PDA

View Full Version : What rules would you like to see change when 7th ed comes out?



Herkamer63
05-09-2013, 04:50
I'll be honest. So far, 6th ed 40k has been my favorite version of the game. The codices are coming out at a much faster pace, the codex supplements are making way for army builds alot of people have been waiting for, the balancing of the game is coming into play more, and the fact that customization has been improving throughout this ed. The rules, for the most part, have been reasonable and easy to pick up on. Most of the rules, imo, i really like and enjoyed (rage got a major buff), some, however, could have been thought out better (fear comes to mind with me). Now, I'm not saying these rules should be thrown out. Just more time should have been put into them. I know some of you are saying 'they can be fixed in an FAQ'. It could happen, but with the lack of speed and work to get out FAQs this ed, I doubt this will happen with most of them (I hope I'm wrong). So let's look ahead at 7th ed. What would be the changes you guys would like to see change for these rules that are lacking? This isn't a 'bash on the rules' post, so please keep it civil. Anyway, let's see what we can brain storm.

doloth
05-09-2013, 04:56
ATSKNF needs some serious toning down. Maybe allow them to auto regroup, but without the obnoxious benefits for having fallen back.

Something also needs to change regarding combat, because too much hinges on whether you manage to stay in combat at the end of you turn, and hence whether or not your opponent can shoot you in his/her turn

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

Commissar Merces
05-09-2013, 05:03
Overall this edition really has been fantastic and I've eaten crow on a lot of things. Assault armies are still a bit harder to manage, but as a whole, the edition really has been solid. I agree with the release of codexes has really kept things interesting. I really enjoy the new psychic powers, the no assaulting from vehicles that aren't assault vehicles, the new hull point system (though playing necrons with it still sucks).

Couple of obvious choices though. I think allies is a serious problem to the game and the ally matrix needs to be completely rethought. Now I use allies for my SoB with Guard and at one part DA and I have never had anyone complain. But I am really sick of seeing Tau and Eldar and Necron Chaos combos all over the place. I don't know how necessarily to fix it, but it needs to be fixed. Frankly, I believe tournaments (obviously this is outside of GW's realm) should completely ban allied lists. This change would really make it a much more challenging experience and potentially put an end to the "oh gee, the same internet Tau and Eldar army I played last game" trend.

Mysterious terrain remove it. Forever.

Rolling a focused witchfire power with a BS 0 model and not being able to re-roll. I think psychic powers should either be selected or re-roll able at all times. Randomness seems a bit odd to me. I feel the same way in fantasy.

Not being able to charge from outflank.

Moving 12' with a fast vehicle and only firing snap shots with guys inside.

Challenges need to be reconsidered. Right now they are a goofy side show. Also something like a trygon prime or a dreadknight needs to be able to refuse a challenge so it can roast the whole squad... since that is what they are designed for not fighting a single idiot.

Scribe of Khorne
05-09-2013, 05:13
Mysterious anything was a bad idea. Most players I talk to in tournaments are more then happy to 'forget' it exists, it does nothing to help balance, at all.

I would drop first blood, and killing the warlord. It doesnt improve the game by making me want my 'narrative' to be "I hid in the back, hoping nobody killed me because I dont have EW".

I would buff walkers. Considerably, or nerf MC's.

Second on challenges being reconsidered. Nice idea, but the execution falls flat. (HI AGAIN MC's COMING TO OWN MY CHAMPIONS)

Commissar Merces
05-09-2013, 05:18
Mysterious anything was a bad idea. Most players I talk to in tournaments are more then happy to 'forget' it exists, it does nothing to help balance, at all.

I would drop first blood, and killing the warlord. It doesnt improve the game by making me want my 'narrative' to be "I hid in the back, hoping nobody killed me because I dont have EW".

I would buff walkers. Considerably, or nerf MC's.

Second on challenges being reconsidered. Nice idea, but the execution falls flat. (HI AGAIN MC's COMING TO OWN MY CHAMPIONS)

Can't believe I forgot first blood. Yeah, that has GOT to go or at least change it so both armies can get first blood. I can't believe this hasn't been changed already.

Scribe of Khorne
05-09-2013, 05:24
Playing in a tournament end of October, drops both First Blood and Kill the Warlord, and pushes objectives into the middle, while making second scoring out of quarters and so on. Far more fun, and lets you open up a bit on the lists without going '****, that rhino/HQ is just giving away a point'.

Techmarine
05-09-2013, 05:29
My personal changes:


Remove, or completely rework the challenge mechanic. Fantasy duels are botched in 40K, and reward abuse.
Ditch random terrain- I had an Eldar player cripple his army fighting the jungles he deployed in, before I even started shelling him.
Randomized psychic powers need to offer a single reroll, or the option to purchase a guaranteed one for models lacking a ballistic-skill.
Transports awarding a victory point- never again. Glad I took some rhinos, and handed you an almost guaranteed first-blood.
Change overwatch to be more reasonable towards armies that lack 45 shots from a single unit.
Rework the 'ally chart' to be something more like the fluff.
Implement a defensive change to walkers, to make them half as viable as monstrous-creatures. Something akin to being harder to hit, like fliers maybe.

Scribe of Khorne
05-09-2013, 05:32
See Techmarine, we dont have to fight.... :D

Ssilmath
05-09-2013, 05:35
Gonna point out for the umpteenth time, random terrain is entirely optional and can easily be ignored without houseruling it.

Techmarine
05-09-2013, 05:35
See Techmarine, we dont have to fight.... :D

I didn't know that we ever were.

ehlijen
05-09-2013, 06:15
Gonna point out for the umpteenth time, random terrain is entirely optional and can easily be ignored without houseruling it.

Indeed and thankfully so. Now if only the same was true of mysterious objectives.

Not only are they silly and unbalanced, they also make the game world feel smaller rather than larger. I'd prefer a pointless table full of strategic background objectives that specifically don't affect the local area to this random powerup nonsense.

But ensuring that everything is either worhtless or affects the here and now, GW is making 40k games feel like the only thing happening on a world, not like the focal point of a larger battle.

kilokalex
05-09-2013, 06:15
Flyer slot on the foc charter to free up fast attack.
Skyfire and snapshot should be minus 2 to bs instead of an automatic one.
Overwatch needs to go.

Akwikone
05-09-2013, 06:49
I would really like to see Assault off of Outflank, infiltrate and Scout brought back along from assaulting from vehicles, though I would like to see bonuses from assaulting from Open Topped/Assault vehicles(Maybe Hammer of Wrath?).

I would try making Overwatch a Weapon USR for certain weapons like Heavy Bolters, Shurican Cannons and the like, where the model can forgo it's shooting to attempt to interrupt an assault on a friendly unit within 12", or something.

Sir Didymus
05-09-2013, 06:53
I want BS modifiers instead of cover saves - or a rule to lower BS to lower cover saves. No point in getting a BS8 sniper, when he isn't more accurate than a BS4 marine. It would also be a good fix having snapfire as a modifier.

I want Ld to matter - so all those Fearless, ATSNKF and whatever rules just has to go.

Fliers need their own game (Apocalypse), the 4x6 just isn't big enough to accomodate supersonic jets.

Basically I want to play Rogue Trader again - with a few good things thrown in from the newer eds.


-

Oh and allies has to stay. Its the best idea in 6th, the ally matrix is rubbish though. Instead we just need everyone to be Allies of Convenience, or you could have a chart that could randomly determines your alliances strength? :) And although the tournament crowd complains that allies are unbalanced and everyone plays Tau/Dar or Nec/Cha, then how is that different to the old 5th ed. Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Guard? - Tournaments just need to step up and make better scenarios.

lanrak
05-09-2013, 07:00
I would like GW to base the rules for 40k on Epic rules, NOT WHFB!

So a total re write based on intended game play, rather than incremental release sales.

FredrikR
05-09-2013, 07:12
Overall I think 6th Ed is good. There is probably more, but off the top of my head I would like to see...

Major stuff:
Cover that grants to-hit penalty rather than save.
Mysterious terrain needs to go (not that I ever play with it, but it really belongs in some supplement with wierd and wacky rules...)
Bring back separate movement values.
Relaunch Epic. Oh wait, that's another topic. :-)

Minor:
Torrent rule to include scatter.
Howling Banshee fix - and I don't even have any Banshees.
Buff to walkers - they are cool and should have rules to reflect this!

MajorWesJanson
05-09-2013, 07:50
Vehicle Movement and shootings- Stationary may choose to splitfire one weapon and fire the rest. Combat speed is 6" and can fire all weapons. Cruising Speed is 12" and can fire 1 and snapshot the rest. Flat out 18" and no shooting. Fast Vehicles add 3" to each range band. Heavy Vehicles may not move flat out.
Assaulting vehicles- Stationary, auto hit. Combat speed, 3+ to hit. Cruising speed, 4+ to hit. Flat out, 5+ to hit.
Disembarking and shooting/assault- Stationary- may disembark, move, shoot, and declare charges. Combat speed- may disembark and either shoot or declare charge. Cruising speed may disembark, may snapshoot. Flat out may not disembark. Assault vehicle, cruising speed may disembark and either shoot normally or declare a charge.

Walkers- in close combat, may reduce any rolls on the damage chart by their weapon skill.

Outflank- may choose to shoot normally or declare a charge on the turn arriving from outflank

Add 3 more deployment options so it is 6 deployments and 6 missions. Add old table quarters (quarter but not 12" from the center), old Dawn of War (deploy HQ and 2 troop units in your half, rest arrives turn 1) and 1 more.

Bartali
05-09-2013, 08:19
For 7th I'd like GW to stop the lurch towards making 40k into Apocalypse. Also, Phil Kelly shouldn't be let anywhere near codexes or the rules.

duffybear1988
05-09-2013, 08:45
For 7th I'd like GW to stop the lurch towards making 40k into Apocalypse. Also, Phil Kelly shouldn't be let anywhere near codexes or the rules.

This is spot on.

Bloodknight
05-09-2013, 09:04
. I think allies is a serious problem to the game and the ally matrix needs to be completely rethought. Now I use allies for my SoB with Guard and at one part DA and I have never had anyone complain.

Yeah, allies throw every attempt at balancing an army properly right out of the window. Funny example: I read a comment somewhere that IG doesn't need to have decent Elites units because they'd just take allies instead. WTF.


Kill the Warlord,

Is crap because the survivability and intended use of the warlord differ so much from army to army.

MajorWesJanson
05-09-2013, 09:13
I like the secondary objectives- Maybe balance them a bit by adding a few more though. Maybe add army specific ones?

AOdinn
05-09-2013, 09:58
I like the secondary objectives- Maybe balance them a bit by adding a few more though. Maybe add army specific ones?
You mean something like race-specific secondary objectives?

I personally love the idea of secondary objectives and would like them to expand or at least re-balance it.
Also re-make the ally matrix (but not remove it). "Nerf"/re-think MC (add some kind of crippled mechanic if they lose too many wounds). Walkers at least need a buff, it's obvious that MC rules are too powerful if all the newest models are MC instead of the obvious walker (Wraith knight, Riptide etc. etc.).

AngryAngel
05-09-2013, 10:00
Theres so much I don't know where to start. Better cover system, I do miss the 50 percent of a squad in cover. Vehicles not having hull points and if they do something to make them not the wimp tastic things they are. While hull points at first seemed alright, there is little to no variation in them and its stupid to feel a leman russ has just slightly more hull integrity then a land speeder, and just slightly less then a landraider, for instance. Challenges, the most idiotic thing in CC to me, just ask any chaos player who has to enjoy this lovely gem all the time.

My personal fav, the inability to fire indirectly because its too dark outside. I can't even imagine why you can fire at a target you can't see, but if its just too dark you can't even fire, I guess your afraid of hitting darkness ? To imagine that while you can fire at unseen objects all day long but when they are unseen and its dark, I guess they just don't exist anymore. Who knows ? Wait I know, the shadow knows.

This being just some and I've played since 3rd edition, and have mostly enjoyed each edition, this one is straining my love. Oh lets not forget not being able to assault after disembarking from a transport, even if its just sitting there. How fun !! Ride your vehicle, to the front then stand there and do nothing, perhaps shoot.

Wait wait, assaulting from the reserves, so when your wyches arrive from web way portals, they must dance, as they can't truly fight. I guess they got out of a big drunken party, perhaps that's why ? Or why they can't even if they walk on from your own board edge.

I better stop, but you get my meaning.

vlad78
05-09-2013, 10:00
Restrict the challenge rule to HQ only.

vlad78
05-09-2013, 10:03
Allow to charge when disembarking from a vehicle which did not move. (it would allow troops to charge when going out from a building.)

Zustiur
05-09-2013, 10:16
There was a similar thread on this about a month ago. I wrote most of the following points there, but the thread got me interested enough that I've now spent the equivalent of a work-week writing my own edition.
I'm not sufficiently satisfied to post it online just yet, but here are the goals I've tried to achieve:

1) Interleaved turns/phases (I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot)
2) Unit v Unit shooting resolution, except one model may split fire. Shots must be resolved at the same time (no waiting for the result of the first shot) except when shooting at a transport vehicle (and its contents).
3) To hit modifiers for some things. Cover modifies save rolls
4) No Fliers
5) Save modifiers instead of AP
6) Moving/Running/Charges occur entirely during the movement phase
7) Revive the movement stat, get rid of fleet etc
8) Bring back multiple wounds per weapon, remove instant death
9) Wound allocation chosen by the owning player with some caveats
10) Bring back weapon strength for more CC weapons (power weapons in particular)
11) Significant reduction of Special Rules, especially corner cases that slow down the game or are hard to remember
12) Smoother, faster gameplay.
13) Better scaling from small games to large games (500-3000)
14) Remove most out-of-sequence actions (e.g. moving during the shooting phase)
15) Wide replacement of ‘binary’ conditions with more granular conditions. Less “Initiative = 1”, more “Subtract 2 from your initiative”

Tarax
05-09-2013, 10:41
Some changes:

-To Hit-modifiers instead of cover save
-models should be 1" apart, some units (eg scouts) can be 2" (Templates should hit more than 1 model!)
-rework Hull points
-you should be able to assault form a stationary vehicle
-drop True Line of Sight, but work with area terrain (ie can't see through woods, etc)
-armour save modifiers
-Overwatch reworked so it is not a stand-and-shoot but a chance to hit a passing unit
-snapshots and skyfire a penalty (-x BS)

And I've got a lot more, but they are for the army lists, mostly special rules.

totgeboren
05-09-2013, 10:45
The main ones I think are;
1). Challenges. Need to go or be reworked. The 'only HQs may engage in challenges' could work I suppose.
2). Barrage weapon wound allocation needs to be against closest, or be against cover save. People in the open get hit first, then those in cover. Up to the owning player to allocate. Mortars should not be 4-5 times as good at sniping than sniper rifles.
3). Allow assaulting out of stationary vehicles/buildings.
4). Deny the Witch should be against maledictions and blessings ONLY. Allow psychers/units to try and Deny buffs/debuffs that are cast on things within say 12" from them. Blessings are much much better than witchfires, and it makes more sense that a buff failed than someone wishing away a warprift or a psychic bolt hitting them square in the chest.

duffybear1988
05-09-2013, 10:47
I would like them to revert back to 4th edition, but with new changes based on the failed 5th and 6th edition taken into account.

Zustiur
05-09-2013, 11:32
I would like them to revert back to 4th edition, but with new changes based on the failed 5th and 6th edition taken into account.
That's kind of how I feel, except instead of rebooting 4th, I'd like to reboot 3rd. That is, go back to second, make all the good changes of 3rd without the bad ones, then see how those bad bits of 2e can be fixed in totally different ways. Too much of 4th 5th and 6th is baggage caused by bad rules at the beginning of 3rd.

Ironbone
05-09-2013, 11:46
4). Deny the Witch should be against maledictions and blessings ONLY. Allow psychers to try and Deny buffs/debuffs that are cast on things within say 12" from them.
Why :eyebrows: ? Some armies have ZERO psychic defence aside DtW rolls, you know that ?

Thing i would like to change :
- Smash. It should halve all your attacks, not just base ones. Its especialy visible on MC with tons of extra attaks, wia psychic powers or weapons. If DP sacrefice 2 of its easily 8-10 attaks, you esencialy sacrefice NOTHING, but gain A LOT.
- Challenges - its mechanics are stupid, and porrly introduced into 40K. I thnik while challenges may stay, they should incloude overkill mechanism, and refuse should have no negative conseqences.
- torrent. Whole point of tamplates is they give you two awesome benefits (no cover save, no need to hit ), for pirce of poor range of 8". With torrent you suddenly gain range of 20" :eek::eyebrows:, while still being no hit, no cover weapons. Torrent should either do not deny cover saves, or at least roll to hit.
- Vechicle shooting - less penalty when moving. Standard vechicle should fire up to 3 weapons on full BS on combat speed, 1 on crusing speed, and no on flat-out, fast all on combat speed, 3 on crusing speed, and no on flat-out, ang heavy all on combat speed.
- Vechincles in assoults - no sily "always hit back armour" rule. You attack armour section (front/side/rear) wich you are BtB with. Also - stacionary -autohit, combat speed -4+ to hit, crusing speed 5+ to hit, flat-out 6+ to hit with cc weapons.
- Squads can split fire as the wish. No sily rules like LF fire control. Special rule, that bypasses common rule, that should not even exist !
- Bring back 5 ed CC rules, especialy 6" consoidation towards enemy at start of combat. It allowes both units to fully show their lethal potencial ( and mortality rate as well ).
- Introduce outnumber bonus, + to CR, equal to hov many times one force outnumber other.
- Special abilities that work on 6 to hit, do not work on snap-shots ( tesla, I'm looking at you )
- Psychic powers - roll one more power than lvl you have ( so 1st lvl psyker have 2 powers, 4 lvl five ), so low -level psyker will not be stuck with one useless power for entire game. Also - if you can not shoot, re-roll shooting powers.
- Alies - tewaks only needed. Like no SM-Tau BBBFF.

And do NOT change :
- overwatch - best rule ever :D. It realy hepled to balance crapy shooting-close combat ratio of prewious editions.
- snap shots
- no assoult from reseres, especialy outflank. Realy, ability to deploy unit onto batllefield bypassing enemy shooting phase is weak :rolleyes: ? And pop up from nowhere, blast enemy, and round up whats left in cc without any chanse of reaction ? No, just no. One of the best changes of 6th ed.

And in case of ATSKNF - yes, i see point of, for most, assoult based armies, this rules is sily, and need to be changed. I personaly have zero trouble with that. I do not win combat with SM, i simply shoot them to death :D.

totgeboren
05-09-2013, 11:59
Why :eyebrows: ? Some armies have ZERO psychic defence aside DtW rolls, you know that ?


And they would keep them... but be able to deny enemy blessings in exchange for not being able to deny witchfires.

Seriously, the only psychics that gets used are Divination (seen as the best), and after that Biomancy and Telepathy comes second, because they both have good blessings/maledictions.
Witchfires are so bad it's just silly. Between managing the psy-test, the to-hit roll, getting through the DtW, and then managing to actually cause wounds, you would most of the time be better of with a plasmapistol.

Blessings like prescience, iron arm and invisibility are game-changers, which none of the witchfires in the game are (as they are at best on about the same level as a meltagun, something which is farily easy and cheap to get hold of anyway).

Ironbone
05-09-2013, 12:03
which none of the witchfires in the game are
Yes, tell that to JOWW :shifty:.

Nym
05-09-2013, 12:04
I'll just emphasize a few things that have already been said :

1) Rework Challenges, or take them away. Right now they're broken in so many ways it would take me an hour to list them all.

2) Smash halves your TOTAL attacks, 'nuff said. It also doesn't give you a reroll for Armor penetration anymore. This way, Dreadnought will stand a chance against MCs.

3) Hull-points : give 1 more hull-point to all vehicles (Land Raiders get 5, Rhinos 4, Kill Kanz 3, etc...)

4) Consolidation : make it 6" again, kthxbye.

5) Walkers : give at least 13 Front Armor to ALL Dreadnoughts.

6) Fix divinitation. The guy who thought it was ok to have a Primaris that allows you to reroll all misses should be fired.

7) Fix the damn flyers... Make them easier to hit or make them Armor 11 at most. Then, remove Interceptor from the game.

8) Overwatch : if you choose to overwatch, you forego your attacks in close combat for this fight sub-phase.

totgeboren
05-09-2013, 12:22
Yes, tell that to JOWW :shifty:.

Well, this was discussing changes to the core rules, so I only really took them into account. Codexes always have rules that override the normal rules, and in the case of JOWW, that is a very specific ability which was obviously broken from the first time it was introduced. Designing the core rules around very specific broken abilities from codexes that were made for previous editions feels a bit silly.

Darnok
05-09-2013, 12:23
Add meaningful psychology rules, that are not ignored by nearly everything. :yes:

Camman1984
05-09-2013, 13:02
1) objectives cannot be deployed in either players deployment zone, to prevent aegis line castling in every game, or at least maximum of 1 in each deployment zone.

2) units cant take special melee weapons as their special weapon (eg. in place of the flamer for space marines). Instead of on the sergeants, it is too easy to challenge snipe the only power weapon/fist in the squad.

3) snap shots to penalise everyone by the same amount, orks really dont care about bs 2>1

4) interceptor broken into two rules, one which allows units to intercept, another separate one which allows ground targeting.

5) everyone giant robots to be treated the same, either armour or wounds, not this hit and miss approach.

6) grounding tests only when hit and wounded by a high strength weapon.

7) the entire tau race to be eaten by a tyranid hive fleet. Just kidding...but not really

Fear Ghoul
05-09-2013, 13:06
I would like GW to base the rules for 40k on Epic rules, NOT WHFB!

So a total re write based on intended game play, rather than incremental release sales.

That would be one quick way to make the game a lot more boring. Why not just play Epic if you want Epic rules? There has never been an inherent problem with using the WHFB design concept as a core for 40k. The problems occur more often when they deviate from this model, rather than the other way around.

csm
05-09-2013, 13:10
First turn advantage needs to be mitigated a little bit. I think all vehicles with smoke launchers should have the option of using them before the game beings. Also, any psycher with a blessing should be able to use it before the game begins. These rules should only apply to armies who go second.

Also, Psychic powers need to be better. I think Eldar has it right for the most part. Some of the divination powers are great as well. However, witchfire are terrible. GW did not take in to account all the dice rolls that need to be made for a power to go off. With that being the case, they should have a devastating affect. I think psychic shriek is my favorite because it has the potential to be devastating.

When I look at pyromancy, I see mediocre powers that require too much to pull them off. Inferno, for exampe, is S4 AP5, small blast, with a range of 24 inches. I mine as well have a storm bolter, where I don't have to roll for the power, then have the enemy try to deny the witch before I even shoot it. A power like this should be at least S6 AP3 Large blast, where all the dice rolling you have to make to pull it off is actually worth it.

Commissar Merces
05-09-2013, 13:55
Assaulting from Outflanking needs to happen. What's the point of outflanking if you just have to stand there and take it in the face? Isn't the whole point of outflanking to get the drop on your enemy and lead a charge?

Come on guys that one is common sense.

We might as well stop griping about flyers cause they are here to stay. I do think some things need to be changed in the next edition though to limit flyers a bit.

I just don't see a cover modifier ever happening. That's directly from WHFB, not 40k.

Erik_Morkai
05-09-2013, 15:58
Un-nerf assault...take the leash off my wolves.

I can /accept/ not being able to assault coming in from outflank. I know how nasty Wolf Scouts were in 5th and took an evil pleasure always putting in a squad BUT

Not being able to assault when stepping out of an immobile vehicule...that is just ridiculous. Not being able to defend myself with a charge when my transport blows up is mind boggling.

If I can charge coming in from outflank in the next edition I will be giddy for sure but on a more reasonable level just fixing the transport issue would be great.

daveNYC
05-09-2013, 16:01
If you're ride blows up, not being able to get squared away and charge an enemy makes some sense. Not being able to charge after hopping out of a stopped vehicle is derpy though.

Sir Didymus
05-09-2013, 16:03
I just don't see a cover modifier ever happening. That's directly from WHFB, not 40k.

Well, It was 40K 20 years ago – and Fantasy has adopted some 40K silliness like random move ;)


-

But come to think of it, what I'd really like to see was a reworked movement phase. The movement phase is really the only phase, where player decisions matter, and where you can claim a tactical aspect to a game otherwise ruled by dice. I also don't understand why they removed the M value and replaced it with Fleet (or not).

Bugg13
05-09-2013, 16:35
Allow assaulting from stationary vehicles and reserves. And bring back the fixed charge range, at the moment there's too much randomness there. If you want to get into assault now you have to walk across the table getting shot up/drive across, disembark then get shot up/ambush from the flank, stand around aimlessly then get shot up. Provided you manage this you then have to survive overwatch from the unit you wish to charge (or half their army at BS5 if its Tau), then pray the dice are kind enough to let you reach them. After all the effort of getting into assault range it'd be nice to have some certainty about your charge range.

DoctorTom
05-09-2013, 16:41
I actually preferred 4th edition's rule for assault grenades working for units rather than just the individual model.

jceresa2
05-09-2013, 16:59
I like the secondary objectives- Maybe balance them a bit by adding a few more though. Maybe add army specific ones?
Maybe come up with six for each codex and tie them to the warlord traits?

Ssilmath
05-09-2013, 17:40
You know, I look at these suggested rules changes and wonder if people actually consider the impact on the game as a whole and not just how it'll make their preferred faction/tactics better.

Some of my suggestions though?

Mysterious objectives are rolled for at the start of the game. Cinematically, it makes sense that the force would know why it is after those objectives in the first place. The in game effect would be to make the objectives actually worth taking and holding, giving both armies a reason to close with and engage each other. Get rid of the sabotaged result and replace it with something that provides a leadership bonus or something like that. Then have objectives provide their benefit to all friendly units in a 6 inch bubble as long as a troop choice is holding it. Finally, if an objective has been held for at least 3 turns, it cannot be contested unless the contesting unit has been in place for 2 turns. Prevents turbo boosting jetbikes/other fast units from denying objectives with no risk to themselves.

I'd switch from the kill points system to victory points. Every say...10% pointswise or so of the enemy force you destroy is worth 1 victory point. Similarly, replace First Blood with "Alpha strike" or some such, awarding you an additional victory point in all games if you kill 25% of their army in a single turn during the first three turns. Slay the Warlord also needs to go, to be replaced with "Cut the head off the snake" giving a victory point for killing all HQ units in the first three turns. Ideally, this would promote a more aggressive playstyle, though it could favor artillery style lists who just bombard enemy HQ units, and could easily get both new victory points in a single shooting phase.

Monstrous Creatures and Independent Characters can choose to refuse a challenge at no penalty if issued by a normal character provided they make a leadership check. It lets really killy characters do their thing without being pulled out by any squad leader, but also sets up HQ on HQ battles.

Monstrous Creatures only get a single Smash attack against opponents with a Weapon Skill. Smash adds +2 or 3 to strength, not doubles it. Turns walkers, particularly Dreadnoughts, into a reasonably fair fight against MC's while letting MC's still tear vehicles apart.

Allow assaulting out of a stationary vehicle on a successful leadership check. Likewise, any shooting by a unit embarking from a vehicle that moved snapfires unless they pass a leadership check. Same for arriving from outflank. No assaulting from deepstrike, but shooting after arriving from deepstrike only snap fires unless a leadership check is passed. Vehicles count as Leadership 9.

Hull points are only removed on a penetrating hit. A roll of 6 on the damage chart removes d3 hull points, if it removes the last hull point the vehicle explodes. Add 1 hull point to all transports, add 2 to all others. Glancing hits instead inflict a shaken result and require a leadership check to move (Counting as leadership 9).

If a unit wins a close combat and becomes unengaged, any shots resolved against them are snap shots. A successful leadership check (-2 modifier) negates that penalty.

Obviously, these are all pretty rough ideas and I seriously doubt that they'll actually be read or come to pass. Probably half a dozen problems with each one, but certainly I'd like to see leadership become a much more important part of the game.

Ironbone
05-09-2013, 17:47
Assaulting from Outflanking needs to happen. What's the point of outflanking if you just have to stand there and take it in the face? Isn't the whole point of outflanking to get the drop on your enemy and lead a charge?

Come on guys that one is common sense.
The point of outflanking is to bypass enemy defences, and deploy unit close to enemy, while being unmolested by his fire ( aside interceptor ).

And common sense also says that shooty armies also want to have some fun in play :p, not playing in fear that some outflanker pop-up and round up their gunline ;).


I can /accept/ not being able to assault coming in from outflank. I know how nasty Wolf Scouts were in 5th and took an evil pleasure always putting in a squad BUT
But what :p ? You just want your broken unit to be broken again, admit it :evilgrin:. As for me, wolf scouts are now in condtion they should be from very begining. Double melta shot from nowhere for only 110 pts is still halleluja strong.

scavenseer
05-09-2013, 18:05
I would like to see a more balanced approach to combat resolution.

Bubble Ghost
05-09-2013, 18:14
1. Anyone can choose to fail any morale check. Space Marines have the same restrictions as everyone else when they regroup
2. Non-mechanised units who arrived from reserve, or who or destroy/rout their opponents, get Shrouded to represent ambush/confusion, unless they reveal themselves by making a shooting attack
3. Random drug tests for Forge World writers

scavenseer
05-09-2013, 18:18
1. Anyone can choose to fail any morale check. Space Marines have the same restrictions as everyone else when they regroup
2. Non-mechanised units who arrived from reserve, or who or destroy/rout their opponents, get Shrouded to represent ambush/confusion, unless they reveal themselves by making a shooting attack
3. Random drug tests for Forge World writers

2. Are you trying to give the already cheesy jetpack troops even more annoyance?

Ssilmath
05-09-2013, 18:21
1. Anyone can choose to fail any morale check. Space Marines have the same restrictions as everyone else when they regroup
2. Non-mechanised units who arrived from reserve, or who or destroy/rout their opponents, get Shrouded to represent ambush/confusion, unless they reveal themselves by making a shooting attack
3. Random drug tests for Forge World writers

I like these as well. Also, to add to my list...

Fliers are divided into three categories. Interceptors, Strike Craft, Gunships. Interceptors can choose to Skyfire, and gain Tank Hunters when targeting other fliers. Strike Craft can choose to Skyfire, but are primarily used for ground attack and so gain Strafing Run. Gunships may not Skyfire and may choose to Hover which gives them Tank Hunter when targeting ground vehicles. Gunships may not use Torrent or Blast Weapons unless in Hover mode, which must be declared at the start of the movement phase or when the flier comes on from reserve.

Rated_lexxx
05-09-2013, 18:30
I really hate that when you wound a modal you have to take the closet one off. It slows down so many games trying to figure out who is closest. Especially when it may make the difference between controlling a objective or not

I also hate the whole Look out sir. It exist because it got really easy to snipe your srg. The whole being able to target certain modals needs to be reworked

As the game goes on I see more and more that armor saves are having to be taking one at time

Ssilmath
05-09-2013, 18:35
As the game goes on I see more and more that armor saves are having to be taking one at time

Why? You only do that if there are mixed armor saves. Roll all your saves, remove that many models starting with the closest. If there is any doubt which is the closest, it doesn't take that long to measure. Just move the tape measure to one you think is closest, then swing it over to the other one in question. Fast and easy.

Menthak
05-09-2013, 18:37
IMO,
ATSKNF is fine as is.
Outflanking shouldn't favour shooting or assault, it should be balanced, although it would be more balanced if people played on bigger tables with more terrain.
Fliers should be optional in games, not part of the base game.
Slaying the warlord shouldn't be a thing, it makes sense, but doesn't for other factions (Slaying a chapter master, nice one. Oh! you've slain a Lieutenant? Yeah so what.)
The change in power weapons annoys me, it needs re-jiggering, for some reason Astartes can't move an axe properly anymore but still can with a relic blade.

Otherwise I'm pretty happy, I would prefer that psykers were less uniform, but it's a nice addition.

EDIT: Also change hull points, 5th wasn't perfect, but neither are sixth's

duffybear1988
05-09-2013, 18:46
You know, I look at these suggested rules changes and wonder if people actually consider the impact on the game as a whole and not just how it'll make their preferred faction/tactics better.

Some of my suggestions though?

Hull points are only removed on a penetrating hit. A roll of 6 on the damage chart removes d3 hull points, if it removes the last hull point the vehicle explodes. Add 1 hull point to all transports, add 2 to all others. Glancing hits instead inflict a shaken result and require a leadership check to move (Counting as leadership 9).


:D Do you play eldar? That would make wave serpents even more broken than they already are...

Ssilmath
05-09-2013, 18:49
:D Do you play eldar? That would make wave serpents even more broken than they already are...

Mmmm, that's a good point. No, I haven't played with or against Eldar, I forgot all about the Serpent Shield. Either that rule would need changing (My preference) or else Glancing would still need to remove Hull Points.

arthurfallz
05-09-2013, 20:17
Alter challenges. Give Champions of any sort (those who can issue and accept challenges) a rank. Something like, for example, a simple unit champion in a core choice has Rank One, Elite choices and the like have Rank Two, and HQ choices have Rank Three. You can only issue a Challenge to a rank equal or less than yours, or one above if the challenger passes a Leadership test. Then give a lot of the solitary creatures (who you give a higher Rank to) the option to not be challenged by the lowliest of the lowliest.

Zothos
05-09-2013, 20:26
REMOVE ALLIES FOREVER. Give it up as the horrible money grab/poor design garbage it is.

Armies should have strengths and weaknesses, not strengths and strengths.

Damn I hate Allies...

Menthak
05-09-2013, 20:36
REMOVE ALLIES FOREVER. Give it up as the horrible money grab/poor design garbage it is.

Armies should have strengths and weaknesses, not strengths and strengths.

Damn I hate Allies...

You're right, Astartes would never take to the field with guardsmen :shifty: ridiculous idea, how dare Games-Workshop try something new

Zothos
05-09-2013, 20:39
You're right, Astartes would never take to the field with guardsmen :shifty: ridiculous idea, how dare Games-Workshop try something new

You're right. Marines never go to war without the guard. I am sure Necrons never go without their trusty Helldrakes as well.

Also, it's NOT NEW.

There were allies rules in 2nd edition. I was thrilled to see them go. They sucked then, they suck now.

Ssilmath
05-09-2013, 20:44
There's are big difference between never and rarely, Zothos.

Seriously though, who cares how power gamers abuse the system? If most people can pull a fun and/or fluffy combination out of Allies, isn't that a good enough reason to keep it?

Bloodknight
05-09-2013, 20:49
It's not about the squad of tactical marines joining a guard army that they don't really add anything valuable to, it's about the excessive amount of Eldrads etc. in silly army combinations.

Zothos
05-09-2013, 20:50
There's are big difference between never and rarely, Zothos.

Seriously though, who cares how power gamers abuse the system? If most people can pull a fun and/or fluffy combination out of Allies, isn't that a good enough reason to keep it?

Agreed. I do not intend to come across as snarky as I did.

If the ally rules were made "optional", as in, not allowed in a tournament setting, it wouldn't bother me at all.

In my opinion, ally rules should be for scenarios only.

At the very least, my gaming group banned the allies rules, thankfully.

All in all we all love 6th edition. Most of us have played since either Rogue Trader or 2nd edition. This edition has been the most fun for us since 2nd.

Menthak
05-09-2013, 20:51
You're right. Marines never go to war without the guard. I am sure Necrons never go without their trusty Helldrakes as well.

Also, it's NOT NEW.

There were allies rules in 2nd edition. I was thrilled to see them go. They sucked then, they suck now.

I'm gonna take a pop-psychology guess here and say you've been shafted in a few games by allies.

There is a large difference between getting rid of something because you hate it and getting rid of it because it's imbalanced.

Ssilmath
05-09-2013, 20:52
It's not about the squad of tactical marines joining a guard army that they don't really add anything valuable to, it's about the excessive amount of Eldrads etc. in silly army combinations.

That is entirely on the players. It's not GW's job to tell people to play nice and not act like jerks. And once again, who cares what the powergamesrs do?


Agreed. I do not intend to come across as snarky as I did.

If the ally rules were made "optional", as in, not allowed in a tournament setting, it wouldn't bother me at all.

In my opinion, ally rules should be for scenarios only.

At the very least, my gaming group banned the allies rules, thankfully.

All in all we all love 6th edition. Most of us have played since either Rogue Trader or 2nd edition. This edition has been the most fun for us since 2nd.

Tournaments can ban Allies all they want, they just choose not to. Just like any number of issues I have with tournament organizers, some of the biggest problems people have with the game can be easily fixed at the tournament level with either tourney rules or by changing their behavior and letting the rest of the hobby follow.

Zaszz
05-09-2013, 20:53
I'm actually really happy with the current rule set. I would try to find a way to weaken monstrous creatures slightly though, and improve walkers a bit. Maybe make MC's lose some stats when they lose wounds, like how a vehicle can suffer a weapon destroyed, an MC could lose a limb etc.

For the walkers I think just upping the hull points on them across the board would be great. Probably just by 1.

Bloodknight
05-09-2013, 20:55
of it because it's imbalanced

It's pretty much exactly that. GW isn't really able to keep some sort of intra-book balance well at the moment, and allies add another layer of complexity that they don't get. The Nec/CSM airforce is a good example for that. Always keep in mind that the rules are being balanced by people who say "We never thought anybody would take Lash of Submission twice"...

Zothos
05-09-2013, 20:56
I'm gonna take a pop-psychology guess here and say you've been shafted in a few games by allies.

There is a large difference between getting rid of something because you hate it and getting rid of it because it's imbalanced.

Your guess would be incorrect.;). As I stated above, we don't allow allies around here. It's a sticking point with us we had discussed beginning to do tourneys at more than a local level.

We toyed with allies back in 2nd. It was ... Distasteful. It didn't feel right. Didn't seem to look right on the table either. Just felt silly I suppose.

When 3rd came out, the only thing I liked was that allies had gone away. (Didn't play much 3rd edition in disappointment with that rules set).

Came back heavy in 4th. Each edition since has been better, with 6th being pretty damn good.

Menthak
05-09-2013, 21:05
Your guess would be incorrect.;). As I stated above, we don't allow allies around here. It's a sticking point with us we had discussed beginning to do tourneys at more than a local level.

We toyed with allies back in 2nd. It was ... Distasteful. It didn't feel right. Didn't seem to look right on the table either. Just felt silly I suppose.

When 3rd came out, the only thing I liked was that allies had gone away. (Didn't play much 3rd edition in disappointment with that rules set).

Came back heavy in 4th. Each edition since has been better, with 6th being pretty damn good.

Ah, okay then, but I have to agree with Ssilmath (as usual), they are optional with your friends, games-workshop can't make people be nice

Worldeaters
05-09-2013, 21:12
I think 6th edition isn't that bad, the odd oopsy here and there. I like first blood, its a good counter to having to deploy first/ not getting the final move.

The one i think should change is Single model units shouldn't be allowed/forced to do challenges.

Scribe of Khorne
05-09-2013, 21:13
Removing allies would REQUIRE a re-write of CSM, right now. Daemons should be put back in, just combine the books and be done.

That said, I love allies, adds another layer to the game, and lets armies be different without 100% leaving them high and dry in certain aspects of the game.

Scammel
05-09-2013, 21:18
I personally think allies can detract from army identity a tad too much. I'm firmly of the opinion that a faction is defined as much by what it can't do as opposed to what it can. Allies give many factions options absolutely out the wazoo - you know how Necrons don't get Psykers? Yeah. You know how Tau are reliant on Kroot for CC staying power worth half a damn? Yeah. There's no denying there are some really awesome and fluffy combos out there - IG with any Imperial faction, Daemons with CSM etc - so I think I'd prefer a big curtailing rather than outright removal.

Menthak
05-09-2013, 21:24
I personally think allies can detract from army identity a tad too much. I'm firmly of the opinion that a faction is defined as much by what it can't do as opposed to what it can. Allies give many factions options absolutely out the wazoo - you know how Necrons don't get Psykers? Yeah. You know how Tau are reliant on Kroot for CC staying power worth half a damn? Yeah. There's no denying there are some really awesome and fluffy combos out there - IG with any Imperial faction, Daemons with CSM etc - so I think I'd prefer a big curtailing rather than outright removal.

Kroot aren't any good anymore, I'm giving Tau that.

Scammel
05-09-2013, 21:24
Hence half a damn.

Menthak
05-09-2013, 21:31
Hence half a damn.

Ah, fair enough, sorry, I'm still annoyed about the kroot nerf (It came out of no-where for no reason to nerf a unit that wasn't OP to begin with)

I would love to see a streamlining of the allies system, I don't think certain armies should be paired, or at least with good reason. I think that before you can pair armies you should have to write 2 EDIT: decent paragraphs about why it's happening. :D

Scammel
05-09-2013, 21:37
Ah, fair enough, sorry, I'm still annoyed about the kroot nerf (It came out of no-where for no reason to nerf a unit that wasn't OP to begin with)


DUUHH! Kroot are an assault unit! :p

Ssilmath
05-09-2013, 21:38
Nerf, or given a new role that people don't seem to want to accept?

Scammel
05-09-2013, 21:45
I thought Kroot were solid in terms of the role they fulfilled and were a good lesson in how a given unit becomes so much more or less valuable in different armies. I rather doubt any other books with real CC troops would've touched 'em with a barge pole, but their limited assault starch was much more useful in a book such as the Tau's.

nosebiter
05-09-2013, 21:45
Ah, fair enough, sorry, I'm still annoyed about the kroot nerf (It came out of no-where for no reason to nerf a unit that wasn't OP to begin with)

I would love to see a streamlining of the allies system, I don't think certain armies should be paired, or at least with good reason. I think that before you can pair armies you should have to write 2 paragraphs about why it's happening. :D

The two armies were fighting each other. Then the Nids arrived

Now to avoid being eaten, they are allies.

skorczeny
05-09-2013, 21:52
1. Allies Matrix. This needs to be fixed, not eliminated. Cut the levels of alliance from four to three. Either you 1.) can’t be allies, 2.) Are okay-but-not-so-great allies, or 3.) are full fledged allies. We don’t need two levels of okay-but-not-so-great allies. This will go a long way towards fixing who can and can’t be allies. Would like to see allies be limited to a set percent of the total points being played.

2. The Force Organization Chart. This hasn’t been updated (except for adding fortifications and doubling at 2k) since 3rd edition. Possibly introduce percentages instead of - or in addition to - a set number of slots.

3. Flyers. I’ve heard good things about past editions of imperial armor or something, allowing most vehicle mounted weapons to shoot at flyers to full effect. Also would like to see flying vehicles become their own slot on the FOC, to regulate the # that appear in each game.

5. Challenges. These need to be fixed, not eliminated. I like some of the suggestions regarding limiting to HQ only. What about altering the restrictions on being in a challenge based on the type of characters involved? If a Space Marine Tactical Sergeant (Infantry) challenges a Demon Prince (HQ and MC), the Demon Prince can assign wounds to the Sergeant first, and then once Sergeant is dead, onto the rest of the marine squad. But if IG Company Commander (HQ) or Riptide (MC) challenges a Demon Prince (HQ and MC), the Demon Prince could not assign wounds to the rest of the squad at all, as current rules.

6. ATSKNF special rule. Maybe fix ATSKNF so they don’t get fallback, regroup, and then act normally in their own turn. Limit movement or combat ability in their own turn somehow.

7. Enable assault from stationary vehicles and buildings. Something like… The vehicle can’t move (or pivot) the same turn as assault from vehicle, the charge distance is measured from the access point and models must end move completely within the charge distance. Failed charge? Disembark w/n 2” of the access point charging from. But don't change the current inability to assault from destroyed vehicles.

8. Overwatch. It should not be automatic - it should be a decision somehow… offset by a minor penalty in melee perhaps...

Menthak
05-09-2013, 21:54
The two armies were fighting each other. Then the Nids arrived

Now to avoid being eaten, they are allies.

Touché, read my edit.


I thought Kroot were solid in terms of the role they fulfilled and were a good lesson in how a given unit becomes so much more or less valuable in different armies. I rather doubt any other books with real CC troops would've touched 'em with a barge pole, but their limited assault starch was much more useful in a book such as the Tau's.

Exactly my point, they were never going to take on Terminators or Death Company, but they could hold out for a turn or finish up softer targets.


Nerf, or given a new role that people don't seem to want to accept?

I'll agree with this, I'm uncomfortable with the role they're in now, but lets not derail the thread about how uncomfortable I am with new kroot :)

Knifeparty
05-09-2013, 21:55
-Assault out of transports but suffer from Disordered Charge unless it is an assault vehicle.
-Assault out of reserves but suffer from Disordered Charge.
-Invulnerable saves can be taken after armour saves
-Feel no pain is now a re-roll successful to wound rolls of 5 or 6 if they have feel no pain 5+ for example.
-Challenge mechanic changed.
-Flyers added to Force organization Chart.
-Warlord Traits are chosen, not rolled on.
-Maximum 2 of the same choices per Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support to limit spamming.
-Explosion results are Strength 3 for units embarked in open topped vehicles.
-AP 1 is +1 on the damage chart.
-AP- is -1 on the damage chart.

Needless to say I really dislike this edition.

Ironbone
05-09-2013, 22:04
Always keep in mind that the rules are being balanced by people who say "We never thought anybody would take Lash of Submission twice"...
And thats the reason why they fail so compleatly :shifty: ( aside playtests. If 20 games is "well tested", thats just pathetic). Also - even single lash was uterlly teribble, and yet, taking one, when you can take two, was something close to hardcore fluffy list in 5th :p. Good God how well that lash is history now:p.



3. Random drug tests for Forge World writers
I dont get this one :confused:. Explain ?

Tae
05-09-2013, 22:27
Having read this thread, I have come to just one conclusion:

Thank god I don't live near any of you!

Seriously, I've seen so many 'improvements for 7th Ed that I'm genuinely glad I will never play most of you as I very much doubt either of us would enjoy the game in the slightest. No don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting 6th is perfect (far from it!) but people's 'fixes' are genuinely concerning in that its how they think they would be improvements when, to my mind,they're makin it even worse!

N.B. I'm not saying my 'way' is better, but rather just different and I'm also deliberately not quoting specific examples as people are entitled to their opinions, just I don't agree :p

Menthak
05-09-2013, 22:27
I dont get this one :confused:. Explain ?

Pay attention to forgeworld rules and such and you'll start to get it.

Bloodknight
05-09-2013, 22:33
I don't get it either, 90% of FW's stuff is less ridiculous than what makes it into codices these days.

Carlosophy
05-09-2013, 22:35
i wonder if gw are that bothered by overly competitive gamers who abuse a system they created to allow players to take cool allied forces, such as Marines and Guard or Chaos and Daemons? why should they punish all of us because a certain subset of players decide to play the system rather than the game? Im a teacher and I dont punish the 80% who obey the rules and get on with it. GW is the same, offering codex sublists and cool campaign books to those of us who like that sort of thing.

sonsoftherock
05-09-2013, 23:03
Plenty of interesting ideas here, just a quick thought from me.
Allow cover saves against markerlights (since cover includes concealment and it is just as hard to hit with a markerlight as a lasrifle).

TheBearminator
05-09-2013, 23:22
Stop being so digital. Don't overdo things. "Yeah, we understood players thought it was tough to take down vehicles in CC so we made all attacks hit easier ans against back amour." Wow. Ever thought of a compromise, like side armour or front armour - 1? "Yes, we've understood people found close combat was to powerful in 5th, so we decided to make 6th the edition where CC sucks donkey balls"?" Good job GW, now could you now try making som subtle changes and improvements to CC without murdering something else in 7th?

And while you're at it, do something interesting out of walkers.

Ssilmath
05-09-2013, 23:32
"Yes, we've understood people found close combat was to powerful in 5th, so we decided to make 6th the edition where CC sucks donkey balls"?" Good job GW, now could you now try making som subtle changes and improvements to CC without murdering something else in 7th?

It's almost like the knew that shooting would be much stronger this edition, and put rules in the terrain section that increased the amount on the board. And then added a caveat that the players should discuss the terrain and rearrange it until they had a board that suited their tastes and would make the game fun. Nah, they'd never do a thing like that, right?

Menthak
05-09-2013, 23:49
It's almost like the knew that shooting would be much stronger this edition, and put rules in the terrain section that increased the amount on the board. And then added a caveat that the players should discuss the terrain and rearrange it until they had a board that suited their tastes and would make the game fun. Nah, they'd never do a thing like that, right?

Burn.


And while you're at it, do something interesting out of walkers.

Like make them something other than quasi-useful gun platforms? That'd be nice

Bubble Ghost
05-09-2013, 23:58
I don't get it either, 90% of FW's stuff is less ridiculous than what makes it into codices these days.

The problem isn't that Forge World stuff is too powerful per se, because it usually isn't. The problem is that everyone who ever wrote house rules when they were 14 will recognise parts of themselves in Forge World's worst excesses: po-faced attempts to justify with fluff rationalisations rules that amount to "+1 this, +1 that, +2 this and that, four of them, this that and the other special rule and a missile launcher on its head." The fact that you generally pay a points premium for it isn't really the point - I was referring to the way Forge World authors seem to operate in a sort of anarchic wilderness where they feel they can bend the rules at whim, and the way this sometimes creates some jarring juxtapositions when you put their creations next to codex ones, "balanced for the points" or not.

Commissar Merces
06-09-2013, 01:42
A lot of the suggestions here are good, but there are some very army specific ones as well that are obvious fanboating.

The main reason I am pushing the assault from outflank is due to the common sense of it. Did Gandalf get to charge from outflank? Did Rohan? I know these are silly examples but they illustrate a point. Right now shooty outflankers do their job, but assaulty ones just get blown to bits.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 01:58
A lot of the suggestions here are good, but there are some very army specific ones as well that are obvious fanboating.

The main reason I am pushing the assault from outflank is due to the common sense of it. Did Gandalf get to charge from outflank? Did Rohan? I know these are silly examples but they illustrate a point. Right now shooty outflankers do their job, but assaulty ones just get blown to bits.

What happens in movies has little bearing on how a game should proceed. And for the record, that charge at Helm's Deep would have ended in impaled horsed and a shattered charge had the sun not risen at exactly he right moment (Gandalf has good timing I guess). If my Leman Russ can see and spot the enemy in ruins across the board, why can't it see that big mess of Chaos Bikers that magically appear 2 inches away from the other side of the magic board edge?

Ultimately though, it's down to game balance. Shooting can do some damage, but it does not provide a complete safe zone like being in melee does nor does it carry the game changing impact of a Sweeping Advance. I realize those two advantages are mutually exclusive, but they are both pretty significant for a unit that takes no risk beyond an overwatch (Hahaha) to do a disproportionate amount of damage and completely remove an extremely valuable unit from the game. It's just too much reward for too little risk, in my opinion.

Menthak
06-09-2013, 02:46
A lot of the suggestions here are good, but there are some very army specific ones as well that are obvious fanboating.

The main reason I am pushing the assault from outflank is due to the common sense of it. Did Gandalf get to charge from outflank? Did Rohan? I know these are silly examples but they illustrate a point. Right now shooty outflankers do their job, but assaulty ones just get blown to bits.

Assuming that one turn is 6 seconds, I think the Orcs got at least three, maybe four turns of shooting first, they just routed after the first turn of combat and got a 30000+ unit cut down in a sweeping advance.

I agree with your point, it's just hard not to be pedantic.

MajorWesJanson
06-09-2013, 03:03
ATSKNF: Pass regoup tests automatically as long as the unit is over 25%. Less than, must pass a normal leadership test to regroup. May then consolodate 3", then shoot and/or delcare charges normally. If caught by a sweeping advance, make a leadership test- if passed, the unit is engaged in combat, if failed, the unit is destroyed as normal. Immune to Fear.

Still strong, but no longer totally ignores regrouping and assault result rules. No free 3" move and normal 6" movement.

AngryAngel
06-09-2013, 04:03
Ok here is the question, were outflanking assaulters really that game breaking ? I never thought so. If you knew they were coming you could plan around/against them. All this change did for me, was making CC wolf scouts pointless, and completely neuter my web way traveling dark elder army, as if over watch didn't already do that. Holding in mind, I have multiple armies. Two of which aren't really CC, being Guard and Tau, still, no assaulting out of reserve is pants.

Scammel
06-09-2013, 06:26
What happens in movies has little bearing on how a game should proceed.

Sorry, had to pick you up on this - GW have gone on and on about how this edition has been heavily influenced by exactly what happens in movies. 'Cinematic' and all that?

T10
06-09-2013, 07:54
Can't believe I forgot first blood. Yeah, that has GOT to go or at least change it so both armies can get first blood. I can't believe this hasn't been changed already.

I was about to ask how this could be implemented without making it an automatic +1 VP per side, but I guess what would perhaps work would be a Parting Shots objective, i.e. the last unit to be destroyed before the game ende grants +1 VP to the enemy.

-T10

Ironbone
06-09-2013, 09:31
A lot of the suggestions here are good, but there are some very army specific ones as well that are obvious fanboating.

Like for example :p ?


Ok here is the question, were outflanking assaulters really that game breaking ?
Depends on army. 1-2 penal legionares in outflank maybe just but meh, even with assoult. 4-5 WS bikes squads, wolf scouts, or chaos rerminators ( trait is random ? Tell that to huron ) are pain even without assoult. Ssilmath (http://www.warseer.com/forums/member.php?87494-Ssilmath) have a good point - assoult after outflank may not always be game winning, but brings too much reward for too low risk. Now with no assoult and interceptor, outflank is still good tactical manover, but at least bring risk equal for reward.

Camman1984
06-09-2013, 10:32
Assault from outflank was crazy good in some armies hands, could decimate an armies firebase too easily for no reply. I used to rip people apart with my genestealers for example. I do think there should be some reply because although some units may be able to sneak up behind the enemy unnoticed, a 50 man guard blob including all the trimmings would be hard to hide 3 inches away from the enemy.

daveNYC
06-09-2013, 10:51
Like for example :p ?


Depends on army. 1-2 penal legionares in outflank maybe just but meh, even with assoult. 4-5 WS bikes squads, wolf scouts, or chaos rerminators ( trait is random ? Tell that to huron ) are pain even without assoult. Ssilmath (http://www.warseer.com/forums/member.php?87494-Ssilmath) have a good point - assoult after outflank may not always be game winning, but brings too much reward for too low risk. Now with no assoult and interceptor, outflank is still good tactical manover, but at least bring risk equal for reward.

No assault and interceptor I think swing it too far in the other direction. No assault means that you have to hide and/or eat shooting for a turn, and that the other player gets to shuffle units around to react. Interceptor means you can get shot as soon as you show up. One or the other would be better.

My personal wish for 7th? Switch to a d10 system so the die matches the stat range. Never gonna happen. I'll settle for non-random warlord traits and psyker powers. Let my army be my army, not my army plus what the d6 gets me.

Nym
06-09-2013, 11:17
Assault from outflank was crazy good in some armies hands, could decimate an armies firebase too easily for no reply
That was true only against bad players though... Any decent player knew how to deploy a squad along the table edge and auto-destroy units that tried to Outflank, or sacrifice a weak and cheap unit to absorb the charge.

Assault from regular reserves should also come back. Counter-attack units *need* to be able to charge from reserves in order to be of any use.

ehlijen
06-09-2013, 11:59
That was true only against bad players though... Any decent player knew how to deploy a squad along the table edge and auto-destroy units that tried to Outflank, or sacrifice a weak and cheap unit to absorb the charge.

Assault from regular reserves should also come back. Counter-attack units *need* to be able to charge from reserves in order to be of any use.

No they don't need that. Counterattack units just need to be well positioned near likely targets. The idea that a unit needs to be able to strike out of nowhere, ideally with free choice where on a long stretch of board to enter from, in order to be effective needs to die.

Ironbone
06-09-2013, 12:04
Any decent player knew how to deploy a squad along the table edge and auto-destroy units that tried to Outflank, or sacrifice a weak and cheap unit to absorb the charge.
Tried this tactics several times, and i can say only :

Its not working.

To deny outflank of depolyment, you will have to cover whole side tabe boards. Thats twice 48", no army have enough models, not mobility to do so. If i depoly my units to cover tabe boards, enemy will simply pop-up elswhere.

Baaltor
06-09-2013, 12:15
That was true only against bad players though... Any decent player knew how to deploy a squad along the table edge and auto-destroy units that tried to Outflank, or sacrifice a weak and cheap unit to absorb the charge.

Assault from regular reserves should also come back. Counter-attack units *need* to be able to charge from reserves in order to be of any use.

I could say that any decent player knows how to compensate for a turn of inactivity with his counter assaulters. Why do they need to assault from reserves? How is it necessary? Is it not enough for the unit to appear so far up, unscarred, and be able to react so accurately to the flow of the battle, with the only cost being to hide, or weather a round of fire?

I remember last edition when Kevin's tyranids crept inevitably from the flanks in our games. He always did it, a fact itself evident that such a thing was too good, and to avoid the assault, I found I had to position near the middle of the rather large board. There wasn't much playing for either of us with all things considered, we could just assume that he took no fire and appeared where he wanted with no risk.

MajorWesJanson
06-09-2013, 12:39
Why do they need to assault from reserves? How is it necessary? Is it not enough for the unit to appear so far up, unscarred, and be able to react so accurately to the flow of the battle, with the only cost being to hide, or weather a round of fire?

Some of the issue is that shooty units that outflank get to shoot on the turn they arrive, thus getting full effectiveness, while assault units have to weather a turn of shooting before they can be effective.

nosebiter
06-09-2013, 12:42
Flyers!!!! At least put them in a seperate foc section. Split them up in slow and fast flyers. Slow stay on table, helicopter style, are easier to hit then fast flyers, but slower and more heavily armed. Fast flyers enter and exit the table in the same turn.

Walkers - Either they are all MC's or they are vehicles. One rule to rule them all. For me they should be vehicles. Yes that means u Riptide and wraithknight!!

Cover - give a to hit penalty instead of a save.

T10
06-09-2013, 13:02
Charging from reserves is a great idea because it allows close combat unit to safely approach and destroy enemy targets.
Charging from reserves is a horrible idea because it allows close combat unit to safely approach and destroy enemy targets.

-T10

Bamfpanda
06-09-2013, 13:33
I want challenges gone forever. I dont think we need assault after outflanking but giving some units a special rule that allows them to do so would be good. There should be units that can do that in 40k. Units like Kommandos and Genestealers not being able to assault is ludicrous.

Cheeslord
06-09-2013, 13:37
I would like to see current wound allocation gone, as it has destroyed my local gaming group.

Mark.

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 14:58
Charging from reserves is a great idea because it allows close combat unit to safely approach and destroy enemy targets.
Charging from reserves is a horrible idea because it allows close combat unit to safely approach and destroy enemy targets.

-T10

That's definitely a good summary...

The root problem here is that 40K's turn sequence creates obstacles, perfectly navigable ones, which the rest of the game often fails to address. We've gone from a situation where you can automatically delete units or gain invulnerabilty after outflanking, which is completely stupid and very unfair to the defending player, to one where the outflanking unit is made to jump around shouting and waving saying "HERE WE ARE, FIRE AT US PLEASE" before they do anything. This is not as silly as it was before (Commisser Merces rhetorically asks "the main reason I am pushing the assault from outflank is due to the common sense of it. Did Gandalf get to charge from outflank?", to which I rhetorically respond "did the orcs have assault rifles?"). But it is still slightly silly, and robs many units of their schtick, and the game of a dimension.

These could easily be made to meet halfway, smoothing over the rough edges caused by an IGO-UGO system, if GW had a mind to do it. This is why I suggested units arriving from reserve getting Shrouded for a turn unless they themselves shoot - to represent the element of surprise, and thus intuitively provide ambushing units with a little stealth, but without completely overcooking it and ruining the game, as allowing assaults does. I'm not saying I'm a genius and this is THE way to fix it - just anything along those lines, with the aim of acknowledging that while our tabletop representation of the battle is turn based, the battle itself is not. Just because it's not your turn right now, doesn't mean your unit is not still sneaking or charging. They don't stand still and let the other side fire at them.



In the spirit of the thread, I'll put my money where my mouth is:


The Element of Surprise

An Infantry, Cavalry or Beasts unit (or Jump varieties of those) which:

-Destroys, or forces to flee, all of its close combat opponents
-Arrives from reserve without having been embarked on a transport vehicle
-Has the Infiltrate rule when the game begins

gains the Element of Surprise. A unit with the element of surprise has the Shrouded rule, and all charges against it are disordered. Once gained, the unit has the element of surprise until the end of the following turn, or until it takes any action other than running in the shooting phase.




I should add that I would also allow anyone to choose to fail morale tests in combat, to end this "hoping to fail" nonsense - the above is partly to compensate for this.

Herkamer63
06-09-2013, 15:11
I like the idea for some units to be able to assault out of reserves. Genestealers in particular. Since they have no ranged weapons, at least this would be a great compensation. Maybe even do the same with mandrakes, though once you kill a unit, you can shoot with them. But it would increase their effectiveness. Just come up with a rule like "fast charge" or something for those who are known in the game that are known, or suppose to be, fast.

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 15:29
But it would increase their effectiveness.

That by itself is not a good enough reason to change anything.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 15:29
Alternatively, you could say that no infiltrators can move into the enemy deployment zone in the movement phase that they arrive, but can otherwise move, shoot and charge normally. Keeps them from completely screwing armies like Guard but keeps them efficient and deadly and able to engage people in the front ranks.

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 15:53
Alternatively, you could say that no infiltrators can move into the enemy deployment zone in the movement phase that they arrive, but can otherwise move, shoot and charge normally.

That kind of stops those kinds of units from doing what you'd think would be the very thing they're intended for, doesn't it..? I mean, infiltration implies, you know, infiltration...

gwarsh41
06-09-2013, 15:58
I would like to see current wound allocation gone, as it has destroyed my local gaming group.

Mark.

Really? I find it to be much easier. With shooting you wound the closest, in melee you kill them one at a time per round. With good tactics you can still move wounds around on multi wound models, but you cannot do the mixed wargear crap from 5th.


I agree with whoever said that cover saves should be on a to hit mod of some sort. Currently it is easier to balance and use, but it makes absolutely no sense. Things like marker lights would just have "ignore cover" on them. Though it would also make nurgle armies more resilient. Consider a blight drone in hover mode moving 12". I think it would get either a +2 or +3 save, then it gets a ++5 invul on top of that, THEN it has feel no pain. Or if it is flying it would only have a +5 cover, +5 invul and +5 feel no pain. That would be tough to balance.

Honestly the one thing I want to see most of is fast clarification on rules issues. Things like the Daemons flaming chariot not being able to move and shoot due. If they didn't want it to move and shoot, they could have just said, "this weapon cannot fire after moving" but instead it is this crazy, the gun is on a passenger and a heavy template or some crap.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 16:07
That kind of stops those kinds of units from doing what you'd think would be the very thing they're intended for, doesn't it..? I mean, infiltration implies, you know, infiltration...

Not really. Infiltration implies that they got close without being seen (Though how this can apply to Rhinos, Bikers or other such units is beyond my ability to explain). They can still get close without being shot to bits, they just don't get to play whack a mole behind enemy lines. The player on the receiving end still only has to protect the front, not have a 18 inch exclusion zone on each side of his own deployment (Nearly impossible for Guard, or even some foot Marine builds without being ordnance fodder). So it kind of compromises between the two.

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 16:12
Not really. Infiltration implies that they got close without being seen (Though how this can apply to Rhinos, Bikers or other such units is beyond my ability to explain). They can still get close without being shot to bits, they just don't get to play whack a mole behind enemy lines.

Thank you.:p

All I was saying is that your go-to phrase there probably exists for a reason, and it would be a shame to solve the problem of such a trope being too silly or powerful by preventing troops who ought to evoke it from doing so, rather than just finding a way of allowing them to do it fairly.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 16:22
Thank you.:p

All I was saying is that your go-to phrase there probably exists for a reason, and it would be a shame to solve the problem of such a trope being too silly or powerful by preventing troops who ought to evoke it from doing so, rather than just finding a way of allowing them to do it fairly.

It depends entirely on how much historical weight you give to the concept. Flank attacks on a battlefield level primarily come from fast units circling around well after the initial lines have clashed and were primarily psychological in value. Against an undisciplined foe, the troops on the flanked side (Usually charged by cavalry) would panic and retreat, collapsing the entire line. In a modern setting, such tactics are not nearly as effective until you get to the strategic level, when flank attacks force retreats due to threatening supply lines. Honestly, the outflank mechanic as it exists makes very little sense considering the technology and tactics of the setting, because there is no "line" to be locked in place to let those fast units circle around. Some units, like Kommandos, Wolf Scouts or Mandrakes make sense, but maybe the rule itself is improperly applied. Maybe Outflank should be a specific rule that doesn't apply to units that have no business being so sneaky they can get past an advancing line without being engaged (Keeping in mind that the edges of the table are not the edge of the world, and the battleline would quite likely extend out for quite a ways).

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 16:36
Flank attacks on a battlefield level primarily come from fast units circling around well after the initial lines have clashed and were primarily psychological in value. Against an undisciplined foe, the troops on the flanked side (Usually charged by cavalry) would panic and retreat, collapsing the entire line. In a modern setting, such tactics are not nearly as effective until you get to the strategic level, when flank attacks force retreats due to threatening supply lines. Honestly, the outflank mechanic as it exists makes very little sense considering the technology and tactics of the setting, because there is no "line" to be locked in place to let those fast units circle around.

I know that, I agree, and I consider it all the more reason not to place weird arbitrary blocks on appearing in deployment zones.

I just don't like that proposed solution. That's all. It would solve a problem, but with undesirable collateral effects - a bit like the current situation, with the bar on charging, does.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 16:46
I know that, I agree, and I consider it all the more reason not to place weird arbitrary blocks on appearing in deployment zones.

I just don't like that proposed solution. That's all. It would solve a problem, but with undesirable collateral effects - a bit like the current situation, with the bar on charging, does.

Not to argue that my solution is best, but I am curious why you don't like it. It serves the purpose of getting units in place while shielding them from being attacked, gives an element of surprise but doesn't completely screw over armies who have no real defense against it and will fold swiftly when somebody shows up in their deployment zone. Even if you can't move into it in the movement phase, you'd still be able to charge into it for your deep penetration. It would also put a similar (So fair) restriction on shooting, preventing side shots on tanks or easy positioning for killing the heavy weapons carriers in squads.

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 17:32
Not to argue that my solution is best, but I am curious why you don't like it.

Like I said, I think it stops infiltrating/outflanking units from doing something it feels like they ought to be able to do. I think that's an innately less preferable approach to just making that thing more fair so that you don't need to ban it in the first place.



Even if you can't move into it in the movement phase, you'd still be able to charge into it for your deep penetration.

And what good does it do you at that point? Too late. This still doesn't evoke the kind of commando raids that outflanking seems intended to.



It would also put a similar (So fair) restriction on shooting, preventing side shots on tanks or easy positioning for killing the heavy weapons carriers in squads.

So you want to stop outflanking units from... outflanking things...?

This kind of demonstrates my first two points. You're solving a problem with outflanking by removing the things that make it outflanking. You're not changing a lot from 5th ed with this - you're just making that inexplicable no-go zone at the sides of the table slightly smaller, and cramping the style of the outflankers while you're at it.

So yeah, that's why I'm not keen on it. Like I said, it undeniably (half) addresses the problem with charging outflankers from 5th ed, but in so doing removes a dimension from the game. For me, that's too high a price. And I'm one of the staunchest no-charging-from-reserve die hards you'll find.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 17:42
My point is, the outflankers wouldn't be able to reach the deployment zone in the first place. For sneaky units, it makes sense and I could see them having a special rule, but it makes no sense that fast units would get behind enemy lines without being engaged by the rest of the force that exists outside of the magic box that the table edges create. If most of the action takes place in the center of the table (Which I would like to see rules changes encourage), then they're still outflanking the action. They don't just pop up and say "Surprise, we hid Terminators/Bikers/a Rhino/A Leman Russ squadron behind those bushes! Aren't we crafty?"

Charistoph
06-09-2013, 17:45
How about this for a concept?

Outflankers and Infiltrators may Charge on the turn they arrive, but it is a Disordered Charge.

Models how have disembarked from a vehicle which has not moved that turn or a building may Charge as normal.

Models who have disembarked from a vehicle which traveled at Combat Speed prior to Disembarking that turn may Charge, but it is a Disordered Charge.

Open Topped Vehicles are treated as 1 speed lower than they traveled for Disembarking. i.e. If you Cruised, the unit that disembarks may make a Disordered Charge, if the Transport went Combat, a normal Charge is available.

Units with Fleet treat Vehicles as Open Topped for purposes of Disembarking.

Units that arrive via Deep Strike or Disembark from a vehicle that just Deep Striked, may not Charge that turn and all shots are Snap Fired, as they gain their bearings.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 17:53
The problem with that is, disordered or not, a charge has completely taken a unit out of the game. The charging unit has also achieved a safe haven from any and all shooting, and the way the rules work right now Disordered Charges actually benefit assault units by delaying the wiping out of enemy squads until the opponents turn.

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 17:58
For sneaky units, it makes sense and I could see them having a special rule

Fair enough. I think you're jumping through fifteen hoops of rationalisation when jumping through one would do, though.



If most of the action takes place in the center of the table (Which I would like to see rules changes encourage)

I wouldn't. There are some units for which advancing much is inappropriate, and those are the very ones you'd think many outflankers would have been detailed to target.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 18:08
I wouldn't. There are some units for which advancing much is inappropriate, and those are the very ones you'd think many outflankers would have been detailed to target.

How are they getting there?

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 18:21
How are they getting there?

This is why there are dice rolls for when reserves appear and which table edge outflankers arrive on.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 18:24
This is why there are dice rolls for when reserves appear and which table edge outflankers arrive on.

So, nobody else on the battlefield was able to spot them and give warning or engage? The world just ends at the table edge, and people can teleport behind my line at full strength, full speed and without being spotted?

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 18:46
So, nobody else on the battlefield was able to spot them and give warning or engage? The world just ends at the table edge, and people can teleport behind my line at full strength, full speed and without being spotted?

Absolutely not - and that's why you can't charge after outflanking, and why you might goof your outflanking roll. But in a turn-based game, you must, at some point, concede that somebody is going to have to shoot first. The reserve and outflanking rolls show us that something was indeed going on beyond the edges of the table - there is already enough of a reflection of that.

Personally, I wouldn't complain if outflanking carried the risk of a couple of casualties to evoke the sort of thing you're talking about, but I don't think it's really necessary for 40K's level of detail. Short of playing a totally separate game just to resolve the outflanking action, you've got to draw a line somewhere.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 18:50
Hey, I'd prefer no assault from outflank myself, just throwing ideas for how to incorporate it, find a balance with the ability for damage that shooting can cause while also not screwing over various armies/factions. If nothing else, this should highlight the difficulty in developing a rules system that people seem to think is as easy as throwing words on paper.

Kijamon
06-09-2013, 18:51
Not that bothered about many changes as the game is fairly fluid still.

The only change I want is to add a rule similar to overkill in Fantasy for challenges.

How many times have you had a monstrous creature do 5-6 wounds on a 1 wound model in combat and stood there for a turn doing nothing? It's a 6 turn game on average with at most 13 assault phases if you are very quick. Having a model kill someone 5-6 times over only for a -1ld to the enemy leadership is stupid.

ehlijen
06-09-2013, 19:07
My proposal for outflanking (and indeed all reserves) would be:
-reserves arrive a turn earlier, but do so in the end phase (ie no shooting or charging that turn)
-they cannot be shot or charged in the following enemy turn
-they act normal in their first proper turn after that

This allows reserves to retain first strike, but gives the enemy a chance to adjust their deployment to mitigate this new threat.

Bubble Ghost
06-09-2013, 19:20
Hey, I'd prefer no assault from outflank myself, just throwing ideas for how to incorporate it, find a balance with the ability for damage that shooting can cause while also not screwing over various armies/factions.

I get you. I just think that it's a huge misconception that the damage that close combat can cause after outflanking even needs to be balanced with the damage shooting can cause, as far as the turn of arrival is concerned. It stands to reason that you're going to get fired at before you're able to charge, that is the relative nature of guns and swords. That's why I think some sort of modest defence for the outflanking unit, reflecting stealth or suprise, to protect them while they get into position, is a better option that trying to find a 'balanced' way to crowbar in a concept that doesn't really belong at all.

Giving all units Interceptor up to a certain range might be interesting too. Would add a resource management element to which 'guards' you put where, and there would be a tradeoff involved in using that ability.



My proposal for outflanking (and indeed all reserves) would be:
-reserves arrive a turn earlier, but do so in the end phase (ie no shooting or charging that turn)
-they cannot be shot or charged in the following enemy turn
-they act normal in their first proper turn after that

This allows reserves to retain first strike, but gives the enemy a chance to adjust their deployment to mitigate this new threat.

That would feel very, very weird. I can also see there being odd ways to shenanigans it, making it feel even more strange. Bring your reserves in and ring fence a unit you don't want to be charged. That sort of thing.

Charistoph
06-09-2013, 19:31
The problem with that is, disordered or not, a charge has completely taken a unit out of the game. The charging unit has also achieved a safe haven from any and all shooting, and the way the rules work right now Disordered Charges actually benefit assault units by delaying the wiping out of enemy squads until the opponents turn.
How does a charge completely take a unit out of the game? It can remove it from a Phase (if successful), but then, every unit is always missing out on at least one Phase in the game at some point of the game or another.

And so long as we have random Charge ranges, there is no guarantee an Outflanker is going to be able to make a successful Charge, especially when you factor proper positioning, Terrain, and the affects of Overwatch.

Shooting Outflanker still have an advantage as their range of affect will (with some exceptions) always be better than an Assaulting unit when they arrive.



-reserves arrive a turn earlier, but do so in the end phase (ie no shooting or charging that turn)
How do they arrive a turn earlier? Lower number? Temporal dice rolling?


-they cannot be shot or charged in the following enemy turn
-they act normal in their first proper turn after that

This allows reserves to retain first strike, but gives the enemy a chance to adjust their deployment to mitigate this new threat.
I'm sorry, but that is a little convoluted and could be hard to remember, and aside from repositioning, which could only be minor, there isn't much difference here between earlier.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 19:36
How does a charge completely take a unit out of the game? It removes it from a Phase, but then, every unit is always missing out on at least one Phase in the game at some point of the game or another.

Locked in combat means no moving, no shooting and no support aside from charging. It also makes the charging unit immune to shooting for the duration of the combat. A small squad of Genestealers charging from infiltration will completely remove a Devastator/Broadside/whatever support unit from at least 1 turn of shooting provided a single Steal survives. Shooting might be strong, but it rarely has a similar effect outside of a well placed Ordnance shot which can be seen, avoided, sat in cover to save against or shot beforehand.

Menthak
06-09-2013, 19:38
I would like to see current wound allocation gone, as it has destroyed my local gaming group.

Mark.

I know this is a few pages late, but why is that? I always hated 5th's wound allocations system, causing nobz to become invincible, or for the last man in each squad to carry a melta or a plasma gun.

ehlijen
06-09-2013, 20:19
How do they arrive a turn earlier? Lower number? Temporal dice rolling?


I'm sorry, but that is a little convoluted and could be hard to remember, and aside from repositioning, which could only be minor, there isn't much difference here between earlier.

How? By making the rules say you roll for arrival a turn earlier than they do now.

And how is it convoluted?
Your reserves arrive, you place them at the table edge or deepstrike them (no movement either, it's the end phase; so no fencing other units) then you pretend it's not there until the next turn. Then you continue normally.

And one movement phase to react is a big difference. It means instead of side armour, you can make your front face that meltagun. Instead of a squishy fire support unit, the only thing in charge range is now a beefy counterassault unit. Instead of the squad leader being the closest target when your guns open up, you have to get through many mooks because the opponent rearranged his squad to counter.
One turn of movement has never been as potent against outflankers as it is in 6th ed.

Charistoph
06-09-2013, 20:23
Locked in combat means no moving, no shooting and no support aside from charging. It also makes the charging unit immune to shooting for the duration of the combat. A small squad of Genestealers charging from infiltration will completely remove a Devastator/Broadside/whatever support unit from at least 1 turn of shooting provided a single Steal survives. Shooting might be strong, but it rarely has a similar effect outside of a well placed Ordnance shot which can be seen, avoided, sat in cover to save against or shot beforehand.

It may mean no moving. It largely depends on how successful the Charge and Combat were. And if an Assault Unit isn't in combat, they're not living up to their potential as much as a Guard blob squad playing patty-cake with a Grey Knight Terminator.

And if 25% casualties are had, that Assault unit could be running for the hills and 'out of the game' even more than the Shooty unit engaged in Combat.

Your complaints are coming out more of a "Shooty Units are the only priority, and nothing should interfere" attitude than trying to allow for a balanced game which allow equal emphasis on Ranged Warfare and Combat.

Ssilmath
06-09-2013, 20:34
It may mean no moving. It largely depends on how successful the Charge and Combat were. And if an Assault Unit isn't in combat, they're not living up to their potential as much as a Guard blob squad playing patty-cake with a Grey Knight Terminator.

And if 25% casualties are had, that Assault unit could be running for the hills and 'out of the game' even more than the Shooty unit engaged in Combat.

Your complaints are coming out more of a "Shooty Units are the only priority, and nothing should interfere" attitude than trying to allow for a balanced game which allow equal emphasis on Ranged Warfare and Combat.

Right, cause that's it. I just want shooting to roll all over melee. You've summed up my argument in it's entirety. :rolleyes:

Cause shooting imposes a -1 penalty for every model killed, can wipe out a squad in the middle of the board by causing a single casualty and gives complete immunity to being assaulted afterwards, right?

Sarcasm aside, the impact of charging after outflanking is head and shoulders above the impact of a unit shooting after outflank. A single unit charging can tie up 2+ squads or kill 2+ tanks, which is something shooting units can't match either.

Surgency
06-09-2013, 20:39
Require 50% terrain. Then people wouldn't complain about assault being dead

Yes, I know that second part is pure wishlisting, but oh well

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Ironbone
06-09-2013, 21:32
Then people wouldn't complain about assault being dead
Especialy if their whinig is baseless. Close combat was hit hard, no doubt, but still is part of the games, that none army, no matter how wishfulthinking about "deadness" of assoult they are, can not ignore. Disbalance between close combat and shooting was terribly in favour of the first in 4th ed, less, but still much too much in 5th, and now finaly( at damm @#^&&(&!* last :shifty:), proportions are kind of balanced. Assoult is not dead, is simply diffrent than in the past. Deal with it :evilgrin:.

Sgt John Keel
06-09-2013, 21:44
Locked in combat means no moving, no shooting and no support aside from charging. It also makes the charging unit immune to shooting for the duration of the combat. A small squad of Genestealers charging from infiltration will completely remove a Devastator/Broadside/whatever support unit from at least 1 turn of shooting provided a single Steal survives. Shooting might be strong, but it rarely has a similar effect outside of a well placed Ordnance shot which can be seen, avoided, sat in cover to save against or shot beforehand.

I don't think this is a bad thing. It's nice that shooting and close combat works differently and have different benefits. Having close combat be zero-range shooting would be rather boring, in my opinion. Removing a shooting phase from the unit also makes sense on a time scale, since a unit not encumbered with dealing with a ravaging genestealer would likely have more time to shoot at stuff.

Now, having close combat being fought every player turn and shooting only every other may make less sense.

Anyway, changes:

Snap shots. Change the rule to only allowing half the shots rounding up or something, penalising everybody equally.

The Nightfight rules are annoying and Eldar vehicles with 2+ cover saves are ridiculous. Possibly give everything beyond 12" +1 cover and halve the range of all weapons, with snap shots allowed up to full range.

Remove challenges and count all attacks made by characters in close combat as precision attacks instead.

Allow assaults out of stationary vehicles.

Allow look out, sir! for characters not in a unit but within 6" of one.

Give vehicles armour saves and make monstrous creatures use a damage chart. Honestly I would prefer that all multiwound models and vehicles became crippled when reduced to half wounds/hit points and halved their attacks, move as in difficult terrain and can only fire snap shots instead of the damage chart.

Jump Packs can be used in both the assault phase and the movement phase.

Non-random psychic powers.

Psychic hoods becoming reasonably useful again (admittedly less of an issue with 60 pt Librarians than 100 pt Librarians) and working on the enemy's blessings. Would 5+ Deny the Witch on all enemy powers used on units within 12" be too much?

All of this benefits Blood Angels, you say? Well, I never!

SpanielBear
06-09-2013, 21:45
On the outflanking/deepstrike debate, how about keeping no assault, and all shooting is snap-fire? Blast weapons can still be used, but scatter full distance, no BS reduction. Stops shooty outflanking units being so much better than their compatriots, and makes the rule more about deployment and bypassing shooting, as it should be.

I am also keen to see assault from stationary vehicles.

lordreaven448
06-09-2013, 22:22
The changes I would ask for would be pretty big (and kick Marines in the nads) so it would never happen.

1: The Fantasy army composition table. Have to take a a certain % as troops, a certain % allowed to be taken from all the other choices. What would this mean in this current edition? In fantasy it's 25% of your force HAS to be Core (troops), 25% Maximum can be spent on HQ (at 1000 points that would mean only 250 points for ALL HQ's), 25% to 50% on special (Specials would be a combined Elites-Fast attack option 40k wise) and 25% allowed on Rare (which would be a mix of heavy support and really powerful Fast attack options like Flyers).

This change would help minimize the "Min-Max" like 2 cultists and 3 Heldrakes and 9 Obliteraters. It would not stop it but would help bring a semblance of balance back. Another thing of note is that I do not know of any Fantasy book that swaps units to other slots (if I'm wrong let me know which book).

2: No more cover saves. Bring back to hit modifiers so even Space Marines can enjoy the benefits (because I would kick them in the nads with changes to ATSKNF). This would would also see special rules like Night fighting/Night Vision/Searchlights actually matter and would make BS 6-10 be worth a damn.

3: LD nerfs across the board. This was partially done with C:CD as the highest LD in the book was 9. Now sure they ignore all LD rules, but instability means that LD value does not go to waste and actually matters with a lost combat. Space Marines ATSKNF is the biggest offender for horrible Fanboyism rules writing. I would change it to "Immune to Fear", that's it.

4: Close combat needs outnumbering back (WHY DD THEY GET RID OF THAT?!), and other modifiers to make it more interesting. It is a mess right now and is one of the reasons I'm starting Fantasy.

5: Psychic powers. What a interesting system Fantasy has (not good, not bad, but interesting) and GW still somehow managed to screw it up so it's bad and not interesting. First why of all things make it based on LD tests? All it does is make it harder to make LD worth a damn when almost every Psyker is LD 9-10 (Do you think Ward or any other writer would give ANY Psyker LD8 or below?!). And that's not even getting to disciplines themselves or "Deny the Witch".

I would go on more but I'm not going to bother. The next edition of 40k will just be another price hike and broken rules.

Menthak
06-09-2013, 22:34
The changes I would ask for would be pretty big (and kick Marines in the nads) so it would never happen.

1: The Fantasy army composition table. Have to take a a certain % as troops, a certain % allowed to be taken from all the other choices. What would this mean in this current edition? In fantasy it's 25% of your force HAS to be Core (troops), 25% Maximum can be spent on HQ (at 1000 points that would mean only 250 points for ALL HQ's), 25% to 50% on special (Specials would be a combined Elites-Fast attack option 40k wise) and 25% allowed on Rare (which would be a mix of heavy support and really powerful Fast attack options like Flyers).

This change would help minimize the "Min-Max" like 2 cultists and 3 Heldrakes and 9 Obliteraters. It would not stop it but would help bring a semblance of balance back. Another thing of note is that I do not know of any Fantasy book that swaps units to other slots (if I'm wrong let me know which book).

2: No more cover saves. Bring back to hit modifiers so even Space Marines can enjoy the benefits (because I would kick them in the nads with changes to ATSKNF). This would would also see special rules like Night fighting/Night Vision/Searchlights actually matter and would make BS 6-10 be worth a damn.

3: LD nerfs across the board. This was partially done with C:CD as the highest LD in the book was 9. Now sure they ignore all LD rules, but instability means that LD value does not go to waste and actually matters with a lost combat. Space Marines ATSKNF is the biggest offender for horrible Fanboyism rules writing. I would change it to "Immune to Fear", that's it.

4: Close combat needs outnumbering back (WHY DD THEY GET RID OF THAT?!), and other modifiers to make it more interesting. It is a mess right now and is one of the reasons I'm starting Fantasy.

5: Psychic powers. What a interesting system Fantasy has (not good, not bad, but interesting) and GW still somehow managed to screw it up so it's bad and not interesting. First why of all things make it based on LD tests? All it does is make it harder to make LD worth a damn when almost every Psyker is LD 9-10 (Do you think Ward or any other writer would give ANY Psyker LD8 or below?!). And that's not even getting to disciplines themselves or "Deny the Witch".

I would go on more but I'm not going to bother. The next edition of 40k will just be another price hike and broken rules.

Cynicism, the city is rife with it.

Herkamer63
07-09-2013, 02:08
i think one thing they should do is make walkers worth it in cc again. getting pounded by krak grenades at regular WS sucks thus making cc dreads and maulerfiends almost useless. one of the wayd they can change that is go back to hitting walkers on 6s with grenades. another way could be (and this may get a little complicated) is a single glancing hit, on any vehicle, should not take away a hull pt, but rather the # of hull pts a vehicle has should equal the # glances it takes to strip away a hull pt. lastly, maybe make glancing hits not take away hull pts at all. only penetrating hits can do this. instead, maybe bring in a minor damage table back to the game like on a roll of a d3 the result will be: 1-2 vehicle shakened, 3-4 crew stunned, 5-6 weapon is either A-Destroyed or B-Weapon cannot fire (still rolling on which weapon you damage or destroy, whatever you guys would think sounds better, unless if it has only 1 weapon or none at all). if you agree with any of these, or none at all, i still think people running cc walkers are getting the short end of the stick when fighting guys with str 6 grenades being glanced to death and should change (unless if they are finding ways to make them very effective).

Nurgling Chieftain
07-09-2013, 02:31
One idea I heard that I liked for the outflanking issue, is that reserves are rolled a turn ahead of when they show up, and a marker is placed to show where they will come from. This way, sure you can charge from where-ever, but your opponent can at least react before that happens. Obviously it would need to be fine-tuned a bit to prevent people from just blocking the marker, but as a general idea I think it's really good.

The Emperor
07-09-2013, 02:46
I really want vehicles to regain the ability to fire all their weapons on the move (with some obvious exceptions) without restriction. It makes no sense to me whatsoever that you have a Predator with a gunner for each weapon, and yet because it moves somehow two out of three of those gunners are forced to make snap shots. How is it that they're so distracted by the moving tank that they count as BS 1 while one gunner still counts his normal BS? Jack up the price of vehicles drastically if necessary, but they should have the ability to fire all standard heavy weapons whenever they move without issue.

Rentacle Tape
07-09-2013, 02:57
kill 2+ tanks, which is something shooting units can't match either.

Did they remove split-fire from the game?

Are squadrons untargetable via shooting?

Sephillion
07-09-2013, 03:15
Mmm... I like this edition, but there is always room for improvement. Some of these have been said before or at least in part:

- Allow some way to decide Psychic Powers - either by paying an upgrade (your librarian is 55 if you want a roll or a primaris, ut you have to pay 10 pts if you want to PICK your power) or allowing some more freedom (entirely random rolls, but know two powers per ML) in short, anything that can increase the reliability of having a given power.
- I'd retweak the cover mechanics somehow they don't feel perfect; I'd make jink covers a different type entirely, so you can have weapons that ignore cover, but not jink and vice versa
- Flyer slot - one per FOC, some ways to have a second with special characters.
- Give some way to have decisions to take once in assault - allowing either All-out attack or Defensive maneuver, something like that, so assault isn't only decided by rolls of the dice.
- Give some way to protect units winning an assault against retaliation if they win at "the bad time"

Ssilmath
07-09-2013, 03:43
Did they remove split-fire from the game?

Are squadrons untargetable via shooting?

Ah, I had forgotten about those, good call. However, those are far outnumbered by units that can engage and destroy multiple targets in melee.

Rentacle Tape
07-09-2013, 04:12
Ah, I had forgotten about those, good call. However, those are far outnumbered by units that can engage and destroy multiple targets in melee.

Which is counter-balanced by the fact that melee dedicated units have to reach the shooting opposition in large enough numbers that they can actually threaten the target, declare a (random distanced) charge, suffer an overwatch, and then - and only then - possibly kill their intended target. This is ignoring 'delay you for a turn' challenges, mind you.

Meanwhile, shooting targets can spam blast templates - some ignoring cover; many ignoring saves - and possibly annihilate entire squads at range.

I don't believe melee to be unplayable in this edition (though the list capable are extremely limited), but don't insult others by downplaying shooting's advantages this edition over the former.

Charistoph
07-09-2013, 04:21
Right, cause that's it. I just want shooting to roll all over melee. You've summed up my argument in it's entirety. :rolleyes:

Cause shooting imposes a -1 penalty for every model killed, can wipe out a squad in the middle of the board by causing a single casualty and gives complete immunity to being assaulted afterwards, right?
Actually I said that because you want to have full use of your Shooting units against Outflankers, but those same Outflankers can't do the job they normally do just because they have to wait to be shot first?

Shooting units still have the option to Overwatch (and in some cases Interceptor), and in the case of Tau even more. And as I said, positioning can resolve a lot of that.

Now, maybe if when they come in from Outflank, they can either make a full Move or commit a Disordered Charge, that would be a better solution, admittedly, and allow for a little less harrowing ordeal on the borders. I didn't really allow for that in my original thought.


Ah, I had forgotten about those, good call. However, those are far outnumbered by units that can engage and destroy multiple targets in melee.
Not really. In order to destroy multiple targets in melee when you charge, they must either be in the same unit (aka squadron) or really close together causing a Disordered Charge anyway, and thus less likely to actually destroy the units in question.

And last I heard, Vehicles are more terrified of Meltagunners appearing on their flank than some pantstakers.

Ssilmath
07-09-2013, 04:22
I'm not, I was specifically contrasting the effects of a unit arriving from reserve and being able to assault with one that can only shoot.

But hey, if you want to make things even out:

Power Fists now have the Gets Hot rule
HQ units and Monstrous Creatures (the heavy hitters of the melee world) have to roll a dice. On a 5+, they act as normal. On a 1-4, they roll 2d6 and if they roll a 7 or higher they don't hit anything.
If you want to use more than 1 attack, you can't move in the movement phase

I'm not saying shooting isn't strong, but there's a lot of factors that nobody ever thinks about when asking for things to be "equal."

@Caristoph

Don't need to destroy, just need to engage. 1 or 2 turns of not shooting is pretty devastating. And grenades aren't affected by disordered charge, if I remember correctly (not near a rulebook right now).

Charistoph
07-09-2013, 04:48
@Caristoph

Don't need to destroy, just need to engage. 1 or 2 turns of not shooting is pretty devastating. And grenades aren't affected by disordered charge, if I remember correctly (not near a rulebook right now).
True, but that is always an issue when a unit Assaults another, and is not exclusive to Outflank. And that is the reason why I was saying that you were presenting the concept that Shooting is a priority over Assault.

Ssilmath
07-09-2013, 04:51
True, but that is always an issue when a unit Assaults another, and is not exclusive to Outflank. And that is the reason why I was saying that you were presenting the concept that Shooting is a priority over Assault.

But I was only speaking in regards to outflanking. I'm kind of confused now as to what is being discussed, I thought it was focused on a singular mechanic.

Rentacle Tape
07-09-2013, 04:58
But hey, if you want to make things even out:

Random shooting ranges.
Comparing your ballistic skill against your opponents, to decide what you're hitting on.
No shooting after disembarking from a vehicle.
Before shooting, you suffer a single phase of your enemy attacking you at WS 1, before your shooting can cause wounds.

Yeah, let's make it 'even'. :)


I run a heavy-shooting oriented list, and know full well that shooting has a clear advantage this edition.


I'm not saying shooting isn't strong, but there's a lot of factors that nobody ever thinks about when asking for things to be "equal."

Indeed- your post shows that.

Ssilmath
07-09-2013, 05:02
Indeed- your post shows that.

It's more like shooting and melee are two different mechanics with different effects, different strengths and weaknesses and difficult to compare in the vacuum most people imagine things in. I was quite deliberately making it one sided, I'm aware that they aren't equal.

Rentacle Tape
07-09-2013, 05:04
It's more like shooting and melee are two different mechanics with different effects, different strengths and weaknesses and difficult to compare in the vacuum most people imagine things in. I was quite deliberately making it one sided, I'm aware that they aren't equal.

Really? Because it seemed like you were being flippant; not expecting that my examples would seem blatantly more debilitating than those you posted.

Ssilmath
07-09-2013, 05:08
Really? Because it seemed like you were being flippant; not expecting that my examples would seem blatantly more debilitating than those you posted.

Why does everybody assume I'm being flippant? I honestly didn't care about how 'debilitating' your examples were, it just highlights my point further that they're two different systems for how damage is dealt. In some cases, shooting is more powerful and in others melee is.

Rentacle Tape
07-09-2013, 05:14
Why does everybody assume I'm being flippant?

Posting style, I'd imagine.


I honestly didn't care about how 'debilitating' your examples were, it just highlights my point further that they're two different systems for how damage is dealt. In some cases, shooting is more powerful and in others melee is.

They possess stark differences, and each has it's own obvious risks and rewards; but shooting has the better end of the deal.

Surgency
07-09-2013, 05:19
I run a heavy-shooting oriented list, and know full well that shooting has a clear advantage this edition.

Depending on my mood I run either heavy assault, heavy shooting, or mixed and I know full well that proper terrain mitigates most shooting "advantages"

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Rentacle Tape
07-09-2013, 06:05
Depending on my mood I run either heavy assault, heavy shooting, or mixed and I know full well that proper terrain mitigates most shooting "advantages"

Cover can only do so much to protect an advancing army; especially when numerous codices are gaining the ability to ignore it altogether.

Just a little over a week ago, I played a competitive doubles game where me (Emperor's Children - Chaos) and my Tau ally took turns erasing enemy units with ease, all while chortling about 'cover saves' that never come.

T10
07-09-2013, 09:46
Seems to me that the game won't break if models arriving from reserve get a defensive bonus against shooting, say a 5+ invulnerable or cover save. A similar save could well be applied to units that are consolidating after having won the combat: This would represent the enemy being rushed to counter the sudden arrival, or avoiding hitting allies wounded or fleeing from the combat.

Lyrander
07-09-2013, 09:59
I would like to see
1) The movement stat bought back.
2) Charges take place in the movement phase.
3) No random charge distance.
4) No cover saves, cover instead penalizes to hit rolls.
5) Squads must target the closest squad.
6) Special and heavy weapons can target the closest MC or vehicle, while the rest of the squad shoots the closest infantry.
7) Change overwatch to you sacrifice your movement and shooting phase with a unit to be able to shoot at any point in your opponents turn.
8) No eternal warrior or instant death, have heavier weapons do multiple wounds.
9) Get rid of AP and bring back save modifiers.
10) Have psychology rules that make sense, make Ld useful.
11) Get rid of challenges.
12) Make vehicles in close combat harder to hit depending on how far they move. Give the vehicle a chance to run over models assaulting it.

Yes I was a fan of 2nd edition, no it wasn't perfect (save modifiers were too high, close combat was a mess) but there was a lot right with it that was lost with 3rd and subsequent editions.

aim
07-09-2013, 10:23
Now I use allies for my SoB with Guard and at one part DA and I have never had anyone complain. But I am really sick of seeing Tau and Eldar and Necron Chaos combos all over the place. I don't know how necessarily to fix it, but it needs to be fixed. Frankly, I believe tournaments (obviously this is outside of GW's realm) should completely ban allied lists. This change would really make it a much more challenging experience and potentially put an end to the "oh gee, the same internet Tau and Eldar army I played last game" trend.

I love this... This is essentially:


The tournament powergaming army of choice isn't imperial anymore and I don't like it, it must be fixed.

There's nothing wrong with the allies matrix (except maybe that it sucks a bit for tyranids). Its OK though, I'm sure now the new marine codex is out, it will be sufficiently OP to put an end to those filthy xenos players not getting ROFL stomped every tournament by power armoured lists and it'll go back to being like good old 5th ED for you.



I would like to see

2) Charges take place in the movement phase.


This could be either very balanced or very broken.

If you are talking "I want to charge, so I'll move, then charge instead of taking my shooting phase. - boom, you sacrifice shooting for HTH, as opposed to pummeling a squad with fire, then charging into it and getting a load of combat bonuses. Or it could be kind of broken if you could move OR charge, in which case, you'd have to wait a turn to charge, at which point your squad gets peppered with enemy fire after the opponents target squad has moved out of charge range.

Bubble Ghost
07-09-2013, 12:51
Seems to me that the game won't break if models arriving from reserve get a defensive bonus against shooting, say a 5+ invulnerable or cover save. A similar save could well be applied to units that are consolidating after having won the combat: This would represent the enemy being rushed to counter the sudden arrival, or avoiding hitting allies wounded or fleeing from the combat.


Sir! Sir! T10 copied my homework, sir!

:D

Lyrander
07-09-2013, 13:13
This could be either very balanced or very broken.

If you are talking "I want to charge, so I'll move, then charge instead of taking my shooting phase. - boom, you sacrifice shooting for HTH, as opposed to pummeling a squad with fire, then charging into it and getting a load of combat bonuses. Or it could be kind of broken if you could move OR charge, in which case, you'd have to wait a turn to charge, at which point your squad gets peppered with enemy fire after the opponents target squad has moved out of charge range.

My prefered method would be that you do your charge in the movement phase. You would move double your move stat into an enemy unit so you loose your shooting. Jump infantry should move the jump pack distance plus their move stat.

T10
07-09-2013, 13:16
Sir! Sir! T10 copied my homework, sir!

:D Seems we have solved for "x" :)

SpanielBear
07-09-2013, 14:23
I like random charge, but I would give bikes, cavalry and jet-packs a 3d6 charge distance, not 2d6. How exactly are my rough riders the same speed as dudes in terminator armour!?

Eldarin Hope
07-09-2013, 15:09
They had the tools to solve the charge from outflank, they just inexplicably mixed it with anti flyers.

Make intercept only be about shooting reserves arriving and invent a new rule to allow skyfire to target ground units. Then make intercept more common (as standard, or through upgrades/equipment).

Players then have the ability to build in a response to reserves arriving (shooting or melee), so you no longer get units arriving and taking other units out of the game without a chance to respond.

Simple and adds another dimension to list building.

You could also then give pure AA options intercept without making them great against ground units - they should all have this ability.

Carlosophy
07-09-2013, 18:24
I would like to see GW make an emphasis on scaling the game down to more realistic levels. A scaling FOC (as has been suggested) would be the immediate answer, to stop players using daft things like monstrous creatures and aircraft in small engagements. Allegedly rare units, such as the wraithknight and the riptide, could then also be limited as they are supposed to be.

A wider variety of scenarios would then back this up

Carlosophy
07-09-2013, 18:38
The actual game mechanics I have no problem with but army selection and the entire scenario system need a major rethink.

Currently 40k only scales well if players are willing to make more fluff-based lists and disallow daft things like monsters and aircraft which realistically would just not be present in such small engagements. In tournaments, players are less scrupulous and like to spam allegedly ultra-rare units like Wraithknights and the Riptide. A WFB-style setup which limits access to these powerful choices in small games would be the ideal solution, as has been suggested (E.g. 500pts buys you 1x HQ, 2x TROOPS and 1x SUPPORT, whereas 1000pts would buy you 1xHQ, 4x TROOPS, 3xSUPPORT etc)

My biggest bugbear with the current system, and indeed 5E is the frankly terrible scenario system. After 4E GW decided to copy Dawn of War and go for generic objective grabbing and run with it. 3E had the best system, with a selection of military scenarios ranging from patrol sweeps to rearguards, forlorn hope, meatgrinder and blitzkrieg each with their own special rules.
For generic games a return to table quarters would be a start, with a D3 roll of Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support being added to scoring for that game. This I feel would go a long way to making tournaments much more interesting and make the spam players actually think about what they put in their army.

Haravikk
07-09-2013, 18:41
ATSKNF needs some serious toning down. Maybe allow them to auto regroup, but without the obnoxious benefits for having fallen back.
Maybe suffers Wounds like how Fearless used to work? Gives Hit & Run some more of its value back.

Biggest change… I want them to make flyers feel more like support again, i.e - limit them to a 45º turn and increase the minimum speed so it's pretty much impossible to keep them on the board without going to Hover mode. It's just too easy to have flyers circling unrealistically around dishing out more damage than other vehicles (four weapons while Zooming, why?) while being highly resistant to damage, they just don't feel right at all under the current rules. Some should be made back into Fast Skimmers like the Storm Talon which, to me at least, feels more like an attack helicopter type thing than a flyer.

I'd also quite like to see more variety with AP, a while back I posted an idea for AP to work as follows; if your AP is better than target's armour they get no save, if it's equal they get a -2 penalty to save, if it's one point worse (AP4 vs 3+) they get -1 to save. So weapons that are close still have some impact, and AP1 is more necessary for 2+ saves.

Giving Glancing Hits a separate damage table; 1-3 for shake, 4-5 for stun, 6 for Hull Point lost, with all the current damage table bonuses. Allow penetrating hits to inflict damage on vehicle passengers instead.

Ironbone
07-09-2013, 19:19
One more word in case "charging/no charging" after reserves/outflank. I have game today with outflank heavy SW+DA aliance. If he would be able to charge after poping out, he would certainly whipe out my whole guard+tau aliance by turn 3. And even without charging, and one squad blow to bits by riptide ion accelarator ( only 5 pts for interceptor and so much fun :D), he did a lot damage, blowing up almost all my tanks. And only because that he can not charge, I manage to respond in force, and win despite all odds.

Rumbleguts
07-09-2013, 19:32
The two armies were fighting each other. Then the Nids arrived

Now to avoid being eaten, they are allies.

That works great for a specifically designed scenario, for which no one needs an allies chart because it is specifically set up. But lets take your basic idea and you have Eldar and Black Templars fighting and a force of Ultramarines shows up. Are the Black Templars still going to ally with the Eldar, why would the Ultramarines be attacking the Black Templars? These scenarios need a story to make them work. It strains past the breaking point when Grey Knights and Necrons are allied in a tournament (or even a friendly game) and the opposing player sets up Imperium/Necrons. Part of the problem with allies is the 40k universe was originally set up with everyone fighting everyone else with a big power block called the Imperium. Makes sense that any Imperium forces can ally, and I can see Tau/Eldar/Dark Eldar working well with each other. Chaos and Chaos Marines together of course, to the point where they should be able to buy each other as regular units instead of needing HQ slots. Then you get the outliers, Orcs, Necrons, and Tyrandis. In order for those guys to ally with anyone you need background reasons. I think the basic reason behind GW use of the chart was to try to get people to buy a few units of another army to supplement and try out something new. Sells more figs and codices. I have no problem with that. Trouble is making such incredibly weird alliances as their ally chart allows in a casual manner just feels wrong for a lot of people. Sorry for the wall of text, this forum won't allow me to paragraph down for some reason.

Rumbleguts
07-09-2013, 19:42
I would really like to see vehicles be able to move and fire all their weapons normally. No more, move then you can fire one weapon normally, rest are snapfire. This won't increase their survivability but will make them hit the opponent a lot harder. Dreadnoughts need more point of armor and the ability to leave CC unless it is a monsterous creature. They used to be able to do this way back in 2nd and it still makes a lot of sense. .

Lyrander
07-09-2013, 19:54
They did mess up the ally chart, looking back in time DA would not fight alongside anyone who was not human including ogryns and ratlings. Black Templars should ally with noone outside of the Imperium, same with Battle sisters. On rare occasions I can see Eldar working with imperial forces, and with Tau, but Orks?? Really?? Same with Tau rarely with imperial forces and eldar, but not dark eldar i would have thought and again never with Orks. Outside of the odd scenario necrons shouldn't be allying with anyone. I'd say they got Tyranids right, though maybe a scenario with IG to represent genestealer cult infiltrating the pdf. Chaos marines with Chaos daemons and maybe imperial guard to represent infiltrated pdf. But thats about it.

Aldavaer
07-09-2013, 22:25
Going back a few posts I quite like the idea of all units getting intercept to say 6". As an Eldar player it always feels a liitle mean deep striking an autarch with a fusion gun or warp spiders 3" from the rear of a tank an immediately shooting it to death. It would force me to be a little more selective about where I deep strike. Although in return I would prefer to be able to choose where outflanking units come on.

As an ultra modern war gamer I also like the idea of splitting fliers into helicopter style gunships which stay on the table and others which make an attack run in a straight line across the table.

RobPro
07-09-2013, 23:55
Haven't read the whole thread, but I think something needs to be done about psychic buffs. Most of the really good psychic powers are buffs you cast on your own units (guide, prescience, the 4+ invul one, iron arm, etc) and most units casting these powers do so on LD 9/10. I think there should be some way I can dispel the buffs you put on your units during my turn, similar to the remains in play that fantasy has. If they're going to make the buffs really good, there should be some risk beyond maybe taking a wound if you perils.

murgel2006
08-09-2013, 01:50
Hm, I have not read all of the threat so bear with me.
Generally I am ok with the 6th ed.

I loved the "leaked 6th rules" and would like this book to be the new 7th. As this will not come true, I would do the following changes:

- no more hover
- flyers get USR either:
- ground attack - slower movement (i.e. 12"-18"), only snapshots (BS2) against air targets, full BS against ground.
- air superiority - movement (i.e. 18"+), only snapshots (BS2) against ground targets, full BS against airborne targets (most jetpacks in use are airborne!).
- helicopter stile vehicles (like the stormtalon) are just fast skimmers.

- double all HPs and have penetrations remove 2 points. OR Vehicles gain a save against Glancing hits like 5+, additional armour adds to the role. (I like the second idea better)
- vehicles gain a stat defining how many weapons can be fired at full BS while moving (i.e. 0/3/all for flank/march/combat)

- bring back the movement values for all models.

- charge is movement +1D. Rolled movement must always be done, even if charge is not successful!
- Overwatch is resolved at range after movement or at 6" fix.
- Grenades count per unit.
- Hammer of Wreath is resolved like any other attack, not against base Strength only.
- directly after repositioning (successful cc) a unit has a 3++ save against weapons fire.
- units may chose to run from a charge on a successful ld test, forgoing overwatch this phase making the ld test instead. If it runs, it counts as retreating with all effects.

- Challenging becomes a USR for characters. Only if you have it you can be challenged or issue a challenge.

- Units can snapshot while on the ground. (USR prone firing allows for full BS)
- Weapons gain a cover modifier based on its precision, which ranges from -3 (i.e. sniper rifle) snapshots never get modified.

- USR to allow for things like charge after DS/infiltrate/outflank.

- Objectives are defined after they are dispersed, before deployment.
- all units count as having moved (march speed) into deployment position.
- dangerous terrain will kill (all wounds) on a specified roll (between 4+ and 6+), allows only inv. saves.
- First Kill changes to randomly selected unit (after deployment) which will give a single victory point it it is destroyed.
- Transports do not count as separate unit for KP purposes.
- mysterious terrain is rolled for before deployment (maybe if a 6 is rolled this piece will be handled s it currently is).
- FOC changes to HQ, Troops and other things. 1 HQ and 2 Troops mandatory.

- Psychic powers are rolled for and then distributed between the models. (Still random but gives some control)

- Additional roll at game setup defining for either:
- Game sequence as it is now
- You go - I go (per unit within the phase i.e. A move, B move, A move, B move etc.)
- You go - I go (per unit doing all phases for this unit before player change i.e. A move, shoot, charge; B move, shoot, charge)

Those are some of the changes I would like.