If for some reason GW were to ask you for advice to change ONE thing in any codex or rule book what would it be and why?
please keep down to earth. I too would like every IG to come equiped with power weapons but that wouldnt be reasonable.

Mine would be Space marine Sternguard Vets to have a BS 5. If their the best marksmen in the Chapter that would show it. Combined with special issue ammunition they would be even deadlyer. But to balance this take out the options for heavy weapons all togeather. Only options for Combi-bolters.

Matt65 wrote:If for some reason GW were to ask you for advice to change ONE thing in any codex or rule book what would it be and why?
please keep down to earth.

Remove ©GamesWorkshop from the books, make them opensource.

Let Bjorn The Fell Handed be Drop Podded.

I also would give Tau Fire warriors and ALL Tau units in the codex a BS skill of 4 instead of 3 and drones of a BS of 3. This would INSTANTLY make them a competitive army worthy of Finals instead of
the only good armies being Guard, Marines and their equivalent and armies like eldar and Orks etc....you know all the main stream armies.

allow units in cover to take cover saves, then armor saves if applicable. (such as a marine in 4+ cover taking heavy bolter hits, could take his 4+ save then his 3+ save if he failed.)

I would let Deffkoptas have burnas. Is that too much to ask?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Matt65 wrote:If for some reason GW were to ask you for advice to change ONE thing in any codex or rule book what would it be and why?
please keep down to earth.

Remove ©GamesWorkshop from the books, make them opensource.

Nice.

Does the change have to be from their books? What about the website? I'd change the location of the decimal point in tehir prices.

I would either a) add a chaos lord retinue/honour guard equivalent unit to the CSM book or b) add a way to make terminators or chosen fearless.

Let me fix all the unclear nonsense surrounding Dreadnought CCWs and Attacks values. Why does a CSM Dreadnought get an extra attack from one DCCW but two from the one on the other arm? Why does Ork Deff Dread NOT get extra attacks from multiple DCCW's??? Why does the Ironclad get an extra attack from "two different special weapons???????" *Head Explodes*

Sorry. I like walkers. This sort of silliness bothers me irrational.

Make it say that Warptime ACTUALLY does work every PLAYER TURN (meaning 10-14 castings per game) instead of letting people 'interpret' it.
Really. I am so sick of hearing IT SAYS 'PLAYER TURN' SO AUTOMATICALLY IT MEANS YOURS RIGHT? WELL YOU'RE RUNNING IT ON DAEMON PRINCES WHO CARES!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dear GW,
PLEASE GOD OH PLEASE OH PLEASE change the wording on Warptime in the next Chaos codex.
If I hear another person say that 'next player turn' means only mine, my head will explode.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:Make it say that Warptime ACTUALLY does work every PLAYER TURN (meaning 10-14 castings per game) instead of letting people 'interpret' it.
Really. I am so sick of hearing IT SAYS 'PLAYER TURN' SO AUTOMATICALLY IT MEANS YOURS RIGHT? WELL YOU'RE RUNNING IT ON DAEMON PRINCES WHO CARES!

"This power is used at the start of any player's turn....for the entirety of that player's turn."

How could it possibly be debated?

And if I could change one thing, it would be to make Shuriken Catapults as deadly as they were pre-3rd edition.

I've had multiple people try to claim that you can only cast psychic powers on your turn or something like that. Very frustrating

I would get rid of the 'No assalting after firing a rapid fire weapon', it's soooo unrealistic

Vasarto wrote:Let Bjorn The Fell Handed be Drop Podded.

I also would give Tau Fire warriors and ALL Tau units in the codex a BS skill of 4 instead of 3 and drones of a BS of 3. This would INSTANTLY make them an OP army worthy of Finals instead of
the only good armies being Guard, Marines and their equivalent and armies like eldar and Orks etc....you know all the main stream armies.

Fixed. I would change Pulse Carbines to 21" range / Assault 2

Make the game a true d10/d20 system. Give a bit of wider diversity to the units stats, and have it all fit in a bit better with the fluff as well.

Che-Vito wrote:Make the game a true d10/d20 system. Give a bit of wider diversity to the units stats, and have it all fit in a bit better with the fluff as well.

oh lord, this would be awesome, but unless they did it right the rules would become clunky beyond belief

Joetaco wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:Make the game a true d10/d20 system. Give a bit of wider diversity to the units stats, and have it all fit in a bit better with the fluff as well.

oh lord, this would be awesome, but unless they did it right the rules would become clunky beyond belief

Somebody will probably post in response "play Inquisitor". My response...if the system could be done right...I'd rather play 40k with a difference between Guard and Tau BS, where armor saves have a wide variety, and where vehicles have a wider range of AV. etc. etc.

Oh, but to dream!

Che-Vito wrote:

Joetaco wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:Make the game a true d10/d20 system. Give a bit of wider diversity to the units stats, and have it all fit in a bit better with the fluff as well.

oh lord, this would be awesome, but unless they did it right the rules would become clunky beyond belief

Somebody will probably post in response "play Inquisitor". My response...if the system could be done right...I'd rather play 40k with a difference between Guard and Tau BS, where armor saves have a wide variety, and where vehicles have a wider range of AV. etc. etc.

Oh, but to dream!

Actually a d12 would probably be the best idea.

I would change the "We must update MEQs every other codex" rule.

If I could change one thing, and ONLY one thing?


Celestians would be equipped for close combat: bolt pistols and close combat weapons, and frag grenades, for free.

Both sides shoot during the shooting phase. (of course then you'd have to change some other rules and point costs but that's for later)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alternately, A Moves, A Shoots, B Moves, B Shoots, A Charges, B Charges, Resolve Melee.

So yes, I think that battles in the future should not be so Melee based. I'd like each side to have one (1) round of Shooting for each round of Melee.

Basic Rule change- one that has seemed slowed since 3rd edition came out.

Let squad based heavy/special weapons fire at a seperate target than the small arms in a squad. This crap of having to fire the bolters & lasguns at a tank so the lascannon/Missile/MM can is slowed(or having to fire the the heavy at a grot insted of the dread/tank farther away). The justification of 'represents the other troops bringing up ammo or taking cover' is some of the weakest GW crap written.

Mistress of minis wrote:Let squad based heavy/special weapons fire at a seperate target than the small arms in a squad.

I support this as well!

I would get rid of space marines being burnt by plasma weapons. Their armour is so thick!

I dont like the fact that you get close combats where it is impossible for one side to hurt the other. I realise that things like wraithlords are very tough to wound but I find it hard to believe that if 30 orks all ganged up on it at the same time for 5 turns, they wouldn't be able to damage it in any way. Even if they needed 6, then a further 6 on another roll to wound that would be preferable imo. There should at least be a chance, even if its remote.

It would either be that or some form of overwatch being brought back. With assault marines and winged demon princes, I think if you have a unit of short ranged shooters like guardians, and there is a demon prince hiding behind a rock 18" away, the guardians should be able to not fire and brace themselves for the upcoming assault instead. As soon as the demon prince comes into range, they should be able to shoot their normal shots at -1 or -2 BS.

Ahriman of the Thousand Sons would cause all models with the Mark of Tzeentch in his army, including himself, to automatically pass psychic tests and be immune to abilities that affect Psychic Powers such as Nullzone and Runes of Warding.

In a perfect world...

Boss Scar wrote:I would get rid of space marines being burnt by plasma weapons. Their armour is so thick!

Then there would be no point of plasma weaponry.

Melissia wrote:

Boss Scar wrote:I would get rid of space marines being burnt by plasma weapons. Their armour is so thick!

Then there would be no point of plasma weaponry.

This one. If plasma weapons couldn't burn space marines, they probably wouldn't be AP2. I always interpreted the fact you still get an armor save as the situation being that you irritated the machine spirit and it vented excess plasma all up in your face (that vent IS on the top of the plasma gun right next to your face, after all). It's not a full blast of plasma; just the excess from the tank, ergo it's no guarantee that it cuts through your armor.

Dropping BLASTAS from the Ork dex, and instead making GITFINDAS a 5pt upgrade to add +1 to BS

Make the CSM codex interesting again.

Only way that could happen is if they removed Marines entirely and focused on Daemons.


Oh wait they already did that...

Melissia wrote:Only way that could happen is if they removed Marines entirely and focused on Daemons.


Oh wait they already did that...

Just because your army doesn't get possessed suits of armour with awesome Egyptian hats...

But yeah the Chaos Codex went too far in the direction of simplifying everything, even if the old codex did have to be pruned a little.

Nitros14 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Only way that could happen is if they removed Marines entirely and focused on Daemons.


Oh wait they already did that...

Just because your army doesn't get possessed suits of armour with awesome Egyptian hats...

But yeah the Chaos Codex went too far in the direction of simplifying everything, even if the old codex did have to be pruned a little.

Or men who let themselves be possessed by daemons to become killing machines.

Some of our stuff would be alot better if it where more reliable. Possessed should be able to purchase different upgrades instead of rolling for it, Dreadnaughts should be able to be drop podded or teleported into enemy lines if your going to make it crazy/pron to attacking your own guys. We are Chaos Space Marines, NOT Orks, for crying out loud....

mikeyboyj wrote:I dont like the fact that you get close combats where it is impossible for one side to hurt the other. I realise that things like wraithlords are very tough to wound but I find it hard to believe that if 30 orks all ganged up on it at the same time for 5 turns, they wouldn't be able to damage it in any way. Even if they needed 6, then a further 6 on another roll to wound that would be preferable imo. There should at least be a chance, even if its remote.

I agree, sort of like in War of the Rings. When your fighting something tough you have to roll a 6+ followed by a 4+ or sometimes a 5+ or even 6+. There should always be a chance.

two things:

Drones from Tau vehicles NOT counting as extra kill points, seriously I have to take a 20 point upgrade because if they kill my transport all they have to do is shoot down 2 drones & get an extra KP.

Reduce FW cost to 8 points. Only a small reduction but it would be very worth it.

I only want to change one letter, heres the before (KP) and heres what I wish it would go back to (VP).

I had thought I was past this but 'Ard Boyz round 2 REALLY made me miss vps.....

For Guard, I'd say reduce power weapon cost to five points...

One thing?

Tau Battlesuits have standard BS4 not 3. It is hard to belief a veteran in a armoured suit with enhanced systems isnt any better at firing then a new recruit, in a FW unit.

I'd like to see Terminators gain either +1 BS, WS or W.

Valk

In blood angels give termies a jump pack option or atleast let a librarian use wings of sanguinious for the whole squad.

I’d move attack resolution from needing three die rolls to hit, wound and beat armour, to just two. You could easily turn ‘to hit’ and ‘to wound’ into a single roll, representing the ability to put a lethal wound on target. This would be a chart like the current to wound chart, and would ultimately make it so that instead of a guardsman rolling a 4+ to hit then a 5+ to wound a marine, he’d just roll once needing a 6. An ork wouldn’t roll a 5+ then a 4+ to wound a marine, he’d roll once needing a 6. A marine wouldn’t need a 3+ then a 4+ to wound an ork, he’d just need a 5+.

After that you’d roll armour, where I’d add a bit more complexity. Instead of the binary system we’ve got at present where you have a save or you have absolutely no save at all, I’d give each model three armour stats, one vs small arms, one vs harder hitting weapons, and one vs armour destroying weapons. A marine would be 3/5/-, meaning against regular weapons like bolters and lasguns he’d save on a 3+, against more deadly weapons like heavy bolters he’d save on a 5, and he’d get no save at all against armour destroying weapons like plasma guns.

I’d get rid of the silliness where combat resolution needs four unique stats that aren’t used anywhere else in the game. The same system can be managed with two stats, attacks and melee. The first is the number of dice you roll when attacking, the second is a combination of strength and weapon skill – merged in the same way as BS and weapon strength above. All units on both sides would be considered as attacking at the same time, units designed around built around going first in melee such as ‘stealers getting a special rule stating they always attacks first. Units that always go last, such as powerfists, would keep the rule saying they always go last.

I’d drop wounds entirely. A monstrous creature can be taken out by a well placed shot just like a walker or a tank can. Regular troops with two wounds can have FNP instead. Everything else would get a wound table, similar to the vehicle/walker table. I would think about building separate tables for characters, monstrous creatures, walkers, skimmers, and light vehicles and tanks.

I’d make fleet and running part of the movement phase. Having to move troops in two separate phases of the one turn is silly.

Sorry, just felt the need to address some things...

sebster wrote:I’d move attack resolution from needing three die rolls to hit, wound and beat armour, to just two. You could easily turn ‘to hit’ and ‘to wound’ into a single roll, representing the ability to put a lethal wound on target. This would be a chart like the current to wound chart, and would ultimately make it so that instead of a guardsman rolling a 4+ to hit then a 5+ to wound a marine, he’d just roll once needing a 6. An ork wouldn’t roll a 5+ then a 4+ to wound a marine, he’d roll once needing a 6. A marine wouldn’t need a 3+ then a 4+ to wound an ork, he’d just need a 5+.

So guardsmen and orks would go from having a 16.5% chance of wounding a space marine, to a 16.6666% chance where in a space marine would see no change, but see significantly better odds to wound T3... This also kinda assumes that all shots hit, but only some (very few) actually wound. Instead I think the current system allows for a model to get his chance to hit (BS) and the weapons chance to wound (Weapon str) without this, you would probably get caught up in weapon complexity quite quickly...

sebster wrote:
After that you’d roll armour, where I’d add a bit more complexity. Instead of the binary system we’ve got at present where you have a save or you have absolutely no save at all, I’d give each model three armour stats, one vs small arms, one vs harder hitting weapons, and one vs armour destroying weapons. A marine would be 3/5/-, meaning against regular weapons like bolters and lasguns he’d save on a 3+, against more deadly weapons like heavy bolters he’d save on a 5, and he’d get no save at all against armour destroying weapons like plasma guns.

This would dramatically underbalance MEQ armies or leave GEQ armies with less saves then they actually get, as the easiest way to balance this system would be to remove the AP system in general and instead base it on weapon str (for instance, weapons of str 1-4 = Normal 5-7 Heavy 8+ Devestating ((no armor))) which leaves questions for things like Nid weaponry that normally does allow army saves would have to have special rules regarding this system.

sebster wrote:
I’d get rid of the silliness where combat resolution needs four unique stats that aren’t used anywhere else in the game. The same system can be managed with two stats, attacks and melee. The first is the number of dice you roll when attacking, the second is a combination of strength and weapon skill – merged in the same way as BS and weapon strength above. All units on both sides would be considered as attacking at the same time, units designed around built around going first in melee such as ‘stealers getting a special rule stating they always attacks first. Units that always go last, such as powerfists, would keep the rule saying they always go last.

Again, the initiative system is meant to balance things like IGs ability to quite literally take 50 models for every ~20 tac marines. If the mass armies automatically struck simul with the bulky guys, the bulky guys will lose out much more frequently then the mass. Weapon skill/Strength is the same as BS/Strength in regards to having a model hit, then try to wound, but I do agree the system is currently very flawed. The fact that almost everyone has a 4+ to hit, when Parrying(etc) is supposed to be considered in the rolls to hit with WS is a bit far-fetched. Maybe giving more uses to those stats would be helpful, incorperating Initiative into Weaponskill / Coversaves /movement might be one idea. Letting WS/Power weapons be used to assist in Difficult terrain tests (hacking away at a jungle/building wall for instance) Strength could be used for Armorsaves or more likely, to determine how far a model can move and fire a heavy weapon (if it is not already relentless). I'm wondering what four stats you are referring to (I assume Attacks/Init/WS/Str) and if correct, the attacks attribute is one of the most important attributes in w40k. It lets you know what NOT to let get in melee with you (as a unit of 5 guys with 4 attack each is scarier then 10 guys with 1 each) and without it, you kinda lose out on melee as a whole.

sebster wrote:
I’d drop wounds entirely. A monstrous creature can be taken out by a well placed shot just like a walker or a tank can. Regular troops with two wounds can have FNP instead. Everything else would get a wound table, similar to the vehicle/walker table. I would think about building separate tables for characters, monstrous creatures, walkers, skimmers, and light vehicles and tanks.

To assume realism (for instance, something big has an equal chance of dying in one shot as something small) is not always the best course of action. Again, while not all MCs are Eternal warrior (and thus, can be IKed) keep in mind that an MC can be VERY different then a walker of a tank. For instance, if you cause an engine in a tank to explode, it explodes, if you shoot a Daemon (who actually has the special rule "Invurnerable") with a lascannon, theoretically, you will not hurt it, the fact that you still can with mundane, mortal weaponry, is already an incredible feat in itself. Wounds allow non-mass armies to (exist for one) field big guys without the worry that one lucky autocannon shot (from a ~45 point model) will take out their 200+ point MC. While tanks in some way have this worry, a way to balance MCs to be able to be one-shotted by common fire would be to associate "Toughness Values (like armor)" where they would have equivlent FA 14 (immune to anything <str8 non rending) etc. Str 3 can wound all but 2 MCs(Talos and Wraith lord) out there right now, str 3 can not effect ANY armor(vehicle) in the game (without some sort of special rule like rending). This balance change would be needed if you were going to have a 16% chance to one shot a MC with common-fire.

sebster wrote:
I’d make fleet and running part of the movement phase. Having to move troops in two separate phases of the one turn is silly.

I don't think its silly to incorperate the fact that people may decide to run instead of shoot while their comrades are firing at an opponent, quite contrary I believe it is moreso silly to assume that the entire army does all its moving as one (even if parts of the army will be moving further then others of the same speed of them) and then all just stand still while some of the units are opening fire.

Again, I understand it is your opinion and you are entitled to it, by no means am I trying to completely dismiss your ideas, I just wanted to post my own opinions and address some concerns that I personally noticed arise.

-DAR>

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:So guardsmen and orks would go from having a 16.5% chance of wounding a space marine, to a 16.6666% chance where in a space marine would see no change, but see significantly better odds to wound T3... This also kinda assumes that all shots hit, but only some (very few) actually wound. Instead I think the current system allows for a model to get his chance to hit (BS) and the weapons chance to wound (Weapon str) without this, you would probably get caught up in weapon complexity quite quickly...

Umm, the odds go from 16.6666% to wound to 16.6666%. It'd be the same. Don't know where you got 16.5% from, rounding error maybe?

And yeah, a marine would probably go from the current 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound (44%) to probably a straight 4+ to inflict a wounding hit (50%). This is a marginal shift in probabilities.

And no, it doesn’t assume all shots hit, but only some wound. The current system doesn’t state marines shoot once, with a 2/3 chance of hitting. Instead the system is abstracted, with a large number of shots reduced to a single roll to hit on a 3+. My proposed change wouldn’t bother tracking the number of hits at all, just the number of effective hits that need to be saved by armour.

This would dramatically underbalance MEQ armies or leave GEQ armies with less saves then they actually get, as the easiest way to balance this system would be to remove the AP system in general and instead base it on weapon str (for instance, weapons of str 1-4 = Normal 5-7 Heavy 8+ Devestating ((no armor))) which leaves questions for things like Nid weaponry that normally does allow army saves would have to have special rules regarding this system.

First up, a change like this, given in isolation cannot be measured in terms of game balance. Especially when armour saves for other troop types haven’t even been given. That just makes no sense.

Second up, your suggestion is the same as mine, it just ties AP to the weapon’s strength. This would be a poor change as it removes the ability to distinguish weapons by strength and AP. 40K has a lot of high strength, low AP weapons and vice versa. Your suggestion would lose the ability to represent the autocannon and venom cannon at one end, and inferno rounds and hellguns at the other.

Again, the initiative system is meant to balance things like IGs ability to quite literally take 50 models for every ~20 tac marines. If the mass armies automatically struck simul with the bulky guys, the bulky guys will lose out much more frequently then the mass.

You don’t need four seperate stats to build a combat system where numerous guys are balanced against elite guys.

Weapon skill/Strength is the same as BS/Strength in regards to having a model hit, then try to wound, but I do agree the system is currently very flawed. The fact that almost everyone has a 4+ to hit, when Parrying(etc) is supposed to be considered in the rolls to hit with WS is a bit far-fetched.

Like BS, WS is a stat that the game’s basic design has moved past, but remains for historic reasons. So we all keep rolling three dice whenever anyone attacks anyone. Like BS, GW has basically turned WS into a simple randomiser, a 4+ roll (occasionally a 3+) before getting to the stats that actually distinguish melee combatants – str vs toughness and armour saves.

Maybe giving more uses to those stats would be helpful, incorperating Initiative into Weaponskill / Coversaves /movement might be one idea. Letting WS/Power weapons be used to assist in Difficult terrain tests (hacking away at a jungle/building wall for instance) Strength could be used for Armorsaves or more likely, to determine how far a model can move and fire a heavy weapon (if it is not already relentless).

If 40K was to go down a path of minute simulation, then maybe. It hasn’t though, it’s built around being a company level game. It started as a squad level game though with a strong focus on simulation, and still hasn’t managed to remove all of that baggage.

I'm wondering what four stats you are referring to (I assume Attacks/Init/WS/Str) and if correct, the attacks attribute is one of the most important attributes in w40k. It lets you know what NOT to let get in melee with you (as a unit of 5 guys with 4 attack each is scarier then 10 guys with 1 each) and without it, you kinda lose out on melee as a whole.

Yeah, attacks is one of those stats, and yeah, it is important. If you read my change, you’ll note that the attacks stat is kept, along with a WS/Str combination stat.

To assume realism (for instance, something big has an equal chance of dying in one shot as something small) is not always the best course of action. Again, while not all MCs are Eternal warrior (and thus, can be IKed) keep in mind that an MC can be VERY different then a walker of a tank. For instance, if you cause an engine in a tank to explode, it explodes, if you shoot a Daemon (who actually has the special rule "Invurnerable") with a lascannon, theoretically, you will not hurt it, the fact that you still can with mundane, mortal weaponry, is already an incredible feat in itself. Wounds allow non-mass armies to (exist for one) field big guys without the worry that one lucky autocannon shot (from a ~45 point model) will take out their 200+ point MC. While tanks in some way have this worry, a way to balance MCs to be able to be one-shotted by common fire would be to associate "Toughness Values (like armor)" where they would have equivlent FA 14 (immune to anything <str8 non rending) etc. Str 3 can wound all but 2 MCs(Talos and Wraith lord) out there right now, str 3 can not effect ANY armor(vehicle) in the game (without some sort of special rule like rending). This balance change would be needed if you were going to have a 16% chance to one shot a MC with common-fire.

Yes, there is presently a (theoretical) balance between MCs and vehicles, as the former can be wounded by small arms, and the latter can go boom in one hit. But I think maintaining a balancing mechanism that makes no sense is bad design. If you look at a walker, there are exposed elements everywhere – small arms should be able to damage it. Similarly, I have no idea how a creature would be simultaneously be vulnerable to small arms fire and able to survive four times as many AT hits as a land raider.

It’s a nonsense balance, where balance could be much easier represented with more direct methods.

I don't think its silly to incorperate the fact that people may decide to run instead of shoot while their comrades are firing at an opponent, quite contrary I believe it is moreso silly to assume that the entire army does all its moving as one (even if parts of the army will be moving further then others of the same speed of them) and then all just stand still while some of the units are opening fire.

You have a game where one side moves and shoots, then the other side does the same. We accept this for simplicity and ease of play. Accepting that, but then thinking it is important to simulate all units in the army moving as one, then some units moving again while other units fire is a completely bizarre design decision. It’s even sillier when you consider 40K is almost unique in gaming in making units move twice. 40K wasn’t like that originally, WHFB never has been, and I can’t think of any other game that does it.

Again, I understand it is your opinion and you are entitled to it, by no means am I trying to completely dismiss your ideas, I just wanted to post my own opinions and address some concerns that I personally noticed arise.

Sure, and you’re welcome to your opinion.

make the imperial guard troops choices NORMAL!

... define normal? That isn't exactly very clear.

One change? I'd convert the entire rule set to Toymallet $0.40.

One change... move the focus away from Space Marines. That is; kill off the extra books and leave all the Space Marine chapters the way the Imperial Guards have their worlds and Eldar craftworlds are described. Change the focus towards a more balanced set of armies (shooty-movey-choppa - i.e. IG, Eldar, Orks which are all cooler than SM). I honestly see less reason for SM chapters to have their own books than for, f.ex., IG to have them.

Speaking of realism... with games the rule is "you don't have to make it realistic, but it must be believable". For instance, a bolter is a ridiculous weapon, to think it would be remotely efficient is silly, but it is believably efficient and believably powerful.

Lower prices

Add some Forge World stuff to the regular codexes! The FW books are sooo expensive to ship to the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, that or give guard a better armor save. Everything and their mother busts through A5+

Mahtamori wrote:One change... move the focus away from Space Marines. That is; kill off the extra books and leave all the Space Marine chapters the way the Imperial Guards have their worlds and Eldar craftworlds are described. Change the focus towards a more balanced set of armies (shooty-movey-choppa - i.e. IG, Eldar, Orks which are all cooler than SM). I honestly see less reason for SM chapters to have their own books than for, f.ex., IG to have them.

Speaking of realism... with games the rule is "you don't have to make it realistic, but it must be believable". For instance, a bolter is a ridiculous weapon, to think it would be remotely efficient is silly, but it is believably efficient and believably powerful.

Not really... it's not exactly believed to be efficient.

The LASGUN is efficient.

Not really... it's not exactly believed to be efficient.

The LASGUN is efficient.

Yes efficient, but woefully underpowered. Flashlights are deadlier than lasguns.

Melissia wrote:... define normal? That isn't exactly very clear.

apparently in one troops choice you have to get 2 mandatory inf squads,0-5 heavy weapons teams, 0-2 special weapons teams and 0-1 conscript squads. all in one troops choice. thats kind of unnecesarry imo.

Blitza da warboy wrote:

Melissia wrote:... define normal? That isn't exactly very clear.

apparently in one troops choice you have to get 2 mandatory inf squads,0-5 heavy weapons teams, 0-2 special weapons teams and 0-1 conscript squads. all in one troops choice. thats kind of unnecesarry imo.

True but that's why you also get veterans which is a normal troop choice.

The Odessey wrote:

Not really... it's not exactly believed to be efficient.

The LASGUN is efficient.

Yes efficient, but woefully underpowered. Flashlights are deadlier than lasguns.

And yet, lasguns can kill a Marine in one shot, both in fluff and in tabletop.

Mahtamori wrote:One change... move the focus away from Space Marines. That is; kill off the extra books and leave all the Space Marine chapters the way the Imperial Guards have their worlds and Eldar craftworlds are described. Change the focus towards a more balanced set of armies (shooty-movey-choppa - i.e. IG, Eldar, Orks which are all cooler than SM). I honestly see less reason for SM chapters to have their own books than for, f.ex., IG to have them.

Speaking of realism... with games the rule is "you don't have to make it realistic, but it must be believable". For instance, a bolter is a ridiculous weapon, to think it would be remotely efficient is silly, but it is believably efficient and believably powerful.

bolter ridiculous?? check this out... its called the AA-12 shotgun. about 1min into it it says this full auto shotgun has granade rounds that blow up 1/2 second after impact. just like a boltgun.Hell it even looks like a boltgun !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syog9ETZ96g

AA-12... it's... beautiful.

It doesn't relaly look like a boltgun...

It kinda looks like a storm bolter from the side.

Only it doesn't. Unless you're drunk or something...

Hmmm...If I could change one thing...MOAR DAKKA!!!

They actually designed a bolter-esque weapon that explodes after entering a building, XM-18 I think....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and in Gaunt's Ghosts it took 2 squads of lasgunners to fry 1 CSM, so I guess it sort of fits.

And later on they killed a CSM in one shot with a lasgun. Mind you it was a hotshot long-las... but still.

Matt65 wrote:bolter ridiculous?? check this out... its called the AA-12 shotgun. about 1min into it it says this full auto shotgun has granade rounds that blow up 1/2 second after impact. just like a boltgun.Hell it even looks like a boltgun !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syog9ETZ96g

The AA-12 is a cool gun with no battlefield role. The range is inadequate for anything but sweeping buildings, and the gun is too big for that.

Take the same gun and give it a larger calibre and sub-sonic rounds and you've made it even less sensible - and that's the bolter. Which is why people say the bolter is a very cool idea but quite a ridiculous one.

I would change the rule where you can't shoot infantry inside of vehicles. This would allow us to shoot at infantry in vehicles and buildings.

I started to play 40K again after a 15+ years break from it. The very 1st battle field I set up I brought out all my old buildings and once I found out that you had to destroy the building before you can shoot at the guys inside, just like vehicles. From then on, I replaced all of my buildings with ruined buildings on all of my battle fields.

Boredflak1066 wrote:I would change the rule where you can't shoot infantry inside of vehicles. This would allow us to shoot at infantry in vehicles and buildings.

I started to play 40K again after a 15+ years break from it. The very 1st battle field I set up I brought out all my old buildings and once I found out that you had to destroy the building before you can shoot at the guys inside, just like vehicles. From then on, I replaced all of my buildings with ruined buildings on all of my battle fields.

For example the Tau Devilfish. There is no gaps/wholes, do the bullets just phase through the metal?

syanticraven wrote:

Boredflak1066 wrote:I would change the rule where you can't shoot infantry inside of vehicles. This would allow us to shoot at infantry in vehicles and buildings.

I started to play 40K again after a 15+ years break from it. The very 1st battle field I set up I brought out all my old buildings and once I found out that you had to destroy the building before you can shoot at the guys inside, just like vehicles. From then on, I replaced all of my buildings with ruined buildings on all of my battle fields.

For example the Tau Devilfish. There is no gaps/wholes, do the bullets just phase through the metal?

It would a lot more sense to change it so that you could shoot troops inside buildings or open topped vehicles, but not in closed vehicles. Basically if the troops can shoot out, you can shoot them back.

sebster wrote:

syanticraven wrote:

Boredflak1066 wrote:I would change the rule where you can't shoot infantry inside of vehicles. This would allow us to shoot at infantry in vehicles and buildings.

I started to play 40K again after a 15+ years break from it. The very 1st battle field I set up I brought out all my old buildings and once I found out that you had to destroy the building before you can shoot at the guys inside, just like vehicles. From then on, I replaced all of my buildings with ruined buildings on all of my battle fields.

For example the Tau Devilfish. There is no gaps/wholes, do the bullets just phase through the metal?

It would a lot more sense to change it so that you could shoot troops inside buildings or open topped vehicles, but not in closed vehicles. Basically if the troops can shoot out, you can shoot them back.

In buildings it assumes they duck behind cover after they fire so you cant shoot them unless it is with a gun that ignores terrain as in passes through it.
As with a open top vehicle, they usually move extremely quickly and models do not always stay on the hull, they hide, any that do are usually on mounted weapons and you can kill them with a weapon destroyed result.

It makes more sense since on some vehicles the gap is the size of a bolter and shooting through one of them when it is stationary nevermind moving is going to be a larger chance then what can be portrayed on a dice or even 2.

Units cannot turbo boost in their scout move

I'd have them bring back the rules for "Overwatch" in the main rulebook.

Take away chimera's 6 fire points. Seriously.

sebster wrote:

Matt65 wrote:bolter ridiculous?? check this out... its called the AA-12 shotgun. about 1min into it it says this full auto shotgun has granade rounds that blow up 1/2 second after impact. just like a boltgun.Hell it even looks like a boltgun !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syog9ETZ96g

The AA-12 is a cool gun with no battlefield role. The range is inadequate for anything but sweeping buildings, and the gun is too big for that.

Take the same gun and give it a larger calibre and sub-sonic rounds and you've made it even less sensible - and that's the bolter. Which is why people say the bolter is a very cool idea but quite a ridiculous one.

It does have a battlefield role in the urban combat arena. Suppression and clearing buildings.

Ironhide wrote:It does have a battlefield role in the urban combat arena. Suppression and clearing buildings.

It has an intended use for suppression and clearing buildings. Given that no nation has actually used the things to do that, the point remains.

The US Army uses shotguns in Iraq. For crowd control, door breaching, and clearing buildings. Hell, a shotgun has more effectiveness than most assault rifles.

Bring back a movement stat.

Godro254 wrote:I would get rid of the 'No assalting after firing a rapid fire weapon', it's soooo unrealistic

You can only assault after firing an assault weapon. You can't do anything else if you fire a rapid fire weapon.

Kevin949 wrote:

Godro254 wrote:I would get rid of the 'No assalting after firing a rapid fire weapon', it's soooo unrealistic

You can only assault after firing an assault weapon. You can't do anything else if you fire a rapid fire weapon.

Same rule applies for heavy doesn't it?
(na assault when fired)

syanticraven wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Godro254 wrote:I would get rid of the 'No assalting after firing a rapid fire weapon', it's soooo unrealistic

You can only assault after firing an assault weapon. You can't do anything else if you fire a rapid fire weapon.

Same rule applies for heavy doesn't it?
(na assault when fired)

Ya. Only weapons with "assault" in the description field or whatever it is called allow you to assault after firing. Certain special cases apply of course.

So basically he wants Rapid Fire weapons to gain the Assault special rule.


Kinda like how Pistols have it as part of the Pistols rule.

The Odessey wrote:Add some Forge World stuff to the regular codexes! The FW books are sooo expensive to ship to the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, that or give guard a better armor save. Everything and their mother busts through A5+

Oh JEEZ, you Imperials are SUCH BABIES

Orks have a 6 save. 6! I dont complain about that. Im used to the fact that I go last in assaults, and only get to roll FNP and the occasional cybork save. Seriously if our giant mobs (yes yours and mine) got better saves it would REALLY mess up the balance issue in the game.

Also, you CAN give Guard a better save. By playing Veterans with Carapace. And unlike Orks, you can play an entire army with only 4+ saves (Orks can only have one squad with 4+ saves, and most people think that squad's overpriced).

I would either want Hive commander to work while the tyrant is in reserves or let the lictor assault out of deep strike (that would make them a viable choice)
... Or make Librarian Dreadnoughts Psykers... Wings and Lance in one turn would be awesome...

Meganobz can take a painboy (and cyborks) and a bosspole. One Meganob can take a Kannon for 10pts.

syanticraven wrote:In buildings it assumes they duck behind cover after they fire so you cant shoot them unless it is with a gun that ignores terrain as in passes through it.

A unit standing in a forest or in a ruined building will duck behind cover after firing, that’s not a unique ability for buildings. Yet you can shoot troops in forests or ruins. You can see this in how city fighting actually plays out, not every building containing the enemy has had to be brought down with AT weapons or satchel charges, while they are tougher to kill than in the open, it isn’t impossible.

Ironhide wrote:The US Army uses shotguns in Iraq. For crowd control, door breaching, and clearing buildings. Hell, a shotgun has more effectiveness than most assault rifles.

Yes, they use shotguns. They don’t use AA-12s, which is the weapon being discussed for it’s bolter like qualities. Unless you’re going to claim all shotguns are like bolters?

Your claim that a shotgun has more effectiveness than an assault rifle is very odd as effectiveness is situational. In close quarters the strengths of an assault rifle – range, accuracy and suppressive fire, are minimised, allowing the shotgun’s stopping power to become more desirable.

sebster wrote:

Ironhide wrote:The US Army uses shotguns in Iraq. For crowd control, door breaching, and clearing buildings. Hell, a shotgun has more effectiveness than most assault rifles.

Yes, they use shotguns. They don’t use AA-12s, which is the weapon being discussed for it’s bolter like qualities. Unless you’re going to claim all shotguns are like bolters?

Your claim that a shotgun has more effectiveness than an assault rifle is very odd as effectiveness is situational. In close quarters the strengths of an assault rifle – range, accuracy and suppressive fire, are minimised, allowing the shotgun’s stopping power to become more desirable.

No, I'm not saying a shotgun is like a bolter. I'm saying a shotgun has a battlefield role, and since the AA-12 is basically an enhanced version of a shotgun, it will have the same battlefield role and then some. Since with the AA-12 you no longer have to pause to get a grenade and lob it into the room, you just fire the AA-12 into it.

Considering the situation is going to be urban combat for the foreseeable future, since it the enemies easiest way of evening the playing field against western forces, I see shotguns (and weapons like them) as being the most effective weapon for that style of warfare. A shotgun is more effective than an assault rifle because a shotgun just requires you to point in the direction of the enemy and fire. Assault rifles require you to aim and fire. So you gaining precious seconds by using a shotgun. Even then the shotgun is more apt to score a hit, maybe not a killing shot, but wounding is most times better. Because then you are taking two of the enemy out of the picture. The guy who is wounded and the guy trying to help him.

Ironhide wrote:No, I'm not saying a shotgun is like a bolter. I'm saying a shotgun has a battlefield role, and since the AA-12 is basically an enhanced version of a shotgun, it will have the same battlefield role and then some. Since with the AA-12 you no longer have to pause to get a grenade and lob it into the room, you just fire the AA-12 into it.

Considering the situation is going to be urban combat for the foreseeable future, since it the enemies easiest way of evening the playing field against western forces, I see shotguns (and weapons like them) as being the most effective weapon for that style of warfare. A shotgun is more effective than an assault rifle because a shotgun just requires you to point in the direction of the enemy and fire. Assault rifles require you to aim and fire. So you gaining precious seconds by using a shotgun. Even then the shotgun is more apt to score a hit, maybe not a killing shot, but wounding is most times better. Because then you are taking two of the enemy out of the picture. The guy who is wounded and the guy trying to help him.

Yes, shotguns have battlefield roles, and are used by modern militaries. But the things that make the AA-12 different to a shotgun and more like a bolter are not sufficiently desirable given the increased size and weight of the weapon - really negative features when you're looking to move through a house room by room. This is why no military has ordered the AA-12 in any significant number, and it is fair to say the weapon is not practical.

That AA-12 looks like a biatch to reload.

Incidentally, and this is hearsay, but I've heard that the whole "wounding is better than killing" only works against a conscript military where they bother doing things like recovering the wounded, or following the Geneva Conventions with regard to surrender; what I'd heard was that bodies of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan were recovered with multiple 5.56 holes in them, but had continued to fight until they'd bled out or taken a fatal hit.

Indeed, as any army in 40k would tell you, fanatacism and sheer stubbornness can make up for lack of skill and training...

change the BS of scouts to 4, its a complete slap in the face to every bit of fluff about scouts in the entire 40k universe. the daily rituals of a space marine include at least 3 diferent periods of marksmanship training on top of everything else, and this is done every single days, no exceptions. GW is saying that guardsmen shot through a 3-4 month training pipe are on par with 9 foot tall superhumans who train in the art of death every day of their lives? sorry but... BULLSH*T

Brother Heinrich wrote:change the BS of scouts to 4, its a complete slap in the face to every bit of fluff about scouts in the entire 40k universe. the daily rituals of a space marine include at least 3 diferent periods of marksmanship training on top of everything else, and this is done every single days, no exceptions. GW is saying that guardsmen shot through a 3-4 month training pipe are on par with 9 foot tall superhumans who train in the art of death every day of their lives? sorry but... BULLSH*T

if this was true evey space marine would have T 7, S 7, 3 wounds, 3 attacks, 3+inv save, fearless,stubborn,feel no pain,furious charge and acute senses.

witch would put a tactical squad at about 1200 points. BUT i do agree with you. If a space marine finishes scout training then moves to a devistatior squad, then into the assault squads/bikes/speeders. by the time they would get a chance to join a tactical squad each space maine woud have BS5 WS5 S5 T5 W2 I5 A2 LD 10 armed with boltgun,boltpistol,krak&frag and a CCW.

I like the old way better. Scouts move up to Tactical, from there they eather stay or move to a catigory there better in (fast attack,Heavy or even Vet.)

you forgot preferred enemy.

Matt65 wrote:

Brother Heinrich wrote:change the BS of scouts to 4, its a complete slap in the face to every bit of fluff about scouts in the entire 40k universe. the daily rituals of a space marine include at least 3 diferent periods of marksmanship training on top of everything else, and this is done every single days, no exceptions. GW is saying that guardsmen shot through a 3-4 month training pipe are on par with 9 foot tall superhumans who train in the art of death every day of their lives? sorry but... BULLSH*T

if this was true evey space marine would have T 7, S 7, 3 wounds, 3 attacks, 3+inv save, fearless,stubborn,feel no pain,furious charge and acute senses.

witch would put a tactical squad at about 1200 points. BUT i do agree with you. If a space marine finishes scout training then moves to a devistatior squad, then into the assault squads/bikes/speeders. by the time they would get a chance to join a tactical squad each space maine woud have BS5 WS5 S5 T5 W2 I5 A2 LD 10 armed with boltgun,boltpistol,krak&frag and a CCW.

I like the old way better. Scouts move up to Tactical, from there they eather stay or move to a catigory there better in (fast attack,Heavy or even Vet.)

nonsense, the gap is in experience is far less radical, when you think about it, most scouts spend decades in the 10th company, that's a lot of time in which to hone your skills of marksmanship and hand to hand, most guardsmen don't even live a year after joining.

A guardsmans life expectancy is 15 hours. Basic training for a guardsman is 4 months.

Using Krak grenades against MC's.

I would fix this large mistake known as Warhammer 40K Core Rulebook, by firing everyone who worked on it, and start again.