Your 40k

[shiwan8]

So, how would you fix/tweak 40k rules wise to make it better? I ask this because while 7th is the best edition rules wise according to general opinion, it's not perfect. Let's not make this about codices, let's discus the BRB or individual rules.

I personally dislike few things and I'm going to put here a list with ideas on how I'd fix these things.

- Smash is just 1 attack. Yeah, that was dumb change from 6th. Now there's literally one anti tank monster in the game (outside FW) and it's carnifex. The rule from 6th was fine. I'd see it return.

- FMC can not assault and land during the same player turn. Flying melee monsters are pretty literally useless just because of that. Some people swear in the name of nurgle DP on this, but seeing that everyone now has s10/D ignores cover and armor weapons I'd not do that. What I'd do is that I'd let FMC land and charge, but only getting the base attacks. This would result to no daemon weapon slaughtering but FMCs would still be viable as melee units.

- A unit can not assault if it was in a transport when it exploded during the previous opponents turn. Makes no sense to me since you can still fire heavy weapons normally in that situation. I'd change it so that assaulting is ok in that situation.

- Allies. Allies are only BB with their own legion/chapter/craftworld/etc. and 1 closest thing next to their own kin and allies of convenience with everyone else. By this I mean that CSM would be BB with CSM (not daemonkin, CS or BL) and daemons, marines with only their own chapter and IG, Knights with mechanicus, sisters with GK, Eldar with DEldar, Tau/Orcs/Necrons/etc. with no-one else but their own codex (farsight would not be BB with Tau for example). The idea here is to make people to be able to do what ever they want, but make the less than acceptable cheese a little bit harder to pull off. This would also leave fluffbunnies like myself to do things that make sense unlike what the present rules now allow.

- Assaults from reserves are no no. Since GW is steering away from this anyway, I'd add a special rule that allows dedicated melee units to assault from reserves/outflank/scout/etc. IF it is reasonable to assume that said units are aware of the situation when they enter the board. It's not like the board would be a contained space that no-one can see in to or out of. To me it makes no sense that a unit next to table edge could not be assaulted by a unit that enters that sector of battle next to that unit. I'm aware that this would shift balance, likely a lot, but then again bublewrapping is a thing for a reason.

- 5th edition assaulting from the vehicle rules would be great.

- Getting rid of all the useless rules or tweaking them in such a way that they are worth the time spent on them. This would mean that fear, soul blaze and such uselessness would either be gone or do something without needlessly tedious book keeping and die rolling.

- Fix the OP! Invisibility should reduce hits to BS 1, not snap shots. Invisible people are logically not suddenly immune to templates etc. Other such rules are there, this is just an example.

- Then there are a bunch of already widely used house rules, like objective cards being discarded if they can not be done during the game, opponent asking if the unit receiving shots jinks and so on that I'd put in the book just to make sure the game is fair.

- Deny the witch would reduce the amount of successes in stead of needing to deny all the successes.

- Psychic witchfire powers that have no legit reason for to hit roll would hit automatically. One of these is psychic scream.

- 2++ rerolls on 4++.

- In stead of closest, the player that controls the unit that takes casualties should pick who dies. That special weapon gets picked up if it's user dies.

- D weapons doing damage on 3+. Essentially this would be -1 to the table.

- Blasts and templates hitting only one floor.

- When transport jinks, the passengers also shoot with BS1.

If I think of something else I'll put it here, but I think this was it.

So, what would you change?

[CoffeeGrunt]

I remember that, due to the wording, the Riptide could choose between 3 S6 attacks, or 2 S10 attacks, because it halved the base Attacks value. Made it better than it should've been at CC. You get to re-roll Penetration at S10, which is damn nice tbh.

Who is, "everyone," that has S10 Skyfire Ignores Cover, and how is that relevant against T6 MCs?

What's the point of making Codices BB with themselves and nothing else? It completely removes the relevant of BB-tier allies, and it makes sense that the Imperium works together pretty closely. It opens up a lot of options for styled armies.

There are Formations that let you Assault from Deep Strike and such, so it's probably rolling out. Personally, I feel it makes units a bit point-and-click, but that's just me. Maybe if they got to do it as a Disordered Charge from Reserves/Transports?

What have house rules got to do with it? The Rules are designed around you not being able to discard cards normally, because certain Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers allow you to do so. Also, your opponent has to declare Jinking before you roll to Hit. Asking them if they're Jinking shouldn't need to be in the rules, it's a basic bit of politeness.

Deny working like that would make Psychic Powers even harder to pull off. They're barely worth troubling with as they are now.

Players getting to choose who dies means chewing through expendable Grunts or seeing 10 Nob Bikers all take a Wound each. The system as it is now allows the firer to flank and use positioning to gain the advantage. If you tuck your HQ at the back of a squad and your opponent manages to surround you, it makes sense they take the hits. It represents them getting the drop on you, and you get Look Out, Sir anyway.

[Mr.Gold]

#1 rule to change is the effectiveness of overwatch, possibly they snap fire overwatch then in their next turn they only snp fire again.
#2 the ability to charge out of a stationary/wrecked vehicle, possibly as a disordered charge.
#3 deny the witch needs to change to reducing the amount of sucesses (as shiwan8 stated above)
#4 reduce the amount of battle bro's allies (e.g. all imperial factions have their own icon on the table, allowing only certain battle bros match ups, such as Guard Bro's with everyone (Imperial, Gue'vesa, Heretics, Genestealer Cult...) whereas Grey Knights would be Bros with only With Sisters of Battle, Desperate Allies with Dark Angles - Due to the Fallen..., but allies of convienence with most other imperial factions, also imperial factions (except guard) should be either desperate allies/come the apocalypse with alien races - due to two things - they have good allying within the imperium and in the fluff are very xenophobic)...
#5 reduce the amount of silly or duplicate (or near duplicate) rules (e.g. reanimation protocols behave very nearly like FNP, so remove the Reanimation Protocol rule and replace with "models with a reanimation protocol have a 5+ FNP save, and Crypteks give +1 to FNP rolls)...

[Djbz]

- FMC can not assault and land during the same player turn. Flying melee monsters are pretty literally useless just because of that. Some people swear in the name of nurgle DP on this, but seeing that everyone now has s10/D ignores cover and armor weapons I'd not do that. What I'd do is that I'd let FMC land and charge, but only getting the base attacks. This would result to no daemon weapon slaughtering but FMCs would still be viable as melee units.

Yes, flying monsters should be able to charge after changing modes, secondly they should ONLY be allowed cover saves from jinking/stealth/shrouded (not the ruins that they are 200 feet above)and not be allowed to shoot out their backsides


- 5th edition assaulting from the vehicle rules would be great. Yes


- Getting rid of all the useless rules or tweaking them in such a way that they are worth the time spent on them. This would mean that fear, soul blaze and such uselessness would either be gone or do something without needlessly tedious book keeping and die rolling.
again yes


- Fix the OP! Invisibility should reduce hits to BS 1, not snap shots. Invisible people are logically not suddenly immune to templates etc. Other such rules are there, this is just an example. Going to agree blasts and templates should be allowed against invisibility (although the few times it has been used in my games it's effects have been negligible)


- Deny the witch would reduce the amount of successes in stead of needing to deny all the successes.
yes


- Psychic witchfire powers that have no legit reason for to hit roll would hit automatically. One of these is psychic scream.
especially focussed witchfire (which are almost universally terrible anyway)


- 2++ rerolls on 4++.
I'd go with invulnerable saves cannot be improved past a 3+ (Like the mark of Tzeentch effect for Chaos marines)


- In stead of closest, the player that controls the unit that takes casualties should pick who dies. That special weapon gets picked up if it's user dies. Some system that means characters cannot "tank" wounds with better saves, but also protects the heavy/special weapon users- and to prevent wound shenanigans with multi-wound units


- D weapons doing damage on 3+. Essentially this would be -1 to the table.
D weapons are SUPPOSED to be stupidly powerful, that'd make them worse than Str 10 most of the time,
I'd say a fairer table would be:
1) No effect
2-3) Pen-1 Hp/1 wound damage ( -1 to any invun/cover saves)
4-5) Pen-2 Hp/2 wounds (-2 to any cover/invun saves)
6) Pen-3Hp/3 wounds no saves of any kind
No losing 6 wound things in one shot but no more bouncing off storm shields nonsense


- Blasts and templates hitting only one floor.
yes, add (because people are stupid) wheeled/tracked vehicles/bikes cannot climb ruins without a ramp.
As for my personal ideas:
-Limit how many blessings can be done on a unit (too much psychic energy pumped into something could be dangerous,and limits "deathstars" a bit)
-Jink should vary based on the type of model (For example how is a Necron Ghost ark as capable of dodging a shot as a Dark Eldar Venom?)
-Rules that shouldn't affect an entire unit should be altered e.g Stealth, shrouded, slow and purposeful, fearless (just because "crazy Dave" is fearless doesn't mean "cowardly Steve" would suddenly be too)
- Feel no pain limited to 4+ (like necron reanimation,which is virtually the same, is) and not allowed against "no saves of any kind" wounds
-2nd edition vehicle movement rules (i.e limited turns based on how far they move- no more ghost arks flying sideways which is dumb)
- Vehicles hit in combat depending on how fast they have been moving (2+ immobile, 3+ for combat speed, 4+ for cruising, 5+ for flat out. -1 modifier for skimmers)
- A 1 (or a 6 when you need to roll low) always fail, doubles/triples etc when applicable (No Auto glance/pens on vehicles even with armourbane/melta)
-Some psychic powers need adjusting (for example Warp speed gives the Psyker fleet-which is completely useless unless he is the only model in the unit)

[CoffeeGrunt]

Thing is, a lot of those suggestions would damage weaker armies. Tyranids, for example, rely on a single model having Fearless conferring it to the squad, with Synapse.

How is it dumb for a Ghost Ark to move sideways? It's a hovering skimmer, that's exactly how they should be able to move.

Simplifying Reanimation Protocols to FNP not only means they don't get it versus Instant Death, but it also removes one of the few unique aspects of Necron rules.

[Djbz]

Thing is, a lot of those suggestions would damage weaker armies. Tyranids, for example, rely on a single model having Fearless conferring it to the squad, with Synapse.

How is it dumb for a Ghost Ark to move sideways? It's a hovering skimmer, that's exactly how they should be able to move.

Simplifying Reanimation Protocols to FNP not only means they don't get it versus Instant Death, but it also removes one of the few unique aspects of Necron rules.

Never agreed with Synapse conferring fearless anyway, background info has the hive mind making gaunt units "flee" or withdraw in general- fearless prevents that, even in cases when they have no way of harming the unit they are engaged with.

Ghost arks moving sideways a bit makes sense, but they can do it at full speed when their main engine (that they'd need for full speed) is at the rear. They don't look maneuverable enough to pull a 90 degree turn, power up the main engine to max and then pull another 90 degree turn, it just defies all sense for something that large and clunky to be able to pull off that kind of maneuver

As for that last one, I didn't suggest making reanimation protocols feel no pain- I compared them as they are nearly identical and suggested that feel no pain get the limit of "never better than a 4+" that reanimation does

[daboarder]

no, the hive mind doesnt force gaunts to "flee" it may withdraw them, which is plenty covered by game play, but it doesnt force them to flee. Fearless is good but Synapse should do a little bit more given what similar army wide rules do.

[Djbz]

no, the hive mind doesn't force gaunts to "flee" it may withdraw them, which is plenty covered by game play, but it doesn't force them to flee. Fearless is good but Synapse should do a little bit more given what similar army wide rules do.

Kind of my point there, fearless (as it is) basically takes a dump on Tyranids "tactical flexibility" as they can no longer withdraw a unit from close combat with something they can't hurt(lets say a Dreadnought) to allow another unit (that has appropriate weapons) a clear shot.

[Andrew Thomas]

Can or rewrite Invisibility, so it makes sense.

Disembarkation in response to Assaults on Transports.

Overwatch with Sponsons.

Infestation rules for Nids (i.e.: units that fall back from/wipeout Stealers turning on other units).

Taxing Psychic Power tables, either through points or drawbacks.

Mandatory Terrain quotas for mission setup, either on the map table, in the missions themselves.

[daboarder]

Kind of my point there, fearless (as it is) basically takes a dump on Tyranids "tactical flexibility" as they can no longer withdraw a unit from close combat with something they can't hurt(lets say a Dreadnought) to allow another unit (that has appropriate weapons) a clear shot.

LOL, that sounds like ATSKNF would be much more appropriate. But unforetunately never gonna happen, special snowflakes gotta snowflake

[Lexington]

I think the #1 method for fixing 40K right now would be removing or altering Formations. Currently, and, sadly, intentionally, they're broken as all get-out.The easiest way to do this would be to remove any special rules and bonuses from them - they're just an alternate way of choosing your army list. No freebies, no nothin'.

I actually think the distribution of Battle Brothers is just fine - it's the rules themselves that cause problems. Limiting all special rules to affecting only models of the same Codex might help.

I'd also change the way wound allocation mechanics work. Aside from the multi-wound shenanigans (easily fixed), 5th Ed had my favorite way of distributing wounds. The current mechanic is just clunky nonsense that allows Invul+FNP+EW characters to tank a ridiculous amount of damage.

There's others, but those are some big issues and solutions that I see right now.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Disembarkation in response to Assaults on Transports.

Not for all armies I'd say, and it should be a Disordered Charge. It's not something Tau or Guard should be doing, for example, and it'd get really annoying trying to deal with Superheavy Vehicles in CC if I could keep charging squads out of my Stormlord to


Overwatch with Sponsons.

Sponsons wouldn't make much sense due to their design, but Pintle-Mount weapons really should, as that's what they're for.


Ghost arks moving sideways a bit makes sense, but they can do it at full speed when their main engine (that they'd need for full speed) is at the rear. They don't look maneuverable enough to pull a 90 degree turn, power up the main engine to max and then pull another 90 degree turn, it just defies all sense for something that large and clunky to be able to pull off that kind of maneuver

You're basing that assumption on modern-day engine designs and understandings of physics. The Necrons mastered such things shortly after the dinosaurs got splatted. It doesn't even need to conform to relativistic physics.

Not only that, but it's not necessarily strafing. It can turn 90, move, then turn 90 like any other vehicle. This point is just really petty.


As for that last one, I didn't suggest making reanimation protocols feel no pain- I compared them as they are nearly identical and suggested that feel no pain get the limit of "never better than a 4+" that reanimation does

I didn't say you did. Mr Gold did.


Kind of my point there, fearless (as it is) basically takes a dump on Tyranids "tactical flexibility" as they can no longer withdraw a unit from close combat with something they can't hurt(lets say a Dreadnought) to allow another unit (that has appropriate weapons) a clear shot.

If your Gaunts are holding up a Dreadnought, they've achieved their purpose.

[shiwan8]

Do you have any ideas? All I see is you telling others why their rough ideas are failures because they are not perfect yet.


I remember that, due to the wording, the Riptide could choose between 3 S6 attacks, or 2 S10 attacks, because it halved the base Attacks value. Made it better than it should've been at CC. You get to re-roll Penetration at S10, which is damn nice tbh.


I see no problem with that. The problem with riptide is the fact that it has the wrong unit type. It's not a monster in any way other than because the codex says so.



Who is, "everyone," that has S10 Skyfire Ignores Cover, and how is that relevant against T6 MCs?


Marines, Eldar, very likely AM when it comes out, surely orcs and so on. It's becoming a norm. Like I said in the initial post, it's relevant to DPs that are the only remaining melee moster there is.



What's the point of making Codices BB with themselves and nothing else? It completely removes the relevant of BB-tier allies, and it makes sense that the Imperium works together pretty closely. It opens up a lot of options for styled armies.


I did not make them all BB with themselves and nothing else. The rest have no reason to be BB with anyone.



There are Formations that let you Assault from Deep Strike and such, so it's probably rolling out. Personally, I feel it makes units a bit point-and-click, but that's just me. Maybe if they got to do it as a Disordered Charge from Reserves/Transports?


It makes assaults an actual tactic beyond some deathstars. It's not one now. Why would it be disordered when the unit is just as aware of the target than the other unit that starts it's turn on foot?



What have house rules got to do with it? The Rules are designed around you not being able to discard cards normally, because certain Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers allow you to do so. Also, your opponent has to declare Jinking before you roll to Hit. Asking them if they're Jinking shouldn't need to be in the rules, it's a basic bit of politeness.


The fact is that it is very easy to lose the game just because you get cards that can not be dealt with during the game. Why would there be a mission that does not have a target? Would you send a demo team to destroy a bunker that does not exist?



Deny working like that would make Psychic Powers even harder to pull off. They're barely worth troubling with as they are now.


You have the right to have an opinion. Then again, invisibility being a success 80%+ of the time is something that needs dealing with, imo.



Players getting to choose who dies means chewing through expendable Grunts or seeing 10 Nob Bikers all take a Wound each. The system as it is now allows the firer to flank and use positioning to gain the advantage. If you tuck your HQ at the back of a squad and your opponent manages to surround you, it makes sense they take the hits. It represents them getting the drop on you, and you get Look Out, Sir anyway.

Why is this a problem? This is what happens now, essentially, because of the LOS. It just makes sense that special weapons are not thrown away when the original user gets hit in the face. It is true that the present system allows more tactical thinking but sniping special weapons from squads is equally senseless. My suggestion just works better if ever so slightly.

[Haighus]

I think the problem with psychic powers is that they are not really worth much if you have a lone psyker, but can become unstoppably powerful when you build your army around them (and use things like the Librarius conclave). Deny the Witch needs some way of scaling basically, or there needs to be a limit on what an individual pysker is capable of (which is probably the more 'realistic' option). If psykers were restricted in the number of warp charges they could each use, maybe that would be the solution- would make powers less likely to be successful, but wouldn't really affect armies with just one or two psykers, because they wouldn't have many warp charges in the first place.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I see no problem with that. The problem with riptide is the fact that it has the wrong unit type. It's not a monster in any way other than because the codex says so.

Yet Tau Battlesuits have never been Walkers either, so that wouldn't have suited their MO.


Marines, Eldar, very likely AM when it comes out, surely orcs and so on. It's becoming a norm. Like I said in the initial post, it's relevant to DPs that are the only remaining melee moster there is.

Marines get S10 Skyfire, Ignores Cover where? Also you can't just base it on the assumption that other Codices might get it some day, we're talking about the game as it is now. AM only have one AA platform, and it's the Hydra, which has Autocannons and actually lost the ability to Ignore Cover, rather than gaining it.


It makes assaults an actual tactic beyond some deathstars. It's not one now. Why would it be disordered when the unit is just as aware of the target than the other unit that starts it's turn on foot?

Teleport or summoning sickness, getting your bearings after a Grav Chute Insertion or entering into realspace to harvest souls, etc, etc. Like I said, some Space Marines or Daemons should be able to do it with specialists, but not forces like the Guard or Tau.


You have the right to have an opinion. Then again, invisibility being a success 80%+ of the time is something that needs dealing with, imo.

It should cost more Warp Charge and make attacks WS1/BS1, yes.


Why is this a problem? This is what happens now, essentially, because of the LOS. It just makes sense that special weapons are not thrown away when the original user gets hit in the face. It is true that the present system allows more tactical thinking but sniping special weapons from squads is equally senseless. My suggestion just works better if ever so slightly.

How is sniping senseless? Precision Shot is so rare outside of Tau or Skitarii that with proper positioning your special weapons should be fine.

[Haighus]

Well, I do think Riptides would make more sense as Walkers. Yeah, Crisis suits are Jet Pack Infantry, but then Terminators are Infantry, and Dreadnoughts are Walkers. There is some point where GW considers a vehicle to no longer be a suit basically. The Riptide certainly isn't a Monstrous Creature in it's background, just a big mechanical suit, so I think it would make more sense as a Walker personally.

I would also agree that Assaulting from a Vehicle or from Reserves would work best if it was a Disordered Charge. If nothing else just for balancing- Assault struggles without it at all, but it is very point-and-click without any restrictions. Disordered Charge wouldn't be a huge nerf anyway. It also makes sense for Assaulting from a vehicle, as everyone has to pile out of a small hatch and so on, and that loses momentum and time and makes the charge more difficult to pull off. Same goes for many Reserve methods, although just simply walking on the board I can understand that they are coming from a neighbouring battle space. However, if you are not able to shoot the units as they walk down the adjacent 'board' then it seems only fair that they get some penalty for assaulting from that adjacent 'board' IMO.

I think wound allocation is fine. Maybe allowing wounds allocated to special/heavy weapon troopers would make sense sometimes (a Marine picking up a flamer from a dead comrade) it would be much more difficult for a lot of dropped weapons- all the weapons with integrated backpacks, like many Guard weapons and Heavy weapons for example, would take considerable time to swap to a new squad member. For the purposes of simplicity, I think it works fine as is. Also, Snipers really are meant to be able to pick out squad members- maybe no one else wants to pick up the special weapon because it makes you a sniper target? Maybe the sniper actually hit the weapon and detonated it in the hands of the user? There can be reasons why the dropped weapon is not reused.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, it varies per army as far as how they use special/heavy weapons. In the Guard, they're only issued to certain soldiers who are given some level of training, Eldar and Necrons don't tend to have squad special weapons, and only Pathfinders do for Tau as the battlesuits have them integrated. Tyranids get them, but they're integrated into their bodies.

It's only really a problem Imperial/Chaos/Dark Eldar armies suffer from as a result. Perhaps you could give squad members with special weapons a 6+ Look Out Sir, but then it makes stuff like Sniper Rifles even more irrelevant in this game. Let's face it, a sniper has a 1/36 chance to pick out a Special Weapons member with an AP2 shot in the open, given that they need 6s to get a Precision Shot, and 6s to Wound at AP2. Otherwise it's bouncing off armour at AP6 for most armies. Snipers sadly rely on massed fire rather than being singularly powerful weapons.

As far as Barrage Sniping, well if an Earthshaker Round hits an Astartes carrying a Lascannon, that Lascannon is almost definitely vapourised along with the Astartes and anyone else caught in the blast radius.

[Haighus]

Yeah, exactly. Even within armies that do have extensive cross-training (like Marines) picking up a plasma cannon or a multi melta with it's integrated backpack and power cabling is going to take some time, which the Marines just might not have. I think it works out much simpler and more general to keeps wounds the way they are.

Snipers really need to be better- give them Pinning back for a start, and maybe some kind of boost to hitting, because a Guardsmen with a sniper rifle is damn near useless, even at 2pts for the weapon. I really do not know why they removed Pinning from them. Maybe if Snipers came with Preferred Enemy (Everything? Everything but vehicles?) they would be useable?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, I feel Snipers should be all about that one shot, quality over quantity. 4+ to Wound is nice, but a bit mediocre if you're targeting mostly T4/3 targets. If your opponent is rocking Blobguard it's a bit wasted. Perhaps it counts as S4 Poisoned, so it re-rolls against T3 targets? A bonus to hit would be nice as well, or maybe a negative to Cover to represent it being that much more accurate. Y'know, just...something.

[Dave Mcturk]

wow. i thought this thread would be full of 'its broken its broken' etc.

not that were going to get any wishes granted - so this is another slant on what do you houserule !

so quicklist:

1; taken battlefocus off eldar fire dragons.
2; taken 'ignores cover' off tau smart missiles
3; made dark reapers and other units with ignore jink special rules slightly less effective by making successful jink on a '6' only
4; allowed assaults from ALL vehicles if they havent moved [except assault vehicles which operate as per rules] - the vehicle can then only move 6" max and cannot go flat out
5;prohibited ALL flyers from changing into skimmers ! - disembarkation is as for necron croissants - with assault permitted if it is an assault flyer -
6;stopped the 'mad rush' at supposedly fast moving vehicles by altering the vehicle attack matrix and only allowing an attacking model to hit the ACTUAL facing of the vehicle it is in contact with ;
7; increased front facing armour values from shooting by ONE on all light vehicles [A10] and on most A12 vehicles except skimmers
[making dreadnoughts etc not automatic loota bait for example]
8; stopped ALL vehicles from 'whizzing through' difficult terrain as if it wasnt there ! - maximum 6" move through cover in movement phase or flat out phase - really slows those fast skimmers down ! and all vehicles take the double snake eyes test if required - un-enhanced vehicles still 'crash' on a 1.

our current thinking is on the over effectiveness of AP2 weapons [ you know the ones!] and the flaws with psychic powers - but tbh a previous poster made the valid point - unless the entire army is based around warp charge malarky - psychic powers arent all that great

the sniper point also vexes us - kroot at 6 or 7pts whatever it is are just about as effective as snipers as 25pt eldar - we are thinking that it is range rather than the horrible conversion probability that 'might' make it more equitable

and multiple barrage weapons ! [dem orcz dem orcz]

[Lee D Boosey]

Unwieldy. It is the one rule that imo just has to go. It makes no sense to me that you would take a weapon to war that wasn't made for that purpose. An Ork surely wouldn't choose to take a power klaw that's going to slow do his reaction speeds so badly. I'm sure the painboyz and mekz soon worked out how to get those bosses crumping face with that shiny new klaw pronto before said boss returned to get hiz teef back n some "fer intrest too."
Meanwhile, the Sons of Russ have been dumping hanger loads of useless axes in soon to be forgotten lock ups, because axes are unwieldy too. Not to mention, powerfists and thunder hammers too.
It might have made sense if in every piece of artwork these poor men, orks and others i'm surely forgetting weren't seen punching such weapons skyward or pointing them menacingly toward an advancing foe.

[Haighus]

Yeah, I think with snipers, it's worth looking at sniper weapons that do work. Vindicators are pretty tasty, they hit on a 2+ and can re-roll misses on a 4+ (I think?), and are AP2, and can choose their target. Now, I don't think all snipers should be that good, but they need to be closer to it. Preferred Enemy would make them a bit more accurate and more likely to damage their opponents, maybe Precision Shots on a 5+ as well would be enough to make them worth it?

[Lexington]

It's only really a problem Imperial/Chaos/Dark Eldar armies suffer from as a result.
Well, to be fair, you're lumping over half of the game's armies into "Imperial" there, and that's before we count the lopsided ratio of Imperial/Non-Imperial players. It's not a small problem. :p

Really, tho, I think the current wound system's pros and cons vis-à-vis realism are pretty much a wash. For every grunt-at-the-front who ends up taking the first bullet, you've got a well-protected IC tanking unbelievable numbers of template wounds for an entire squad. My problem with the 6th/7th version of wound allocation is that it's so damned clunky. Technically, you're almost required to roll each wound/save separately for the purposes of determining allocation, even if most groups simply rely on an acceptable level of fudging in order to get by. Multi-wound nonsense aside, what was wrong with 5th Ed's system? To me, it did a really nice job of balancing out the effects of somewhat randomized, squad-to-squad fire and damage suffered by individuals.

[Mr Mystery]

One thing I'd like to see, just for fluffs sake?

Some kind of dangerous terrain test when assaulting vehicles that have moved more than 6" the previous turn - alongside the current 'to hit' changes. I mean, if you're going to assault a moving tank (and even an Orky Warbuggy moving along at a fair old lick can do serious damage) there is the very real risk that it's you about to be assaulted closely.

I'd be happy if the 'arrgh! SPLAT!' casualties were removed at the end of the combat, so there's still a chance their primed grenade or powered up power fist hits something vital as you get smooshed by the vehicle. But right now, it's just uncharacteristically safe to go punching fast moving vehicles.

It's not necessarily something I feel the game is missing - I just think it would be cool.

Possible exceptions for units that are Jump Infantry - they're better placed to match relative velocities, thus negating the possibility of squelchywrongness.

[Charistoph]

Yet Tau Battlesuits have never been Walkers either, so that wouldn't have suited their MO.

According to rumors, Broadsides were tested as Walkers. This was found to be too powerful, so they were changed to 2W TEQ, instead.


Unwieldy. It is the one rule that imo just has to go. It makes no sense to me that you would take a weapon to war that wasn't made for that purpose. An Ork surely wouldn't choose to take a power klaw that's going to slow do his reaction speeds so badly. I'm sure the painboyz and mekz soon worked out how to get those bosses crumping face with that shiny new klaw pronto before said boss returned to get hiz teef back n some "fer intrest too."
Meanwhile, the Sons of Russ have been dumping hanger loads of useless axes in soon to be forgotten lock ups, because axes are unwieldy too. Not to mention, powerfists and thunder hammers too.
It might have made sense if in every piece of artwork these poor men, orks and others i'm surely forgetting weren't seen punching such weapons skyward or pointing them menacingly toward an advancing foe.

For the Axe, I agree. Unwieldy doesn't make much sense for that weapon, it is just used to be a balance for a "cheap" AP:2 weapon. For the Fists, Klaws, and Thunder Hammers, though, that's a different story. The shear amount of damage potential would be sufficient to be considered as a weapon of war. Consider how quickly artillery fires, yet it is still used because of its damage potential. Now, if there was an option to swing at I but lose any Str bonus and/or have its AP reduced...

[phreakachu]

weeeelllll...
id add a rule for axes that gives the wielder minus 1 initiative. i have some background in medivalcombat groups, and its pretty appropriate, swords and maces are faster. keep unwieldy, because lysander at initiative 5 is redonkulous..
jink should be a seperate save, for purposes of of **** like ignores cover. because moving the hell out of the way at the last second shouldnt be negated by a single rule...
that desperately needs to get reworked. ignores cover, in a game where you get cover for standing behind dave from bravo squad, is a little over the top. reducing cover by 1 doesnt allow you to completely screw my upgrade for a plus 1 to cover saves, or shoot through 2 windows at a sliver of a tread of a tank... should flamers and specific units simply ignore cover alltogether? yeah. absolutely. but everything ignoring cover all the time absolutely is bogus.
and id allow disordered charges from reserves.

[Haighus]

A mace is faster than an axe? Just curious, but I'm surprised by that.
-1 Initiative for axes rather than Unwieldy would be more real, but maybe without the +1 Strength bonus too if that is the case.

[Peter Brown]

For 'Unwieldy', I'd see the rule altered to bear a caveat which reduces the Initiative of the wielder, to a minimum of 1, so Axes might be "Unwieldy (-1)", whilst Power Fists and Thunder Hammers "Unwieldy (-3)". If only because I would argue that a Space Marine wielding an Axe would be faster than a Guardsman, whilst an Axe made by the Eldar would be more finely balanced than the Orkish equivalent.

[Mr Mystery]

A mace is faster than an axe? Just curious, but I'm surprised by that.
-1 Initiative for axes rather than Unwieldy would be more real, but maybe without the +1 Strength bonus too if that is the case.

Less aiming required with a Mace.

[shiwan8]

CoffeeGrunt: MO has nothing to do with riptide being a monster. That logic would also mean that there would be no walkers in the game at all.

Why does the s10 ap2 or better ignores cover have to also be skyfire? The monster has to land for a turn before it can fight.

How are AM or Tau physically not able to see where they land and thus not able to see what is happening when they enter the field? I think motion sickness is not a thing in 40k war zones.

Sniping in itself is not senseless, but the rest of the unit not being able to use the special weapon after it's original user died is.

[Haighus]

Sniping in itself is not senseless, but the rest of the unit not being able to use the special weapon after it's original user died is.
Well, some weapons
http://store.miniwargaming.com/images/P/plasma-guns.jpg
such as the Space Marine special weapons, would be easy to pick up.
But many many others
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h153/SupremeGrandMaster/Marines/DevastatorwithPlasmaCannon1561flash.jpg
such as the space marine plasma cannon, would be damn hard, if not impossible without a Techmarine handy.
These weapons would also be very difficult to pick up:
http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2011/3/7/193683_md-heavy%20flamer.JPG
http://store.miniwargaming.com/images/D/cadian-special-weapons-2540k.jpg
http://www.miniaturepainters.com/_var/gfx/c21939d1e9c62591ef18ecbc30bebbf8.jpg
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/d/d9/Space_Marine_Multi-Melta.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110515030441
http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1399/84/1399849652723.png
These guys are not swapping anything without great difficulty:
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/d/d9/Tyranid_Warriors.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100330114057
For the Tempestus Scions, even if the special weapon was dropped, it would be hard for the rest of the squad to drop their own weapons to pick it up due to the cabling:
http://www.jrn-works.dk/gallery/GWimperial/Scion/1.jpg
So whilst there are many times it would make sense, there are also a lot of weapons it makes no sense for, so I think it could go either way, but the current wound allocation methods require more thinking and tactical play than the older methods.

[shiwan8]

Techmarines have time to fix tanks mid battle, people have time to pick up a backpack and a weapon. Nids are a good point, but exceptions do not make rules and there are a lot of miniatures that have those very same weapons without ammo supply as backpacks.

[Charistoph]

Techmarines have time to fix tanks mid battle, people have time to pick up a backpack and a weapon. Nids are a good point, but exceptions do not make rules and there are a lot of miniatures that have those very same weapons without ammo supply as backpacks.

Kind of like not having ammo for the secondary weapon of combi-weapons? How many riflemen with underslung shotguns and grenade launchers only carry enough for one shot per encounter?



Well, some weapons
http://store.miniwargaming.com/images/P/plasma-guns.jpg
such as the Space Marine special weapons, would be easy to pick up.
But many many others
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h153/SupremeGrandMaster/Marines/DevastatorwithPlasmaCannon1561flash.jpg
such as the space marine plasma cannon, would be damn hard, if not impossible without a Techmarine handy.
Well, he did say Special Weapons, which are as handy as Bolters for Space Marines. Heavy Bolters, Multimeltas, and Plasma Cannons fall under the "Heavy Weapon" monikor.

Guard Special Weapons and Stormtroopers are a different story.

[shiwan8]

Kind of like not having ammo for the secondary weapon of combi-weapons? How many riflemen with underslung shotguns and grenade launchers only carry enough for one shot per encounter?


Now you are trying to apply logic in 40k while restricting each weapon type just to the least convenient version of it at the same time you assume that a phase in a turn is some how some static length of time. This is a combination that will fail 100% of the time. There's literally nothing in this game that makes sense in that context.

Honestly, it does not have to make perfect sense in every situation but it has to work as a game mechanic. If there were less units that can just choose at will which flank of the unit gets hit I'd agree. The present system is fluid and thus ok. As it is, armies that do not use special weapons much or at all/everyone has them (eldar for example) are in an unreasonable advantage over armies that have 1 to 3 per squad. The irony is that the armies that suffer least from the present system are also the ones that have easiest time exploiting it. Thus the game mechanic we now use does not work. It just promotes armies that are already strong and hinders the ones that are not. What I aimed for with the ideas was balance.

[Haighus]

Whoah, hang on- you were trying to apply logic as your reasoning for the rule working a different way, so don't go calling people out for using logic to justify other arguments. I was pointing out that basically a blanket rule is not realistic to the model range EITHER way, so it pretty much doesn't matter, it is an abstraction, and based on that, I prefer the way that allows more tactical play. EITHER way of playing it is going to create inaccuracies without going into an impractical level of detail, so they can choose either logically. Yes, there are issues with the system, but they seem to be more to do with the army imbalances themselves than with the rule.
I don't see how it promotes Marines, which are currently strong, but have weapon carriers within squads? They seem contrary to your example. It is really only Eldar and Necrons that benefit, but they are just strong anyway, I don't think it is because of this rule that they gain any great advantage. After all, it can be used to target Exarchs, which are usually pretty powerful and valuable characters within Eldar squads.

To me, it seems like originally you were arguing a fluff angle (it is senseless that squad members cannot pick up dropped special weapons) then you changed to a gameplay argument (You don't like that your special weapons can be shot out of a squad through enemy positioning) which all basically came down to your usual argument of 'Eldar is OP!'. Which is true, but the whole point of this thread is to focus on the core rules, not individual Codices, so it should look at how the rules interact with the core mechanics, not with how Eldar is powerful and can benefit more, because it is powerful. That is a different issue at hand.

[Charistoph]

Now you are trying to apply logic in 40k while restricting each weapon type just to the least convenient version of it at the same time you assume that a phase in a turn is some how some static length of time. This is a combination that will fail 100% of the time. There's literally nothing in this game that makes sense in that context.

Just using the same logic. If I have enough time to pick up a squadmate's Special Weapon, I have enough room to pack several rounds of underslung ammunition and time to reload it. If I can fit a crapload of mags and grenades on hand to handle an encounter, a reload of an underslung weapon would be part of it. Reloading it should take the same amount of time as reloading the basic rifle at best, and only a little longer at worst.


Honestly, it does not have to make perfect sense in every situation but it has to work as a game mechanic. If there were less units that can just choose at will which flank of the unit gets hit I'd agree. The present system is fluid and thus ok. As it is, armies that do not use special weapons much or at all/everyone has them (eldar for example) are in an unreasonable advantage over armies that have 1 to 3 per squad. The irony is that the armies that suffer least from the present system are also the ones that have easiest time exploiting it. Thus the game mechanic we now use does not work. It just promotes armies that are already strong and hinders the ones that are not. What I aimed for with the ideas was balance.

The present system is not fluid. Movement is an interrupted affair and can occur up to four times in a Turn for a single squad (Movement Phase, Charge, Pile In, Fall Back). The game turn system is setup in such a way that reactions like Interceptor and Overwatch have been introduced to address them. Opponent involvement during half the game turn in direct time is mostly just making sure their opponent isn't cheating and rolling Saves. They might get to move their models in Pile In or Fall Back or as casualties, but that's it.

The army building mechanic actually is fine. The ability to pick up equipment could be addressed, but these are more issues to be directed at specific army designs and paradigms than the game system itself in this reguard.

[shiwan8]

Whoah, hang on- you were trying to apply logic as your reasoning for the rule working a different way, so don't go calling people out for using logic to justify other arguments.


Yes, but the logic I used was that when you have time to fix a blown track or tire you also have time to pick up a weapon even if it has a backpack attached to it. That versus the "there's no time to pick up a backpack and a weapon but you have time to reconstruct blown links to a tracked vehicle or med a broken weapon system that might or might not be attached to the vehicles hull anymore"-logic. Do you see my point?

Realism is not a part of this game. Logic is or at least seems to be.

Marines have combat squads and thus need 2 times the killing to get those weapons off the table than lets say AM.

Eldar are scatterbikes and WK now. Exarchs are something that can be seen in those rare firedragon squads but are otherwise nonexistent entity in the armylist.



To me, it seems like originally you were arguing a fluff angle (it is senseless that squad members cannot pick up dropped special weapons) then you changed to a gameplay argument (You don't like that your special weapons can be shot out of a squad through enemy positioning) which all basically came down to your usual argument of 'Eldar is OP!'. Which is true, but the whole point of this thread is to focus on the core rules, not individual Codices, so it should look at how the rules interact with the core mechanics, not with how Eldar is powerful and can benefit more, because it is powerful. That is a different issue at hand.

Logic, always logic. It's not logical to leave the squads only tool to oppose heavier opponents etc. in favor of a lasgun or similar. That translates to better game play more often than not. When it does not, game play wins ties every time. Now it has lost to nonsense.
Fluff angle would be the codex stuff I do not want to touch here.
My "usual argument" is that broken things need fixing. Your idea of that being "eldar are OP" means just that eldar happen to be broken at the moment. It's not like I hate the army. I just think that the designer had no idea on how to do his job. Anyway, eldar was just an example, not the point of the argument. I's not like you can snipe the whipcoils from wraiths either since they all have them or the blood for the blood god from daemonkin.



Just using the same logic.


Logic, but not the same one I used. Your logic is sound but skews the balance of the game. Mine does not. You know, more shots out of a single shot weapon vs. repeatedly using a weapon that has been designed to be used like that.

[Charistoph]

Logic, but not the same one I used. Your logic is sound but skews the balance of the game. Mine does not. You know, more shots out of a single shot weapon vs. repeatedly using a weapon that has been designed to be used like that.

Oh, it's still there. There is as much balance in being able to swap Special/Heavy Weapons as there is to changing something that is currently one-use, but is patterned after a type of equipment that is easily and quickly reloaded a lot faster than repairing a tank tread or swapping out a backpack, and just requires carrying the ammunition.

[shiwan8]

Oh, it's still there. There is as much balance in being able to swap Special/Heavy Weapons as there is to changing something that is currently one-use, but is patterned after a type of equipment that is easily and quickly reloaded a lot faster than repairing a tank tread or swapping out a backpack, and just requires carrying the ammunition.

Like I said, not the same thing. I'm not arguing about wether or not it's realistic that a single use weapon can be reloaded or not. I doubt that people carry 7 gas canisters for a combi flamer though. But it really does not make sense that if that weapon is not fired and it's carrier dies that no-one with lesser gun would not pick that one up and use it instead.

Anyway, you don't have to agree. This is not a debate thread on the subject of best possible 40k. I originally hoped that there would not be any debate at all. I just wanted to see what people want to change to make the game better in their opinion.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Like any other time this sort of discussion comes up, it's not so much about making the game more balanced/fun, as making it play the way you want it to. Hence why these discussions just go nowhere all the time, because the OP is certain their viewpoint is correct, and ignores any evidence to the contrary.

Sniping special weapons only happens if you've left them exposed or your opponent gets lucky with Snipers. The point is that your opponent has maneuvered or equipped themselves to take out priority targets and thus you gaining the ability to simply give the special weapon to another guy renders that kind of tactic even more irrelevant.


How are AM or Tau physically not able to see where they land and thus not able to see what is happening when they enter the field? I think motion sickness is not a thing in 40k war zones.

So you're going to complain about the realism of not being able to pull off a backpack and massive plasma cannon from a space marine who has that kit literally built into their armour, but ignore the fact that dropping from orbit to the ground might disorient a human for a moment or two?

Again, this thread is called Your 40K, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that you actually want us to talk about Your 40K, Shiwan, but not with any criticism.

[Djbz]

Another thing I think they should change: Vehicles should be able to shoot more weapons on the move.
I mean seriously, how often do vehicles with more than one weapon (that aren't transports/fast/heavy/walkers) move?
Surely vehicle warfare should be way more mobile than it is now?

Also on the topic of vehicles- Template weapons get D6 hits on occupants of open topped vehicles- should never be more hits than there are occupants
and how come templates hit the occupants but blast weapons don't?

[Charistoph]

Another thing I think they should change: Vehicles should be able to shoot more weapons on the move.
I mean seriously, how often do vehicles with more than one weapon (that aren't transports/fast/heavy/walkers) move?
Surely vehicle warfare should be way more mobile than it is now?

One use for the Tank rule, especially if you're looking at the concept that any Vehicle can technically Ram another or try to scatter Infantry by running them over.


Also on the topic of vehicles- Template weapons get D6 hits on occupants of open topped vehicles- should never be more hits than there are occupants
and how come templates hit the occupants but blast weapons don't?

Blast weapons burst outside the Vehicle, Templates flow in all the spaces... That's all I can think of.

[shiwan8]

Like any other time this sort of discussion comes up, it's not so much about making the game more balanced/fun, as making it play the way you want it to. Hence why these discussions just go nowhere all the time, because the OP is certain their viewpoint is correct, and ignores any evidence to the contrary.


Well now, is that not the point of these, to people have a chance to tell what they think would make the game better? In this case however you'll see that it is not the OP who wen to judge others for their ideas. You are shifting the blame now. I merely defended mine against people trying to tell me how I should see the game being better and more fun for me.



Sniping special weapons only happens if you've left them exposed or your opponent gets lucky with Snipers. The point is that your opponent has maneuvered or equipped themselves to take out priority targets and thus you gaining the ability to simply give the special weapon to another guy renders that kind of tactic even more irrelevant.


Or barrages, or deep strikes, or s10/fleshbane ap2 ignores cover 10" blasts and so on. There are plenty of ways that do not require any maneuvering at all or specially being equipped towards that particular goal. And again, it messes up with my immersion because it makes exactly zero sense to me and thus is less fun for me.



So you're going to complain about the realism of not being able to pull off a backpack and massive plasma cannon from a space marine who has that kit literally built into their armour, but ignore the fact that dropping from orbit to the ground might disorient a human for a moment or two?


I'm not complaining at all about the game. I just pointed out things that I think would make the game better. Lack of logic in cases where it should be reasonably applied lessens the fun for me. I'm pretty sure that one does not have to search long to find a miniature with that exact same plasma cannon that does not have hosing connected to a power source that mode is carrying. Took me 20 seconds: http://solegends.com/citrt/rt103marinehvywpnswd1028806.jpg
Point is that since there is no one official model that makes all the rest obsolete, there can be no solid argument stating that plasma cannon needs those hoses connected to a separate power source. It depends on the version of that weapon. Same goes for every heavy weapon as far as I can see.

I think it's pointless that you come here, present no ideas what so ever that I could see and start arguing about other peoples opinions for no reason at all other than to point out that in your opinion they should have a different opinion.



Again, this thread is called Your 40K, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that you actually want us to talk about Your 40K, Shiwan, but not with any criticism.

Actually no. You wanted to talk about why you think that my ideas that work for me are no good in your opinion. I presented my ideas and wanted to hear what others think would make a better game for them. You are right about the "without any criticism" part though. You forcing your criticism to me in this context is like you criticizing my taste for old school mint chocolate ice cream. It makes no difference what so ever. My opinion about what is and is not fun will not change it's form just because you whine about it. Just like I will not like the ice cream I like any less if you'd start to whine about it either. Your opinion what's fun is not tied to any "final truth" any more than mine is. It's a matter of taste. Nothing more. I suggest that you stop forcing yours to others.

Please do tell us how you'd change the game to better suit your idea of fun though without trying to trump other peoples ideas. That I'd like to read.