile because they're T3 rather than them being considered average and a marine being considered tough.

For my point of view T3 as normal, since the armies I play, IG and Dark Eldar have T3 as standard.

At my store, because I run people over with T3 models, the stick as to which people judge armies around here is T3, not T4, since they have a tough time dealing with me, yet can beat other player's T4 armies just fine enough. Especially with the glut of Nid players at my store for some reason. T3 owns the day around here.

Regardless, I don't understand what you want. You want Marines to be T3 and IG T2? Wouldn't that be the same thing?

[Cryl]

Regardless, I don't understand what you want. You want Marines to be T3 and IG T2? Wouldn't that be the same thing?

Which is why I don't want that and didn't say that I wanted that. What I said I wanted was a rebalancing of the game around the 3s statline rather than the 4s statline, what I was suggesting is that weapon strengths and other associated values are rebalanced around the T3 being the norm, the quantity of S4 small arms makes T4 the middle ground for example.

[DarkLink]

I'm agreeing with Buffo here. The statline is already balanced around T3.

Eldar, humans and tau are all T:3.

SM's, Daemons and some Nidz are all T4, because they're much tougher than mere humans.

The only reason you might think not everything is balanced around T3 is because of the proliferation of MEQ forces. SM's and Orks in particular are very common. Thus, T4 is common.

T4 is only meant to mean "tougher than the average human". Not "very rare toughness that only a few units in the game can get".

[BuFFo]

Which is why I don't want that and didn't say that I wanted that. What I said I wanted was a rebalancing of the game around the 3s statline rather than the 4s statline, what I was suggesting is that weapon strengths and other associated values are rebalanced around the T3 being the norm, the quantity of S4 small arms makes T4 the middle ground for example.

I can see what you are talking about now that you mention weaponry.

I really don't like to mix fluff with rules, but, if I may break my own rules here, guns kill, so of course gun strength would be higher than fleshy toughness.

I assume your local metagame has more T4 armies than T3 armies?

[Jwolf]

I would like to see all HQ and Special Characters to have what is now the Eternal Warrior rule (and Force Weapons to all Slay Outright, not cause Instant Death). I'd like to see the truly Special Characters have a Heroism (or something) save that they can take against everything in addition to their other saves. This could be a 5+ for guys like Marbo on down to a 4+/3+ for Abbadon and other nigh-immortal heroes who shape the course of galactic history.

I'd like heroes to be more heroic than just hoping not to roll a 3- against the inevitable powerfist.

[Lerra]

Locally, we have two kinds of armies: T4 or Mechanized. It's pretty rare to see T3 models running around unless you've cracked their transport open and all the innards spilled out.

I like the idea of simply giving all HQs Eternal Warrior. That special rule is spreading like wildfire anyways - might as well share the fun with everyone. Alternately, they could change how instant death works so that Eternal Warrior is more of a bonus and less of a requirement for an expensive HQ. Perhaps "instant death" causes d3 wounds, and Eternal Warrior reduces this to 1 wound.

Rather than a Heroism Save, it would be interesting to have Heroism Points. You start the battle with 3, and these points can be used to reroll a failed save on an HQ, reroll one reserve roll, reroll a failed morale test, etc. A little like warmachine. (Sororitas would be the masters of Heroism/Faith Points, with many more possibilities, so the other armies wouldn't step on their toes too much.)

[Just_Me]

On the subject of HQs, I am liking most of the ideas here. Personally I would like to see options to make plain vanilla HQs more unique and special, things like the Sagas the Space Wolves have or the Vampiric Powers the Vampire Counts have in Fantasy, special rules you can purchase for your HQ so that they can flavor your army with their unique "personality."

[Melissia]

This reminds me of the arguments about what makes an MEQ. I remember people argue that if you have even one 4 in your statline, you're MEQ...

[Lord Azaghul]

MEQ: S4 T4 Save 3+

I like to keep it pretty basic!

Specialty uber characters: nope. Another fantasy carry over that we don’t need in 40k. Some of the Elder characters are hard enough to kill.

[Melissia]

To me, MEQ is four across the board (WS / BS / S / T / I) for physical stats, and a 3+ save. Makes it much more precise.

[Lord Azaghul]

I basicly think SM/Necron/CSM. Anything in 3+ armour, at T4. I like to keep in vague, and make sure my cannons can wound an a 2+ and deny any armour save!:D

[Rapture]

I dislike the ideas of super characters because then they become almost obligatory. Is there really any marine army that would be better without Vulkan?

I don't take him because I don't want his over the top benefits. I just want a regular captain to lead my marines. Not an invulnerable super hero who has campaigned across the universe banishing greater daemons and liberating galaxies. Those type of characters could be fun occasionally, but how about just a guy who has a chance of doing something awesome? Way more interesting in my opinion.

[BuFFo]

I would like to see all HQ and Special Characters to have what is now the Eternal Warrior rule (and Force Weapons to all Slay Outright, not cause Instant Death). I'd like to see the truly Special Characters have a Heroism (or something) save that they can take against everything in addition to their other saves. This could be a 5+ for guys like Marbo on down to a 4+/3+ for Abbadon and other nigh-immortal heroes who shape the course of galactic history.

I'd like heroes to be more heroic than just hoping not to roll a 3- against the inevitable powerfist.

ha!

I like heroes are they are now. They support the battle, and can even destroy wholes units on their own, but to make them stronger/hardier would be returning to 2nd edition 40k, or 5th/7th edition Fantasy.

Heroes at the moment are rock solid as is. I expect my human heroes, like IG, to die easily. Thats what makes them human. Some characters, like Ghazgul, are quite literally impossible to stand up to, and thats fine, as long as the game isn't full of characters like him.

I used to worship 2nd edition, but after a year of 5th edition, I would never ever ever want to go back to that.

Keeping the game Troop centered as it is now when the game makes its 6th edition transition would be my preference.

[fuzzbuket]

having uber heroes is nice but
keep it so that armies of Xpts+ can take them e.g.
vulkan2000+
calgar2500+
chronus1500+
telion 1000+

remember Heroes are the models/dice/paint (i roll better with painted models)

[Rapture]

ha!
Keeping the game Troop centered as it is now when the game makes its 6th edition transition would be my preference.
With you 100%. Troop are awesome. Why? Because they die. The more things dieing the more fun we are having. I don't want to have a battle between two armies and the casualty be 1 super-mega hero. I want the casualties to be 100 troops, 10 tanks, and maybe a building or two.

Keep the focus on armies not on individuals.

[BuFFo]

With you 100%. Troop are awesome. Why? Because they die. The more things dieing the more fun we are having. I don't want to have a battle between two armies and the casualty be 1 super-mega hero. I want the casualties to be 100 troops, 10 tanks, and maybe a building or two.

Keep the focus on armies not on individuals.

:)

If people really want Herohammer, they can EASILY pick up and play either 40k 2nd Edition, or Fantasy 5th/7th Edition.

Come back to me after your 800 dollars worth of models get pasted by 1 or 2 HQs....

[Lord Azaghul]

:)

If people really want Herohammer, they can EASILY pick up and play either 40k 2nd Edition, or Fantasy 5th/7th Edition.

Come back to me after your 800 dollars worth of models get pasted by 1 or 2 HQs....

Amen! Part of the reason I love 40k right now is the same reason I don't like fantasy nearly as much as I used to.

This is also why I prefer not to use special characters - I want to focus on my army - not my army led by (insert name here)

[tigerk40]

when does the 6th editon come out

[DrLove42]

Did you really just commit Threadomancy on a 3 year old 6th ed thread just to ask that?

Mid this year. Maybe.

[celestialatc]

Did you really just commit Threadomancy on a 3 year old 6th ed thread just to ask that?

Mid this year. Maybe.

He's a witch! PURGE HIM!!!

[Turner]

He's a witch! PURGE HIM!!!



http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/Turner1279/IAgree.jpg


I agree.

[DrLove42]

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/Turner1279/IAgree.jpg


I agree.

I don't think that card is powerful enough. I had to go back over 100 pages to even get into 2009, when this thread was last commented on....