A Rule You Would Change

[Colonel Kreitz]

What one rule would you change and why? I'm thinking of the core ruleset, but if something really bothers you about a rule in a Codex, you can list that too. This topic comes up every now and again, but now that we're a bit deeper into 6th Edition (and now that we've seen a good number of 6th Edition codices), it seems more relevant.

There are a few things that are annoying about 6th, but my single change is:

If a unit is falling back or pinned, it cannot fire overwatch. This is a pretty simple change, but it makes the penalty for being pinned or falling back a bit more severe. Plus, it adds an interesting tactical element of trying to pin or break units in preparation for a charge.

What else is out there that you would change?

[Charistoph]

Get away from trying to create a cinematic experience. This leads to misformed language that can lead to disputes as opposed to a fun game.

[Vangrail]

I wish hull points were different. I wish some vehicles had more. Idk tanks dont feel like tanks anymore. Or give tanks an tank save. Light armor vehicles have a 5+. Heavy tanks have a 4+. Idk just its sad seeing a land raider this super heavy tank that has more armor then titans get glanced to death turn one. Like i agree on dark eldar wet paper bag skimmers with their 3 hp. But your telling me that has the same durability as a dreadnought? I just think armor should feel like armor. Or have vehicles have different versions of weapons, im looking at you predators >.> like predator autocannon would be s8 or is not s8 an extra shot. Because the size difference in the round in the cannon vs the havoc sized one.

[Lost Vyper]

Assaulting the vehicles...5th ed was SO much better in this. Stationary should be auto hits, normal movement 4+ to hit, turbo-boost/flat out 5+...

[Badtucker]

assaulting from all vehicles should be permitted , open topped as normal, enclosed vehicles (rhinos and such) should be treated as assaulting through difficult terrain movement wise.

[DarkLink]

Challenges and Look out Sir are both terrible ideas.


I wish hull points were different. I wish some vehicles had more. Idk tanks dont feel like tanks anymore. Or give tanks an tank save. Light armor vehicles have a 5+. Heavy tanks have a 4+. Idk just its sad seeing a land raider this super heavy tank that has more armor then titans get glanced to death turn one. Like i agree on dark eldar wet paper bag skimmers with their 3 hp. But your telling me that has the same durability as a dreadnought? I just think armor should feel like armor. Or have vehicles have different versions of weapons, im looking at you predators >.> like predator autocannon would be s8 or is not s8 an extra shot. Because the size difference in the round in the cannon vs the havoc sized one.

Hull points was the single best thing 6th did to improve over 5th. Not scoring in transports is probably second best. I wouldnt be opposed to removing the explodes result from the damage table altogether, though.

[Mr.Pickelz]

I would like to see 3D Blast Templates, and their ability to hit flyers. Explosions don't always operate in a 2d plane, and if aircraft are within 12 inches of the ground, a blast template should easily be able to affect them, especially with the more powerful ones causing turbulence issues from their explosions.

Edit: it would also be a way to introduce partial hits, and/or strength modifiers.

[euansmith]

True Line of Sight and the new method of assigning wounds. I know some people like them, but they were the main reasons behind me giving up playing 40k :)

[Colonel Kreitz]

assaulting from all vehicles should be permitted , open topped as normal, enclosed vehicles (rhinos and such) should be treated as assaulting through difficult terrain movement wise.

Gotta strongly disagree here. Although things are different enough to avoid the perfect storm of Rhino Rushing we had in 3rd Edition (lack of hull points, smoke launchers causing auto-glance, generally weaker shooting), assault through difficult terrain out of vehicles is not an idea I'm a huge fan of.

This may be a lingering effect of my Rhino Rush PTSD (millions of Black Templar jumping out of speeding Rhinos and overrunning your gunline on turn 2 or 3), but I think assault out of moving, armored vehicles makes things a little too easy for assault armies, even with overwatch in place. I think assault is somewhat underpowered at the moment and would be up for bringing back assault from stationary vehicles, but I think that assault from moving vehicles overdoes it.

[LordGrise]

Rule I would throw out: Challenges. Most utter BS rule in the entire game, and (IMHO) only introduced in order to bring 40K and Fantasy closer together.

Rule I would amend: Look Out Sir. I would change it so that a given model may claim a Look Out Sir roll once per turn, period. After all, supposedly all the incoming rounds are coming at the same instant, right? The way it is right now, I picture either an entire group of Chaos Marines acting like a bunch of ballerinas dancing Swan Lake - with the music playing in the background - each of them throwing themselves in front of the Captain in turn, or an Ork breakdancing in front of the Warboss.

Alternatively, for every successful Look Out Sir roll, the specific model getting in the way must be indicated, AND must take a wound with no save of any kind permitted - not even FNP. The boss would quickly run out of meatshields, and that might restore some semblance of sanity there. As it stands it is the most abused rule in the game, bar none.

Rule I would add: Saves for vehicles vs glancing hits, probably a flat 4+ or 5+. The vehicle still suffers the bad effect of the glance (crew shaken, etc) but if saved, no hull point loss. Cannot take a cover save AND the glance save - one or the other, IAW established rule concerning multiple saves.

[DarkLink]

Denying saves is completely unnecessary. Once per turn would be more than enough of a nerf. But models are already indicated; LOS must go the the closest model within 6".

[Tepogue]

True Line of Sight. My local meta is full of terrain with holes. And I mean pin prick 1x1 millimeter holes. This results in nothing being hidden, EVER. I liked the older rules where you could see up to 2-6 inches into terrain, but not through terrain. A tree stand base with 2-3 trees provided something you could hide models behind.

[chicop76]

True Line of Sight. My local meta is full of terrain with holes. And I mean pin prick 1x1 millimeter holes. This results in nothing being hidden, EVER. I liked the older rules where you could see up to 2-6 inches into terrain, but not through terrain. A tree stand base with 2-3 trees provided something you could hide models behind.

True line of sight I agree is a very bad rule. It favors shooty armies a loy and help kill assaulty armies. I thought terrain sizes made a lot of sense. Also being too deep in terrain ment you couldn't shoot in or out of terrain. It forced you to get close and personal which meant transportation and tactics.

Look out sir is another abused bad rule and going back to fnp ignoring ap 1 and 2 weapons. We seen a decline in fnp and than an increased fnp presence, makes tyranids and daemons harder to deal with for example.

Look out sir allows wound allocation abuse. You can simply throw wounds on a mod and rotate them out. What's worse is if you have multiple ICs in a squad that have multiple wounds. Space Wolves for example or Space Marine bikes.

[Colonel Kreitz]

True Line of Sight. My local meta is full of terrain with holes. And I mean pin prick 1x1 millimeter holes. This results in nothing being hidden, EVER. I liked the older rules where you could see up to 2-6 inches into terrain, but not through terrain. A tree stand base with 2-3 trees provided something you could hide models behind.

I do not mean to impugn the members of your gaming group, but...

1x1 millimeter holes really shouldn't be giving you LOS under True LOS. I mean... obviously it's a judgment call which is the issue you're objecting to, but I interpret True LOS to be an indication of whether a model in a battlefield situation could reasonably see and engage a target with some hope of hitting it. 1x1 mm holes don't satisfy that requirement to me unless you're getting a 2+ rerollable cover save.

[Charistoph]

Well, if we're going to do more than one...

Hull Points, good idea, poor implementation. Reverse the affects. If you Glance or Penetrate, you roll on the chart, with Penetrate removing a Hull Point as well. A 6 will remove a Hull Point if a Glance and Explodes! if a Penetrating Hit. This way, you CAN Glance the machine to death, but it will take its time about it.

Disembarking from a Vehicle that hadn't moved yet preventing an Assault is assinine. If the Vehicle had moved, that's one thing, but seriously?

Flying Infantry/Cavalry/Beasts. We have so many candidates available it's a sin that this is not in, while a 3 unit (at the time) type like Jet Pack was put in.

I'd like to look in to the possibility of converting Cover to be a To-Hit modifier instead.

[Colonel Kreitz]

I'd like to look in to the possibility of converting Cover to be a To-Hit modifier instead.

I think this is one of the "original sins" of 3rd Edition. 3rd established the notion of the cover save and it's stuck ever since. I really, genuinely think the mechanic makes no sense. Why is cover and concealment useless to a marine coming under small arms fire, but invaluable against a battle cannon shot? Why is a Guardsman in 3+ cover just as survivable as a marine in the same cover against all incoming fire other than ignores cover weaponry? It has a desperately disproportionate effect on different armies since a Guardsman in cover benefits far more than the aforementioned marine (or Incubus or what have you).

I think to-hit modifiers make a lot more sense, with the save perhaps kicking in against blast weapons. I'd also saver cover save modifiers (or some weird cover save AP system) rather than the simple on-off switch of ignores cover. This said, I like overly complex games that take forever to play, so maybe I'm crazy.

[Vangrail]

Hull points was the single best thing 6th did to improve over 5th. Not scoring in transports is probably second best. I wouldnt be opposed to removing the explodes result from the damage table altogether, though.
I like hull points just wish things had more than they do.

[Charistoph]

I like hull points just wish things had more than they do.

They wouldn't need more if they weren't so easy to remove. And oddly enough, it's usually easier to Penetrate than Glance a Vehicle in most cases.

[Vangrail]

I only really get glanced. But i have it will not die with my marines so that helps but my chaos im better off leaving the rhinos at home. A rule i really like is removing casulties from the front.

[chicop76]

I actually like the hp system. Only thing I say I mind is my glancing hits can't shake or stun. After playing several 6th edition games I think the hp system is wayyyyy better than how you had to deal with vehicles in other editions. Now you can't kill a vehicle with a lucky glance and it is a bit harder to kill a vehicle with an outright pen. The differance now is that you can actually glance a vehicle to death instead of glancing the vehicle all game long. Models like a Soul Grinder can be very overwhelming if it ignores stuns and glances and you keep glancing it like 20 times in one game and it is still killing off your army since it can ignore shaken and stun. Now if it receives 4 glancing or pininv hits than it is dead.

[ShadowSong7007]

I suppose my change would go hand and hand with the hull points. I just want dreadnaughts to not suck. They are supposed to be the "awww snap" moment for marines. now they are just a free kill point.

[simiusmagnus]

I'd change the rules for assaulting back to the last edition. It used to be that my Orks would get shot up as they crossed the table, but then they'd close to assault range and that would even things out considerably, even swing it in my favor a bit. Now they get shot up as they cross the table, close to assault range, get shot up some more, don't make the charging roll, and stand around to get shot even more on my opponent's next turn. Not a fan.

[revalundale]

I would change one small rule. Being able to assault the turn that something arrives from reserves. Not deep-strike, just reserves. This made my Genestealer army completely useless to me.

[Digriz636]

Grounding FMC

Firstly, how can a tau laser pointer ground my T9 Flyrant /w FNP?? Or how can markerlights ground freaking harridan!? Also, am I supposed to believe that getting hit by a markerlight is just as likely to ground me as getting hit by a D weapon??

[Death Shroud]

I'd bring back the old (4th edition) cover rules. Cover used to be something that made you think in terms of fire lanes and manoeuvering your units to deny your enemy cover/provide cover for your advancing troops. In removing that level of abstraction I feel they've taken away from that feeling of creeping through dense woods, moving through ruined buildings and made everything seem flat and dull. The fact that you can shoot through a window that's half a board away and hit something the other side of the board (depending on the range of the weapon obviously) is absolutely ridiculous. "Oh but you've got a 4+ cover save", so what? Shooting a bunch of Tau through a building with bolt weapons and the fact that the building is there doesn't affect the outcome at all! Now to stop you shooting a building has to be solid (no open doors or windows) to effectively stop you shooting through it. In real life wars where there are buildings you'd have to move through the building to be able to shoot enemies and you'd have to be fairly close to the edge of it to be seen. This rule is the main reason I went from playing loads of 40k in 4th edition to hardly playing it at all in 5th (probably less than 10 times in that period). True line of sight sucks ***.

:mad:

Biggest improvement this edition was to the wound allocation. The system in 5th edition meant that you guys in the squad were less likely to be injured simply if they carried a larger variety of equipment. Watching a flamer marine fail 3 saves while the rest of his unit survives etc was ****ing annoying.
Damn stupid rule and was glad to see the back of it.
.

[ElectricPaladin]

I would port the armor save rules - or something very much like them - over from Fantasy. The "feast or famine" way it works in 40k is incredibly frustrating if you enjoy durable armies. Low AP guns are just too easy to come by. Nothing sucks more than watching your expensive squad of 3+ marines evaporate under a battle cannon or demolisher cannon or something. Now, in Fantasy, your armor save is modified by the power of the attack, not completely obviated, which means that durable models are always more durable than less durable models would be in the same situation.

It isn't a huge difference. I'm not arguing that 3+ marines should be invulnerable. This change would make everyone slightly more durable. I just think it would be a more positive play experience if the armor that I had to pay for - in points - wasn't completely obviated by some stupid AP score.

[DarkLink]

They wouldn't need more if they weren't so easy to remove. And oddly enough, it's usually easier to Penetrate than Glance a Vehicle in most cases.

And if you do that, we'd go straight back to 5th edition razorback spam. Your solution would undermine the whole point of hull points and ruin the relative balance vehicles have. Right now, vehicles are generally pretty good, but not game breaking like they used to be. They could use some tweaks, but they're pretty close to where they need to be.

Also, you forget that last edition you could kill a vehicle via glances. And it wasn't good enough.

[DarkLink]

I would port the armor save rules - or something very much like them - over from Fantasy. The "feast or famine" way it works in 40k is incredibly frustrating if you enjoy durable armies. Low AP guns are just too easy to come by. Nothing sucks more than watching your expensive squad of 3+ marines evaporate under a battle cannon or demolisher cannon or something. Now, in Fantasy, your armor save is modified by the power of the attack, not completely obviated, which means that durable models are always more durable than less durable models would be in the same situation.

It isn't a huge difference. I'm not arguing that 3+ marines should be invulnerable. This change would make everyone slightly more durable. I just think it would be a more positive play experience if the armor that I had to pay for - in points - wasn't completely obviated by some stupid AP score.

You just need to make sure that weak ap doesn't hurt Marines. Like ap5 bolters dropping Marines to a 4+.

I would propose that for each point of ap equal to or below your armor, you lose one point of armor. So AP3 would drop Marines to a 4+, AP 2 to a 5+, and AP1 to a 6+.

Cover could then be a bonus to your armor save that can't be removed by AP. So in normal cover, a Marine would have a 2+, and that plasma would drop him to a 5+ but cover would buff it back to a 4/3+.

[Grimmdarkness]

I would change the random charge range roll. I am one of those guys who generally rolls low so I often roll under 6" on the 2d6, let alone through terrain. So I often fail, get shot, and don't even get to move the inches I rolled for...it's pretty crazy.

[keeter]

Random charge distance! I don't mind having the roll but it should be 6"+d6 distance for normal infantry. It gives assault units the reliability they need to be useful again but should they push their luck and go for that long charge they take the risk of failing and being caught in the open.

[lupo1982]

It's quite simple indeed , to make the game more fun for everyone just make all the codexs

RESPECT THE ****ING BASE MANUAL!

so we can stop plaing Necronhammer or Demonhammer

and

Make ALL life operanting veichles either monstrous creature or veichle BUT ALL in the same category

i can't stand a riptide and dreadknight being a MC while a dreadnought is a veichle
or a chaos dragon or fiend being veichle while Eldars Knights are MC

[Brother Smoke]

-Would change assault distance to 6" + D6
-Would give everything 1 extra hull point
-Would turn cover into a "to hit" modifier, as suggested previously
-Would rework the stealth rules to something that could be considered really stealthy/sneaky/invisible
-Would alter the walker and MC rules to make them more alike, or give walkers a 2+ armor save by default
-Would make it possible for units to assault after outflanking

And many more

[chicop76]

It's quite simple indeed , to make the game more fun for everyone just make all the codexs

RESPECT THE ****ING BASE MANUAL!

so we can stop plaing Necronhammer or Demonhammer

and

Make ALL life operanting veichles either monstrous creature or veichle BUT ALL in the same category

i can't stand a riptide and dreadknight being a MC while a dreadnought is a veichle
or a chaos dragon or fiend being veichle while Eldars Knights are MC



That is a good point a vehicle can die to one shot, while it take at least 5 to kill most MCs. Sometimes six. Anyway that is why nidzilla did really well in 4th and 5th till nids got yhe nerf dex. Till nerf dex got a buff in sixth. Anyway some armies can field 20 vehicles while some armies would be hard pressed to field 12 mcs, necrons can field 12 monstrous creatures. If vehicles was as hard to kill as mcs than you may get guard player's spamming a bunch of chimeras and sentinels for example, remember dat leaf blower list that hit around 16 vehicles.

You also have to keep in mind only one army do not have vehicles, while only 5-6 armies have mcs.
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Grey Knights
Nids
Daemons
CSM
Tau

Well orcs and humanity don't have them, besides Grey Knights.

Orks are due a MC so humanity will be the only non mc armies out there.

[Fanboy]

1. Take Assault rules back to 5th Ed
2. Furious Charge: +1 str +1 Initiative
3. No stand a fire. This is a stooopid rule
4. Limit Flyers to 0-1
5. Remove challenges. What a load of #r@p
6. Remove AP for Power Weapons. They're power weapons, no armour saves. Period.........

[datalas]

I always thought that cover should reduce the strength of the shot. Not a perfect solution but an attempt to stop a particularly leafy bush stopping an explosive charge.

[Charistoph]

And if you do that, we'd go straight back to 5th edition razorback spam. Your solution would undermine the whole point of hull points and ruin the relative balance vehicles have. Right now, vehicles are generally pretty good, but not game breaking like they used to be. They could use some tweaks, but they're pretty close to where they need to be.

Also, you forget that last edition you could kill a vehicle via glances. And it wasn't good enough.

Not quite DarkLink. As I said, it is technically easier to Penetrate most Vehicles than to Glance them. Most weapons that target Vehicles are capable of Penetrating the average Armour by 2 or more points on the die, while Glancing only happens on one (Haywire being the exception). Yes, there are many cases where an attack can only Glance, but that still doesn't compare to what is commonly used, what it generally targets, and just how effective that can be.

[lupo1982]

1. Take Assault rules back to 5th Ed
2. Furious Charge: +1 str +1 Initiative
3. No stand a fire. This is a stooopid rule
4. Limit Flyers to 0-1
5. Remove challenges. What a load of #r@p
6. Remove AP for Power Weapons. They're power weapons, no armour saves. Period.........

Amen brother!

I so hate challenges too, what is the sense in one strong model attaking a giant mob and for save his *** he just challenge the SARGE, i can't figure this picture of a single that go against a mob and apart from the sarge the others just watch

[morek]

i would change that the supporting ranks in fantasy only get 1 attack it should decrease by 1 after the second rank, this should also be the same for cavalry

[Psyfer]

Change the turn rules to alternating unit activation ala Epic.

[DarkLink]

Not quite DarkLink. As I said, it is technically easier to Penetrate most Vehicles than to Glance them. Most weapons that target Vehicles are capable of Penetrating the average Armour by 2 or more points on the die, while Glancing only happens on one (Haywire being the exception). Yes, there are many cases where an attack can only Glance, but that still doesn't compare to what is commonly used, what it generally targets, and just how effective that can be.

Your proposed solution would mean a hull point on a '6' to glance, a pen, and a '6' wrecks. Last edition, a glancing 6 wrecked a vehicle, and you could still blow it up, and the damage chart made it much easier to wreck or explode a vehicle if you did get a pen. And light vehicles were so difficult to kill that they dominated the meta. So you think it's a good idea to buff vehicles to be even more difficult to kill than they were in 5th? Seriously?

[chicop76]

Your proposed solution would mean a hull point on a '6' to glance, a pen, and a '6' wrecks. Last edition, a glancing 6 wrecked a vehicle, and you could still blow it up, and the damage chart made it much easier to wreck or explode a vehicle if you did get a pen. And light vehicles were so difficult to kill that they dominated the meta. So you think it's a good idea to buff vehicles to be even more difficult to kill than they were in 5th? Seriously?

Like the vehicle rules now. Stops the 20 vehicle swarm from hell. I wonder why less landraiders this edition.

I also think consolidation should be different. I think 1" distance should be good and vehicle's about 2". This is my 2 cents so I can pull out and actually use small blast weapons.

Oh and tlos. In tournament play it's a serious issue. You get people who win due to how terrain is blocking line of sight while they sit pretty on an objective. You can't go near due to terrain set up. I think you should be able to set woods on fire and blast away ruins into rubble.

I think even if you don't see the model if you know it's hiding behind a tree you still should be able to shoot the tree. In real life trees really do not stop bullets, so hiding behind them helps that the round course might change, but I can still turn you I to swiss cheese behind that tree. Concrete helps, but high caliber rounds can still go through it depends on how thick the material is, several rounds can drill right through the concrete.

[Charistoph]

Your proposed solution would mean a hull point on a '6' to glance, a pen, and a '6' wrecks. Last edition, a glancing 6 wrecked a vehicle, and you could still blow it up, and the damage chart made it much easier to wreck or explode a vehicle if you did get a pen. And light vehicles were so difficult to kill that they dominated the meta. So you think it's a good idea to buff vehicles to be even more difficult to kill than they were in 5th? Seriously?

No it didn't. A Glance in 5th could only Immobilize the Vehicle, unless it was Open-Topped or the weapon was AP: 1.

And don't forget, being Immobilized twice still removes a Hull Point, and if the weapons are destroyed and it is Immobilized, it is a Hull Point as well.

[chicop76]

Too many damn editions. Anyway I swore on a 6 you can wreak vehicles on a glance unless the vehicle was open topped. You know let me go look.hmmm wrong edition looking at 4th.

6 is destroyed on a glance
4-5 desrtoyed and 6 is explodes.

That is 4th

6 on a glance is immobilized
5 is wrecked
6 explodes

That is 5th

Now with 6th glances do nothing, but issue hull points. That is a big difference since I can glance in the past and move on to my next target, now I am forced to glance death or pen to disable the tank in some way. In 6th it is harder to disable tanks, easier to kill, but harder to prevent it from moving and shooting.

Also the pen chart is much better for vehicles since you need a 6 to do anything.

If you dropped the hull point system tanks would be a lot worst than they was in 5th. Giving them hull points give them a balance .

If anything tanks in 6th edition are harder to kill with one shot and easier to kill with multiple shots.

[DarkLink]

Ah, that's right. But remember that, since damage results stacked, immobilizing a vehicle basically did do a hull point. In fact, it was better than doing a hull point, since you also would destroy a weapon. To kill a Rhino, you could immobilize it or weapon destrou the storm bolter, then a second result would render it a useless wreck, and a third would wreck it.

So yeah, my bad, but my point still stands. Especially considering the role ap values played on vehicles.

[Nabterayl]

If anything tanks in 6th edition are harder to kill with one shot and easier to kill with multiple shots.
I think this is the heart of it - as various people have pointed out at various times, this seems to be the design objective of hull points. I think the main reason people don't like it is that it feels intuitively wrong, since that isn't how armored vehicles actually behave when hit. Balancing the game around the way armored vehicles actually behave when hit, though, would require a top-to-bottom overhaul of the accepted armor values that vehicles have and/or a top-to-bottom overhaul of the stats of the various anti-armor weapons in the game.

The hull point system bothers my sense of narrative, but from a balance standpoint, I like it.

[chicop76]

I think this is the heart of it - as various people have pointed out at various times, this seems to be the design objective of hull points. I think the main reason people don't like it is that it feels intuitively wrong, since that isn't how armored vehicles actually behave when hit. Balancing the game around the way armored vehicles actually behave when hit, though, would require a top-to-bottom overhaul of the accepted armor values that vehicles have and/or a top-to-bottom overhaul of the stats of the various anti-armor weapons in the game.

The hull point system bothers my sense of narrative, but from a balance standpoint, I like it.

Same here. I think it really balance out vehicles a lot. Also in 6 they can shoot as snap fire like in 5th they couldn't fire at all. I have to look when immobilized meant couldn't shoot as well. Too many editions.

From a pratical sense if my blast just shake x tank x number of times it makes little sense it should blow up, maybe crew inside was turned to mush.

From that reasoning models shouldn't have a +2 cover save hiding behind a tree with a camouflage cover on. I think negative towards ballistic skill makes more sense than actual cover saves, although hiding in building s etc. Would cause issues and after thinking about it that way cover saves make sense. However I think cover saves in 5th and 6th is much more abused than in any other edition. Like a model possibly having a 3+ cover save dut to gtg and invisibility simply out in the open.

[DarkLink]

Hull points make as much sense as any of gws other vehicle rules.




I also think consolidation should be different. I think 1"

Oh and tlos. In tournament play it's a serious issue. You get people who win due to how terrain is blocking line of sight while they sit pretty on an objective. You can't go near due to terrain set up. I think you should be able to set woods on fire and blast away ruins into rubble.

I think even if you don't see the model if you know it's hiding behind a tree you still should be able to shoot the tree. In real life trees really do not stop bullets, so hiding behind them helps that the round course might change, but I can still turn you I to swiss cheese behind that tree. Concrete helps, but high caliber rounds can still go through it depends on how thick the material is, several rounds can drill right through the concrete.


For one, yes, concrete and trees can, and do, stop bullets. There's a reason the military teaches the difference between cover and concealment.

Two, you're a Tau player, right? It shows. Being able to hide units out of LOS isn't a hinderance, it's a vital part of the game.

[chicop76]

Hull points make as much sense as any of gws other vehicle rules.




For one, yes, concrete and trees can, and do, stop bullets. There's a reason the military teaches the difference between cover and concealment.

Two, you're a Tau player, right? It shows. Being able to hide units out of LOS isn't a hinderance, it's a vital part of the game.

I'll tell you what. You hide behind a tree while I shoot at with a M-16. Heck even 22 rounds go through trees. The rounds may tumble or change course, but it can penetrate trees.

I know the difference between cover and concealment. Long story short concealment is not protection.

Umm Ak-47 rounds can go through walls rather easily. Concrete depending on how thick it is can slow or stop rounds from penetrating. How ever with enough rounds and depending on distance you can eventually shoot through concreate.

However it's better to hide behind that wall than out in the open. Also keeping ing mind that we are talking about more advanced 40k weapons I would doubt a tree or wall would stop the rounds from penetrating.

That also brings to mind what I said earlier. I play Tau on other armies. As a Daemon player it matters as well since I can't assault what I can't see or go through walls is another model is on the other side. My point is tlos screws some armies and some armies it does not. Honesty TLoS helps Tau since I can shoot through terrain I couldn't had shot through in 3rd and 4th. Than add in cover save denial it's almost as if the terrain isn't even there.

[ElectricPaladin]

I'll tell you what. You hide behind a tree while I shoot at with a M-16. Heck even 22 rounds go through trees. The rounds may tumble or change course, but it can penetrate trees.

I know the difference between cover and concealment. Long story short concealment is not protection...

Armor saves represent shots that bounce off the armor. Cover saves represent shots that miss due to concealment, including both user error caused by the target's outline being obscured and bullets tumbling due to contact with, say, a tree. Your point is...?

[Charistoph]

I'll tell you what. You hide behind a tree while I shoot at with a M-16. Heck even 22 rounds go through trees. The rounds may tumble or change course, but it can penetrate trees.

I know the difference between cover and concealment. Long story short concealment is not protection.

Umm Ak-47 rounds can go through walls rather easily. Concrete depending on how thick it is can slow or stop rounds from penetrating. How ever with enough rounds and depending on distance you can eventually shoot through concreate.

However it's better to hide behind that wall than out in the open. Also keeping ing mind that we are talking about more advanced 40k weapons I would doubt a tree or wall would stop the rounds from penetrating.


It REALLY depends on the tree/wall in question, what you're shooting it with, and the range before the hit. I imagine a 1,000 year old redwood can stop an average AP round pretty well, but a palo verde would likely just deflect/tumble the round at best. A wall meant for defense against a tank could probably stop your AK-47's round pretty well, but the dry wall in the average home would do a very less effective job. A point blank shot is far more likely to penetrate a tree or a wall than at 300 yards, and even less than at a 1,000.

[chicop76]

Armor saves represent shots that bounce off the armor. Cover saves represent shots that miss due to concealment, including both user error caused by the target's outline being obscured and bullets tumbling due to contact with, say, a tree. Your point is...?

What darklink was referring to was the actual military terms of cover and concealment. They preach for you to take cover like behind a car right by the engine block. Than for you to try to conceal yourself which really doesn't stop bullets. Cover yes, Concealment no.

Although we do try to conceal gear and valuable equipment through camouflage.

My point and not going into heat detection or even through the use of sound waves. You can be detected hiding behind an object. Keeping in mind that high caliber sniper rifles can easily penetrate walls, I wouldn't say a wall would save you.

Lets put it this way. X scum hide behind wall and or builing which we detect via drone, satellites, scouts, etc. Attack C-130 is called and said people in structure no longer remains amonst the living. Now you telling me a guardsmen hiding behind a wall that has been weakened by preexisting bombing can deflect a Tau Rail Gun or even an overcharged Ion blast. Technology that is way beyond us today, but have short commings of Technology dated back to WWII. Actually should go back to ar ound the 18th century.

[chicop76]

It REALLY depends on the tree/wall in question, what you're shooting it with, and the range before the hit. I imagine a 1,000 year old redwood can stop an average AP round pretty well, but a palo verde would likely just deflect/tumble the round at best. A wall meant for defense against a tank could probably stop your AK-47's round pretty well, but the dry wall in the average home would do a very less effective job. A point blank shot is far more likely to penetrate a tree or a wall than at 300 yards, and even less than at a 1,000.

I agree. Distance makes a difference and object thickness does too. 40k trees however are not giant red wood trees. What wall defense. All the terrain gw puts out is mostly ruins. Look at what buildings look like in WWII after bombings and that is the very similar look.

You know how think a bunker have to be to stop tank shells. Not to mention C-130 or A-10 shells. If battleships wasn't being used today, guided missiles, good luck trying to stop those shells.

[chicop76]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ileQ2l_rM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here is a good example. After several rounds are fired the wall where it is being shot at starts to give way.

[Flammenwerfer13]

I'd like see some tweaking with the ruleset to better fix of some of the more glaring issues.

Vehicles
- Allow scoring from inside a vehicle again
- Allow assaulting from a stationary vehicle again
These two changes would bring back a lot of value to vehicles.
Change "Extra Armour" to give the vehicle an additional hullpoint instead of it being useless. Keep at 15 points.
Change Predators/Hammerheads/Leman Russ Tanks to 4 hull points and bump Land Raiders to 5.

Change Skyfire and Snapshots to instead confer a -3 BS when used. This way it takes into account those Characters or units that have better training/equipment/experience ect. Instead of being an across the board reduce to 1 BS. These achieves the same effect but takes into account a lot more of the game.
Give Chain swords AP5/rending. (well rending is a 50/50). At a minimum give them AP5!!
Fix Axes, instead of making them retarded with unwieldy makes them give a -1 int/+2 str Stat instead. This should fix them and have more different than a poor mans power fist.
Give Heavy Bolters/Multi-Lasers other machine gun type weapons Pinning -1. Make them work the way they do in real life which is to pin an enemy in place and overwhelm them with volume of firepower.
Allow assaulting from the Board Edge again.

[Nabterayl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ileQ2l_rM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here is a good example. After several rounds are fired the wall where it is being shot at starts to give way.
I don't know how good an example that is. I count fifteen hits in that video and the wall has clearly not been penetrated. I wouldn't stand behind that wall forever while somebody blasted at it with an indefinite amount of AK-47 rounds, but it stopped fifteen rounds at what appears to be very short range.

[DarkLink]

Same thing with a tree, which they actually did on mythbusters. Yeah, sure, if you fire a few thousand rounds into a tree, you'll eventually chew it up. That doesn't mean an M16 can punch through in one shot. Plus, that wall was made from cement blocks. Not particularly durable material there.

And **** no, you should not bring back scoring inside of vehicles. Why are there so many people that are convinced vehicles are terrible? They're still very useful. You just can't spam your way to victory anymore. That's a good thing.

Though, yes, they should bring back assaulting out of a stationary transport, since that makes a number of otherwise terrible units useable again.

[chicop76]

I don't know how good an example that is. I count fifteen hits in that video and the wall has clearly not been penetrated. I wouldn't stand behind that wall forever while somebody blasted at it with an indefinite amount of AK-47 rounds, but it stopped fifteen rounds at what appears to be very short range.

Yeah you're not considering multiple attackers, or an entire army. Let's say a squad of 20 open fire with you behind a wall unloading entire clips. Not even mentioning higher rounds, bombs, etc.

Obviously against one ak-47 the wall will eventually give way. The point is can said wall really protect you against 1850 points firing at it.

Not saying no penalty shoukd be there to shoot at something in cover. My issue is after an entire army is firing at that postion or 3 units into that position, you shouldn't have the same amount of protection from a degraded position. If I flame a forrest some trees should catch on fire. Not saying forrest would burn out at games end, but at least it should br on fire.

[ElectricPaladin]

Yeah you're not considering multiple attackers, or an entire army. Let's say a squad of 20 open fire with you behind a wall unloading entire clips. Not even mentioning higher rounds, bombs, etc.

Obviously against one ak-47 the wall will eventually give way. The point is can said wall really protect you against 1850 points firing at it.

Not saying no penalty shoukd be there to shoot at something in cover. My issue is after an entire army is firing at that postion or 3 units into that position, you shouldn't have the same amount of protection from a degraded position. If I flame a forrest some trees should catch on fire. Not saying forrest would burn out at games end, but at least it should br on fire.

There are games that attempt to reflect this kind of realism.

Then there are games with psychic posthumans, ancient death-bots, and space elves.

Do you really think that writing a rule for this kind of corner-case situation is really worth it?

[chicop76]

Same thing with a tree, which they actually did on mythbusters. Yeah, sure, if you fire a few thousand rounds into a tree, you'll eventually chew it up. That doesn't mean an M16 can punch through in one shot. Plus, that wall was made from cement blocks. Not particularly durable material there.

And **** no, you should not bring back scoring inside of vehicles. Why are there so many people that are convInced vehicles are terrible? They're still very useful. You just can't spam your way to victory anymore. That's a good thing.

Though, yes, they should bring back assaulting out of a stationary transport, since that makes a number of otherwise terrible units useable again.

Depending on the caliber vs the tree. From experience bullets can go through trees. However would it do so with one shot or continue through without shattering, tumbling, or changing direction is up for debate. The question is how reliable a weapon can penetrate a tree. Also down in Louisiana you do have to consider termites also weakening trees as well which can be a factor.

1. No vehicles shouldn't be scoring. I don't play mech guard anymore, but that tactic won me a lot of games in 5th.
2. I agree with assaulting out of vehicles that didn't move.
3. Disagree with assaulting on the outflank. That would make armies like white scars and Daemons even more of a hassle than before. That would mean I can outflank with hounds, and daemonettes if I attach a Herald on a mount with them. No. It would bring back genestealers. Still not keen of stuff having a 2ft threat range from the sides. Which means in 1/3 of the deployment you can easily get assaulted.

[DarkLink]

So, what,the squad sergeant is going to be like 'ok, I think there might possibly be some bad guys behind that wal, let's shot the crap out of it and see'?

Besides, there's a level of detail that is not just unnecessary but actively detrimental to gameplay. Setting stuff on fire would be cool, but keeping track of the level of damage to each piece of terrain would add nothing.

Edit: also , yes, the trees around here aren't getting shot through by anything less than a bunker buster in a lot of cases.

[ElectricPaladin]

Besides, there's a level of detail that is not just unnecessary but actively detrimental to gameplay. Setting stuff on fire would be cool, but keeping track of the level of damage to each piece of terrain would add nothing.

I would argue that it depends on the game. In detailed skirmish game - like, say, Infinity - it can be fun to track the health or status of individual pieces of terrain. But in Infinity, you've got a big army if you've got more than ten models on the board, so that's a lot more manageable.

[chicop76]

So, what,the squad sergeant is going to be like 'ok, I think there might possibly be some bad guys behind that wal, let's shot the crap out of it and see'?

Besides, there's a level of detail that is not just unnecessary but actively detrimental to gameplay. Setting stuff on fire would be cool, but keeping track of the level of damage to each piece of terrain would add nothing.

Edit: also , yes, the trees around here aren't getting shot through by anything less than a bunker buster in a lot of cases.

I figure they have more advanced capabilities than us and can determine their postions. Also if you ran or was firing from sad postion it would be obvious that certain troops are there.

How so. We have to keep track of random terrain and some weapons set people on fire. How is that any different.

[Nabterayl]

Yeah you're not considering multiple attackers, or an entire army. Let's say a squad of 20 open fire with you behind a wall unloading entire clips. Not even mentioning higher rounds, bombs, etc.
Nobody's doctrine is to pulverize cover with small arms fire. Those clips need to last for days, even in continuous heavy fighting. If you really must pulverize somebody's cover, you should use one of your various tools that are designed to do that - or, you know, flank the person, like a sensible infantryman. Certainly there is stuff on the battlefield that ought to be capable of pulverizing cover.

On the other hand, right now, cover and concealment are both included in the "cover save" concept, so to sensibly include any sort of cover destruction rules, you'd also need to distinguish between a cover save and a concealment save. The consequential changes start to add up.

[DarkLink]

Actually, you kill guys in cover with air strikes or artillery. But same difference.

[chicop76]

Actually, you kill guys in cover with air strikes or artillery. But same difference.

Love dem A-10s.

Depends on the budget. Vietnam was a war, oh and korea where we just destroyed everything. If you wasn't in a cave or tunnel system you was pretty much dead. Especially in korea where they say napalms first hand.

Since we have a lower budget you won't see vietnams or koreas today, but in 40k I think the main resource is war and spraying over 100 rounds in an area wouldn't be really unheard off.

[Nabterayl]

Well, it's not just budget. It's a logistical/operational issue too. If every rifleman blows through 600 rounds every firefight because artillery or mortar or naval air support is unavailable (not impossible, I suppose, in an Imperial strike force - particularly air support being unavailable), then your striking distance is greatly foreshortened. A man can only carry so many magazines, after all. A simple doctrinal shift from "blast the crap out of every piece of cover you see because hey, ammo is plentiful!" to "if indirect fire options are unavailable and demolition munitions are scarce, use fire and movement to flank the *******" still lets you make better use of your existing resources, allows you to mount combat operations over longer periods of time and greater distances from your supply depots, and avoids troops running out of ammunition in the middle of protracted firefights. An Army rifleman can make his 210 rounds last for over 48 hours of continuous combat (a buddy of mine had to do that in Afghanistan). Guardsmen getting into scenarios like that is hardly far-fetched. If you can't make intelligent use of your ammunition and you get into a protracted firefight like that, you're just kind of screwed.

[Hapes]

hull points suck

[chicop76]

Well, it's not just budget. It's a logistical/operational issue too. If every rifleman blows through 600 rounds every firefight because artillery or mortar or naval air support is unavailable (not impossible, I suppose, in an Imperial strike force - particularly air support being unavailable), then your striking distance is greatly foreshortened. A man can only carry so many magazines, after all. A simple doctrinal shift from "blast the crap out of every piece of cover you see because hey, ammo is plentiful!" to "if indirect fire options are unavailable and demolition munitions are scarce, use fire and movement to flank the *******" still lets you make better use of your existing resources, allows you to mount combat operations over longer periods of time and greater distances from your supply depots, and avoids troops running out of ammunition in the middle of protracted firefights. An Army rifleman can make his 210 rounds last for over 48 hours of continuous combat (a buddy of mine had to do that in Afghanistan). Guardsmen getting into scenarios like that is hardly far-fetched. If you can't make intelligent use of your ammunition and you get into a protracted firefight like that, you're just kind of screwed.

Well you are talking about today's military which have suffered huge budget cuts since the end of the cold war. Budget dictates precision bombing and not going full automatic. Korea and Vietnam are examples with a larger budget and simply wasting rounds and bombs.

[DarkLink]

Actually, standard operating procedure nowadays is to locate the enemy, then drop a bomb on him. Just... trust me on this one. I can't tell you how many times at OCS we were presented with some tactical problem, and one of the Marines said 'well, in real life we'd just call in an airstrike'. Fire and maneuver is technically doctrine, but with our superior firepower, marksmanship, and excessively heavy loads (PPE prevents proper engagement), it gets less practice than doctrine would indicate.

[Nabterayl]

And today's best armies around the world haven't 99% abandoned automatic fire for riflemen because it's expensive. It just doesn't work very well unless you're firing an actual machine gun. There are virtually no circumstances in which a three-round burst from a rifle or carbine puts more rounds into the enemy per period of time than rapid aimed single shots. Even in very close quarters, such as room clearing, all the actual soldiers I've talked to or read say they prefer single shots.

[chicop76]

And today's best armies around the world haven't 99% abandoned automatic fire for riflemen because it's expensive. It just doesn't work very well unless you're firing an actual machine gun. There are virtually no circumstances in which a three-round burst from a rifle or carbine puts more rounds into the enemy per period of time than rapid aimed single shots. Even in very close quarters, such as room clearing, all the actual soldiers I've talked to or read say they prefer single shots.

Never said that wasn't the case. Training makes a difference. Today it is discouraged to go full automatic. Also your job is probably 3 careers lumped into one.

Traning with finite resources is different when training with a huge resource base.

Today's military is thought to avoid over kill and not waste man power. In both periods mentioned we had manpower and resources. In nam for example it was common for troops to unload full automatic at a certain area hoping they hit something. Was it effective not really.

The point is the only race that even shows modern tactics is the Tau and Eldar. While everyone else have the WWII-Vietnam era train of thinking on how to conduct war. How often humanity would wipe out a planet when they could had hit the problem at the source.

[chicop76]

And today's best armies around the world haven't 99% abandoned automatic fire for riflemen because it's expensive. It just doesn't work very well unless you're firing an actual machine gun. There are virtually no circumstances in which a three-round burst from a rifle or carbine puts more rounds into the enemy per period of time than rapid aimed single shots. Even in very close quarters, such as room clearing, all the actual soldiers I've talked to or read say they prefer single shots.

Never said that wasn't the case. Training makes a difference. Today it is discouraged to go full automatic. Also your job is probably 3 careers lumped into one.

Traning with finite resources is different when training with a huge resource base.

Today's military is thought to avoid over kill and not waste man power. In both periods mentioned we had manpower and resources. In nam for example it was common for troops to unload full automatic at a certain area hoping they hit something. Was it effective not really.

The point is the only race that even shows modern tactics is the Tau and Eldar. While everyone else have the WWII-Vietnam era train of thinking on how to conduct war. How often humanity would wipe out a planet when they could had hit the problem at the source.

[Dimitrios]

The one rule that bugs me the most is as follows:

A marine is surrounded on all sides by orks... flighing above said orks are deff koptpas... behind the orks are battlewagons... and behind the battlewagons are gargants... Everywhere the marine looks is ork... and yet... he aims his bolter and fires into the crowd and manages to roll snake eyes... not a single model is hit...

Or a guardsman, standing infront of an immobilised landraider... he points the nossle of his melta gun against the hull... however rolles a 2 and the shot misses...

NEITHER of these scenarios makes any sence to me, therefore i would like the shooting rules to be modified to EITHER:

1. Within 2 inches, all shooting attacks hit automatically. No dice roll is required.

OR:

0 - 2 inches = +2 to hit
2 - 6 inches = +1 to hit
6 - half range = normal balistic skill
half range - full range = -1 to hit
full range + 6 inches = -2 to hit
full range + 12 inches = -3 to hit
full range + 18 incges = -4 to hit... ETC ETC...

This brings shooting back in line with HOW IT SHOULD WORK... and not make all shots hit with exactly the same accuracy irrespective of the range of the firer to the target...

Certain weapons would modify this table, i.e sniper rifles could ignore this rule... auspex and other equipment would reduce the long ranged penalties... Imperial guard could order a squad to use tracer rounds on order to increase the accuracy of all other squads firing at the target ETC ETC...

This mechanic works very well in fantasy but would need to be modified to not be SO detrimental to the game...

[ElectricPaladin]

This mechanic works very well in fantasy but would need to be modified to not be SO detrimental to the game...

A similar mechanic works well in Fantasy, but what you're describing is way more extreme.

[Nurglitch]

Alternately there's a million different reasons why he could miss, or simply not fire, and considering the normal distribution stipulating a flat 3+ and calling it a day is good enough.

[DarkLink]

If you think that just because you're close, you should autohit, then you've never been in a firefight of any sort. Even just from paintballing in high school, I can tell you that's nonsense.

Besides, that degree of range modifiers wouldn't add anything to the game. Complexity for the sake of complexity is not fun

[Weidekuh]

The one rule that bugs me the most is as follows:

A marine is surrounded on all sides by orks... flighing above said orks are deff koptpas... behind the orks are battlewagons... and behind the battlewagons are gargants... Everywhere the marine looks is ork... and yet... he aims his bolter and fires into the crowd and manages to roll snake eyes... not a single model is hit...

Or a guardsman, standing infront of an immobilised landraider... he points the nossle of his melta gun against the hull... however rolles a 2 and the shot misses...

NEITHER of these scenarios makes any sence to me, therefore i would like the shooting rules to be modified to EITHER:

This brings shooting back in line with HOW IT SHOULD WORK... and not make all shots hit with exactly the same accuracy irrespective of the range of the firer to the target...



Both scenarios are actually quite plausible, even if rare.

Have you ever seen a player in a hockey or football match miss the goal while standing just in front of it? It happens.

Your guy firing the meltagun could have slipped, got distracted (it's a warzone, yes?), scared, accidently pressed the wrong button, have a weapon malfunction or something else. Take your pick.

[Spamthulhu]

I would get rid of Instant Death for strength alone. Fixes a lot of annoyances for numerous armies and makes characters less vulnerable. It should be a special rule granted to some weapons not any high strength weapon.

[chicop76]

I would get rid of Instant Death for strength alone. Fixes a lot of annoyances for numerous armies and makes characters less vulnerable. It should be a special rule granted to some weapons not any high strength weapon.

Nooooooooooooooooo!

That wouod make models like tyranid warriors really good. Heck I woukd field more crisis suits. Let's not talk about the Doom of Marlarti. The Doom would be much better.

[Wolfshade]

Way back in 2nd edition there was all kinds of +/- ve modifiers to hit, Dimitrios. It became a little clunky.

The other issue there is then the next logical step is to give +/-ve modifiers for being obscured or fast moving ro some other reason a target is difficult to hit.

E.g. why is it easier to hit someone hiding in a ruin than it is a man in the open slightly further away?

This then can lead to the double counting of the effects of cover. So the whole cover mechanic would need to removed from the save aspect. This also effects night fighting and makes cover more situational.

The knock on effect is that it changes how cover saves work and the night fighting mechanices, and so on and so forth.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd add a rule.

Stop Whining.

Every time you or your opponent whines during a game, you lose 1 VP.

[Kevlarshark]

All missile launchers should have flak missiles as standard, this includes dreadnought missile launchers and hunter-killer missiles.

also...

I would probably modify the allies table... Chaos space marines and Codex Space marines should be "desperate allies" to represent chapters who are on the edge of turning to chaos or have 'recently turned'.

Tyranids should be able to ally with Imperial Guard to represent 'stealer Cults.