PDA

View Full Version : one rule you'd change.



sprugly
14-03-2011, 16:20
with 6th on the distant horizon people are talking about what changes are expected. So if you could choose just ONE rules change what would that be?

Personally I'd like to see defensive weapons on vehicles put up to strength 5 or under. Though there might have to be a change to weaken them slightly to counter this.

Sprugly

Skyros
14-03-2011, 16:22
Wound allocation.

I'd like to change the absurd advantages provided by mech lists over foot lists but I suspect that involves more than a single rule change.

Castigator
14-03-2011, 16:25
with 6th on the distant horizon people are talking about what changes are expected. So if you could choose just ONE rules change what would that be?

Personally I'd like to see defensive weapons on vehicles put up to strength 5 or under. Though there might have to be a change to weaken them slightly to counter this.

Sprugly

Dunno, but making vehicles even better wouldn't be my first choice :rolleyes:

Bunnahabhain
14-03-2011, 16:26
The existence of saves.

Roll ALL saves ( normal, cover, Inv, FNP as it is effectively just a save...) into a 'Resilience' characteristic with toughness.

You didn't say it had to be a small change , or one compatible with 3rd-5th ed books...

Hendarion
14-03-2011, 16:26
Personally I won't like to see Heavy Bolters being able to wipe me even harder on full speed vehicles...

I'd change or better reintroduce... Movement Stat.

RobPro
14-03-2011, 16:35
Gauss weapons get +1 on glances to rolls on the vehicle damage chart.

nedius
14-03-2011, 16:36
I'd change the effects of vehicle damage to inflict heavier penalties on transported units.

Transports at the moment are mobile bunkers, and the risk vs reward levels for being within a transport or currently too heavily in favour of the reward end of things.

I can only see the number of fast transports and assault transports climbing, as each new codex seeks to get it's own bit of 'one up' on the previous ones, and as such, something needs to be done to balance out these 'alpha-strike' transports.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
14-03-2011, 16:38
Tranport destroyed results on Passengers. S4 Rending Hits on Wrecked, S5 AP2 hits on Explodes.

MajorWesJanson
14-03-2011, 16:38
I'd change or better reintroduce... Movement Stat.

I agree. would add a lot of variety, especially for vehicles.

theJ
14-03-2011, 16:41
If I'm allowed big changes, I'd like percentage rules for army selection.

GrogDaTyrant
14-03-2011, 16:43
IMO, there are far too many rules that need changing, to just list one. And all of them are just as crucial as the rest.


I'd change or better reintroduce... Movement Stat.

While I'm all for this... it'd have to be done "correctly". It would work great on vehicles, and give something more to differentiate them. But on infantry, I feel great care would need to be taken so we don't end up with standard movement values along the lines of: humans: 6", eldar: 7", Orks: 6", Marines:12". Which given the current trend, I would not be surprised to see...

omnivision6
14-03-2011, 17:01
True line of sight!!!!

Preston
14-03-2011, 17:02
Change how AP works. AP reduces the save value of the target instead of negating it.

So, some weapons would be AP -1 (so a 3+ would become 4+), some -2, etc.

Bunnahabhain
14-03-2011, 17:03
Change how AP works. AP reduces the save value of the target instead of negating it.

So, some weapons would be AP -1 (so a 3+ would become 4+), some -2, etc.

That's a save modifier system, as per 2nd ed. Very hard to do well.

forbin
14-03-2011, 17:10
kinematic to realilsm I guess

+4 cover saves all round

metric conversion perhaps - 15cm instead of 6 " and 10 sided dice and all that entails :)

madden
14-03-2011, 17:12
Wound allocation instead of now I'd like all armour ignoring/rending to be assigned first then other wounds assigned to what's left, and I like the idea of more risk of traveling in a transport.
On the vehical front I'd like guns to be able to shoot at different targets than just one.

aldroud
14-03-2011, 17:23
One rule only?

Get rid of the 'to wound' role.

In modern war, if you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it. Why would the far future be different?

I roll to hit you.

You roll to save.

Take the wounds and remove models.

Done. Next turn.

shadowhawk2008
14-03-2011, 17:28
True line of sight!!!!

/boggled why? I half suspect you are being cheeky :)


One rule only?

Get rid of the 'to wound' role.

In modern war, if you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it. Why would the far future be different?

I roll to hit you.

You roll to save.

Take the wounds and remove models.

Done. Next turn.

It just becomes too simple then. Too simple is not necessarily more enjoyable.

Nat B
14-03-2011, 17:45
I would change to an alternating activation, squad by squad, like epic, dystopian and many other games. I think it works better than igougo, it keeps both players involved throughout without the opponents turn being 'downtime', allows players more options to counter the opponents actions, leading to a more tactically interesting game.

Ville
14-03-2011, 18:01
Today I played against Orks that had two units of wound-allocation shenanigans. I must say I would gladly see a simpler wounding system for complex units, as sneaky mini-games like that tend to kill my enjoyment of the game.

Vaktathi
14-03-2011, 18:27
I'd remove Kill Points first and foremost, and return to VP's.

after that probably the defensive weapons rules back to something like 4E's or simply add in BS modifiers for weapons (e.g. move 6", fire one weapon normal BS, all others -1 BS)

Oakwolf
14-03-2011, 18:34
There are far too many sore thumbs in 40k. I'd change whatever rule that rules them all.

I'd go back to a 2nd edition system tweaked for balance this time.

Wound allocation is no problem
Movement is tactically varied from a race/unit to another
Weapon penetration of vehicles can be adjusted
WS have a meaning again
Modifiers per action (hitting rolls, saving throws, etc).

Inquisitor_Eljer
14-03-2011, 18:38
Wound Allocation shenanigans first

Bubble Ghost
14-03-2011, 18:38
Allow units that pass a morale test for losing a combat to choose to either remain in combat and suffer No Retreat wounds, or make an orderly retreat and become pinned instead of truly fleeing or getting swept. Get rid of the ludicrous two-turn optimum combat, and turn passing a morale check into a good thing.



One rule only?

Get rid of the 'to wound' role.

In modern war, if you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it. Why would the far future be different?


Because in modern war, you have humans shooting comparable weaponry at each other. Conspicuous by their absence in Afghanistan are two-foot tall goblins firing blunderbusses at extragalactic insectoids the size of hummers. I do get where you're going with this, but it would mean huge changes across all the codexes and so doesn't really fit the "just one change" topic.

Vaktathi
14-03-2011, 18:43
the 'to-wound' is also teh difference between hitting someone hard enough to put them down for the fight, or a wound that they can fight through the next few minutes on. You may hit someone with a 5.56 round, but if they've got body armor, they may have a big painful bruise and be really irked but still able to fight, or you may only graze them, or put a bullet through nice chunk of leg meat that hurts like hell but won't incapacitate them enough to take them out of the fight right then until they start feeling the blood loss 15 minutes later.

Hendarion
14-03-2011, 18:48
Not to mention there is a tiny difference between being hit by a rocket launcher or a pistol after all, especially if the targets may differ between human bodies and daemonic bodies formed from molten metal.

Inquisitor Kallus
14-03-2011, 18:51
One rule only?

Get rid of the 'to wound' role.

In modern war, if you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it. Why would the far future be different?

I roll to hit you.

You roll to save.

Take the wounds and remove models.

Done. Next turn.


This isn't 'modern war', and towering daemons from another plane of reality arent necessarily going to be phased by your desert eagle...

Bubble Ghost
14-03-2011, 18:55
Well, in aldroud's defence, I think he was perfectly reasonably suggesting that resilience can be subsumed into a single dice roll. He's right. For that matter there's no particular reason to have a separate to hit roll either, or in fact any kind of direct representation of an individual shot at all. But if you just stripped out one of those rolls from 40K it would screw with everything else to the extent that you could only do it as part of a ground-up rewrite.

Hendarion
14-03-2011, 18:57
Well, Bubble Ghost, taking this idea a bit further, 40k would require just a single dice roll after all. Both opponents roll off at the start and the guy with bigger number wins. Easy.

40k shouldn't be changed to be "the most easy" or "most fast" game after all or about a super strategic game either. It is about cinematic, about making the players feel that they participate in a battle when they toss around those little plastic and metal puppies they have collected, assembled (and maybe even painted) for so long (or just since yesterday when GK preorder started). And hell, I feel really comfortable with rolling to hit, to wound and to save. It kinda feels right and not too much simplified.

xxRavenxx
14-03-2011, 19:10
Its possibly technically more than one thing, but I would redo the Str /ap values on weapons across the board.

Battlecannons at Str5 ap4. Plasma at ap 3. Melta stays at ap1. Powerfists to +1 str, no saves. All bolters, catapults, et al. become AP -


Obviously this ripples, and needs other changes round it too, but Its the concept I'm plugging more than anything else. Finally T4 matters! Finally having a 5+ save means you'll roll a dice!

Warpcrafter
14-03-2011, 19:12
I would modify the IGOUGO from the entire turn to alternating turn phases. Basically I move, then you move, then I shoot, then you shoot, the both sides do charge movement, and then all close combats are resolved. In order to make up for the elimination of the redundant close combat phase, all models in all of the units are eligible attackers and eligible targets.
I would also eliminate the "No retreat" part of the Fearless rule and change the combat resolution from being purely based on the number of casualties to being a balance between casualties and the number of models that are remaining. I would also eliminate the rule that makes Orks Fearless, because it would no longer be necessary.
And finally, I would replace the current wound allocation shenanigans with some sort of dice roll-off where if the attacker wins, he gets to specifically allocate a few wounds instead of the owning player doing it all.
And finally, I would eliminate the to-wound roll, but keep the instant death rule.

Bubble Ghost
14-03-2011, 20:01
Well, Bubble Ghost, taking this idea a bit further, 40k would require just a single dice roll after all. Both opponents roll off at the start and the guy with bigger number wins. Easy.

That's a silly response to a point I wasn't making. All I meant was that there's no theoretical reason why a game should mechanically represent gunfire the way 40K does.

Rick Blaine
14-03-2011, 20:49
No wiping out a whole unit because one dude's elbow is poking out from behind a solid adamantium wall.

TheRatsInTheWalls
14-03-2011, 21:01
Scoring units: Change it from only troops to anything with the "Scoring" special rule.

And I'm cheating here, but it's come up already...
Defensive weapons: Not based on Strength at all. Assault weapons are defensive, Rapid-fire weapons are defensive at 12", everything else is not.

SilentSnake
14-03-2011, 21:10
No wiping out a whole unit because one dude's elbow is poking out from behind a solid adamantium wall.

This a million times, you should only be able to kill what you see. The fact that you have to take wounds on a whole squad because your oponent can see one model is beyond me.

WokeUpDead
14-03-2011, 21:11
one and only rule to get rid of:

the never ending cycle of "one up" / codexcreep. just to at least -once- achieve the point of balance that's never even been on the horizon since.. well forever ;)

Hendarion
14-03-2011, 21:12
there's no theoretical reason why a game should mechanically represent gunfire the way 40K does.
Except for a cool feeling of how things could work.

DeeKay
14-03-2011, 21:36
[QUOTE=Oakwolf;5383812]There are far too many sore thumbs in 40k. I'd change whatever rule that rules them all.

I'd go back to a 2nd edition system tweaked for balance this time. [QUOTE]

This.

Go back to 2nd Ed for the basics and simplify the weapons stats. For close combat, go for a LotR SBG idea (dice off, higher WS wins in a tie). I'd also standardise height (ala Warmachine) for models so modelling for advantage isn't an issue. Not sure how I would change vehicles off the top of my head, but I'd probably get rid of fire points. If a model wants to do something it has to be present on the battlefield, not hiding in a bulletproof box.

With regards,
Dan.

HRM
14-03-2011, 21:38
I'd adopt a D8 or D10 system, but that probably entails a LOT of changes.

Failing that, I'd adopt the LOTR's "I go, you go" TURN SEQUENCE turns.

xerxeshavelock
14-03-2011, 21:46
One rule only?

Get rid of the 'to wound' role.

In modern war, if you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it. Why would the far future be different?

I roll to hit you.

You roll to save.

Take the wounds and remove models.

Done. Next turn.

I did a Space Hulk varient rules list once where I skipped the to hit step - worked pretty well strangely. Not suggesting that for 40K but I think your idea (adapted) would be worth considering - at least for man-sized figures. I don't think it would work in a sense of "changing one rule only" though.

Reflex
14-03-2011, 21:58
Vehicles.

in 5th they became harder to kill and we saw more of them. there are 3 things i'd like to see changed. 1) although this goes against what i have said above, the squadron rules are rather bland. if its immobilized its destroyed? Id rather see this as if a squadron has an immobilized result on a vehicle and moves, that vehicle is left behind and counts as destroyed. (3 russ tanks are sitting firing, a missile hits ones and blows open its tracks. they cant shoot anymore because the vheicle is now deadzies.. :wtf: )

2) transports. there needs to be something negative about them. they are cheap, mobile bunkers. the bunker bit i get, but the cheap part i dont. one of those needs to change essentially. because most codecies have been written i see the bunker bit needing a change.

3) this can tie in above i suppose. because the damage tables were changed quite dramatically from 4th to 5th, we saw the loss of destroying vehicles on glancing hits. this is fine with me. but penetrating became less costly as well. vehicles are quite strong. this can be seen with the spamming of vehicles in armies these days. i think damage results need to be stronger. not necessarily crippling so that vehicles are horrible. but i think penetrating hits need to hit harder. so results of a 1 do nothing, but a 2+ rather then 3+ do something. just a suggestion. none the less, as vehicles are cheap and can survive quite well there needs to be a draw back like there has been in the previous 2 editions, which I hope, would make vehicles have a more unique and defined role, rather then: phase one: Spam vheicles, phase 2: ???, phase 3: profit

Bold_or_Stupid
14-03-2011, 22:09
Switch IGOUGO to an order based system like the original Epic system.

Nezalhualixtlan
14-03-2011, 22:18
Tranport destroyed results on Passengers. S4 Rending Hits on Wrecked, S5 AP2 hits on Explodes.

Hmm, I'm liking that.

I'm also liking this though...


I'd remove Kill Points first and foremost, and return to VP's.

But I think more than anything else I'd like to see GW adopt a rule of constant rules refinement for balance. Frequent official Errata not just for text mistakes or clarification, but actually addressing balance errors. That would go along with extremely thorough testing including listening to customer feedback and then more testing, for both the overall rules and all codexes. It'd also be nice to see them transition their business model to an updatable e-book format so that the actual texts can be fixed.

DoctorDanny
14-03-2011, 22:22
Wound Allocation +1

tu33y
14-03-2011, 22:31
if u have a medic/doc/apoth whatever only ONE model gets FNP

comradeda
15-03-2011, 00:35
Change the wound allocation rules. It is unintuitive, and antithetical to the rest of the rules. I don't care if "it's easy to beat" and stuff like that. It doesn't make sense from a game design point of view.

Kreslack
15-03-2011, 01:16
Not so much as change, but I've been thinking on how it's retarded that you can do close combat every turn, but only shooting once. I think a similar system should be put into the shooting phase. the return fire action

an example would be.

1. You shoot at an enemy unit.
2. resolve the attack.
3. the unit shot at may take a leadership test.
4. if the ld. test fails nothing happens. but if it passes, The unit that was shot at may return fire at the unit that shot at it.

Now there would have to be some restrictions and other parts put in on this. You'd only get a chance to shoot back once per turn. So if you take the test to fire back and fail it you don't get another chance to shoot back, and if you've already shot back you can't do so again.

The weapons you can shoot back are determined by your most recent movement, so if you could have shot that weapon on your turn you can shoot when you could return fire.

Vehicles could only return fire with defensive weapons.

I think this could be a really interesting concept to add to the game, and revitalize the aspect of shooting in the game.

orkz222
15-03-2011, 06:59
Change how AP works. AP reduces the save value of the target instead of negating it.

So, some weapons would be AP -1 (so a 3+ would become 4+), some -2, etc.

Same here. I like armour modifiers.

Gilfred The Iron Knight
15-03-2011, 07:09
Chnage LOS:
Trying to hid units behind terrian eg the valkryie use TLOS

Can i see the unit on the other side of the terrian. Use an abstraction like builidng can see 2", trees 4".

and deaths must within weapon range. Instead of 4th eds combat bubble, the bubble is double the units base. Cause carnifex should be able to reach further than a marine.

Simo429
15-03-2011, 07:57
I'd like to see it like War of the ring where I have my movement you have yours I have my shooting you have yours, I have my assaults you have yours.

Ulrig
15-03-2011, 08:09
I would let units that won combat charge into another unit after victory if within range. Its retarded you can get within 2inches of a unit but not charge them until the next turn, in which case you will be charged on the opponents turn.

Vaktathi
15-03-2011, 08:22
I would let units that won combat charge into another unit after victory if within range. Its retarded you can get within 2inches of a unit but not charge them until the next turn, in which case you will be charged on the opponents turn.

There's a very good reason they got rid of this, and if changed back would only cement Mechanized domination even more. Unless there's going to be some sort of "stand and shoot", overwatch and flee mechanism, it just makes it too easy to hide in CC for many units. I can remember many games where this sort of thing was just too easily abused. Like my Daemon Prince eating through 5 Eldar units in 3 turns and moving up practically an entire flank through repeated consolidation moves, or watching an Avatar literally work its way up an entire IG gunline with nothing to stop it since it was hidden in CC most of the game.

Reflex
15-03-2011, 08:28
I would let units that won combat charge into another unit after victory if within range. Its retarded you can get within 2inches of a unit but not charge them until the next turn, in which case you will be charged on the opponents turn.

they changed that rule because you used to be able to mulit charge several units and all of a sudden half an army (like tau or guard) were wiped out because they had no chance of shooting what was assaulting them. to counter it they made sweeping advances easier with the ld modifiers.

if that came back with 5th edition assault armies as is, things like death company armies, would become in-sainly powerful. shooty armies rely on that turn between shooting phases to shoot down whats smashing them in combat.

I will admit that if this was to happen nid armies would be quite competitive.

Edit: *Ninjad by Vaktahi.. Curses!!!*

big squig
15-03-2011, 09:37
Lord of the rings turn sequence. It makes the game vastly more interesting, changes zero rules, and is compatable with every codex.

meanmachine
15-03-2011, 09:49
I would like to see montrous creatures have FEEL NO PAIN as a standard rule.

I Have always hated big monsters dying to measly lasgun fire. they are the tanks of the tyranids, they should be as hard to damage as one.

if you want to destroy that monster shoot it with AT fire power then it wont get a FNP save.

Lasguns can still potentially wound it but it will be less likely to, while tanks can never be damage by str3 weapons

I just find with newer codex's MC's are getting more expensive but they are easy to kill.

Tanks cant be poisoned or snipered so easily.

Also if monsters got FNP we would see more lascannons and less missile launcher spam

sprugly
15-03-2011, 10:11
I feel I should expand on my proposed rule change. This does however break my own rule of just 1 rule to change.

Vehicle defensive wespons become s 5 or less.
To balance glancing hits are only -1 on the damage chart. That should make them a little weaker without completely screwing them over and you might actually be able to move your tanks in a game without losing a massive amount of shooting.

Sprugly

Scythe
15-03-2011, 10:31
I would remove fire points from vehicles completely, and remove the ability to score from within a vehicle. I want models on the table, not models sitting at the table edge cheering while firing from within their transport all game. No need to make vehicles death traps again, but force the passengers to disembark if they want to participate in the battle.

Reflex
15-03-2011, 11:30
I would remove fire points from vehicles completely, and remove the ability to score from within a vehicle. I want models on the table, not models sitting at the table edge cheering while firing from within their transport all game. No need to make vehicles death traps again, but force the passengers to disembark if they want to participate in the battle.

I like that idea actually. however. I'd say fire points can still exsist, there should, however, be some modifiers.

ie: firing from a vehicle reduces BS by 1, when moving up to 6" reduces BS by 2. add to that firing from a fire point makes the vehicle open topped. (Just an idea throwing it out there, havnt thought about it to much.)

Morganstern
15-03-2011, 14:38
I would change the rule that a fearless IC cannot leave a unit that is falling back. I am fed up with my undamaged charicters being draged of the board after one unlucky LD roll. It seems to happen to me alot, I don't know why.

Vaktathi
15-03-2011, 14:41
I would like to see montrous creatures have FEEL NO PAIN as a standard rule.

I Have always hated big monsters dying to measly lasgun fire. they are the tanks of the tyranids, they should be as hard to damage as one.

if you want to destroy that monster shoot it with AT fire power then it wont get a FNP save.

Lasguns can still potentially wound it but it will be less likely to, while tanks can never be damage by str3 weapons

I just find with newer codex's MC's are getting more expensive but they are easy to kill.

Tanks cant be poisoned or snipered so easily.

Also if monsters got FNP we would see more lascannons and less missile launcher spam

As a Guard player for many years, I can't recall the last time I killed an MC with lasguns. Lasgun fire is already desparation shooting against an MC with little chance of doing anything.

And to deny MC's FNP, we aren't talking AT fire, we're talking exclusively AP 1/2 fire. Stuff like Autocannons and Krak Missiles won't ignore FNP on an MC.

What's more, you'd effectively make mid strength shooting far less effective. Stuff like Scatterlasers, Heavy Bolters, Missile Pods, Multilasers, etc.



I would remove fire points from vehicles completely, and remove the ability to score from within a vehicle. I want models on the table, not models sitting at the table edge cheering while firing from within their transport all game. No need to make vehicles death traps again, but force the passengers to disembark if they want to participate in the battle. These changes would have a far greater negative effect on non-MEQ armies like Tau, IG and Eldar than they would on MEQ's. SM's can sit on an objective for up to 3 turns, can take a fair few number of hits and even repel many assaults. Dire Avengers cannot.

Also, the fire points have always been there, and are modeled on many of the transports quite accurately relative to real life APC's/IFV's which are quite often built to allow troops to fight from their vehicles in real life. It's part of what made the BMP so scary to NATO when it was first unveiled.

ex-green
15-03-2011, 14:59
Change the transport destroyed wound value to strength = distance moved

Scythe
15-03-2011, 15:17
These changes would have a far greater negative effect on non-MEQ armies like Tau, IG and Eldar than they would on MEQ's. SM's can sit on an objective for up to 3 turns, can take a fair few number of hits and even repel many assaults. Dire Avengers cannot.

Yes, it would kill the minimal squad in devilfish / wave serpent squads for capturing objectives (which, as an IG/Tau player, I don't mind at all. Good riddance). And yes, marines will benefit slightly more (well, they lose less; keep in mind the transport can still be used to shield troops, even disembarked). But I think in general, it helps decreasing the dominance of transports in the game without making them death traps for anyone embarked, and it will look better on the table.


Also, the fire points have always been there, and are modeled on many of the transports quite accurately relative to real life APC's/IFV's which are quite often built to allow troops to fight from their vehicles in real life. It's part of what made the BMP so scary to NATO when it was first unveiled.

I'm not denying the effectiveness or the realistic use of APCs. I play a miniature game, though, and a squad spending the entire game inside a transport is a squad which could just as well not be fielded at all imho. I want to see well painted nice looking models on the table, not cowering in a transport all game long.

Mojaco
15-03-2011, 16:32
I would remove fire points from vehicles completely, and remove the ability to score from within a vehicle. I want models on the table, not models sitting at the table edge cheering while firing from within their transport all game. No need to make vehicles death traps again, but force the passengers to disembark if they want to participate in the battle.

This. As suggested in a thread from a while ago in which I had a big rant on what I want in 6th. This is the simplest yet best change I want to make. Want you models to do something? Place them on the table!! Open-topped can stay as it is, they're not part of the problem imo.

Bunnahabhain
15-03-2011, 16:42
I'm not denying the effectiveness or the realistic use of APCs. I play a miniature game, though, and a squad spending the entire game inside a transport is a squad which could just as well not be fielded at all imho. I want to see well painted nice looking models on the table, not cowering in a transport all game long.

Then make people want to do so, by making the basic squad weapons more useful, so you have an incentive to be outside. This fixes many other issues at once- if basic troopers with normal weapons are worth taking, then troops only scoring goes away as not needed.

Trying to motivate an action mainly by negative things is bad- make people want to do X, rather than have to avoid (not X)

GrogDaTyrant
15-03-2011, 17:18
Then make people want to do so, by making the basic squad weapons more useful, so you have an incentive to be outside. This fixes many other issues at once- if basic troopers with normal weapons are worth taking, then troops only scoring goes away as not needed.

Trying to motivate an action mainly by negative things is bad- make people want to do X, rather than have to avoid (not X)

Not too unlike Ork players preferring shootas, as Fearless is more beneficial to you when you're being shot at then when in combat... :shifty:

meanmachine
15-03-2011, 17:56
And to deny MC's FNP, we aren't talking AT fire, we're talking exclusively AP 1/2 fire. Stuff like Autocannons and Krak Missiles won't ignore FNP on an MC.

What's more, you'd effectively make mid strength shooting far less effective. Stuff like Scatterlasers, Heavy Bolters, Missile Pods, Multilasers, etc.


why should scatterlasers, Heavy Bolters, Missile Pods, Multilasers, be good at taking down MC's

I like to think of a carnifex being as tough as a predator tank.

if you have a heavy bolter you cant scratch a chimera, dreadnought or predators front armour. but you can still hurt most MC's on a 5+ or less.

why should it be easier for you to damage a 200+ point monster than it is to damage a 40 points transport tank.

Also if Mc's were to have feel no pain it would give people more instenive to take lascanons or plasma cannon instead of missile launcher all the time.

i bearly ever see a heavy weapon team of lascaanon guardsman any more, its usually heavy bolters, autocannons or missile launchers.

at least your lasguns can wound MC's, that can do anything at all to tanks.

if your gaurdsman want to take down a 200 point FNP MC just take 10 ratlings for 100 points, then you can most likely kill it still.

Its much easier to prepare for killing mc's than it is for blowing up tanks.

Giving all MC's FNP as a standard rule would just make them that little bit tougher and force people to adapt to killing them a bit more

MC's are meant to be a heavy option for armies, that mean it should take heavy fire power for you to kill them but sadly that is not the case atm

big squig
15-03-2011, 17:57
I would remove fire points from vehicles completely, and remove the ability to score from within a vehicle. I want models on the table, not models sitting at the table edge cheering while firing from within their transport all game. No need to make vehicles death traps again, but force the passengers to disembark if they want to participate in the battle.
I'm all over this. Those are two parts of the game that drives me nuts.

spaghettyhoop
15-03-2011, 18:29
Change the transport destroyed wound value to strength = distance moved

The problem with a lot of changes people suggest, are only balanced for certain armies. I play dark eldar as my main army and always have, and though some ideas would make it better against marines in rhinos etc, it would really mess up DE.

The one quoted for example, if any of my transports die, its pretty much guaranteed my squads loosing half its models. DE players would stop taking raiders, and become a useless army.

The same as taking away shooting from transports, etc. Would stop people parking 2 plasma guns on chaos marines in a rhino or IG in chimera, but would again have a bigger negative impact on the DE, and army which is balanced around its transports.

Making new rules only count for none open topped vehicles could fix this to an extent, but thats a whole other can of worms.

Anyway, on topic, im not sure what rule I would change really. Theres a few when playing that seem stupid, but im fairly happy with 5th ed. It feels fairly balanced, if annoying due to all the mech. I think mainly id just like to see more variation in FOC (although the battle missions book, which is excellent, handles this to a minor extent)

Slashattack
15-03-2011, 19:39
The one rule I would remove, would be feel no pain. Its everywhere, and is being used as a bolt on rule that could easily be replaced by a simple increase in a units toughness value potentially, or it could atleast be used more sparingly than it is now. With silly things like sanguinary priests giving the majority of an army the rule.

Charax
15-03-2011, 19:47
Take saves before wounding.

It just makes more sense

Son of Sanguinius
15-03-2011, 19:53
@ meanmachine

The monstrous creatures have 4+ wounds to be stripped away, as well as armor saves to get through. Moreover, your argument can be turned in the other direction too. Somehow a particularly accurate lascannon shot can obliterate a predator but only damage a carnifex? The whole system, meaning vehicles, monstrous creatures, and instant death, needs to be fixed to rectify your justifiable complaint.

If I only get one rule, I'd fix Instant Death. Or more to the point, I'd replace it with a multiple wounds rule. Either use fantasy's rule or use a rule that adds an additional to wound roll for each two points of Strength the hit has over the target's toughness.

So a Carnifex takes a hit from a lascannon. The single hit gives the lascannon's controller 2 to wound rolls against the Carnifex. The same lascannon hitting a Space Marine Commander would generate 5 rolls. Each successful to wound roll causes a wound, by the way.

ArmyC
15-03-2011, 20:04
I would remove fire points from vehicles completely, and remove the ability to score from within a vehicle. I want models on the table, not models sitting at the table edge cheering while firing from within their transport all game. No need to make vehicles death traps again, but force the passengers to disembark if they want to participate in the battle.

+1 This is well thought.

Multra
15-03-2011, 20:10
Wound allocation abuse. I even play Orks with a good bit of Nobz.

ArmyC
15-03-2011, 20:19
I get the concepts of FNP and cover saves, but ...

They break the game.

Whatever formula you use to balance the costs of various models, throwing FNP and 4+ cover into it, totally throws off any balance. You can't build enough cost into a model to compensate for average FNP/cover save rolls turn after turn.

I think FNP and cover should change to 5+. So shooting through troops, woods, rocks etc. grants 5+ cover. Fortified buildings can be 4+, everything else is 6+.

FNP can go off at different values as well. I can see a MC getting a 3+ FNP, but an Apothicary grants a 5+.

Wound allocation should switch to 2 catagories. Basic equipment, and special equipment. If they have anything past the basic model, they roll together.

omnivision6
15-03-2011, 20:30
Some of you guys should try other systems that are made for competition. Try warmahordes for a bit. Seriously, just to get the GW taste out of your mouths for a bit. It will actually show you why you love 40K.

big squig
15-03-2011, 23:26
Take saves before wounding.

It just makes more sense
And changes the game in no way...

Vaktathi
15-03-2011, 23:47
Yes, it would kill the minimal squad in devilfish / wave serpent squads for capturing objectives (which, as an IG/Tau player, I don't mind at all. Good riddance). It would also still make full squads trying to hold objectives rather dicey. One heavy flamer stands a good chance of clearing a Fire Warriors, Infantry Squad or Dire Avenger unit off an objective, even if 10 strong. Marines may lose a couple guys.


And yes, marines will benefit slightly more (well, they lose less; keep in mind the transport can still be used to shield troops, even disembarked). But I think in general, it helps decreasing the dominance of transports in the game without making them death traps for anyone embarked, and it will look better on the table. I'm pretty ok with rules not being written purely for aesthetic value. It's a part of the game true, I do understand this and it's nice seeing models, but at the same time shouldn't be forced like that and certainly isn't likely to make games more fun if they have to get out only to be removed as casualties because a hamfisted game mechanic forced them into a vulnerable position simply for aesthetics.

It also has much less meaning if many/most of your opponents routinely use unpainted/half built or just primed models, which I think is the case for a not insignificant chunk of the playerbase.

Instead of nerfing transports, I think it'd be a lot more beneficial to simply come up with actions for unembarked infantry to perform that can aid them. Digging in (gaining or increasing cover), preparing to repel assaulters (e.g. pass a leadership test at gain Counterattack in the enemies assault phase if you did not shoot or assault in your previous turn), spotting for support units, etc.



I'm not denying the effectiveness or the realistic use of APCs. I play a miniature game, though, and a squad spending the entire game inside a transport is a squad which could just as well not be fielded at all imho. I want to see well painted nice looking models on the table, not cowering in a transport all game long.Unfortunately the game is at the point where there's simply too much firepower being bandied about for many armies to be successful like that. Nevermind that several armies have long been designed with a large degree of mechanization in mind (such as Tau and Eldar).

And again, rules simply for aesthetic value don't make for very fun games.




why should scatterlasers, Heavy Bolters, Missile Pods, Multilasers, be good at taking down MC's They aren't particularly spectacular at it, but they certainly shouldn't be worse. MC's aren't tanks, they are giant beasts. Weapons work differently against them than against tanks.



I like to think of a carnifex being as tough as a predator tank. Stop thinking of it like that. A tank is a big hollow metal box filled with explosives that's hard to breach but easy to destroy once breached. It needs something big to get through. An MC is generally a living thing, easier to inflict damage on but harder to put down for good.



if you have a heavy bolter you cant scratch a chimera, dreadnought or predators front armour. but you can still hurt most MC's on a 5+ or less. A heavy bolter can harm any of these vehicles however and even kill them outright.



why should it be easier for you to damage a 200+ point monster than it is to damage a 40 points transport tank. Because its way harder to *kill* the monster, the monster doesn't lose effectiveness as it takes damage, generally can't be one-shotted, and can hide in CC, and will easily make a mockery of such vehicles once it closes distance.



Also if Mc's were to have feel no pain it would give people more instenive to take lascanons or plasma cannon instead of missile launcher all the time. Do we need more incentive for that? Seriously, we already routinely see armies with two dozen+ melta weapons.



i bearly ever see a heavy weapon team of lascaanon guardsman any more, its usually heavy bolters, autocannons or missile launchers. Probably only exclusively autocannons I'd bet. But that has more to do with being BS3, Ld7, and exceedingly vulnerable to any return fire (especially S6+) and the expected return on points investment than the lascannons themselves.



at least your lasguns can wound MC's, that can do anything at all to tanks. Right. It's also going to take an average of 144 lasgun shots to kill a Carnifex. On the other hand, I can't outright kill a Carnifex with a meltagun. In fact, that carnifex is going to take more meltaguns to put down than a Land Raider will.



if your gaurdsman want to take down a 200 point FNP MC just take 10 ratlings for 100 points, then you can most likely kill it still. Ratlings that are practically useless against everything else. I'd just take more melta/plasma guns.



Its much easier to prepare for killing mc's than it is for blowing up tanks. I beg to differ. MC's require more consistent firepower to put down. Tanks can be killed by a single units firepower, rarely is this the case with MC's aside from units with mulitple plasma guns.



Giving all MC's FNP as a standard rule would just make them that little bit tougher and force people to adapt to killing them a bit more They are already plenty tough as is, there's no reason to make them tougher. I've got about a dozen MC's between various armies, I know how hard they are to kill and how easy they die. Giving all MC's FNP would not only make them too hard to kill with shooting, but they'd also get a significant and unwarranted CC boost, especially against stuff that isn't packing a ton of powerweapons.



MC's are meant to be a heavy option for armies, that mean it should take heavy fire power for you to kill them but sadly that is not the case atm They are meant to take *lots* of firepower to put down, not necessarily *heavy* firepower. There's a distinction. On average, it takes 16 Chimera's worth of Multilasers to kill a Carnifex. A carnifex on the other hand is almost sure to kill a chimera in CC with its number of attacks and rerolls unless it moved at cruising speed, in which case it's still got a good chance to do so.

owen matthew
16-03-2011, 03:46
I would remove TLOS, and move back to 3rd or 4th version of LOS. With that I'd remove the ubiqiutous 4+ cover, as you would no longer be shooting through squads.

Scythe
16-03-2011, 08:14
Then make people want to do so, by making the basic squad weapons more useful, so you have an incentive to be outside. This fixes many other issues at once- if basic troopers with normal weapons are worth taking, then troops only scoring goes away as not needed.

Well, I was only allowed one change, so... I already cheated by wording two effective changes in one scentence. :p


Take saves before wounding.

It just makes more sense

More sense, yes, but the dice go back and foreward between players that way, which feels rather cumbersome.


It would also still make full squads trying to hold objectives rather dicey. One heavy flamer stands a good chance of clearing a Fire Warriors, Infantry Squad or Dire Avenger unit off an objective, even if 10 strong. Marines may lose a couple guys.

Sure, that's a problem infantry armies have already currently.


I'm pretty ok with rules not being written purely for aesthetic value. It's a part of the game true, I do understand this and it's nice seeing models, but at the same time shouldn't be forced like that and certainly isn't likely to make games more fun if they have to get out only to be removed as casualties because a hamfisted game mechanic forced them into a vulnerable position simply for aesthetics.

It would require a different approach for capturing objectives, true. But I think that would be a good thing. Driving your transport up there and staying put the whole game is not really a tactical challenge. I think it would force people to rethink their strategy for objective capturing and general use of transports, which would make a more interesting game imho. At the same time, basic weapons would become more usefull, as the chance of there being actual targets for them to shoot at becomes greater.


It also has much less meaning if many/most of your opponents routinely use unpainted/half built or just primed models, which I think is the case for a not insignificant chunk of the playerbase.

True enough. I still prefer to see the grey plastic model which shot the meltagun in my face on the table though.


Instead of nerfing transports, I think it'd be a lot more beneficial to simply come up with actions for unembarked infantry to perform that can aid them. Digging in (gaining or increasing cover), preparing to repel assaulters (e.g. pass a leadership test at gain Counterattack in the enemies assault phase if you did not shoot or assault in your previous turn), spotting for support units, etc.

Good ideas, but honestly, I don't think any of those ideas would outweight the superior protection a transport gives currently.


Unfortunately the game is at the point where there's simply too much firepower being bandied about for many armies to be successful like that. Nevermind that several armies have long been designed with a large degree of mechanization in mind (such as Tau and Eldar).

Both codexes written for and during 4th edition. That they happen to work well enough using small embarked squads as objective capturers is just a side effect of the new edition, not a deliberate design choice. Keep in mind that both armies need to disembark anyway to use any firepower they have (and they did, back in 4th edition).

Carlosophy
16-03-2011, 09:47
Pre-measuring

My group has been doing this since 2nd edition and the amount it speeds up the game is ridiculous.

Sandling
16-03-2011, 10:23
I... actually really hate Seize the Initiative.

I don't enjoy the fact that it's a 1 in 6 chance, which effectively means that it shouldn't happen enough, statistically. For something that happens so rarely, it gives a very big swing to the game in my opinion. If it would actually occur more often, I'd feel more compelled to be more careful in my setup. Right now, restricting my 'optimal' starting setup purely in preperation for 16.6% chance seems to feel very stupid to me.

Either make it more part of the game mechanic at a more reasonable frequency, or remove it alltogether, would be my preference.



Also, - Units unable to retreat out of assault by own choice.
I find it especially frustrating when you're in assault with a unit you simply cannot harm whatsoever, what's the point for my unit to keep trying?

Dvora
16-03-2011, 10:41
Jump pack infantry not being able to assault 12in. I don't even have jump infantry and I think they assault 6in is junk.

orkmiester
16-03-2011, 12:02
i don't think for me that thre is one rule that i would change- i would change rather a few- let me explain...

i think some of this is why i am begining to hate the game- which is doing my head in.

i would like to have mech nerfed to an extent where taking an all infantry/ balanced force actually works- it is disgusting when you get screwed by turn two just because those bloody meltavets get close, and despite you knowing that you have got the stuff to kill tanks, you can't really do anything because there are TOO MANY of them on the table. (this is mainly directed at ig really, sm and others with 'lighter' trasnports are much more fun as you both don't know when things are going to get dicey):mad:

either that or make chimeras much more expensive- perhaps 70 or more points, or even raise the cost of meltas etc to 20/25points per gun that should screw things up a bit.

another point is that the damage tables are too 'toned down' i'd like it so that if you glance things you stop it doing anything at all- even shooting out of hatches. Better still, make it so that units inside tansports have to take ld tests when their transports take glancing hits (with some modifyers of course...)- and if they fail they get scared of the pounding and have to jump out and head to the nearest cover :evilgrin:- that could dampen things down.


indeed, i started in 3rd ed- things are better now but some of the rules then made the game work better- i.e glancing hits being able to kill tanks made folks think about how to use them.

i would really like for transports to take up some sort of force slot. or have a percentage allowance for them so that going full mech means that you have to pay a premium, whereas going 'balanced' means you pay less overall...

i think taking mech down a notch or two would be the best thing :rolleyes:

thats why i am taking a break to play whfb because the system is much better in many ways, there is no one dominant playstyle, and an army has to work as a whole to be effective- which means for some people that they have to think! :D not simply move this here, move that there- done victory pretty much assured.

just my opinions... though i am not too sure about what i am going to do with 40k in the future...

Bunnahabhain
16-03-2011, 12:07
^^^ wow, 4th ed ( AKA all vehicles other than holo falcons are useless death-traps) with some extra nerfs for vehicles....
DO NOT WANT!

Gingerwerewolf
16-03-2011, 12:21
Too good a question! I have too many things!

But if its just one then Id have a hard time choosing between:

The Cover save rediculousness ie Everything has a 4+ save! I say go back to negatives to hit back from 2nd edition. Far simpler and not so game breaking.
or
The Wound Allocation Shenannygans. Erm still dont know how to fix this other than: the old Systems, which I thought worked well.


I think that the former being changed would

theunwantedbeing
16-03-2011, 12:35
Cover.
I'de just remove it, what can be seen can be shot and killed.

LonelyPath
16-03-2011, 14:04
I'd change it so that Beast could move up above the ground floor.

VanDoo
16-03-2011, 14:56
WRT to all the suggestions to make transports and other vehicles crap again - DO NOT WANT. We don't need a return to 4th ed, thank you.

That being said, some things should be tweaked because they make no sense/are too good:
-If you're inside a vehicle, you can't use psychic powers unless it's a psychic shooting attack and the vehicle has a firepoint.
-Area of Effect abilities do not work when mounted in a vehicle.

From my own army, I think it's a little silly that my Land Raider is giving everything within 6" Feel No Pain, Furious Charge and a 5+ cover save... Magic Land Raiders of Win are fun, but not really balanced when used like that.

As for the rule I would implement: a squad can fire each group of weapon at a different target i.e. a guardsmen squad with a plasma, a lascannon and 8 lasguns could fire at 3 different targets. This is to do away with the sillyness of having 9 guys tweadle their thumbs while the missile launcher engages a tank...

Havock
16-03-2011, 15:04
Line of sight -> back to abstract.

Vehicle rules: Complete rewrite, possibly with more possible influences besides "Ap1" and "Ap-" and "open topped".

Frankly the whole "roll a single D6 and see what happens"-thing is outdated, make a comprehensive rule that covers both vehicles and monstrous creatures (Tracks can be blown off just as a carnifex' leg can be crushed to a pulp)

VirtualSniper
16-03-2011, 15:05
No retreat wounds.

The way you can kill a T6 MC by killing T3 models that have join the assault.

Bolter Bait
16-03-2011, 15:09
Units that wipe out the enemy in CC or catch them in sweeping advances may now use their consolidate move to into contact with another enemy unit; however, they do not gain bonuses for assaulting and the victimized unit is allowed an immediate shooting round prior to the move. Only assault or rapid fire weapons may be be shot at the aggressor.

PreacherBoyRoy
16-03-2011, 15:36
Allow units that are being charged to do to do something to mitigate to damage they will take. whether that be a flee machanic, or something like taking a defensive positions which would lessen the number of attacks the attackers and deffenders would get.

Sythica
16-03-2011, 15:45
Here is why I don't like the "No Retreat" wound rules:

"At the most desperate point in the battle, a Hive Tyrant, surrounded by a wave of meaningless gaunts, hit the Imperial lines. Inspired by the grim knowledge that there is no where left to run, the brave guard fight back, relentlessly bayoneting the gaunts until the carcasses pile high. But around the hive tyrant is only death. The blood-soaked monstrosity is surrounded by the dismembered dead. Soon the squad of men is reduced to just one. As the great beast and the tiny human lock eyes, there is a pause, as if there was one final cosmic tally of the dead. With alien intellect, the hive mind realizes that more gaunts (which would have been recycled anyway) have been lost than the fleshy humans, orders the hive tyrant to slit it's own throat. The end."

The DVD version of this gripping drama has an alternate ending which critics hailed as being more emotional. The hive tyrant, realizing that all his little friends are dead, begins to cry. Blinded by tears of acid, it doesn't see the last remaining guardsman, who calmly walks up and bayonets the hive tyrant's broken heart.


I know that fearless units could be extremely annoying tarpits in previous editions, but having heroes and monstrous creatures dragged down to their deaths because of surrounding cannon-fodder probably worse.

Cheeslord
16-03-2011, 15:57
It would have to be the close combat rules, but I just can't decide which one specific rule I would change:

- I hate the combat resolution mechanic where killing 2 gretchin is better than killing a terminator (with all the abuse this leads to, e.g. chaining to additional squads of weak enemies purely for the combat resolution bonus)

- I dislike having the IC leading a unit unable to attack because he's not at the front, then getting forced to flee and cut down with his unit.

- I don't like the incredible harshness of Sweeping Advance and the way No Retreat wounds are multiplied in many-unit melees, especially when some armies are practically completely immune to it.

- I hate units having no mechanic to flee from combat, so they end up "protecting" an enemy they can't hurt from anyone that can hurt it.

- In general I'm not a fan of the almost complete lack of control the players have over a combat once the decision to charge is made. Mostly the game just plays itself through a series of compulsory moves with the players just doing the work until one side emerges the victor.

- Oh yes, and lets not forget the wierd effect when you charge a unit, and half way through the charge move it becomes apparent that one of your models will have to clip a bit of difficult terrain to obey the compulsory movement rules ... retroactive difficult terrain roll for the entire unit, rewinding the game ... ggghhh...ghhghh...hhhggghgh

UberBeast
16-03-2011, 16:15
I'd change "No retreat". I'm absolutely sick of it ruining otherwise fun armies like Nids and Orks. The mechanic make no damn sense at all, and it's a terrible unbalancer.

Rhana Dandra
16-03-2011, 16:17
Ok here's a bunch of things:

Fearless should only be tweaked a little bit; if it went back to 4th we would have those meaningless tarpits described above and Fearless units would soon dominate the tabletop; they would have too many pros and not enough cons.

Consider this instead: When they have lost a combat, let the winner make some basic, unmodified attacks at the MC/IC instead, the number of which being equal to the amount the combat was won by. Obviously this would have to be polished a bit to stop say, one powerfist guy or something making those attacks as they could be like 5 or six or whatever, and this wouldn't make sense.

Also, I completely agree that every unit above say Ld8 for example, has the Hit and Run rule or a similar variant where they take a test to leave combat.

The vehicle damage chart should be given many, many more modifiers as mentioned by another poster above, often the destruction of a vehicle is game-changing.

Wound allocation needs to be fixed with respect to Nob Bikers etc. as it just very unfair and unpractical.

Running in difficult terrain should be role two dice and pick the lowest as this would make sense regarding the rules for difficult terrain.

Kill points should be if 50% plus of unit is destroyed, I'm sic of that lone marine hiding in a building claiming to be 'victorious' after his squad was obliterated.

I can't think of any more offhand but I'm sure there are other things that I would love to fix.;)

Ozendorph
16-03-2011, 17:08
I feel most of the common complaints result from poorly balanced/written codex entries, rather than the core rules. 99% of the vehicle rage seems to stem from vets in Chimeras, 99% of the wound allocation rage comes from Nobz, etc. If the codex writers thought for a few minutes about how their unit entries would actually be used, it would save the galaxy a fair bit of heartache.

That said, if I were to change one rule it would be Reserves, and Deep Striking, in particular. There's just too much randomness and downside there. The current system reduces any army relying on deep strikers to a crap-shoot. Roll well, you're golden...otherwise your units may miss half the game or more (or die on impact). Daemons are an obvious example, but many armies have options for deep striking or outflanking units that are never exercised because the inconsistency outweighs any advantage that may be gained.

It seems like GW is already aware of this in some sense. Newer codices include rules that take some of the sting out of deep striking (drop pod/spore auto correcting, drop pod assault, descent of angels, heroic intervention, etc) but instead of adding special rules all over the place they need to get to the root of the issue.

StarFyreXXX
16-03-2011, 17:51
Sythica - yes, it may take longer, but i prefer the unbreakable rule (not like undead version) but like Kroak's version in fantasy.

You fight to the death since they just ain't running.

Sanjay

AlphariusOmegon20
16-03-2011, 18:23
Can I vote for changing the policy of letting Mat Ward write any codexes?

Brother Nidus
16-03-2011, 18:29
Can I vote for changing the policy of letting Mat Ward write any codexes?

i was gonna say 'change the rules of Mat Ward's employment Contract' but as usual, Ninja'd


Nidus

Bunnahabhain
16-03-2011, 18:38
I'd change "No retreat". I'm absolutely sick of it ruining otherwise fun armies like Nids and Orks. The mechanic make no damn sense at all, and it's a terrible unbalancer.

How about losses as a proportion of the Unit at the start of the phase?

You lose 6 orks from a unit of 20, that works out at 30%
Your opponent loses 4 marines from a unit of 40, 40%. Now the marines are losing the combat, not the orks.

TheRatsInTheWalls
16-03-2011, 21:36
On the No Retreat issue: There was a point in the games history where these wounds were based on out-numbering ratios right? That seemed to work fairly well.

zantis
17-03-2011, 01:01
Im gonna break the rules here and list a few
1)Embarked units shooting out of vehicles. currently, if you stay still, you fire normally, you go up to 6" you can fire out but count as moving, if you go 7"+ they cant fire at all. I think open topped vehicles should be able to fire normally if the vehicle is stationary or goes 1-6", and still be able to fire but count as moving if the vehicle goes 7-12" It would definitely be easier to fire out of an open topped vehicle and this would show that
2)I'd change allocation rules so that wounds that ignore armor saves are allocated first, then normal wounds are allocated. this would prevent situations where a 10 man squad takes 18 pwr weapon wounds and 2 normal wounds, and the sergeant lives by passing 2 saves. That's just stupid, 18 pwr weapon wounds should mean 18 dead guys or 18 invulns
3)change rending to make it +d6 instead of +d3 against vehicles, it worked great in 4th, I dont know why they changed it.
4)I'd raise defensive weapon stength to 5
5)I'd change the gauss rule so it counts as AP 1 against vehicles
6)I'd change the transport rule so that you can have multiple squads in one vehicle, like mehpiston in a razorback with a 5 man squad or a LR crusader carrying a tac squad and an HQ with a command squad. If it has the transport capacity, why not use it.
7)There should be modifiers to LD tests from shooting casualties. Like -1 for each instant death wound, and -1 for each 10% of the squad lost after the 25%, and -1 if the shooting attack has the barrage rule

Other than those things, I like 5th the way it is

Vaktathi
17-03-2011, 01:08
3)change rending to make it +d6 instead of +d3 against vehicles, it worked great in 4th, I dont know why they changed it. Because it didn't work great. It was definitely a wee bit too powerful. Assault Cannons for instance were roughly *three times* as effective as lascannons against heavy armor. D6 rending meant that they practically auto-penetrated if they did rend anything AV13/14. In the current vehicle damage system, D6 rending assault cannons would only be very slightly worse at killing heavy armor than Railguns.

Rending attacks should be there for destroying light vehicles and heavily armored infantry, not engaging main battle tanks.

VanDoo
17-03-2011, 01:10
3)change rending to make it +d6 instead of +d3 against vehicles, it worked great in 4th, I dont know why they changed it.


Assault Cannon spam is why.

Kheotour
17-03-2011, 01:22
I would like to see a change in the way units in vehicles are targeted.
-Psychic powers should effect units in vehicles.
-Units in open topped vehicles should be able to be shot. Just give them a cover save.
-units in vehicles should still count as being on the table. Just keep tabs on which units are in which vehicles. You have to do that anyways.

1.6blackout
17-03-2011, 03:53
i want to see an ork looted void ray with flux vanes

Aluinn
17-03-2011, 04:46
One rule only?

Get rid of the 'to wound' role.

In modern war, if you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it. Why would the far future be different?

I roll to hit you.

You roll to save.

Take the wounds and remove models.

Done. Next turn.

Well, Toughness makes sense in a setting with huge, monstrous beasts trundling around. I mean, after all, in modern combat, everyone is human, so of course they're all easily wounded by the weapons we use against one another, but a lasgun is not intended, nor should it be able to easily hurt a Carnifex.

Although I guess I'll admit 50% for a standard rifle to wound a human soldier is a bit of a low chance. But then again, the rules probably shouldn't be based on any attempt at realism :).

I think Bunnahabhain's suggestion to roll all saves and Toughness into a single "resilience" stat is a good one, from a games design perspective, though would result in losing a bit of flavor, in the sense that, for example, an Eldar with a really nice force field would "feel" no different in-game than a burly Ork Warboss with poor protective equipment, in terms of how they were wounded. Still, it preserves what matters mechanically while speeding up play a lot.

But personally, if I had to change just one thing, I'd be about equally torn between nerfing transports (making vehicle damage rolls more dangerous to the passengers, making passengers unable to score objectives without disembarking) and fixing wound allocation so that: A) Tricks with multi-wound, differently equipped models were no longer possible, i.e. you had to remove whole models from a unit whenever possible regardless of equipment; and B) more shooting never could result in less wounds inflicted.

Both of those are at the top of my list, the former because it's the primary factor stymying variety in viable army lists, IMO, and the latter because it leads to really counterintuitive and gamist stuff.

Scythe
17-03-2011, 08:01
Fearless should only be tweaked a little bit; if it went back to 4th we would have those meaningless tarpits described above and Fearless units would soon dominate the tabletop; they would have too many pros and not enough cons.


The current 50 man IG blob squads lead by a commissar are as close to 4th edition fearless as you can get, with less than 1% chance of breaking, and I don't see them dominate the tabletop.

I see no problems with a unit of 30-50 holding up an elite unit of 5-10 for a few turns, especially as the general number of attacks on more expensive units has gone up.

Vaktathi
17-03-2011, 08:12
The current 50 man IG blob squads lead by a commissar are as close to 4th edition fearless as you can get, with less than 1% chance of breaking, and I don't see them dominate the tabletop.

Only if led by a Lord Commissar, otherwise it's a 1 in 36 (2.7% chance) But yeah, they aren't exactly overrunning tournaments.

jsullivanlaw
17-03-2011, 21:33
Wound allocation.

I'd like to change the absurd advantages provided by mech lists over foot lists but I suspect that involves more than a single rule change.

No armors saves allowed on wounds caused to units inside an exploding vehicle.... Rolling coffins...oh yeah!

GrogDaTyrant
17-03-2011, 21:40
How about losses as a proportion of the Unit at the start of the phase?

You lose 6 orks from a unit of 20, that works out at 30%
Your opponent loses 4 marines from a unit of 40, 40%. Now the marines are losing the combat, not the orks.

I think a better way to go, would be to just take a Toughness check OR Armor Save for No-Retreat!, whichever's better. And to give a "combat resolution" perk for outnumbering your opponent.

The % calculation of Combat Resolution would work, but would bog the game down.

Firmlog
18-03-2011, 11:49
Allow rapid fire weapons to shoot once to 24 even if the unit moved.

Maybe make the units disembarked by vehicle destruction auto pin at least a penetrating 6.

UberBeast
18-03-2011, 14:43
How about losses as a proportion of the Unit at the start of the phase?

You lose 6 orks from a unit of 20, that works out at 30%
Your opponent loses 4 marines from a unit of 40, 40%. Now the marines are losing the combat, not the orks.

I'd almost like to see that in general, but I'm not sure if everyone would be patient enough to remember and keep track of unit numbers at beginning of phases and work out percentages.

Enigma6
18-03-2011, 14:48
I generally like 5th ed, certainly the spirit which a lot of rules were written with. My main changes come from when the intention of the rules seems to be completely ignored by the mechanics of the rules. Mainly:

I second the no retreat stuff. Keep some kind of penalty for being swamped when you should be running, but make it based more on outnumbering. Combat rez too. Fearless should be a good thing. So should outnumbering the opponent with cheap troops. not the other way around.

Also second the wound allocation anger. Very much agree that allocating wounds which ignore saves first would bring this rule back towards what it was intended to be and is a small and easily implemented change.

Feel no pain should be like regenrate from WFB, in that death company should have 'Feel no pain (4+)' while the rest of the army get 'Feel no Pain (5+)' from priest bubbles, and then we could have an iron hands character which swapped combat tactics for 'Feel no Pain (6+)' from the boinics. I wouldn't mind feel no pain being everywhere so much if it wasn't for that flat rate of 4+.

I like TLOS, but introducing a system which means that you 'can only shoot what you can see' and then saying that you can hit parts of a unit that you can't see really goes against the purpose of switching to TLOS. Either go all the way or not at all. Half way doesn't work as a game mechanic or as a reality simulator.

I see the main problem with transports as not being the rules, but the codex's. Some of them should be much pricier for what they do.

However I think that if you'r going to make only troops soring (which I saw as a very good move) then it's CRUCIAL that you should have to dissembark to score. Having scoring tanks is completely against the spirit of only troops scoring.
And finally no abilities from inside a vehicle. maybe some, but they should rely on using up a fire point and should be measured from that fire point. I'm fine with a BA librarian sticking his head out of a rhino to cast shield. I'm not fine with him being inside the rhino with the door closed somehow allowing him to use it as an antenna to make his shield twice as big.


If we're not talking about fixing 5th ed, however, and we're talking about what we'd like introduced in 6th ed i think an overhall of cover would be nice.

I'd like to see cover effect my chance to hit instead of my chance to wound. Either by a to-hit modifier, which would mean all blast weapons ignored cover (not good) or you take your cover saves after the roll to hit instead, of at the same time as armour. Naturally cover saves would have to be taken down a notch (which would be nice anyway) as you'd be able to take both armour and cover saves.

I just like the idea of
Player 1 rolls to hit
Player 2 rolls to see if the cover saves him from being hit
Player 1 rolls to wound
Player 2 rolls to see if his armour/forcefield/whatever saves him from being wounded.

makes sense to me. It does involve more dice swapping and most cover would have to grant a 6+ and only really hard cover giving a 5+ but I like this a lot.

It also means it's possible to include a mechanic by which if you get a cover save from interveening troops then passed saves can be passed on as hits on the interveening unit. Reduces screening shenanigins a bit.

Vaktathi
18-03-2011, 18:20
However I think that if you'r going to make only troops soring (which I saw as a very good move) then it's CRUCIAL that you should have to dissembark to score. Having scoring tanks is completely against the spirit of only troops scoring. Why do you feel this is so just out of curiosity? It doesn't mean you can generally take the minimum number of troops and kit out everything else and still be successful, you still need a good number of Troops units.

And again, disembarking to hold objectives has is much easier for Space Marine armies than most/all non-Space Marine armies with transports.

Bunnahabhain
18-03-2011, 18:30
Why do you feel this is so just out of curiosity? It doesn't mean you can generally take the minimum number of troops and kit out everything else and still be successful, you still need a good number of Troops units.

And again, disembarking to hold objectives has is much easier for Space Marine armies than most/all non-Space Marine armies with transports.

Of course, if you make normal infantry with normal weapons more useful, and more able to interact with the board, you at once create a natural desire to take more of them, so making troops only scoring not needed, and increase the incentive to get out of transports...

Better rules are often simpler ones, or ones that don't need to be written at all.

VirtualSniper
18-03-2011, 18:38
And with the latest trends of having the possibility to have other foc count as troops, having only troops counting as scoring becomes useless so they should remove that anyway.

Vaktathi
18-03-2011, 18:59
Of course, if you make normal infantry with normal weapons more useful, and more able to interact with the board, you at once create a natural desire to take more of them, so making troops only scoring not needed, and increase the incentive to get out of transports...

Better rules are often simpler ones, or ones that don't need to be written at all.
That's been my view as well. Flames of War I think does a really excellent job of this, with infantry able to dig in and hide often making themselves literally unable to be hit by long range weaponry and nigh immune to small arms fire, forcing enemies to close and dig them off an objective or the like.

Valkyrie114
18-03-2011, 19:16
Being unable to flee voluntarily from a combat... most frustrating game mechanic ever devised.

Why would my tau/guardsmen want to stay locked in combat for all time if they are unable to even scratch the paint on that dreadnought? Why are they forced to stand and lose 3-4 models a turn without the option of even simply running away?

Drives me nuts.

Voss
18-03-2011, 19:23
with 6th on the distant horizon people are talking about what changes are expected. So if you could choose just ONE rules change what would that be?


Adding the psychic phase back in. It was fine without for 3rd and 4th when psychic powers were largely glorified guns. But since they are back up to rule-breaking powers of ungodly absurdity (and its literally possible to field an entire army of psykers), some sort of cast/dispel mechanic needs to come back. The game simply can't be balanced if some forces have psychic defense and some don't, especially when the powers are back up to 'hand wave models off the table'.

'IllBillyOrk
18-03-2011, 19:48
The one rule i would like to change, though i understand it make take some of the strategy out, is allow units in HtH to be shot...but ther will be a penalty..every missed shot would hit your own units.

Captain Ventris
18-03-2011, 19:54
I'd like to actually change the mechanic of Armor saves completely so the order is:

Roll to hit, Armor saves taken, then roll to wound anything that got through. would make the game a little more realistic....

That or I'd change the Fearless rules so that its not a deficiency anymore... make it so that they automatically pass leadership checks instead of this garbage where because my troops are fearless...they take additonal wounds a the end of the combat garbage

bosky
18-03-2011, 22:40
Think bigger! Stop worrying about poking the unwieldy 40k beast with pins, let's focus on dropping 20+ years of cruft, outdated rules, backwards compatibility, etc. GW has a huge staff and I don't see why (besides profit motivation) they can't release a unified series of codexes at the same time was the core rules.

I'd like 6th to be an entire ground-up rewrite to a modern, fast playing, tactically rich system. Dropping the kludgy 8 attribute line per model, consolidating movement/shooting rules for different types, not requiring 3 dice rolls to attack someone with a gun, etc. would all be a great start.

Also if GW could involve the community a bit more in the rules and codex creation process I think that'd be a fun, transparent approach. Remember how Mordheim started out as an easily accessible hobby project in White Dwarf before morphing into a full game? The whole "we're a bunch of gamers making games" feel to GW has fallen by the wayside in the interest of wealth, and the resulting player-designer disconnect and wall is a pity.

TheLaughingGod
19-03-2011, 00:07
One rule only?

Get rid of the 'to wound' role.

In modern war, if you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it. Why would the far future be different?

I roll to hit you.

You roll to save.

Take the wounds and remove models.

Done. Next turn.

Not really true.
Failing the wound roll is as much about failing to land the shot on something vital as it is killing the model.

You see me, you roll to hit me.

Good job, your shots are in my general direction.

Now roll to wound, because my 7 foot tall super man is covered in advanced armor, has redundant organs is pumped up on space meth and has bones that are as strong as concrete.

Oh you failed your wound roll. Turns out my super soldier isn't injured enough to stop him from carving your head off with a chainsaw.

That's how that works.

What you propose would make sense in a world of only humans with comparable weapons technology. In 40k terms, all human soldiers are Imperial guardsmen and all tanks are 12/11/10 vehicles with Vanquisher cannons.

Heavy weapons include heavy stubbers, missile launchers and mortars. That's basically it.

blameless
19-03-2011, 01:49
just a small thing... gets hot!

No super advanced and tactical army would use a gun that kills the user every 5 or 6 shots. especially if that user was a 400 year old super human bio and tech monstrosity of fighting glory.

If it was an ork thing I would get it... but it's not.

ditch it!

htmlord
19-03-2011, 02:44
Restore something like the old forced disembark system: on a penetrating hit, the occupants must disembark in addition to whatever else happens (occurs after the primary effect of the hit is resolved). Also, on a transport with fire points, the same occurs on a glancing hit.

Grand Master Raziel
19-03-2011, 05:54
Restore something like the old forced disembark system: on a penetrating hit, the occupants must disembark in addition to whatever else happens (occurs after the primary effect of the hit is resolved). Also, on a transport with fire points, the same occurs on a glancing hit.

Doesn't make any sense. Never did. Just because your opponent has to stop moving his vehicles in a turn-based system doesn't mean those vehicles have actually stopped moving when your units are shooting at them. Troops are not going to bail out of a moving vehicle unless it's on fire, which is effectively a destroyed result on one of the tables. They're especially not going to bail out of a moving aircraft, which is essentially what Eldar, DE, Tau, and now some Imperial vehicles are.

Also, your suggestion makes the proposed bad rule apply inconsistently, with most Imperial transports and (I gather) open topped transports affected more negatively than Tau and Eldar transports. It's not my fault the only transport in my army worth a damn for the points (Rhinos) happens to have a fire point on it. I don't see why I should be penalized for that.

Hakar
19-03-2011, 09:11
Scrap the FoC and use a system similar to Fantasy.

Bunnahabhain
19-03-2011, 12:20
Think bigger!...snip....

There are lots of us who think the same way, but the thread is about 1 rule you'd change. All the general wish-list/improvement for 6th ed threads have a strong presence from the 'total reboot' lobby.

If you are asked, which is heavier, a Hippo or a Rhino? The answer is not an Elephant...

Bubonic Chronic
19-03-2011, 12:24
Take cover saves AND armour saves, makes sense that walls dont seem to negate power armour

AlphariusOmegon20
20-03-2011, 16:54
Scrap the FoC and use a system similar to Fantasy.

They did use that in a fashion, once upon a time.

It was open to massive abuse at the time.

jack da greenskin
20-03-2011, 18:10
The rules where models have to cost a ton of money :/

ghost21
20-03-2011, 18:32
id change movement back to how it was

Beskins
20-03-2011, 19:42
Phase out, reasons should be known

Suspicions
21-03-2011, 00:11
Scrap the FoC and use a system similar to Fantasy.

+1 to this.

I'm not a competitive player and don't attend tournaments, generally because I find that players who do compete have a hard time "turning it off" when they try to play a "friendly" game. I hate the fact that I have to distinguish between the two (friendly and competitive) because I wish for a time when they will be one and the same.

Removing the current FoC and introducing a % system like Fantasy (and 2nd edition 40k for that matter) could potentially remove the tendency in competitive (not friendly) lists to contain "spam" (i.e. 3 trygons, 9 obliterators, 3 whirlwind/vindicator ect)

This would lead to the creation of lists that, in my mind, contain more variety, a larger breadth of choices and units taken, and are more thematically in keeping with the fluff of 40k.



There are lots of us who think the same way, but the thread is about 1 rule you'd change. All the general wish-list/improvement for 6th ed threads have a strong presence from the 'total reboot' lobby.

If you are asked, which is heavier, a Hippo or a Rhino? The answer is not an Elephant...

And because this is a very good point, I will redact and say that the 1 existing rule that I'd like to see changed most would be Fearless. Having the drawback of No-retreat is as much a detriment as the benefit of never falling back.

[lexus]
21-03-2011, 00:26
Think bigger! Stop worrying about poking the unwieldy 40k beast with pins, let's focus on dropping 20+ years of cruft, outdated rules, backwards compatibility, etc. GW has a huge staff and I don't see why (besides profit motivation) they can't release a unified series of codexes at the same time was the core rules.

I'd like 6th to be an entire ground-up rewrite to a modern, fast playing, tactically rich system. Dropping the kludgy 8 attribute line per model, consolidating movement/shooting rules for different types, not requiring 3 dice rolls to attack someone with a gun, etc. would all be a great start.

Also if GW could involve the community a bit more in the rules and codex creation process I think that'd be a fun, transparent approach. Remember how Mordheim started out as an easily accessible hobby project in White Dwarf before morphing into a full game? The whole "we're a bunch of gamers making games" feel to GW has fallen by the wayside in the interest of wealth, and the resulting player-designer disconnect and wall is a pity.

Why do you even play the game if you think pretty much the entire game mechanic sucks?


Personally though, the only thing I would really want to see change is the way turns are taken. No more players who can move, shoot and assault and then the next player, but kinda like LotR. Everyone moves, then everyone can shoot, and after that everyone can assault. Player who starts the turn is decided at the start of each new turn.

It would make the game a lot more interesting and dynamic to play and it wouldnt be so boring/frustrating when its not your turn and you have to watch how the enemy runs over your army and you cant really react on the situation until its to late.

MikeyB
21-03-2011, 00:33
Because in modern war, you have humans shooting comparable weaponry at each other. Conspicuous by their absence in Afghanistan are two-foot tall goblins firing blunderbusses at extragalactic insectoids the size of hummers. I do get where you're going with this, but it would mean huge changes across all the codexes and so doesn't really fit the "just one change" topic.

You owe me a new keyboard! Seriously! I spat my water all over it and then was laughing so hard i couldn't put the cup down properly and spilt the rest on it! :p

As an Eldar player I'd be all up for a psychic phase, as it currently stands "the most psychik race in the galaxy" isn't as good at is as the Spays Mahrins :shifty: I want Warlocks casting horribly destructive stuff and Farseers casting wibbley mindfugery!

And i want my Sisters to be able to wave it away through faith! :p

Edit:
;5400001']
Personally though, the only thing I would really want to see change is the way turns are taken. etc

And this!

I'm a bad man for 2 rules :(

Hakar
21-03-2011, 17:12
They did use that in a fashion, once upon a time.

It was open to massive abuse at the time.

Abuse like taking two minimal troop choices and filling the rest of the army with elites and heavy support?

GrogDaTyrant
21-03-2011, 17:48
Scrap the FoC and use a system similar to Fantasy.

I can think of a much better army-construction system they could go with, that's even better than Fantasy's... The FoW one is pretty damn solid IMO, and would be simple enough to offer a wide variety of list-construction for every sub-variant faction. They could do away with the page of fluff for each unit, and expand the full unit/option/point entries, adding rules there as necessary. Then have army list setups that allow for things like 'White Scars', or 'Space Wolves', as well as generic 'Kult of Speed', or 'Mechanized Infantry IG'. Every list would basically take up a single page, with the organizational information including required squads/platoons, HQ options, with additional core units, and support units. Something like:

Required HQ:
-Commander (or whatever)
-Optional 2iC HQ (such as a Librarian, Commissar Lord, Big Mek, whatever)

Required Core:
-Pick one of Tactical, or Scouts (or Grots/Boyz, or Gaunts, Genestealers, Warriors)
-Pick one of Tactical, or Scouts (or Grots/Boyz, or Gaunts, Genestealers, Warriors)

Optional Core:
-Pick one of Tactical, or Scouts (or Grots/Boyz, or Gaunts, Genestealers, Warriors). Add this as many times as needed.

Optional Support Formations:
-1 to 3 Predators
-1 to 3 Whirlwinds
-1 to 3 Dreadnoughts
-Devestator formation
etc.

Then just put more emphasis on infantry being survivable (especially standard and not gun-teams), and fill in some more emphasis in the core rules towards combined arms over 'gimmick-tactics'. And I think 40k would improve overall.

fidesratioque
21-03-2011, 18:23
I play Eldar. When I move a transport flat out and it is immobilized, it explodes and the units inside count as destroyed -- unfortunately, this is how my group of friends plays.

bosky
21-03-2011, 18:32
;5400001']Why do you even play the game if you think pretty much the entire game mechanic sucks?

Because three of my friends won't play anything else, and I'd rather have a crappy tabletop game instead of no tabletop game. When I'm hankering for a game with better mechanics or faster play I can head to the local hobby shop, but sometimes it's nice to play with people I know well.

Bunnahabhain
21-03-2011, 18:52
I play Eldar. When I move a transport flat out and it is immobilized, it explodes and the units inside count as destroyed -- unfortunately, this is how my group of friends plays.

They are just plain wrong.

Page 9 says turn means player turn, unless explicitly stated, and the FAQ repeats this in big letters. Unless you're silly enough to ram stuff with your skimmer moving rather fast, or otherwise destroy it in your own turn, the contents don't automatically die.

Vaktathi
21-03-2011, 19:08
Abuse like taking two minimal troop choices and filling the rest of the army with elites and heavy support?

You get the same thing, sometimes worse with a % system.

Also, for all the newer Codecies, any army that's simply taking two minimum relatively barebones troops is generally a rather crappy army given how much better Troops have gotten over their 4E/3E counterparts. There aren't many armies that function well at all by doing this anymore. The best armies are those with the best Troops. Armies that take two tiny minimum troops units are probably the easiest armies to defeat in 5E. It's a non-issue in 5E for the most part.


Keep in mind that also back when 40k had this system a lot more things were "troops" (actually "squads" back then) so that stuff like Terminators, Veterans, and Assault Marines were the equivalent of "troops".


I play Eldar. When I move a transport flat out and it is immobilized, it explodes and the units inside count as destroyed -- unfortunately, this is how my group of friends plays. The only time this occurs is if it is immobilized after going flat out in *your* turn (e.g. you end the move in difficult terrain and immobilize it on a 1). Even then, it doesn't incur an "explodes" result for anything nearby, but it will kill everyone inside. However this does not carry over to their turns, so if you move flat out and they immobilize/kill it with shooting, then the passengers still live.

Chaos Undecided
21-03-2011, 19:15
I wouldnt be surprised if next edition whenever it rears its head introduces some form of percentage min and max requirements as was seen in Warhammer to much wailing and gnashing of teeth from proponents of certain army builds.

I think the wound allocation rule needs to be dealt with to remove the abuse personally.

Warlord Gnashgrod
21-03-2011, 20:19
the current wounds allocation system needs changing, reasons already stated by others.

Chapters Unwritten
21-03-2011, 20:25
I'd really like power weapons to lower your save instead of ignoring them, and for them to have a "mark" value that decides how much it is lowered.

jt.glass
21-03-2011, 22:50
I was going to say alternating phases rather than turns, but it requires more changes (everybody really needs to be "Fleet", which means Fleet needs to something else), which violates the rules of the thread, so...


Allow rapid fire weapons to shoot once to 24 even if the unit moved....this.

Although I hope the next edition changes a damn site more than one rule!


jt.

MikeyB
21-03-2011, 23:39
I see alot of people askign to change the wound allocation rule. I was wondering how you'd change it so its not open to abuse.

Giving it to the guy who's inflicting the wounds is one way, but then it just gets abused the other direction justified by "but your troops fire at the biggest threat"

Suggestions? or shall i start a new thread? ^_^

Vaktathi
21-03-2011, 23:42
I see alot of people askign to change the wound allocation rule. I was wondering how you'd change it so its not open to abuse.

Giving it to the guy who's inflicting the wounds is one way, but then it just gets abused the other direction justified by "but your troops fire at the biggest threat"

Suggestions? or shall i start a new thread? ^_^

Allocate and resolve wounds in order of AP value.

Therefore, if there's 2 Heavy Bolter wounds and 5 Battlecannon wounds on a 5man Space Marine unit, they can't stack the BC wounds on 3 guys and put the HB wounds on the two guys with upgrades, they'd have to allocate the BC wounds and resolve them before the HB wounds, thus removing the issue where *more* shooting results in *fewer* casualties at times.

It still wouldn't do much for multi-wound model allocation gimmicks. There really is no cure for that except going back to the 4E wound allocation model, which then can't take into account models with differing saves.

IncrediSteve
22-03-2011, 00:00
The Defensive weapon rule should be modified to include Assault Weapons.

This has irked me incredibly in 5th edition as the reduction of defensive weapons to S4 [while mostly a good thing] makes Heavy Flamers on vehicles incredibly awkward, especially as sponsons. "So I can only fire both my 8.5in range weapons if I sat still? You mean the very same gun that a guardsman can walk and fire no problem, that has no recoil and requires no aim?" Yeah.

If a man can fire it while moving a multi-ton tank should be able to as well.

MikeyB
22-03-2011, 00:07
If a man can fire it while moving a multi-ton tank should be able to as well.

You need an Immolator mate ;)

I think that AP allocation is a good plan I'll suggest it to my lot see what they think.

Still runs into trouble in big mobs though :(

Askari
22-03-2011, 00:14
Wound Allocation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Pick the damn Icon up! Just grab it, pick it up! Look Bob dropped the Meltagun, PICK IT UUUUPPPPPP!!!!

That said, models with different statlines should suffer as they do now, Bob Marine isn't going to become an Aspiring Champion by picking up a Power Fist.

big squig
22-03-2011, 00:41
I see alot of people askign to change the wound allocation rule. I was wondering how you'd change it so its not open to abuse.

Giving it to the guy who's inflicting the wounds is one way, but then it just gets abused the other direction justified by "but your troops fire at the biggest threat"

Suggestions? or shall i start a new thread? ^_^
Drop it entirely and replace it with nothing. There's no reason to have wound allocation. Just make your saves and kill who ever you feel like killing. It's ok for the specialists to live the last man. We can assume when they die, someone else picks up their weapon. It's ok for the sarg to live the last man. He's heroic, he should live the longest.

This is exactly how fantasy deals with the command always living to the end and no one has ever complained.

Bubble Ghost
22-03-2011, 01:25
This is exactly how fantasy deals with the command always living to the end and no one has ever complained.

That's because in fantasy, your unit of 40 orcs is not in reality one guy who battles the enemy single-handed with his banner pole, while his 39 mates do nothing but jump around throwing themselves in front of arrows for him.

Until normal guys with lasguns and bolters actually have something to do, there needs to be something like wound allocation in place to make sure you have to give at least some thought to the unit as a whole, should the unlikely happen and the melta gunner cark it. Wound allocation is a headache but it's better than the alternative, which is to concede that the whole game is about nothing but meltaguns and power fists.

Vaktathi
22-03-2011, 03:10
I'd take the everliving pfists and meltas over the wound allocation gimmicks and situations where one has to hold back guns to avoid inflicting fewer casualties.

Hell, half the time the wound allocation gimmicks allow such models to survive longer than they would have otherwise, such as in the Battlecannon/HB example I gave above.

TheLaughingGod
22-03-2011, 03:23
That's because in fantasy, your unit of 40 orcs is not in reality one guy who battles the enemy single-handed with his banner pole, while his 39 mates do nothing but jump around throwing themselves in front of arrows for him.

Until normal guys with lasguns and bolters actually have something to do, there needs to be something like wound allocation in place to make sure you have to give at least some thought to the unit as a whole, should the unlikely happen and the melta gunner cark it. Wound allocation is a headache but it's better than the alternative, which is to concede that the whole game is about nothing but meltaguns and power fists.

This. Nothing is more satistying than unleashing a hail of shots at a squad of marines and watching the power fist sarge die and the meltagunner die leaving the rest of the squad relatively intact and helpless against my two looming wraithlords

Vaktathi
22-03-2011, 03:38
This. Nothing is more satistying than unleashing a hail of shots at a squad of marines and watching the power fist sarge die and the meltagunner die leaving the rest of the squad relatively intact and helpless against my two looming wraithlords

Well if you're playing an army that doesn't have to worry about it in the first place apart from maybe an Exarch, I'm sure it is.

IcedAnimals
22-03-2011, 04:39
That's because in fantasy, your unit of 40 orcs is not in reality one guy who battles the enemy single-handed with his banner pole, while his 39 mates do nothing but jump around throwing themselves in front of arrows for him.

Until normal guys with lasguns and bolters actually have something to do, there needs to be something like wound allocation in place to make sure you have to give at least some thought to the unit as a whole, should the unlikely happen and the melta gunner cark it. Wound allocation is a headache but it's better than the alternative, which is to concede that the whole game is about nothing but meltaguns and power fists.

you mean my vampire count surrounded by zombies is not in actuality a vampire count with 30 ablative wounds? sure could have fooled me.

bossfearless
22-03-2011, 06:32
What I want is some kind of standard penalty in a tournament setting for players who continually break the same rule. Right now, there's nothing that a judge can point to in the rule book that tells him how a cheater should be docked for their antics, and very few judges are willing to actually throw a player out.


Honestly though, all these complaints about wound allocation are unfounded. I, for one, love the fact that you have to declare who is taking the saves in a squad. No, I don't mind the allocation "tricks" that some armies use. I never have any problem with it. The ork biker nobz didn't die when I shot them? Okay, I'll just shoot them again. There we go, now they died. The only times I've been frustrated with wound allocation is when a player DOESN'T allocate his wounds before rolling. Had that happen in a RTT over the weekend, and the kid kept on cherrypicking his good rolls to go on sargeants, etc. Again, judge didn't have any real recourse besides the excessive banhammer, hence my suggestion above.

And anyone complaining about TLoS is out of their zogging mind. That's one of the best rules in the game!

rocdocta
22-03-2011, 07:08
I see alot of people askign to change the wound allocation rule. I was wondering how you'd change it so its not open to abuse.

Giving it to the guy who's inflicting the wounds is one way, but then it just gets abused the other direction justified by "but your troops fire at the biggest threat"

Suggestions? or shall i start a new thread? ^_^

just have it as it was the last ed. the owner picks the model to lose. in the army, if the MG gunner has been shot, they dont walk away and leave the gun there. The gunner model surviving represents that. Or saving the sgt by allocating wounds to warriors is representive of the WHFB Look out sir. without rolling the 2+.

AndrewGPaul
22-03-2011, 10:29
What I want is some kind of standard penalty in a tournament setting for players who continually break the same rule. Right now, there's nothing that a judge can point to in the rule book that tells him how a cheater should be docked for their antics, and very few judges are willing to actually throw a player out.

I don't think the rulebook should give any thought to sportsmanship, personally. That sort of thing is up to the players. If they're not mature enough to sort it out between themselves, no amount of wordage in the rulebook will help.

As for wound allocation, before you start tinkering with that, you need to properly consider the level of abstraction in the game. In 1st and 2nd edition, the lowest level of detail was the single model; even within a squad, LOS and other statuses (whether or not he'd moved that turn, for instance) was tracked on an individual basis. Now in 5th edition, LOS and move status is tracked at the squad level. If you're going to do that, it seems reasonable to me that you should track the weaponry - at least for ranged combat - at the same level. AT-43 and Disposable Heroes, both games with a similar model count (or even less!) than 40K, do this; range is simply measured from squad leader to squad leader (or between the nearest models), there's no worrying if that guy at the back is an inch out of range. At this level, you can just assume that the squad has a meltagun and a missile launcher - which particular playing piece is carrying it is really irrelevant.

It's slightly different with melee, I'll admit; you may wish to retain model-level tracking of weapons in a melee.

Bubble Ghost
22-03-2011, 13:44
you mean my vampire count surrounded by zombies is not in actuality a vampire count with 30 ablative wounds? sure could have fooled me.

Precisely. Basic troopers in 40K are roughly as useful as zombies. I think that clarifies my point nicely, thanks.

Besides, the zombies are still actually contributing something besides their deaths. If you were to hand a melta gun and 4 extra wounds to a Space Marine sergeant and just not bother with the rest of the squad, how much difference would it really make?



As for wound allocation, before you start tinkering with that, you need to properly consider the level of abstraction in the game...

All true, but the point is that as long as basic troopers are borderline useless, there needs to be some risk to specialists, which is what wound allocation and similar systems provide. In an ideal world those weapons would have more of a supporting role, so it genuinely wouldn't matter if they stayed alive, so would allocation wouldn't be necessary.

But while we're at it, there's no reason even melee needs to work on the positions of individual models, though.

Bunnahabhain
22-03-2011, 14:16
Precisely. Basic troopers in 40K are roughly as useful as zombies. I think that clarifies my point nicely, thanks.

Besides, the zombies are still actually contributing something besides their deaths. If you were to hand a melta gun and 4 extra wounds to a Space Marine sergeant and just not bother with the rest of the squad, how much difference would it really make?




All true, but the point is that as long as basic troopers are borderline useless, there needs to be some risk to specialists, which is what wound allocation and similar systems provide. In an ideal world those weapons would have more of a supporting role, so it genuinely wouldn't matter if they stayed alive, so would allocation wouldn't be necessary.

But while we're at it, there's no reason even melee needs to work on the positions of individual models, though.

As a guard player, I DO notice the difference between basic troopers through.

There is a simple test of: "How small does that unit have to be before I can engage it in CC as anything other than a last resort of desperation?"

Trust me, Blood angels and Space wolves, that number is lower than codex marines, and they're lower than Orks, and they're all lower than Guard.

Those basic troopers are not borderline useless, but they're not as useful as the should be.

Bubble Ghost
22-03-2011, 14:19
Those basic troopers are not borderline useless, but they're not as useful as the should be.

Fair enough, you caught me exaggerating for emphasis. Point stands though.

Bunnahabhain
22-03-2011, 14:24
Fair enough, you caught me exaggerating for emphasis. Point stands though.

And I do agree with you a fair amount. I just find arguments so much more persuasive when people don't get too carried away with them...

Bubble Ghost
22-03-2011, 14:36
Sir, sir, he started it sir!:cries:

doubleT
22-03-2011, 14:41
Instead of picking one target for all weapons (main weapon AND sponsons), I think the sponsons should be able to pick different targets.

Much like the "Targeting"-Rule of the Macharius.

Just think about it, it makes sense that the sponson weapons fire at other targets than the main battle cannon.
The sponsons should also be able to fire all the time but of course the accuracy should suffer because of the tank moving around. So you could have negative modifications on the BS instead of saying the weapons cannot be fired at all.

-

Scatter dice ... I know that there has to be some chance to miss but 2D6 => 12 inch (or even 3D6 for the Master of Ordnance without LOS) is really a lot.

"In the dark future of the 41st millenium there is no accuracy."

Bunnahabhain
22-03-2011, 14:49
Well, to expand upon the last few posts....

Would not split targetting for all units help make basic infantry more useful?

Yes, the Melta gun is still invaluable for killing tanks, but if the lasguns/bolters/whatever aren't forced to shoot pointlessly at the same target, but instead can shoot some infantry, then that makes the basic infantry more useful, by being able to function effectively more of the time...

Bubble Ghost
22-03-2011, 15:39
Yeah. I think the idea behind the non-splitting of fire, apart from this increasingly absurd-looking goal of simplicity, was actually a limit on special weapons - but basic weapons are so relatively ineffective, and the things they can shoot at often relatively unthreatening, that given the choice between firing 9 bolters at a squad or 1 meltagun at a tank, you're still usually going to pick the tank (that is what the bloody thing is there for after all). So it has the opposite effect and adds to the reduncancy of the normal guys.

So OK, how about: everything's either a "squad weapon" or a "support weapon." Squad weapons are all rapid fire or assault weapons with S5 or lower, and all pistols. Support weapons are everything else. Squad weapons pick one target, support weapons pick one target, these targets may be different.

You could even use that distinction to give other perks to basic troopers.

Bunnahabhain
22-03-2011, 15:50
So OK, how about: everything's either a "squad weapon" or a "support weapon." Squad weapons are all rapid fire or assault weapons with S5 or lower, and all pistols. Support weapons are everything else. Squad weapons pick one target, support weapons pick one target, these targets may be different.

You could even use that distinction to give other perks to basic troopers.

That is heading in the right direction...

I'd also allow units to split targets if, for whatever reason, you can't draw LOS from the whole of the firing unit- sponsons on opposite sides, bulky cover, whatever.

Heading back towards a firing on a model basis, not unit basis, it would also get rid of the counter-intuitive mess of one model in a unit moving = whole unit moving.

Bubble Ghost
22-03-2011, 16:09
I'd also allow units to split targets if, for whatever reason, you can't draw LOS from the whole of the firing unit- sponsons on opposite sides, bulky cover, whatever.

That's a nice ideal, but it would get pedantically metagamed to high heaven. Yet more fiddliness during movement as people deliberately position models so certain weapons can't see certain units, turning the abstraction of the movement phase into a literal interpretation of where the model is and what it's doing for exploitative purposes. Ugh.

I kind of like model moves = unit moves, too. I don't fancy the idea of keeping track of individual model movement, not these days, and especially not if the above is in place to encourage it...

Bunnahabhain
22-03-2011, 16:21
That's a nice ideal, but it would get pedantically metagamed to high heaven. Yet more fiddliness during movement as people deliberately position models so certain weapons can't see certain units, turning the abstraction of the movement phase into a literal interpretation of where the model is and what it's doing for exploitative purposes. Ugh.

I kind of like model moves = unit moves, too. I don't fancy the idea of keeping track of individual model movement, not these days, and especially not if the above is in place to encourage it...


I'd make the rule very simple.

"Any unit may split fire as it wishes. The only condition is that a single weapon cannot split shots between different targets. All fire from a single unit happens at the same time."

Find a way to game THAT

Normal game-play should give you the incentive to concentrate fire and wipe out units where possible.

I see what you mean about potential fiddliness if you have to remember which models in a unit have moved. I don't know if the potential problems of this outweigh the benefit of intuition- I think it would depend upon the rest of the system, and how much it encourged gamey exceptions, relative to big broard movements...

GrogDaTyrant
22-03-2011, 16:50
Those basic troopers are not borderline useless, but they're not as useful as the should be.

That brought up a thought, Bunnahabhain. What if infantry was classified as "Light, Medium, Heavy", with distinct benefits and penalties for each? Heavier Infantry like Marines would rely more on their armor and less on cover, while light infantry like IG or Dark Eldar would rely more on cover than on actually taking hits.

The cover rules would have to be expanded beyond a "4+, all the time". But benefits could be given to Light Infantry for their reliance on cover, even in an open field (representing them digging in, and using even the slightest hill, rocky outcropping, or shrub to their advantage).

Medium Infantry could be a bit of a hybrid between the two, comprised mostly of 4+ armored units. It gets none of the bonuses or penalties of either extreme.

This could make bog-standard troop units more useful/survivable as a whole, especially for taking and holding objectives.


I think would be a major undertaking however, and would involve rewriting much of the core rules. Especially in order to avoid favoritism towards specific armies.:shifty:

big squig
22-03-2011, 18:00
That's because in fantasy, your unit of 40 orcs is not in reality one guy who battles the enemy single-handed with his banner pole, while his 39 mates do nothing but jump around throwing themselves in front of arrows for him.

Until normal guys with lasguns and bolters actually have something to do, there needs to be something like wound allocation in place to make sure you have to give at least some thought to the unit as a whole, should the unlikely happen and the melta gunner cark it. Wound allocation is a headache but it's better than the alternative, which is to concede that the whole game is about nothing but meltaguns and power fists.
But guys with lasguns and bolters do have something to do. They can fight. Lasguns can fire, and basic marines still get to roll to hit in combat. That's more than anyone in the back rank of a fantasy regiment ever gets to do.

Chapters Unwritten
23-03-2011, 04:29
Then make people want to do so, by making the basic squad weapons more useful, so you have an incentive to be outside. This fixes many other issues at once- if basic troopers with normal weapons are worth taking, then troops only scoring goes away as not needed.I beg to differ. Basic troopers with normal weapons do fine against other basic troopers with normal weapons in most situations. What makes the normal weapons so useless is that every potential target is usually meched up until their ride goes boom.

Making people have a reason to get out of the transports would be the best way to balance the basic troops who use them most.

Vaktathi
23-03-2011, 04:38
I beg to differ. Basic troopers with normal weapons do fine against other basic troopers with normal weapons in most situations. What makes the normal weapons so useless is that every potential target is usually meched up until their ride goes boom.

Making people have a reason to get out of the transports would be the best way to balance the basic troops who use them most.

Or making footsloggers be better able to interact with the board and do things like dig in, spot for big guns, etc.

It also doesn't help that units increasingly have access to more and more damage reduction. FNP is a great example of this, it used to be confined to only a couple very specialized units in the entire game, now its in pretty much every army book in 5E except SW's I think.

Chapters Unwritten
23-03-2011, 06:24
I think that small units should have defensive benefits. It would certainly make them more useful. Making basic troops able to interact with the game board is also a very useful idea.

I think if I had to change one rule, though, I would still remove the fire points. Even with any other changes proposed here, it is still far too useful and the unit is far too safe, but I don't want to see the "Rolling Coffins" of 4th edition return.

Leogun_91
23-03-2011, 10:04
One rule only?

Get rid of the 'to wound' role.

In modern war, if you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it. Why would the far future be different?

I roll to hit you.

You roll to save.

Take the wounds and remove models.

Done. Next turn.If a lasgun hits a Carnifex it severly wounds a carnifex.....no that doesn't sound right at all.


For my change: Tank shock, currently it's useless on most anything and fearless things can't fail the tank shock test. That needs an overhaul, tank shock is cool, it should be able to crush things.

dblaz3r
23-03-2011, 10:37
I would change the monstrous creature rule so that if a monstrous creature is assaulting another monstrous creature its wounds inflicted don't ignore armour saves.

Bubble Ghost
23-03-2011, 13:36
But guys with lasguns and bolters do have something to do. They can fight. Lasguns can fire, and basic marines still get to roll to hit in combat. That's more than anyone in the back rank of a fantasy regiment ever gets to do.

Models in the back ranks of fantasy regiments don't roll dice, but they're still having a tangible and vital effect on their regiment's capability. This is the exact opposite of a bolter marine, who may well roll dice but not a lot happens as a result.

When I say "something to do", I mean justify their presence. What you're talking about amounts to putting the fat kid in goal and telling him he's playing. In a real football match the goalkeeper is vital - in a PE lesson he's a pariah, shoved out of the way because, well, he's here now and he has to go somewhere. This is a great analogy for troops with small arms in 40K. 40K is a PE lesson version of warfare and bolter marines are fat goalkeepers.

And the rest of the rules almost seem designed to emphasise and exacerbate this. Objectives - claim them from the luxury of your transport. Fire points - just enough so that all the important guns can shoot. No splitting fire - you lasgun guys just sit still for a minute while daddy shoots the tank. Feel No Pain everywhere - doubles the weakness of small arms and the importance of bigger onces at a stroke.

Look at Fire Warriors. Strength 5 basic arms, and people are still completely indifferent to them, when they should be the mainstay of the Tau army. And one of the most commonly suggested 'fixes' is to give them access to a special weapon. This is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. It would justify the presence of the squad, but not the indivduals without the special weapons. They would remain a frustrating liability. Fat goalkeepers.




I'd make the rule very simple.

"Any unit may split fire as it wishes. The only condition is that a single weapon cannot split shots between different targets. All fire from a single unit happens at the same time."

Find a way to game THAT

I can't, but I think it's a bit messy, and kind of ruins the image of the squad acting as, you know, a squad. And would it not make some units a bit too versatile? Units with lots of special weapons would benefit as much, if not more, than anyone else, which kind of defeats the purpose as a means for making basic troopers more interesting.

wyvirn
23-03-2011, 15:05
I'd like to see some form of scaling FOC. For example, at 1-600 points you get a kill-team like FOC, while at 500-2000 you get the current one, and at 1800-3000 you get a 3rd one with more slots. That way,
A) Some codexes wouldn't be hampered so much at high level games due to certain choices, and
B) represent different forces with varying objectives.
The idea is that a standard force shouldn't represent a patrol or small recon, or incredibly large battles. I included the overlap in ranges because the lines between the different force deployments should be a bit blurry and you could pick either one.

Draigo
23-03-2011, 15:36
4+ blanket cover save. It makes armor saves and AP2 almost inconsequential.

Ravariel
23-03-2011, 16:26
I want to remove the rule where you cannot regroup at below 50%. Bring back the Ld modifiers of last edition and have them be at -1 or -2 Ld to regroup, count as moving for the turn. That gives ATSKNF troops still a significant leg up, and keeps my 4-man scoring unit from trotting off the board for 3 turns, waving at their commander on the way.

Wyrmnax
23-03-2011, 16:57
Easily - True LOS

Adds a complication to the game where it isnt really needed. Over half of my discussions in the game table came from TLOS. We would be much better served by getting rid of it and going back to a simpler rule that dint punish the modeling part of the hobby.


The only other rule that comes close to being as obnoxious as TLOS is wound allocation. The effort to make special weapons and sergeants die easier in units is very appreciated, but wound allocation can punish you for putting more shots into a unit, and thats just plainly bad. I mean - i agree, special weapons should not always be the last guys standing on a squad, but they need a less abusable rule to do it.

Draigo
23-03-2011, 17:00
Don't you think it's kinda lame to be able to hide battlesuits, characters, and small vehicles forever behind a magical forest, or piece of ruined wall?

Bunnahabhain
23-03-2011, 18:44
Don't you think it's kinda lame to be able to hide battlesuits, characters, and small vehicles forever behind a magical forest, or piece of ruined wall?

No. Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact

It is really quite easy to hide behind stuff in real life. Even big stuff, say a LOUD YELLOW COMBINE HARVESTER behind a relatively small bit of woodland, no more than 10-12m thick..
I could happily walk through this woodland, but not see through it.

All true LOS does here is penalise creative modelling, and create poor game play.

You can't have a forest both useable for putting models in, and that blocks TLOS. It is a simple scale problem. The best solution, i.e. the one that produces better game play and is more realistic, is not to use True LOS there.

Also plenty of other game systems at similar scales and model counts handle terrain much better. They generally don't use TLOS.

Draigo
23-03-2011, 19:12
No, it makes the game perfectly fair. If you see me, you can shoot me.
Two trees and one stump don't magically make me immune to all your firepower.

Upgrade your terrain instead.

doubleT
23-03-2011, 19:18
I think the terrain zones are quite good. In the current rulebook, p. 22 (in the German book at least) you have the pic of the terrain zone with two trees and even though you can see the guy inbetween the two trees, he is behind the terrain zone and thus covered.

Idk why think it's hard to handle zones as terrain.

Base around trees = terrain zone

No base around trees = standing alone.

Ozendorph
23-03-2011, 19:37
No, it makes the game perfectly fair. If you see me, you can shoot me.
Two trees and one stump don't magically make me immune to all your firepower.

Upgrade your terrain instead.


Not really. Individual notions of "fair" not withstanding, the TLOS rules generally result in lots of bickering over who can see what (and thus slower game play), terrain pieces that either provide no cover or are not practical to move troops through, and a penalty for modeling creativity.

Bunnahabhain
23-03-2011, 19:41
No, it makes the game perfectly fair. If you see me, you can shoot me.
Two trees and one stump don't magically make me immune to all your firepower.

Upgrade your terrain instead.

At table top scale, you can't create a TLOS blocking wood that you can put models into. It just doesn't work, unless you want to make all your woods 12+" wide. In reality, LOS blocking woods ( ie ones you can't see through), it is often possible to move through quite easily.

I play at a club where we have lots of trees. 1-6" high, and lots of them, so you can create tall, dense woodland if you wish. It just doesn't work for game-play. We always end up putting a decent number of trees on a cut out base, and define that blob as an area of woodland, height of that of the tallest tree, and then move the trees about within the blob so models can fit in.

If you want to have stuff visible behind vegetation, simply use lower trees, and call it scrub instead. This works.

EDIT. The other major problem is that 40k doesn't apply TLOS consistently. All of a unit can be shot at if one can be seen, but only those members of the firing unit that can see can shoot? X part of the body is target-able, and Y isn't?

Your idea that "If you can see, you can shoot me" applies as anything more than a loose guideline in 40k is simply wrong.

scarletsquig
23-03-2011, 20:06
Agree with TLOS. Hate it.

Terrible recent addition to both 40k and fantasy.

Damocles8
23-03-2011, 20:49
I'd like to see

Roll hits, opponent rolls relevent saves, then roll wounds.

Of course you could get rid of cover saves, go to shooting modifiers and give all infantry a set shooting save (taking cover)

Megad00mer
23-03-2011, 20:55
True LoS. Hands down. It's gotta go.

-Our freedom for making whacky conversions and interesting poses are severely limited. In many cases we are either screwing ourselves over or risking people thinking we are modeling for advantage. Our models represent a being that is supposed to be moving. The actual position it's arms are held at or the way it's standing shouldn't really matter. Which brings me to...

-In a game of abstractions TLoS is far too absolute. Tabletop wargaming is about the abstraction of a battle. Dice rolls represent certain things in what’s supposed to be a constantly moving and fluid situation. For example; the barrels of our weapons don't need to actually be pointing at our target for us to fire at them. It's assumed that the thing the model represents will aim and fire the gun. TLoS is a major exception to this because the EXACT positions of the models and their appendages now suddenly matter and this rigid precision sticks out like a sore thumb in what’s otherwise a game of imagination.

-It’s actually impossible to see anything from your models eye view unless you drill a hole though their head. Again, too rigid. I shouldn’t have to hunch over a table with my head cocked to one side, one eye squinting, trying to gauge if I can see that dude’s foot.

-TLoS is horribly subjective. The slightest difference in the angle in which you look can completely change what you see and therefore what gains that blanket *yawn* cover save, which leads to...

-4+ cover saves are now much more prevalent than they should be. So much so that a Weapons AP really doesn’t matter at all anymore unless firing at a vehicle (which rarely, if ever can claim a cover save anyway) with AP 1. This means that everyone is just spamming weapons that grant the most shots, AP be damned. Also, unless you’re a Space Marine your actual save means little to nothing anymore outside of CC. It's nearly always a 4+ inv....

Cover should make a target harder to hit, not more resilient if it is hit.

VoodooJanus
23-03-2011, 21:10
I've never liked the cover rules... even so- I think what would be more important would be to redefine 'fearless'

The one frustration I have with the 40k system is the fact that the Leadership stat is practically never used. Being able to break units is a good thing- it adds to the intensity of the game.

Oakwolf
23-03-2011, 21:20
Agreed, they've gone too far in the "people don't want to see their models flee".

It's just not "dark, grim and horrible" when everyone is a psychopatic killer, a suicidal fanatic, a lobotomized testosterone junky.

Bubble Ghost
23-03-2011, 21:35
We really need to learn to live with TLoS, it's not going anywhere. That 'cinematic' explanation in the rulebook has a strong whiff of doth-protest-too-much about it - I strongly suspect that the real reason it was brought in is to make the game more intuitive for newbies to digest during demo games.

But to be honest, while it's not as versatile as an abstract system, the problems with it don't have to be as big as the usual protests have it. Two things, both within the current rules, can cut down on the "all cover saves, all the time" issue: first, bigger and more opaque terrain features; and second, define less stuff as area cover, which is explicitly left up to players to do anyway. There's no reason a base with a couple of ruined building corners on it necessarily has to be defined as area terrain, for instance.

GrogDaTyrant
23-03-2011, 21:44
Agreed, they've gone too far in the "people don't want to see their models flee".

I take it you don't play anything outside of 5th edition codices, or marine variants... huh?

By that same regard, we have armies with units that shouldn't be fleeing at the drop of a hat, but are. Mega Armor comes to mind...

Jack of Blades
23-03-2011, 22:04
Agreed, they've gone too far in the "people don't want to see their models flee".

It's just not "dark, grim and horrible" when everyone is a psychopatic killer, a suicidal fanatic, a lobotomized testosterone junky.

This is exactly one of my main problems with 40k. Between fearless supersoldiers, corrupted fearless supersoldiers, ancient death robots most of whom have utterly dulled minds with the exception of a few who aren't much better off, mostly mindless bug-monsters controlled by some Hive Mind, a hidden civilisation of people who are mostly clones AFAIK and have every syndrome between psychotic and sadistic in the book, an army of extremes of emotion given form which have only been noted to feel fear on specific and special occasions and a race created without fear of death that was created to enjoy fighting, winning and to survive anything the galaxy can throw at them, there exists only a couple factions (Imperial Guard and Tau Empire) who can rightly be said to mostly be comprised of fearful beings. Eldar could count too, but they're more restrained.

Evil vs evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilVersusEvil) is just fine, in fact it helps make the setting so much more believeable and grimdark to have the evils mostly battling it out against eachother, with the ''good'' factions still getting more than their fair share from them. That the evil factions absolutely need to destroy eachother but still have more than enough left for the good factions that can barely survive these leftovers, in a universe where fearlessness is rare, is much more interesting imo. But fearless vs fearless over and over again? I say we need to share the fear, big time.

chaoticflanagan
24-03-2011, 00:12
No wiping out a whole unit because one dude's elbow is poking out from behind a solid adamantium wall.


I would like to see montrous creatures have FEEL NO PAIN as a standard rule.

I Have always hated big monsters dying to measly lasgun fire. they are the tanks of the tyranids, they should be as hard to damage as one.

if you want to destroy that monster shoot it with AT fire power then it wont get a FNP save.

Lasguns can still potentially wound it but it will be less likely to, while tanks can never be damage by str3 weapons

I just find with newer codex's MC's are getting more expensive but they are easy to kill.

Tanks cant be poisoned or snipered so easily.

Also if monsters got FNP we would see more lascannons and less missile launcher spam

I liked both of these. I would make some of the rules make more sense. Can only kill models you can see. Wound allocation. Monsterous creatures on the whole need a buff..they are far to expensive and way to easy to kill. Tyranids have a lot of models that are more expensive than a land raider yet it's so much easier to kill a MC creature: Hard to get cover, few have invulnerable saves, and almost all of them are slow (In terms of both movement and initiative) all while they benefits are lacking compared to what vehicles/transports provide. I would like to see GW spend more time on the rules and actually work on balance I face palmed after reading the new GK codex..20pts to instant kill models seems fair...

wyvirn
24-03-2011, 04:06
I'm glad they got rid of the rule that you can only kill what you see. If they brought it back, you effectively removed wound allocation from shooting. Your uberkilly model? Instagibed by a lascanoneer that "just happens" to only see him. At least now, you get a nice cover save.
Besides, this game requires a little abstraction to make sense, the models don't represent the pose that the the soldier always has. Maybe Pvt Jay exposes himself to fire while trying to recover Eightball? Maybe they are pressed against the wall with a hole they didn't notice. Besides, is it any less realistic that the bullets magically disappearing past an arbitrary range?

lanrak
24-03-2011, 11:02
Hi all.
The 1 rule I would change is on page 2 of the 40k rule book.
'The most important rule!'
I would change if from a cop out for poor games developement to a general statment of practical gaming etiquette.

EG
'In the unlikely event of the rules NOT covering a particular situation, If players can not agree on the most probable out come , 'dice for it' to determine which resolution is used.(To keep the game going).And agree to a defined solution after the game is over.

It is impossible to cover ALL possible events in a wargame.And oddball stuff just happens sometimes.

Like 'low flying' aircraft being caught in an 'air burst' barrage.
The rules for low flying air craft are perfectly clear, as are the rules for air burst barrages.
But the 1 in 20,000 chance of them interacting like this was not in the rules .

However, not being able to determine if a piece of equipment effects a particular type of unit or not, due to poor rules definition is NOT acceptable IMO.

TTFN

Norsehawk
24-03-2011, 12:06
Go back to the previous version of cover saves, If you are in or behind woods, you get a cover save, not only if you are physically behind one of the 3 trees on the large base. Less items on a terrain piece makes it easier to play on, it should not be a trade off of not being able to move models through it physically or providing no useful cover.

If I get a 2nd choice, do something to limit mech, make vehicles more risky to be bunkered in. Say passengers take a hit of front armor value -d6 with an ap of d6 in the case of an explosion.

Gingerwerewolf
24-03-2011, 15:23
Go back to the previous version of cover saves, If you are in or behind woods, you get a cover save, not only if you are physically behind one of the 3 trees on the large base. Less items on a terrain piece makes it easier to play on, it should not be a trade off of not being able to move models through it physically or providing no useful cover.

If I get a 2nd choice, do something to limit mech, make vehicles more risky to be bunkered in. Say passengers take a hit of front armor value -d6 with an ap of d6 in the case of an explosion.

I really like your first point, I agree completely but your second?

Why oh why should a Tank designed to take more punishment do MORE damage to its occupants when it blows up than one designed with lighter armour?

What you are doing there is making Landrraiders the most useless transport in the game, as whatever's inside will take a Str 8+ hit which will Instant Death anything inside.

Tone down vehicles is fine, but not turn them back into the deathtraps they used to be. Just change the Damage chart onto a 2D6 chart and have more options when they take damage

doubleT
24-03-2011, 17:31
Go back to the previous version of cover saves, If you are in or behind woods, you get a cover save, not only if you are physically behind one of the 3 trees on the large base. Less items on a terrain piece makes it easier to play on, it should not be a trade off of not being able to move models through it physically or providing no useful cover.


I'm confused, I thought that's the current rule. :confused:
In the rulebook is a pic (German book p.22) where a space marine is behind a terrain piece with 2 trees. You can see him but he gets the cover save for being behind the wood.
Another SM is on the terrain piece and he gets a cover save even though he is visible.

Pretty sure it's the current book. :shifty:

big squig
24-03-2011, 20:33
Go back to the previous version of cover saves, If you are in or behind woods, you get a cover save, not only if you are physically behind one of the 3 trees on the large base. Less items on a terrain piece makes it easier to play on, it should not be a trade off of not being able to move models through it physically or providing no useful cover.

That IS how 5th edition works. The only units who MUST be physically blocked by the actual trees are MCs and vehicles.

Poseidal
26-03-2011, 10:08
Replace the AP system with ASM.

Hellebore
26-03-2011, 10:11
If it's only one thing I'd change psychology/morale rules. At the moment it's so much pointless rules. virtually every army has the capacity to ignore morale.

Hellebore