With Fantasy v8 done GW is probably starting work on 40k v6 for 2012. As always there's 2 questions here, what will GW probably do, and what do we want them to do.

Anything jumping out as a likely change for GW?

Kill points.....gone.

I wouldn't be surprised if I opend the new 6th ed rule book and the first thing I saw,

'All models MUST be accompanied by dedicated transports'

My biggest gripes with the current edition have not been many. Certainly there are things that make me scratch my head but for the most part the version is good.

Allocating Wounds needs to go back to just removing the models of the players choice to streamline that part of the game and make it less confusing.

I still feel resolving HtH combats needs some tweaking as does multiple HtH combats.

Lastly area terrain needs a bit of a reworking to have maybe some more specific designations. I really hate a squad sitting on a hilltop gets a cover save when there really is no freaking cover available to them.

Hmmm...

Apart from everything, there isn't much wrong with 5e, IMO. What I mean is, there is no one simple thing I can point at and say, change this and it will fix everything.

It would be nice to get away from UGOIGO. That wouldn't be hard.

The codexes are the main problem.

Fix No Retreat! for multiple combats.

I'm quite sick of my Hive Tyrant being so distraught at the sight of so many Termagaunts getting stomped that he suffers a heart attack.

Rejigger the damage table. A 2d6 table or something of the sort with more results between "paint scratched" and "nuclear explosion" would be a start. Damaged drives, damaged optics, and so on.

I could see Gw possibly doing something like a Perils of the warp table instead of the take a wound thing.

Dunno if that would improve the game much.

I'd like the balance to be shifted back to infintry and less so on mech. But that's a personal thing rather than anything.

I would like to see a perils table. Make psykers a touch more unpredicatbe.

With a roll of a 12 being your unit becomes possesed by a greater daemon, who immediately charges the closest unit...

But seriously, infantry being more viable than Transport/Vehicle spam. But a proper mix being the more viable among them.

Footsloggin wrote:With a roll of a 12 being your unit becomes possesed by a greater daemon, who immediately charges the closest unit...

But seriously, infantry being more viable than Transport/Vehicle spam. But a proper mix being the more viable among them.

Maybe on an 11 he explodes?

Yeah I think I'd like to see the allocation go away a bit. Only different statlines should need allocating, I don't see why marine A must be the one to use the meltagun, marine B should be able to pick up the weapon if marine A dies anyways.

I think I'd like to see something changed for cover saves too, I'm not a fan of all the 4+, I feel most cover should be 5+ (trees, craters etc, ruins are fine at 4+).

I'm pretty happy with 5th overall, and am not itching for a change so much.

Footsloggin wrote:With a roll of a 12 being your unit becomes possesed by a greater daemon, who immediately charges the closest unit...

Exactly. Loads of fluff about pyskers losing a little control and getting possessed. That and have some other effects (maybe some positive ones). Less psykers would propably be feilded but ah well.

purplefood wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:With a roll of a 12 being your unit becomes possesed by a greater daemon, who immediately charges the closest unit...

But seriously, infantry being more viable than Transport/Vehicle spam. But a proper mix being the more viable among them.

Maybe on an 11 he explodes?

9 His head just pops, 10 he explodes with a small blast, 11 he explodes with a large blast!

I like the fact that transports are strong choices in 5th edition, but it brings me to the point of nerd rage at how psykers and psyker-like powers have this magic one-way wall with transports where if inside they can affect everything around them, yet somehow no psychic power can affect them. There has to be a better solution.

Make Transports more expensive, the psyker USR maybe gets a power within itself to disable vehicles to some extent?

A perils of the warp chart would be pretty cool, but I'd hope it wouldn't completely general to all psykers. A Daemon Prince having the same chance of catching head-explodingitis as a common librarian? I hope not.

Footsloggin wrote:Make Transports more expensive, the psyker USR maybe gets a power within itself to disable vehicles to some extent?

That's not really what I'm talking about. I hate the inconsistancy between psykers being unaffected by SitW and similar things while in a transport, yet they can still use powers like Shield of Sanguinus that project outside of the transport and affect units around them. If a transport is going to be a barrier, then let it be a barrier both ways. If it's going to be transparent to powers, let it be transparent both ways.

Maelstrom808 wrote:That's not really what I'm talking about. I hate the inconsistancy between psykers being unaffected by SitW and similar things while in a transport, yet they can still use powers like Shield of Sanguinus that project outside of the transport and affect units around them.

RAW is actually pretty clear/consistent, it's just that BS FAQ ruling of SitW that's messed up.

Tzeentchling9 wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:That's not really what I'm talking about. I hate the inconsistancy between psykers being unaffected by SitW and similar things while in a transport, yet they can still use powers like Shield of Sanguinus that project outside of the transport and affect units around them.

RAW is actually pretty clear/consistent, it's just that BS FAQ ruling of SitW that's messed up.

Not really...from the BRB FAQ:

Q: Can a model use a psychic power that is not a Psychic
Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport vehicle? (p50)
A: Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still
worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will count as
one model shooting through that fire point if the power is
used in the Shooting phase).
If the psychic power does not require line of sight and has
a range or an area of effect that is normally measured
from the model using it, these are measured from the
vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking section on
page 66.

Q: Can Psychic powers be used on a unit embarked on a
transport? (p50)
A: For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a firm ‘No,
unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported’

So if you have any sort of aura power that affects units within X inches and are outside of the transport, it does nothing to the units within...yet if you are within the transport, you not only can affect units around you, but you get a little bonus range because you measure from the hull of the transport.

this is more of a codex thing, but:
no mephiston MC BS.
no SW riding wolves BS.

for the BRB?
I'd love to see it so that mech armies aren't as good. I get fed up with having to pop tin cans before I can kill anything of interest.

Footsloggin wrote:Make Transports more expensive

That wouldn't be too bad an addition, except it couldn't be applied within the Rulebook, it would have to be changed in each individual Codex, which wouldn't work.

For me, just balance out Mech/Infantry usage would be the biggest change needed.
No Retreat Wounds and Cover would need to be fixed too IMHO.


For me though, my greatest desire would be to keep the Troops/Objective Need as I LOVE that rule.

Chaos Lord Gir wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if I opend the new 6th ed rule book and the first thing I saw,

'All models MUST be accompanied by dedicated transports'

Perhaps they will make tanks less powerful, making infantry more important than just holding objectives.

Probably the best thing they could do aside from the psyker thing is remove the ability for transports to count as scoring if they have troops embarked. That way the contents have to come out at some point...and it's a bit more realistic.

Get rid of wound allocation, replace it with a more robust and sensible version of the 4E rule. And a return to the 4E area terrain rules. THEY WERE PERFECT!!!!! Unless you want to treat 40K like a skirmish game and spend hours every game arguing about the specific placement of models, just accept a certain level of abstraction. It's not like there is any sort of realistic correlation between miniature scale and ground scale anyway. And get rid of the FOC, replacing it with a percentage-based system, which would be a lot more flexible and would eliminate the irritating trend of HQ's allowing exceptions to the FOC. Gaaah!!!

Really, to me 40K is what it is. I dropped out of the game for ten years to play games that I thought were better. Hell, I helped write two of them. So when 6th edition comes along, I will play it as it is served up to me. I can always find opponents, and the minis and armies are fun, if not necessarily "realistic." I will make my suggestions on improving the game when the Dev team asks me, they know where to find me. Until then, I will have fun with whatever they give me to play with.

It annoys me that the chance to hit a vehicle in CC is based solely on how fast the vehicle moved. There should also be a modifier based on the WS and/or position of the model trying to hit it.
(eg. a carnifex charging a moving vehicle head on should have a much better chance of hitting it than one coming from behind and trying to keep up.)

that.

I'd like to see them get rid of wound allocations tricks.

I'd like them to move more towards "true line of sight" - if you can only see one model, you can only kill one model. Likewise, if only models within a 2" range can make attacks, then casualties from an assault should come from those models within 2".

I'd like to see number of models in the combat count for something in resolution. In 4th, it was all about outnumbering. In 5th, it's all about wounds inflicted. Surely there's some middle ground (If there are three of you, and I killed one, and there are ten of me, and you killed two, did you really win than combat? It was roughly 3:1 before, and now it's 4:1, seems like my side is winning to me.

I'd like to see some risk added back to using transports. I'm okay with the harder-to-damage vehicles (5th compared to 4th) but bring back entanglement at least, so it's not a no-risk no-brainer choice to go mech.

When I first started playing again I was initially outraged by No Retreat! wounds. It just didn't seem fair. Then after I played for a few months I started to see that other people were losing combat and getting sweeping advanced and losing everything in one go (except Space Marines, because they're special and need special rules to make them even more specially special). Assaults are supposed to be short and brutal. Now I don't much care about it anymore and I've also adapted my play style to deal with it on the table top. Part of the game, I accept it and play with it.

No Retreat! wounds and multiple assaults? That crap is just absolutely inexcusable and will infuriate me every, single, time. Watching people game the system by plowing every single last attack they have into gaunts/gants just to rack up as many gimme-wounds as they can and never even taking a swing at a Hive Tyrant confident in the knowledge that he's just going to fall over dead because they got one guy in base contact (who himself never even took a swing at the Tyrant). No acceptable excuses, that needs changed.

Just Dave wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:Make Transports more expensive

That wouldn't be too bad an addition, except it couldn't be applied within the Rulebook, it would have to be changed in each individual Codex, which wouldn't work.

For me, just balance out Mech/Infantry usage would be the biggest change needed.
No Retreat Wounds and Cover would need to be fixed too IMHO.


For me though, my greatest desire would be to keep the Troops/Objective Need as I LOVE that rule.

He did not specifically state "rulebook" however, he simply said 6th edition. And, since 5th edition has already showed dirt cheap transports, I'm hoping 6th edition will make them a tactical choice rather than a *MUST*.

FNP will be nerfed. Can't say much else for sure.

Make infantry more important the the thing they ride in. Men win wars, not empty cans.

Dear GW santa. For xmas this year, please release the 5th ed. Codex for the Tau, Inquisition, Necrons and Eldar in a timely fashion a month or two before 6th edition is released, so that half of our rules will once again remain outdated. We players are so used to being obsolete that if we were to actually coincide with a new rules edition, we would feel overwhelmed.

nice. +1.

Darn, not again! Grey Knights you failed me!

Just fix up the close combats and wound allocation.

Redbeard wrote:I'd like to see them get rid of wound allocations tricks.

I'd like them to move more towards "true line of sight" - if you can only see one model, you can only kill one model. Likewise, if only models within a 2" range can make attacks, then casualties from an assault should come from those models within 2".

I'd like to see number of models in the combat count for something in resolution. In 4th, it was all about outnumbering. In 5th, it's all about wounds inflicted. Surely there's some middle ground (If there are three of you, and I killed one, and there are ten of me, and you killed two, did you really win than combat? It was roughly 3:1 before, and now it's 4:1, seems like my side is winning to me.

I'd like to see some risk added back to using transports. I'm okay with the harder-to-damage vehicles (5th compared to 4th) but bring back entanglement at least, so it's not a no-risk no-brainer choice to go mech.

Damned right. Five space marines should at least consider a tactical retreat when faced with a couple of dozen orks, regardless of just having caused more wounds than they suffered.

SumYungGui wrote:When I first started playing again I was initially outraged by No Retreat! wounds. It just didn't seem fair. Then after I played for a few months I started to see that other people were losing combat and getting sweeping advanced and losing everything in one go (except Space Marines, because they're special and need special rules to make them even more specially special). Assaults are supposed to be short and brutal. Now I don't much care about it anymore and I've also adapted my play style to deal with it on the table top. Part of the game, I accept it and play with it.

No Retreat! wounds and multiple assaults? That crap is just absolutely inexcusable and will infuriate me every, single, time. Watching people game the system by plowing every single last attack they have into gaunts/gants just to rack up as many gimme-wounds as they can and never even taking a swing at a Hive Tyrant confident in the knowledge that he's just going to fall over dead because they got one guy in base contact (who himself never even took a swing at the Tyrant). No acceptable excuses, that needs changed.

I needs to be gotten rid of, simple as that.

Fetterkey wrote:FNP will be nerfed. Can't say much else for sure.

FNP is already worthless unless you have at least a 3+ armor save. It should be changed to a T bonus, perhaps +2.

Also, the to-hit chart for close combat needs to be made more literal. If you totally outclass the enemy, you should be able to hit them on a 2+, and if you're attacking something in close combat that you really shouldn't have messed with, you deserve to hit only on a 6.

The big things I'd like to see.

KP's gone. This is such a terrible mechanic it hurts.

Vehicle weapons need to be changed. Allessio was butthurt that a predator could move and scrap his banshees sitting out in the open. What the current system has done has resulted in huge numbers of ways to bypass this restriction (PotMS, Lumbering Behemoth, Fast becoming increasingly available amongst many armies, Aerial Assault, etc), and those few remaining vehicles that don't have mitigation being restricted to being pillboxes, which primarily means just the Predator, and maybe the Chimera (however this also has some mitigation in the Fire Points it has for its infantry and the fact that it can take a mobility rewarding heavy flamer). Personally what I'd like to see is something like the following.

No Movement-fire everything without penalty
6" or less- Fire one weapon without penalty, all others at -1 BS
6-12"-Fire one weapon at -1 BS, all others at -2 BS
More than 12"-none

Change Defensive Weapons to be pintle mounted weapons that can fire at a different target and be used in an assault (e.g. assault a Rhino with a storm bolter, it gets to fire the storm bolter during the assault). Also, get rid of the restriction on Ordnance weapons, allow vehicles with ordnance weapons to fire other things. The biggest thing this rule impacted was Leman Russ tanks, which can now bypass it, and all the Daemon units with High S/Low AP Blast Weapons are simply Assault anyway. It won't really make too much of a difference for IG artillery (oh god, a heavy bolter which may or may not have range/LoS or a heavy flamer which won't ever be fired with the main gun anyway) or Whirlwinds and Vindicators (which only have the one gun in the first place), but it will allow Defilers and barebones Valkyries to make use of other weapons and make any potential new ordnance bearing units more capable.


In regards to vehicle assaults, I'd really like to see some changes. I'd like to see hits on rear armor *only* if you reduce attacks to 1 as per grenades. A Nob on a bike running at full speed against a moving Predator isn't going to be able to hit the weak spots, or even try for somethign like vison slits. He's going to try and just whack something as hard as he can.

*HOWEVER*, at the same time, I'd also like to see many shooting weapons be useeable in assaults. I see no reason why one shouldn't be able to make use of a Meltagun or Blaster in an assault. Personally I'd probably do something like "any weapon with the assault type, or carried by a relentless model may fire in the shooting phase and be used in the assault phase. Any weapon with the Rapid Fire type may be used in either the Shooting or Assault phases but not both"

As for Transport rules, which seem to be a recurring thing (though I have never minded it) instead of nerfing the crap out of transports or bringing back the stupid Entanglement rule, I'd rather see two things. First, changed "Explodes" to be an Init test or die outright (would result actually in fewer casualties to Eldar, but increased casualties to just about everyone else, and make characters much more vulnerable), and second would be to give footslogging infantry more options. Instead of just allowing them to "go to ground", allow any infantry unit not in a transport to "dig in" and create its own cover anywhere, and if they stay there for a turn after that they gain Counterattack if assaulted (troops anticipating assaults from prepared positions are hard to shift). Or something like that. Don't mash transports, make units outside of transports more capable of interacting with the battlefield. This would also help differentiate armies more, footslogging lists would be kings of defense, while Mechanized lists would clearly be attacker type armies.

I would however change the Aura thing that transports currently have, subtracting 2" from any power or ability used by an embarked model (e.g. embarked KFF would only work if within 4" of the hull, rather than 6"), or just make Aura abilities/powers not work at all if embarked.


I do however really enjoy the current transport rules, it adds a bit more depth to trying to stop a foe. I have to blast them out first, not just shoot the piss out of them from the get go. I'm ok with this.

Also, change wound allocation. Either go back to 4E's, or make it so that wounds are allocated and *resolved* in order of lowest AP or armor save ignoring attacks first, then allocating other attacks to anything that may survive. That way we avoid the stupid situations where more shooting results in fewer casualties.



As for CC, there are definitely some things that need to be resolved. It's much to easy to cheese stuff with the current No Retreat rule or break multiple units with relatively small differences in total combat resolution. I managed to kill an Avatar I hadn't put a single wound on by wiping the Dire Avenger squad that was also in combat with my CSM's and forcing 7 no retreat wounds on him, of which he failed 4. Not average, but still shouldn't be able to force wounds on something by attacking something weaker. I've also seen combats involving up to 5 or 6 units that were won by only 2 casualties after both sides inflicting double digit losses on each other, the difference being exteremly minor, but this causing a couple units to break as a result. Winning the combat should be decided by the overall number of wounds, but that shouldn't be applied to each unit on the losing side, only how much they actually lost in comparision to what they inflicted (or if they actually inflicted more, then no modifier).



The LoS rules come up a lot, but I love 5E's a lot more than 4E's. It distrubs me how many people don't remember the games where, as a result of area terrain, almost nothing could see anything beyond 18-24", making assault and skimmerspam armies ridiculously capable. The easiest fix for 5E LoS rules? MAKE BETTER TERRAIN!

Finally, FNP. FNP has simply become far too widely available, especially on already tough troops. I'd like to see it either as a 5+ instead of 4+, or, as has been suggested, a T bonus (probably just +1).

Vaktathi wrote:
No Movement-fire everything without penalty
6" or less- Fire one weapon without penalty, all others at -1 BS
6-12"-Fire one weapon at -1 BS, all others at -2 BS
More than 12"-none

This is the best idea I've heard in a looong time!!! However, considering how much they've dumbed down the game with each edition, I have little hope of such wisdom making it into the next edition.

Redbeard wrote:I'd like to see them get rid of wound allocations tricks.

I'd like them to move more towards "true line of sight" - if you can only see one model, you can only kill one model. Likewise, if only models within a 2" range can make attacks, then casualties from an assault should come from those models within 2".

I'd like to see number of models in the combat count for something in resolution. In 4th, it was all about outnumbering. In 5th, it's all about wounds inflicted. Surely there's some middle ground (If there are three of you, and I killed one, and there are ten of me, and you killed two, did you really win than combat? It was roughly 3:1 before, and now it's 4:1, seems like my side is winning to me.

I'd like to see some risk added back to using transports. I'm okay with the harder-to-damage vehicles (5th compared to 4th) but bring back entanglement at least, so it's not a no-risk no-brainer choice to go mech.

I liked your entanglement comment in sentiment only. In reality, it's the cheapness/effectiveness ratio that makes transports so good and it has very little to do with what happens if/when you crack one open. The VAST majority of armies could almost care less what happens to their minimum squad of grey hunters. They want their 75pt TL Lascannon, not a 5 wound meltagun. They just had to buy the 5 guys to get the armored TL Lascannon.

What needs to change to shift it back are some rules affecting transports themselves that would make them less desirable as fire platforms. I have no problem with a Leman Russ sitting back as fire support, but a wall of armor 12 Chimeras just didn't really make sense in previous editions.

I wouldn't be opposed to changing the rules of objectives so that you have to actually disembark and sit on an objective to hold one. Some objectives are things to be 'captured' or 'recovered' and tanks don't have grapplers to do such a thing (although that would make for interesting codex vehicle upgrades like Ork grabba-objectives!)

My biggest complaint, movement...WTF is this everything moves 6 inches, except the stuff that doesnt...which is like 60% of things in the game. Just bring back the M stat.

Next would be special rules...not every unit needs a laundry list of special rules. When every unit type has 5 of them, they stop being "special".

No removing casualties from the back of a unit in CC...only remove units in base contact. No more removing an Ork boy from the back of the unit when my SM is in base contact with (and just killed) the Nob w the power claw.

This will never happen but...Id like to see SM be statted more like they are in the fluff. That would make a PA SM more like a termie...and up from there. Boost the points to match. The are supposed to be super elite...equal to or better than all others in the galaxy, not just a bit better, but far and away. However, to do this would mean lower numbers in SM armies, thus less minis sold...and we cant have that now can we.

The problem I think with forcing disembarkation is that some armies, primarily Space Marines, wouldn't have too much of a problem with this. Others, primarily those without T4 and 3+ saves, are going to feel it much more. A unit of Space Marines can sit on an objective for a few turns and repel many assaulters, and can take hits, and will likely pass morale checks or can regroup and retake the objective. A unit of Dire Avengers, Fire Warriors, or Guardsmen is going to get wiped by a single heavy flamer and won't be able to repel many assaults.

As someone with both MEQ armies and GEQ armies, as well as an army that is incapable of mechanization (nids), I'd really rather not see this change made, it's going to make it very difficult for non-SM armies.

It's not really a core rules thing but they're so common it should work:

lascannon S9 Ap1 Rng48
Meltagun S8 Ap2 Rng12 melta
Multimelta S8 Ap2 Rng24 melta

I think it would balance them out a bit more

Redbeard wrote:I'd like to see them get rid of wound allocations tricks.

I'd like them to move more towards "true line of sight" - if you can only see one model, you can only kill one model. Likewise, if only models within a 2" range can make attacks, then casualties from an assault should come from those models within 2".

I'd like to see number of models in the combat count for something in resolution. In 4th, it was all about outnumbering. In 5th, it's all about wounds inflicted. Surely there's some middle ground (If there are three of you, and I killed one, and there are ten of me, and you killed two, did you really win than combat? It was roughly 3:1 before, and now it's 4:1, seems like my side is winning to me.

I'd like to see some risk added back to using transports. I'm okay with the harder-to-damage vehicles (5th compared to 4th) but bring back entanglement at least, so it's not a no-risk no-brainer choice to go mech.

These 4 changes. This would be worth releasing a 6th edition rulebook.

The rest are problems with the codexes, that they could easily fix by putting a bit of restraint on the authors. Just say 'No Robin, Gargoyles don't need that special rule. Find a USR that fits'. 'No Phil, Space Wolves shouldn't be riding Wolves.'

When I got my first grasp of what the game was like when I bought a Battle For Macragge set in Scotland, I saw this game as what I liked to describe "a dramatic painting of two armies facing each other exchanging volleys of gunshots and flurries of punches". When I started actually playing right when 5th Ed came out, I was utterly dissapointed by the fleets of "boring transport hugging sods" of today, as I see little to no character in these faceless cut-and-paste box arrangements. If there is something 6th Ed. should do is fix this reliance, nay, this ADDICTION to transports by making them less worth their points ala-the "feared" 4th ed. rule set.

4E wasn't an edition where transports sucked, it's where they sucked for anyone but Eldar and Tau. Chimeras, Rhinos, Trukks, etc were all...terrible and horrifically expensive, and probably the best way to get your squads killed. You almost never saw Rhino's or Chimeras in armies in 4E, and if you did, it was primarily for mobile terrain that blocked LoS, and little else. For Skimmerspam armies, they were incredibly hard to destroy and the LoS rules meant they were typically out of sight as well, and were for almost all intents and purposes immune to CC attacks. Neither of these are/were good for the game or how Transports should be utilized.

Again, the best way to balance this isn't by making transports worthless or nerfing the crap out of them, it's to make infantry that aren't imbarked able to interact with the battlefield more and have other options. Digging in, deploying minefields, sighting for artillery, etc.

Vaktathi wrote:4E wasn't an edition where transports sucked, it's where they sucked for anyone but Eldar and Tau. Chimeras, Rhinos, Trukks, etc were all...terrible and horrifically expensive, and probably the best way to get your squads killed. You almost never saw Rhino's or Chimeras in armies in 4E, and if you did, it was primarily for mobile terrain that blocked LoS, and little else. For Skimmerspam armies, they were incredibly hard to destroy and the LoS rules meant they were typically out of sight as well, and were for almost all intents and purposes immune to CC attacks. Neither of these are/were good for the game or how Transports should be utilized.

Again, the best way to balance this isn't by making transports worthless or nerfing the crap out of them, it's to make infantry that aren't imbarked able to interact with the battlefield more and have other options. Digging in, deploying minefields, sighting for artillery, etc.

I didn't really mean to say, "they sucked", I only really knew the rules of how deadly they were to use them, hence the aforementioned "no-brainer risk". Which was really the only aspect I was looking at, sorry for not writing specifically what I was trying to project

I only do really wish for them to be less mandatory, realistic/sensible rules or not.

@ Vaktathi

Bad stuff first...

In regards to vehicle assaults, I'd really like to see some changes. I'd like to see hits on rear armor *only* if you reduce attacks to 1 as per grenades. A Nob on a bike running at full speed against a moving Predator isn't going to be able to hit the weak spots, or even try for somethign like vison slits. He's going to try and just whack something as hard as he can.

I'd say a big no to this one. There is no point in it. I can understand what you are saying about bikers, but that is no reason to punish units like genestealers who are going to be crawling all over the thing hitting weak points, yet have no grenades.

Shooting weapons in the assault phase would be another no as it completely unbalances the game. It allows troops that are good at shooting but poor in assaults to now be good at both, yet assault troops are still only worthwhile in assaults.

I kind of like the idea about giving footslogging infantry more options than going to ground, but by forcing footslogging armies into an immobile defensive posture, the mechanized attackers are always at an advantage in objective games. They would be much more capable of reaching and contesting opposing objectives while being able to hold their own than the defensive footsloggers. On top of that, games get boring very quick if you are essentially forced into a defensive battle simply by the army you play (see Necrons). I'd rather leave the transport balance as it is than try to shoehorn armies into "attacker/defender" roles.

The problem with FnP resides in the codexes, not the rule itself. It has a place where it's used sparingly (one unit in an army like CSM plague marines, or Nids where only a couple units can get it), or with Necrons where it's the basis of the entire army (in one form or another). When you give it out wholesale as an aura that can cover the entire army with just a few properly placed units (I'm looking at you Blood Angels) and the army doesn't even NEED it, then it becomes a problem.

and for the good...

I agree, lose the KPs, go back to VPs.

The change to how vehicles fire when moving is interesting, and I'd be willing to give that one a go. I've never liked their idea of defensive weapons. Which leads to your idea for pintle mounted weapons, which I love. It allows them to do what they actually do in the real world.

While assaults should be the most decisive battles in the game, I agree that the current multiple assault rules are pretty much completely effed. Units should be accountable for thier own failings, not the failings of other units around them.

(Just my opinions of course)

I'd like infantry squads to be able to divide their fire. If you've got meltaguns, a missile launcher and lasguns, you should be able to make maximum use of all your firepower. The only restriction should be all weapons with the exact same profile need to shoot the same target. So in the above example, the meltaguns can shoot at a transport, the lasguns can shoot at a nearby squad, and the missile launcher can shoot at a Dreadnought near by. The only limitation is that this all happens simultaneously. So, you can't meltagun a transport and the shoot lasguns at the passenger if it's wrecked.

Surprised no one else has sad it yet but I think they will throw in premeasuring just like it is in Fantasy.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

I'd say a big no to this one. There is no point in it. I can understand what you are saying about bikers, but that is no reason to punish units like genestealers who are going to be crawling all over the thing hitting weak points, yet have no grenades.

I understand that, and perhaps there's a better way to work it out, however I just find that for many things the auto-hit on rear armor simply makes some units way too good at it, it's way too easy for certain things to engage and destroy a vehicle in an assault. Like a CSM DP, hitting with 5 attacks against with a 75% chance to penetrate on each against anything but a Monolith, Demolisher type Leman Russ, Land Raider or some Walkers, or a Dreadnought with a 100% chance to penetrate anything that isn't one of those units, is a bit silly.

Perhaps only for "non-infantry" units? That would encompass most units where it seems to be most silly.

Although that said, even as someone with a Tyranid army, I've never liked the idea of Genestealers as anti-tank units, that's more of a desperation use, there really should be something more in there for that, although I think the ball was dropped *hard* with that book, it really feels like it was written in just a couple days and shoved out the door with multiple conflicting trains of thought.

Shooting weapons in the assault phase would be another no as it completely unbalances the game. It allows troops that are good at shooting but poor in assaults to now be good at both, yet assault troops are still only worthwhile in assaults.

I erred in that I meant only against vehicles. Not against everything. My mistake. And in that regard, I don't think it'd be too bad. It'd also give more units greater opportunities to destroy those much maligned transports. Hive Guard, DE Warriors, Zoanthropes, Melta-sisters, Tankbustas, etc all of a sudden become much more of a threat. Perhaps with a "Gets Hot!" component to represent putzing the attack.




Although, something that just popped into my head so take it as it is, an alternate take on all of this could also be to allow vehicles to attack back, a "crush and grind" approach, where they'd get a single WS1 (not very skilled), I2 attack (goes after most things, but before the slowest of attacks) against everything engaged with it (I would say base contact but that would get *very* gamed methinks, although may be overkill against horde units) with a Strength equal to 3+1 for every frontal AV above 10 (e.g. AV10 would be S3, AV11 would be S4, AV12 S5, AV13 S6, AV14 S7), that would allow all normal saves if stationary, ignore armor saves if the vehicle had moved. This way there's some danger element (as physically assaulting a tank in real life is one of the quickest ways to get killed on a battlefield) that doesn't make vehicle assaults such one-sided no brainer affairs.

I kind of like the idea about giving footslogging infantry more options than going to ground, but by forcing footslogging armies into an immobile defensive posture, the mechanized attackers are always at an advantage in objective games.

Only in say, Seize Ground games that aren't Dawn of War or Spearhead (where they can start with entenched units on objectives). In Capture and Control they could stack a whole bunch of dug in infantry on their objective to lock it down and use their FA and Elites to to nasty things to the other players objective.

Although it was only an example, there could be many things. Units that don't take transports could take a 6"x3" minefield marker for 30pts that's difficult/dangerous and causes an S6 hit on rear armor for any vehicle. There's lots of things one could do to make footslogging lists better without having to smack transports that would add lots of life to the game. Traps, trenches, assault preparations, artillery spotting, etc could all be used to make footsloggers better. If a mechanized unit knows that the big dug in squad sitting on the objective is going to have cover, difficult/dangerous terrain around it, and is going to get Counterattack if they assault in straight away, it makes even a squad of Fire Warriors much more daunting than they would be otherwise. There could also be greater access to stuff like camo netting or equivalents (unembarked units that haven't moved if shot at must be spotted using Night Fight rules) and the like. There's a lot of ways that footsloggers could be made a lot more fun and viable, without needing to nerf transports.

That said, I think trying to footslog infantry across the board *should* be a difficult and dangerous, it is in real life (hence why modern armies *are* mechanized), and should be in the game. For armies that rely on that (Tyranids) they need to have their units built (generally large in number) so that they can make it across and engage or have other avenues of attack (infiltrate, outflanking, etc). In that regard you might also see more of a balance in many armies, with a footslogging defensive "anvil" component and a mechanized "hammer" component that works far better than it does now.

The problem with FnP resides in the codexes, not the rule itself. It has a place where it's used sparingly (one unit in an army like CSM plague marines, or Nids where only a couple units can get it), or with Necrons where it's the basis of the entire army (in one form or another). When you give it out wholesale as an aura that can cover the entire army with just a few properly placed units (I'm looking at you Blood Angels) and the army doesn't even NEED it, then it becomes a problem.

I agree, however if anything we are seeing increased access to FNP across the board, and on units that are harder and harder to kill. Once it becomes so widespread, it's going to take another decade to reign it back in, and thus hitting during an adjustment edition is probably the best way to go.

and for the good...

I agree, lose the KPs, go back to VPs.

The change to how vehicles fire when moving is interesting, and I'd be willing to give that one a go. I've never liked their idea of defensive weapons. Which leads to your idea for pintle mounted weapons, which I love. It allows them to do what they actually do in the real world.

The "defensive" classification was always weird to me (should have been "primary" and "secondary" armament), and so often the pintle mounts were just useless next to the other weapons on a vehicle for its primary role (e.g. storm bolters on Vindicators, heavy stubbers on Bassy's, etc)

While assaults should be the most decisive battles in the game, I agree that the current multiple assault rules are pretty much completely effed. Units should be accountable for thier own failings, not the failings of other units around them.

Exactly, way too easy to cheese units that may have actually won their section of combat or that otherwise wouldn't be facing a threat.



I've also remembered of a couple other things I'd like to see changed.

The vehicle squadron rules as they are are particularly atrocious and heavily incentivize most players not to take squadrons of units. The immobilized=destroyed bit was a cop-out to avoid having to deal with anchor units (which was never really a problem) and the free extra armor was a gimme counterbalance thrown in that doesn't really make up for it in most cases (given that most squadronable vehicles are gun platforms, or they already have EA). The ease with which vehicles are killed in squadrons is just too much. It's possible to inflict melta penetration hits against a tank in a leman russ squadron that's up to 22" away from any enemy models and out of LoS, or inflict Powerklaw hits on one that's 16" away from any enemy models. That's an issue. I don't mind having to all target one enemy unit or that some shooting gets spread around, but only shots/attacks that are in range or actively engaged in CC with should be able to be allocated to other vehicles. If those two changes were made (must be in range & LoS or actually engaged with enemy models in CC to be allocated hits, and no immobilzed=wrecked) it would make them viable in most cases.

Ramming as it currently is is silly. I'd really like it to be reworked or just made back to 4E tank shock where you just moved the enemy vehicle. Not 100% sure how to rework it, but it needs it.

I hope not. I think the occasional failed assault or barrage keeps things interesting.

Rymafyr wrote:

Lastly area terrain needs a bit of a reworking to have maybe some more specific designations. I really hate a squad sitting on a hilltop gets a cover save when there really is no freaking cover available to them.

Then don't designate a hill as area terrain. Done. This is a problem that my group has had since time immemorial. Why they insist on it, i don't know, but we settled it as follows: if its a smooth rolling hill, you only get cover from being behind it. If its a rocky hill w/ outcroppings, trees/brush, then its area terrain.

I only have a couple complaints: mech, assaults, cover, missions, and vehicles.

I think Mech can be fixed easily enough, add a result of 7 onto the damage chart and bring back the old vehicle annihilated result, there are more than enough ways out there to get the +1 from the 6. This would take away some of the surefire safety that makes meching up so attractive. Personally, I think it will happen, simply because Apoc allows something similar to superheavies, and the way I see it, if superheavies can lose all their passengers, than non-superheavies sure as hell can. This one simple change would have a tremendous impact, I think. I just hope it wouldn't tip the scales in the other direction, but considering how cheap transports have become as of late, I feel like it would finally achieve 'zen' between the old 4th ed. system and the current 5th.

I think assaults are still too powerful (but I started life as a Tau player, and it hurts me to see the little blue guys suffer so badly), especially when you now have the ability to deep strike and assault in the same turn (Blood Angels Vanguard Vets or whatever). I personally would like to see a charge reactions system implemented into 40k. I see no reason why a unit wouldn't voluntarily disengage and fall back from an oncoming assault.

Standard cover needs to return to 5+. Giving EVERYTHING a 50% chance of saving almost all the time is totally ridiculous, needlessly drags out games (since the average weapons ap is a 5, but everything is getting a 4+ save anyway), and is open to abuse by armies that don't really need it (guard/ork/nid hordes). Other than that, I don't really mind the current system all that much, I think its much clearer and easier to play than the convoluted and illogical system we had back in 4th.

I have a couple thoughts regarding missions:
-KP's need to be fixed (lets just go back to the good old days of VP's and keep it simple, huh? If the math is too hard for the kiddies to figure out, then they probably could write a list anyway, right?)
-Objectives need to not be capturable/contestable in the last turn (unless they were contested in the previous turn). The most frustrating thing for me is the last turn objective grab by a wave serpent that spent the entire game disengaged from combat hiding out behind some rocks with a DAVU squad riding shotgun.... and I'm primarily an Eldar player.... They kinda fixed this with the random turn length thing, but considering the number of local tournaments I've been to where the scenarios didn't call for that to be the case, and how common having a 6th turn but not a 7th turn is, it doesn't nearly go far enough. Besides that, this rule would make it a bit more realistic. A unit that jealously guarded their objective for most of the game shouldn't lose it simply because an enemy unit swooped in on them at the last second, I mean, at least give them a chance at a rebuttal to the attempt (usually the conniving Eldar player takes the second turn so that you don't have this option).

And vehicles: for the love of god fix this whole defensive weapon nonsense!!!

And the perils table sounds ace, though I doubt that would happen, since GW goes to great lengths to ensure that psykers are not percieved as the 40k version of wizards.

And personally, I like the allocation table, it keeps things fair, and it means you have a realistic shot of wiping out the specialists. What, has everyone forgotten the dark days where you would have to destroy an entire units worth of ablative wounds in order to get to the one special weapon in the squad? At least the current system has done away with much of the min-max spam that used to be so common.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:Make Transports more expensive, the psyker USR maybe gets a power within itself to disable vehicles to some extent?

That's not really what I'm talking about. I hate the inconsistancy between psykers being unaffected by SitW and similar things while in a transport, yet they can still use powers like Shield of Sanguinus that project outside of the transport and affect units around them. If a transport is going to be a barrier, then let it be a barrier both ways. If it's going to be transparent to powers, let it be transparent both ways.

This is a flaw with the SitW power and its faq ruling. Its not an issue that can be fixed by the main codex. All other anti-psycher abilities work against embarked psychers.

My list of things to do in 6th ed. is long and vast, as I personally think 5th ed. is the worst rule set to come out since the change from 2nd to third. However, regardless of what I want I see these changes as coming.

1 - Cover saves will go back to a base of 5+ or infantry will lose the ability to screen other units.
2 - TLOS is here to stay, but they might bring back area terrain for things specifically like forests. Where its a forest can be a forest again and not 4 clumps of shubbery.
3 - Wound allocation will change, for the better or worse is yet to be decided.
4 - Change of the vehicle damage tables. AP1 will no longer do what it currently does to try to bring other assault weapons back into popularity over the melta.
5 - Vehicle movement vs weapon firing will change again.
6 - exploding vehicles will wound based on a defined number again, it will not be an Strength vs Toughness anymore.
7 - I think they will change rapid fire weapons to have a new ability besides just double tap at half distance.
8 - New missions and starting layout. Objective missions are here to stay, kill points gone.
9 - Deep strike mishap will be modified or flat out changed so it wont be as disastrous anymore.
10 - Loose the ability to put the whole army into reserve again, some stuff will have to start on the table with special exceptions because of wargear/droppods/special rules/ etc.
11 - Outflank will stay, but positive results will be 1/2 of the time, not 2/3s as it is now.
12 - Fearless wounds will be completely changed as will how multiple assaults are resolved.
13 - The run rule will stay (no matter how much I hate it) but expect fleet to do something besides just allow assault (lots of things fleet that don't want to get into assault).
14 - They will gain a psychic phase and not just rely it to work during shooting as it is now. It will have more than just 1 paragraph of rules.
15 - Expect new definitions on player turn vs game turn.

These are just a few of the things I'm expecting, but the level of which they will change I cannot even begin to predict.

Better vehicle damage table

Hit modifiers based on range.

Proper cover rules

And an optional advanced version of the game so if you want added complexity you can have it.

It will never happen but i think it would be fun if the game changed from for D6 to D10. so you could show the difference between eldar and tau armour and space amrine and carnifex/hive tyrant armour and the difference between tau and ig shooting
and the difference between eldar guardians and ig training.

Something needs to be done about Deep Striking and the pseudo flyers currently in the game.

And yes, I agree that switching to D10 would help a LOT.

Jayden63 wrote:

My list of things to do in 6th ed. is long and vast, as I personally think 5th ed. is the worst rule set to come out since the change from 2nd to third. However, regardless of what I want I see these changes as coming.

1 - Cover saves will go back to a base of 5+ or infantry will lose the ability to screen other units.

I completely disagree here. It makes horde footslogging armies suicide, even more than they currently are.

2 - TLOS is here to stay, but they might bring back area terrain for things specifically like forests. Where its a forest can be a forest again and not 4 clumps of shubbery.

The rulebook cannot dictate how people use the terrain pieces that they have available.

3 - Wound allocation will change, for the better or worse is yet to be decided.

They need to stop this idiocy of clumping models into groups. If you're going to specifically allocate wounds, resolve them on a model-by-model basis or don't do it at all.

4 - Change of the vehicle damage tables. AP1 will no longer do what it currently does to try to bring other assault weapons back into popularity over the melta.

That's a problem with the AP system. They need to go back to the armor save modifiers system, and then you could just apply this modifier to the vehicle's armor value before the armor penetration roll.

5 - Vehicle movement vs weapon firing will change again.

It had better, otherwise the only weapon I will ever include on my battlewagons is a single big shoota, so that in case of weapon destroyed results, there is something to remove.

6 - exploding vehicles will wound based on a defined number again, it will not be an Strength vs Toughness anymore.

I think this is fine the way it is.

7 - I think they will change rapid fire weapons to have a new ability besides just double tap at half distance.

Perhaps one shot if they move, two if they don't, same range.

8 - New missions and starting layout. Objective missions are here to stay, kill points gone.

I would prefer for victory points to be the base for all missions, with objectives being bonus VP's.

9 - Deep strike mishap will be modified or flat out changed so it wont be as disastrous anymore.

Absolutely. Losing a key unit to a deep strike mishap is infuriating.

10 - Loose the ability to put the whole army into reserve again, some stuff will have to start on the table with special exceptions because of wargear/droppods/special rules/ etc.

Or give the enemy some sort of bonus, perhaps a special move to spread themselves out or something, because they know something is coming.

11 - Outflank will stay, but positive results will be 1/2 of the time, not 2/3s as it is now.

This perhaps needs to be changed more comprehensively. Or it could be my bad experiences with genestealers and striking scorpions.

12 - Fearless wounds will be completely changed as will how multiple assaults are resolved.

Fearless wounds needs to be gotten rid of completely. It's stupidly arbitrary.

13 - The run rule will stay (no matter how much I hate it) but expect fleet to do something besides just allow assault (lots of things fleet that don't want to get into assault).

No giving more armies move-shoot-move. It's bad enough that Tau do that.

14 - They will gain a psychic phase and not just rely it to work during shooting as it is now. It will have more than just 1 paragraph of rules.

So psykers can run or shoot and use a power? No way.

15 - Expect new definitions on player turn vs game turn.

I've never really experienced any problems with that, but then I'm not a tournie player.

These are just a few of the things I'm expecting, but the level of which they will change I cannot even begin to predict.

We should start to see the first rumors surfacing on Warseer (Say what you will, but that is where they always show up first!) sometime late next year. Perhaps this thread will inspire them to pull their heads out of their butts and give us a clear set of rules.

Also THEY BETTER CHANGE KP TO VP

1. Wound allocation needs to be fixed in the worst possible way. When I have my genestealers score 6 rending and 10 normal wounding hits on 6 Death Company 6 models should be off the table. You should not be able to game the allocation rules and have multiple models walk away from it. This will also solve a lot of stupid in some of the rulebooks like nobs squads and thunder wolf squads all with vastly different gear or 2 Tyranid prime and a 2 carnifex squad built just to exploit a rule to their advantage that's supposed to work against them.

2. Reserving your entire army to deny the opponent a shooting phase. Just lame.

3. No retreat and multiple combats. Blindingly unfair to tyranids and needs to go so so badly.

4. 4+ standard cover save. Seems like overkill in my opinion

5. Mech dominating the game at all levels. lighter vehicles need to be more fragile, and heavys need to be tough. Having an almost equal chance to blow up a landraider and rhino with lances and close range melta weapons is slowed. Structure points? Wounds? Bigger damage table with modifiers for total armor? Plenty of solutions possible.

6. Melta needs to be lessened. When every single special weapon you see on the board is the same....well, someone screwed up. Nerfing mech will hopefully solve some of this, but I'd like to see the +1 on the chart go away. Or only get the +1 at close range and not the extra D6. They are doubly more effective against vehicles then any other weapon and it makes them a no-brainer in a mech heavy environment.

It just seems like the "best" units all abuse one of the above issues to some degree.

Personally, I don't have too many problems with the current edition other than too much reliance on mech, and in turn lots of melta.

I do think Sweeping Advance and No Retreat are just plain silly

Would also be cool if they added a shoot into melee mechanic.

@Carnage43, I agree. It seems that the 5th edition thing is to give units the ability to break the rules. That's where the arguments always happen.

My biggest problem right now is that you have less control over reserves and outflankers than you should. For example:

I feel like I should be able to hold off on certain units coming in early because it is much more strategically sound to bring them in late. Or maybe I want my opponents stuff to come in early. An example of a balanced way to fix this in my opinion is say... for the Astropath, instead of it being a +1 for your units, and a -1 for his, you should be given the choice of + or - 1 for either roll.

A tyranid player should be able to keep units in reserve specifically to come out of the trygon hole. They are controlled by the hive mind for god's sake.

Bring back the transport costs of previous edition (looking at you Marines and IG), but keep the toughness of vehicles from 5th.

At the moment, vehicles are waay too cheap for their survivability.

1. Kill Points gone or adjusted. Perhaps 3 points for HQs, 2 for Elites and so on.

2. Vehicle Damage Table adjusted to make vehicles slightly more vulnerable.

3. Wound Allocation adjusted or removed simply because too many people aren't smart enough to understand them fully. Perhaps a rule forcing wounds to be allocated from lowest AP to highest AP.

4. No Retreat adjusted.

5. Introduction of pre-measuring.

The above isn't necessarily what I WANT to have changed, but rather what I PREDICT will be changed.

@Steelmage99: I understand the wound allocation rules fully, which is why I hate them so much. It's the intelligence of the game developers that you should be questioning.

Well, I like the wound allocation rule. I like how it moves away from "the-special-heavy-and-sergeant-always-survives-to-the-end" thing.

I understand that some people argue that "marine B just picks up the gun that marine A dropped". But this is IMO a very narrow and fluff inspired (ie worthless) argument.
The rules need to work across all codexes.
If we are to move into fluff territory (which I really don't like as the basic rules should be governed primarily by game balance) think of Guardsmen (not trained to use the weapon), Guardians (ritualized roles not easily exchanged) and Tyranids (does he suddenly grow a new gun?).

The reason why I think it will be changed is because there are too many questions posted all over about it.
Add the fact that a lot of people whine about it being "tricks", "shenanigans" and "cheese".

All this means that I believe it will change. Much to my regret, I might add.

The problem is that it makes sniping upgrades too easy, and often results in situations where more shooting=fewer casualties. For example, a Leman Russ hits a full squad of SM's with a battlecannon and wounds all 10. Normally this would kill them all, but it also declared (since shooting is simultaneous) that it would fire its three heavy bolters as well. 9 shots, 5 hit, 3 wound, and now we've got 10 AP3 wounds and 3 AP4 wounds. The AP4 wounds go on the Missile Launcher, Flamer and Sergeant, and the 10 AP3 wounds go on the 7 putz guys. So the 7 putz guys die, and one of the other three dies, but two remain, whereas had the HB's not shot, all 10 would be dead. That's a *bad* mechanic. In some ways it helps mitigate upgrade sniping, but *not* in a good way.

Brother SRM wrote:Rejigger the damage table. A 2d6 table or something of the sort with more results between "paint scratched" and "nuclear explosion" would be a start. Damaged drives, damaged optics, and so on.

I think this should be rending. For the explosion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:Dear GW santa. For xmas this year, please release the 5th ed. Codex for the Tau, Inquisition, Necrons and Eldar in a timely fashion a month or two before 6th edition is released, so that half of our rules will once again remain outdated. We players are so used to being obsolete that if we were to actually coincide with a new rules edition, we would feel overwhelmed.

Sigged

Brother SRM wrote:Rejigger the damage table. A 2d6 table or something of the sort with more results between "paint scratched" and "nuclear explosion" would be a start. Damaged drives, damaged optics, and so on.

I really like this idea. Have multiple shaken or stunned results, some of which carry penalties like -1 bs and ws for the rest of the game or halved movement speed or always counts as moving through dangerous terrain from a damaged track or drive mechanism. A little more interest and depth to the chart, with boxcars (12) generating an actually dangerous explosion (strength 6 rending or something.)

How big a change to the game do you think it would be if they simply made Glances only a -1 on the damage charrt?

I'd like to see Rapid Fire change to something that makes sense. It should be simple:

If I move, I can fire once to my max range.

If I don't move, I can fire twice to my max range.

I also agree that hitting vehicles in CC should change.

And dear lord yes, change the WS to-hit numbers. If I'm WS 9 and you are WS 2, I should probably hit you more than 2/3rds of the time. I really shouldn't be able to miss.

The 5th edition rules set is great I think they'll keep this one around for atleast six years before moving onto a new edition. The problem with the 5th edition environment isn't the core rules, it's the codexes. They're horribly unbalanced.

I love kill points, I would like to keep those very much as they provide fantastic balance. Keep victory points as a tie breaker, as victory points are a not a good indicator of a military victory. Imagine if modern war was based off $ cost of target... the US would lose a battle just based on the cost of bombs and fuel, and the loss of just one fighter would potentially lose a war. Same applies to 40k, elite units cost more, but are not necessarilly worried about a single unit in the grand scheme of things. If they were, then Space Marines would not take the field, as the risk of losing a marine would outweigh the benefit of using them.

I like objectives in principle, but there should be a bit more variety in objective types. First, there should be 'Secret Document' style objectives, that must be captured and moved into deployment zones. Second, there should be destroyable objectives, that earn more points captured than destroyed, but more points destroyed than contested. Third, there should be length of time objectives, where you earn a point each turn you hold them. This allows king of the hill style objectives, and gradual victory over several turns like Warsong in WoW. Finally, there should be objectives like there are now, where at the end of the game those who have the objective gain the full benefit.

Cover should be based on the to-hit roll. Roll to hit, roll cover, roll to wound, roll armor/invuln. If you hit the cover, then the cover takes the damage. Terrain can be destructable without any trouble at all, just give it a toughness of 5, and a # of wounds = to the length of the terrain. It would have an armor save = to its cover value. So a 6 inch long base of trees would be toughness 5 with 6 wounds and a 4+ armor save. So if you hide in the terrain versus heavy bolters, half the heavy bolters will be hitting the trees, and the trees will only stop about 12 heavy bolter hits, as a heavy bolter can blow a tree right in half. Destroyed terrain will still be difficult/dangerous, but it wont provide cover any longer. Certian cover will be indestructable, like hills (too much mass) or areas of fog/smoke (nothing to destroy). Also, screening enemy units now take the hits (while screening friendly units cause you to hold your shot on a successful save). So if 2 units of infantry screen each other, all they succede in doing is taking the hits between each other, as the attacker is still going to be taking the shot.

Finally, vehicles or monstrous creatures should be changed. Currently all MCs do is get move through cover, the ability to shoot 2 weapons if they have them and +1d6 to vehicle penetration in CC. In terms of special rules a SM scout with a meltabomb has almost all of a MCs special rules. MCs should be changed so that each wound they suffer causes a 1d6 roll, where a 6 causes 2 wounds (massive hemorage for example) a 5 causes 1 wound, a 4 makes them slow and purposeful instead of move through cover, a 3 makes them lose 1 attack or the bonus +1d6 armor pen, a 2 is no shooting, and a 1 is only 1 shot. Also, you can use grenades against MCs like against walkers (hit on a 6) Same amount of work as vehicles.

As for vehicles, if a vehicle takes a Pen troops inside must make a leadership (not a morale) check or be forced to disembark with a subsequent pinning check. Likewise, if a squad in a vehicle needs to make a morale check if they fail then they must do the same as when the vehicle takes a pen. Vehicles can fire defensive weapons in assault at init 2.

Destruct-able terrain would be ridiculously complicated.

Oh crap you killed my hill! now my entire army is exposed!

A more simple way would be to make it harder to hit like in fantasy.

I could see the No Retreat wounds/moral tests for units in a multiple combat thing altered to only apply if the unit itself suffered at least one wound. If not wounded at all, that unit doesn't take it.

I do kind of miss the 4E area terrain rules. There was a lot more LOS-blocking with the old woods.

Given the pendulum swing which made vehicles better in 5E, what if they ruled that a Dedicated Transport cannot, by itself, contest an Objective? That wouldn't be too big a swing in the opposite direction, but would make them a little less awesome.

Destruct-able terrain would be ridiculously complicated.
Oh crap you killed my hill! now my entire army is exposed!

As I mentioned destructible terrain would not be ridiculously complicated but infact very simple and intuitive. Measure the terrain. Put a die next to the terrain = to the # of inches long it is. Each time it takes a wound, remove 1 from the die. Also, the hill was a specific example of indestructable terrain. Finally, the terrain doesnt go away, it just doesnt provide cover anymore--it still remains as an area of difficult ground.

If you want to understand the changes that can reasonably be expected in 6th edition, you need to understand the history of Warhammer 40,000.

Firstly, the move from 2nd to 3rd edition, as well as the move from Epic Space Marine/Titan Legions 2nd edition to Epic 40,000, showed GW that radical change is a bad idea. Hence the move from 3rd to 4th edition 40,000 and 4th to 5th edition has been one of gradual change according to ~3 different design philosophies (Chambers, then Haines, and finally Johnson to name names).

Note how many rules changed on the move from 4th to 5th edition: Fleet (move 1D6" in shooting phase as alternative to running, charge in assault phase) became Run (move 1D6" in shooting phase as alternative to running), Fleet (charge in assault phase if run). Hit and Run, Counter-Attack, Preferred Enemy and so on were changed so that they depended, in true Warhammer fashion, on the quality of the units possessing them (an Initiative test, a Leadership test, and a re-roll of the usual to hit).

Secondly, GW has traditionally transplanted successful rules from other games into their main lines. WOTR charge movement, for example, is now standard in WFB 8th edition. Similarly the 'wound allocation' from the fantastic Epic Armageddon was moved to Warhammer 40,000 and despite people's complaints it has been phenomenally successful in promoting complex units. It has been less successful in promoting the tactics and formations necessary to maximize a unit's effectiveness, but let's face it, Rome wasn't build in a day even if Constantinople was.

Things I expect in the 6th edition

- Hit and Run, and Counter-Attack to be divided like Fleet was in the transition from 4th to 5th.

- The intact building and vehicle rules to be integrated so that both the passengers in vehicles and the occupants of buildings can be affected by a template weapon through the fire point.

-The 1+/4+/6 of hitting immobilized/combat/cruising speed vehicles to be converted to 1+/3+/5+.

- Vehicle wargear items being destructible via Damage results like movement and weapons.

- Sweeping Advance to be converted to be like No Retreat for units following the normal morale rules: instead of losing an entire unit to a Sweeping Advance, you'll take a number of saves like No Retreat and survivors Fall Back as normal.

- Combat will no longer be figured strictly according to the wounds caused, with wounds being modified by outnumbering and other factors (as we've seen with the Instruments of Chaos). No Retreat/Sweeping Advance modified accordingly.

- Pinning will be adjusted so that the changes made by the FAQ will be made explicit in the rules.

- The changes made by the FAQ to the relationship of Tank Shock and Ramming will be integrated into the rules.

- More Nullzone-like rules whereby successes can be re-rolled as well as failures.

Things I don't expect in 6th edition, but possibly 7th or 8th:

- The Epic Armageddon turn sequence, with integrated flyer, war engine, and orbital/off-board artillery assets.

- Blast marker based persistant morale and pinning

- Shooting with Assault weapons integrated into close combat

- The Assault/Rapid Fire/Heavy/Ordnance 40k weapons integrated with the Anti-Infantry, Anti-Tank, and Mega Weapon categories used in Epic: Armageddon.

- Implementation of Blood Bowl-style Block dice to govern close combat.

I would like to see the game move away from the mech-era, where every army needs dedicated transports to do well. I know its a business thing, so GW can sell more products, but it also makes the game less diverse, when the majority of armies all have transports that have different rules..

Also, some changes to the vehicle damage chart.. so 1's on glancing hits won't make the tank incapable of shooting...

And some editing to cover and when you get it. It really puts armies like tau at a disadvantage, but also having your foot behind a rock is annoying when you recieve a 4+ save, or even worse when your right in front of a squad but you can't see 5 of the ten guys, even if thier 2'' away, and they get saves -___- . kind of annoying...

What I would like to see for vehicle damage is something like this:

0-Shaken
1-Stunned
2-Weapon Destroyed
3-Immobilized

4-Heavy damage. Roll d3+1 times on the Heavy damage table. 1-2 Weapon Destroyed. 3-4 Weapon Destroyed and stunned. 5 Immobilized. 6 Immobilized and Stunned.

5-Wrecked. In addition, Transported units take d6 hits at 1/2 the strength of the weapon that destroyed this vehicle.

6-Set on Fire: The vehicle is destroyed and counts as immpassable terrain. models in the vehicle each take a S5 AP6 hit. During the destroying players next shooting phase, roll a d6. 1: continues burning. 2-5 Fire goes out. Treat it as a wreck. 6: Explodes.

7-Explodes. Models inside take S5 AP6 Hits, unless it is open topped, when they take S4 AP- Hits.

8-Collossal Explosion: All units within 2d6" take 2d6 S4 AP6 hits. Models inside the transport may not take armour saves, and take 3d6 hits.

The idea here is to increase the damage dealt without significantly reduceing vehicles durability. Thus the nastier destroyed results, the move of shaken to the 0- slot, and the addition of the heavy damage result.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:What I would like to see for vehicle damage is something like this:

0-Shaken
1-Stunned
2-Weapon Destroyed
3-Immobilized

4-Heavy damage. Roll d3+1 times on the Heavy damage table. 1-2 Weapon Destroyed. 3-4 Weapon Destroyed and stunned. 5 Immobilized. 6 Immobilized and Stunned.

5-Wrecked. In addition, Transported units take d6 hits at 1/2 the strength of the weapon that destroyed this vehicle.

6-Set on Fire: The vehicle is destroyed and counts as immpassable terrain. models in the vehicle each take a S5 AP6 hit. During the destroying players next shooting phase, roll a d6. 1: continues burning. 2-5 Fire goes out. Treat it as a wreck. 6: Explodes.

7-Explodes. Models inside take S5 AP6 Hits, unless it is open topped, when they take S4 AP- Hits.

8-Collossal Explosion: All units within 2d6" take 2d6 S4 AP6 hits. Models inside the transport may not take armour saves, and take 3d6 hits.

The idea here is to increase the damage dealt without significantly reduceing vehicles durability. Thus the nastier destroyed results, the move of shaken to the 0- slot, and the addition of the heavy damage result.

how can you roll a 0, 7 or 8?

Overall, I think we can agree 5thed is pretty solid as compared to past rulebooks. Personally, I would like to see a progressive character development for captains, exarchs, surviving models, etc. to give a more unique feel to an army. All in favor?

aye!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

shrike wrote:

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:What I would like to see for vehicle damage is something like this:

0-Shaken
1-Stunned
2-Weapon Destroyed
3-Immobilized

4-Heavy damage. Roll d3+1 times on the Heavy damage table. 1-2 Weapon Destroyed. 3-4 Weapon Destroyed and stunned. 5 Immobilized. 6 Immobilized and Stunned.

5-Wrecked. In addition, Transported units take d6 hits at 1/2 the strength of the weapon that destroyed this vehicle.

6-Set on Fire: The vehicle is destroyed and counts as immpassable terrain. models in the vehicle each take a S5 AP6 hit. During the destroying players next shooting phase, roll a d6. 1: continues burning. 2-5 Fire goes out. Treat it as a wreck. 6: Explodes.

7-Explodes. Models inside take S5 AP6 Hits, unless it is open topped, when they take S4 AP- Hits.

8-Collossal Explosion: All units within 2d6" take 2d6 S4 AP6 hits. Models inside the transport may not take armour saves, and take 3d6 hits.

The idea here is to increase the damage dealt without significantly reduceing vehicles durability. Thus the nastier destroyed results, the move of shaken to the 0- slot, and the addition of the heavy damage result.

how can you roll a 0, 7 or 8?

Glances, AP-, AP1, Open Topped all change the die roll up or down.

So the only way to roll and 8 would be to get an AP1 shot on an open topped vehicle?

ChrisWWII wrote:So the only way to roll and 8 would be to get an AP1 shot on an open topped vehicle?

sorry, but that rule is pretty pointless. There are few open-topped tanks, and the likelihood of getting hit by an AP1 weapon on an open-topped vehicle is low. Might as well stick with 1-6.
and how do you intend rolling a 0?

In general, there are parts of the game which are far too complicated and should be simplified, and there are other parts which are too simplistic, don’t work, and would benefit from being replaced with a cleverer (arguably more complicated) system.

1. Wound Allocation, especially in multi-unit melee, is insane. There has to be a better way.

2. TLoS is simplistic, stupid, and doesn’t work. Replace it with a table of standard height levels, with To Hit modifiers. That gets rid of cover saves too.

3. There are too many special rules. Some of my Tyranid creatures have as many as 15! I just can’t remember them all, and it takes too long to look up during games because they are spread out over a dozen widely separate pages of two books.

4. Leadership and Morale is pretty much a joke. It could be replaced with a table and modifiers.

5. There are too many dice.

6. The codexes really, really, really need to be better thought out, better laid out, and better balanced against each other. You will sell more models if you make all of them worth having in an army. You will sell more armies if you make all the armies worth playing.

Kilkrazy wrote:2. TLoS is simplistic, stupid, and doesn’t work. Replace it with a table of standard height levels, with To Hit modifiers. That gets rid of cover saves too.

I am SO fed up of the LoS and cover saves rule:
5 deverstators about 12" up a building.
a 40k barricade about 4" away from building.
5 wolf scouts about 2" from barricade on opposite side from the devestators.
THEY GET COVER?! I could see the entire squad's whole model's bases, and they get cover.
No fair! those wolf scouts proceeded to kill the devestators in CC (power weapon and 1 more attack than me).
Did'nt matter though- the devestators were my only units on that half of the board- they were a good 4 feet away from the rest of my army!
the rest of my army went and tabled him over the next 3 turns.

I haven't had too many problems with tlos, but I can see why gw put it in the rules. Honestly, I think models need to be in base contact with cover to get any bonuses out of it, on top of that, its a pain in the a$$ to bend down and squint.

I would love to see them bring back the Ork special rule for Choppas. They still count as CC weapons, but reduce the armor save of the unit to 4+ if they had better.

I would love to see something like what they have in fantasy where high strength weapons reducing the armor save you get. I mean, I understand how power armor can stop a lasgun shot, and even how it can stop a autocannon round. However...the armor can protect them just as well fromm the lasgun as it does from a S10 Manticore shot!?!? How does that make sense?

Armor Modifiers? Like in Fantasy? Personally, I don't mind the idea, but implementation would have to be progressive, as in it only affects weapons X,Y,Z, in 6th Ed. and by 7th or 8th, it affects several types.

Footsloggin wrote:Armor Modifiers? Like in Fantasy? Personally, I don't mind the idea, but implementation would have to be progressive, as in it only affects weapons X,Y,Z, in 6th Ed. and by 7th or 8th, it affects several types.

Why? Just make it a clean break away, like they did with 3rd edition. Half assing things never works well.

Weening into it is a better way to think of it than "Half-Assing it". Players who strictly play 40k would be cold and lost, by weening a player into it, it allows them to gradually get used to the new system, before implementing it entirely.

Vaktathi wrote:The problem is that it makes sniping upgrades too easy, and often results in situations where more shooting=fewer casualties. For example, a Leman Russ hits a full squad of SM's with a battlecannon and wounds all 10. Normally this would kill them all, but it also declared (since shooting is simultaneous) that it would fire its three heavy bolters as well. 9 shots, 5 hit, 3 wound, and now we've got 10 AP3 wounds and 3 AP4 wounds. The AP4 wounds go on the Missile Launcher, Flamer and Sergeant, and the 10 AP3 wounds go on the 7 putz guys. So the 7 putz guys die, and one of the other three dies, but two remain, whereas had the HB's not shot, all 10 would be dead. That's a *bad* mechanic. In some ways it helps mitigate upgrade sniping, but *not* in a good way.

The best way to fix this is to add in the rule that states that all wounds from the same weapon type need to be allocated before moving on to the next weapon type. This way, the 10 wounds from the battlecannon would be allocated to 10 models, and then you would allocate the 3 wounds from the heavy bolters to whatever is left (assuming anything at all is left).

I love kill points, I would like to keep those very much as they provide fantastic balance. Keep victory points as a tie breaker, as victory points are a not a good indicator of a military victory. Imagine if modern war was based off $ cost of target... the US would lose a battle just based on the cost of bombs and fuel, and the loss of just one fighter would potentially lose a war. Same applies to 40k, elite units cost more, but are not necessarilly worried about a single unit in the grand scheme of things. If they were, then Space Marines would not take the field, as the risk of losing a marine would outweigh the benefit of using them.

Except this is the way war actually does work in the real world. I'm not going to argue the point, because thats not what this thread is about.

As I mentioned destructible terrain would not be ridiculously complicated but infact very simple and intuitive. Measure the terrain. Put a die next to the terrain = to the # of inches long it is. Each time it takes a wound, remove 1 from the die. Also, the hill was a specific example of indestructable terrain. Finally, the terrain doesnt go away, it just doesnt provide cover anymore--it still remains as an area of difficult ground.

Thats another thing that you have to keep track of, and another thing thats open for abuse.

-The 1+/4+/6 of hitting immobilized/combat/cruising speed vehicles to be converted to 1+/3+/5+.

Hell no!! Even moving at cruising speed my vehicles are ridiculously vulnerable in combat. Vehicles should fear long range AT weapons, not a guy w/ a grenade. I like the way the system works just fine.

Oh, but I just remembered one thing I have long wished to see: Pinning(and by extension going to ground) = penalty to close combat for a turn. It makes no sense to me that a unit can be pinned, which forces it to remain stationary and makes it unable to fire any weaponry at all, but if the unit is charged they get to fight like nothing happened. Either they should all strike at I1 for that round, or lose 1 attack each, etc.

sorry, but that rule is pretty pointless. There are few open-topped tanks, and the likelihood of getting hit by an AP1 weapon on an open-topped vehicle is low. Might as well stick with 1-6.
and how do you intend rolling a 0?

Well, rolling a 1 on a glancing hit w/ an AP- weapon gets you a -3... so I would say rolling a 3 on a glancing hit w/ an AP- weapon gets you a 0... seems logical, no?

Anyway, my thoughts are to keep the chart as is in 5th, but to add a damage result of of 'vehicle annihilated' from 4th ed. Basically, explodes (doing more damage than a normal explosion) and killing any vehicle passengers immediately (no saves of any sort). I would also like to see some sort of system in place for multiple shaken/stunned results. A vehicle that took multiple shaken results in a turn shouldn't be treated the same as a vehicle that only took one.

I haven't had too many problems with tlos, but I can see why gw put it in the rules. Honestly, I think models need to be in base contact with cover to get any bonuses out of it, on top of that, its a pain in the a$$ to bend down and squint.

Agreed. Either touch the damn cover or you're out in the open, as simple as that. Perhaps the solution here is to have two levels of cover: Cover, and screening(or concealment I suppose). Screening/concealment being a lesser save to represent objects in between the firer and target, and cover representing actually taking cover.

I would love to see something like what they have in fantasy where high strength weapons reducing the armor save you get. I mean, I understand how power armor can stop a lasgun shot, and even how it can stop a autocannon round. However...the armor can protect them just as well fromm the lasgun as it does from a S10 Manticore shot!?!? How does that make sense?

The reason we won't have this, is because of this:

I would love to see them bring back the Ork special rule for Choppas. They still count as CC weapons, but reduce the armor save of the unit to 4+ if they had better.

When they released Orks/5th ed. they said that they wanted to move away from armor save modifiers in 40k because they felt that it made the game to similar to fantasy and made things to complicated. Maybe they'll reverse course, but I doubt it.

Ideally I don't want to see this at all.

Reasonably I don't want to see it until every army has a 5th ed codex.

Logically I expect it in 6 months

Is it really time to think about 6th ed?

Come on , GW still has to do more than 5 codices and actual speed won't get them into position before 2014...

If its wishlisting, lets move focus to shooting and add some flyers.

The basic set + expansions seems fine, so :

- basic 40k = secondary HQ, 0-1 elite/FA/HS, 2 + X troops ( no SC, no USR, no PSI, up to 1500 pts )
- advanced 40k = full FOC ( full codex, up to 5000 pts )
- expanded 40k = add flyers, superheavies, strategic assets ( 3000 + x pts )

-Loki- wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:Armor Modifiers? Like in Fantasy? Personally, I don't mind the idea, but implementation would have to be progressive, as in it only affects weapons X,Y,Z, in 6th Ed. and by 7th or 8th, it affects several types.

Why? Just make it a clean break away, like they did with 3rd edition. Half assing things never works well.

+1,000,000,000. Re-think the entire system and put out a gets-you-by army lists book with the core rules. There will be panic at first, but if the 6th ED rules are made properly, the reception will be favorable in the long run. (Make RAW sensible enough that Dakka won't be clogged with pointless arguments.) ( )

What will GW probably do? My answer is admittedly cynical. They will probably just tweak a few things here and there to stay the course of streamlining games to move the highest number of models on and off the the table in the least amount of time, and continue dumbing the system down to the absolute lowest common denominator possible.

What do we want them to do? I can't answer as "we" because I know I am in the extreme minority on Dakka so I very rarely share my opinion on this subject. I do not like 5th edition 40K. I do not like it on so many levels that honestly I have recently started to genuinely question why I even bother to play it. That said, what I want them to do is write game rules that reflect the history of the 41M they spent 25 years creating.

That is my main complaint. They have turned away from too much that made 40K great to begin with. I feel 5th edition is hollow, superficial, and leeching on the corpse of former editions. The Codices make fluff references to things that do not even exist in this edition, or if they do still exist they are essentially irrelevant (such as the different Ork clans having been reduced to color schemes).

Then there are the mechanics. Damage to any vehicle is 1d6 of "one size fits all". Wound allocation removes models that the shooter cannot even see, or in CC models that they did not have BTB contact with. CC Wargear is 32 flavors of vanilla with a few sprinkles thrown in. Streamlined, basic, and lackluster.

I realize this post is not offering solutions. I do not have any, and frankly even if I did it would not matter. GW is trading at its highest value in the last 5 years. Their earnings in 2010 are est. $126.5 million. A single voice or a thousands voices, nothing is going to change the formula they have adopted unless it affects their bottom line. And if I do quit again? I think their position on that is perfectly clear:

Games Workshop wrote:But the universe is a big place and, whatever happens, you will not be missed.

1hadhq wrote:Is it really time to think about 6th ed?

Yes

Come on , GW still has to do more than 5 codices and actual speed won't get them into position before 2014...

Whats your point, half of the codecies haven't even seen 4th ed. books yet.

I've only ever played 5th edition but I hate wound allocation. It just seems so overcomplicated.

Are you sure it's only 5? That would be DH, WH, Necrons, Tau, and X? I have a feeling CSM will get an update, as well as Eldar and maybe Orks. I don't think Chaos Daemons will get a new Codex, but rather be assimilated into the CSM Codex... While I hope this isn't so, I have a feeling it will happen anyway...

There's my 2 bits of Sense.

Footsloggin wrote:Are you sure it's only 5? That would be DH, WH, Necrons, Tau, and X? I have a feeling CSM will get an update, as well as Eldar and maybe Orks. I don't think Chaos Daemons will get a new Codex, but rather be assimilated into the CSM Codex... While I hope this isn't so, I have a feeling it will happen anyway...

The new GW policy is that if they produced a codex for it during 4th/5th ed. then they intend on supporting and maintaining that army as a seperate entity indefinitely. Daemons wont be reintegrated back into CSM, as it was a very well though out conscious decision that split them off in the first place.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:Are you sure it's only 5? That would be DH, WH, Necrons, Tau, and X? I have a feeling CSM will get an update, as well as Eldar and maybe Orks. I don't think Chaos Daemons will get a new Codex, but rather be assimilated into the CSM Codex... While I hope this isn't so, I have a feeling it will happen anyway...

The new GW policy is that if they produced a codex for it during 4th/5th ed. then they intend on supporting and maintaining that army as a seperate entity indefinitely. Daemons wont be reintegrated back into CSM, as it was a very well though out conscious decision that split them off in the first place.

It was a douchebag business decision, which is why my three CSM Land Raiders are now Battlewagons instead. Unless they put out another no-brainer deal like AoBR, my GW purchasing has slowed to a trickle.

Get rid of the rule of wound allocation.

Down grade cover saves from 4+ to 5+.

chaos0xomega wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Come on , GW still has to do more than 5 codices and actual speed won't get them into position before 2014...

Whats your point, half of the codecies haven't even seen 4th ed. books yet.

That is the point.

2011 may see updates of 3 codices. The other non-5th ed codices would go in a series of 3 per year too.
I don't believe the reduced design team starts on 6th ed before more than 12-14 ( of16 ) codices are done.

As long as they put the Chaos back into Chaos Space Marines, I am prefectly fine with 6th being on the way.

I think reintroducing the 7+ vehicle explodes rule is needed, I think that perhaps reducing the mobility of vehicles in terrain may help, light terrain immobilised on a 1, medium terrain, less than 6 inches immobilised on a 1 or 2 over 6 inches, heavy terrain, 6 or less immobilised 1 or 2 can't go over 6!

Whilst you have objective missions you need kp's to balance against msu!

Maybe also change the weapon skill to hit chart slightly?

As for when? Well hopefully this year will see 3 codices GK, Necron and Tau, start of 2012 release sob then in the summer new rules and sm codex, and then release orks and eldar both at Xmas for good Xenos enemies, with CSM in Jan 2013

Well, GW should rethink about the standard mission,
especially the mission with 2 objectives is totally boring.

Some really goo thoughts so far but I think people are missing GWs main motivation which is sell more product.

We know that each edition of Fantasy and 40k since 99 has been written with the goal of selling new product or more of existing products.

I would expect that 6th edition will incorporate PLANET! STRIKE!, Cities of Death and unnamed flier suppliment rules to push those. There will probably be standard missions that require bastions or other toys. Superheavies might also make their way into the game. I would also expect simplification in some way to make 2000 points the standard force.

1hadhq wrote:Come on , GW still has to do more than 5 codices and actual speed won't get them into position before 2014...

Yes, if it was up to fans that's how it would be, but if this was a GW staff meeting I'd fire you on the spot. THe 4 year edition cycle is set in stone since it give new players a jumping on point, makes old players drop a bundle on the new rule book and newly optimized units and just gives everything a bump.

6th edition - 2012.

I bet work has already started.

I just got my 5th e rulebook, they'd better not change anything!

I'd like to see the rules written in plain English (either proper British or American) with a proof reader and a competent editor (preferably one who has gaming experience). Also a glossary of terms would be helpful to cut down on all of those "but it could mean this" type of threads.
I expect the point cost of figures to decrease since, like kidkyoto said, the object is to have the players purchase more product. Then GW can raise the standard level of play to 2000 points and necessitate the purchase of more product as a win/win for them.

So we know this thing is coming, but hopefully the transition doesn't eliminate many models from gw's range of miniatures. On top of that.
-tlos can stay
-the expansions probably WILL be written in, works in our favor i guess?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:with a proof reader and a competent editor (preferably one who has gaming experience). Also a glossary of terms would be helpful to cut down on all of those "but it could mean this" type of threads.

It's refreshingly blind optimism like this that makes me smile. I don't know how you've managed to not have it crushed out of you by GW's astounding ineptitude and complete lack of caring. Good job keeping it up though, just don't pick up one of the wrong armies.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Some really goo thoughts so far but I think people are missing GWs main motivation which is sell more product.

We know that each edition of Fantasy and 40k since 99 has been written with the goal of selling new product or more of existing products.


The 4 year edition cycle is set in stone since it give new players a jumping on point, makes old players drop a bundle on the new rule book and newly optimized units and just gives everything a bump.

6th edition - 2012.

I bet work has already started.

I assume you bet the new ERA begins on 25.12.2012

I'd take that as I don't see enough ressources on GW's design team to do any real WH40k 6.0. At best you look at a 5.5 beta....

2011 has already planned 40k and whfb releases and there seem none of the major xenos codices involved.
So no space orks, no space elfs, no space chaos mortals, and importantly no more space marine codices to pimp to sell more product before 6th ed?
You know, 2012 has to have some whfb releases too, GW won't dedicate it to flush out 6 codices pre - X-mas 2012.
OTOH, the timeline is in stasis, if GW moves it they may need less codices.....

They should get someone from wizards of the coast to help them get the rules written. Say what you will, but Magic has a huge tournament scene and a tight and well written set of rules. example- the dark eldar codex has the entry for the webway portal, which states blah blah units may enter as if board edge, then has another paragraph, then a tacked on 'oh, btw vehicles cannot use this'. Where simply writing 'any non-vehicle unit'. would work better. It's the small stuff like that, but when you add it all up over the course of the big rule book, it can make for a bit of a headache.

Should I even bother starting up a space marine force at this point? I feel like by the time I have the thing finished a new codex and 6th will be in the works...

It probably won't change to much for SM. Even if it does i dobt there will be an entire model overhaul so you could still use most if not all of what you have.

I can't really see anything terribly wrong with 5th edition... Add something that discusses rules for using IA books..... Oh, and change up vehicle squadrons. They're awful. There's basically no reason to use them, aside from Apoc, since they all have to fire on the same target. Yeah, right. I can take nine basilisks, but they only get three targets? Pft, gtfo.

Or at least make a declarative statement in regards to using IA/Planetfall/Cities of Death and other Forgeworld products. Let us know that yes, Forgeworld rules are legal to use in tournies and normal games or no, even though we own them, Forgeworld rules are not supposed to be used in tournies and normal games (whatever normal is).

Horizon9 wrote:
-the expansions probably WILL be written in, works in our favor i guess?

Considering that those expansions are potential sources of additional revenue, I doubt it.

Or at least make a declarative statement in regards to using IA/Planetfall/Cities of Death and other Forgeworld products. Let us know that yes, Forgeworld rules are legal to use in tournies and normal games or no, even though we own them, Forgeworld rules are not supposed to be used in tournies and normal games (whatever normal is).

Not to get into that discussion, but this most likely will not occur either, as this has always been up to tournament organizers, and I dont see this ever changing. Even if GW did put such a thing in the book, TO's would still have the ability to void it.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Or at least make a declarative statement in regards to using IA/Planetfall/Cities of Death and other Forgeworld products. Let us know that yes, Forgeworld rules are legal to use in tournies and normal games or no, even though we own them, Forgeworld rules are not supposed to be used in tournies and normal games (whatever normal is).

That's what I mean

I've been putting dreadclaws into all my CSM lists, since my opponents are all the same people. Best thing FW ever put out, IMO. Something truly unique and fuctional. Too bad the model is like a hundred bucks I could buy three drop pods for the price of one dreadclaw!

chaos0xomega wrote:Not to get into that discussion, but this most likely will not occur either, as this has always been up to tournament organizers, and I dont see this ever changing. Even if GW did put such a thing in the book, TO's would still have the ability to void it.

First, I'm not saying that GW would put this in the next edition. I'm just saying that I think they should.
Second, TO's always have the ability to do whatever they like. They can allow or disallow anything since it's their tourney. For instance a TO could run a tourney and limit the players to non-vehicle units only. GW can't say anything about it and probably wouldn't even care.

I would just like to see an end to the Forgeworld rubric. Either its rules/figures are usuable as Forgeworld has them or they're not for use in an everyday battle. Yes, I know it's up to each individual gamer to decide (see the TO statement above) but it would be nice to know for convenience sake.

Hmmm.
Some things they could add in that would help mitigate the older codices weaknesses:
-Basic psyker defense for all armies- something like a psyker within 6" of a unit can attempt to nullify an enemy power using a dice roll. As it stands, some armies have awesome psychic defense, others have absolutely none.
-System wide FAQ/Errata a la 8th Edition Fantasy
-Re-working combat and wound allocation
-Make hitting tanks be based off of weapon skill rather than flat numbers.

It's apparent GW is already working on 6th edition. If folks think back a bit, products such as Cityfight and Apocolypse to a lesser extent were testbeds for various rules. If you look over Cityfight, most of its rules made it into 5th edition.

We've gotten Planetfall and the Battlemissions book. Planetfall is essentially attacker vs defender with some tweaks and the battle missions are a bit different than what we currently have as missions. I'd doubt they'd remain race specific come 6th edition, but I wouldn't be surprised this stuff is in 6th edition.

As for othe rules, just a few tweaks and I'd be relatively satisfied:

-vehicle cover becomes a max of 5+ (they've been doing this in last couple of Marine books, so I'd thinking this could be doable)

-I liked target priority over what we have now. Cover is simply too prevalant in this edition and reminds me a bit of 3rd edition; I didn't like it back then either.

-if a unit fires from inside a vehicle, the vehicle counts as open topped in the following opponent's shooting phase (I believe this happened in 3rd edition)

-fleet becomes a USR and allows units to assault out of vehicles in addition to the extra d6" move; this would give an additional avenue for units to assault out of a vehicle that isn't Marine centric.

-true LOS for every piece of terrain is terrible. I actually think 4th edition had the better set of rules, but many players were lazy and called everything area terrain and overused the rule

-wound allocation is a bit wonky right now; people can minimize the amount of casualties they take by this rule which I'd imagine is not quite what was intended. I like a previous posters comment about spreading all the same wounds about equally before moving on to another weapon type.

Unfortunately, the biggest issue I have is the codexes. I really don't like how they do this. There are just too many codexes and GW has created it's own vicious cycle. The changes they make to the core rules can't be too drastic as they'd risk invalidating existing codexes which is something they can't/won't do.

I really wish they'd release 3 or 4 major books with all the appropriate updated rules for every existing army (Marine, Imperial, Xenos, Chaos for example). The books would be large enough to hold the fluff that currently exists every army is updated to the current edition.

Sadly, I highly doubt we'll see any real change with 6th edition. 1st to 2nd had some big changes. 2nd to 3rd was a completely different game. 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th have been more like tweaks to the mechanics while the biggest problem was the tome of codexes that come out at a snails pace.

Things that I think need to change:

1) Fearless wounds need to go. All they do currently is let large, hard to take down units get killed in multi-assaults, and penalize larger units of weak models such as Ork Boyz.

I would change Fearless to be a simple +2 modifier to leadership. So you can still break a fearless unit, it's just less likely to happen. It also removes a complicated and penalizing rule from the game.

2) Remove allies. If it's in your codex, you can take it. Otherwise, play teams, or live without. Allies currently only acts to greatly amplify a single codex.

3) Change vehicle damage. You roll to hit, then you roll 2d6 + weapon or cc str. Subtract the vehicle's armor, and consult a table like below:

0 or below - no damage
1 or 2 - shaken
3 or 4 - stunned
5 - immobilized
6 - weapon destroyed
7 or 8 - destroyed
9 - explodes
10 - annihilated (same as explodes, but all units inside die)

So, a bolter or shoota would be a 4 + 2d6. Against a rhino equivalent, your range would be -4 to 6, or similar to what a glance gives today. Against a land raider equivalent (av14), you would have an extremely low chance of shaken.

A lascannon would be a 9 + 2d6. Against a rhino, your range would be 1 to 13, or a decent chance of destroying in some way, and a low (5/18) chance of annihilating. Against a land raider or equivalent, your range would be -3 to 9, so a bit better odds of damaging, but still no chance of annihilating.

4) List ALL USR in the main rule book. For example, ATSKNF is common enough, it doesn't need to be listed in each and every marine codex.

5) Incorporate all FAQ modifications to the BRB in the next BRB.

6) List all common weapons in the BRB. It's easy enough to have a statline for a Bolt Pistol, and under the Ork Codex the slugga description can say "This is a Bolt Pistol in all regards" just like it does with a PF and PK.

Fearless no retreat wounds are not a big problem for the unit itself. For me it is the multi-charge transfer of no retreat wounds. I can't stand the idea of a hive tyrant or other MC assaulting in support of another unit dying because of the damage the other unit took. It totally discourages units supporting each other in CC unless you can definitely over power the enemy, and it is easy to multi-charge a swarmy army and therefore paste a nastier unit without really ever attacking it.

Transport rules have to be modified. Some people here have provided a number of good ideas. Whatever happens, there needs to be more penalties (firing with embarked troops causes vehicle to be open topped; BS penalties for shooting if the vehicle moves or cannot shoot depending on the speed, etc).

There needs to be more LOS blocking terrain. Area terrain is fine that provides a cover save in or behind but the previous idea of things like woods blocking fire or fire can only penetrate so far into the woods would help against the high volume, long-range shooty armies that can pretty much focus most of their firepower where they want.

I personally think that fearless wounds are a big problem. Large units of cheap infantry, such as orks mobs or gaunts, are designed to take more damage than elite units such as tactical space marines. This means they are designed to lose combat. Fearless wounds simply adds more casualties to their already higher losses.

To me, it doesn't add anything to the game balance, but it discourages playing horde armies. And the "fluff" ork or tyranid army is a horde, and not a battlewagon wall with a few grot mobs to hold objectives or a handful of monsterous creatures.

Alternatively to automatically passing all leadership/morale checks, I would like to see Fearless changed so that it makes you leadership 10 and you always test against unmodified leadership.

When I first started I hated fearless wounds in their entirety. I ranted, raved, railed and rambled about how horrible they were. After playing many, many games I've come to accept that they are a part of how things work. Assault is supposed to be fast and nasty. Fearless wounds account for this in that if you are not fearless you can get sweeping advanced and lose everything in one shot.

With the exception of And We Shall Know No Inconveniences Ever Because We're Too Awesome it's pretty well balanced on both sides. Space Marines really need to lose all their various methods of making it only ever a bad thing for the other guys while they just flat out ignore it in multiple ways and even if it does happen to them it's armor saves so they don't care. That needs fixed, not fearless wounds as a concept.

Another thing that needs fixed is fearless wounds transferring. You have Hive Tyrants afraid to lead a brood of little bugs into combat because they're going to get torn a new hole due to rules cheese. 'Scuse me? That's just all kinds of wrong no matter how you look at it, fluff, rules, 'reality' or intent.

6th? I'm still pretty much working with 4th edition rules and don't really have a care to learn the new ones sept the mjor ones. Hopefully they'll do away with kill points or at least stream line them to work with troop heavy armies such as Imperial Guard vs elitist armies, ie space marines. Stupid cover save values are also a bug; "what you get a 4+ save for standing behind that broken lampost do you? Sorting out the running rules a bit so as horde armies can't assault gunline armies by turn two.¬¬ Generally just go back to 4th ed rules and put an end to all the niggly little titbit rules that they added for some good old common sence rules.

How about every turn each unit rolls a d6. On a roll of 4-6, it blows up and is completely destroyed from a chaos meteor/random airstrike, nomatter what it is. It would add some some unpredictability, make games shorter, and tournaments would no longer exist.

It doesn't matter how good you are at removing a guy's heart with a sword strike, it doesn't help you one bit trying to catch their bus. Keep speed>WS.

I'd say they will probably nerf FnP in some form as everyone has it now and thus they need to glorify another USR.

Fixing FnP would be nice since everyone and their 5th cousin has it now. My guess is that FNP will be made a 5+ or 6+ save of some sort, and the 'new' FNP will be 4+ or something along the lines of We'll Be Back.

ok where do i begin.

first of all, i think that people need to stop trying to punish mech list players. i have always loved and played armored company, and if not that, a list with plenty of vehicles, regardless of which edition it was. i just like armor. period. i think the damage tables need to be broadened in range between "i took the usefulness of your tank out of the game" and "i took your tank out with an explosion". one lucky shot on any vehicle is cause to kill how many hundreds of points? i think not. and dont even get me started on the "i automatically hit on your rear armor" bull. if you can just barely get into assault range with the front of my tank, you shouldnt be able to get to the back. simulated or not, weaknesses in armor didnt appear because you got closer. if i went up and shot an abrams from 3 feet away or 20, the result is the same. and for those fo you that would argue differently, i say this: the rest of the game is played by real world model orientation. base to base, range in hth regarding base to base, etc. you cant just change that because you want to nuke my tank first round of combat. you're gonna have to earn it.

second, line of sight: if i can see the models, shoot and kill em, then they (the number i can see) should be removed. taking 3 guys from behind a wall when i was shooting at the other end of your unit is dumb.

third: vehicle squadrons. immobilising a vehicle in a squadron is not cause to destroy said vehicle. it should stay on the field. that one gives me nerd rage unkown to modern man.

fourth: for god sakes would it kill them to make guardsmen more than a speedbump in hth against anything other than tau?

fifth: 4+ cover for every freaking unit on the board is dumb. i'm sick of it.

sixth: vehicle movement and shooting should be re worked.

all in all, i could go on for days. GW needs to make the rules more real world physical as far as LOS, cover, etc. the fluff that "the model could be doing this, this or this", is respectively too overused by them. it needs to be more concrete.

Fontane* wrote:How about every turn each unit rolls a d6. On a roll of 4-6, it blows up and is completely destroyed from a chaos meteor/random airstrike, nomatter what it is. It would add some some unpredictability, make games shorter, and tournaments would no longer exist.

Fool. Dont you know marines SHALL KNOW NO METEORS!

My favourite change would be the possibility for ICs to survive ghost fists... since they can be targeted as single models, thy should be able to target specific models (like fisted sarges) with their attacks in close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... and, even if it's a core assumption of the game, I hate Cover saves!!!! WHy the hell my power armour is irrelevant when I am in a fortification? (guardmen have the same save)... I'd like to see the rule change to be similar to WHFB ( cover inflicts penalties in the to hit roll), or, at least, make that the cover save stacks with the armour save

Mattlov wrote:I'd like to see Rapid Fire change to something that makes sense. It should be simple:

If I move, I can fire once to my max range.

If I don't move, I can fire twice to my max range.

I also agree that hitting vehicles in CC should change.

And dear lord yes, change the WS to-hit numbers. If I'm WS 9 and you are WS 2, I should probably hit you more than 2/3rds of the time. I really shouldn't be able to miss.

Agreed and agreed. But I prefer the Fantasy table for Rapid fire, I think you should still fire twice if you moved but firing at a lower BS. Say -1 or 2 to hit.

For those of you bitching about cover saves, you realize that not all cover saves are 4+ right. Grass, hedges, fences etc are only 5+. So just becuase you are on a grassy hill does not give you a 4+. Maybe people shoudl starty playing some games without so much rocks, ruins, and barricades (4+ cover save). Teh one thing I don't like about cover saves is the fact that you can use your own unit as a 4+ cover save. if those saved wounds transferred somehow to the cover providing unit then maybe it might be OK.

I'll start by disclosing that I started with Orks in Rogue Trader then switched to IG when the Eye of Terror Campaign began. I also play Ultramarines.

Like many others, I'm also in favor of the following:

1. Changes to reduce the prevalence of melta weapons and vehicle armies, but with these caveats:

a. Keep transport costs down (Rhinos and Chimeras are actually worth using now). Drop pods have a reasonable point cost. I play IG because I like armored companies. If they're too powerful then make them less so but don't eliminate the possibility of playing one in a 1500 point game.

b. Make assaults less effective against vehicles (especially Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, Stompas, and Skimmers) but increase the damage table results so that ranged heavy weapons are more effective against the lighter vehicles. Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, and Stompas need to be tougher though. They don't fight their weight right now. Striking on rear armor in an assault needs to be removed.

2. Fix cover saves and area terrain. Maybe a 5+ max cover save for anything short of fortifications. And with TLOS, if you can see more than 50% of the model then no cover save at all. If I can see your chest and head I don't really need to shoot you in the kneecap to kill you. Bring back some type of woods/vegetation area terrain that completely blocks LOS.

3. Allow non-template shooting weapons to be used in assault versus infantry, cavalry, beasts, and walkers. A guy with a melta is not going to swing it at you. He's going to shoot you. If you want to factor in the difficulty of shooting during a swirling melee then make all shooting at BS 2 in assault.

4. Bring back consolidation into a new assault for some units. Yeah, I hated it with my IG but some assault units really should be that killy instead of being hung out to dry. Perhaps a USR - such as assault specialist - that allows this for a very small number of units: all jump troops and cavalry type units, berzerkers, hormagaunts with the right biomorph, some assassins, a few SW and Blood Angel units, flagellants, Ogryns, Necron wraiths, Wyches, Banshees, Striking Scorpions. Resist the temptation to give this ability to every unit in an army (Blood Angels, SW, Tyranids, Orks).

5. Allow rapid fire equipped units to shoot and then assault or fix rapid fire in some other way. Most rapid fire units don't want to assault anyway and vanilla marines really need the +1 A for assaulting. They're pretty lame in assault anyway compared to most assault units.

6. Less special rules in codices. I'm generally OK with them now but I used to play in tournaments a lot and too many special rules really make a shambles of tournaments. On the plus side, the slow release of new codexes may be balancing this problem out for the stronger players that do their homework.

JB wrote:I'll start by disclosing that I started with Orks in Rogue Trader then switched to IG when the Eye of Terror Campaign began. I also play Ultramarines.

Like many others, I'm also in favor of the following:

1. Changes to reduce the prevalence of melta weapons and vehicle armies, but with these caveats:

a. Keep transport costs down (Rhinos and Chimeras are actually worth using now). Drop pods have a reasonable point cost. I play IG because I like armored companies. If they're too powerful then make them less so but don't eliminate the possibility of playing one in a 1500 point game.

I'm personally in agreence with you on this one.These are different sides of the same coin. Melta, Las/Plas/Power etc. prevalence are all a response to the ludicrously low cost and spammability of dirt cheap, no-sacrifice-all-benefits vehicles. You cannot fix the symptom of the disease and totally ignore the cause. Transport costs need to go up or the benefits they provide need to go down. If either side of that balance is satisfied then eventually it will filter down into day-to-day list making and people won't be desperate to shove every single last possible melta/las/plas/power into their army list just to be able to not get massacred. Since GW is pretty terrible at dealing with codex changes it's pretty much reduced to changing the all-benefits-no-sacrifices part of the equation in the basic rule book.

JB wrote:b. Make assaults less effective against vehicles (especially Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, Stompas, and Skimmers) but increase the damage table results so that ranged heavy weapons are more effective against the lighter vehicles. Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, and Stompas need to be tougher though. They don't fight their weight right now. Striking on rear armor in an assault needs to be removed.

And what will you give Tyranids in return to allow them to be at all functional anymore? Assaulting vehicles is pretty much all they have outside of Hive Guard. Hamstring that and you might as well just throw the codex out until it gets an update. Increasing the effectiveness of shooting would be an insult-to-injury slap in the face. Orks would also get hit by this though just not to the same extent.

JB wrote:3. Allow non-template shooting weapons to be used in assault versus infantry, cavalry, beasts, and walkers. A guy with a melta is not going to swing it at you. He's going to shoot you. If you want to factor in the difficulty of shooting during a swirling melee then make all shooting at BS 2 in assault.

4. Bring back consolidation into a new assault for some units. Yeah, I hated it with my IG but some assault units really should be that killy instead of being hung out to dry. Perhaps a USR - such as assault specialist - that allows this for a very small number of units: all jump troops and cavalry type units, berzerkers, hormagaunts with the right biomorph, some assassins, a few SW and Blood Angel units, flagellants, Ogryns, Necron wraiths, Wyches, Banshees, Striking Scorpions. Resist the temptation to give this ability to every unit in an army (Blood Angels, SW, Tyranids, Orks).

Consolidating into assault was too abused and needed to go. These two fix each other by not being able to consolidate into the next assault. You still get your turn of shooting between assaults, you just don't get free shooting for getting engaged which would be silly.

SumYungGui wrote:

JB wrote:I'll start by disclosing that I started with Orks in Rogue Trader then switched to IG when the Eye of Terror Campaign began. I also play Ultramarines.

Like many others, I'm also in favor of the following:

1. Changes to reduce the prevalence of melta weapons and vehicle armies, but with these caveats:

a. Keep transport costs down (Rhinos and Chimeras are actually worth using now). Drop pods have a reasonable point cost. I play IG because I like armored companies. If they're too powerful then make them less so but don't eliminate the possibility of playing one in a 1500 point game.

I'm personally in agreence with you on this one.These are different sides of the same coin. Melta, Las/Plas/Power etc. prevalence are all a response to the ludicrously low cost and spammability of dirt cheap, no-sacrifice-all-benefits vehicles. You cannot fix the symptom of the disease and totally ignore the cause. Transport costs need to go up or the benefits they provide need to go down. If either side of that balance is satisfied then eventually it will filter down into day-to-day list making and people won't be desperate to shove every single last possible melta/las/plas/power into their army list just to be able to not get massacred. Since GW is pretty terrible at dealing with codex changes it's pretty much reduced to changing the all-benefits-no-sacrifices part of the equation in the basic rule book.

Perhaps (as others have suggested in this thread) they should make the damage table for vehicles more dangerous, double melta weapon costs (for IG, I'm not sure SM get much melta as is), and make heavy weapons more dangerous to vehicles (+1 on the damage results for S8 incl. melta but drop the existing +1 for melta, +2 for S9, and +3 for S10).

SumYungGui wrote:

JB wrote:b. Make assaults less effective against vehicles (especially Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, Stompas, and Skimmers) but increase the damage table results so that ranged heavy weapons are more effective against the lighter vehicles. Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, and Stompas need to be tougher though. They don't fight their weight right now. Striking on rear armor in an assault needs to be removed.

And what will you give Tyranids in return to allow them to be at all functional anymore? Assaulting vehicles is pretty much all they have outside of Hive Guard. Hamstring that and you might as well just throw the codex out until it gets an update. Increasing the effectiveness of shooting would be an insult-to-injury slap in the face. Orks would also get hit by this though just not to the same extent.

JB wrote:3. Allow non-template shooting weapons to be used in assault versus infantry, cavalry, beasts, and walkers. A guy with a melta is not going to swing it at you. He's going to shoot you. If you want to factor in the difficulty of shooting during a swirling melee then make all shooting at BS 2 in assault.

I think GW needs to buff up Monstrous Creatures as well as heavy vehicles: Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, and Stompas. A four wound monstrous creature is fragile IMO. Monstrous Creatures should be more effective versus vehicles in assault. I see them as the vehicle killers. Gaunts and even genestealers should not be killing tanks unless they are physically on the same side as the rear armor or in the second round of combat (when they've had time to figure out its weaknesses or simply had time to hit every piece of the vehicle till something bad happens). Nobs, Warbosses, and SM or CSM with power fists/klaws might be different due to experience/intelligence. For simplicity's sake though, I'm far less adamant about changing vehicle assault rules than the other points. I don't want the Tyranids to get any weaker. Not enough people play them now as is.

SumYungGui wrote:

JB wrote:4. Bring back consolidation into a new assault for some units. Yeah, I hated it with my IG but some assault units really should be that killy instead of being hung out to dry. Perhaps a USR - such as assault specialist - that allows this for a very small number of units: all jump troops and cavalry type units, berzerkers, hormagaunts with the right biomorph, some assassins, a few SW and Blood Angel units, flagellants, Ogryns, Necron wraiths, Wyches, Banshees, Striking Scorpions. Resist the temptation to give this ability to every unit in an army (Blood Angels, SW, Tyranids, Orks).

Consolidating into assault was too abused and needed to go. These two fix each other by not being able to consolidate into the next assault. You still get your turn of shooting between assaults, you just don't get free shooting for getting engaged which would be silly.

Fine by me. Since I play IG, consolidation into a new assault is all bad for me. I just think some really killy assault units don't earn anywhere near their points in most battles so people stopped using them. Allowing the possibility of consolidation might make some of these units an option again. As for shooting in an assault, I think it adds more realism but agree that smooth gameplay and balance needs to trump realism in 40K. I'm certainly no purist that thinks 40K needs to approximate real war. It wouldn't function well on a 4'x6' table if it did.

After thinking about it a bit more, I agree with the folks that don't like multi-unit assault results. A monstrous creature shouldn't suffer wounds because the weak gaunt unit next to it in the assault took a lot of damage in melee. Not sure how to fix it short of making all assault results independent for each unit involved.

You never listed genestelaers under 4!

They are one the best and most classic assault units in the game

ChocolateGork wrote:You never listed genestelaers under 4!

They are one the best and most classic assault units in the game

I certainly wouldn't deny the genestealers their place as an iconic killy assault unit.

...but this is all crazy talk anyway...killing time on the internet...unless Kid Kyoto starts working for GW.

Sarigar wrote:

-wound allocation is a bit wonky right now; people can minimize the amount of casualties they take by this rule which I'd imagine is not quite what was intended. I like a previous posters comment about spreading all the same wounds about equally before moving on to another weapon type.

And guess what? You imagine wrong.
Reread the example on page 25 and you'll see.

Maybe I am being overly harsh, but I am really tired of people sprouting nonsense about "it isn't the intention to use the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties".

Go read the example.

/rant

I too like the idea about grouping wounds according to AP.

So many poor suggestions in this thread.
People want to go back to VP's? Don't you guys remember 4th ed? Missions didn't really matter, it was all about killing the enemy while preserving your own force in all missions.
Entanglement back? No thank you, no transports on future battlefields is sillier than lots of transports.
No fearless wounds? So all fearless units suddenly become endless tarpits, ork mobs will become hell to deal with.
No reserve? So first turn becomes even more important?
Consolidating into assault? The worst rule in 4th ed
4th ed wasn't really that good people, 5th ed is way more balanced, tactical and fun, even if mech is king.

Some suggestions seem fine though, wound allocation needs to be tweaked, cover saves are too good and too easy to get, vehicle moving/shooting can be improved

Allow terrain to be 'bought' as part of your army points.

They kind of touched upon this in Fantasy with the collapsing watchtower, why not do the same for 40K.

It would give people more reason to buy some of the kits/barricades/razorwire/bastions etc.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC's suggestion is excellent. Warhammer 40,000 needs to better define terrain and its value in the game. 5th edition was a remarkable improvement on 4th in that regard, but it needs more, like what Andy Chambers did for terrain in Starship Troopers and allow players to allocate points to terrain as well as their armies. It seems like part of good strategy should be choosing where you fight your battles.

are we all missing one of the biggest problems with 40k?
Psychology.. or lack there of

If i had my way every army would have its ld reduced by at least 1 point. but thats never going to happen, instead simply re categorize every unit like fantasy did and throw in the fantasy psychology rules (after tweaking them OC).

next is how awful sniper weapons and pinning are, -1 ld (to a max of -3) per casualty would be fine, yes this could mean that power blobs and TH/SS termies keep getting pinned, but it encoureges(SP?) you to think about such things as oposed to just being a no brainer.

the point is things like Ork warboses and Hive tyrants are supposed to be scary, but we have little to no mechanics in 40k to show this.

Now this one is my biggest request, stop please please stop GW, we are not bloody idiots, this game CAN be more complicated, if i can teach my 9 year old niece 2nd ED rules why the hell do you think we cant handle things like "Vehicle moved 12" -2 to your BS to hit" instead of "vehicle moved flat out 3+ cover save... durp durp", give us Some modifiers (not too many, as this isnt fantasy) we can handle it, last but not least... £22.50 for a tactical sqaud and £15.00 for 10 bloodletters... I enjoy being priced out of the hobbly.. durp durp

I love how most of the suggestion would be a net result in the poster's favored army being more powerful...

For me, 5th edition rules are mostly fine, it's the codices that spammed USRs (FnP). Someone at GW needs to learn how to better balance the main rules and the different armies....it'll never happen but since we're all wishlisting here.

How exactly is psychology a problem for 40,000? How would more complex rules improve the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto:

I did some wishlisting, but I did make some specific predictions about how we'll see the rules evolve in 6th edition...

agnosto wrote:I love how most of the suggestion would be a net result in the poster's favored army being more powerful...

For me, 5th edition rules are mostly fine, it's the codices that spammed USRs (FnP). Someone at GW needs to learn how to better balance the main rules and the different armies....it'll never happen but since we're all wishlisting here.

Fair enough, cept i didnt propose anything that would make my army any more powerful, infact it would improve almost every army

RE:Nurglitch
To the question about psychology, Almost everything has high LD or ways of ignoring LD atogether (Ref: Stubborn, Fearless, ATSKNF Etc.)
what I would like is a system similer to fantasy's psychology, for example Ogre's cause fear as do Undead, so Lets say a DA interogator chaplain causes Fear and so do Necrons, Or a DE Archon causes Terror, things like that, as oposed to what we have now "Hi im a 15ft walking tank, I can rip you in half with this cool looking power sword... Scared?" "Hi im a 6ft man... and nope im fine"

As to more complicated.
at the moment we have a cover save mechanic that gives everything a 4+ save vs shooting, my way would be "if you shoot from, or into area terrain -1BS" or "That Tank is moving flat out -1 BS" no need for the over simplified cover rules, evidently for my ideas to work they would need playtesting etc. but the point remains, we are not idiots and change in the rules to support modifiers would take some time to learn and get used to (some people faster than others) but we could handle it.
this is just one example of making the rules a bit more complicated.

Formosa:

Except that Fearless doesn't allow a unit to ignore Leadership altogether; only morale and pinning tests. They still suffer from No Retreat. Stubborn and And They Shall Know No Fear definitely do not ignore Leadership: They are specifically vulnerable to Sweeping Advances and regrouping-denial, respectively. Assault in particular makes a mockery of high leadership if you lose by even 2 or 3, and Stubborn is great until you lose a Sweeping Advance (very likely if Initiative if equal).

Then there are psychology rules like Rage, Counter-Attack, Shaking/Stunning, etc that could be grouped together under a "Psychology" title, but don't need to be.

In general:

Speaking of Counter-Attack, I failed to note how the 4th edition version was split into the Universal Special Rule with a Leadership check and the main rules Defenders React. I still expect Hit and Run to be likewise divided in the rules.

Ditto I think they're going to change Eternal Warrior to depend on the characteristics profile of the model with the rule rather than a blanket exception to Instant Death.

I think I could make a case for the Design team changing Instant Death, or at least the non-stipulative part (such as Instant Death caused by Force Weapons and the like). I think we'll see something like a Toughness check (or even a Wounds check - working from the representative notion that a model with fewer wounds remaining is more likely to succumb to Instant Death).

Nurglitch wrote:Formosa:

Except that Fearless doesn't allow a unit to ignore Leadership altogether; only morale and pinning tests. They still suffer from No Retreat. Stubborn and And They Shall Know No Fear definitely do not ignore Leadership: They are specifically vulnerable to Sweeping Advances and regrouping-denial, respectively. Assault in particular makes a mockery of high leadership if you lose by even 2 or 3, and Stubborn is great until you lose a Sweeping Advance (very likely if Initiative if equal).

Then there are psychology rules like Rage, Counter-Attack, Shaking/Stunning, etc that could be grouped together under a "Psychology" title, but don't need to be.

The problems with No retreat have beeen discussed elsewhere on this thread, so i will not go into that

The whole psychology ruleset need overhauling, I agree that Rage should come uder "psychology" but counter attack and shake/stun should not, but I think i see what you are getting at.

I will show you what i am getting at.

Guard sqaud wants to charge a unit of necrons, necrons cause fear, Morale check, if fails, no charge or -1 to hit in CC.
this may seem harsh, but lets look at what these guardsman can use to effectivly ignore the fear.

This is the "normal" platoon i see
Commisar, power weapon
45 guardsman
5 sergeants, power weapons

so if this platoon fails its fear check, on ld8, hey ho no worries, re-roll. this becomes even better if a lord commisar is about.
Now Marines... LD9 nuff said
ok Chaos, hmmm plague marines.. no worries auto pass, bezerkers... auto-pass, Chaos marines Ld 10...
Orks... lol fear

so you see that introducing just Fear into the game does not drastically change it, but it does add a little flavour

I don't see how introducing such a Fear roll adds "flavour" or improves the game.

Agreed, having marines fail fear-checks etc sounds silly. Guard is pretty much the only rase that would fear others according to fluff, and introducing core rules that only really fits one army doesn't seem right

40k has been built up to the point where nobody is afraid of anything, and introducing a Fear mechanic would apply to almost nobody. Even for those it did apply to, when on earth are Guardsmen going to charge Necrons? It'll almost never come into play, it'd be more rules for rules sake.

Nurglich i was useing Guard vs necrons as an example...

Vaktathi has hit the nail of my argument (without intending to lol) "nobody is afraid of anything"
this is the problem, every army has rules to effectivly circumvent the Morale rules, pinning is a joke and the lack of any real kind of psychology rules is odd, but I digress, the game has been watered down (or dumbed down) to appeal to little timmy

Formosa:

Again, it's not your example I find unconvincing, it's your argument. I simply don't see any evidence for your assertions.

Formosa wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Formosa:

Except that Fearless doesn't allow a unit to ignore Leadership altogether; only morale and pinning tests. They still suffer from No Retreat. Stubborn and And They Shall Know No Fear definitely do not ignore Leadership: They are specifically vulnerable to Sweeping Advances and regrouping-denial, respectively. Assault in particular makes a mockery of high leadership if you lose by even 2 or 3, and Stubborn is great until you lose a Sweeping Advance (very likely if Initiative if equal).

Then there are psychology rules like Rage, Counter-Attack, Shaking/Stunning, etc that could be grouped together under a "Psychology" title, but don't need to be.

The problems with No retreat have beeen discussed elsewhere on this thread, so i will not go into that

The whole psychology ruleset need overhauling, I agree that Rage should come uder "psychology" but counter attack and shake/stun should not, but I think i see what you are getting at.

I will show you what i am getting at.

Guard sqaud wants to charge a unit of necrons, necrons cause fear, Morale check, if fails, no charge or -1 to hit in CC.
this may seem harsh, but lets look at what these guardsman can use to effectivly ignore the fear.

This is the "normal" platoon i see
Commisar, power weapon
45 guardsman
5 sergeants, power weapons

so if this platoon fails its fear check, on ld8, hey ho no worries, re-roll. this becomes even better if a lord commisar is about.
Now Marines... LD9 nuff said
ok Chaos, hmmm plague marines.. no worries auto pass, bezerkers... auto-pass, Chaos marines Ld 10...
Orks... lol fear

so you see that introducing just Fear into the game does not drastically change it, but it does add a little flavour

Orks Fear stuff. Just not when they have thousands of da boyz around.

agnosto wrote:I love how most of the suggestion would be a net result in the poster's favored army being more powerful...

I'm curious to know how you came to that conclusion, any chance of specifics?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

agnosto wrote:I love how most of the suggestion would be a net result in the poster's favored army being more powerful...

I'm curious to know how you came to that conclusion, any chance of specifics?

Cheers

Andrew

Have you read the rest of this thread? Of course everyone is going to suggest changes to the rules to benefit their personal favorite army. That's the way the world works. People try to get away with anything that they think that they can get away with and they set priorities that start with them, then ripple out to their toy soldiers and eventually reach family, friends and the rest of the donkey-caves they are forced to tolerate on a daily basis. You're currently very, very low on the list. Can I get an amen?!?

I completely understand that, but I didn't think that any of the suggestions so far particularily favoured any army over another, that was all.

Cheers

Andrew

PS Amen!

AndrewC wrote:I completely understand that, but I didn't think that any of the suggestions so far particularily favoured any army over another, that was all.

There are the Ork players that want to do away with fearless wounds, the IG players that want immobilized vehicles in squadrons to not be destroyed. IG player that wants guardsmen to be better in close combat. Assaulty armies wanting to bring back consolidating into assault. People who don't play Orks wanting to nerf wound allocation (referring to complex nob units). A Necron player wanting to do away with sweeping advance (gee the only thing that gets rid of wbb). Another Ork player wanting premeasurement and another Ork player that wants the game to move away from mechanized armies. Another Ork player that thinks marines should run from Orks regardless of whether the marines are winning the combat or not.

Some examples.

Sure, I'd love my firewarriors to not fall down and die to a strong breeze or run away when an Ork gives them a mean look but I know it's not going to happen and it wouldn't be fun to play a game where every unit is unkillable or doesn't have weaknesses anyway.

Okay, point taken.

Cheers

Andrew

So how about we discuss the predictions I've made about the changes that we might see in the main rules come 6th edition? I think that the trend we saw from 4th to 5th, or special rules being integrated into the main rules, either by being split like Counter-Attack and Fleet, or given a dependency on the unit's characteristics, such as Hit and Run and Preferred Enemy.

Read the first page, but the other pages TL;DR so im just going to say Glancing hits need to go back to 4th edition. Thunderhammers should be able to wreck land raiders.

I am sick of tankhammer 40,000.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Has anyone noticed that tank hunters is almost completely gone from the game?

Thunder Hammers can wreck a Land Raider: You just need to destroy 4-5 weapons and immobilize it.

I have the feeling 6th is going to be a MAJOR overhaul to 40k.

My changes (half of what I'd like to see, half of what I'd expect to see):

1) FNP works only on a 6, but works against things that ignore armor.

2) Vehicle Damage tables go back to 3rd edition tables.

3) Cover saves reduced from mostly 4+ to mostly 5+.

4) Intervening infantry units do not provide cover.

5) Running and not having fleet means you can't charge, but can shoot at -1BS and you're at -2Ld until your next turn.

6) All movement happens in the movement phase, including run moves and charging. (This means if you charge, you won't be able to shoot that turn)

7) Fearless becomes stubborn. Stubborn becomes ATSKNF. ATSKNF only allows re-grouping under 50% strength, you can still be sweeping advanced.

8) TLOS stays, but you have to be able to see 25% of the target unit in order to fire.

9) Deep Strike mishaps gone. You're simply destroyed. Drop pods downgraded from avoiding models to the current mishap table.

10) Removal of KP, VP, and objectives. All games are fought to last man standing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh! I forgot to add my personal favorite change I've been wanting for a decade:

11) Removal of all blast markers and templates. Blast hit 1+d3, Large Blast hit 1+d6, Template hit 2d3.

VPs back..

A hordes rule - if you have spent moar money on your armiy than the other guy you get + 50% victory points

Wound allocation should be dealt with by ruling that each AP of weaponry is resolved seperatly - ie I fire 8 bolter shots, a frag missile and a rapid fire plasma gun at 5 marines. I do 5 bolter wounds and 2 frag wounds (AP5) and 2 plasma gun wounds. (AP3) So the 7 AP5 wounds are allocated and saved, and then 2 die to plasma. (or get cover saves) You can however take the plasma gun wounds first and then assign the rest (although in this case they would have a split of 3/3/2 whereas before it was 2/2/2/2/1

Saves need to go back to 5+ for most non fortified cover (buildings etc 5+, walls 6+, actual bunkers etc 4+)

Remove gets hot from plasma OR increase melta by 5pts.

For Unattached IC/MCs with fearless/no retreat they do not suffer wounds caused to lesser plebs around them.

Also by transports do you mean 35pt rhinos? Because eldar, deldar, black templars tau etc dont have cheap transports.. nids have none... really they needed to have left that at 55 or so pts. But they wanted to sell them!

Remove the 'null zone landraider' ability.

TLOS can GTFO. The hypocrasy of the 5th ed book 'unlike other systems (GW acknowlege other systems WTF?) which use an abstract system of cover and heights (lolz at warmahordez - but wait didn't FOURTH EDITION HAVE THIS??)

An overall reduction in LD.... LD is much too high for some armies yet often too low for others (tau, SoB)

I also agree with Jaon about Tankhammer... it's a bit irriating but its a GW game so expect the person who can spend more $£¥ on the game to have the 'better' army

No infanrty provides bubblewrap coversaves.