What would you have done?

[Gaargod]

Now first off, let me say that I really like the new edition. I think/hope it represents a great new trend where GW actually tries properly to balance things and to fix loopholes. Overall, I easily I think it's great and well written (although I haven't read the fluff section yet, so who knows).

However, nothing is ever perfect, and trying to pretend so is foolish (go see some of the Fantasy 8th ed threads where people use the Reductio Ad Absurdio argument that if you dislike one part of the book you therefore automatically dislike the whole thing, etc etc).
So what would you do if you were given the change to edit the rulebook? Might be minor edits or going completely overboard and rewriting entire sections. Me, I might do this (in no particular order):

> Flying Monstrous Creatures only have to take their Grounded Tests if they take a Wound before saves
This is because I really dislike the idea that hits from blinky lights have not unreasonable odds of inflicting a S9 Ap2 hit.

> Fleshbane (X)
Just seems a bit of a missed opportunity to me to specify that the Fleshbane rule has a set value (2+ if unspecified).

> Hull Points to be increased by 1 across the board.
It just seems to me they've gone ever so slightly overboard on nerfing vehicles. I love that vehicles are no longer super tough, but it seems a little harsh.

> Land-to-Air / Air-to-Air missiles
I'd really have liked to see an option for missiles to be used against flying targets. Missiles are surely one of the best ways to kill them? Hunter-Killer missiles (or some new Skyfire variant thereof) would have been really cool.

> Actual definition between Fighters and Boys
Related to the above. I would have loved to see a bigger difference between Fighters (who should have some nice bonuses versus other flyers / skimmers etc) and Bombers (who should work better against ground targets). Not that they shouldn't work against the other sort, but just some bonuses would have been nice. Could be done in codexes of course.

> Power Axes at half I?
This one I'm not sure about. Making Power Axes the same penalty as Power Fists seems a little extreme. On the other hand, they're free.

> Zooming Flying Monsters to be able to assault flyers
This is kinda what Vector Strike does, however it would have been amazingly cool to see a hive tyrant landing on a storm raven and ripping its wings off.


Your ideas?

[adreal]

Now first off, let me say that I really like the new edition. I think/hope it represents a great new trend where GW actually tries properly to balance things and to fix loopholes. Overall, I easily I think it's great and well written (although I haven't read the fluff section yet, so who knows).

However, nothing is ever perfect, and trying to pretend so is foolish (go see some of the Fantasy 8th ed threads where people use the Reductio Ad Absurdio argument that if you dislike one part of the book you therefore automatically dislike the whole thing, etc etc).
So what would you do if you were given the change to edit the rulebook? Might be minor edits or going completely overboard and rewriting entire sections. Me, I might do this (in no particular order):

> Flying Monstrous Creatures only have to take their Grounded Tests if they take a Wound before saves
This is because I really dislike the idea that hits from blinky lights have not unreasonable odds of inflicting a S9 Ap2 hit.

> Fleshbane (X)
Just seems a bit of a missed opportunity to me to specify that the Fleshbane rule has a set value (2+ if unspecified).

> Hull Points to be increased by 1 across the board.
It just seems to me they've gone ever so slightly overboard on nerfing vehicles. I love that vehicles are no longer super tough, but it seems a little harsh.

> Land-to-Air / Air-to-Air missiles
I'd really have liked to see an option for missiles to be used against flying targets. Missiles are surely one of the best ways to kill them? Hunter-Killer missiles (or some new Skyfire variant thereof) would have been really cool.

> Actual definition between Fighters and Boys
Related to the above. I would have loved to see a bigger difference between Fighters (who should have some nice bonuses versus other flyers / skimmers etc) and Bombers (who should work better against ground targets). Not that they shouldn't work against the other sort, but just some bonuses would have been nice. Could be done in codexes of course.

> Power Axes at half I?
This one I'm not sure about. Making Power Axes the same penalty as Power Fists seems a little extreme. On the other hand, they're free.

> Zooming Flying Monsters to be able to assault flyers
This is kinda what Vector Strike does, however it would have been amazingly cool to see a hive tyrant landing on a storm raven and ripping its wings off.


Your ideas?

I just want to say if someone was to model a tyrant (or daemon prince) on top of a valk/raven and in the middle of destroying it, that would make for the most bad **** HQ model ever

[ehlijen]

> Flying Monstrous Creatures only have to take their Grounded Tests if they take a Wound before saves
This is because I really dislike the idea that hits from blinky lights have not unreasonable odds of inflicting a S9 Ap2 hit.

It's not the blinky light that does the hit, it's the ground that the low flying zoomer runs into because it gets annoyed/distracted by the blinky light. I'm perfectly fine with it being hits, not wounds, considering that it's only one check per unit firing and most things only hit on 6s. If you make it the wound roll, also take away the 3+ roll to actually get knocked to the ground. I reckon three distitinct units with at least 6 guns each is not a small amount of firepower to be statistically needed for smacking a zoomer around a bit.

> Fleshbane (X)
Just seems a bit of a missed opportunity to me to specify that the Fleshbane rule has a set value (2+ if unspecified).

> Hull Points to be increased by 1 across the board.
It just seems to me they've gone ever so slightly overboard on nerfing vehicles. I love that vehicles are no longer super tough, but it seems a little harsh.

Had a similar idea, but I'm going to give it a few games before I make up my mind on that. The big problem seems to be grenades hitting on WS, especially vs walkers. But AV13 walkers are ridiculously common now, too...

> Land-to-Air / Air-to-Air missiles
I'd really have liked to see an option for missiles to be used against flying targets. Missiles are surely one of the best ways to kill them? Hunter-Killer missiles (or some new Skyfire variant thereof) would have been really cool.

That's a codex thing, not a rulebook thing. They did add the Flakk missile into the background, and I'm sure the new codices will feature them.

> Actual definition between Fighters and Boys
Related to the above. I would have loved to see a bigger difference between Fighters (who should have some nice bonuses versus other flyers / skimmers etc) and Bombers (who should work better against ground targets). Not that they shouldn't work against the other sort, but just some bonuses would have been nice. Could be done in codexes of course.

Boys in the 4 context means something else :P

And they sort of tried: blast weapons (including bombs) can't be used against flyers. So Valk rocket pods, hellfury missiles, mindstrike missiles, plasma cannon, bombs...if your flyer is packing these, it's more of a bomber than a fighter. But yes, the vendetta shouldn't be the best interceptor around...

> Power Axes at half I?
This one I'm not sure about. Making Power Axes the same penalty as Power Fists seems a little extreme. On the other hand, they're free.

They are not free, you still have to buy a power weapon. But costing the same as swords, they're ok. The new design paradigm seems to be that if you're not a big thing, you strike at I1 or at ap3 or worse (some exceptions falling through the cracks). And I can get behind that.

> Zooming Flying Monsters to be able to assault flyers
This is kinda what Vector Strike does, however it would have been amazingly cool to see a hive tyrant landing on a storm raven and ripping its wings off.

Then just imagine vector strike to be that. You can't lock flyers in assault anyway (no flying walkers exist yet), so do you really want to trade autohitting for possibly slightly more attacks?

Your ideas?

Mysterious objectives to be optional, not prescribed. (Minor quibble)

Premeasuring thrown back out. (I enjoy guessing ranges more, feels more immersive).

Don't make units of all characters.

Look out Sir limited to one (or two) wound(s) per volley.

[Dreadknight1994]

chaos marine daemon weapons made ap2give all tzeench psykers access to all disciplinesmake anything that gives you a invunrable stack with DTW

[Rick Blaine]

I'd kinda like it if Jump Infantry, Jetbikes and FMC could try to whack flyers vs. WS10.

Xenos fortifications should be in the book, even if they don't have models.

Allow reserved units to assault (if it needs to be penalized, give their target Overwatch at full BS)

[Athlan na Dyr]

Now first off, let me say that I really like the new edition. I think/hope it represents a great new trend where GW actually tries properly to balance things and to fix loopholes. Overall, I easily I think it's great and well written (although I haven't read the fluff section yet, so who knows).

However, nothing is ever perfect, and trying to pretend so is foolish (go see some of the Fantasy 8th ed threads where people use the Reductio Ad Absurdio argument that if you dislike one part of the book you therefore automatically dislike the whole thing, etc etc).
So what would you do if you were given the change to edit the rulebook? Might be minor edits or going completely overboard and rewriting entire sections. Me, I might do this (in no particular order):

> Flying Monstrous Creatures only have to take their Grounded Tests if they take a Wound before saves
This is because I really dislike the idea that hits from blinky lights have not unreasonable odds of inflicting a S9 Ap2 hit.

> Fleshbane (X)
Just seems a bit of a missed opportunity to me to specify that the Fleshbane rule has a set value (2+ if unspecified).

> Hull Points to be increased by 1 across the board.
It just seems to me they've gone ever so slightly overboard on nerfing vehicles. I love that vehicles are no longer super tough, but it seems a little harsh.

> Land-to-Air / Air-to-Air missiles
I'd really have liked to see an option for missiles to be used against flying targets. Missiles are surely one of the best ways to kill them? Hunter-Killer missiles (or some new Skyfire variant thereof) would have been really cool.

> Actual definition between Fighters and Boys
Related to the above. I would have loved to see a bigger difference between Fighters (who should have some nice bonuses versus other flyers / skimmers etc) and Bombers (who should work better against ground targets). Not that they shouldn't work against the other sort, but just some bonuses would have been nice. Could be done in codexes of course.

> Power Axes at half I?
This one I'm not sure about. Making Power Axes the same penalty as Power Fists seems a little extreme. On the other hand, they're free.

> Zooming Flying Monsters to be able to assault flyers
This is kinda what Vector Strike does, however it would have been amazingly cool to see a hive tyrant landing on a storm raven and ripping its wings off.


Your ideas?

On fighters, bombers and gunships:
> Make Fighters and Fighters alone have Skyfire but NOT interceptor.
Simple change, makes Fighters very niche in application (solely against other flyers) but very effective at it. Also means that a tricked out gunship (Vendetta) isn't better than a dedicated Jetfighter in aerial combat . Basically adds a rock, paper and scissors to flyers rather than the current 'do it all and then some'. Saying this, if haven't had to much experience with or against flyers, so I'm not sure how damaging the current movement is to their effectiveness vs. ground targets.

On Missiles and AA:
>Definitely agree. Some manner of readily available AA would be nice, even if it wasn't the best in the world. I must admit I was rather dissapointed by the FAQ not giving the flakk option out. Of course, I'm also thinking that the AV of some of the flyers is perhaps a bit much with AV11 being a reasonable max, but that is merely personal opinion and assumption. Yet again I haven't had too much experience with the new flyer rules.

On Hull Points:
>No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. For the cheap as chips, 'bog standard' Rhino, Chimera or Trukk 3 HP's is perfectly adequate and represents the survivability of what is effectively a hollow metal box with wheels and a distintly explodable fuel source.
Considering the reduction of the chance to one shot a vehicle for AP3 and below from a 1/3 to 1/6 chance, and the reduced effect of shaken/ stunned on the tank I think that the Hull Point nerf is not as bad as first appears. It has reduced the effectiveness of pure mech, but whether this will be enough to make it unplayable remains to be seen.
That said, Necrons will murder any vehicle placed infront of them.

I just want to say if someone was to model a tyrant (or daemon prince) on top of a valk/raven and in the middle of destroying it, that would make for the most bad **** HQ model ever

+1 to that!

[Charistoph]

Personally, I think Hull Points and the Vehicle Damage Chart need to swap places in their relation to Glancing and Penetrating shots. A glancing blow really isn't as damaging as the rules would have you believe, especially when you have an entire army that can Glance a vehicle as easily as Genestealers Rend. A glancing blow is one that bounces off the vehicle doing minimal, if any, damage. Sure, it can get LUCKY and bounce into the fuel tank, weapon, or rattle the pilots, but it shouldn't just be about decimating the structural integrity of the vehicle.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Power axes at half ini, not ini 1.

2. Assault into cover gives -2 ini, not ini 1. Assault grenades negate that.

3. Cover saves replaced by to hit modifiers. Soft cover (5+ or worse) adds +1, hard cover (4+ or better) +2.

If a model goes beyond 6+ to hit, you use the same rules as in second edition:
7+ is a 6 followed by 4+
8+ is a 6 fllowed by a 5+
9+ is a 6 followed by a 6
10+ is a 6 followed by another 6 followed by a 4+
and so on

Not that difficult, really, even the 10 year old kids should be able to get it.

Same with stealth / shrouded / jinx, etc.

3.a) blast weapons roll to hit as normal, scatter away if they miss (hard to make out a pathfinder hidden in a ruin), but if any of those pathfinders end up beneath the blast marker, they are screwed.

4. replace the AP system with a save modifiers system.
AP 4 = -1 save
AP 3 = -2 save
AP 2 = -3 save
AP 1 = -4 save

the AP in melee, while a good idea since it unifies the rules more, has really highlighted how badly thought out the AP system is, imo.

5. Redesign the vehicle armor system. I find it horribly annoying when some weapons cut through vehicle armor like butter and bounce off heavy infantry armor like rubber and other weapons do the exact opposite. Can anyone please explain to me which is better at penetrating thick plates of armor, a Krak Missile or a Plasma shot???
Sorry, but the current system is extremely illogical and arbitrary.

6. Retreat from melee for everyone (allowing for free strikes, if that is needed for game balance). And allow for shooting into melee. Extreme divergence between fluff and game mechanics here.

7. Might be me, but I think the Overwatch system they implemented might be a mistake.

[sprugly]

The only thing that really bugged me is power axes. I -1 would have been enough to be useful to everyone. Now they're only really any good on people who would strike last anyway, guard sergeants for instance.

The ability for a flying monsterous creature to do a double strength smash attack if he rolls 2 or more attacks on a vector strike maybe?

[Fenrisian Ale]

The only thing that really bugged me is power axes. I -1 would have been enough to be useful to everyone. Now they're only really any good on people who would strike last anyway, guard sergeants for instance.

The ability for a flying monsterous creature to do a double strength smash attack if he rolls 2 or more attacks on a vector strike maybe?

I second that.

It gets worse with SW frost axes they cost as much as a PF but only add +2S, which makes them totally broken. If you had a choice of two weapons both with the same stats except one doubles your strength and one adds +2 to it which would you take. I think this is a shame as Axes are such a cool feature of SW models. I would like to see them either have them as the same stat line as power-fists after all they are the same points cost and this would allow it to be a purely aesthetic choice on your model, or to only do -1i which would still make them used second for lots of things but others (necrons for example) would be hit first, this would make them more of a tactical decision.

[Cthell]

Where are people getting "flying creatures have vector strike" from? I've looked through the rules and can't find any mention of it; Vector strike is a rule for the rider of a chariot.

Have I missed something?

[BooTMGSG]

One thing I would have added is something that counters overwatch.
Say a unit that has gone to ground can't use overwatch.
That way Pinning and heavy fire (assuming the guy dives for cover) give you some room to sneak in the assault boys

[sprugly]

Cthell, flying monsterous creatures have it while swooping. I'm sure its on the page for them somewhere! Lol

Sprugly

[Cthell]

Cthell, flying monsterous creatures have it while swooping. I'm sure its on the page for them somewhere! Lol

Sprugly

Ah, yes, found it.

Hidden at the end of the last sentence on the page. ^^;

[Gaargod]

The ability for a flying monsterous creature to do a double strength smash attack if he rolls 2 or more attacks on a vector strike maybe?

Actually that would have been fine. Vector Strike being at unmodified strength makes sense in terms of abusive combos, but it's something of a pain to kill vehicles. If they could use their Smash rule, they'd be fine (Well, possibly it'd be slightly broken, actually. Probably just double strength, not Ap2 and reroll).


You know, in retrospect, I've changed my mind on the missiles. Yes, codexes will hopefully add more options in that way, but: I'd have loved to see an option to fire blast weapons at BS without the actual, you know, blast marker. Missiles (like the DE missiles on the razorwing) would then work against flyers.
Be possible to abuse, of course. But would be fun.

[Iskandar]

Tyranid fortifications to mitigate one hole in their army. Spore Chimneys for Bastions, Feeding tendrils for skypads, barbed roots and tendrils for Aegis Defence system with a suitable weapon on top would've all added atmosphere at least.

[IJW]

What stops you doing that?

[Iskandar]

"Are Tyranid units inside buildings (ie the Bastion) subject to instinctive behaviour tests? Further, are they able to manual fire emplaced weapons?

No to both questions"

GW Tyranids 6th Ed FAQ

[tr1pod]

I second that.

It gets worse with SW frost axes they cost as much as a PF but only add +2S, which makes them totally broken. If you had a choice of two weapons both with the same stats except one doubles your strength and one adds +2 to it which would you take. I think this is a shame as Axes are such a cool feature of SW models. I would like to see them either have them as the same stat line as power-fists after all they are the same points cost and this would allow it to be a purely aesthetic choice on your model, or to only do -1i which would still make them used second for lots of things but others (necrons for example) would be hit first, this would make them more of a tactical decision.

This +10

The logic behind this defies me completely. In fact I removed the Axe arm from my Wolf Lord yesterday and replaced it with Power Fist. Why would you equip an axe? The only advantage is +1 attack on the charge if equipped with another close combat weapon, but then that means no Storm Shield. I don't get why an axe is unwieldy and yet the Necron Warscyth is +2 strength AP1 and isn't. Surely that is 2 handed, which by definition would mean it is "unwieldy".

[mughi3]

Xenos fortifications should be in the book, even if they don't have models.

You have not been up to speed with GWs lawsuits have you?
they lost a court case that ruled that if there is no model out they cannot sue another company for copyright infringement until they have their own model. so don't expect to see anything or any rules until they have a model ready to go.