What rules could we really do without?

[Grabnutz]

I've been playing W40K since Rogue Trader. In that time I have seen it grow from an inconsistent and confusing set of skirmish rules to a humongous tome of 'battle' rules.

Looking at the 5th Edition as it stands what rules could we lose or simplify without reducing the enjoyment and consistency of the result?

For example: Does anyone else think that a vehicle should still be able to fire all its weapons even if it moves? After all it does have crew for all those weapons doesn't it? Perhaps a simplification would be a BS reduction for each 6" moved?

Note: I am an unashamed simplifier, mostly because I am too thick to remember 70+ pages of general games rules and ghods know how many codex-specific rules in the heat of battle.

[UltramarineFan]

Personally I can't think of any rules I'd get rid of but quite a few that I'd want to change. Eg making defensive weapons S5 or less again

[Col.Straken]

It's not so much the rules that need changing to simplify the game its the ambiguity of how they are written. I saw alot of simplification from 4th Ed. to 5th Ed. but they wrote their rules so it can be read in several ways.

I think that for every 6" conceedes a reduction to BS is a very good idea, as the men inside should still be able to shoot, but with it bouncing around more and more/targets zooming past they lose aim easier.

But like I say, I don't think there is any rule we can do without, it should be more, which rules could we do with clarifying... and the answer to that is... Damn well most of them.

[Freefall945]

I think they drastically oversimplified LoS and cover in this edition. A more abstract LoS system, so we can actually put units out of LoS again. That's what I want.

[BlackKnight15624]

I agree with Freefall945, The LoS rules are quite ambiguous and need redoing. The rules on cover saves are also a little oversimplified, IMO. Too many times my local store just agrees that anything that provides cover gives a 4+ save, even shrubbery (again, IMO this should be a 5+, max).

Also the rules for defensive weapons are just plain stupid. There are crew for each of the weapons, would the driver just say "HOLD ON TO YOUR HANDRAILS PEEPS, WE'Z GOIN FASSST," and then drive what would be the equivalent of 25mph? I would think a reduction in BS makes sense, but having defensive weapons defined by their strength is a little weird. A heavy bolter fixed to a position is going to be a lot more stable, and people should be able to fire with them.

[DrLove42]

[QUOTE=BlackKnight15624;79518]I agree with Freefall945, The LoS rules are quite ambiguous and need redoing. The rules on cover saves are also a little oversimplified, IMO. Too many times my local store just agrees that anything that provides cover gives a 4+ save, even shrubbery (again, IMO this should be a 5+, max).
[QUOTE]

Big Rule book page 21. Most stuff gives a 4+ save, but hedges etc give 5+, and razor wire gives a 4+. Depends on the size i guess. If its a big bush maybe the save isn't all about the bush taking the hit, but you being difficult to see through it?

The reduction in BS is a good idea for defensive weapons, but it depends on the gun crew. If theres only 1 pilot, moving and firing 2 different weapson is a little overreaching himself.

As for reducing BS for every 6"....thats a pretty stupid idea. You suggesting anything over 24" automatically misses cos they're down to BS0? How about a Tau battlesuit? 72" range, at a BS of 3, means at the end edge of his range hes at a BS of -9? So i need 16 on a D6 to hit? Its a very silly idea...

[BlackKnight15624]

I know it's in the BRB- I'm just suggesting the oversimplified rules as being a source of people just being able to say "oh- that's cover, it's 4+"

I think he meant a reduction in BS every 6" the vehicle moves- not the range of the weapon. For example, a tank that moves 12" suffers -2BS to any of its weapons.

[DarkLink]

I think that for every 6" conceedes a reduction to BS is a very good idea, as the men inside should still be able to shoot, but with it bouncing around more and more/targets zooming past they lose aim easier.


You've obviously never seen real tanks operate. Go on youtube. You can find videos of M1 Abrams flying over terrain at 30-40mph and hit bullseyes on targets thousands of yards away.


I think they drastically oversimplified LoS and cover in this edition. A more abstract LoS system, so we can actually put units out of LoS again. That's what I want.

Really? TLOS can literally be described as "if you can see it, you can shoot it." What's ambiguous or difficult to understand about that:confused:. And cover saves are hardly more complex than that.

[Col.Straken]

The reduction in BS is a good idea for defensive weapons, but it depends on the gun crew. If theres only 1 pilot, moving and firing 2 different weapson is a little overreaching himself.

As for reducing BS for every 6"....thats a pretty stupid idea. You suggesting anything over 24" automatically misses cos they're down to BS0? How about a Tau battlesuit? 72" range, at a BS of 3, means at the end edge of his range hes at a BS of -9? So i need 16 on a D6 to hit? Its a very silly idea...

He was refering to every 6" a vehicle MOVED not every 6" the gun fires.

[Mycroft Holmes]

Walkers and Monstrous Creatures should hit the armor facing they're in contact with; not rear armor.

Emergency Disembark should go as well.

[Archon]

@defensic weapons and S5: There should be generally a definiton between Main Weapon (like the turret-weapon of a russ, wich can be S5 in case of a punsiher) and secondary weapons like sponsons, hull-mounted heavy bolters, shuriken catapults in case of eldar.

i.E. - combat speed - fire your main weapon and one secondary, or cruising speed no main weapons allowed but you may fire a sec. weapon - and so on.

This will prevend the use of a punisher cannon or a equivalent as a S5 "defensiv" weapon, wich it actualy is not.

[Nabterayl]

You've obviously never seen real tanks operate. Go on youtube. You can find videos of M1 Abrams flying over terrain at 30-40mph and hit bullseyes on targets thousands of yards away.
Yeah, but the tech level of a Leman Russ isn't exactly clear. An Abrams can do that, sure, but an interwar cruiser would have had a very difficult time doing so. We know that Leman Russ have auspexes and better suspension than some of its competitors (I believe the term used is roll-bar suspension, although I'm not sure that's a technology relevant to a heavy tank), so it's possible that a Leman Russ can match the on-the-move accuracy of a 1980s MBT, but given the rest of the vehicle's specifications, I rather doubt it. I mean, in every other specification an Abrams wildly outclasses a Leman Russ; why would we assume that this is any different?

[Lerra]

I'm generally happy with the 5th edition rules. I wouldn't mind if GW simplified/clarified the rules for ordinance and barrage weapons. It seems like most of the 40k community has some confusion about those rules.

The mechanisms for determining cover (TLoS, etc) are good imo, but getting a 4+ cover save is very powerful. I wouldn't mind going back to the old benefit of cover - the shooter takes a penalty to BS because you're obscured and difficult to target. From a fluff perspective, this makes more sense than a cover save for most weapons. If you're hit by a railgun or meltagun, standing behind a tree isn't going to help you, although it might make you more difficult to hit.

It seems like deep strike is less desirable compared to other special deployment options like outflank, infiltrate, scout, etc. Most people don't use deep strike unless they have some sort of special rule to make it safer. A more forgiving deep strike mishap table would be helpful.

I also wouldn't mind rules that encourage people to make heavier use of reserves. Heavy reserves mean the table is less crowded, turns go faster, and the game is more dynamic.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, but the tech level of a Leman Russ isn't exactly clear. An Abrams can do that, sure, but an interwar cruiser would have had a very difficult time doing so. We know that Leman Russ have auspexes and better suspension than some of its competitors (I believe the term used is roll-bar suspension, although I'm not sure that's a technology relevant to a heavy tank), so it's possible that a Leman Russ can match the on-the-move accuracy of a 1980s MBT, but given the rest of the vehicle's specifications, I rather doubt it. I mean, in every other specification an Abrams wildly outclasses a Leman Russ; why would we assume that this is any different?

Yeah, I don't have an actual issue with it not working, since 40k tech is rather inconsistent in terms of advancement. But I don't feel there's a need for an unneeded, complicated mechanic like modified BS. I'm lazy, that's more bookkeeping that I want to do:rolleyes:.

Though I would say that a Russ could probably shoot straight just by virtue of their lack of speed. The slower you move, the easier it is to stabilize their guns.

Incidentally, it makes me want to make a Codex: USMC, now:D.

[Tynskel]

I am not sure the Abrams outclasses the Leman Russ.

Sure, the Abrams are fast, and can fire on the go.

But the Leman Russ can fire on the go (maybe not at high speeds, but still)--- not to mention has IMMENSE amount of firepower, and more advanced weaponry, by far. Also, the armor on the front should be superior, by today's standards.

Today's anti-tank missiles from the air make swiss cheese of Abrams.

A Hellstrike Missile has a hard time putting a dent into a Leman Russ.

[Nabterayl]

Also, the armor on the front should be superior, by today's standards.
The front armor on a Land Raider is 98mm thick, and has an RHA equivalent of 300mm (IA2 84). Since I don't think the fluff supports the front armor of a Leman Russ being better than the front armor of a Land Raider, I conclude that the armor on a Leman Russ is wildly outclassed, at least against kinetic and shaped-charge penetrators, by that of an Abrams (and, by corollary, a battle cannon would be laughably ineffective against an Abrams). It's possible that some of the more exotic Leman Russ weaponry would be effective against an Abrams, since their armor wasn't designed to defeat coherent light or plasma penetrators, but it's a virtual certainty that the Abrams would be able to open a Leman Russ like a rusty tin can.

EDIT: Right, sorry. Back on topic ...

I tend to agree that the game is not complicated so much as badly written. For instance, there are no to-hit modifiers, you're only ever allowed one save, the to-wound calculation is the same for all types of combat, there's only one thing that can ever force you to take a Morale test from either shooting or assault, etc.

The major areas of complexity I see 5th edition adding are cover and wound allocation, both of which I think are very badly explained in the rules. Cover sort of gets a pass in my book, though, because most people don't remember that not all cover saves are 4+, which makes the rule less complicated in practice than it is in the book. Wound allocation, in my opinion, is a reform from 4th edition overall, and a lot simpler than the book makes it out to be. When I explain wound allocation these days I explain it like this:
Assign one wound to each model, in any order, until you're out of wounds.
Group your models into buckets of identical models.
Roll all saves for each bucket at once.
Within each bucket, kill off as many models as you can based on the failed saves.
I don't personally find that too hard to remember, and I would have been much indebted to the rulebook if it had just laid out those four simple steps at some point.

[L192837465]

Incidentally, it makes me want to make a Codex: USMC, now:D.

M1-A2 Abrams: 14/14/14, 2 structure points, 1 void shield, bs5 (main armament) bs4 (secondaries)

120mm smooth bore cannon: heavy 1, 72" range, blast, lance, s10, ap1 (same rule as russes that it can fire at all times)

2x7mm machine guns (we'll call these heavy bolters) - can shoot at up to cruising speed

.50 cal - heavy stubber - can shoot at up to cruising speed.


Treats all difficult terrain as open. Dangerous terrain is difficult. All cover saves are reduced by 1 for wounds taken from the main armament.

Special rule: Yeah, you're pretty much f***ed.


Those work, right?

[Tynskel]

I am sorry, but you guys give the Abrams more credit that its worth.

The Abrams will kill a marine if it directly hits them--- but the shockwave won't bother power armored marines. Hell, our soldiers have been shot at by equivalent munitions, and yes, it can kill them-- but the danger is more if you are inside a building falling down on you.

I stated before,
1) Hellstrike Missiles--- anti-tank missiles have a hard time Penetrating Leman Russ armor (and that's side armor)
2) The Land Raider maybe thinner, but they are equivalent Armor 14. Leman Russ armor is made from Plasteel--- something that doesn't even exist today.
3) The Abrams is dead when an Autocannon shoots it (ie, A-10 Warthog- the equivalent being the Maurader Destroyer). It doesn't take many rounds to do so, while a Leman Russ will probably shrug it off.
4) A Battle Cannon, 1) Kills Power Armored Marines wearing adamantium armor, and 2) is still ordnance--- same equivalent firepower as the Hellstrike Missiles, except for a Giant Blast Radius.
5) The Abrams is dead if an anti-tank missile hits it.
6) The Leman Russ is much much larger. 1/3 Wider, and almost twice as tall. You can put seriously large weapons on a platform like that. And, look at what weapons can be put on there!


Armor in 40k is BY FAR superior to armor today.
The lowly lasgun would make a mockery of our foot soldier armor and weapons.
The .50 Cal on an Abrams is the equivalent to a Hv Stubber in 40k. Rips people apart, and would generally pierce our standard infantry armor of today, (hence at best it is AP6).

[Nabterayl]

2) The Land Raider maybe thinner, but they are equivalent Armor 14. It is made from Plasteel--- something that doesn't even exist today.
No, it doesn't exist, but we do know what is its equivalent in rolled homogenous steel, which is the standard for comparing different types of armor, and its RHA equivalent is only a quarter of the best armor protection on an Abrams. Now, RHAe has to be calculated for every different kind of attack, and I have no idea what the RHAe of an Abrams' front turret glacis is against plasma or lasers, but it's got about 950mm of RHAe vs. kinetic energy and something like 1500mm vs. chemical energy penetrators. That tells us several things:
An Abrams' resistance to kinetic and chemical energy penetrators is several times that of a Land Raider.
Kinetic and chemical energy penetrators that cannot reliably defeat a Land Raider would not even bother an Abrams.
Kinetic and chemical energy penetrators that can reliably defeat an Abrams (though when it comes to an Abrams' best armor protection I'm not aware of any such weapon) would easily defeat a Land Raider (as you know (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=41594), tank destroyers have been able to blow through several times that amount of RHAe since World War II).
Many weapons that would not threaten an Abrams would be a dire threat to a Land Raider, because to be a dire threat to a Land Raider, you only need to penetrate 300mm RHAe, which covers almost every anti-tank weapon since, like, mid-century.
All this leads to the conclusion that weaponry in 40K is ridiculously complicated for comparatively little gain in actually killing power, but that shouldn't surprise us, as ridiculously complicated weaponry that is a serious downgrade in killing power compared to the modern day is (i) a trope for far-future military not-hard science fiction, especially far-future military not-hard science fiction that has lapsed into a technological dark age (e.g., BattleTech) and (ii) fits with the aesthetic of 40K specifically. Nor is it especially troubling from an internal consistency standpoint that a Land Raider should have armor that is only impressive by the standards of the 1950s, given what we can infer of its original function from its design.

[Tynskel]

No, it doesn't exist, but we do know what is its equivalent in rolled homogenous steel, which is the standard for comparing different types of armor, and its RHA equivalent is only a quarter of the best armor protection on an Abrams. Now, RHAe has to be calculated for every different kind of attack, and I have no idea what the RHAe of an Abrams' front turret glacis is against plasma or lasers, but it's got about 950mm of RHAe vs. kinetic energy and something like 1500mm vs. chemical energy penetrators. That tells us several things:
An Abrams' resistance to kinetic and chemical energy penetrators is several times that of a Land Raider.
Kinetic and chemical energy penetrators that cannot reliably defeat a Land Raider would not even bother an Abrams.
Kinetic and chemical energy penetrators that can reliably defeat an Abrams (though when it comes to an Abrams' best armor protection I'm not aware of any such weapon) would easily defeat a Land Raider (as you know (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=41594), tank destroyers have been able to blow through several times that amount of RHAe since World War II).
Many weapons that would not threaten an Abrams would be a dire threat to a Land Raider, because to be a dire threat to a Land Raider, you only need to penetrate 300mm RHAe, which covers almost every anti-tank weapon since, like, mid-century.
All this leads to the conclusion that weaponry in 40K is ridiculously complicated for comparatively little gain in actually killing power, but that shouldn't surprise us, as ridiculously complicated weaponry that is a serious downgrade in killing power compared to the modern day is (i) a trope for far-future military not-hard science fiction, especially far-future military not-hard science fiction that has lapsed into a technological dark age (e.g., BattleTech) and (ii) fits with the aesthetic of 40K specifically. Nor is it especially troubling from an internal consistency standpoint that a Land Raider should have armor that is only impressive by the standards of the 1950s, given what we can infer of its original function from its design.

I made an error--- the Leman Russ is made from Plasteel, not the Land Raider. And where are you coming up with the BS that the Abram's armor is better than a Land Raider?

And--- Plasteel does not equal RHAe.

The BEST weapons in 40k have an HARD time penetrating BOTH the Leman Russ and Land Raider--- I said before, there are plenty of weapons that smash apart the Abrams that have a HARD TIME penetrating the Leman Russ and Land Raider.

Autocannons shread the Abrams--- that's the 40k equivalent to the A-10 Warthog.

The Maurader Bomber's maingun-- 6 autocannons, can barely damage the Leman Russ.

[Connjurus]

Actually, the armor of a Land Raider is part Adamantium and part Ceramite, not plasteel. Now, considering that there is no metal called Adamantium, we only have 40k lore to go on. And according to 40k lore, it's pretty much the big boss of metal, stronger than titanium for its weight. Now, you can argue all you want, but considering the kind of punishment that Land Raiders have taken in 40k fluff and still gone on, I'm going to say that it'd beat out an Abrahms. Four Lascannon > one modern-day Autocannon. I would say that AT BEST, the Abrahms cannon is the equivalent of a Vanquisher. AT BEST. My money, however, is on an Autocannon. Sorry, but that's how it is.

"Autocannon are similar in concept to twentieth century tank guns. They are rapid firing and use mass-reactive explosive ammunition. They are usually either mounted on weapon carriages or vehicles because of their great weight.
Due to their high rate of fire and sufficient killing power, they are effective against heavy infantry and light vehicles. Autocannons are used by the Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Witch Hunters and Chaos Space Marines."

Maybe a slightly more powerful Autocannon, so give it the mega upgrade from the VDR.

Nater, you can argue all you want, but 40k fluff pretty much comes out and says that the Land Raider is the king of all non-superheavy vehicles. I mean, consider the kind of weaponry it's pitted against. Bright-lances, RAILGUNS, Particle Whips, Lascannons, etc, and it still gets through most of the time. An Abrahms just couldn't do that.

[Nabterayl]

I made an error--- the Leman Russ is made from Plasteel, not the Land Raider. And where are you coming up with the BS that the Abram's armor is better than a Land Raider?
The following is a quote from Imperial Armour Volume II:


The Land Raider's armour plating represents the very peak of the Adeptus Mechanicus knowledge and similar techniques are utilised on other vehicles, such as the main armour plating on Titans. The STC design means locally available materials can be used to replace the advanced alloys, but all Space Marine Chapter forges are capable of manufacturing the materials needed to produce Land Raiders.

The inner armoured layer and structural supports are constructed of adamantium. Above this is a titanium/plasteel composite rolled plate. This is used to reinforce the locations on the vehicle that are most exposed to enemy fire, such as the assault ram, front glacis, outer hatch doors and hull side. Next is a thermo-plas fibre mesh followed by the first of two ceramite layers. The first is designed for energy absorption and dissipation, an effective defense against high energy laser weaponry. The second is an ablative layer, the vehicle's first line of defences against extreme heat and melta weapons. The construction of this composite armour involves bonding the layers in huge high pressure cookers, where extreme heat and pressure are applied to the various layers to form the complete whole. The front armour is 98mm thick, but provides protection equivalent to approximately 300mm of conventional steel.

As for how I know that an Abrams' armor is better - way better - than 300mm of conventional steel, I assume you aren't questioning that, or you wouldn't be having this conversation. Links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Armor), for example (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm), from the first page of a google search.


And--- Plasteel does not equal RHAe.
This quote states that plasteel has no rolled homogenous armor equivalent. Maybe not (though ... you do know that an armor package doesn't have to be made of RHA to have an RHAe, right?), but Imperial Armour II states that Land Raider composite armor does, and what it tells us is that the RHAe of a Land Raider's best armor is 300mm. Everything I've said follows from that fact.


Nater, you can argue all you want, but 40k fluff pretty much comes out and says that the Land Raider is the king of all non-superheavy vehicles.
Not arguing that the Land Raider is the king of all non-superheavy vehicles in the 40K universe.

I mean, consider the kind of weaponry it's pitted against. Bright-lances, RAILGUNS, Particle Whips, Lascannons, etc, and it still gets through most of the time. An Abrahms just couldn't do that.
As I said before, the RHAe of a composite armor package has to be calculated against each individual penetration type. IA2 implies that the best armor on a Land Raider has a 300mm RHAe against all 40K penetration types. We know that the best armor on an Abrams is roughly three times that good against kinetic penetrators (e.g., Vanquisher battle cannons, railguns, possibly battle cannons and Demolisher cannons), and roughly five times that good against chemical energy penetrators (e.g., mole launchers, probably battle cannons and Demolisher cannons). We have no idea what the RHAe of an Abrams' best armor is against lasers, or plasma weapons, or melta weapons. It could be that the RHAe of an Abrams' best armor is three times better than that of a Land Raider against a Vanquisher cannon, but three times worse than that of a Land Raider against a lascannon, for the simple reason that an Abrams' armor was not built to defeat lasers and a Land Raider's was.

But we do know that both the Axis and Allies had anti-tank ammunition in World War II that would go through a Land Raider's best armor two times over at 1,500 meters. Which means that a Land Raider's lasers might or might not defeat any modern tank (by virtue of being lasers attacking armor that was not designed to defeat lasers), but any modern tank would definitely rip right through a Land Raider's armor without breaking a sweat. An Abrams can penetrate 600mm RHAe at 4,000 meters (for example (http://www.armoredbrigade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=109)).

[Tynskel]

CONVENTIONAL STEEL==== Plasteel in 40k! Which is BETTER than our modern day armor.

The Leman Russ has 200 mm of PLASTEEL--- the Land Raider armor is equivalently 100mm thicker.

[Nabterayl]

CONVENTIONAL STEEL==== Plasteel in 40k!
The quote I provided uses the term plasteel in describing the armor composite. If conventional steel meant plasteel, one or the other term would not have been used. Also, don't forget that this is Imperial Armour II we're talking about. It is entirely in keeping with the tone of the book to provide an RHAe, which is a statistic that any serious wargamer (which the author plainly is) would both recognize and expect.

EDIT: Also don't forget that everything else about the Imperium's military technology badly lags behind the present day equivalent. This is a universe where people are impressed by artillery that can shoot a whopping 15 kilometers away.

[Tynskel]

Since when does the Military Technology of the Imperium LAGS behind present day equivalent?

Where is this stated?

Since when is the Lance that takes a crew of 1000 people that can hit Starships 1000's km away and cripple them--- starships that are 10 Km long, 'lagging'.

The Targeting computer onboard the Leman Russ is crap--- we all know that. However, the Armor, Weapons, and other technologies are superior. The reason the Targeting Computer is crap is because almost all forms of A.I. are banned in the Imperium.

The simple metals used in Bionics are better than our best steel--- they will stop las and bolt guns---- A BOLTGUN (A Rocket Propelled Munition)! Our RHAe of equivalent thickness will NOT stop bullets--- and Lasguns are superior to our standard rifles.

I find it redokulous that you are comparing 'rolled homogenous armor equivalent' of the 40k universe to the today's RHAe.

We are finding out TODAY that as we find heavier and heavier elements that they are becoming more and more stable. Theoretically, we should reach a stable element--- and that will be Adamantine.


The reason 15km is impressive is Simple--- targeting computers. A.I.s are practically BANNED. They are hitting targets from 15km WITHOUT the sophisticated Targeting Computers----- That's Impressive.

[Nabterayl]

Since when does the Military Technology of the Imperium LAGS behind present day equivalent?

Where is this stated?
It's not stated, but take a look at it. An Earthshaker cannon - the longest-ranged conventional artillery in the Guard arsenal - can fire 15 kilometers away. A Predator - which is a fast, light vehicle by Imperial standards - has a top road speed of 68 kph; the Leman Russ has a top road speed of 35 kph. Armored fighting vehicles' armor is not sloped. The toughest "tank" in the Imperium mounts its primary armament in sponsons. Virtually nobody has night vision technology - not even infrared spotlights.

And the inefficiency! Laser weapons that are no more destructive than a 5.56mm or 7.62mm combat rifle (though at least these offer a weight savings in ammunition). Plasma weapons that stand no better chance of killing a vehicle than a 30mm autocannon. Subatomic shells instead of simple airburst fuses (a technology which the Imperium as a whole appears to have completely forgotten). Starship guns that are hauled into position by hand by gun crews that number in the hundreds or thousands. Starships that attempt to hit targets thousands of kilometers away by targeting volumes of space instead of the enemy ship.

Yes, the Imperium has some impressive technologies, but it also has many laughable ones, and even the impressive technologies are deployed in laughable ways. Which is deliberate, is it not? 40K wouldn't be 40K if humanity were doing sensible things like only investing the time and effort to develop energy weapons that were actually better than their best conventional weapons, as opposed to mere sidegrades, or sloping armor (or hell, how about going to war in, you know, vehicles that were designed to fight wars in the first place?), or actually shot at each other's starships with anything other than their very best, very largest guns ... the list goes on.

40K is supposed to be a universe where mankind's technological wonders have been lost, and even the best extant examples are pitiful fragments of what we once had as a race. I don't find it at all difficult to believe when IA2 says "300mm of conventional steel" it means 300mm of conventional steel. I mean, look at the Land Raider itself. No thinking engineer would design an armored fighting vehicle that looked like that, and the fact it's an STC design means we know it was designed for frontier use. It probably wasn't an armored fighting vehicle, any more than the Predator was - just a jury-rigged design some handy pioneer slapped together at need, just like the Predator.

[Tynskel]

I stopped reading at the las weapons less than 5.56mm....

One pulse from a Lasgun will burn right through 1ft concrete slab, dude. Our 5.56 and 7.62 does not do that.

you forgot--- 15km ACCURATELY. That's impressive without a targeting computer--- I am sure it can fire farther--- but what's the point if you cannot hit a target?

Uh... toughest weapons on the Leman Russ is NOT the sponsons gun--- it is the GIANT CANNON on the Turret.

I have already explained--- what makes the Abrams cannon deadly is that it brings a building down on people, not the direct fire into a blob of people. If you fired the Abrams cannon at space marines, you'd probably maim one.

The Abrams is pobably slightly better than an Autocannon- probably equivalent to the Conqueror Cannon gun on a Leman Russ. Hv 1, Blast, Str8 AP3 48". You could get longer range with the Targeting Computers that the Abrams has.

[Nabterayl]

EDIT: Sorry, enough thread-hijacking ... care to continue here (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?p=79621#post79621)?

[Tynskel]

yes-- the Abrams can put a tank out of action due to its Targeting Computer.
How does this make the WEAPON better than 40k? I don't know--- when you look at the DAMAGE of the weapon, it is no better than a Conqueror Shell.

Also, the current tanks today have LESS armor than the Abrams--- I would expect the Conqueror Shell to bust open just about any tank today.

Right now, I just checked Necromunda--- and there is nothing that states the Autogun = Lasgun--- I don't know where you get this idea. In Dark Heresy, the Lasgun does more damage, carries more ammo, and has a longer accurate range than the Autogun. Then you throw in the Hot-shot Lasguns, ie Hellguns, which have amazing boring power.

Then you talk about armor--- the standard guard infantry armor kicks the crap outta ours--- our best armor is the anti-IED armor for gunners on Humvees, and that's Standard Issue in the Imperial Guard- a smaller, lighter version too.

Then you want to talk about engines. The Leman Russ engine has a completely different purpose than the M1 Abrams. It is supposed to work in any conditions and take any sort of organic compound to fuel it. That's impressive piece of tech. Yes, the engine isn't super powerful--- but it is super reliable.

A Missile Launcher-- man portable anti-tank weapon, has a ~16% chance with a direct hit of wrecking a Rhino. A rhino only has 60mm of Plasteel armor.

There is footage on Youtube of M1 Abrams getting hit by an (singular) IEDs and people having to bail due to damage...
IEDs...

Don't tell me that the Abrams is better than the Leman Russ.

[tjkopena]

Back to the original topic, it's hard to come up with rules I would cut entirely, though a lot of streamlining and better rules writing could definitely be applied.

I think the idea of switching cover to be a reduction in BS, or having vehicle speed reduce BS, would all be/is a bad idea. I'd be concerned about that slowing down the game significantly and a lot more minor errors being introduced as people figure out what BS they're at, remember what they have to roll for, etc. Not a huge impact per-roll, but it would add up fast. When you combine that with 40k arguably trending toward larger games, it's problematic (that trend is why some of that may have been ok in earlier editions but would be a problem now).

Per the comment about BS reducing with distance, AT-43 actually has a pretty reasonable system for reflecting the ability to hit different targets with different weapons at different ranges. The Doom boardgame also has an absolutely brilliant dice scheme for handling different classes of weapons and capturing tradeoffs in damage and range all in one roll, in addition to including a probabilistic ammo scheme in those rolls (could be taken as jams rather than ammo for bigger games). Worth checking out for anyone interesting in game design. Again though, both would be slightly more problematic with 40k sized games with more models.

[Tynskel]

Those BS adjustments are similar to 2nd Edition Rules.

2nd Edition rules were fun! However, to play an equivalent 1000 point game of models would take the better half of a DAY. Not 1 hr, like right now.

[tjkopena]

Exactly.

[Grabnutz]

I love the ways that threads here can go all squirly and shoot off onto a completely ridiculous tangent (Abrams vs. Leman Russ... really?), and no-one bats an eyelid :D

[Lerra]

Who needs a topic when you can argue about the technical merits of a fantasy tank over a real one?

I don't think it would be any more complicated to have a BS reduction vs. a cover save (especially if it's the only BS reduction in the game). The old version had lots of complications, like a penalty for range, another penalty for cover, a third penalty for moving, etc. That is why it took more time to figure out a model's BS. With only one factor that modifies BS, I think it would be just a quick as the current system. It doesn't require any additional dice rolls. It also would make a BS of 6 or higher worth having, and twin-linked weapons at high BS would be more valuable.

[Daemonette666]

I agree with Freefall945, The LoS rules are quite ambiguous and need redoing. The rules on cover saves are also a little oversimplified, IMO. Too many times my local store just agrees that anything that provides cover gives a 4+ save, even shrubbery (again, IMO this should be a 5+, max).

Also the rules for defensive weapons are just plain stupid. There are crew for each of the weapons, would the driver just say "HOLD ON TO YOUR HANDRAILS PEEPS, WE'Z GOIN FASSST," and then drive what would be the equivalent of 25mph? I would think a reduction in BS makes sense, but having defensive weapons defined by their strength is a little weird. A heavy bolter fixed to a position is going to be a lot more stable, and people should be able to fire with them.
I definately agree with that. Use all your weapons, but the faster you move, the less acurate you are. Perhaps something if you go over 6" then you have a -1 to BS

Ordnance weapons should be able to be at the same time as your otherweapons. Shooting a main gun doesn't stop other crew shooting the side guns at closer targets. Vehicles should be able to split their fire.

Some of the races are too powerful when it comes to psychic rules though. Eldar forcing enemy to roll 3 dice and use the total of them all, while they roll 3 dice and choose which 2 dice they want to use. This is one set of rules I have never liked.

The rule where a unit deep striking has to be tightly packed around one model has never seemed like something you would do in real life. You spread out as quick as you can in all round defence, with no-one being any closer than 2 to 3 metres from the next person. When you patrol in roughly open terrain, the spacing between troops is about 40 to 50 metres, and this goes down to 3 to 5 metres in dense jungle.

What scale is 40K suppose to be in for distances, and spacing between models? 2" is what 5 Metres? so models could be 1" apart.

Oh well they are the only ones I can thnk of for the moment.

[DarkLink]

They should split up cover saves into Cover and Concealment. Cover grants a 4+, and is things like walls, buildings, or rocks that models can dive behind. Concealment grants a 5+, and is things like forest, brush, smoke, etc, as it only obscures the target but does not provide physical protection.

And I would actually like to see cover saves grant a modifier to other saves. So a Space Marine in cover would get a 2+ save rather than a 3+.

TLOS is great, but GW does a horrible job of defining what parts of the model you can draw LOS to and which you can't. They need to improve the rules for that.



I think that, instead of psychic defenses working as they currently do, they should have a psychic battle between psykers, similar to Mind War. Each time a psyker attempts to use a power, an enemy psyker can contest it, and they roll off, potentially blocking the power, and the loser takes a wound. Psychic hoods, runes of warding, and the like would provide bonuses to the roll.

[entendre_entendre]

This is probably a not so good idea from a gameplay standpoint, but being able to damage/destroy terrain pieces could be fun. Maybe make it so S10 ordinance weapons or Ordinance Barrages could affect a piece of terrain an enemy unit is occupying.

Example: a unit of marines are in a ruin. A demolisher cannon is fired at them. Damage vs marines done normally using 4+ cover. Afterwards, the cover is reduced to a 5+ due to giant blast holes through the walls or something. If the terrain is reduced to lower than 6+, then the piece is removed, leaving DT, but no cover.


... and yes, I have been playing a lot of Bad Company 2, why do you ask?

[Gotthammer]

Didn't you guys already have this argument?

[gannam]

I think that they should do away with all special abilities that only come out of codex's. The universal special rule list should be expanded, and then different armies get abilities out of that rule book. That would keep it very simple, and get rid of all of these really dumb rules that are completely ambiguous.

I also think that the rule book should contain a list of wargear, and then list the races that can use it. All weapons and the abilites of those weapons should be printed in the main rule book, as well as phychic powers.

Not only would this allow you the abiity to get rid of most of the codex'es, but it would allow you to create your own custom races, and armies, as long as you pointed them up correctly.

[Paul]

I think that they should do away with all special abilities that only come out of codex's. The universal special rule list should be expanded, and then different armies get abilities out of that rule book. That would keep it very simple, and get rid of all of these really dumb rules that are completely ambiguous.

I also think that the rule book should contain a list of wargear, and then list the races that can use it. All weapons and the abilites of those weapons should be printed in the main rule book, as well as phychic powers.

Not only would this allow you the abiity to get rid of most of the codex'es, but it would allow you to create your own custom races, and armies, as long as you pointed them up correctly.

I agree!

It not only would be cool, but it would get rid of the "Blood Fist: Counts as a DCCW. Different in name only." borkes that are in some new codecies.

[DarkLink]

While I don't think that expanding the USR section can fully do away with unit-specific special rules, I agree that they should be done with 'different in name only' stuff. And that a wide range of USRs can simplify things a lot, without hurting the game.

[Xar]

For example: Does anyone else think that a vehicle should still be able to fire all its weapons even if it moves? After all it does have crew for all those weapons doesn't it? Perhaps a simplification would be a BS reduction for each 6" moved?

You want the rules to be simplified, but you're suggesting a replacement that, from the perspective of someone who only started with 5th ed, is more complex.

Following the subject, I think the 5+ cover save should go away. "If half can see half, no save" is nice and simple. Arguing over "exactly half, so 5+" is such a drag.

[Daemonette666]

I think that they should do away with all special abilities that only come out of codex's. The universal special rule list should be expanded, and then different armies get abilities out of that rule book. That would keep it very simple, and get rid of all of these really dumb rules that are completely ambiguous.

I also think that the rule book should contain a list of wargear, and then list the races that can use it. All weapons and the abilites of those weapons should be printed in the main rule book, as well as phychic powers.

Not only would this allow you the abiity to get rid of most of the codex'es, but it would allow you to create your own custom races, and armies, as long as you pointed them up correctly.
Sounds OKl, but the new rule book will be thicker than the new 8th ed Fantasy rule book.

They would need to print up basics Codexs for the current Armies to match, perhaps put up PDFs on thier website like they did for the Old Blood Angels (4th ed), Daemon hunters and Witch Hunters reduced size codexes.

What do you do in the codex or in the rule book to allow know how many troops are in a unit, minimum size units, which are fast attack , and so on? Chaos Marines have CCW, Bolt Pistol and Bolter 5-20 allowed; Marines have Bolt Pistol and Bolter only and 5-10 allowed in a unit.

How many points does each model cost? How do you list and limit the upgrades a unit gets. Troops cold be made into elite choices by you saying I have 19 power weapons, 5 melta guns, 5 flamers, 5 lascannon, 4 heavy bolters and my squad sergeatnt has paired lightning claws. That would make a nasty troop unit.

There has to be some way to accurately set out what each unit gets: basic weapons, grenades, and armour, weapons upgrades, sergeants. and so on. What kind of unit it is classed as - troop/ infantry, elite/infantry, vehicle/ heavy support, so on.

The current codexes do this, and the new rule book with everything for every army - well people would get lost in it.

I think as a solution to your dilema that special equipment and abilities not covered in the universal special rules or basic rule book, but listed in a codex should either not be allowed, or you have to pay points for them.

As for the ambiguity of certain rules, your opponent must go over any rules not listed in the main rule book, so you both can discuss how they work. Special character rules like the one I hate - where Eldar Farseers force enemy psykers to roll the total of 3 dice for their tests, and they can then roll 3 dice and they get to choose two dice.

I some ways I agree with gannam on special rules. Chaos has lost most of their special rules. A few characters like Lucius with his armour, Chaos Dreadnoughts with their crazed rolls, Typhus with his 2 handed poisoned force weapon, random abilities of possessed marines, and abbadon with his equipment. Except for abbadon, Lucius and the crazed rolls, most of it comes directly from the universal rules. Chaos get very few of them any more for their troops and elite unites. For example I can no longer get havocs with tank hunter skill.

What annoys me with the new codexes is that each has been made to outshine the previous one with its special characters and their abilities. Some which allow you to field elite or fast attack choices as troops. Characters with toughness 6 Init 7 and they can use psychic powers, and a strength 10 force weapon (providing they pass their psychic test) - thankfully Mephiston does not have an invul save, and you can plasm gun/ lascannon/ meltas gun him to death. You can not kill him in close combat unless you have a Cytan who can push him out of close combat. Yes the Cytan, another pair of over powered models that should be relegated to apocalypse-only battles.

As you say Army specific special weapon upgrades like the Furisio Frag Cannon all the vehicles in your army getting the fast tank rule, and yes that includes Vindicators. It does seem crazy, stupid, and makes you want to get rid of your old army and collect the new SUPER army.

GW are not crazy, they almost force you to get hooked on the awesomeness, and raw power of their new Army. They want you to but it.

I still have beaten a veteran Wargamer my Chaos Marines VS his Blood Angels in a game of Annihilation no less. He out classed me in Characters, close combat troops, and heavy weapons and Tanks. It was close, and I had a few bad dice rolls, but I still beat him. I had not even read the codex properly, so the pair of fast Vindicators was a surprise to me.

We have to put up with what GW decides, but if they reduced the power of the characters, and the special abilities for new codexes to keep them on a par with say standard marine or chaos marine codexes, then people would not want to get rid of their armies all the time.

[Mr.MoreTanks]

Personally I can't think of any rules I'd get rid of but quite a few that I'd want to change. Eg making defensive weapons S5 or less again

In fourth they were S:7 and that was awesome, thats what they should bring back

[Crevab]

It was Strength 6 in 4th. Bringing defensives back up to 5 would be fine

[Porty1119]

Agreed. Then the heavy bolter DOOR GUNS! on a Valkyrie would be defensive. That would be terrifying. Just be glad all non-ordnance weapons aren't defensive. Cruising fire-all Vendettas....oh $#!%

[Daemonette666]

Agreed. Then the heavy bolter DOOR GUNS! on a Valkyrie would be defensive. That would be terrifying. Just be glad all non-ordnance weapons aren't defensive. Cruising fire-all Vendettas....oh $#!%
I that were the case, what about the Landraider Terminus Ultra - 3 Twin linked Las cannons and two lascannons, oh and do not forget the storm bolter and hunter killer missile. Rush 2 landraiders up one terminus, One Redeemer. Smash emeny heavy units with las cannons, shoot with the other to weaken enemy troops, then charge in the assault Terminator Squad led by a chaplain. Yow that is "PAIN" and they moved 6" and the troops had a full move as well.


It would be too powerful. I think Strength 4 for defencive weapons is a good level.I use Chaos landraiders, and get frustrated that I can not use the TL heavy bolters and the TL lascannons if I move. But it is better than having enemy moving vehicles all over the place, some with troops and needing 3's to wound Chaos Marines, or Marines. I would put in a request for Chaos Marines to get Razorbacks and Drop Pods then.

[Crevab]

er, the Terminus Ultra is an Apocalypse unit. And if we're going down that route, a warhound bellyflops all the units you just mentioned, instantly earning it's points back :P

[Daemonette666]

er, the Terminus Ultra is an Apocalypse unit. And if we're going down that route, a warhound bellyflops all the units you just mentioned, instantly earning it's points back :P
You can play them in Armoured Spearhead. A Unit of upto 3 tanks from the same codex, or a super heavy. The Warhound could use non D weapon, or Ordnance weapons, but it is allowed to move and shoot anyway, so I normally give mine a Turbo Laser Destructor, and A Vulcan Mega Bolter. My Reaver Titan gets both these and an Apocalypse Missile Launcher. I would hate to see what my scratch built Adeptus Mechanicus - Ordinatus Armageddon can do. I based it on a 1:35 scale Leopold Rail Gun with Rhino Tracks put over the rail wheels. The I modified it a fair bit, adding a crew cab, and lots of nasty looking weapons and sponson from Baneblade kits.

But Defensive weapons set to Str 4 or Str 5 is still a contentious issue. I do agree they should not be Str 6 or higher though.

[Lerra]

I'd like to see the Sweeping Advance rules tweaked a little bit, so that units are only vulnerable to sweeping advance if they are below half strength. It's frustrating to lose a combat by one and get swept despite being at almost full strength. It also feels a bit weird during those combats with hordes, when you've got 5 space marines vs. 30 gaunts. If 4 space marines and 5 gaunts are killed, by any common sense or story-based interpretation, the gaunts won that combat, yet they can still be swept by the one surviving marine. It would fix a lot of the problems with Necrons, too.

[Force21]

I'd like to see the Sweeping Advance rules tweaked a little bit, so that units are only vulnerable to sweeping advance if they are below half strength. It's frustrating to lose a combat by one and get swept despite being at almost full strength. It also feels a bit weird during those combats with hordes, when you've got 5 space marines vs. 30 gaunts. If 4 space marines and 5 gaunts are killed, by any common sense or story-based interpretation, the gaunts won that combat, yet they can still be swept by the one surviving marine. It would fix a lot of the problems with Necrons, too.


That is a pretty good idea...

I have been on both ends of BS Sweeping Advances.


it would be like under 50% unit strength then they could get S.A. but if over 50% ummm... just No Retreat wounds by how much you lose the I test?


it would help Necrons a bit.

[DarkLink]

Actually, I'd like to see no retreat go away. Why should a fearless unit have to take armor saves when a non-fearless unit doesn't have to so long as they pass their morale test. Fearless is supposed to be a good special rules, not one that hurts the unit.

Either that, or make non-fearless units take no retreat wounds when they lose combat but pass their morale.

[incenerate101]

I believe that the consolidation rules could be better. I think if a squad completely waxes the oposing squad the victor should beable to move on into another close combat with a seperate squad just think about it if you just ripped a squad apart and another one was within charging distance wouldnt you carry the fight into another squad? Please tell me someone agrees with me!

[Axel]

Generally speaking, the 5th edition rules are efficient and effective. I would tweak around a few things for 6th edition.

1. Provide equivalent access to "standard" wargear like spotlights for all races. Eldar and Tau alike are terrible on Turn 1 of Dawn of War because there are no vehicles with spotlights as standard - like most (modern) Imperial vehicles.

2. Introduce a turn step before the movement phase. In the "beginning phase" you roll for reserves, Daemonhost powers, Eldar psychic shenanigans, deep strike models etc. It removes arguments about what happens first - the chicken or the egg.

3. Reduce the occurrence of Fearless units. Make psychology and leadership tests important again!

4. Introduce some mechanic for non-modifiable leadership tests for losing in close combat to an "inferior" opponent. Some of the above examples are good - units of (originally) 30 gaunts shouldn't normally run after losing 3 (10%) of their number to a half-dozen Marines poking their fists and boots where they weren't wanted. The WHFB "steadfast" mechanic seems readily adoptable.

5. Make losing your transport more deadly, so the cowards come out of their metal boxes. A wrecked result should result in a similar effect to the current "explode" effect. Exploded transports should be deadly - automatic wound on all passengers perhaps. A transported unit disembarked by having their transport destroyed in close combat should be considered 'locked in combat' with the assaulting unit.

That's all I've got for now. Some interesting ideas listed above that I'm still thinking through the potential ramifications of...

[Lerra]

Actually, I'd like to see no retreat go away. Why should a fearless unit have to take armor saves when a non-fearless unit doesn't have to so long as they pass their morale test. Fearless is supposed to be a good special rules, not one that hurts the unit.

Either that, or make non-fearless units take no retreat wounds when they lose combat but pass their morale.

No Retreat does seem a bit odd - often times it feels like Fearless is a punishment, not a bonus. And stubborn seems all-around better than fearless right now. I'd prefer if they changed Fearless so that all squads take a leadership test after they fail combat. If they pass, all squads stick with no further repercussions. If they fail, squads without Fearless run away, and squads with Fearless take No Retreat wounds but stick in combat.

[Daemonette666]

Actually, I'd like to see no retreat go away. Why should a fearless unit have to take armor saves when a non-fearless unit doesn't have to so long as they pass their morale test. Fearless is supposed to be a good special rules, not one that hurts the unit.

Either that, or make non-fearless units take no retreat wounds when they lose combat but pass their morale.
Agreed .

I mainly play CSM, and sometimes you need to use fearless units to oppose enemies who try to force pinning tests, or psychic attacks that I would be vulnerable if I were not fearless. One gut I know shoots artillery at my troops holding objectives in the rear. Thousand sons are good for this. the invul and cover saves, and fearless keep them from running away or dying easily until my own troops get to his forces to cause havoc in his ranks.

This is where my Khorne Berserkers and Noise Marines usually fight well, but they are very expensive. Space Marines with "and they shall know no fear" are quite tough they can run away, and they rally again to hit you next turn.

I want the Chaos Legions Space Marines to get more of the Universal rules for their other troop typre. You could purchase them before for a unit. Examples are: Skilled riders for Chaos Bikers, Tank Hunters for Havocs, Counter Attack for Chosen.

[Daemonette666]

Generally speaking, the 5th edition rules are efficient and effective. I would tweak around a few things for 6th edition.

1. Provide equivalent access to "standard" wargear like spotlights for all races. Eldar and Tau alike are terrible on Turn 1 of Dawn of War because there are no vehicles with spotlights as standard - like most (modern) Imperial vehicles.

2. Introduce a turn step before the movement phase. In the "beginning phase" you roll for reserves, Daemonhost powers, Eldar psychic shenanigans, deep strike models etc. It removes arguments about what happens first - the chicken or the egg.

3. Reduce the occurrence of Fearless units. Make psychology and leadership tests important again!

4. Introduce some mechanic for non-modifiable leadership tests for losing in close combat to an "inferior" opponent. Some of the above examples are good - units of (originally) 30 gaunts shouldn't normally run after losing 3 (10%) of their number to a half-dozen Marines poking their fists and boots where they weren't wanted. The WHFB "steadfast" mechanic seems readily adoptable.

5. Make losing your transport more deadly, so the cowards come out of their metal boxes. A wrecked result should result in a similar effect to the current "explode" effect. Exploded transports should be deadly - automatic wound on all passengers perhaps. A transported unit disembarked by having their transport destroyed in close combat should be considered 'locked in combat' with the assaulting unit.

That's all I've got for now. Some interesting ideas listed above that I'm still thinking through the potential ramifications of...
Some interesting ideas. Here are my ideas on the 5 points you mention.

1: Those races could have advanced sensors arrays or similar. Most of the tanks, hover tanks from the xenos races are deadlty now, with all the extras to stop them from being destroyed if immobilised, or being able to shoot flashettes at enemy charging them - very nasty, the points for things like those should reflect how nasty they are.

2: I definately agree with this one. Warp time, and other things can be done here, so I do not forget to use it. LOL Pity you could not have warp time on troops arriving from reserves that trun, this might fix that. place your troops on the edge of the board. Have the beginning phase, then move troops on from edge of board.

3: There are so many armies who get fearless units through out their army list. Yes my favourite Chaos gets a lot, and I have to pay minimum 5 points extra for troops with this ability. Grey KNights have almost everyone in their army fearless, and yes they are also expensive. Nids have a few units and support units with this, especially if characters/synapse creatures are nearby, which cost you lots of points to put on the table. I think Necrons are all fearless, and have their we'll be back rule, and resurection orbs. A real powerful combination + they get the C'tan who I think are too powerful for their points cost. The New Space Marine Codexes i.e. Blood Angels has many Fearless units, or they can roll up being fearless. You will find Fearless troop in general, except for a few cases like the new codexes, are very expensive, and so there are fewer of them to face off against.

4: the large formation being beaten by a small formationin close combat. simple - "If your unit out numbers your opponent, you do not get run down and destroyed, however you take armour saves as per a fearless, this is modified, by +1 armour save if you lost 25% of your starting number of troops in that round of close combat". It sound more realistic to me, enemy get to strike at more of your troops as you have to move in closer to each other for all round defence.

5: Transports are a necessary part of the game. For armies like mine where I have fewer troops than say a cowardly Imperial Guard or Tau Army who generally skulk in the cover of ruins using their longer range weapons systems and artillery to force me to either attack or wear a lot of damage if I skulf in cover on my side. Modern transport vehilces and tanks with transport capability, like the Israeli MBT have a separate for their crew and transported troops to protect them from the nasty explosive fuel and engine. It has reduced crew and troop losses dramatically. Surely by the 41st millenium, even with the advnced weapons out there, tank and APC designs will include technology and design that protects the crew and precious troop carge better? Open topped vehicles are a different matter entirely. A wrecked result is usually a track gets blown off, or the engine block has been shot out (which does not cause the whole engine to blow up). Crew and troops can survive from this just by dismounting.

As per the close combat thing, I thought troops in a vehicle that was destroyed in close combat were automatically locked in close combat. It makes sense, as the enemy are so close, placing charges on the tracks, etc, that troops exiting have to run the gauntlet, and close combat the attackers. I have always treated it this way. The fact that my opponents, and in fact I normally dismount troops just before the close combat begins sort of makes this not an issue most times. Making it so you have to dismount troops locked in combat with enemies who are attacking the vehicle could be used by opponents to slow down your advance, and kill of your troops. Un scrupulous players could send a squad that cannot even damage the transport into Close combat just to force troops to dismount.

Oh well thats what I think.