PDA

View Full Version : How should 40k develop in the future?



Pushkin
04-01-2010, 23:40
Hi,

I was reading the "2010 models" rumour thread and many people seem confident that all codexs will be redone within the next 18 months ready for the next edition of 40k. Whilst i'm not entirely convinced it did get me thinking about how 40k should develop in the future.

By this i'm not just talking the rules clarifcation/FAQ/Erratta of the current edition, but more the "guiding principles" or "feel" the next ed should have.

This ed. was plugged as being "cinematic", by virtue of bigger armies, true line of sight, emphasis on cover and vehicles

personally i hope the next ed goes for a more tactical feel. By this i don't necassarily mean making things more complex, but making it so a player is faced with more important decisions to make within the turn.

E.g. as a general rule it's always better to assault than to be assaulted
perhaps an option to "stand and shoot" when assaulted, meaning you got to fire at the squad assaulting you at a cost of lowering your Init to 1 and having a max of 1 attack in CC?

I think rules that require you to continually make decisions throughout the game which have both benefits and drawbacks to your troops would have a big impact on the tactical side of 40k

This could be done in a variety of ways:

+ option to stand and shoot a charge (see above)
+ bringing back "overwatch"
+ supressing fire option (shooting deals less damage but with chance to pin?)

I think it would only take a few rules like these to fundamentally alter the tactical side of the game, and make it less about being within 12" of the enemy! (rapidfire or move,fire pistol, assault!)

I'd just like to know if anyone else would see a more tactical 6th ed, or indeed 6th ed being taken in a completely new direction?!?

Ph4lanx
04-01-2010, 23:43
The one major thing I would like them to revamp is the vehicle rules. All this defensive and offensive weaponry. If it was a real tank, all the guns would fire all the time. If that's such an issue, tone down the number of weapons on the tank, or change the stats of the guns, but I just hate the idea of a tank crew thinking, "We're going to fire the main cannon, OK sponson gunners, you're not allowed to even TRY firing."

I mean, even just something simple like a -1 to hit if the main cannon has fired would work, to show the vibration of the tank firing the main gun.

bigcheese76
04-01-2010, 23:44
Although all these rule suggestions are pretty good and could be included with minor tweaks to them, I think that GW are trying to simplify the rules a bit and make it easier for younger and new players to take up the hobby.
Id say that fantasy is alot more tactical than 40k so if they are going to develop the rules they should take the fantasy ones into consideration and use a few ideas from there.

Narf
04-01-2010, 23:47
like to hit modifiers & armour save modifiers both these would be very good things to bring back

Pushkin
04-01-2010, 23:52
Although all these rule suggestions are pretty good and could be included with minor tweaks to them, I think that GW are trying to simplify the rules a bit and make it easier for younger and new players to take up the hobby.
Id say that fantasy is alot more tactical than 40k so if they are going to develop the rules they should take the fantasy ones into consideration and use a few ideas from there.

i agree fantasy is much more tactical. the fact the movement phase is so much more dynamic and you can do things like march block really change the way troops behave on the battle field.

I think even if they only introduced one or two rules that had some sort of implication on basic decision making within the game, it could make 40k really tactical again.

Mannimarco
04-01-2010, 23:54
i for one hope they dont bring back over watch or introduce stand and shoot, guard gunlines would come back in a big way

Thud
05-01-2010, 00:32
I think even if they only introduced one or two rules that had some sort of implication on basic decision making within the game, it could make 40k really tactical again.

IMO it is quite tactical now, but a lot of players seem to be stuck in the "just shoot/assault the other guy" paradigm.

I'm all for exciting new tactical decision rules, though. :)

Professor Grumbles
05-01-2010, 01:08
Id say that fantasy is alot more tactical than 40kIf this sentence was in the past tense, I would agree with you. Lords/Heroes have gotten out of control lately.

Mannimarco
05-01-2010, 01:16
its true: herohammer is back in a big way

Chem-Dog
05-01-2010, 01:46
I'd like to see the disparity between shooting weapons and melee weapons cleared up, I know it's a huge overhaul (and therefore not going to happen) but it bugs me that melee is essentially full save/no save where shooting has seven gradations from AP1 to AP- I suppose melee weapons could be given an AP value but I dunno. On a similar point, Power Weapons that can slice through almost any Armour you'd care to name can't make a dent on tanks, that gets on my nerves.


Personally I would stretch the Melee to hit chart out a little bit, Grots fighting an Avatar still only need 5's, if ever there was a justification for 6's to hit...


One little touch I'd like to see is the introduction of a counterpoint to Seize the initiative!, currently you can try to grab first turn if you want it, this is based entirely on the roll of a D6 (to decide who sets up first) I'd like the player who won that roll (and thus decided to set up first) given the option to hold back and force his opponant to take the first turn.

Ianos
05-01-2010, 01:47
Back to 40k though... i cannot see overwatch and stand shoot coming in. First one due to TLOS and imbalance second due to imbalance. I would suppression "if wounds caused=models in unit then pin check at -1 LD".

Generaly i would like 6th to be a 5.5 edition, with more missions, rules clarifications and more emphasis on VPs along with better codices than an overhaul. System stability is key to a sucessful balanced game.

CoolKidRoc
05-01-2010, 02:06
I'd like to see the disparity between shooting weapons and melee weapons cleared up, I know it's a huge overhaul (and therefore not going to happen) but it bugs me that melee is essentially full save/no save where shooting has seven gradations from AP1 to AP- I suppose melee weapons could be given an AP value but I dunno. On a similar point, Power Weapons that can slice through almost any Armour you'd care to name can't make a dent on tanks, that gets on my nerves.


Personally I would stretch the Melee to hit chart out a little bit, Grots fighting an Avatar still only need 5's, if ever there was a justification for 6's to hit...


One little touch I'd like to see is the introduction of a counterpoint to Seize the initiative!, currently you can try to grab first turn if you want it, this is based entirely on the roll of a D6 (to decide who sets up first) I'd like the player who won that roll (and thus decided to set up first) given the option to hold back and force his opponant to take the first turn.

I'm pretty sure it says winner of the die roll chooses to go first or second. Because that's what I do ;) Some times making my friend go first to get his drop pods out of the way.

Xyrex
05-01-2010, 03:24
They should defenitely change rules for hitting, a bolter shell can probably fly for a mile of two, not 48 meters (24 inches). Likewise, the farther it goes, the less accurate. It pisses me off when a tank is standing 1" from my captain who has a combi melta and he misses, unless hes deliberately missing to **** me off, i dont see how that works. Also, the AP of weapons should downgrade the Sv. a AP 3 weapon should still be much more effective against termies than an AP 6 weapon. Also, Power weapons should get bonuses against tanks, and infantry should be allowed to use (E.G.) lascannons in CC. and honetly, BRING BACK THE GRENADE EXPLOSIONS! Tanks should fire as many weapons as they want, just cuz ur moving 2 miles faster in a land raider doesnt meen the left gunnner cant fire at the same time as the right.

lordmoon
05-01-2010, 03:33
yeah stand and shoot would work, expect for dark eldar, bugs, and daemons. but who plays them.

Sigis
05-01-2010, 03:39
i for one hope they dont bring back over watch or introduce stand and shoot, guard gunlines would come back in a big way

Meh I wouldnt mind though :)

Even though guard gun lines are still loads of fun.
I would love stand and shoot response to charges. It feels fluffy and makes me feel warm and fuzzy for my little 50 man combined squad units that get to first rank fire second rank fire.

Dr.Clock
05-01-2010, 05:33
I think the Battle Missions book is the second step on the road started in 5th ed.

I hope that book will start making things more tactical, but not in the way that the OP suggests. It won't be individual units that have to make hard decisions but rather how to use each phase of the turn to get you closer to an objective that is fundamentally different from your opponents.

I'm playing a 3000 point CoD Thunder Run right now and it is the best game I've had in ages.

I'd be most pleased if the 6th ed. allows that book and Planestrike to continue working so that the missions stay fresh.

I think vehicle shooting needs to be freed up a little - even give all weapons a negative to hit based on their speed. Finally all those twin-linked weapons make sense.

As far as other things go, I'm hesitant of a stand and shoot rule but overwatch could be decent... but that could easily be House Ruled.

Assault: Seems to work pretty well. If there were a stand and shoot rule, I think consolidating into combat would have to return.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Pushkin
05-01-2010, 06:39
yeah stand and shoot would work, expect for dark eldar, bugs, and daemons. but who plays them.

but if you had two options e.g. stand and shoot & say countercharge

one lets you get a shooting attack at a penalty to CC
one gives you and advantage of somekind in CC but doesn't let you shoot

they'd be more of a decision to make. The fact is most armies are CC armies, and because of the +1A (and the fact by virtue of assaulting your enemy doesn't get +1A) its almost always better to assault.

With regards to battle missions, whilst i'm pretty excited by it all (especially the new models!!) i'm beginning to have doubts as to how much the book is gonna mix things up? i don't wanna criticise the book before its released but i don't exactly envisage soe new scenarios (probably mostly Capture the objective in some description: slaves, prisoners, downed hero etc.) significantly changing how the game is played.

Grimbad
05-01-2010, 06:54
Melee weapon AP values and variable movement speeds can be added with little fuss, just as 'guess' changed to 'barrage'. Simply include a note "older codices may not specify these values, where they are missing assume 6"/AP-".
Modifiers, cumulative saves, (slightly) more detailed rules. Maybe a scaling option- wider unit coherency and more specific line of sight in small games (so your combat patrol can spread out to cover more area, for example).

Edit: Oh, and the cool things everyone has always thought should be in the game. Drop pods squishing people, and of course bike shock.

The Base
05-01-2010, 07:04
Personally I don't think new rules are even needed.

More complex rules really aren't needed.

Sincity
05-01-2010, 07:05
Stand and shoot would work just fine ... if is taken in place of all first round CC attacks of the shooter. If the Assaulter get to CC it get +2 attacks (if target S&S) and would almost always win (needs to cause only one kill).

Walkers should be able to fire its flamers template weapons in CC (monsterous creatures also).

Tanks should move 10" , 16" , 22" , and 28".
Tanks should be able to fire DEF. weapons in CC. and have this this go towards any combat resolution.


Moral needs to be re-worked compleatly , whats the point right now ?

Cover needs to be re-worked ... really.

Aria terrain was a good idea , it needs to come back.

Overwatch should be a USR and only some units may use it (like scout or deep strike).

Many more , but this will do for now.

Aiwass
05-01-2010, 08:11
I think 6ed need to take some ol'stuff, like suppresive fire (very tactical!) saves modifiers and rebuild the cover saves (maybe as modifier to hit). Yes, the game will be more deadly... like war. The range of weapons could be adapted INQ. Too complicated for new brats who start playing? I don't think so, if 90% of them are actually playing at EvE online, WoW and so on.

Also, other rules like the grenade explosions, mission charts, out of control!, 2nd style close combat system can be very funny.

squeekenator
05-01-2010, 08:47
+ option to stand and shoot a charge (see above)
+ bringing back "overwatch"
+ supressing fire option (shooting deals less damage but with chance to pin?)

These ideas are all very nice in theory, but what sort of tactics do they actually add? Stand and shoot reactions are nothing to do with tactics - sure, it's technically giving you more options, but when you're choosing between wiping out those Sluggaz with a gazillion rapid fire bolter shots or copping a faceful of choppa, it's not exactly a hard decision. Stand and shoot reactions make any sort of fragile assault units useless and severely weaken the tougher ones, and that's the only thing they do.

Overwatch? I never got a chance to play 2nd edition, but from what I heard it ruined games. People would just bunker down, stick everyone on overwatch and end their turn. Really, what does overwatch do to the game? It makes point-and-click gunlines that never move more powerful and makes maneuvering unnecessary. Why would you drive a Rhino full of flamer-armed Marines up to those Orks when you could just put your Devastators on overwatch and wait for them to leave cover? Why bother sending your assault troopers over to deal with those JSJing Crisis Suits if you can shoot them down in their turn? All overwatch does is encourage static play.

Suppressing fire is the one idea that could work out quite well, but only if the morale system is completely reworked, and that's not going to happen. I'm always a little mystified whenever Fantasy elitists claim that it's better than 40K because psychology matters, since the morale system in both games is nothing but a dice roll that determines whether you squad instantly dies or heroically ignores hundreds of their allies dying around them. Under the current system, suppressive fire would just add a huge random element, either doing less damage for nothing in return or rendering a (potentially vital) squad useless for a turn. The best way to represent supressing fire is, in fact, the go to ground rule, but unfortunately that doesn't get used very often because it isn't particularly effective.

Baragash
05-01-2010, 11:37
Overwatch I have no interest in seeing again.

I don't see the need for the old area terrain rules, these can simply be replicated by taking LoS blocking terrain in the current rules.

The idea of being able to exchange first round CC attacks for shooting in some capacity (Sincity's post) is interesting.

I'd like to see Morale be more effective.

Some sort of middle ground between CCW and Power Weapons might be useful for some units that don't really do what they should like Zerks and Assault Marines.

jay court
05-01-2010, 12:57
like to hit modifiers & armour save modifiers both these would be very good things to bring back

No no no no no no!

It's taken us this far to get the game working at a good speed without having to slow it back down with working out what you need to roll to hit at long range with a unit behind hard cover & being on overwatch.

And don't get me started on how long the combats took with different modifiers!

Bunnahabhain
05-01-2010, 13:13
Decent set of Erratas and FAQs for all armies. Positively change things that are wrong or inconsistient, ie make ALL storm shields a 4++ against everything, tweak points costs as needed.
Issue the rules sections of the updated codices as official PDFs online.


This is a placeholder action, so the developers have time to write 6th ed properly. Rebuild from the ground up, working round:
Make it not so strictly I-go-You-go
Make it positively unit based, rather than the current mix of unit and individual based.

All codexs to be written before the new rules is published. Split them into fixed colour background, models, etc section, and simple, cheap, black and white pamphlet for the actual army list, available as official PDF, with a prominent version number/date on it.

Now you can update codexs cheaply and easily, as all you have to do is replace the pamphlet

oCoYoRoAoKo
05-01-2010, 13:17
I think they should implement shooting as per fantasy ~ So -1 to hit at long range, -1 if behind light cover, -2 for heavy cover, etc. That way you could do away with cover saves (im behind a hedge...4+ cover save for me) and encourage shorter range firefights. Then they could easily put a stand and shoot in there with the defenders at -1 to hit but strike at I1 or something.

Cy.

ManicMunky
05-01-2010, 13:26
Lots of talk about how to make it better seems to be saying "lets make it like 2nd ed"...

Sure there are things that could be improved, but for the moment it works!

jay court
05-01-2010, 13:28
Can't we just leave it alone? I actually think that 5th Ed works quite well.

Inach
05-01-2010, 13:29
Decent set of Erratas and FAQs for all armies. Positively change things that are wrong or inconsistient, ie make ALL storm shields a 4++ against everything, tweak points costs as needed.
Issue the rules sections of the updated codices as official PDFs online.


This is a placeholder action, so the developers have time to write 6th ed properly. Rebuild from the ground up, working round:
Make it not so strictly I-go-You-go
Make it positively unit based, rather than the current mix of unit and individual based.

All codexs to be written before the new rules is published. Split them into fixed colour background, models, etc section, and simple, cheap, black and white pamphlet for the actual army list, available as official PDF, with a prominent version number/date on it.

Now you can update codexs cheaply and easily, as all you have to do is replace the pamphlet
This, this and this!

Bloodknight
05-01-2010, 14:01
Secret objectives would be nice. I quite enjoyed that in 2nd edition, when you had to find out in game what your opponent was up to.