PDA

View Full Version : what would you like to see changed in the next edition?



self biased
14-05-2009, 00:46
yeah, i know it's early, but what sticks out in your mind as being 'bad rules' in the current edition, and what would you do to fix it? kindly provide examples of the way it is, and the way it ought to be. also, refrain from being entirely hostile. lively debate is one thing, ad hominem is another.

personally, i'd like to see the 'vehicles with weapon skill' rules go away. vehicles with weapon skill are universally walkers (i'm reaching here, please correct me if i'm wrong). all walkers could be made monstrous creatures without too much of a problem, and it would simplify the rules a bit in a way that actually made sense.

i'd also like to see the AP system scaled back a tiny bit as to take some of the pressure off of the cover save mechanic (which could be better as well).

Jackmojo
14-05-2009, 00:54
I'd like two things: comparable morale rules for shooting and assault (i.e. penalties to leadership for shooting casualties and additional saves required for fearless units) and corrected wound allocation rules (no differing equipment abuse and have wound allocation work the same for shooting as for assault).

Jack

SirSnipes
14-05-2009, 00:54
less cover saves, ALL ARMY *********** UPDATED, and not have EVERY OTHER army as fearless or ld10

this game needs more running

Raibaru
14-05-2009, 01:05
Less marine codex.
More focus on shooting then assault (but not to the exclusion of assault).
Psychic Powers that aren't terrible.
Psychic Powers that aren't trivialized by half the armies out there.
A new Chaos Codex more in line with past ones and nothing in common with current one.
Dark Eldar on more then a once-a-decade update.

lantzkev
14-05-2009, 01:06
Shooting to have proper power... for a game set in the future, shooting doesn't seem to phase anyone.

Lord of Worms
14-05-2009, 01:14
I think this "simpler" format of self-sufficient codexes is BS. It should be like it was in 3rd. You buy the marine codex and if you don't want the "codex" list (which should still be viable) get the Wolves (or whatever) upgrade dex.
Simplification (as they term it) is not the solution to 40k, rigid guidelines endlessly fussing about "balance" leads to every codex being out of date with each other.This idiotic "policy" of theirs led to the same wargear doing different things in different marine chapters. among other things.

The chaos codex sucks. It's been debated before, agree or disagree the reasons are well known

ten_ninjas
14-05-2009, 01:23
Less marine codex.
More focus on shooting then assault (but not to the exclusion of assault).


Definately seconded, I'd like them to produce basic codex's within the main book as they did with 3rd, armies would actually stand a chance of being balanced for a while :rolleyes:

And maybe maybe maybe different movement rates for each race to make movement a bit more tactical...

Tourniquet
14-05-2009, 01:31
Less Cover
More shooting less CC

Damocles8
14-05-2009, 01:34
I'd like to see BS modifiers....make cover mean something other than "Oh look I get a save......"

Lord of Worms
14-05-2009, 01:37
I'd like to see BS modifiers....make cover mean something other than "Oh look I get a save......"

Yeah, if they want to make cover more significant it shouldn't make invulnerable saves and good armour frivolous.

Also, force weapons are way too crappy in this system.

Corrode
14-05-2009, 01:50
AP modifiers for both shooting and CC. Let's eliminate the silliness of the binary save/no save system. Not only will it make shooting slightly scarier, MEQs might actually get a benefit out of cover against things other than lascannons. ;)

Lord of Worms
14-05-2009, 01:54
Gearing up for a new 40k campaign, and it looks like we'll have to re-write half of the rules:rolleyes:

Warboss Antoni
14-05-2009, 01:57
Change the defensive weapons rules. Right now tanks basically don't move. I think they should just make a chart showing what guns are main/defensive on every tank... For example a Falcon should be able to fire its main and Pulsar at 12", and Vypers should be able to fire shurkien cannons... Chimeras a hull heavy bolter and turret at 6"...

GodofWarTx
14-05-2009, 02:02
I would change two things:

Make all vehicles be able to fire their defensive weapons at a second target than their primary systems. Let the super heavies be able to fire all weapons systems independantly.

A big change in leadership modifiers and how its in the game. I would like to see far more factors involved. It sure wouldnt hurt to have a Willpower stat as well as a leadership, as we come into situations where with a singular stat defining a huge range of things its very difficult to make leadership matter at all.

Master Stark
14-05-2009, 02:03
First and most important change:

Bring back variable movement rates, so that we can do away with the whole host of different movement rules. If you want something to be faster, there is no need to give it a special rule or make it into a special category of vehicle. Just give it a higher movement rate.

Second change:

Reintroduce modifiers to saves, and to hit. This will have the by-product effect of changing the way cover works, and making it more useful to more people.

Third change:

Tanks should not have to sacrifice firepower to move, and the should be able to target different targets with different weapons.

Raibaru
14-05-2009, 02:07
Not sure I want to see modified saves again. The main thing I like about 40k is the streamlined rules and the quicker games. Back in second edition we'd literally have to set aside an entire afternoon. Start at 2, play till 5, eat dinner, then finish up by 8. So not in the mood for that again. Fantasy is almost that bad!

Now what they could have done was just make cover provide a toughness bonus. This way you have increased survivability. Like +2 toughness to a max of 7 or something.

Imperius
14-05-2009, 02:09
A balance between close combat and shooting. You dont want a shooting army to always dominatea tournament, or a close combat army to always dominate.

Vaktathi
14-05-2009, 02:11
1st: Removal of KP's and a return to VP's. Not necessarily in their former state, but they are far less stilted than KP games.

2: Reworked wound allocation system. The previous editions allowed special weapons and upgrade characters to stay alive longer than the rest of the squad (which I didn't really see as a balance problem given the points you pay for them) but while some had a problem with this, the wound allocation gimmicks that occur now are far worse than that problem ever was. When more shooting can result in fewer casualties, the system is *Borked*. Plain and simple.

3: Defensive Weapons: This needs to be brought back up to at least S5 or turned into a Ballistic Skill modifier (e.g. if moving at combat speed -1 to BS for non-defensive weapons, -2 if moving at cruising speed) There really was no reason to make this change other than Alessio whined about heavy bolters killing his Banshee's in the open. It removed most of the utility of taking many vehicles over infantry alternatives (especially for CSM's) and turned tanks into Bunkers when they really shouldn't be. Every other game system I can think of uses BS modifiers, and they work far better.

4: Cover. This needs to be reworked almost entirely. Again, BS modifiers would be ideal. A BS modifier much better represents the effect of what most area terrain or shooting through other units would have, and is nowhere near as biased as the flat 4+ cover save system. If some sort of cover save is still desired, the Flames of War system is really cool. Basically it's a BS modifier plus a "firepower" check. You roll to hit, if you hit then you make a firepower test (most tanks have a 3+ firepower, heavy machine guns have a 5+, small arms and LMG's have a 6) to see if the shot breaks through the bulletproof cover or armor. Something akin to this for 40k could be done very easily, simply make use the AP as the firepower for example.

5: The current missions get really old really quick, and two of the three mission types can often be either predetermined before or just after setup. Kill Points are simply bunk. Capture and Control leads to a ridiculous number of draws, with Sieze Ground being the only really exciting and potentially dynamic mission. More missions, maybe even missions with different objectives for each player, would be great.

6: Armor save modifiers. While I would like to see these, I don't like the current fantasy system. Personally what I'd like to see is 2 values for armor, coverage and quality, with AP determining modifiers based on the quality. So you'd have the actual save value which would be the coverage (i.e. the amount of body space the armor covers on the model) and the quality would be what it could stand up against, and the AP could determine if it ignore the armor completely or modifies it. Say a quality of 5+ or 6 is ignored by bolters, but a heavy stubber would impose a -1 penalty to the coverage instead of ignoring it outright. A Cadian could say have a 4+ coverage, which would be their save, but a 5+ quality which would be the AP to negate it, with maybe AP6 reducing the coverage save to a 5+. So a Space Marine could be 3+/3+, where a lascannon still kills it, but a heavy bolter reduces it to a 4+.

Or some variation on the Coverage/Quality thing, it needn't work out exactly as I describe it above but I'm sure most of you get what I'm driving at. That way you could have say, archaic plate armor saving on a 2+ against basic CC attacks and lasguns, but that would get ignored by heavy bolter fire for instance. Or a 5+ save that doesn't cover much of the model, maybe only the head and neck, but that will hold against any hit. Having these 2 values for armor would mean a lot more flexibility in unit design.

7: Make flamers a little more scary to big things. A flamethrower going to town on a tank is likely to force the crew to bail or burn to death inside or explode the internal fuel tanks, or cook a space marine inside his armor in seconds. Maybe give them Rending and/or a small possibilty of inflicting instant death or maybe 2 wounds? Flamethrowers are far more horrific weapons than 40k currently makes them out to be.

8: Psychic Powers. I'd like to see more stuff related to these, a little more like WHFB's magic, but not quite so much that you either win or lose by it, and more defense against it for sure.

9: Force Weapons. These were once special purpose anti-daemons weapons. Now they function no better against them than a bayonet. With all the immunity to Instant Death in the game now, I wonder why we have the rule at all, and it would be cool to have Force Weapons ignore or modify Daemon Saves again, even if they lose utility against other units.

10: Weapons Types. It's sort of frustrating that if we want a weapon to be something other than heavy and be multishot, it must be assault, even if that isn't quite right. It'd be nice if there was another mode similar to Rapid Fire, but that offered more than the one shot to 24"/2shots at 12" thing.

11: Movement Rates-It would be nice to have variable movement rates back in. Where most units may have a 6" move, something like a Rough Rider or Gaunt could move say 9" or 10". It removes much of the awkwardness of Fleet/Run, and would again allow for much more unit differentiation in design.

12: New design schedule. Instead of releasing update books for armies (or not) every few years, just include the entire army list for every army in the basic rulebook (or a seperate armies book) and then release new waves of things every few years, e.g. every 3 years a new book comes out with a couple units for each army, and might include a brand new army. It would eliminate so many of the problems we currently have of armies overlapping multiple editions, (and milleniums).

EDIT: Snipers! forgot about them. In their current incarnation, they represent nothing of what a sniper really should. Sniper units should have a relatively hard time hitting (not because they miss, but because they only want to take the best shot and will only take it if it's a good shot) but do massive damage. They should inflict Instant Death if their target fails it's save.

unclejimbo827
14-05-2009, 02:12
I want the old area terrain back.

Corrode
14-05-2009, 02:14
Not sure I want to see modified saves again. The main thing I like about 40k is the streamlined rules and the quicker games. Back in second edition we'd literally have to set aside an entire afternoon. Start at 2, play till 5, eat dinner, then finish up by 8. So not in the mood for that again. Fantasy is almost that bad!

Now what they could have done was just make cover provide a toughness bonus. This way you have increased survivability. Like +2 toughness to a max of 7 or something.

How exactly are save modifiers difficult?

Current situation:

A: Ok, that's 6 wounds. My guns are AP4, so they ignore your carapace save.
B: *removes 6 models*

Modified situation:

A: Ok, that's 6 wounds. My guns have a -3 save modifier, which means they ignore your carapace save.
B: *removes 6 models*

or

A: Ok, that's 6 wounds. My guns have a -2 save modifier, which means your 4+ save is reduced to a 6+.
B: *rolls 6 dice, gets 2 6s, removes 4 models*

Wow, that really changed a lot.

PapaDoc
14-05-2009, 02:25
Wound allocation shenaningans. It is stupid and I hate it.

Tarax
14-05-2009, 07:05
Apart from some that already have been said:

-Only models within range and LoS can become casualties, and only those models have to be removed, like in 4th ed.

-Blast weapons roll to hit and only if they miss will it scatter.

That's all for now.

The_Outsider
14-05-2009, 07:19
I'd like to see Gauss become a USR.

Troah
14-05-2009, 07:26
1: A Dark Eldar Codex that is not made for 2nd edition.
2: Better balance of melee vs ranged combat.

MajorWesJanson
14-05-2009, 07:28
Variable movement speeds.

The_Outsider
14-05-2009, 07:33
1: A Dark Eldar Codex that is not made for 2nd edition.


It isn't a 2nd ed codex.

Poseidal
14-05-2009, 07:52
As a start...

Remove AP system and put in a modified ASM one. ASM is NOT based on strength, and is entirely due to weapons.

Things like Chainswords get -1, Power Weapons and Fists get more, or maybe even still ignore. Monstrous Creatures get something like Power Weapons/Fists. Guns each have their own ASM, which is a big 0 for most small arms.

Add a movement stat, one for each race.

Hicks
14-05-2009, 07:56
Hmmm, pretty much all of what Vaktathi said (can't seem to ever disagree with this guy). I would add that I hate the cover rules for vehicles and especially for monstruous creatures. Unless you build terrain specifically for them, they tend to get no cover saves at all, ever. I much prefered the old rules for shooting, if just for the fact that you knew how cover would affect your army right at the begining of the game. No stupid things like being seen by an enemy unit through multiple units and terrain pieces when you thought you were safe.

Kurisu313
14-05-2009, 08:46
It needs a little work, but I thought about adding the AP system to CC.

Something like:

Close Combat Weapon: AP-
Choppa: AP6
Chainsword: AP5
Chainaxe, Eldar Vibroblades: AP4
Power Weapon AP3
Power Fist, Force Weapon: AP2
Pistols maintain their normal AP

If you're carrying two weapons, then choose one to give you AP, the other will give you +1A, as long as it's AP is equal or lower.

Something that'd add variety to different ccw's, without making things too complicated. It'd need a bit of work to make it backward compatible, though.

Troah
14-05-2009, 08:50
It isn't a 2nd ed codex.

Yet it says right on the cover " Second Edition"

Kurisu313
14-05-2009, 08:57
Yet it says right on the cover " Second Edition"

Because it's the second edition of the book.

Pick up a 2nd edition rulebook if you can, and you'll see that the DE codex is incompatible with it

Xelloss
14-05-2009, 09:04
- Rapid Fire at 15". It would change the actual situation were it is almost always better to skip shooting because you don't want to be charged.
- Difficult terrain = 1/2 the movement, very difficult terrain 1/4, like in WHFB. Difficult terrain is too random : shooty army can't count on it to prevent efficiently opponent to assault, and fail to assault because a bad roll seems really weird to me... Consolidation and running won't ignore difficult terrain, just modify the D6 result.
*(The two previous point would be easier to apply that bringing back different movement, because the latter means modifying codices and not just the core rulebook)*
- Bring back modifiers instead of this reroll festival ! no more counter-intuitive cover system (I'm hidden in the woods but it does nothing ! Yeah !). Defensive weapon with a BS penalty, mentioned previously, seems a good idea. Is there a reason modifiers system had been dropped, other than addition and subtraction of integer claimed as difficult to make ?
- Maybe allowing shooting in melee with a -2 to hit and allowing back consolidating into melee could prevent the P1 assault/P2 unit exterminated in melee/P1 unit obliterated by surrounding P2 shooty units, and preventing awkward situation like unit waiting to be exterminated by a monstrous creature without any chance to strike back. On the other hand, things like dreadnought should be able to ignore puny units arount them and shoot outside the melee.

inquisitor solarris
14-05-2009, 09:09
I quite like the rules as they are.

Poseidal
14-05-2009, 09:30
It needs a little work, but I thought about adding the AP system to CC.

Something like:

Close Combat Weapon: AP-
Choppa: AP6
Chainsword: AP5
Chainaxe, Eldar Vibroblades: AP4
Power Weapon AP3
Power Fist, Force Weapon: AP2
Pistols maintain their normal AP

If you're carrying two weapons, then choose one to give you AP, the other will give you +1A, as long as it's AP is equal or lower.

Something that'd add variety to different ccw's, without making things too complicated. It'd need a bit of work to make it backward compatible, though.

That's a huge nerf to Power Weapons. The AP system really has to go...

Deetwo
14-05-2009, 09:41
I'll rather keep the current rules, with maybe some tweaks to wound allocation and a pile of new scenarios (which isnt an issue though, writing them yourself isnt exactly hard)
These rules far outclass previous editions.

Maybe some sort of tournament expansion, generals compendium style.

Ganymene
14-05-2009, 09:58
If I wanted armor save and to-hit modifiers, I would play Fantasy.



I like the current edition very much. There are only a few minor things I would change.

The first would be the wound allocation rules. The Fifth Edition ones are a step in the right direction, but they could be better. A simple way to make them better would be to force the allocating player to place all armor-ignoring wounds first, followed by the others. This would still not be perfect, but it would help.

Another change would be cover. I thought Fourth Editions cover system was just fine. I don't like the shoot-through-everything, everything-gives-a-cover-save rules we have now.

Baragash
14-05-2009, 10:13
If I wanted armor save and to-hit modifiers, I would play Fantasy.



I like the current edition very much. There are only a few minor things I would change.

The first would be the wound allocation rules. The Fifth Edition ones are a step in the right direction, but they could be better. A simple way to make them better would be to force the allocating player to place all armor-ignoring wounds first, followed by the others. This would still not be perfect, but it would help.

^All of this

Hood
14-05-2009, 10:14
I like most of the rules as they are...

I would like to see KP a bit normalised though.
Some codexes updated and a general normalisation between armies and rules. (I think there are some holes due to different editions etc...)

Oguleth
14-05-2009, 10:24
Change Kill Points into Victory Points.

Change Wound Allocation back to what it was, or have it done another way.

Defensive weapons on tanks being s5 would also be nice again.


Other than that I don't really feel the need for change for other things in the main rules.

self biased
14-05-2009, 13:10
Less marine codex.
More focus on shooting then assault (but not to the exclusion of assault).
Psychic Powers that aren't terrible.
Psychic Powers that aren't trivialized by half the armies out there.
A new Chaos Codex more in line with past ones and nothing in common with current one.
Dark Eldar on more then a once-a-decade update.

elaborate on the psychic powers. also, the development and release schedule issues are separate from those of the actual game mechanics.


I think this "simpler" format of self-sufficient codexes is BS. It should be like it was in 3rd. You buy the marine codex and if you don't want the "codex" list (which should still be viable) get the Wolves (or whatever) upgrade dex.
Simplification (as they term it) is not the solution to 40k, rigid guidelines endlessly fussing about "balance" leads to every codex being out of date with each other.This idiotic "policy" of theirs led to the same wargear doing different things in different marine chapters. among other things.

again, a development/release issue and therefore moot. i will say that i'm not sorry to see the armory go as many people are. an option should be just that, how many people didn't spend the points on an iron halo for their commander? not many.


6: Armor save modifiers. While I would like to see these, I don't like the current fantasy system. Personally what I'd like to see is 2 values for armor, coverage and quality, with AP determining modifiers based on the quality. So you'd have the actual save value which would be the coverage (i.e. the amount of body space the armor covers on the model) and the quality would be what it could stand up against, and the AP could determine if it ignore the armor completely or modifies it. Say a quality of 5+ or 6 is ignored by bolters, but a heavy stubber would impose a -1 penalty to the coverage instead of ignoring it outright. A Cadian could say have a 4+ coverage, which would be their save, but a 5+ quality which would be the AP to negate it, with maybe AP6 reducing the coverage save to a 5+. So a Space Marine could be 3+/3+, where a lascannon still kills it, but a heavy bolter reduces it to a 4+.

Or some variation on the Coverage/Quality thing, it needn't work out exactly as I describe it above but I'm sure most of you get what I'm driving at. That way you could have say, archaic plate armor saving on a 2+ against basic CC attacks and lasguns, but that would get ignored by heavy bolter fire for instance. Or a 5+ save that doesn't cover much of the model, maybe only the head and neck, but that will hold against any hit. Having these 2 values for armor would mean a lot more flexibility in unit design.

i've long said that the problem isn't wholly with the AP system, but with the way they implemented it. your idea is interesting, and might actually work and work well.

i also sort of made this thread with you in mind, sir.


I quite like the rules as they are.

then why are you posting in this thread?

Captain Micha
14-05-2009, 13:13
1. No Space Marine Releases. (Let them see how it feels for a change) Or only 1 loyalist and 1 Chaos Marines book. None of this 4 codexes per edition garbage.

2. No more Run. One, Floot Sloggers shouldn't be as fast potentially as even a non fast transport. Two, it was so not made with Ork Boyz squads in mind. There's no way you are going to kill enough of them before they reach you. 30 boyz... good luck making them not fearless before they rape your lines. Gee thanks GW.

3. Wound Allocation. I want it GONE. More shots shouldn't cause less casualties.

Mewy
14-05-2009, 13:17
I really think the LoS rules from 4th edition were way better. They just needed to be clearly written. I would also like to see a different ruleset for vehicles. I hate the fact that a supposedly tough walker (dreadnought) or siege engine (defiler) can be taken out by one shot. But a monster like a carnifex never does.

1. Change the LoS mechanic back to 4th
2. Rethink the current vehicle armour mechanic
3. Bring back weapon range and wound allocation from shooting. If one guy is the only visible one/one in range out of 10, then only he should die. Not potentially all of them.

Mozzamanx
14-05-2009, 13:21
- Ordnance blast weapons should do D3 wounds if they are centred over the model. Call the rule 'blowing chunks'. :p

- Fleet allows an assault *or* shooting after the run, to make it sufficiently awesome over running.

- Make pinning more useful. I don't know how it would work, but suppressive fire followed by a flank attack should be a viable, and effective strategy.

fluffstalker
14-05-2009, 14:22
Micha, I sympathize. Run rules were sound in theory, gee, infantry should be able to run pell knell and pay the price by not shooting right?

Yeah.. masses of orc boyz with nobklaws running as fast as a chimera, do they really need to stop and shoot?

There is pretty much no drawback. Also-marine termies running around as if they are eldar, its riduclous how one six and they can move 12 in a single turn.

I would like the old system whereby only a few races could move that D6.

Tourniquet
14-05-2009, 14:28
I agree with the changes for Running.
Same with wound allocation

d0dgeuk
14-05-2009, 14:42
I have no problem with wound allocation or modifying close combat armour saves depending on the weapon. Making changes introduces a complication that I think the game would be better without. The only change suggested that I like is the wound allocation on shooting and only the visible model can be removed if he is the only one in the squad. It adds realism and then make movement and shooting much more tactical. Choosing to shoot the less threatening target in the open that you can do more damage to or potentially less damage to a more threatening target whom you can only see 3 of the 10 models for example.

Arkhar
14-05-2009, 14:46
12: New design schedule. Instead of releasing update books for armies (or not) every few years, just include the entire army list for every army in the basic rulebook (or a seperate armies book) and then release new waves of things every few years, e.g. every 3 years a new book comes out with a couple units for each army, and might include a brand new army. It would eliminate so many of the problems we currently have of armies overlapping multiple editions, (and milleniums).

That would be really great. But not as profitable as it is now i'm afraid.

self biased
14-05-2009, 15:04
it seems to work for privateer press.

self biased
14-05-2009, 15:12
I have no problem with wound allocation or modifying close combat armour saves depending on the weapon. Making changes introduces a complication that I think the game would be better without. The only change suggested that I like is the wound allocation on shooting and only the visible model can be removed if he is the only one in the squad. It adds realism and then make movement and shooting much more tactical. Choosing to shoot the less threatening target in the open that you can do more damage to or potentially less damage to a more threatening target whom you can only see 3 of the 10 models for example.

the whole reason we have the wound allocation system we do now is because of rhino/terrain/range sniping.

Hood
14-05-2009, 15:13
What I see from some of the posts here is:

"I has a shootie armieh. I don't wipe them out as I used to. I want wounds allocation, cover and run gone. :cries: " :rolleyes:

I think wound and run are pretty good rules (and yes I have a melee amry)... And cover is ok (and I almost never benefit from it).

I liked the opinion of d0dgeuk though, which he supported it, based on realism.

Sureshot05
14-05-2009, 15:24
- Drop the Special Character emphasis. Hate it.
- Less marines would be nice, but hard to imagine GW ever doing.
- Instant death. Either have it or don't. I hate that half the SC's have immunity to it. Seems pointless to introduce a rule only to have to make everyone need a way of negating it (looking at you synapse rules*). I actually liked instant death in its first iteration before it became increasingly common to have a way around it.

Other than that, loving the current edition and rules.

I'll add that I do like the direction of the new codex's except for the SC problem I've mentioned. Definitely like books which are much more varied and interesting (Orks, Marines, Guard) rather than books such as the current Chaos dex.

*This isn't against their implementation as i feel synapse is needed by nids, but i'd just have dropped cost of things rather than make everything immune.

self biased
14-05-2009, 15:26
while many here frown upon theoryhammer, it can be a useful tool to see what is likely to happen. true, statistics has a trying time at best with respect to the extremes of outcomes, but the fact still remains that with wound allocation the way it is, it is open to abuse. there's also the fact that wound allocation applies to close combat as well.

self biased
14-05-2009, 15:28
sureshot: i agree about the special characters. if GW's willing to sell a $95 dollar model that's only useable in apocalpyse games, it should be willing to sell a $18 model. legendary characters deserve the treatment of an apocalypse datasheet.

Captain Micha
14-05-2009, 15:29
What I see from some of the posts here is:

"I has a shootie armieh. I don't wipe them out as I used to. I want wounds allocation, cover and run gone. :cries: " :rolleyes:

I think wound and run are pretty good rules (and yes I have a melee amry)... And cover is ok (and I almost never benefit from it).

I liked the opinion of d0dgeuk though, which he supported it, based on realism.

Considering Assault has always been >> Shooting?

No one's advocating the complete removal of cover (infact I'm for keeping it!)

Run is not okay, because it makes the point of Transports greatly negated. Run is also not okay because there's no way in hell you are killing 2 30 man ork boyz squads before they get to your lines.

Wound Allocation is terrible, because if I put more shots into a squad.. you lose less models. WTF? How about if you make more attacks than I have squad members I lose less models?

They also took away one of Shooting's best perks of the Leadership Penalties when it came to taking morale tests.

The SkaerKrow
14-05-2009, 15:31
So, half of the people in this thread want to return to 40K second edition, and the other half are Tau players with chapped backsides. Got it ;).

I would like to see Wound Allocation changed so that it's less abusive, and a few more mission types added to bring more variety to the game. Other than that, the core rules of the game are golden, nothing needs changed.

In terms of the army books however, there is some room for improvement. Being that Space Marines are far and away the most popular army in the game, I can't fault GW for giving them multiple codexes. I would like to see them return to the design of the Third Edition Marine codices, however, where the only rules presented in the Chapter specific codexes were those that were absent/different from the Codex: Space Marines book. This would also make it easier for them to distribute these variant lists as free .pdf files, requiring less physical inventory to be shipped to stores and hopefully quieting the belly-aching of all of the Marine-haters out there.

Hood
14-05-2009, 15:43
Considering Assault has always been >> Shooting?

No one's advocating the complete removal of cover (infact I'm for keeping it!)

Run is not okay, because it makes the point of Transports greatly negated. Run is also not okay because there's no way in hell you are killing 2 30 man ork boyz squads before they get to your lines.

Wound Allocation is terrible, because if I put more shots into a squad.. you lose less models. WTF? How about if you make more attacks than I have squad members I lose less models?

They also took away one of Shooting's best perks of the Leadership Penalties when it came to taking morale tests.

Run is a d6 and you lose shooting. I don't see why I should just stand there, if I have nothing to shot at, and not progress a bit further in the time it takes to shoot. Transports are not Dice depented, they are flat numbers when it comes to moving and plus they provide more safety. You'll see that many of the melee or potential footslogging armies still use transports. Basically more do than not. And the orks are supposed to reach your lines. Otherwise they would always lose.

Wound allocation is not perfect but the previous rules sucked badly. And I realistically speaking, when you use semi-automatic weapons dont expect that each wound hit's a different target. Some will go to the same person (AKA overkill). The same applies in melee. And as for IC or characters with special weapons etc, they are supposed to be hard to spot in a troop while shooting at it. That's why you get to allocate the wounds.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last phrase btw... :confused:

Corrode
14-05-2009, 15:56
Run is not okay, because it makes the point of Transports greatly negated. Run is also not okay because there's no way in hell you are killing 2 30 man ork boyz squads before they get to your lines.

Transports can move the distance you require, guaranteed. Run can be negated by a bad roll (which can be compounded by the fact that Difficult Terrain rolls can also ruin your day, which Transports more or less ignore barring terrible luck with rolling 1s). Transports also provide a measure of extra protection from shooting. Open-topped transports actually give a greater move distance than Run possibly can - 12/13" move, 2" deployment, and you can still assault another 6". If I Run (not Fleet) I can't assault, and I'll have moved between 2 and 3" less. There's good reason to use transports even with the Run rule in place.

And honestly, if you can't kill 2 30 man Boyz squads with a Guard army, you're terrible. Sure, I'll buy the argument that maybe the mass of pie plates you can throw out gets nuked by Kommandos or Stormboyz or something before they get to fire - but at that point you're basically saying 'I should be allowed to win and the Ork player shouldn't be able to do anything about it'.


Wound Allocation is terrible, because if I put more shots into a squad.. you lose less models. WTF? How about if you make more attacks than I have squad members I lose less models?

Only in extreme cases, and it applies equally to attacks as to shooting. Remember that the wound allocation abuse only really applies where you have a significant number of differently-equipped models - in the majority of cases, you roll saves for the largest group at once, so you maybe save two models that should by rights have died but didn't because of allocation. It beats the **** out of 'I have 10 marines, I failed 8 saves, I'll kill the bolters but mysteriously the sergeant and the guy with the lascannon lived through the hail of fire.' There's actual risk to having a squad festooned with upgrades now, and whether that's a positive or negative depends entirely on how much you liked exterminating opponents.[/quote]


They also took away one of Shooting's best perks of the Leadership Penalties when it came to taking morale tests.

What?

Captain Micha
14-05-2009, 15:59
You used to take penalties to the LD test based on how many models were shot away. 50 percent was like a -2 penalty to the morale check.

Other armies don't have the firepower of Guard even on the best of days. Guard aren't the only army out there when it comes to dealing with Orks.

Hood
14-05-2009, 16:02
You used to take penalties to the LD test based on how many models were shot away. 50 percent was like a -2 penalty to the morale check.

Other armies don't have the firepower of Guard even on the best of days. Guard aren't the only army out there when it comes to dealing with Orks.

Ah, right! Yeah, I agree that this was not a good exclusion in the edition. :/

Damien 1427
14-05-2009, 16:06
I wouldn't be opposed to them scrapping the system entirely and writing a new one from the ground up, myself. "5th" edition is a clusterhug of design philosophies from over a decade of work by various teams, and boy does it show.

lanrak
14-05-2009, 17:54
HI all.
Short answer , everything!

I can not think of one thing in the current 40k rules , that could not be handled better.
Using more apropriate game mechanics it would be possible to get the same game play with far fewer rules and resolution conventions.

So a complete re-write focusing on game play NOT marketing gets my vote.
(And I am sure the game devs would prefer this too.No legacy issues yay!)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Arkhar
14-05-2009, 19:07
HI all.
Short answer , everything!

I can not think of one thing in the current 40k rules , that could not be handled better.
Using more apropriate game mechanics it would be possible to get the same game play with far fewer rules and resolution conventions.

So a complete re-write focusing on game play NOT marketing gets my vote.
(And I am sure the game devs would prefer this too.No legacy issues yay!)

TTFN
Lanrak.

I agree. 40K already has an excellent background, it only needs a proper rulebook. The actual rules don't do the game justice.

Hood
14-05-2009, 19:27
Well if they published a perfect rulebook the game would become a classic (like chess or something) and no further imput would be needed. If they introduce new factor or alter the rules after that point, they would have it topple all over and we would end up with an imperfect rulebook again! :p

And since they want to make a profit out of it they will never introduce perfect or absolute rules! Me thinks....!

Damien 1427
14-05-2009, 19:30
HI all.
So a complete re-write focusing on game play NOT marketing gets my vote.
(And I am sure the game devs would prefer this too.No legacy issues yay!)

I dunno. The trouble is that I can remember the bitchfit as Second was phased out for Third edition, and it's only in the last two or three years (Eight years after Second Edition was made defunct) people stopped moaning about how great Second Edition was.

But I do think the game is in dire need of a revamp. First edition, Rogue Trader, was around for about six or so years, and the same for Second Edition. So, from that point of view I'd say this iteration has outstayed it's welcome.

The only problem would be bringing out the army books. I doubt Dark Eldar players would care for another decade-long wait.

firechao
14-05-2009, 19:31
I think changing cover saves and the armour would however just make things complicated. But i do think shooting should be more powerful and cover less. Now its basicaly if ur on the field, u have cover. How does that work? IG Orks and Tyranids now have all their units with an armour save of 4+ half the time. Now no matter how much ap u have, they always have a save. I also think we should get cover and armour, i mean how does it work, u either get protected by the cover or ur armour? this is how i imagine things to be like:

Random sm BOB: Hmmm.... Im being shot at and im at a crater. I want to be use a cover save, so ill take off all my armour so i can profit more from the cover!

I also like the different movement rates.

Blinder
14-05-2009, 20:35
BS modifiers would be great for things like running (-1 to your die rolls, +1 if you get shot at, fleet units ignore these as well as get to assault) and moving tanks (though I'd have each vehicle get a "main gun" nominated to fire unmodified at cruising and be the only thing that can fire at faster, with the mod... and the usual adjustments for fast/walkers whatever. Possibly -2 for most weapons but -1 for current defensives, lets things advance slowly and spew all their fire without too much super-mobile killiness when really pushing it, but not having to trade off firing altogether when not going flat out).

I'd also do cover as an S mod, rather than an invulnerable save (or possibly split it into soft/hard, soft is a -1/-2 to firer's die roll, hard is an S mod) so being in cover isn't an automatic "get out of AP free" card, and also affects all weapons, rather than really only mattering to lower-AP value weapons. Of course, it would also want an "always wound on 6's" clause, and then a few weapons ignore the S mod (specifically snipers, which don't *use* S, but still have a harder time hitting, which is a bit more "right" feeling, blast weapons, which ignore the to-hit mod (but the cover still makes them a lot less threatening), and templates, which ignore everything (just like now, since hosing something down with a flamethrower still pretty much doesn't care what you're hiding behind).

I'd also toss out the "vehicles always hit on the rear" assault stuff- put it back to "vehicles are hit where they're hit" or make it "sides if it moved, rear if it didn't/immobilized or you're actually there." Right now it's too easy to punch through a mobile tank- grenades through hatches and all makes sense if the tank wasn't moving, but really if a vehicle's driving by you're probably not getting on top- that's for after you've managed to bog the tank down. It would make tanks harder to kill in assault again, but it's easier than ever to get side/rear charges on them and more things than ever can glance/pen a lot of *front* armor, let alone side and rear.

Last thing that I'd really like to see changed is what get's +1 on the damage chart. Rather than going with AP1 IMO they should have gone with a "Tank Buster" attribute and then given that out to a few things. I'd have gone with things like Ordnance, meltabombs (and equiv.), and Chainfists (and equiv.), as well, and had AP1 do something else entirely like force re-rolls on invul saves.

Corrode
14-05-2009, 21:10
I'd vastly prefer Blinder's suggestion of BS modifiers for moving vehicles. It's never made sense to me that something like an Ork trukk would be unable to fire if it moved - Orks aren't exactly precisely aiming at a target so much as they're just pulling the trigger and hoping. Besides which there's the fact that the gunner has nothing to do except fire his gun - so why exactly does he decide not to bother when the driver puts his foot down?

Equally just getting tanks moving again would be nice. That and it's a further characteristic to differentiate races and individual vehicles - maybe certain upgrades can cancel out the modifier, or maybe a more powerful gun has an additional mod. Modifiers just seem so simple to understand and yet there's that constant refusal to use them.

Master Stark
15-05-2009, 00:05
What I see from some of the posts here is:

"I has a shootie armieh. I don't wipe them out as I used to. I want wounds allocation, cover and run gone. :cries: " :rolleyes:

Wound allocation is bad because it is clunky and slow for no real benefit. Couting up the number of saves you have to take, working out which models to allocate them to, and then rolling them individually for each model, and then repeating the process for each squad getting shot at in each players turn slows the game down considerably.

Bad rule.

Run is not a bad rule by itself. But the fact that everything moves 6", and the by-product of that, which is that we need Run, Fleet, Slow and Purposeful, Skimmers, Fast vehicles, Beasts and so on, to re-introduce varied movement rates for different models is ridiculous. The 6" (or multiple thereof) movement rule is what sucks. The 'Run' rules just highlight it.

If, for example, Transports could travel 15" a turn, and humans had a movement rate of 5" (may move or fire in the shooting phase, no assault) then things wouldn't be so bad.


I wouldn't be opposed to them scrapping the system entirely and writing a new one from the ground up, myself. "5th" edition is a clusterhug of design philosophies from over a decade of work by various teams, and boy does it show.

I would be a big fan of this. But I reckon most of the gamers would cry tears of nerd rage at the thought of their armies and codexes being rendered unplayable.

Alx_152
15-05-2009, 04:59
I would like to get the possibility to voluntarily break off combat.
So you can leave combat's you cannot win or do not wish to fight.
Or call it Charge Reactions, flee/stand and shoot/stand and fight.

daboarder
15-05-2009, 05:57
AP really needs redone it'd be simple to say

ap1 becomes a minus 5 to your save plus vehicle dmg bonus
ap is minus 5 to save
ap3 is minus 4
and so on

that would work incredibly well
tho im not sure how easily it would apply to CCW's tho i like the idea of
powerweapon/fist/TH/MC=-5
rending (or some of the current CCW that have it ie:stealers(and yes i play nids))are -4
huge choppas/chain axe...wahtever=-3
chainswords/pistols/dedicated CCW=-2
basic attacks=-1
basically 3+ save would grant a 6+ save against huge choppas and so on
and leadership being more important along with vehicle moving and firing(i like hte previous idea of a BS modifier)

Ronin_eX
15-05-2009, 06:30
I wouldn't be opposed to them scrapping the system entirely and writing a new one from the ground up, myself. "5th" edition is a clusterhug of design philosophies from over a decade of work by various teams, and boy does it show.


HI all.
Short answer , everything!

I can not think of one thing in the current 40k rules , that could not be handled better.
Using more apropriate game mechanics it would be possible to get the same game play with far fewer rules and resolution conventions.

So a complete re-write focusing on game play NOT marketing gets my vote.
(And I am sure the game devs would prefer this too.No legacy issues yay!)

TTFN
Lanrak.

These right here. The game needs to be done right from the ground up. I'm not even advocating a 3rd Edition "strip back to a minimum and build up again". No they need to make a system that actually does the 40k fluff and emulates the background material. What use is a rules system where fluff != rules? That's no better than writing up awesome in depth background and attaching it to an abstract strategy game like checkers or tic-tac-toe.

They were a set of rules created for a fantasy game ported over to do sci-fi skirmish/RPG and then mutated from there to become a large scale battle game with 100+ minis per side without really changing the fundamental elements that slowed things down in the first place. They've gutted features and twiddled with rules but they've never really done anything that makes the game a better sci-fi combat game.

So in the end they need to put on their thinking caps and actually make a new system that emulates the background material they have been writing for the past two decades. Because over the years what the 40k rules emulate and what the background is share little in common. It's gotten so bad that many players actually seem to accept this as how it should be.

But most games out there design rules and units to emulate the background they have written. Go play Heavy Gear, Warzone, Infinity, Battletech or any number of other games. When you play them you are playing a simulation of the gameworld not some abstract wargame with an attached background that matters little in comparison.

The system needs an overhaul, it needs a purpose and it needs a focus or at least some vision behind it and it needs it now (hell it has needed it for nearly a decade of slow decay but I digress).

Ddraiglais
15-05-2009, 07:00
Cover saves have to be reduced and running needs to be rethought. Right now the game favors melee too much.

I would also rethink true line of site. I like it for the most part. I don't really like the fact that if you can see one guys big toe, you can hit the entire squad.

More realistic rules on ranged weapons would be o.k.

I'd like to see some sort of overwatch come back. I really miss that rule.

If overwatch came back and more realistic ranges, then you could keep your run and cover saves; and the game would probably be fairly balanced between ranged and melee armies.

Save modifiers would be preferable to AP. Oh, and bring back the termie save on 2d6. That really made them feel like they are portrayed in the fluff.

Not every unit in every army needs the ability to deep strike. Deep striking is getting as bad as rendering was (as far as how common it's getting). I understand that 40K is moving to more fluid battles, but there should be some sort of established lines.

While I'm on the subject of speed and fluidity on the battlefield, armor should move faster. The guns should be able to fire at higher speeds as well.

Melee units should have a tougher time damaging stationary armor, and anyone foolish enough to attack a moving tank should be automatically removed from the game.

A new faction or two would be awesome (AdMech, LatD, etc).

More consistency in fluff.

Tarax
15-05-2009, 07:10
Just a couple I came up with, some of which are already adressed:

-Cover: get rid of seeing through woods. Make it 2" inside, with some units (like Kroot in previous edition) 4".

-To Hit modifiers and ASM

-Let some weapons cause multiple wounds. Why does a lasgun and a lascannon each cause one wound?

-Change rapid fire back.

As someone said most things are from 2nd edition, but the one thing that opposed me to that one was the many varied weapons and all the different rules. I was glad they changed it when 3rd came along.
Also 2nd was more skirmish then what it is now. So the rules were more befitting back then.

Xelloss
15-05-2009, 07:59
Indeed range and obstacle snipping was a pain in the *ss, but tLoS made really difficult to be outside LoS. Maybe by saying "you can make up to the visible models number casualty anywhere in the squad" ? That could be interesting, but I don't see how to make it compatible with the present wound allocation system.

Hood
15-05-2009, 08:39
Indeed range and obstacle snipping was a pain in the *ss, but tLoS made really difficult to be outside LoS. Maybe by saying "you can make up to the visible models number casualty anywhere in the squad" ? That could be interesting, but I don't see how to make it compatible with the present wound allocation system.

Maybe if they make it so that you can only allocate the wounds between the visible models. That's not to hard to imagine. If only 3 models are visible and they recieve 6 wounds, out of which two are lascannons, then their chances are slim... But you can at least put two ap2 wounds on the same model (assuming that it has a different profile) or vise versa... But this kind of talk can go on forever with very hypothetical propositions.

Anyway I don't really see the point in this thread really... Everyone has a different point of view on how he sees the game depending on his game experiences and that leads to a plethora of opinions about what's nice and what's not.

The 5th is relatively new so I think it's way too soon to start this kind of speculations. Sometimes it only takes the ability to adapt to be able to follow what's new.

Having in mind a standar way of tactics and army composition will not help much when new rules or alternations are introduced. I am not saying "Everyone go melee!" but I believe with some planning and good thinking any kind of army can adapt to be viable. I don't think that the developers just change random stuff without considering pros and cons.

And as I said before, no company would want perfect rules for the game they are marketing. They want a flexible make up so they can alter and introduce new stuff in it to keep more "audiance" interested.

(Ok, don't eat me up and don't tell me about the DE or crons or whichever... Surely, there are improvement to be made.)

Xelloss
15-05-2009, 11:13
Maybe if they make it so that you can only allocate the wounds between the visible models.

That's the previous edition. By screening the unit with two rhino (for example) you can restrict the LoS only on the sergent/HW/IC and make all the wounds on this model. To prevent that the disposition of the models in the unit was very important, and so players always took three hours to move them.
By saying somthing like "you allocate wound on any X models, X the number of visible models of the unit, and follow the usual allocation rules", LoS-snipping would only means decreasing the maximal number of casualty and thus not interesting.


Anyway I don't really see the point in this thread really...

This is a wishlist. Where we can decrease our frustration by describing an utopic ruleset. Does that cause you a problem ?

gLOBS
15-05-2009, 11:23
How about a simpler system that puts everyone on a even playing field.

(SA) Small Arms - Always gives saves, only glances vehicles.
(AP) Anti Personnel - -1 to normal saves, only glances vehicles.
(AT) Anti Vehicular - Only allows invulnerable saves, can pen vehicles.

Here everyone is on the same level. Guard and Orks generally always get a save unless it is a dedicated weapon. It even balances out the tricky 4+ save that is worlds apart from 3+ but shouldn't be.

Hood
15-05-2009, 11:27
A problem? Barely. I never even mention the occurance of a problem or frustration.

I just didn't think of this thread as a wishlist but rather as a place to discuss the pros and cons of the 5th edition and what should be changed based on a general truth or a general agreement.

If it's all "I don't like that.", "Change that." with no suggestions or relevant backing up, then go ahead! :)

Tarax
15-05-2009, 12:05
It's not 'I don't like that'. And most of it is suggestable and backed up.

Still it's a wishlist, but, if you had read most of it, it is based on previous editions, where people find the rules better and hope they would return.

Hood
15-05-2009, 12:19
It's not 'I don't like that'. And most of it is suggestable and backed up.

Still it's a wishlist, but, if you had read most of it, it is based on previous editions, where people find the rules better and hope they would return.

Because I've read it I say that there are a lot of "I don't like this and change that!" Some are backed up and I liked their logic too. I just don't like seeing whining without suggesting alternates and backing up their opinions. Real backing up, not "I don't like run because infantry can move longer distances" for example (no offence) or "give back the 2nd/3nd/4th edition rule back". Anyway, carry on with the wishes! ;)

Megad00mer
15-05-2009, 12:54
Overall I think 5th ed. is great but I would change some things:

Less cover. Shooting should count for a bit more. I understand that they wanted to give assaulty armies more survivability while crossing the table but it seems to be a bit too much.

Allow negatives on Glancing hits. What I mean is, if I roll a 1 or a 2 for a glancing hit on the damage table, it should do NOTHING to the vehicle. (due to the -2 modifier) It's just stupid that the slightest ping to any vehicle will at the very least keep it from shooting at all. Are vehicle crews that inept?

Nix Kill Points. Bring back Victory Points.

Faster release schedule. 6 months between army updates is ridiculous. Hire more people damn it.

FAQ's released in a timely manner that actually address real issues.

Corrode
15-05-2009, 13:07
When people are saying 'shooting should count for more', what exactly do we mean here? A lot of people seem to want to build their shooty gunline, sit exactly where they deployed, and fire away until the enemy's dead. That, to me, doesn't say 'improving the health of the game' because it means that the contest now becomes 'can the assaulty army's transports get across the board faster than the shooty army can blow them up (i.e. does the shooty army roll lots of 1s or not?'.

I can see an argument for making shooting more powerful - someone suggested earlier that making the rapid fire range 15" rather than 12" would mean that you could get in and rapid fire a unit without necessarily putting yourself in assault range, and I think that's a very valid argument. You could conceivably run a good mech + fire support build that way - have lots of harassment elements in transports which run up and down the flanks of an advancing army, rapid-firing it to death, and supported by heavy guns further back. I just don't buy this 'I should be able to shoot people from anywhere I like and say "well you can hide out of LoS if you hustle behind the one piece of cover on the board!"

the1stpip
15-05-2009, 14:57
Personally, I think the balance between shooting and CC is about right. Neither one is better than the other. Move too far towards shooting, and races such as Orks and Nids will suffer badly, while Tau or Guard will be unstoppable.

Also, I don't think there should be more Ld modifiers for shooting. When you are shooting an unit, you are not at any real risk (with the exception of plasma weapons), so the chance of an unit running away should be less.

In CC, there is a chance you could lose the combat, even if you initiate it, so the risks are higher, and therefore the rewards should be higher.

I think they should do something more about terrain. They seem to have gone from one extreme to the next. 40k 5th ed is all about circumnavigating the terrain.

The other problem, with 15" rapod fire range, is if the unit being fired at is only infantry, they could really struggle to make it into combat. Again, its compromise. Move into possible assault range but get more shots.

This is the point. Combat armies got run in 5th ed, but to counter that, they could no longer consolidate into combat. Which is something else they need to change. There needs to be a way that you 'possibly' could consolidate, if you do it correctly.

Atomic Rooster
15-05-2009, 18:05
5th edition still has some of the flaws introduced in 3rd edition, and of course all of the flaws in the system since RT.

Two things I'd like to see changed that are related:

-I'd like to see armour saves changed so that higher numbers are better
-I'd like to see an amalgamation of infantry armour and vehicle armour. So what I'm saying is that weapons should have 2 values, one that represents it's ability to penetrate armour, and another value that represents the weapon's likelihood that a penetration would cause harm.

So you think that's what we already have, right? Well AP represents a weapon's ability to cut through armour, and Str represents it's ability to cause harm, BUT AP isn't used against vehicle armour. The way I see it today, it's as if a weapons fragmentation ability is used vs vehicles!

What I'd like is this:
Strength - this represents a weapon's ability to cause wounds or to damage equipment (often through fragmentation and/or percussive blast).
Armour Penetration - Ability to penetrate armour, through it's ability to poke/blast/cut through thick armour plate (but there's no guarantee that it's going break anything inside!)

So for example, a bright lance would have an awesome AP, but a low Str. Meaning it's very very likely to shoot a hole right through your tank, but that the hole it makes isn't a very big one, so it's not so likely to break your tank. On the other hand, an Ork Rokkit probably won't penetrate your vehicle armour, but if it does, your tank is toast!

These changes would require a temporary patch with new weapon stats for all armies until a full codex matching the updated rules could be released.

Also, I'd like to see the order of rolling vs infantry changed to this:
1. Attacker rolls to hit
2. Attacker rolls to pen your infantry armour
3. Defender rolls the str vs toughness roll.... maybe call it a Toughness test or whatever.
The odds would remain the same, we keep both players involved like currently, and bullets pass through armor and then people.. not the other way around ;)

There's also several 2nd edition rules that I'd like to see again:
-different movement rates
-high/low power Heavy plasma :D OMG I miss that.
-throwable grenades (maybe make it D3 hits or something like that), but for god's sake not the 2nd edition 10 minute template barrage again!

Corrode
15-05-2009, 18:51
I had actually thought of something like that - if you were prepared to move past the '1-10 only' system you could make it so that infantry Toughness and vehicle Armour worked the same way. So a strength 4 Marine requires a 4+ to wound an Ork -instead of having a chart, the Ork is simply T8 and you have to roll equal or higher. A Wraithlord is T10, meaning you need a 6+ with S4 - you basically have the same situation as now, going up. The only problem is when something like a Lascannon shoots a Guardsman - it's auto-wounded 3 times over. Maybe you could work that out though, I dunno.

JustTony
15-05-2009, 19:30
I only really have two things I really, really want to see:

1: A useful, comprehensive index. Don't make me dig through the damn book for 5 or 10 minutes trying to find a given rule.

2: Number and cross index the rules. It works well for Star Fleet Battles, an incredibly complex game as compared to either 40K or Fantasy, but you can usually find the rule you want AND how it interacts with another rule within moments. And the SFB rulebook is the size of the 40K hardback with nothing in it but rules! No fluff, no "history", no modeling tips, just the rules needed to play the flipping game.

Otherwise, I'd like the game balance shifted back to a "happy medium" between assault and shooty armies. Right now it's all assault, all the time. Probably 40% to 60% of the players in my area right now either play Orks or are considering starting Orks. Currently my Tau, Grey Knight/Inquistion army, Dark Angels and certain types of Eldar armies are in the attic, while my Nids are being well fed and Eldar assault aspects are getting lots of use. Methinks there's something rotten in Orkerdamm. Hopefully a 6th ed book is years away yet. I want my new Deamonhunters codex dang it!

Peace: through superior firepower.

Bunnahabhain
15-05-2009, 19:35
Just about everything.

As i've siad before:
Run on some useful FAQs and Erratas for the next 2ish years, and write a new better, and more cohesive system from the ground up in that time. Like the big change from 2nd to 3rd ed, but better done. Better rules will sell more models, and so make more money for GW.

The other big change is seperate the model and rules release cycles.

I've got fed up waiting for GW to do these simple things, so am writing up 40k factions into another rules set that works better.

JagdWehrwolf
15-05-2009, 22:09
@Bunnahabhain: Out of curiosity... What ruleset would that be?

Askari
16-05-2009, 00:19
1. Armour
Someone mentioned in Rules Development a change to Armour representing "Quality" and "Protection" or somesuch. Basically Armour had 2 values, Quality and Protection. AP counts against the Quality, so a Ork in 'Eavy Armour may have a 3+ save, but 4+ quality so Heavy Bolters will ignore it. Whereas an Eldar Guardian may have a 5+ save, but 3+ quality so you'll need a Battlecannon to ignore it, but it's still only a 5+ save.

2. Wound Allocation
Why can't my Marine's mate pick up the Plasma Gun when he dies? Daft concept, worse execution.

3. KPs
Bye.

4. Movement.
Are you telling me a Necron Warrior is as fast as an Dark Eldar Warrior? Like has been said, also makes rules for Bikes and Cavalry simpler.

5. Force Weapons
Change back to "kill outright" not "Instant Death", or give them something else instead, and less Eternal Warriors.

6. Fearless
In multiple combats especially, the Gaunts & Carnifex scenario for example, sort it out.

Erm... that's it really, I quite like the current rules.

Ddraiglais
16-05-2009, 03:00
I only really have two things I really, really want to see:

1: A useful, comprehensive index. Don't make me dig through the damn book for 5 or 10 minutes trying to find a given rule.

2: Number and cross index the rules. It works well for Star Fleet Battles, an incredibly complex game as compared to either 40K or Fantasy, but you can usually find the rule you want AND how it interacts with another rule within moments. And the SFB rulebook is the size of the 40K hardback with nothing in it but rules! No fluff, no "history", no modeling tips, just the rules needed to play the flipping game.

Otherwise, I'd like the game balance shifted back to a "happy medium" between assault and shooty armies. Right now it's all assault, all the time. Probably 40% to 60% of the players in my area right now either play Orks or are considering starting Orks. Currently my Tau, Grey Knight/Inquistion army, Dark Angels and certain types of Eldar armies are in the attic, while my Nids are being well fed and Eldar assault aspects are getting lots of use. Methinks there's something rotten in Orkerdamm. Hopefully a 6th ed book is years away yet. I want my new Deamonhunters codex dang it!

Peace: through superior firepower.


You just gave me a thought. I'd like to see the main rules and future codices to be able to be purchased as downloads or CDs. Maybe they could include a CD at the back of the book. They could include a search function so you could easily find rules. They could also have downloads to correct the files when they have FAQs.

Of course that could eventually lead to living rules, which I think would make everyone happy.

Grimbad
16-05-2009, 05:07
A vehicle-style damage table for multi-wound models (3 or more wounds). So I just wounded your space marine captain with an extra-large rocket propelled machine gun. Let's roll that on the table... oh hey, he loses a weapon and will die of blood loss in d3 turns d3+2 because he has enhanced astartes blood clotting. Nifty.

Vehicles have that sort of detail, why not monsters and heros?

Alternatively, reduce vehicle damage to a wound-type system. Have every penetrating hit knock a point of armor off every side until all sides are below ten, and then the vehicle dies. Though I'd much rather have the wound damage table.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-05-2009, 06:28
If I wanted armor save and to-hit modifiers, I would play Fantasy.


I like the current edition very much. There are only a few minor things I would change.

The first would be the wound allocation rules. The Fifth Edition ones are a step in the right direction, but they could be better. A simple way to make them better would be to force the allocating player to place all armor-ignoring wounds first, followed by the others. This would still not be perfect, but it would help.

Another change would be cover. I thought Fourth Editions cover system was just fine. I don't like the shoot-through-everything, everything-gives-a-cover-save rules we have now.

What Ganymene says.


How exactly are save modifiers difficult?
...

Wow, that really changed a lot.

Indeed it did. Not in the sense of being complicated but in the sense of making (most) armour useless. Granted, flak armour already is often useless but the AP system at least makes power armour worthwhile.



then why are you posting in this thread?

Because 'little to no changes' is a valid reply to your question. I'm surprised that you were unable to draw such a simple conclusion yourself, to the point that I think you're just being obtuse.

Corrode
16-05-2009, 07:49
Indeed it did. Not in the sense of being complicated but in the sense of making (most) armour useless. Granted, flak armour already is often useless but the AP system at least makes power armour worthwhile.

No, it really doesn't. I'm not envisioning a system where everything has a blanket -3 save modifier. I may have been a little optimistic with 'lasguns have a -1', but then that's the sort of thing you'd test for. Even in an environment with save modifiers, power armour is still better than flak or Ork armour - you're likely to get a save even against big guns, whereas the Ork lost his long ago. Terminators are even better off - and I'd even suggest that you could play around with things like 2d6 for a save again. The AP system just never made sense to me in that some guns are apparently heavy enough to penetrate tanks, rip through carapace with ease, but suddenly power armour means 'oh lol, bounces off, nvm'.

Jackmojo
16-05-2009, 08:40
If they did a big redesign I could see save modifiers coming back, as those were not the 'math intensive' modifiers I think they were trying to get rid of, rather it was the multiple pluses and minuses to hit that were confusion causing.

Jack

LirEdinSun
16-05-2009, 09:28
I would like some sort of revised on VDR (Vehicles Design Rules) and in a simpler format and something similar for creating your own special characters.

old Area terrain rule shuold be brought back, and also the 'overwatch' rule as well.

also with all the new apocalypse models comming out, I think a revised edition of 'adeptus titanicus' should be brought out. lets get a room full of reaver titans playing 'tag team' lol.

shin'keiro
16-05-2009, 10:34
No more wound allocation - it's not needed.

Khornate Fireball (Ork)
17-05-2009, 05:59
They should kill kill points. They should also do cool and streamlining things, such as folding the vehicle damage table into the armor pen roll. For example, you match the armor = result X, you beat it by one = result Y, you beat it by two = result Z, etc. The numbers would have to be tweaked, for example, making the first result be on something less than the AV, or something. And they could also incorporate some randomness into the results.

clanfield
17-05-2009, 07:15
id like to see NO new edition until the codexs have all been bought up to date gw are struggling to catch up as is we all see the wolves and dark eldar on the horizon but nids tau necrons all the hunters + xenos hunters would be nice ,lotd ,legions ,thats a few years of work for em as is

Vaktathi
17-05-2009, 07:40
Another thing I'd like to see is vehicles being less helpless in an assault. assaulting a tank in real life is a dangerous affair, and tanks are fully capable of grinding attackers beneath their treads or otherwise knocking them off.

In addition to Tank Shock being more potentially lethal (I.E. the tank has a chance to kill something even if no model attempts "death or glory) I'd like to see vehicles be able to hit back in an assault, much like the old Superheavy rules where anything in base contact was hit at init1 WS1 attack that ignored armor saves.

now, I don't want tanks that are just going to rampage through everything, annihilating squads through tank shock, but Tank Shock should be more lethal, and a tank should be able to have some defensive measures in an assault rather than just taking it.

Bunnahabhain
17-05-2009, 07:55
Very true Vakathi.

Of course there are a couple of even easier ways to do this one.

1: Have a stand and shoot type reaction for units being assulted. This makes it sensible to not charge tanks from the angle all their machine guns are pointing...

2: Allow passengers in open topped vehicles to fight if thier transport is assulted.

Both are intuitive, efficient and realistic, as is your 'crush and grind' type approach

Plastic Parody
17-05-2009, 09:22
race specific infantry and vehicle movement values and defensive weapon str

make pinning and sniper rifles better

allow people to shoot at passengers in open topped vehicles

shoot charge reaction as above might be interesting

marv335
17-05-2009, 09:45
Personally I want arc of sight back.
say a 180 deg LOS on a model. you can only shoot/charge whatever you can see.
Units getting charged in the back suffer penalties on a failed I check.
It'd add some movement to the game

Vaktathi
17-05-2009, 09:54
arc LoS would be very difficult on many of the current models (e.g. twisted torso's & heads, shifted poses, etc), and I could see terrible arguments "he's 1* out of LoS, you can't shoot him!"

Master Stark
17-05-2009, 10:21
Indeed it did. Not in the sense of being complicated but in the sense of making (most) armour useless. Granted, flak armour already is often useless but the AP system at least makes power armour worthwhile.

It is entirely possible for systems to be created that do not render armour useless, and still allow for a gradiated armour modification.



now, I don't want tanks that are just going to rampage through everything, annihilating squads through tank shock, but Tank Shock should be more lethal, and a tank should be able to have some defensive measures in an assault rather than just taking it.

The way I figure it, a tank should be a couple of things.

It should be a very mobile souce of heavy firepower.

It should be immune to small arms fire, but vulnerable to dedicated anti-tank weapons.

It should be vulnerable to close assaults by units armed with anti-tank weapons like meltabombs, chainfists, etc.

Now, if a tank drives into an enemy position, I think it makes sense for the unit being driven at to just dive out of the way rather than stand and be crushed. But when a unit assaults a tank, there definately should be chance of getting crushed under the treads. Maybe even just give vehicles a more complete profile, with attacks and initiative.

Thanatos_elNyx
17-05-2009, 15:02
All armies should have more impressive Psykers (excepting Tau and maybe Dark Eldar) & add Sorcery for Thousand Sons.
And nerf Psykic Hoods, as they are too strong.

marv335
17-05-2009, 15:05
arc LoS would be very difficult on many of the current models (e.g. twisted torso's & heads, shifted poses, etc), and I could see terrible arguments "he's 1* out of LoS, you can't shoot him!"

It's easy, paint a small line on the edge of the base, and another 180 deg around the base.
Voila! front arc/rear arc.
It works in warmachine, so why not in 40k?

Mortius27
17-05-2009, 15:29
1 NO MORE KILL POINTS they suck, make no sense, and only lead to min maxing. I actually "lost" a 1500 point game once by one victory point when I had 950 points of stuff remaining compared to my opponents 200. Plus 125 points of his 200 were a SM Captain with one wound left.

2 Use rules similar (if not the exact same) to the super heavy tank apoc rules for normal tanks. Just treat them as if they had a single structure point. This would allow them to move and fire all their weapons, target more than one unit and keep them from being stunned so easily. Make them cost more points to make them balanced if need be. The current system makes no sense I know people always say dont apply real world logic to game but why in the world (in any time stream or universe) would any military build something and spend a bunch of resorces, effort, time and money to cover something in guns that it cant shoot.

3 Bring back cover save modifiers. Everything getting cover saves all the time is why shooting is nerfed. This would fix a lot of problems.

4 Last but not least, if something gets a form of invul save it should get to make both it and its armor save roll against every attack. (not one or the other) This should coincide with less things getting invuls and maybe a points increase for them but it would help things make more since and give more survivability to things that are supposed to be super nasty.

Gustovic
17-05-2009, 17:01
Shoot with all weapons of every tank at diferent targets regardless of the Str.
Best assault rules (as Fantasy).

Vaktathi
17-05-2009, 17:41
It's easy, paint a small line on the edge of the base, and another 180 deg around the base.
Voila! front arc/rear arc.
It works in warmachine, so why not in 40k?

First, Warmachine has a ton less models. Doing this withj 15-20 models is one thing, having to paint that on and constantly work it out and worry about it in games with 140 guardsmen or 60 space marines is not fun. Second, it's a pain to measure each of those LoS arc's if something is questionable. Third, for most weapons, it takes a fraction of a second for a trained soldier to turn, aim, and fire, excepting heavy weapons of course. For a heavy weapons carrier, I could see it, but anything carrying a rifle or pistol or whatnot should be able to turn and fire fast enough to not matter in gameplay terms. Fourth, again due to model count, for CC, it would be a huge pain. If I've got 3 Dire Avengers facing one way, 6 another, and 1 toward the charge, do I really want to work out which ones are at a disadvantage, which ones aren't, etc...? Or an Ork mob?

It makes sense if fantasy when you have ranked units in fighting lines and hard to aim/slow firing weapons, not so much when everything is fighting in a skirmish formation and is packing automatic weapons.