Personally i'm a bit tired of fighting in the CC era. i'd like to see assaults change. Specifically being able to fire at an oppoent who's charging you at a loss to your CC ability on that turn. Something like charge reactions in fantasy. Stand and shoot and all that, but a simpler version. Maybe -1A for every model in the squad but you get to fire at the squad charging you.

There are alot of things they could impliment, but I'd swallow a good amout of Acceptable Breaks From Reality if it means the game will be simpler to understand. As it stands GW already has a poor track record of proofreading their rules and the resulting rules lawyering shenanigans that follow, adding onto it isnt exactly the best to do.

I would like to see rules for weapon emplacements, rending on any chainweapon, a section on creating your own vehicles with points values for anything and everything you could do to make said vehicle, more mission types, make plasma weaponry ignore light and medium cover, and lastly adding a rule for throwing grenades (as possibly a 2nd shooting faze for throwing grenades only, even if you could throw one 8 inches would be nice)

I would like some definition to what a "Flame" weapon is and what a "Plasma" weapon is, for the sake of the Avatar's and the Plasma Siphon's special rules respectively.

I'd love to see a great big nerf for vehicles, to get out of the 'mech is king' mindset and make hybrid armies viable.

Oh, and a buff for assaulty armies. Because we all know that just plinking away at each other all game with lazors is not that much fun.

Two of the following - change the vehicle damage tables to make them a bit more fragile, change their cover rules so they take glancing hits instead of getting a cover save, bring back entanglment for units that were in a transport when destroyed.

Just one of those should have been enough in 5th edition to make transports better. All 3 made them ridiculous. Watching a futuristic traffic jam is not my idea of fun 40k.

More Missions really. Run should be 2d6, pick the highest.

Two from the top of my head:

-Get rid of wound allocation. It doesn't do what they want it to do. Also why can't a boltgunner just pick up the flamer? Doesn't make much sense, and doesn't achieve its goal. This would get right of some shenanigans and speed up the game.

-Reduce how easy it is to get a 4+ cover save. Make 5+ cover the norm.

edit: Oh yeah and bring back Victory points as a 4th mission type.

Definitely less vehicular focus. Make shooting slightly better maybe? 20 bolter shots kills 2 MEQ on average, kinda lame :/

Run is already a vast improvement for many armies. Its good enough as is IMHO.

I really hope they don't bring back VP. Kill points may seem to not make sense, but currently its one of the only things discouraging people from MSU spamming- and even in that regard it was only partially effective.

I would like to see a nerfing to cover saves. giving a ubiquitous 4+ is kinda crazy. Maybe reduce the standard cover save to 5+.

Make Glances -1 on the Vehicle damage chart instead of -2. That way tanks can still be wrecked on a glance with non ap1 weapons.

EDIT: I also agree with Dracos. Wound allocation should go. Its nice for the defender because it protects their special dudes + weapons, and its nice for the firer because their wounds don't dissipate into the vortex of allocation (where firing heavy bolters in addition to the battle cannon can often result in fewer actual kills and other sillyness). I think the cons of wound allocation outweigh the benefits.

They should bring back the Target Priority Rule from before, but keep the 4+ cover saves if you're using swarms to screen something.

But what happens when they remove mech armies advantage, and armies like the Guard/orks will still flourish? Personally, i love mech, because they all bring lascannons and lances and such, when im fielding mostly infantry.

"I heard Guard so i loaded up on Dark Lances..." - Kiebler

nerf cover saves, I'm sick of seeing guard squads or orks getting 4+ saves just cos half the squad is standing on the grass that is attached to terrain and therefore still counts as area terrain.

I want to see a few things change.

Wound Allocation: I dont think it needs to be taken out compleetly. I think you should only be able to allocate to different armor/invul saves not different wargear options. Meaning things like nob biker squads couldnt allocate wounds seperatly... its just timewasting and annoying.
Example: 5 Assault termies takes 5 plasma wounds. 3 5+ on the lightning claws, 2 3+ on the storm shiels. This makes sense to me. NOT this current nob bikers/palladins crap...
I would also make them allocate different ap shots at different times.
Example: That same assault termie squad gets 5 plasma/5 bolter wounds. You would have to allocate both different AP shots differently. IE 1 plasma 1 bolter on each model. This way you cant toss all your AP2 on the shields...

I want to see this cover saves stuff go away. 4+ for a tree... think if a lascannon hit a tree, what would happen to the guy behind it? 5+ needs to be the norm. And cover for vehicals needs to be glancing only, and glancing needs to be -1. Instant fix of vehical rules IMHO

Reducing the cover save would be bad. First off their is already a balance for the save: slower movement. Second, armies with high armor lose next to nothing, while low armor armies get screwed.

You only move slower if you are in the terrain. As long as LOS os obescured enough, you can get that cover save without hampering movement.

And high armour value armies like Marines get the enough of a benefit for being on cover - protection from AP1/2/3 weapons.

-Loki- wrote:You only move slower if you are in the terrain. As long as LOS os obescured enough, you can get that cover save without hampering movement.

And high armour value armies like Marines get the enough of a benefit for being on cover - protection from AP1/2/3 weapons.

And last I checked, that only took up >%10 of all the weapons in the game, and most of those are usually meant for anti-tank.

Without wound allocation Nobs and especially Paladins would be overpriced. Paladins would be useless without the current form of wound allocation.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

-Loki- wrote:You only move slower if you are in the terrain. As long as LOS os obescured enough, you can get that cover save without hampering movement.

And high armour value armies like Marines get the enough of a benefit for being on cover - protection from AP1/2/3 weapons.

And last I checked, that only took up >%10 of all the weapons in the game, and most of those are usually meant for anti-tank.

And yet armies can still be packed full of them. IG vets with special weapons, Long Fangs, LasPlas razorbacks, etc.

There's a reason people always fall back to the argument of 'that unit sounds good, but will melt when it's hit by 10 missiles in one turn', not 'that unit sounds good, but it will melt when hit with 60 bolters in one turn'. MEQs are pretty well protected against everything except AP1/2/3 weapons. Easy 4+ cover makes them almost as resiliant against the weapons designed specifically to kill them.

I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:I'd love to see a great big nerf for vehicles

Please no, we don't need a return to 4th edition in this regard.

Oh, and a buff for assaulty armies. Because we all know that just plinking away at each other all game with lazors is not that much fun.

Methinks you are playing the wrong game here at this point.

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

You'd see transports for non-DE/Ork armies be rarer than 4E Chimeras. I.E. nonexistent. Overbalance is not balance.

akaean wrote:

I really hope they don't bring back VP. Kill points may seem to not make sense, but currently its one of the only things discouraging people from MSU spamming- and even in that regard it was only partially effective.

It's not very effective in the first place and is basically a crutch for deathstar armies. Creates at least as many issues as VP's, which generally give a more accurate picture of the battle anyway.

Make Glances -1 on the Vehicle damage chart instead of -2. That way tanks can still be wrecked on a glance with non ap1 weapons.

You mean like back in 4E? Again, please no, there are very good reasons they ditched this. It makes what should be purpose-built anti-infantry weapons far too capable at engaging armor.

Then maybe a higher strenght hit or an actual AP. Personally it sucks when you blow a land raider and the power armored SMs inside only suffer a lasgun blast.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Then maybe a higher strenght hit or an actual AP. Personally it sucks when you blow a land raider and the power armored SMs inside only suffer a lasgun blast.

That can be fixed by bringing back having the unit being pinned. There needs to be some risk to the unit being transported.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Then maybe a higher strenght hit or an actual AP. Personally it sucks when you blow a land raider and the power armored SMs inside only suffer a lasgun blast.

Well, bolter blast. That said, yes, explosions should hurt a bit more. Auto-killing them will just make transports far too much of a liability. I'd be fine with something like "must pass an initiative test or take a wound with no saves allowed". It'd make explosions scarier for most races (excepting Eldar, but if they get shot out they're generally screwed anyway) resulting in doubling average casualties against MEQ units for example, without consistently making transports deathtraps.

I never liked the old auto-pinning. It never made sense. It's too hamfisted. Nobody is going to sit right next to their just exploded transport that's likely still on fire and may explode again, they're going to get away from it as fast as possible.

I wouldn't mind seeing a return of psychology. It would be difficult to blanket rule in without extensive FAQs, but I really liked that aspect of 2nd edition. It may have been lost due to 'streamlining', but however you want to look at it, Guardsmen shouldn't be automatically holding their ground when a Bloodthirster rips itself into realspace.

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

Are you crazy?! It's almost half of my guardsmen get killed with their transport same with marines! I bet you play dark eldar or orks and want to be better than other people!

Vaktathi wrote:I never liked the old auto-pinning. It never made sense. It's too hamfisted. Nobody is going to sit right next to their just exploded transport that's likely still on fire and may explode again, they're going to get away from it as fast as possible.

True, but I saw it as representing the people being transported climbing out of a twisted, wrecked crew compartment. it's not like all the doors pop open nice and neatly and the vehicle just stops. Doors jam, vehicles flip, even fires blocking the doors. There's plenty of reason for it to take time for people to climb out of a wrecked vehicle that's just been destroyed.

Game wise, the way it is now, there's simply no drawbacks to meching up. You're faster, you're more survivable, vehicles get cover saves, damage tables are geared to be less punishing, and the most you'll do when a vehicle explodes around you is stub your toe as you casually walk out, totally combat ready. Points cost is a non-issue when transports are as cheap as they are now.

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

Of course the DE/Ork player would say that...

-Loki- wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing a return of psychology. It would be difficult to blanket rule in without extensive FAQs, but I really liked that aspect of 2nd edition. It may have been lost due to 'streamlining', but however you want to look at it, Guardsmen shouldn't be automatically holding their ground when a Bloodthirster rips itself into realspace.

That'd require a reboot and significant recosting across the board. Also, given how many Fearless/Ld10/Rerollable Ld units are in this game, it'd likely only really have a major effect on a couple of armies. Not really worth it I think.

I mean, Chaos wouldn't care about psychology, and of course you can't have Space Marines being scared, then the Eldar fanbois couldn't possibly stomach their ladies fleeing from something scary, and Dark Eldar are too desensitized, automaton Necrons really aren't going to flee in Terror from anything, the Sisters would obviously have exceptions for being too Faithful, and so basically you'd be left with only the Imperial Guard and Tau, and smallish Ork units, that would really care after all was said and done for the most part. I can't see it really being worth it.

-Loki- wrote:

True, but I saw it as representing the people being transported climbing out of a twisted, wrecked crew compartment. it's not like all the doors pop open nice and neatly and the vehicle just stops. Doors jam, vehicles flip, even fires blocking the doors. There's plenty of reason for it to take time for people to climb out of a wrecked vehicle that's just been destroyed.

Game wise, the way it is now, there's simply no drawbacks to meching up. You're faster, you're more survivable, vehicles get cover saves, damage tables are geared to be less punishing, and the most you'll do when a vehicle explodes around you is stub your toe as you casually walk out, totally combat ready. Points cost is a non-issue when transports are as cheap as they are now.

Possibly, but It'd be more realistic, and often more entertaining, to think something like having to move 2d6" in a random (scatterdie) direction away from the vehicle. It'd also be funny to see vehicles that have a chance of exploding on subsequent turns as ammo stacks go or fuel, etc.

Just pointing out that Entangled goes a way to representing this. Gives a slight risk to a unit in a transport to offset the plethroa of advantages it gives.

Luna Dragon wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

Are you crazy?! It's almost half of my guardsmen get killed with their transport same with marines! I bet you play dark eldar or orks and want to be better than other people!

He already is. He just wants to bump mech guard down from "can occasionally beat him if his opponent is extremely lucky" to "lol tabled turn one, always". And is probably being facetious.

It's obvious he's being facetious. I play Orks and even I don't like that idea.

However, there no difference from some of the other suggestions, it's only more obvious.

It would be nice to balance out MEC by either;

1) Raising the costs of all imperial vehicles, especially transports, back to their 4th edition cost

2) Make vehicles slightly easier to kill, and then drop all non imperial vehicles, especially transports, down in cost.

I'd like to see vehicles generally cost about three times as much and be about three times tougher and more destructive. Can't say as for what it'd do for the balance of the game, more of a personal preference for the way they play.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Luna Dragon wrote:I bet you play dark eldar or orks and want to be better than other people!

He already is.

This made me smile. From what I've read of Dashofpepper's tacticas, it was exactly what I was thinking when I read Luna Dragon's post.

1) New damage table, keep all the current modifiers to it.

Shaken (same)
Stunned (same)
Damaged (shooters choice of Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed)
Destroyed-Wrecked (same)
Destroyed-Exploded (same)
Destroyed-Annihilated (same as an explosion, but people inside the tank take a S6 AP2 hit [S5 for open topped])


2) If you Destroy an occupied transport in close combat:

a) you deal damage from the explosion as normal (if there is an explosion)
b) the passengers are placed on the battlefield in base contact with the assaulting unit. They are now locked in combat. No one counts as charging. Counts as the second round of combat.

This removes the "surround a vehicle and wreck it, but not explode it, and the people inside are gone"
It replaces this with a different penalty to transports in close combat, but it applies to all types of destroyed results and not just to wrecks.


3) Change wound allocation.

a) You start with the lowest AP the go to the Highest AP wounds.
b) You roll based on save, not on equipment (ei. everyone taking a 4+ save or any type is rolled together, wounds taken out of that group)
c) You start with the highest save group first, then go down from there. (ie, you roll you 5+ INV group, then the 3+ INV group, then the 2+ Armor group)

This limits some of the wound allocation abuse, but there is still probably a way to abuse a system like this too.


4) Glossary of terms.

Amaya wrote:Without wound allocation Nobs and especially Paladins would be overpriced. Paladins would be useless without the current form of wound allocation.

This isn't really a good argument. When an edition changes some things are bound to be made less effective- while others are bound to be made more effective. You can't base an argument that "wound allocation needs to stay- otherwise nobs and paladins will be worse or were balanced according to wound allocation"

Orks and GKs (well probably not GKs until 7th ) will get an updated codex in 6th anyway, which would reflect the changes to that balance.

does there really need to be a sixth ed. im tired of buying new dex's, models, army ideas..... this old man is getting tired in general

GW is a company and company have to produce things if they wanna make a profit. 6th ed will come eventually, whether we want it to or not. At least we know GW reads these forums and might listen to our wishlisting.

1) Wound allocation as people have covered.
2) Some change to the vehicle damage chart, I liked svendrex's idea of being able to pick immobilized or weapon destroyed, the other stuff is a bit much but if 3 and 4 on the chart were damage and then the negative for glancing was only -1 or maybe extend the bonus from AP1 weapons to AP2 or AP1. So lascannns could kill vehicles easier but your lesser weapons like Autocannons would still have to work at it.
3) GLOSSARY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
4) I'd also like to see fewer "special rules" they began 5th by consolidating most of them under rules in the main rule book and then started making new ones like right away.

I'd like to see:

Make vehicles a bit more robust than they are now, or a bit better in terms of armour/hitting power somehow but get rid of dedicated transports. I want them all to be in fast attack or heavy support. I mean, we have to choose between several HQs option to fill two slots, why not make the tank option more cramped? You could still take 6 tank type things if they were in HS/FA.

For armies that rely a lot on mech, then dedicated transports could be special rules in those codices or a character could allow them to be taken as dedicated transports. Basically, i'd like to see less of them but make them more imposing.

Also, some kind of nerf to feel no pain. Whether it's a restriction to how many units can take it, a change to make it 5+ or a wargear cost. Sometimes an army can just spam it and I really think it's far too good to be as common as it is.

And, bring back to hit modifiers. It would really benefit some armies - like allow tau to be +1 BS at 12" so their rapid fire weapons are a genuine threat at that range. I'd also much prefer a -1 BS when shooting at a unit in heavy cover rather than them getting a 4+ or even a 3+ cover save. Cover should make it harder to hit something, not harder to damage after it has been hit.

Commisar Von Humps wrote:"I heard Guard so i loaded up on Dark Lances..." - Kiebler

I do so enjoy when list-tailoring turns around and bites someone in the ass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

akaean wrote:

Amaya wrote:Without wound allocation Nobs and especially Paladins would be overpriced. Paladins would be useless without the current form of wound allocation.

This isn't really a good argument. When an edition changes some things are bound to be made less effective- while others are bound to be made more effective. You can't base an argument that "wound allocation needs to stay- otherwise nobs and paladins will be worse or were balanced according to wound allocation"

Not to mention that Amaya is assuming that the full value of complex unit wound allocation was actually taken into account when those codexes were being written.

Things I'd like to see in 6E:

- No more turn 1 assaulting armies. Because it gives a strong advantage to some armies against others (exemple: BA against Tau, Tyranids against IG). IMHO, units with special movement rules should be able to assault on turn 2, all others should have to wait turn 3.

- A return to the 2D6 armor save system instead of 1D6. With changes to weapons stats and vehicle armor to go with it. Because 1D6 doesn't give enough flexibility when designing and balancing weapons and armors against each others, and that contributed to the invulnerable saves pandemy. Invulnerable saves, FNP or armor or whatever, should be exceptionnal. Cover would just increase a bit the value of normal save. It also gave birth to a system were a tau missle wouldn't be any more efficient against a power armor than a IG laser rifle, which strike me as stupid considering the difference in weapon cost and availability.
The old system was better because it wasn't just a binary choice of full save or no save at all.




PS: Before someone complain I'm biased because I play Tau, I also plan to play Eldars, BA, and maybe even Tyranids.

ColdSadHungry wrote:
And, bring back to hit modifiers. It would really benefit some armies - like allow tau to be +1 BS at 12" so their rapid fire weapons are a genuine threat at that range. I'd also much prefer a -1 BS when shooting at a unit in heavy cover rather than them getting a 4+ or even a 3+ cover save. Cover should make it harder to hit something, not harder to damage after it has been hit.

Shadowsword8 wrote:
- A return to the 2D6 armor save system instead of 1D6. With changes to weapons stats and vehicle armor to go with it. Because 1D6 doesn't give enough flexibility when designing and balancing weapons and armors against each others, and that contributed to the invulnerable saves pandemy. Invulnerable saves, FNP or armor or whatever, should be exceptionnal. Cover would just increase a bit the value of normal save. It also gave birth to a system were a tau missle wouldn't be any more efficient against a power armor than a IG laser rifle, which strike me as stupid considering the difference in weapon cost and availability.
The old system was better because it wasn't just a binary choice of full save or no save at all.

I think that both of these rules speak to something that a lot of 40k players would like to see.

Make rules for a Skimish size game with more complex rules.
Make some REAL "kill team" rules.


The above rules can make the game more complicated and make it take longer to play, especially in larger games.


If you are playing 500 pts or less, you can play with the "kill team" rules.
(stuff like advanced cover, save modifiers, more actions per model)

If you are playing 500-2500 pts, you can use the "normal game" rules.

If you are playing 2500+ pts, you can use the "apocalyspe" rules.
(Only the core rules, no statlines: Gargntuan creature rules, Super Heavy rules, Stratagems, Rules for multiple detachments)


the mini rulebook would only have the "normal" rules.

the larger rulebook would have the "kill team" and "apocalyspe" rules in it in addition to the "normal" rules.

Luna Dragon wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

Are you crazy?! It's almost half of my guardsmen get killed with their transport same with marines! I bet you play dark eldar or orks and want to be better than other people!

Where have you been?

I suppose personally I'd like to see a small reduction in reliance of cover saves and meching up to auto-win. 5+ cover save as standard sounds more reasonable in the long term. Handheld Shields could be made CC-based so it ends using them against range. Kill Points need a rethink but TBH I have little quarrel with the current edition.

Get rid of the extra saves needed to be taken from Fearless units that lose in close combat.

I would love to see a return to 4th were if only 2 models are visible then only those 2 can be seen.

IMHO the game was FARR more im guessing strategic when there was abstract terrain sizes. If we have some kind of clever abstract and LoS terrain rules we could possibly keep the normal generous 4+ cover. If not just make the average cover save a 5+.

Amaya wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

Of course the DE/Ork player would say that...

That doesn't make it any less valid of an opinion.

So, there are three problems I see to 5th ed that I'd like addressed.

1.) TLoS. Which is idiotic. In order to be properly competitive, you need to "model for advantage", which can get you thrown out of competitions. Ridiculous. Art and rules shouldn't mix.

2.) Wound wrapping. Revert back to 4th ed wounding and this problem is fixed

3.)

-Loki- wrote:Game wise, the way it is now, there's simply no drawbacks to meching up.

I don't succumb to the idea that meching up is in any way required, or really even gives THAT much of an advantage. The problem I have is that mech lists are the default, and you have to chose to take certain risks for certain rewards to run a different style.

I think that mech lists should give real rewards for real risks. Transports should be able to move an extra 6" (so that they're ACTUALLY faster than infantry), with dash's idea of everybody dying (instead of everybody getting out scott free, as is what usually happens) or something.

As-is, there being a default play style at all makes things more boring.

how about this for a vehicle damage chart.

1-Passes through- The shot passes harmlessly though the vehicle without hitting anything, however it is a little unnerving, the vehicle counts as having moved one speed faster than it actually does. (for instance a normal tank that moves 6" will count as cruising, and may not fire anything, and a vehicle that does not move counts as moving at combat speed)

2- Shrapnel- the shot causes shrapnel to fly around inside the vehicle, causing major disruption as crew members frantically try to fix punctured hoses, and search for medkits for shrapnel wounds. The vehicle may not fire or move until it's next turn

3- Ricohet- The shot has either richochetd inside the target or outright struck something of import. Either a weapon has been destroyed or the vehicle has been immobilized (firing players choice)

4- Pilot injury- The pilot has been killed or wounded, the vehicle is immobilized and may not fire in the next shooting phase.

5- Wrecked- The shot has hit the main power plant and the vehicle is no inoprable. All weapons are destroyed and the vehicle is immobilized, though troops may still cower inside it's hull. They do not have to disembark. The vehicle is now open topped.

6- Destroyed- the vehicle is destroyed all embarked units must immediately disembark and both the embarked unit and all models within 1" of the model take a single str 3 hit.


in any even if the vehicle has no remaining weapons and is immobilized and takes a single further hit, glancing or penetrating hit, it is destroyed and follows the rules for that.

I'd like to see cover adjusted to a 5+ as well. When the entire table routinely has what are essentially 4+ invulnerable saves at all times, it get a bit absurd.

That said, I'd also like to have it where you can only kill models you can see. If a squad A is firing at squad B, and all of Squad B is behind a wall except one guy, only that one guy should be killable.

I want a change to create different versions of deep striking (no deepstriking a teleporting squad with a jump pack IC-dumbest RAW ever)

I would also enjoy seeing charge reactions-but in order to react you must pass a leadership test and if failed you are automatically hit with no reaction possible. Also fearless units may only hold their ground no matter what (no shooting or fleeing)

Last but not least, I want the rumored BT vs Daemons box set to be truth. My two favorite 40k armies in a single box set? Yes, please smile upon your favored servant oh great GW. Lol

in general i would like to see vehicles make sense. Balanced sense but sense. as it is now they are slow hulking behemoths that can only fire basically when they are moving as slow as in infantry soldier.

Either reduce plasma costs or remove gets hot
Reduce cover to 5+ standard

Glancing hits at -1 on table,
-AP at -1
AP1 at +1

Str 5 hits from exploding vehicle unless open topped (only str 3)

Stormshields will give a 4++ (since GW will then try to sell us more lightning claws!)

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

NO.

There's a reason you never saw Transports in 2nd ed unless they were literally covered in Stormbolters and had a suicide squad inside.

If the game returned to that, I have a feeling I'd leave 40K behind as a gaming venture.

Platuan4th wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

NO.

There's a reason you never saw Transports in 2nd ed unless they were literally covered in Stormbolters and had a suicide squad inside.

If the game returned to that, I have a feeling I'd leave 40K behind as a gaming venture.

know what, if they made vehicles harder to kill, like a lot harder, I wouldn't mind. Make figuring out what happens to exploded transports easier. just plop them down and if they blow take them off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a few things they could do is:

1. Make troops assaulting a vehicle assault the armor facing they are touching.
2. Make it so that troops in the way of a vehicle that has declared it is moving at cruising speed or better take a str 10 ap 2 hit (and only those models under it can be removed)
3. Make hitting in CC harder. (for moving vehicles) something like 6+ for cruising 5+ for combat and can't hit if it moved flat out. (cause who's going to try and punch something moving at 50mph?
4. All grenades on Vehicles are a 5+ all the time (easier to hit a moving target but still fairly difficult)

1. Run / Fleet fix. Fleet used to benefit assault-oriented units, by getting them closer, and shooting-oriented units, by advancing when not in range. With Run added, assault-oriented units with Fleet took a bit of a hit, and shooting-oriented units lost their benefits altogether. Think Vespid.

2. Vehicles: While not quite as dominant in competitive builds as people seem to believe, mech still holds the majority. Something small needs to be done to either weaken vehicles, or impose penalties on people who take them.

Ailaros wrote:

-Loki- wrote:Game wise, the way it is now, there's simply no drawbacks to meching up.

I don't succumb to the idea that meching up is in any way required, or really even gives THAT much of an advantage. The problem I have is that mech lists are the default, and you have to chose to take certain risks for certain rewards to run a different style.

You don't see that the reson meching up has become the default is because transports are simply too good for the incredibly low points cost right now?

A space marine squad gains, for a mere 35 points, an ablative armour value which has no risk to the squad when destroyed, reliable 12" of movement, and loses nothing. Most cover will also grant said transport a cover save, something that in previous editions was Hull Down, changing penetrating hits to glancing. Coupled with a far more lenient damage table for vehicles, that squad is in pretty good shape to ignore all fire directed at it until it decides to get out of the vehicle or it gets destroyed. When it finally does get destroyed, they've got no penalty when they start running to cover in their next turn.

At the very least, adding entaglement back means there's a chance they're going to be in the open when their transport gets destroyed, and adds a little risk to taking that transport, seeing as a careless player could have their squad in assault range of something nasty.

I've always said, since 5e, that what they need to do is buff shooty infantry to make up for the power of transports.

To that end, allow Infantry to split fire based on weapon type. Rapid Fire weapons can shoot target A, Assault Weapons in the same unit can shoot target B and Heavy Weapons in the same unit can shoot target C.

This might go some way to redressing the balance, however I have to say that Dash's idea isn't without some merit with the cheapness in points of Rhinos and Chimeras compared to how hard they are to bring down. I don't see the problem with having troops transported in enclosed vehicles get removed from play on a 'Vehicle Explodes' result.

I honestly don't want to see mech being completely useless but right now it's certainly a little too good. Open-topped vehicles already suffer enough of a penalty that just blanket nerfing transports would curb stomp the Ork and DE codices. Mech Orks of all builds from the Ork Codex does not need nerfing and the DE book is quite finely balanced.

DeviantApostle wrote:I've always said, since 5e, that what they need to do is buff shooty infantry to make up for the power of transports.

To that end, allow Infantry to split fire based on weapon type. Rapid Fire weapons can shoot target A, Assault Weapons in the same unit can shoot target B and Heavy Weapons in the same unit can shoot target C.

This might go some way to redressing the balance, however I have to say that Dash's idea isn't without some merit with the cheapness in points of Rhinos and Chimeras compared to how hard they are to bring down. I don't see the problem with having troops transported in enclosed vehicles get removed from play on a 'Vehicle Explodes' result.

I honestly don't want to see mech being completely useless but right now it's certainly a little too good. Open-topped vehicles already suffer enough of a penalty that just blanket nerfing transports would curb stomp the Ork and DE codices. Mech Orks of all builds from the Ork Codex does not need nerfing and the DE book is quite finely balanced.

So...by your suggestion Imperial Guard would become unbeatable? No thanks. That kind of change would make everybody a guard player and only a moron with horrible dice luck could lose that game. If a 50 man infantry squad could split lasgun, lascannon and flamer fire...yuck. What's the point in playing against something like that? GW wouldn't do it-everybody would quit.

timetowaste85 wrote:

DeviantApostle wrote:I've always said, since 5e, that what they need to do is buff shooty infantry to make up for the power of transports.

To that end, allow Infantry to split fire based on weapon type. Rapid Fire weapons can shoot target A, Assault Weapons in the same unit can shoot target B and Heavy Weapons in the same unit can shoot target C.

This might go some way to redressing the balance, however I have to say that Dash's idea isn't without some merit with the cheapness in points of Rhinos and Chimeras compared to how hard they are to bring down. I don't see the problem with having troops transported in enclosed vehicles get removed from play on a 'Vehicle Explodes' result.

I honestly don't want to see mech being completely useless but right now it's certainly a little too good. Open-topped vehicles already suffer enough of a penalty that just blanket nerfing transports would curb stomp the Ork and DE codices. Mech Orks of all builds from the Ork Codex does not need nerfing and the DE book is quite finely balanced.

So...by your suggestion Imperial Guard would become unbeatable? No thanks. That kind of change would make everybody a guard player and only a moron with horrible dice luck could lose that game. If a 50 man infantry squad could split lasgun, lascannon and flamer fire...yuck. What's the point in playing against something like that? GW wouldn't do it-everybody would quit.

Actually the army it would benefit most is Marines, not IG. Most of the time with IG the rest of the shooting has no viable targets or isn't going to hurt much anyway. With Marines however, if they could melta a transport to bump a unit out, bolt pistol a squad, then charge *both*? **** that. Or, SM's facing IG, split bolter fire between three IG units, putting enough wounds on all 3 to force morale tests on average? Sillyness. It's not IG you'd need to worry about, it'd be Marines. It'd be a *huge* boost to Marine shooting. With IG, it's pretty much *only* blob platoons that would really see any difference. Vets wouldn't care, non-blob Infantry squads wouldn't care, heavy weapons teams wouldn't care, etc.

timetowaste85 wrote:So...by your suggestion Imperial Guard would become unbeatable? No thanks. That kind of change would make everybody a guard player and only a moron with horrible dice luck could lose that game. If a 50 man infantry squad could split lasgun, lascannon and flamer fire...yuck. What's the point in playing against something like that? GW wouldn't do it-everybody would quit.

IG Codex is currently OP, how is this news? I'll grant that Guard used to suck but the current codex is a massive overcompensation. Easier to fix the core rules and change how Guard works than the other way around.

On the other end of the scale, what exactly is the point of a walking Tactical Squad? Nearly every player in the entire game avoids walking infantry with mixed weapon classes, specifically single heavy weapons, like the plague right now, at least where they can.

Fix the rule for the majority, errata the minority of problems and bring out a new IG codex right after C:SM for 6th. It's not rocket science, even if GW has problems implimenting the simplest of solutions.

I would like hope that Super heavies be integrated into regular 40k instead of apocalypse cause I want to use a baneblade

I also want to see more aircraft for Imperial Guard as well

Implementing air support properly would be cool, as in something flies in and wastes an area and flies off, not just however around the battlefield

I would like to see a change with the line of sight rule. I think it's ridiculous that a Lascannon can see a tiny portion of a tank through the cracks between a Drop Pod and is still allowed to shoot, resulting in a wrecked tank.

I would like to see the following

1.No more wound allocation cheese(I play orks and have over 30 nob models)

2. Make deploying something outside of a transport viable.

3. Overwatch!!!!

4. Bring out alot of OP xeno dexes so we dont have to spend 90% of games killing the same old marines.

A couple of things I'd love to see in 6e:

1. Removing wound allocation or changing how it works.

2. Make damage results a bit better, 5e was an improvement over 4e, but it's gone too far. Maybe make glance/pens automatically reduce the number of weapons the vehicle can fire by 1 next round, and add something like "defensive weapon - destroyed".

3. Reduce cover saves from 4+ to 5+, and get rid of the stupid cover save from shooting through enemies! Also, we really need the Leadership test to shoot anything that's not the closest back. Perfect targetting is balls.

4. Would not miss TLoS if they axed it.

5. Buff snipers somehow! Really!...

i would like to see a change to cover saves. I have had cover saves from behind cover or in cover at 4+. no big deal. however, my opponent with his lascannon devestator shoots at maximum range, within cover, over his troops, between two tanks, and into the building my tank is hiding in, and i only get a 4+?

I'd personally like to see a bike buff, but that's because they look cool, and I want to run more.

Throwing grenades sounds fun, and I would like it if they didn't make vehicles worse, but figured out a way to make infantry better. But I don't know how, but then, I'm not a games developer.

1.) Changes to combat resolution and multiple combats, specifically with regards to fearless units. I.E., you shouldn't be able to kill 10 Gants, ignore a Hive Tyrant, and force the Tyrant to take 6-7 armor saves.

2.) Changes to transport vehicles. Make it carry more of a risk. Something like passengers automatically take a wound in an exploded closed-top vehicle, with armor saves allowed. Open-topped, take a strength 4 hit. Plus, there should at least be a negative modifier to the pinning test. -2 to leadership or something like that.

3.) Fearless units and pinning. Make them able to be pinned, but always ignore any negative modifiers for it.

4.) Stacking shaken and stunned results. 2 shakens = stunned. Perhaps even have multiple stunned results stack for a weapon destroyed.

5.) Make units able to embark transports during a consolidate move, provided that they follow the normal rules for embarking (everyone gets within 2").

6.) Cover. For the love of the Emperor, get rid of the blanket 4+ cover save for everything. Make area terrain a 5+, and reserve the 4+ save for half of a squad being LOS obscured.

7.) Buildings. Flesh out the rules for buildings, bunkers, etc, and give them a more prominant roll in the game. Maybe even make a mission which revolves around a building, like the fantasy Watchtower mission.

8.) Missions. I hate the 3 missions, 3 deployments set up. Give us 6 different missions with their own built-in deployments, like in fantasy.

9.) Make Psykers more balanced. Add a default psychic defense into the rulebook for armies which don't have any of their own. Orks, Tau, CSM, CD, Templars, etc. Give them some sort of protection. Alternatively, make psychic powers more difficult, or dangerous to cast. An Ld 10 Psyker facing Orks or CSM shouldn't get to simply cast any power right and left with almost no chance of being stopped or hurt.

10.) Consider bringing back To Hit modifiers, and consider going back to armor save modifiers. Am I the only one who thinks that Space Marines shouldn't get their full save against Heavy Bolters? Here's an idea; if a weapons AP is one higher than the target's armor save, they take a -1 modifier to their save. Other than that, it's a strict save/no save system.

More details on terrain cover, rather than every shrub giving a +4 !

I would accept a slight nerf on vehicles on ONE CONDITION!!! Any Ork infantry unit can have a trukk. That's right, unlimited access. That way, I can create such target saturation that the odds are enough of them will make it to their targets to do the job. Also wound allocation has got to go.

The new edition should be simple adjustments, similar to the transition from 3rd to 4th.

Wound Allocation- Ditch it and reinstate torrent of fire rule, where one wound can be assigned by the shooter to a specific model every time you wrap the squad. If you want to assign specific wounds to specific saves, fine, but one wound is dealt per failure to the unit and whole models are removed where possible. None of this 8 Nobs with a wound each on them or reducing casualties from a Leman Russ by firing the HB sponsons.

Terrain- Return to abstract terrain and clearly define cover save values so that AP2 weapons mean more than just denying Feel no Pain. Cover is too abundantly available under the current rules (and this is a Xenos player talking).

Models- Dump this TLOS crap and play the bases, like in 4th. If a vehicle has a base, everything is done from that base. If not, the hull is used as the measuring point, to and from, for all shooting and assault. All infantry models use the bases for the same. This ends all the "creative" modeling and (in combination with a return to area terrain) greatly reduce arguments about who can see what and with how much cover. This would also end the debates over models using the oval bases.

Vehicles- If your vehicle expodes, you should be pinned and all affected models wounded on a 4+ (instead of S3). Ditch the flat out skimmer rule and simply make them -1 on the damage table when mobile against shooting attacks only. Establish which weapons are defensive by creating a new weapon catagory for them and allow defensive weapons to split fire onto a seperate target from the primary. Ideally, things like Heavy bolters, Shuriken Cannons, Smart Missle Systems, and Heavy Flamers should be classified as defensive.

Close Combat- Number should matter again. If they are too lazy to reintroduce the unit size rules again, then it should simply be something like "+1 Combat Res for every five wounds in the unit" would likely suffice and give a purpose to certain units again.

Missions- Let anything with a WS characteristic that is not a Swarm (or otherwise excepted) claim or contest objectives. No other units matter. You solve the turn 6 falcon swoop issue and make certain units more attractive again. It also allows for more variation in army design.

Rest of it is just simple clarification.

1) Vehicle damage changes (Transports)
'Annihilated' added as an option for Ordnance weapons (like, 7+ on the chart is Annihilated if the weapon is Ordnance, otherwise like normal). Annihilated would automatically inflict a wound on all passengers with no armour saves allowed

'Explodes' results inflict a wound on a 2+ with armor saves allowed (open topped - 4+)

'Wrecked' results inflict a wound on a 4+ with armor saves allowed (open topped - 6+)

Passengers do an emergency disembark from vehicles that are Wrecked, Explode, or Annihilated (and destroyed if not legally allowed to disembark), placed within 2" of the vehicle as normal, and are automatically pinned (even if fearless)

2) Fleet - Automatic 6" run or at least 2d6 pick highest
3) Hit and armor save modifiers
4) Buildings like shealyr said
5) Revamp of KP system

6) Terrain gives specific rules set by opponents before the game. For example, "heavy forest - small units in this terrain have a 4+ cover save, large units and vehicles have a 5+ cover save. blocks LOS", or "bunker - small units in this terrain have a 3+ cover save, large units and non-skimmer vehicles treat this terrain as impassable. blocks LOS", "low wall - small units in this terrain have a 5+ cover save. does not block LOS". Throw in rules for difficult/dangerous, etc. More fleshed out terrain rules in general (i.e. ignore terrain occupied by firer, defender uses best rules for intervening terrain, etc)

7) LOS in only two varieties - have it or don't have it (so, shoot or cannot shoot)

8) Eliminate "modeling for advantage" - a crawling Wraithlord should be modeled that way to look cool and nothing else. Measure LOS from center-of-base to center-of-base following terrain rules, above. If base center-base center isn't good enough, give models specific heights to measure from (for example, small units could measure from 0-2" above their base, large units 0-4", skimmers using the height of their hover base, etc)

9) More advantage for 'fast' vehicles, and elimination of 'defensive' weapons

10) Some way of assaulting from closed-top transports that aren't a Land Raider - maybe get -1A, or lower initiative

11) Treating ICs the same as any other model for shooting/close combat purposes

12) Screening - leave cover saves in. Tiny units (e.g. grots) - 5+, small units (e.g. infantry) - 4+, large units (e.g. MCs, walkers) - 3+, non-skimmer vehicles - 1+. Any successful saves would be rolled against the intervening unit. For example, shooting at a model hiding behind a land raider would give them a 1+ cover save, but any saves (which would be all of them) would hit the land raider instead.

13) Complete arbitrary splitting for shooting units, subject to a Ld test for each target beyond the first (remaining shots at a transport would automatically re-target to the survivors). "I'm gonna shoot my Lascannon and 3 Tactical Marines' bolters at that Rhino, and these other 6 Tactical marines' bolters at your Scout squad over there (rolls Ld test, fails, so all 9 tacticals have to shoot at the Rhino. The Lascannon blows up the Rhino, so the 9 Tactical marines shoot at the survivors automatically)

14) as shealyr said, some errata to add psychic defense to armies that are sorely lacking (would act as a temporary measure until new codex). This would probably be better as an "official GW rules update" rather than in the main rulebook

15) Wound allocation based on weapon groups, e.g. bolters would have to allocate separate from melta guns. Would prevent people stacking multiple low-AP hits on the same model when firing with mixed-weaponry units - there really should not be an advantage to the defender for being shot at with *more* weaponry!

The amount of people saying 4+ cover should go away is unsettling. You all must play Space Marines.

A better and more realistic method would be to make cover subtract from the to-hit roll. 4+ cover save gets converted to a 5+ to hit for marines, for instance. It would be weird, though, since there are so many twin-linked guns.

mugginns wrote:The amount of people saying 4+ cover should go away is unsettling. You all must play Space Marines.

A better and more realistic method would be to make cover subtract from the to-hit roll. 4+ cover save gets converted to a 5+ to hit for marines, for instance. It would be weird, though, since there are so many twin-linked guns.

QFT

1.) Make shooting better than CC, no one should cower in fear at someone who brings a knife to a gunfight. The main way I would see this happening, while at the same time making sure the game didn't simply revert to two gun lines going at it, is to enhance close range shooting, and make it the far better option over assaulting unless you are a dedicated assault unit. The first thing I can think of is Charge Reactions similar to Fantasy. The second is to bring in to-hit modifiers. Thirdly, I like the idea of being able to arbitrarily split fire based upon a leadership test. Lastly, pinning should be based on either mass of fire, or type of fire. Ergo, if you get pinned if you gt hit by 50 lasgun shots, or took a single hitting lascannon shot, or a sniper took a pot shot at you. If you fail, you go to ground but can get up next turn on a passed leadership test modified by the number of men lost to the shot. If you pass, or are fearless, you take a second round of shooting from whatever units shot you that turn. Running out in the open while under a hail of fire should have more repercussions than simply having to take a test that likely won't even make you stop your suicidal charge.

2.) Armour and Cover should be reworked. Cover should not be a blanket 4+ save regardless of what it is. If it's soft cover, aka you're behind a bush, than take it as a negative to-hit modifier, if it is hard cover, aka, you're actually hiding in gutted building or a in a forest behind trees, then do both a negative to-hit and grant a cover save.

Armour saves really should be based upon the strength of the shot. But unlike fantasy, I would start anti armour save at str 6 and above, with the AP value denoting how much of your armour save it shaves off before you take the str of the shot into account. Cover saves would count as armour save modifiers. There fore, a guardsmen in Carapace armour behind a tree would get a three plus save, but a melta gun still won't give a damn. A bunker busting lascannon really should have no problem shooting through trees or sandbags at the squishy 'umies underneath. (think Call of Duty's cover system)

3.) I currently like tanks roughly how they are, but I would change the results chart and what happens to the unit inside.

1-Shaken
2-Stunned
3-Weapon Destroyed
4-Immobilized
5-Damaged / Shooter chooses weapon destroyed or immobilized.
6-Wrecked
7- Explodes / All models embarked and within D6 inches take 1 D6 str hit.
8-Annihilated / All models embarked take 1 Str 10 hit, all models within 2D6 take 1 2D6-2 Str hit.

Penetrating hits roll normally, but cause crew stunned automatically in addition to other affects unless saved by a Ld test. Also, embarked models must pass a Ld test or immediately disembark.

Glancing hits receive -2 modifier. every 3rd glancing hit roll a dice, on a 1 you become immobilized, on a 2 you receive a weapon destroyed result.

Hits from Ordnance receive a +2 modifier as well as causing a secondary glancing hit.

AP 1 receives a +1
Str 10 receives a +1

mugginns wrote:The amount of people saying 4+ cover should go away is unsettling. You all must play Space Marines.

A better and more realistic method would be to make cover subtract from the to-hit roll. 4+ cover save gets converted to a 5+ to hit for marines, for instance. It would be weird, though, since there are so many twin-linked guns.

Uh, 4+ cover saves help Marines as much as it helps anyone else. For example, all those "marine-killing" weapons (plasma anything, particle whip, etc) would normally ignore armor saves, but instead hit a 4+ cover save. Better just to take a high volume of fire and put up with the 3+ armor save.

Cover subtracting from the to-hit roll would hurt BS4 armies (such as Marines) significantly less than BS3 armies.

Having cover saves all over the place screws up many things in many armies. About the only armies that truly benefit are those that heavily use assault troops.

Other than specific rules, making things clearly and consistently worded in the rulebook. Close combat weapons having a listing similar to ranged weapons, with classifications like 'power' 'special' 'cumbersome (for weapons that attack at I 1) and so on. Include a reference page with many of the 'common' special rules, such as assault ramps, power of the machine spirit, astknf, and so on- allows players to have a better handle of what other codices offer, as well as being able to update all codices that use similar wargear or rules.

Make Tank shocking a more viable option for larger or faster vehicles, giving a penalty to leadership for each point of armor over 11, or inflicting hits on the unit regardless of passing the test for each full 6 inches the unit moved. A unit reacting the same to a rhino moving at a crawl compared to a land raider using its max movement?

Modify the vehicle damage chart to provide a bonus based on the amount you penetrate a vehicle by- a meltagun into the back of a vehicle with double sixes for armor pen should be more deadly compared to just eking out a pen with a missile launcher.

Modify gets hot, or scrap it- people need a reason to take plasma weapons over meltas (Cheaper on average, kills vehicles better, doubles out many multi wound models, and doesnt have the chance to kill the guy firing it?)

Allow wounds inflicted by sniper weapons to be allocated by the shooter- reflects what snipers DO on a battlefield better. snipers do not shoot randomly into a crowd, they take out specific targets.

Slick wrote:Other than specific rules, making things clearly and consistently worded in the rulebook. Close combat weapons having a listing similar to ranged weapons, with classifications like 'power' 'special' 'cumbersome (for weapons that attack at I 1) and so on. Include a reference page with many of the 'common' special rules, such as assault ramps, power of the machine spirit, astknf, and so on- allows players to have a better handle of what other codices offer, as well as being able to update all codices that use similar wargear or rules.

QFT. I'm an Ork player. I started with Orks. I didn't even know what a Powerfist was, and the Powerklaw is described as 'a Powerfist in all regards'.

gendoikari87

3. Make hitting in CC harder. (for moving vehicles) something like 6+ for cruising 5+ for combat and can't hit if it moved flat out. (cause who's going to try and punch something moving at 50mph?

Orks Perhaps allow it on a 6+ if the unit is Fearless?





Personally what I'd like to see is this: All vehicles, whether 'alive' or wrecked on the field count as Difficult Terrain. Craters, and vehicles that've moved a Cruising Speed, count as Dangerous terrain.


I have absolutely no idea why it's apparently impossible for a mob of Orks to clamber over a tank to get to the crew that's disembarked on the other side when the transport's still alive, but it's fine if they blew the transport up just prior to the assault.

Xarian wrote:

mugginns wrote:The amount of people saying 4+ cover should go away is unsettling. You all must play Space Marines.

A better and more realistic method would be to make cover subtract from the to-hit roll. 4+ cover save gets converted to a 5+ to hit for marines, for instance. It would be weird, though, since there are so many twin-linked guns.

Uh, 4+ cover saves help Marines as much as it helps anyone else. For example, all those "marine-killing" weapons (plasma anything, particle whip, etc) would normally ignore armor saves, but instead hit a 4+ cover save. Better just to take a high volume of fire and put up with the 3+ armor save.

Uh no, it helps me way more because my troops have 6+ or 5+ armor saves that get negated by bolters most of the time. Especially with TLOS a 4+ cover save is vital. Of course I understand that cover saves help a marine vs tank-killing weapons; that is fine.

Having cover saves all over the place screws up many things in many armies.

How so? Provide some reasoning, please.

Reduce cover saves for infantry from 4+ to 5+. Armies paying for 3+ and 4+ saves are basically getting screwed as damn near everything in the game gets a 4+ cover save anyway.


Wound allocation needs a SERIOUS do-over. In the current configuration, it's possible to actually cause *less* casualties by inflicting *more* wounds, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Something along the lines of, unsaveable wounds must be as equally distributed as possible.

I'd like more Morale penalties for shooting. Frankly, in close combat you can lose track of how many of your buddies got whacked in a a couple seconds.

But running across open ground? You'll notice if a quarter of your squad gets mowed down, and it is more disconcerting.

I'd also like to see different movement values like in Fantasy.

And since I play Tyranids, hell YES I would like to see the game move away from mechanized forces.

I would also like to see a change in the CC to-hit tables. Frankly, if I'm WS 10 and you are WS 1, it shouldn't be just as easy as if I was 4 to your 3.

Mattlov wrote:I would also like to see a change in the CC to-hit tables. Frankly, if I'm WS 10 and you are WS 1, it shouldn't be just as easy as if I was 4 to your 3.

3 against 4 is 4+, and 1 against 10 is 5+. It would be nice if the to hit got as low as 2+, for when you've got better than twice the target's WS, though.

mugginns wrote:

Having cover saves all over the place screws up many things in many armies.

How so? Provide some reasoning, please.

First, I'm not talking about complete elimination of cover saves - just eliminating the "blanket 4+ cover save that applies all over the place"

So, here are several things having way too much cover screws up:

1) Pricing on weapons. Marine players often think "plasma sucks because it costs way too much" - because most of the time they are using it, it's hitting a 4+ cover wall rather than doing its job (wiping out marines, artificer armor, terminators, wraithguard, and the like by not allowing saves). Eldar players often think "starcannons suck because they cost way too much" - because a Starcannon costs twice as much as a Scatter Laser, has half the shots, and with the 4+ cover save, kills *everything* less effectively than a scatter laser (yes, including terminators)

2) Pricing and popularity of squads. Close-combat units are going to be just as effective as they ever were, but many shooting units are up to 50% less effective. This makes people load up on close-combat units because they aren't affected by cover saves. Anything with a power weapon is going to cut up marines just as well as it did before, for example.

3) Pricing on wargear. Anything that grants invulnerable saves in close combat becomes more valuable due to the proliferation of power weapons. Anything that enhances shooting becomes less valuable unless it also ignores cover saves, which is quite rare. Anything that grants a cover save is going to be worth less, because you can just hide behind a bush (or your other units) to gain the same bonus.

4) Horde armies end up getting tailored against. If you're expecting a 4+ cover save, you might use weapons and units that put out a lot of weak attacks, as opposed to weapons and units that put out a few powerful attacks and would normally ignore armor saves. Because of this, you see a proliferation of assault units (which usually have a higher volume of attacks than the shooting equivalents) and weapons which work the same regardless of cover - like flamers, thunderfire cannons (aerial burst) and the like. Yes, you get your 4+ cover save on your boyz, but now you are more likely to fight someone who can deal with it. Do you think it's a coincidence that Vulkan is so popular?

5) Transport vehicles. Not only are they good (and cheap), but they've also got a very good chance to ignore fully 50% of anything that you shoot at them.

6) Army lists. Players often tend to make their armies of the "well-rounded" sort, including low AP weaponry, anti-vehicle weaponry, and the like. Suddenly, however, none of that stuff is as effective as a plain old "pump out tons of fire" approach, so they start taking even more flamers, assault troops, and power weapons. The whole decision between "quality, or quantity?" gets made for you - because not much happened to "quanity", but "quality" gets dumped on.

7) Games become more boring and less decisive. "Hey, remember that time that I dropped that pie plate on your command squad and all that was left standing was a crater?" becomes "Hey, remember that time that I dropped a pie plate on your command squad and and 4 of your guys dove behind some scouts which for some reason were miraculously unharmed?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Mattlov wrote:I would also like to see a change in the CC to-hit tables. Frankly, if I'm WS 10 and you are WS 1, it shouldn't be just as easy as if I was 4 to your 3.

3 against 4 is 4+, and 1 against 10 is 5+. It would be nice if the to hit got as low as 2+, for when you've got better than twice the target's WS, though.

It should go to 2+/6+.

The Avatar vs Grots, for example...

I also have to agree with the cc fighting needing to be more than your average 4's or 3's, MAYBE a 5 to hit. Look at a professional fighter, now if you match them up against a person who is taking their fourth kickboxing lesson- do you think the newbie even has a shot of landing a telling hit? Units that are trying to hit something double it's weapon skill or more should have a 6+ to hit with a negative modifier on their to wound. There's no way a grot should be able to take out an Avatar.

Sure, that newbie couldn't land a hit in a duel, but this ain't a duel, it's a warzone. Akechi Mitsuhide, the samurai who killed the warlord Oda Nobunaga, was killed in battle by a peasant with a bamboo spear despite his heavy armor and vastly superior skill to a conscripted, and probably scared peasant with a wimpy sharpened wood spear.

Close combat units are deadly enough as it is.

So leave the low-WS attacker vs. high WS defender the same, but make the high-WS attacker vs. low WS defender a lot easier to hit.

Again, I don't see any need for it. Assault armies are already ludicrously powerful.

Personally, all I really want is a skirmish game with mid to short range shooting and maneuver as the corps of gameplay, not walking/riding across a board before being dumped out and assaulting whatever is closest/on an objective. I really hate that in the far future, it's much more powerful to bring a knife to a gun fight.

1/ don't wreck it like they did with fantasy, else i don't know what i will play

2/make snipers better, so give them rending on a 6+ or ignore cover save, or pick who you are shooting. any of those will be fine.

Melissia wrote:Again, I don't see any need for it. Assault armies are already ludicrously powerful.

Razorback spam and Mech Guard disagrees with you.

I'd like to see vehicles become less robust vs shooting (penetrating -> glancing hits in cover) in return for being a little more robust in CC. Hitting the AV you are attacking doesn't seem like it would make all that much of a difference and would actually make people consider taking chainfists and meltabombs which were, y'know, made to kill vehicles.

Units embarked in a transport that get destroyed could be unable to move/assault, but fire as normal. You can imagine the squad bailing out of a burning wreck, trying to regroup and reorganise, calling out for survivors or trying to find their Sergeants, whilst still retaining some semblance of military training by actually firing on the enemy at the same time.

I'd also like to see a blanket reduction in cover. 5+ should be the norm, 4+ for bunkers and other fortified structures, and 3+ for massive installations like the Fortress of Redemption. This would make high risk:reward weaponry (plasma) a more viable choice instead of loading up purely on melta.

Wound allocation needs an overhaul. I just don't think it works the way they wanted it to. I like the ideas posted earlier re: stratifying via AP values; again, high risk weaponry should not be punished by killing less than they should.

That's all I've got for now.

L. Wrex

Phazael wrote:The new edition should be simple adjustments, similar to the transition from 3rd to 4th.

Wound Allocation- Ditch it and reinstate torrent of fire rule, where one wound can be assigned by the shooter to a specific model every time you wrap the squad. If you want to assign specific wounds to specific saves, fine, but one wound is dealt per failure to the unit and whole models are removed where possible. None of this 8 Nobs with a wound each on them or reducing casualties from a Leman Russ by firing the HB sponsons.

Terrain- Return to abstract terrain and clearly define cover save values so that AP2 weapons mean more than just denying Feel no Pain. Cover is too abundantly available under the current rules (and this is a Xenos player talking).

Models- Dump this TLOS crap and play the bases, like in 4th. If a vehicle has a base, everything is done from that base. If not, the hull is used as the measuring point, to and from, for all shooting and assault. All infantry models use the bases for the same. This ends all the "creative" modeling and (in combination with a return to area terrain) greatly reduce arguments about who can see what and with how much cover. This would also end the debates over models using the oval bases.

Vehicles- If your vehicle expodes, you should be pinned and all affected models wounded on a 4+ (instead of S3). Ditch the flat out skimmer rule and simply make them -1 on the damage table when mobile against shooting attacks only. Establish which weapons are defensive by creating a new weapon catagory for them and allow defensive weapons to split fire onto a seperate target from the primary. Ideally, things like Heavy bolters, Shuriken Cannons, Smart Missle Systems, and Heavy Flamers should be classified as defensive.

Close Combat- Number should matter again. If they are too lazy to reintroduce the unit size rules again, then it should simply be something like "+1 Combat Res for every five wounds in the unit" would likely suffice and give a purpose to certain units again.

Missions- Let anything with a WS characteristic that is not a Swarm (or otherwise excepted) claim or contest objectives. No other units matter. You solve the turn 6 falcon swoop issue and make certain units more attractive again. It also allows for more variation in army design.

Rest of it is just simple clarification.

Xarian wrote:1) Vehicle damage changes (Transports)
'Annihilated' added as an option for Ordnance weapons (like, 7+ on the chart is Annihilated if the weapon is Ordnance, otherwise like normal). Annihilated would automatically inflict a wound on all passengers with no armour saves allowed

'Explodes' results inflict a wound on a 2+ with armor saves allowed (open topped - 4+)

'Wrecked' results inflict a wound on a 4+ with armor saves allowed (open topped - 6+)

Passengers do an emergency disembark from vehicles that are Wrecked, Explode, or Annihilated (and destroyed if not legally allowed to disembark), placed within 2" of the vehicle as normal, and are automatically pinned (even if fearless)

2) Fleet - Automatic 6" run or at least 2d6 pick highest
3) Hit and armor save modifiers
4) Buildings like shealyr said
5) Revamp of KP system

6) Terrain gives specific rules set by opponents before the game. For example, "heavy forest - small units in this terrain have a 4+ cover save, large units and vehicles have a 5+ cover save. blocks LOS", or "bunker - small units in this terrain have a 3+ cover save, large units and non-skimmer vehicles treat this terrain as impassable. blocks LOS", "low wall - small units in this terrain have a 5+ cover save. does not block LOS". Throw in rules for difficult/dangerous, etc. More fleshed out terrain rules in general (i.e. ignore terrain occupied by firer, defender uses best rules for intervening terrain, etc)

7) LOS in only two varieties - have it or don't have it (so, shoot or cannot shoot)

8) Eliminate "modeling for advantage" - a crawling Wraithlord should be modeled that way to look cool and nothing else. Measure LOS from center-of-base to center-of-base following terrain rules, above. If base center-base center isn't good enough, give models specific heights to measure from (for example, small units could measure from 0-2" above their base, large units 0-4", skimmers using the height of their hover base, etc)

9) More advantage for 'fast' vehicles, and elimination of 'defensive' weapons

10) Some way of assaulting from closed-top transports that aren't a Land Raider - maybe get -1A, or lower initiative

11) Treating ICs the same as any other model for shooting/close combat purposes

12) Screening - leave cover saves in. Tiny units (e.g. grots) - 5+, small units (e.g. infantry) - 4+, large units (e.g. MCs, walkers) - 3+, non-skimmer vehicles - 1+. Any successful saves would be rolled against the intervening unit. For example, shooting at a model hiding behind a land raider would give them a 1+ cover save, but any saves (which would be all of them) would hit the land raider instead.

13) Complete arbitrary splitting for shooting units, subject to a Ld test for each target beyond the first (remaining shots at a transport would automatically re-target to the survivors). "I'm gonna shoot my Lascannon and 3 Tactical Marines' bolters at that Rhino, and these other 6 Tactical marines' bolters at your Scout squad over there (rolls Ld test, fails, so all 9 tacticals have to shoot at the Rhino. The Lascannon blows up the Rhino, so the 9 Tactical marines shoot at the survivors automatically)

14) as shealyr said, some errata to add psychic defense to armies that are sorely lacking (would act as a temporary measure until new codex). This would probably be better as an "official GW rules update" rather than in the main rulebook

15) Wound allocation based on weapon groups, e.g. bolters would have to allocate separate from melta guns. Would prevent people stacking multiple low-AP hits on the same model when firing with mixed-weaponry units - there really should not be an advantage to the defender for being shot at with *more* weaponry!

Ratbarf wrote:1.) Make shooting better than CC, no one should cower in fear at someone who brings a knife to a gunfight. The main way I would see this happening, while at the same time making sure the game didn't simply revert to two gun lines going at it, is to enhance close range shooting, and make it the far better option over assaulting unless you are a dedicated assault unit. The first thing I can think of is Charge Reactions similar to Fantasy. The second is to bring in to-hit modifiers. Thirdly, I like the idea of being able to arbitrarily split fire based upon a leadership test. Lastly, pinning should be based on either mass of fire, or type of fire. Ergo, if you get pinned if you gt hit by 50 lasgun shots, or took a single hitting lascannon shot, or a sniper took a pot shot at you. If you fail, you go to ground but can get up next turn on a passed leadership test modified by the number of men lost to the shot. If you pass, or are fearless, you take a second round of shooting from whatever units shot you that turn. Running out in the open while under a hail of fire should have more repercussions than simply having to take a test that likely won't even make you stop your suicidal charge.

2.) Armour and Cover should be reworked. Cover should not be a blanket 4+ save regardless of what it is. If it's soft cover, aka you're behind a bush, than take it as a negative to-hit modifier, if it is hard cover, aka, you're actually hiding in gutted building or a in a forest behind trees, then do both a negative to-hit and grant a cover save.

Armour saves really should be based upon the strength of the shot. But unlike fantasy, I would start anti armour save at str 6 and above, with the AP value denoting how much of your armour save it shaves off before you take the str of the shot into account. Cover saves would count as armour save modifiers. There fore, a guardsmen in Carapace armour behind a tree would get a three plus save, but a melta gun still won't give a damn. A bunker busting lascannon really should have no problem shooting through trees or sandbags at the squishy 'umies underneath. (think Call of Duty's cover system)

3.) I currently like tanks roughly how they are, but I would change the results chart and what happens to the unit inside.

1-Shaken
2-Stunned
3-Weapon Destroyed
4-Immobilized
5-Damaged / Shooter chooses weapon destroyed or immobilized.
6-Wrecked
7- Explodes / All models embarked and within D6 inches take 1 D6 str hit.
8-Annihilated / All models embarked take 1 Str 10 hit, all models within 2D6 take 1 2D6-2 Str hit.

Penetrating hits roll normally, but cause crew stunned automatically in addition to other affects unless saved by a Ld test. Also, embarked models must pass a Ld test or immediately disembark.

Glancing hits receive -2 modifier. every 3rd glancing hit roll a dice, on a 1 you become immobilized, on a 2 you receive a weapon destroyed result.

Hits from Ordnance receive a +2 modifier as well as causing a secondary glancing hit.

AP 1 receives a +1
Str 10 receives a +1

You three need to win the lottery BIG, buy out controlling interest in GW, kick Tom Kirby out on his ass and make 6th edition yourselves. That would be a revolution worthy of wide-ranging support.

No more cover saves for vehicles. Obscured = glancing hits or a negative modifier to hit.

-1 instead of -2 for glancing hits.

I'll go with the majority that say most cover saves should be 5+.

Get rid of wound allocation. Broken and time consuming. Torrent was fine.

Fearless models still take pinning tests. I don't care how cool you are, if your buddy's head explodes you may wanna think about finding some cover.

Something to limit psychic abilities. Maybe a set number of "spell points" per side per battle.

I don't like TLOS, but I don't see it going away. It could use some tweaks. If something can shoot at you, it should be able to be shot at in return. No more hiding razorbacks/hydras behind other tanks.

Multi-charging needs some work. People have started spreading that crap out waaaaaay too far.

I wouldn't say no to a charge response of flee. Regrouping after still follows all the normal rules.

Fists and the like should still get the +1 bonus for an additional cc weapon/pistol.

Fleet = 2d6, pick the highest.

I think it would be good of models could pick up wepons from fallen comrades and enemys, since this is what they would be doing on a real battlefield.

Although, i dont think there is going to be a sixth edition anytime soon.

thefarseerofnorthryde wrote:I think it would be good of models could pick up wepons from fallen comrades and enemys, since this is what they would be doing on a real battlefield.

I think that is the idea behind the current wound allocation shenanigans, i.e. by allocating wounds away from spec weapons we are assuming that a still living soldier picks up the fallen comrades special weapon.

As for biggest change, I would like to see No Retreat! nerfed. It is all too common that a assault unit that rolls badly in one turn is taken out completely. Typically happens to my large mobs of boyz, but creating a fictitious example for this thread:

Mob of Trukk Boyz (12 boyz, so fearless) assaults a large squad of guard, should in theory butcher them easily.
Flubs all the dice rolls, kills 1 guardsman, guard in turn kill 3 orks (9 boyz in mob), so orks lose combat, fail 2 No Retreat! saves (7 boyz).
Next assault phase orks are more than likely to start running, as 1 kill takes mob below half strength.

I've seen this happen to units of 10 boyz in assault with some bad dice rolls, for me ork assaults have been more about the luck of dice than any actual statistics.

Cheaper models.

Better fluff. I mean, is Nurgle going to be a god of despair or joy? Why is Slaanesh called the God of Pleasure when it gets off equally on pain? Why is the Outsider not eating souls, when that's its raison d'etre? Why doesn't the Emperor just communicate telepathically with the High Lords the way he did with that one Inquisitor? I just want consistency.

Rules for making homebrew Chaos warbands, Tau septs, Tyranid splinter fleets, Necron Tombs, IG regiments, Inquisitorial Ordos, Eldar Craftworlds, Space Marine Chapters and the like that have relatively unique rules but are legal to use in tournaments. Things like "Mark of Lust" with bonuses for Slaaneshi units focusing on CQC, "Stealth Tactics" for SM chapters that focus on long range shootiness, that sort of thing. It wouldn't have to be an expansive mechanic, but it would give additional options to players when they make an army.

Men of Iron. Seriously, this would be metal as hell (no pun intended). If the AdMech and the Iron Men and the Void Dragon had their own faction, it would be most excellent. I like the Necrons, but robot zombies are no replacement for ROBOCOP.

More worldwide campaigns. I missed the last... all of them.

Xarian wrote:1) Pricing on weapons. Marine players often think "plasma sucks because it costs way too much" - because most of the time they are using it, it's hitting a 4+ cover wall rather than doing its job (wiping out marines, artificer armor, terminators, wraithguard, and the like by not allowing saves). Eldar players often think "starcannons suck because they cost way too much" - because a Starcannon costs twice as much as a Scatter Laser, has half the shots, and with the 4+ cover save, kills *everything* less effectively than a scatter laser (yes, including terminators)

2) Pricing and popularity of squads. Close-combat units are going to be just as effective as they ever were, but many shooting units are up to 50% less effective. This makes people load up on close-combat units because they aren't affected by cover saves. Anything with a power weapon is going to cut up marines just as well as it did before, for example.

There isn't any drop in effectiveness. You haven't addressed the prime reason that cover saves are 4+ in this edition. TLOS. Very often you can see anything, granting the enemy a cover save. TLOS + less cover saves = even more Marinehammer. I'll just leave it at that until you address that reason.

Leigen_Zero wrote:As for biggest change, I would like to see No Retreat! nerfed. It is all too common that a assault unit that rolls badly in one turn is taken out completely.

Would anything really be lost if No Retreat were removed completely? Are Fearless units really that powerful in close-combat? Is it because some fearless units can become inescapable tarpits?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mugginns wrote:There isn't any drop in effectiveness. You haven't addressed the prime reason that cover saves are 4+ in this edition. TLOS. Very often you can see anything, granting the enemy a cover save. TLOS + less cover saves = even more Marinehammer. I'll just leave it at that until you address that reason.

There is a drop in effectiveness - for exactly the reasons that I discussed earlier. Cover saves block plasma and other low AP weapons. Armour does not. If a model has a 4+ cover save, plasma shots and autocannon shots are exactly the same. Can you get more Plasma shots, or more Autocannon shots for the same points cost? It's pretty cut and dry. I realize that you play Orks and probably don't even consider your units' armor saves at all, but against most other armies, A S4 AP5 weapon is significantly worse than a S4 AP3 weapon.

It's a pretty common theme in this thread that people want TLOS changed, too.

Here is what I wrote before:

Xarian wrote:6) Terrain gives specific rules set by opponents before the game. For example, "heavy forest - small units in this terrain have a 4+ cover save, large units and vehicles have a 5+ cover save. blocks LOS", or "bunker - small units in this terrain have a 3+ cover save, large units and non-skimmer vehicles treat this terrain as impassable. blocks LOS", "low wall - small units in this terrain have a 5+ cover save. does not block LOS". Throw in rules for difficult/dangerous, etc. More fleshed out terrain rules in general (i.e. ignore terrain occupied by firer, defender uses best rules for intervening terrain, etc)

7) LOS in only two varieties - have it or don't have it (so, shoot or cannot shoot)

8) Eliminate "modeling for advantage" - a crawling Wraithlord should be modeled that way to look cool and nothing else. Measure LOS from center-of-base to center-of-base following terrain rules, above. If base center-base center isn't good enough, give models specific heights to measure from (for example, small units could measure from 0-2" above their base, large units 0-4", skimmers using the height of their hover base, etc)

12) Screening - leave cover saves in. Tiny units (e.g. grots) - 5+, small units (e.g. infantry) - 4+, large units (e.g. MCs, walkers) - 3+, non-skimmer vehicles - 1+. Any successful saves would be rolled against the intervening unit. For example, shooting at a model hiding behind a land raider would give them a 1+ cover save, but any saves (which would be all of them) would hit the land raider instead.

I already did address this. Did you miss those parts?

Your boyz would be the same as they currently are if they are if they are hiding in low or area terrain. They would actually be better off when hiding behind large buildings - the enemy would not be able to shoot them at all, because TLOS wouldn't be there to let the enemy "see your Warboss's toe", for example. They would be worse off hiding behind each other or vehicles, because anyone shooting at the models in the back would hit the models in the front. Blanket cover saves would be gone, replaced by terrain-specific cover saves and terrain-specific LOS blocking.

Basically, if you stood out in the open, a bunch of Orks would get shot to death no matter how many Boyz were behind each other (though the ones in the rear would be more likely to survive). If you hid in a forest, you'd get a cover save. If you hid behind a bunker, they couldn't shoot you at all, even if the enemy could see your Boy'z left arm through a small window.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Melissia wrote:Again, I don't see any need for it. Assault armies are already ludicrously powerful.

Razorback spam and Mech Guard disagrees with you.

So? That's a problem not with assaul t not being powerful enough, but with mechanized armies having no drawbacks.

Assault and Mechanized aren't necessarily exclusive.

I don't have THAT big a problem with wound allocation, but I'd love to see the following change: any wounds which are allocated to a model of a unit that is NOT in cover should NOT get a cover save. This makes total sense to me, and makes cover less generous without totally breaking it. It also forces you to actually entrench your troops.

To fix snipers, I think the best thing to do would be to keep them as they are BUT allow the firer to choose which model in the unit must take the cover/armour save. Snipers are weapons of precision, the game should reflect that.

I think those who want more dire consequences for units embarked in exploding transports are focusing a little too much on the marines. As a Guard player, when a transport explodes, it hurts. It's not unusual for me to lose a third of the squad, which in turn forces a morale check, which could very easily lead to a routed squad. Pinning Fearless units might make this a little more balanced against marine players, but as it stands the current rules for exploding transports are already a pretty big risk for anyone not playing marines.

It amazes me how many people in this thread want to nerf vehicles. It's actually pretty damn hard to hide HALF a vehicle so I'm not sure I understand the desire to deny them cover, and the fact that you always hit it on rear armour in close combat also makes them pretty easy to neutralize. And with all the fast armies out there, it isn't exactly hard to get side armour.

Indeed, non-T4 models and non-3+ save models take a hit when the vehicle explodes. When you're both... you take a BIG hit.

I'd like to see vehicle damage changed. Perhaps in a manner like wounds.

Perhaps call them vehicle system failures. Each type of vehicle has a different amount of systems/backups. a land raider/ battlewagon for example might have 3 , a ork trukk might have 1, a vendetta might have 2 .

I say make the vehicles easier to get a malfunction/wound ie less powerful weapons can still hit/do damage however they suffer on the result table more than a glancing say - 3 or -4 depending on strength

Take the glancing modifier down to a minus 1

This way vehicles are in a sense more likely to last longer against high power fire but still possible to bring down when you have no str 8 weapons on a AV14 . explosion results in a wound/malfunction plus a weapon destroyed or immobilized ( 1-3 weapon, 4-6 immobilized)

And finally once the vehicle does get destroyed the penalty for being in the vehicle should be much more than now.. if when it is wrecked or destroyed i agree they should have a hit perhaps str d6 on wreck and highest str of 2 d6 on a explode result for final system

Just a though you all might hate it, but I think it would be cool

Again on the glancing "-1 instead of -2" thing that many keep bringing up, there are very good reasons for this not to happen. The problem for most people is transports, but this also has a hugely negative effect on gun tanks that only now become somewhat useful again after years of neglect. It makes S4 attacks far too effective at destroying vehicles in CC, and makes what should be anti-infantry weapons into effective vehicle attack weapons. We really don't need Multilasers capable of killing Fire Prisms, or bolt pistols killing Leman Russ tanks, or Autocannons destroying predators from the frontal arc.

I'd argue the opposite, I'd say most weapons with the right hit should be able to hurt even a Russ, a raider, or a monolith

av 14 is just way to powerful in 5th edition... and this is comeing from an ork player who loves battle wagon bash (deff rollas are fun ... but kinds rediculous)

I'd like people to have a chance to destroy my wagons, and i'd like a relable way of dealing with av14 other than ramming or assaulting, there are alot of armies that have very limited options against av14 and i'd like to see that specifically changed

Melissia wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Melissia wrote:Again, I don't see any need for it. Assault armies are already ludicrously powerful.

Razorback spam and Mech Guard disagrees with you.

So? That's a problem not with assaul t not being powerful enough, but with mechanized armies having no drawbacks.

Assault and Mechanized aren't necessarily exclusive.

I was more referring to the "Sit back and shoot" tactics of both lists, but you're right. My bad >_>

Hawkward wrote:Cheaper models.

Why is Slaanesh called the God of Pleasure when it gets off equally on pain?

Just wanted to say, pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin. And for some, they are usually one and the same. IT makes sense for Slaanesh to hold dominion over both.

I would like to see a change to the LOS rules and wound allocation.

I dont mind the rules regarding vehicles/armour values as tbh alot of the time you can pop the bigguns easily (apart from monofilths which seem to survive almost anything!)

G00fySmiley wrote:I'd argue the opposite, I'd say most weapons with the right hit should be able to hurt even a Russ, a raider, or a monolith

av 14 is just way to powerful in 5th edition... and this is comeing from an ork player who loves battle wagon bash (deff rollas are fun ... but kinds rediculous)

I'd like people to have a chance to destroy my wagons, and i'd like a relable way of dealing with av14 other than ramming or assaulting, there are alot of armies that have very limited options against av14 and i'd like to see that specifically changed

AV14 isn't an issue except primarily for Orks. With the more widespread availability of Melta/Lance/S10/etc compared to previous editions and more and more access to Deep Strike & DS scatter mitigation, reserves control, outflanking and Scouting units, AV14 isn't an issue for most armies.

In fact, I can't remember the last time I played a game against an opponent with an AV14 vehicle or multiple AV14 vehicles, and it(they) survived. It's why most competitive IG armies don't take russ tanks over AV12 vehicles because the AV14 doesn't offer much more survivability over AV12 in many cases and they die just as easily in assaults as a Chimera. There's so much melta availability in 5E, in addition to lances, S10, etc. that it just isn't that scary.

It is a problem for orks and from my experience tyranids. orks need to take very specialized high point items to have a chance at doing something over a glance... and like tyranids we both really need to be in close to av14 to hurt it with pk's or monstrous creatures... l

as for me thinking it is a problem for all vehicles, it takes a while for people to pop my battlewagons even against highly shooty armies (IG/tau/most space marine chapters) usually drop off payload of orks, then get a deff rolla or 2 (usually ramming their vehicles) before getting blow up or wrecked)

i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

now I agree one shot shouldn't stop/ blow up a tank or something, hence why i think they should have some sort of wound type aspect as well due to backup systems before they end up wrecked or exploded .. but make those hits to damage said systems easier to get

I want to see the return of Vortex grenades and Overwatch...

Those were the days...

*Turn 2... and noone has moved from cover

I hope they dont change much.

I wound up quitting Fantasy b/c I hate this version. Fantasy used to require skill....Now luck has much more of a hand in who wins, which I think sucks.

I just finished buying a Dark Eldar army then the new version came out and I quit playing....eagerly waiting next edition when they get rid of stupid random charge ranges.

I hope they dont F@#$ up 40k as its always been my main game. Hopefully they pay attention to the players as rumours start to fly and adjust accordingly....

....even though I KNOW they dont listen to us in the least.

G00fySmiley wrote:i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

This statement is so smug and obnoxious that it makes me want to punch you in the face.

G00fySmiley wrote:
i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

The obvious solution to this is Ordinance. Orks have access to two shooting Ordinance weapons, but the way that the rules are now, ("Roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest") is only a little help, and in my opinion, these weapons should be more powerful.

The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

Ok, apologies if someone has written this here before me (at work so no time to read all the replies), but I want grenades back!

I've said this before, grenades now are pretty useless. I would love the old rules from 2nd Ed back again. Being able to throw grenades and actually have the damn things do some damage. Be they Krak, Frag, Melta, or that most awesome weapon the Vortex grenade.

Cmon GW, do the right thing!

warpcrafter wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:
i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

The obvious solution to this is Ordinance. Orks have access to two shooting Ordinance weapons, but the way that the rules are now, ("Roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest") is only a little help, and in my opinion, these weapons should be more powerful.

The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

And you're solution for nids is to just suck it up? Although I still would like buffing ordinance weapons, the result is still less reliable transports.

G00fySmiley wrote:It is a problem for orks and from my experience tyranids. orks need to take very specialized high point items to have a chance at doing something over a glance... and like tyranids we both really need to be in close to av14 to hurt it with pk's or monstrous creatures...

At the same time however there generally isn't more than a couple AV14 units on the table, and if there are then it's going to be Battlewagons or LRBT's, then just about any unit in your army can hurt them in an assault and they've got weaker side armor. The Tyranid book deals with AV14 better (lots of MC's, Zoanthropes, rending), but also has the problem of just being poorly done, that's not a core rules issue.

as for me thinking it is a problem for all vehicles, it takes a while for people to pop my battlewagons even against highly shooty armies (IG/tau/most space marine chapters) usually drop off payload of orks, then get a deff rolla or 2 (usually ramming their vehicles) before getting blow up or wrecked)

I can't remember a game against battlewagons where I didn't pop at least one by turn two or all of them by turn 4 (usually 3). That's pretty fast, just because they don't get routinely destroyed on turn 1 doesn't mean they are overly powerful, the point of AV14 is that they *should* take a while to pop.

i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

I don't really field AV14 that much, most IG players don't, it's not that much more survivable than the AV12 stuff. LR's get a huge swath of special rules and can be used as an assault skateboard so they're more popular.

I guarantee you that a lot more than a "handful" of players don't want glancing to be -1. Perhaps not in this thread, but this is exactly the type of place where such opinions would be most expressed. I play many armies, I've got IG, Chaos Marines, Tyranids, Tau, Witch Hunters and Eldar. I have a pretty good perspective on whats going on. I generally play at least 1 game a week and often 2 or 3, and at more than one store. The changing of Glancing hits to -2 as opposed the -1 they were in 4E has been long hailed as one of the best changes of the otherwise side-grade of 5th edition.

Making glancing -1 simply makes anti-infantry weapons and common melee attacks simply far too capable of destroying tanks. Scatterlasers should not be used to defeat AV12, S4 melee punches should not be able to kill Battle Tanks, and Heavy Bolters should not be able to destroy a Rhino from the front. I wouldn't want to try to play DE when bolter glances could kill on a 5+.

now I agree one shot shouldn't stop/ blow up a tank or something, hence why i think they should have some sort of wound type aspect as well due to backup systems before they end up wrecked or exploded .. but make those hits to damage said systems easier to get

Well, if it doesn't have a chance to be outright destroyed then on a glance like that, I'm not quite sure what the point of changing the system would be if the goal of changing the system is to make tanks easier to kill. Not that I don't agree that the fundamental vehicles rules of 40k are flawed, they are deeply flawed and GW has never really gotten them right (hence why there's a radical change in them each edition) but I think that 5E's are the best they've had to far and don't want to see a slide back into 4E's game where tanks all too often just weren't worth it.

Deadshane1 wrote:I hope they dont change much.

I wound up quitting Fantasy b/c I hate this version. Fantasy used to require skill....Now luck has much more of a hand in who wins, which I think sucks.

Personally I find 8E much better. In 7E, if you didn't play one of 3 armies, then you didn't play. No more juggling fractions of an inch in silly dances to see who gets off the first charge that have no place in a wargame, and you don't have 5man knight units plowing through entire armies without ever taking a hit back, no more 20 PD armies, etc. 8E has its issues, but I've definitely noticed a rise in the number of players (i.e. there are some again besides the two dudes that would come in every week for a VC vs Daemons game) and the variation in armies.

warpcrafter wrote:
The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

Yes, lets turn the Leman Russ Battle Cannon into a "melta" weapon. that would be totally balanced...

Glances have always been a bit more fringe than penetrating hits- for most weapons always at a 1/6 chance. It really only becomes important when glances are the only option available- such as s4 against a tank.

To put the ability of S4 to wreck an av10 tank on a glance into perspective

to statistically kill a tank which moved over 6 inches under the current rules with glances at -1 on the table will require on average,
1 wrecked result (1/6 chance)
6 Glances (1/6 chance)
36 Hits (1/6 chance)
216 attacks

Mob of 30 slugga choppa boyz on the charge: 4*30=120 attacks.

Yea I'm not seeing it- unless the tanks didn't move, but I mean infantry swarm all over that stuff, they try to get into the hatches, etc- its not like they are just beating on the front of the tank with blunt objects... I mean its more narrative letting super humans and mutants bring down a tank- especially one that hasn't moved-

If you want to make it a bit more balance- make it difficult to attack a tank that has moved in your opponents turn; When moving into base contact with an enemy vehicle, which had moved the previous turn, the assaulting unit must make a dangerous terrain check. (To represent the danger of being crushed under the treads of a moving tank,etc)_
If the enemy tank had moved "flat out", in addition to the dangerous terrain check, when a model rolls a 1 to hit, it suffers an automatic wound- with invulnerable saves allowed. (to represent the foolishness of charging into a tank barreling at full speed across the battlefield)

Then I would require a tank to have moved at least 3 inches from its starting location for it to count as having moved for the purpose of close combat. No shuffling chimera's or razors forward or backwards half an inch to count as moving.

You all realize that shrubs and other forms of "soft cover" already should be a 5+ cover save. It sounds like instead of defining the terrain before the game you are just accepting a blanket 4+ cover. It says it right in the BRB. Certain cover gets 3+, 4+, 5+, or even 6+.

I agree the fix to sniper weapons is to let the shooter pick their targets.

Wound Allocation is ok due to the amount of points you are spending vs. the amount of high power weapons available to most armies. This should be fixed by the codexs allowing more shooting or quality shooting.

The easy fix to transports is increasing the Str of the damage inside and outside of the vehicle when it explodes and adding damage when it becomes a wreck. Right now it's a str4 ap- when a transport goes boom to the troops inside. IF you raise it to a str 6 ap3 only those in the most powerful armour (ie Terminator, Runic, ancient, etc...) would get a save, but it wouldn't be an insta-kill since you'd have to roll to see if a wound occured.

With a wreck, think about this, any damage that is severe enough to stop a TANK from running should be damaging to the occupants inside. I'd say this would be a perfect place for a str4 ap- hit to the troops inside. I think either way those outside should have to take wound test as well, on a STR4 AP6.

IMHO opinion i think those who carry pistol class weapons should get a free shot at those assulting them. That is what they are designed for at this time in real life.

TheRedDevil wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:
i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

The obvious solution to this is Ordinance. Orks have access to two shooting Ordinance weapons, but the way that the rules are now, ("Roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest") is only a little help, and in my opinion, these weapons should be more powerful.

The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

And you're solution for nids is to just suck it up? Although I still would like buffing ordinance weapons, the result is still less reliable transports.

Tyranids can still do Nidzilla despite the raise in points to Carnifexe and they have, rending genestealers, what more do they need?

akaean wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:
The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

Yes, lets turn the Leman Russ Battle Cannon into a "melta" weapon. that would be totally balanced...

Glances have always been a bit more fringe than penetrating hits- for most weapons always at a 1/6 chance. It really only becomes important when glances are the only option available- such as s4 against a tank.

To put the ability of S4 to wreck an av10 tank on a glance into perspective

to statistically kill a tank which moved over 6 inches under the current rules with glances at -1 on the table will require on average,
1 wrecked result (1/6 chance)
6 Glances (1/6 chance)
36 Hits (1/6 chance)
216 attacks

Mob of 30 slugga choppa boyz on the charge: 4*30=120 attacks.

Yea I'm not seeing it- unless the tanks didn't move, but I mean infantry swarm all over that stuff, they try to get into the hatches, etc- its not like they are just beating on the front of the tank with blunt objects... I mean its more narrative letting super humans and mutants bring down a tank- especially one that hasn't moved-

If you want to make it a bit more balance- make it difficult to attack a tank that has moved in your opponents turn; When moving into base contact with an enemy vehicle, which had moved the previous turn, the assaulting unit must make a dangerous terrain check. (To represent the danger of being crushed under the treads of a moving tank,etc)_
If the enemy tank had moved "flat out", in addition to the dangerous terrain check, when a model rolls a 1 to hit, it suffers an automatic wound- with invulnerable saves allowed. (to represent the foolishness of charging into a tank barreling at full speed across the battlefield)

Then I would require a tank to have moved at least 3 inches from its starting location for it to count as having moved for the purpose of close combat. No shuffling chimera's or razors forward or backwards half an inch to count as moving.

I didn't intend that everyone should have this rule, just Orks. Sorry about the lack of clarity.

If the wounds suffered to units embarked in transports was STR6 AP3 when the vehicle explodes, I can guarantee you you'd never see Mech Guard or Mech Eldr ever again. That's virtually the entire squad dead, almost every single time.

I also cannot stress enough how against changing glancing to -1 I am. Glancing hits SHOULD have a hard time damaging vehicles, this is precisely WHY they're glancing hits.

Vehicles are really not that hard to destroy. I think most of the people complaining about it are the ones with codices that are weak at dealing with armour, like Tyranids for example.

I think 6th should have more exact cover rules.

UsdiThunder wrote:The easy fix to transports is increasing the Str of the damage inside and outside of the vehicle when it explodes and adding damage when it becomes a wreck. Right now it's a str4 ap- when a transport goes boom to the troops inside. IF you raise it to a str 6 ap3 only those in the most powerful armour (ie Terminator, Runic, ancient, etc...) would get a save, but it wouldn't be an insta-kill since you'd have to roll to see if a wound occured.

That would be such bs. So an exploding chimera means that the entire squad dies-- why should one use Chimeras now?

All you'd be doing is punishign any low T army for being a low T army that DARES to get into their transports.

Melissia wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

This statement is so smug and obnoxious that it makes me want to punch you in the face.

my meaning was not to be smug just pointing out there might be some bias there >_<

may be me just being fairly chill but I'm enjoying the debate with vatath here, he's made some good points, and i'd like to think i have as well.

Vaktathi wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:It is a problem for orks and from my experience tyranids. orks need to take very specialized high point items to have a chance at doing something over a glance... and like tyranids we both really need to be in close to av14 to hurt it with pk's or monstrous creatures...

At the same time however there generally isn't more than a couple AV14 units on the table, and if there are then it's going to be Battlewagons or LRBT's, then just about any unit in your army can hurt them in an assault and they've got weaker side armor. The Tyranid book deals with AV14 better (lots of MC's, Zoanthropes, rending), but also has the problem of just being poorly done, that's not a core rules issue.

as for me thinking it is a problem for all vehicles, it takes a while for people to pop my battlewagons even against highly shooty armies (IG/tau/most space marine chapters) usually drop off payload of orks, then get a deff rolla or 2 (usually ramming their vehicles) before getting blow up or wrecked)

I can't remember a game against battlewagons where I didn't pop at least one by turn two or all of them by turn 4 (usually 3). That's pretty fast, just because they don't get routinely destroyed on turn 1 doesn't mean they are overly powerful, the point of AV14 is that they *should* take a while to pop.

i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

I don't really field AV14 that much, most IG players don't, it's not that much more survivable than the AV12 stuff. LR's get a huge swath of special rules and can be used as an assault skateboard so they're more popular.

I guarantee you that a lot more than a "handful" of players don't want glancing to be -1. Perhaps not in this thread, but this is exactly the type of place where such opinions would be most expressed. I play many armies, I've got IG, Chaos Marines, Tyranids, Tau, Witch Hunters and Eldar. I have a pretty good perspective on whats going on. I generally play at least 1 game a week and often 2 or 3, and at more than one store. The changing of Glancing hits to -2 as opposed the -1 they were in 4E has been long hailed as one of the best changes of the otherwise side-grade of 5th edition.

Making glancing -1 simply makes anti-infantry weapons and common melee attacks simply far too capable of destroying tanks. Scatterlasers should not be used to defeat AV12, S4 melee punches should not be able to kill Battle Tanks, and Heavy Bolters should not be able to destroy a Rhino from the front. I wouldn't want to try to play DE when bolter glances could kill on a 5+.

now I agree one shot shouldn't stop/ blow up a tank or something, hence why i think they should have some sort of wound type aspect as well due to backup systems before they end up wrecked or exploded .. but make those hits to damage said systems easier to get

Well, if it doesn't have a chance to be outright destroyed then on a glance like that, I'm not quite sure what the point of changing the system would be if the goal of changing the system is to make tanks easier to kill. Not that I don't agree that the fundamental vehicles rules of 40k are flawed, they are deeply flawed and GW has never really gotten them right (hence why there's a radical change in them each edition) but I think that 5E's are the best they've had to far and don't want to see a slide back into 4E's game where tanks all too often just weren't worth it.

Deadshane1 wrote:I hope they dont change much.

I wound up quitting Fantasy b/c I hate this version. Fantasy used to require skill....Now luck has much more of a hand in who wins, which I think sucks.

Personally I find 8E much better. In 7E, if you didn't play one of 3 armies, then you didn't play. No more juggling fractions of an inch in silly dances to see who gets off the first charge that have no place in a wargame, and you don't have 5man knight units plowing through entire armies without ever taking a hit back, no more 20 PD armies, etc. 8E has its issues, but I've definitely noticed a rise in the number of players (i.e. there are some again besides the two dudes that would come in every week for a VC vs Daemons game) and the variation in armies.

I will differ to you on previous editions, i simply have only played 40k under 5th edition rules.

I have my armies, ork, and working on a black templar army currently.

I'm mostly pointig out i'd liek to see vehicles completely overhauled to make more sense, i may suggest playing a few test games at -1 for glancing as oppsed to minus 2 to see what i think after a practical result and see if it makes my BW too squishy or if i think it is a good idea. if not then i'll still think they need a change but at that point i woudl either think that -1 to glace is a good idea or a bad idea

where i play i will note land raiders / leman russ/ monolith are everywhere. and i deal with them fairly effectivly with my deff rollas, unfortunatly i see otehr aries having problems with them (mosly nid players and non battle wagon ork players) and i want them to have a better chance

I have a couple friends, one plays nids, one plays IG / SM and intil the nids player can get in mele with the av14 with a trygon (after deep striking but still can get shot to pieces before the assault)

the reason i was proposing the idea of wounds or systems which i don't know if it is the best way is to have it where other things can hurt vehicles easier... btu that vehicles are more resilliant to the dmg recieved so you dont't die to one lucky shot... but can't shrug off everything

creeping-deth87 wrote:If the wounds suffered to units embarked in transports was STR6 AP3 when the vehicle explodes, I can guarantee you you'd never see Mech Guard or Mech Eldr ever again. That's virtually the entire squad dead, almost every single time.

My suggestion is that the Str be upped and/or AP be assigned. If people want to mech up then there would be a risk with out a -1 to glance or re-doing the vehicle damage table. It could be just a Str increase up to 5 inside and Str4 outside with no AP. Either way I think this is a better direction to go with.

Melissa wrote:That would be such bs. So an exploding chimera means that the entire squad dies-- why should one use Chimeras now?

All you'd be doing is punishign any low T army for being a low T army that DARES to get into their transports.

It doesn't have to be Str6 AP3 it could be any number other than the low one we have now. What every one is saying that mech is god and should be nerfed. I think differently. I think if Mech will be god then there should be an inherent risk to getting in to a transport. We take similar risks when we get into our cars. Even a small fender bender can give us whiplash or brusing.

G00fySmiley wrote:my meaning was not to be smug just pointing out there might be some bias there >_<

That's how it came off.

Of course there's bias, everyone's bias. Trying to point out an opponent's bias just tries to come across as hiding your own.

But I play Orks, and I play Guard, so claiming that I want this because it benefits my Guard army even though it doesn't benefit my Ork army is nonsensical.

UsdiThunder wrote:My suggestion is that the Str be upped and/or AP be assigned.

Yes, we know, and it's a bad suggestion that has horrible consequences for non-Marine armies..

I play Orks and Eldar and I would gladly accept this since it would mean a possibility of getting more wounds on those that mech up.

It would be a risk that I'd be willing to take, instead of hey I just popped your transport and all your guys made it out unscathed and ready for assault.

warpcrafter wrote:

Tyranids can still do Nidzilla despite the raise in points to Carnifexe and they have, rending genestealers, what more do they need?

Obviously wanting something other than 6e being another Nidzilla-fest like this and last edition is just criminal.

As for the rending crapshot someone else said, what else in our codex actually reachs any vehicle with rending claws other than Genestealers? Warriors can't even catch them most of them and get ID'd by the flood of anti-tank weapons everyone have, similar deal with Raveners.

Also, claiming we do nidzilla "despite" the raise in points on Carnifexes is a hilarious statement. The universal opinion is carnifexes blow so hard you're about as likely to see them as ripper swarms.

They only people who think av14 should be tough or tougher are melta spamming Imperial players.

Edit: To clarify, I think the distribution of weapons says it all. Pretty much every army stuffs as much anti-tank weapons as it can and suffers almost no downside fighting hordes despite having maybe 2-3 anti-horde guns.

And I would hate it because it means I would NEVER be able to justify havin a mechanized army, making the game even MORE monotonous and bland than it already is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheRedDevil wrote:They only people who think av14 should be tough or tougher are melta spamming Imperial players.

The only people whining about AV14 being too strong are whiny little tyranid players who complain that they can't do the same old overpowered nidzilla lists they used to.

TheRedDevil wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

Tyranids can still do Nidzilla despite the raise in points to Carnifexe and they have, rending genestealers, what more do they need?

Obviously wanting something other than 6e being another Nidzilla-fest like this and last edition is just criminal.

As for the rending crapshot someone else said, what else in our codex actually reachs any vehicle with rending claws other than Genestealers? Warriors can't even catch them most of them and get ID'd by the flood of anti-tank weapons everyone have, similar deal with Raveners.

Also, claiming we do nidzilla "despite" the raise in points on Carnifexes is a hilarious statement. The universal opinion is carnifexes blow so hard you're about as likely to see them as ripper swarms.

They only people who think av14 should be tough or tougher are melta spamming Imperial players.

Edit: To clarify, I think the distribution of weapons says it all. Pretty much every army stuffs as much anti-tank weapons as it can and suffers almost no downside fighting hordes despite having maybe 2-3 anti-horde guns.

Carnifexes are not the only Tyranid monstrous creature. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't they the only list that can have monstrous creatures in EVERY FOC slot?

Flyers, make plasma weaponry better

technically we can't in elites, but Hive guard are t6 so it works out the same. Also, Harpies (the fast attack MC) is t5 sv4+, so it's pretty much never used. Like I said, I'd like to take a list that doesn't have 6-8 MCs and maybe 30 little guys.

@Melissia: I'll admit my comment was uncalled for, I apologize. It's not the nicest way to call me out, but a lot of people are making some suggestions that would result in a mechless environment, so it's understandable you're frustrated. I'd just like to point out it's just as frustrating that people feel Nids should HAVE to take a mountain of MCs and genestealers on the off-chance they have something AV14.

So do it.

I dont know if its me, but I cant say I have had trouble with Armour 14 with my nids.

If its leman russ's Ive gone round the "rear" with lictors using flesh hooks and charging if I survived (which I usually do as people fixate on my big monsters)

if its the dreaded land raider/monofilth, thropes usually sort that or a hive tyrant/carnifex

UsdiThunder wrote: IF you raise it to a str 6 ap3 only those in the most powerful armour (ie Terminator, Runic, ancient, etc...) would get a save, but it wouldn't be an insta-kill since you'd have to roll to see if a wound occured.

Transports would never be used again.

With a wreck, think about this, any damage that is severe enough to stop a TANK from running should be damaging to the occupants inside.

Not necessarily. A lot of times vehicles are abandoned when they may still be relatively intact but there's a *chance* of fire/explosion, or if disabled in an unfavorable position, or if certain crew members are injured/killed which can happen quite often without others being harmed.

G00fySmiley wrote:
I will differ to you on previous editions, i simply have only played 40k under 5th edition rules.

The main thing was that in the previous edition, transports other than skimmers were almost nonexistent (mainly because Skimmers had some ridiculous rules), most often used as mobile cover than actual transports if taken at all. After seeing Leman Russ tanks killed by bolt pistols, multilasers killing Fire Prisms, etc, the old damage chart was not a good thing. Granted there were other issues as well, but that was a big one.

where i play i will note land raiders / leman russ/ monolith are everywhere. and i deal with them fairly effectivly with my deff rollas, unfortunatly i see otehr aries having problems with them (mosly nid players and non battle wagon ork players) and i want them to have a better chance

Well, Nids and Orks are the two armies who have always had the worst time dealing with heavy armor in every edition. Next time you're around the gaming area you should see how long the AV14 units last against the other armies.

I have a couple friends, one plays nids, one plays IG / SM and intil the nids player can get in mele with the av14 with a trygon (after deep striking but still can get shot to pieces before the assault)

That's basically always how Tyranids have dealt with heavy armor though. The problem is the current book just sorta putzed the execution of that army as a whole. Tyranids even going back to 2E have never really had the ability to engage heavy armor much outside melee range.

the reason i was proposing the idea of wounds or systems which i don't know if it is the best way is to have it where other things can hurt vehicles easier... btu that vehicles are more resilliant to the dmg recieved so you dont't die to one lucky shot... but can't shrug off everything

That's basically how MC's are now. MC's take damage faster, but remain operating at full capacity until dead. Tanks may not take damage as often, but can be killed in one shot and will lose effectiveness with each hit.

I would love to have flyers!
0-1 FOC slot!
OK how about having a slightly modified damage table?
this means that the occupants are safe from small arms fire but are vulnerable to anti tanks weapons
this is slightly biased because I like explosions and the explosions would certainly spice up your game @Melissia
so here goes nothing!

On the result of a 5, roll on the chart with a -1 modifier
on the result of a 6, roll with no modifier.

other modifiers do not apply to this table (like ap1=+1)
When I say you fall back you fall back, you have been shaken like a Bond Martini
When I say you take a pinning check, you take it cos that tank is going everywhere and that shrapnel will take your head off or go through your eyepieces! (represented by rending)
I am unsure if Fearless should be ignored. Are fearless units just too out of their mind to care?

1 Wrecked. Every model inside suffers a S3 hit AP- then disembark
this represents the tank crew being killed. the passengers are hit by some shrapnel but are generally ok
2 Wrecked. Every model inside suffers a S4 Rending hit. Survivors must take a LD check then disembark
the crew has been killed and an ammo box has cooked off
3 Wrecked. Every model inside suffers a S5 rending hit. Survivors must disembark then immediately make a fall back move
several ammo boxes have cooked off, crew is dead
4 Explodes D6 inches from the edge of the tank, all models touched suffer a S4 rending hit. Every model inside suffers a S5 Rending hit. Survivors must take a LD check
primary weapon ammo cooks off, crew is dead
5 Explodes 2D6 inches from the edge of the tank, all models touched suffer a S4 rending hit and must take a pinning check. Every model inside suffers a S6 rending hit. Survivors must fall back and take a pinning check
a fuel tank has exploded and some ammo has cooked off, crew is dead
6 Explodes 3D6 all models touched suffer a S5 Rending hit and must take a pinning check. All models inside are very very dead
all the ammo and all the fuel has blown up, all models inside are shredded by the shrapnel and fires, crew is flying across the battlefield in bits

This make transporting models more risky and if you have infantry hide the tank, they will get seriously shredded if anything goes badly wrong
also, if those niddys do swarm the tank they are likely to suffer for their success.
it gives a more real representation of how armoured vehicles explode (fuel, ammo etc) and how the occupants would react rather than just strolling out the rear hatch like they had just stopped for a cuppa.
The explosions give a representation of just how powerful a weapon like a lascannon or a railgun is to a tank.

Again, any extra damage is still going to punish non-Marine models more than Marine models. If you want to stop MEQ mechanization, then this isn't gonna do it because they suffer less from it than non-MEQ.

With a wreck, think about this, any damage that is severe enough to stop a TANK from running should be damaging to the occupants inside.

Wrong, utterly. a shot that's strong enough to stop a full battletank in it's tracks could destroy a transport with NO damage to it's occupants. or a little. the only way you get massive casualites in a tank is with shaped charge warheads of the generation III type. or just a massive blast. otherwise, your shooting for the engine, which is going to do nothing to pasengers most of the time.

I think that, instead of nerfing stuff, or making stuff stronger, more races should have access to a greater variety of weaponry. Why are Imperials the only ones that have access to Thunderfire Cannon type artillery? Don't Orks absolutely love big guns and bigger explosions? Couldn't Nids have Plasma Bugs ala Starship Troopers?

Why don't Orks have access to Melta?

Why can't Marines make vehicles go faster?

Why are Marines and Necrons the only races that have AV14 on more than one vehicle facing?

Why don't Nids have access to bigger guns?

Why can't Tau stick some blades on their Crisis suits for DCCWs?

Why aren't there more Options for everyone? It could be balanced with costs, or rarity, or whatever, but the fact that these races, which are all constantly fighting each other, don't take inspiration from each other, even if it's just experimental weaponry?

true, but having the explosion AP1/2/3? thats madness,
Marines should suffer less casualties because they are in power armour
Guardsmen should die because they should, that is thier job

rending also means that everyone has something to fear
it is pretty difficult to create a chart that will not be biased to MEQs because to kill them outright means every other race gets shredded!
at leased rending is equally nasty to a termie and a guardsman

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Ok, apologies if someone has written this here before me (at work so no time to read all the replies), but I want grenades back!

I've said this before, grenades now are pretty useless. I would love the old rules from 2nd Ed back again. Being able to throw grenades and actually have the damn things do some damage. Be they Krak, Frag, Melta, or that most awesome weapon the Vortex grenade.

Cmon GW, do the right thing!

Wholeheartedly agree. I would love to see the ability to toss grenades with different profiles - plasma, photon, that'd all be awesome.

On the other points:

Tyranids took a huge hit when Rending got nerfed. They relied on rending critters (in every single FOC slot) in order to beat vehicles, since their shooting is exceedingly poor against vehicles. Against a Land Raider, they have... what, MCs, and glancing hits from the Hive Guard? It's nearly as bad with AV13 stuff, too. The fix here is to re-do the Tyranid codex, with some relatively minor changes... for example, making Tyranid rending claws "special" by using +1d6 instead of +1d3. However, this stuff is all internal to Tyranids - however screwed up their codex and special rules are, it shouldn't dictate the rest of the rules for 6th ed.

Changing glancing from -2 to -1 was already in 4e. It got changed for a good reason - vehicles were dying left and right to medium-strength weaponry due to the volume of fire. It diluted the necessity for using anti-vehicle weaponry, which is very inefficient when used against non-vehicle units (the one exception being big beefy MCs).

The primary problem with TLOS is that it relies on a subjective assessment followed by an agreement with the opposing player; in other words, it's adjudicated every time, rather than using a simple method (like reading a specific rule or consulting a chart) like the rest of the game. As a result of that, people just say "sure, whatever, 4+". Because that's what it says in the rulebook what you are supposed to do when you can't make up your mind. It needs simple, clear-cut rules. This terrain feature? Do this. This other terrain feature? Do something else. None of this "units in this terrain feature have this special rule unless you can see their toe or left pinky finger from a 45 degree angle, in which case you have this other special rule". Like unit stats, for example - you have a set WS vs WS chart for close combat. You don't eyeball it and say "this guy looks like he has WS5? you think WS3? okay, let's just call it 4+ and it's all good".

@ Anvildude, that means giving every race a new codex


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Xarian how many grenades are you tossing? having a whole unit, 10 men, toss 10 frag grenades takes about 5mins, seriously slowing the game down
(if each model tosses a smallbang template with scatter)

Which, ideally, a new rulebook will entail eventually!

There seems to be a lot of comments geared at making transports less effective, no doubt due to their prevalence in that mystical beast 'the meta-game.' Here's a thought for all those who are anti-mech: Rather than nerfing mech, how about making infantry better? Maybe that way, both mechies and footsloggers can be viable.

Theoretically.

@htj
Footsloggers have 4+ cover, what else do they need?

DaemonJellybaby wrote:@ Anvildude, that means giving every race a new codex


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Xarian how many grenades are you tossing? having a whole unit, 10 men, toss 10 frag grenades takes about 5mins, seriously slowing the game down
(if each model tosses a smallbang template with scatter)

That's a valid point. In all likelihood, it couldn't use the blast marker for that reason alone... not to mention that Orks would really suffer if you could throw 10 small blast markers at them with a cheap infantry unit, even if it was S2 AP-. It would probably be a 6" range secondary weapon (like Frag Grenades, S4 AP5, so a Bolter would be better unless you were using Scouts or you wanted to assault).

htj wrote:There seems to be a lot of comments geared at making transports less effective, no doubt due to their prevalence in that mystical beast 'the meta-game.' Here's a thought for all those who are anti-mech: Rather than nerfing mech, how about making infantry better? Maybe that way, both mechies and footsloggers can be viable.

Theoretically.

The problem is that infantry ride in the mech

They did try to make infantry better. Infantry can get a 4+ cover save like it was candy, and now even non fleet modesl can "run" instead of shooting- drastically increasing their speed.

The problem is that transports (of the non Eldar Variety) are so cheap. And when your infantry model gets out of its 35 point rhino- it still has all the advantages of an infantry model.

Buffing infantry doesn't do anything to transport spamming- since the transports are transporting infantry- and as such those models would gain all the benefits of normal infantry- except more- since they can huddle behind their transport for cover- you can use the transports to block LOS or enemy movement.

There are just so many tactical advantages to taking transports like Rhinos- that simply buffing infantry won't ever fix.

What we really need is a price hike for transports.

Let transports be as good as they are- if transports stay as good as they are, they need a massive price hike.

60 points base for a rhino with smoke launchers and a pintle mounted bolter.

70 points for a Chimera base

80 points for a Dark Eldar Raider base

110 points for a Wave Serpent Base

this is just guesswork but you get the idea.

You get the idea. If transports stay as good as they are- they need a price hike. But the only way GW could do that with out screwing newer codex's (which is bad for sales) in comparison to old ones with cheap transports.

The only way you could balance this with with an edition change is by nerfing transports somehow.

DaemonJellybaby wrote:@htj
Footsloggers have 4+ cover, what else do they need?

There's a lot of things they could do. they can dig in to enhance cover saves, plant/clear minefields, etc. flames of war has lots of cool things infantry can do. Trying to shoot at dug in veteran infantry that have gone to ground in a woods at long range is literally impossible, and even at short range a complete nightmare that requires heavy cannons to dislodge. 40k has nothing like that. There's lots of board interaction that could occur.

akaean wrote:70 points for a Chimera base

You'll notice it was like this for the first year of 5E, chimeras actually were 97pts with the equipment they have now, 85 with just guns, 70 base. Nobody took them. The Chimera ended up about where many were thinking it would be, I personally was guessing 65pts with side AV11, they made it 55 and kept the side AV10.

Vaktathi wrote:

DaemonJellybaby wrote:@htj
Footsloggers have 4+ cover, what else do they need?

There's a lot of things they could do. they can dig in to enhance cover saves, plant/clear minefields, etc. flames of war has lots of cool things infantry can do. Trying to shoot at dug in veteran infantry that have gone to ground in a woods at long range is literally impossible, and even at short range a complete nightmare that requires heavy cannons to dislodge. 40k has nothing like that. There's lots of board interaction that could occur.

Ah, now this I like. A 4+ cover save and being a little faster on their pins isn't going to rival being in a transport, as things stand. The point about infantry then going in the mech is a good one, countered, I feel, by allowing infantry to perform special actions whilst on foot. Such as the above one.

you are right htj having a 3+cover amongst other things would make infantry units very worth having on the board
(sneaky melta teams with move thru cover comes to mind)

@xarian, why not just whip out those bolt pistols shoot and then charge in, personally I think grenades should cause more damage than pistols, just on the way in to combat instead of in the shooting phase
i know this means that they can effectively cause casualties three times which is a flaw in my logic

@vakathi i like the idea of interacting with the board such as planting minefields etc
i would happily never move my infantry squads if they got +1cover (digging in) and +1BS for non heavy weapons (aiming/ balancing weapons, heavy weapons are too heavy to balance against a log or low wall) for simply sitting still
Kroot FTW!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
One nice update would be SM run into battle without thier armour
and you have to pay for the privilege of being power armoured

Everyone complaining about bushes giving the same cover save as a hardened bunker: It doesn't. Not to vehicles either. It's just that everyone plays that all area terrain is 4+ because "it's easier" and subsequently complain about their own house rules.

I'd like to have

Premeasuring
Similar Assault rules to present WFB rules
Target selection - allowing heavy weapons/ squad support to shoot at targets other than the basic wepaons
IF you have more than double the WS of an opponent - so say WS 5 vs WS 1 you hit on 2+ and 6+ when hitting back

I'd kind of go with stand and shoot - if you can also pursue into another enemy (who can also stand and shoot if appropriate)

I'd quite like something similar to the house rules I have atried a couple of times as I can't think of many armies that would not not fire into CC.

Firing into Close Combat
A unit may fire into a close combat melee – however if it is not the closest target they must still may a Leadership test as normal. Hits are inflicted equally on each side unless one side outnumbers the other more than 2-1 (or more) or is/includes a monstrous creature / vehicle. In this case the outnumbering side/vehicle takes two hits for each one of the other – with a minimum of one each. If both sides contain monstrous creatures and/or vehicles, inflict wounds as normal.The firer should roll a d6 to see which side takes the first hit – 1-3 friendly, 4-6 enemy.For barrage weapons – calculate the number of models under the template normally and then randomise the hits as above – the swirl of melee makes it likely that targets will move in and out of the target area rapidly.

Leadership – normal morale checks should be made except that Pinning tests are not made – the target is too busy fighting for his life to try and get to cover! Checks should be made for 25% casualties (on both sides as required).

If a failed test results in one side falling back treat as if they have just lost the combat – enabling the enemy to pursue them as normal with a Sweeping Advance (see p43)
In addition if a unit in close combat is fired on by its own side – it must make a Leadership test due to the demoralising effects of this – with failure causing the same result as above.

A balanced game with the same amount of attention shown to every army.

I really love this edition, but if I have to change anything it was the ruins and area covers rules. I don't hope a vehicle nerf, I like as is now.

I have a few small ideas...

Allow units to "Stand and Shoot". They must take a Ld test. If passed, they may shoot at one charging unit. They may not fire if their enemy is within 1/2 their charge distance (After rolling ofr any difficult terrain checks). They then fight with no penalty in close combat.

Assaulting through difficult terrain no longer drops initiative. Instead, it simply increases the likelyhood the enemy may stand and shoot, as well as causing them to pass the relavent Ld test automatically. This would require some changes to assault grenades.

Allow Pre-Measuring. Your troops know what they are doing, even if you do not.

Make vehicles (excluding walkers) a bit faster, so they can actually outpace infantry.

Walkers take "No-retreat" Glancing hits.

Make enclosed transports more likely to kill their occupents, but not by too much. Maybe S3 hits when "Wrecked" and S5 When Exploding. Glancing to death causes no hits.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:I have a few small ideas...

Allow units to "Stand and Shoot". They must take a Ld test. If passed, they may shoot at one charging unit. They may not fire if their enemy is within 1/2 their charge distance (After rolling ofr any difficult terrain checks). They then fight with no penalty in close combat.

Assaulting through difficult terrain no longer drops initiative. Instead, it simply increases the likelyhood the enemy may stand and shoot, as well as causing them to pass the relavent Ld test automatically. This would require some changes to assault grenades.

Allow Pre-Measuring. Your troops know what they are doing, even if you do not.

Make vehicles (excluding walkers) a bit faster, so they can actually outpace infantry.

Walkers take "No-retreat" Glancing hits.

Make enclosed transports more likely to kill their occupents, but not by too much. Maybe S3 hits when "Wrecked" and S5 When Exploding. Glancing to death causes no hits.

There's no explosion when the vehicle gets wrecked, so taking ANY hits there doesn't make much sense. The only way to make transports more hazardous for the occupants inside is to have different strength hits when it explodes depending on the toughness of the models inside, making it equally dangerous to Guardsmen or Eldar as it is to marines. This makes destroying the occupants easier for tougher troops without crippling lesser T armies.

Shooting into a charging unit is a great idea, but I'm not sure I like that assaulting units get a free pass through difficult terrain. It's a good idea, but needs a little more work.

Vehicles that are faster than infantry is also a must. I find it ridiculous how easy it is for infantry to catch up to vehicles. I'd also agree that, for balance purposes, walkers should probably take no retreat hits like any other fearless unit.

Perhaps make it more of a 'Roll a die for each model embarked in the transport. On a 6+, the unit embarked takes a wound, no armour saves allowed' for exploding transports. That way, it's completely even for everyone. Sure, Space Marines are wearing more armour, but they're also inside a much more solid vehicle, with a plasma reactor powering it. Sure, Orks don't really have any armour, but they're in an open-topped vehicle made of wood and cardboard. Sure, Dark Eldar are, well, whatever Dark Eldar are... But they're hanging on to the sides of a sail-skiff.



I don't think Walkers should take Fearless Glances, though. Walkers are supposed to be absolutely awesome in close combat, and they're completely covered in vehicle-class armour. If something needs to happen to them for losing combat resolution, just make it extra hits at the attacking unit's base strength.

Besides, Walkers, even when they're doing really well, hitting and wounding, and going through armour saves with every single one of their attacks, they're still not going to be doing as many wounds as a mob of boyz or a squad of Assault Marines will to it- and if it's taken that many Glances and Pens anyways, where it's lost Combat, it's probably dead anyways.

For shooting into close combat, I think it would work best like this:

The shooting unit's BS is reduced to 3 if better. Shoot as normal, except any misses (except for dice that rolled a 1-this represents a really off shot) count as hits on your side's squad. Take a leadership test with a -1 for each wound inflicted on your allies if your own squad was hit.

Anvildude wrote:Perhaps make it more of a 'Roll a die for each model embarked in the transport. On a 6+, the unit embarked takes a wound, no armour saves allowed' for exploding transports. That way, it's completely even for everyone. Sure, Space Marines are wearing more armour, but they're also inside a much more solid vehicle, with a plasma reactor powering it. Sure, Orks don't really have any armour, but they're in an open-topped vehicle made of wood and cardboard. Sure, Dark Eldar are, well, whatever Dark Eldar are... But they're hanging on to the sides of a sail-skiff.

Here's another similar idea. Passengers are wounded on the die roll mentioned below. Speeds mentioned are how fast the vehicle moved in the previous turn. Entangled units are pinned automatically (no save allowed, Fearless units etc can still be entangled). Open-topped vehicles are safer, as the passengers just jump out, so the to-wound rolls are at -1 and they aren't entangled on Wrecked results.

Wreck (Didn't move) - no ill effects
Wreck (Combat speed) - 5+ - Represents getting thrown around pretty hard
Wreck (Cruising speed) - 3+, entangled - Represents a nasty crash with debris and whatnot
Explode - 2+, no armor saves allowed, entangled - Represents, you know, being inside an exploding vehicle

End result:
- Wrecking a transport isn't very dangerous to the passengers if it isn't moving very fast
- Open-topped transports are safer for the passengers and easier to destroy
- Closed-topped transports are more dangerous for the passengers and harder to destroy
- Wrecking transports isn't overly dangerous to Marines (due to their armor), but will slow them down
- Wrecking transports is moderately dangerous to DE and Orks, but won't slow them down
- Wrecking transports is moderately dangerous to Eldar and IG, and will slow them down
- AP1 weapons gain particular value against transports

Also, other stuff:

- Flyer rules so we can actually use them (not talking about the ridiculously powerful Apocalypse rules or the ridiculously lame rules presented in the DE codex)
- Differentiation between 'teleport' Deep Strikes, 'insertion/drop' Deep Strikes, and 'flying down from the sky' Deep Strikes (so special rules that deal with the Warp won't affect Drop Pods, for example)
- Return of the Movement stat to differentiate between both infantry and vehicles (guardsman = hormagaunt = Rubric marine ??)
- Because of above, get rid of 'Fast' distinction for vehicles, and grant abilities based on how fact the vehicles actually move (for example, cannot disembark at more than 12", cannot fire after moving more than 2x movement, etc)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anvildude wrote:I don't think Walkers should take Fearless Glances, though. Walkers are supposed to be absolutely awesome in close combat, and they're completely covered in vehicle-class armour. If something needs to happen to them for losing combat resolution, just make it extra hits at the attacking unit's base strength.

Besides, Walkers, even when they're doing really well, hitting and wounding, and going through armour saves with every single one of their attacks, they're still not going to be doing as many wounds as a mob of boyz or a squad of Assault Marines will to it- and if it's taken that many Glances and Pens anyways, where it's lost Combat, it's probably dead anyways.

The same could be said for any Monstrous Creature and most non-monstrous independent characters.

Personally, I don't care. More people play BFG around here then 40k anymore, so GW can release all the books it likes, I'm selling mine.

Xarian wrote:

Anvildude wrote:Perhaps make it more of a 'Roll a die for each model embarked in the transport. On a 6+, the unit embarked takes a wound, no armour saves allowed' for exploding transports. That way, it's completely even for everyone. Sure, Space Marines are wearing more armour, but they're also inside a much more solid vehicle, with a plasma reactor powering it. Sure, Orks don't really have any armour, but they're in an open-topped vehicle made of wood and cardboard. Sure, Dark Eldar are, well, whatever Dark Eldar are... But they're hanging on to the sides of a sail-skiff.

Here's another similar idea. Passengers are wounded on the die roll mentioned below. Speeds mentioned are how fast the vehicle moved in the previous turn. Entangled units are pinned automatically (no save allowed, Fearless units etc can still be entangled). Open-topped vehicles are safer, as the passengers just jump out, so the to-wound rolls are at -1 and they aren't entangled on Wrecked results.

Wreck (Didn't move) - no ill effects
Wreck (Combat speed) - 5+ - Represents getting thrown around pretty hard
Wreck (Cruising speed) - 3+, entangled - Represents a nasty crash with debris and whatnot
Explode - 2+, no armor saves allowed, entangled - Represents, you know, being inside an exploding vehicle

End result:
- Wrecking a transport isn't very dangerous to the passengers if it isn't moving very fast
- Open-topped transports are safer for the passengers and easier to destroy
- Closed-topped transports are more dangerous for the passengers and harder to destroy
- Wrecking transports isn't overly dangerous to Marines (due to their armor), but will slow them down
- Wrecking transports is moderately dangerous to DE and Orks, but won't slow them down
- Wrecking transports is moderately dangerous to Eldar and IG, and will slow them down
- AP1 weapons gain particular value against transports

Also, other stuff:

- Flyer rules so we can actually use them (not talking about the ridiculously powerful Apocalypse rules or the ridiculously lame rules presented in the DE codex)
- Differentiation between 'teleport' Deep Strikes, 'insertion/drop' Deep Strikes, and 'flying down from the sky' Deep Strikes (so special rules that deal with the Warp won't affect Drop Pods, for example)
- Return of the Movement stat to differentiate between both infantry and vehicles (guardsman = hormagaunt = Rubric marine ??)
- Because of above, get rid of 'Fast' distinction for vehicles, and grant abilities based on how fact the vehicles actually move (for example, cannot disembark at more than 12", cannot fire after moving more than 2x movement, etc)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anvildude wrote:I don't think Walkers should take Fearless Glances, though. Walkers are supposed to be absolutely awesome in close combat, and they're completely covered in vehicle-class armour. If something needs to happen to them for losing combat resolution, just make it extra hits at the attacking unit's base strength.

Besides, Walkers, even when they're doing really well, hitting and wounding, and going through armour saves with every single one of their attacks, they're still not going to be doing as many wounds as a mob of boyz or a squad of Assault Marines will to it- and if it's taken that many Glances and Pens anyways, where it's lost Combat, it's probably dead anyways.

The same could be said for any Monstrous Creature and most non-monstrous independent characters.

2+ wounding with no armour saves allowed? This is WAY too hard a nerf. I honestly do feel for T3 armies, the current rules for exploding transports represent enough of a danger. STR4 hits on a 5+ save means a lot of dead Guardsmen or Dire Avengers, who will usually fail their morale check due to poor Guard leadership and end up getting pinned or fal back. If they get hit any harder, mech armies with T3 simply would not be around anymore.

Riiight! I keep forgetting that not everybody has T4 and open-topped transports. Silly me...


But yeah, that's a bit too brutal, I think. I like the idea, with the movement affecting the rolls, and there being what amounts to a table for it, but the numbers need some tweaking. Remember, we want to make transports more risky, not make them work for the enemy!

psionicmonkey wrote:A balanced game with the same amount of attention shown to every army.

+1 to this.

Walkers taking no-retreat hits is a suggusteon intended to make losing combat less of a zero consequences event. They only take these hits if they lose combat. Thus, if they win, all is good, but if they lose, they are no longer able to pin down their enemy all game.

All this stuff about vehicles - I really don't like the idea of lots of them on the battle table. I much prefer troops/elites/MCs/Walkers etc but I hate the idea of loads of tanks. I realise that it's personal preference as some people have mech armies but I'd like to see them made much more expensive to take thus cutting down on their number. Get rid of dedicated transports. Make them a bit more durable and instead of having a general rule for exploding vehicles, have vehicle specific rules based in the codices about how deadly the explosions are.

Dedicated transports should stay, but they should all be priced similarly to wave serpants and devil fish.

creeping-deth87 wrote:2+ wounding with no armour saves allowed? This is WAY too hard a nerf. I honestly do feel for T3 armies, the current rules for exploding transports represent enough of a danger. STR4 hits on a 5+ save means a lot of dead Guardsmen or Dire Avengers, who will usually fail their morale check due to poor Guard leadership and end up getting pinned or fal back. If they get hit any harder, mech armies with T3 simply would not be around anymore.

Right now, using a 10-man squad as standard with ld 8, 27.8% chance of pinning
T3/5+ save - 4.4 dead models
T3/4+ save - 3.3 dead models
T4/3+ save - 1.7 dead models

2+ with no armor save - 8.3 dead models in either case, 100% chance of pinning.

so it's about 5 times more deadly for Marines, a little more than twice as deadly fire dire avengers, a little less than twice as deadly for generic guardsmen, and 4 times more effective at slowing the squad down.
ignoring armor saves is significantly less damaging to armies with crappy armor. it's probably harsh to use 2+ along with entanglement. a 4+ may be appropriate, but the ignoring armor saves is necessary so that "mech armies with T3" don't suffer disproportionately. in this case it would go from, top to bottom, nothing -> 5+ -> 4+ entangle -> 4+ entangle no armor. for open-topped it goes nothing -> 6+ -> 5+ -> 5+ entangle no armor.

if you want to have softer penalties, then wounding results can be removed from 'wrecked' results. entanglement absolutely needs to stay.

also, keep in mind that the vehicle isn't going to explode every time. the best a non-melta weapon can hope for is a 1/6 chance with a penetrating hit, and there is no penalty for wrecked results. fast transports, on the other hand, have a huge penalty - if the transport is actually using its 'fast' aspect to move flat out, the squad will die instantly with no saves. it's a pretty big jump from "moderately dangerous to non-marine armies" to "instantly killing everything". and people still use fast transports.

looking at earlier editions, there was an 'annihilated' result that ordnance could get. that particular result used to instantly kill all passengers with no saves allowed, and mech was still used, even against armies that had a lot of ordnance (IG) - and transports were fairly expensive compared to 5e.

--

the point isn't to eliminate mechanized armies, it's to provide a balance with foot-slogging armies and give a reasonable choice between the two.
transports are anywhere from extremely resistant to completely immune to small arms fire, which is their primary function. mechanized armies receive a huge boost to mobility over foot-slogging armies, which is their secondary function. function priority is reversed for open-topped transports.

anti-tank weaponry should be a bigger threat to mechanized armies than it currently is. the easiest way to fix this is to make bad things happen when the vehicles are destroyed.

so there's a trade-off. you either keep really reliable transports and increase their cost in a manner suitable with how useful they are, or you make the risk in using transports higher. ideally there would be a mixture to both, but it's just not feasible to update every codex's transports immediately... leaving only the option of changing the rules for wrecking/exploding transports.

Regarding vehicles perhaps if crew survive the destruction of their ride they should form a new unit on the battlefild - I recall all the old rules for tank crews, ejection systems etc..........

so when your Rhino brews up - you get a Basic Marine etc........and you don't get full VP for the vechilce if the highly trained crew are still alive.......

Anyone know why GW went (decades ago I grant you but still) from the old 2+ to hit if you more than double WS to the present 3+. I just find it odd, when a Daemon Prince, Dark Eldar Archon, Chapter Master etc still has to roll 3+ to hit a Gretchin. It should be the infamous - anythng but a one IMO

My solution to vehicle damage, is that a single d6 damage table is just too simple. Why not use a 2d6 damage table instead? It could look something like this.

2- Mechanical Damage: External systems are damaged. The firer may choose one weapon that can not fire next turn, or can reduce the speed of the vehicle by 3"
3- Crewman Injured: The owner of the vehicle rolls a d6. On a 1,2,3 the vehicle may not move next turn. On a 4,5,6 it can not shoot.
4- Targeting System Destroyed: The shot damages the targetting system, reducing the vehicles BS by 1.

5- Light Spalling: The crew is knocked about by spalling. The vehicle may now fire either one less weapon than normal, or must cut its speed in half for all future turns.
6- Vehicle Damaged: The vehicle suffers damage. The shooter may choose to either reduce the vehicles speed by 6" or caue one weapon to be unable to fire.
7- Vehicle Damaged: The vehicle suffers damage. The shooter may choose to either reduce the vehicles speed by 6" or caue one weapon to be unable to fire.
8- Vehicle Damaged: The vehicle suffers damage. The shooter may choose to either reduce the vehicles speed by 6" or caue one weapon to be unable to fire.
9- Heavy Spalling: Heavy spalling sends shrapnel throughout the cabin. The vehicle can not move or shoot, and suffers a vehicle damaged result.

10- Vehicle Knocked Out: The vehicle is crippled, and forced to bail out. The unit must pass an initiative check or be pinned.*
11- Vehicle Burning: The vehicle is destroyed, and set on fire. All models inside take a S4 Rending hit. At the beginning of each subsequent movement phase, roll a d6. On a 6 the vehicle explodes as described under Vehicle Annhilated.
12- Vehicle Annhilated: The vehicle is completely annhilated. All models within d6 inches that a S5 AP- hit. All models inside the vehicle that a S6 AP2 hit.

*Representing certain troops getting stuck, and the other members of the squad stopping to help them.

AP1- Gets +2 on the damage table.
AP- - Gets - 2 on the damage table.
Glancing SHots Only roll d6+d3 instead of the full 2d6.

By having a 2d6 damage table, the vehicles can be a bit more flexible, and lets us bring probability into the mix. With a d6, the same shot has the same chance to either lightly damage it, or annhilate the vehicle. A 2d6 damage table lets us say that 'uttery destroyed' and 'paint scratched' are both equally minimal chances, while making things like moderate damage much more likely to roll.

As for TLoS, I'm in favor of bringing back basic rules of determined terrrain. E.g. that hill blocks LoS to all infantry models and obscures vehicles, etc. TLoS means that you CAN model for advantage, and evenv then...certain armies are at a disadvantage just based on height. The same hill that hides my Guardsmen completely only 'obscures' Eldar thanks to different models.

As has been said, the biggest problems with the cover system in 5th ed is that people aren't playing it right. That bush should gibe you 5+ or even 6+ cover, not 4+. You'd need things that make much more sense for4+ cover like concrete walls, big craters etc.

That being said, I'm also in favor of being able to choose to shoot at charging enemies instead of being forced to fight in close combat.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:There are alot of things they could impliment, but I'd swallow a good amout of Acceptable Breaks From Reality if it means the game will be simpler to understand. As it stands GW already has a poor track record of proofreading their rules and the resulting rules lawyering shenanigans that follow, adding onto it isnt exactly the best to do.

This.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:I'd love to see a great big nerf for vehicles, to get out of the 'mech is king' mindset and make hybrid armies viable.

Oh, and a buff for assaulty armies. Because we all know that just plinking away at each other all game with lazors is not that much fun.

This.

...and I would like to see the mechanic change from Force then Force to something squad based.

Similar to moving units in Warmachine. Whereby a unit has its 'activation' and then the opponent's unit has an activation.

This would make the entire process more real and allow reactions. As opposed to the entire game hinging on who gets the first turn (in many cases).

I know this would require an increased use of grey matter and 40k would no longer be just a dice rolling exercise, but it may draw back vets of previous Editions who now find it too simple.

Reading this thread makes me think that no one here has played 2nd ed, as some of this(throwing grenades, cover modifies to hit, vehicle damage changes, Fantasy style assault, target selection, etc.) existed then and it made the game so slow it was unplayable at certain points levels.

I really like ChrisWWII's vehicle chart idea. I also think there are a good amount if things GW could borrow from Privateer Press, such as...

differing movement rates- why can a guardsman run as fast as a Howling Banshee?

damage boxes- use these for vehicles, this at once deals with how systems are damaged and rewards you for doing damage with stronger weapons.

cover should modify how hard it is to hit you- if I'm behind a tree, I won't be able to take a hit from a meltagun any better, you just won't be able to hit me as easily in the first place.

As for other the basis of other general changes, the rules should more accurately reflect the fluff as well as what would realistically happen. Snipers should not only be able to choose their target, but also wound on a 3+. Units that use fear tactics to demoralize an enemy should be represented on the tabletop, if a unit of Ork Kommandos popped out of the bushes behind me I'd crap my pants, and that's their intention, same goes for Lictors or other stealthy infiltrators. Leadership, Speed, and Initiative should really take a more active role in the game, anything a soldier does is dependent on how well he can keep calm under pressure, how fast he can move, and how quickly he can react.

I'd also like to see some better missions, you know, ones that are actually fun and creative? I get bored of just "kill this, stand on that."

Yech, Chris' one looks way too damn complicated to remember when you have about a dozen or more vehicles in your army...

And it's easier to remember the difference between 'Shaken' and 'Stunned'? That's what tables are for, boyo.

I really think vehicles are fine, but just to cheap point wise.


I really like the game right now,

but would like to see grenade action, very basic to hit modifers (+1 within 6", -1 at 48"+, +2 for 72"+), and less cover saves.

And I really would like to see crews back in vehicles, that can be hurt, killed, bail etc...

Would it be great if you have to choose what to do with your tank this turn, because two of the 4 crewmembers are killed?


Edit: And Imperial Guard as Imperial Side in the Box.

ChrisWWII, why do ap2 weapons get a minus 2 on the damage table?

Anvildude wrote:And it's easier to remember the difference between 'Shaken' and 'Stunned'?

One is "don't shoot", the other is "don't shoot and don't move". It's FAR simpler.

loota boy wrote:ChrisWWII, why do ap2 weapons get a minus 2 on the damage table?

It was me trying to do 'AP-' and then getting distracted and mistyping. FIxed.

I was basing it on the BFG critical damage table, which is easy enough to print out and remember what's going on.

I like the 2d6 thing, but you would need sheets like in bfg. However, i like a simpler idea of wounds on a vehicle the idea goes as thus..

Armour pen=
Glancing hit= roll on damage table
Penetrating hit=Roll on damage table + vehicle loses wounds equal to the amount over. I.e an armour 14 vehicle, a penetrating role of 16 = 2 wounds

Damage Table
1-Cannot shoot next turn
2-Cannot move or shoot next turn
3-Movement -d3
4-bs -1
5 - weapon destroyed
6- d3 wounds

this means that you are less likely to lose your big gun, as i think it is too easy at the moment.

Lastly, for every penetrating hit, the armour value goes down by 1, this shows wear and tear on the vehicle.


Also- alternate fire modes. e.g semi auto/full auto on bolters one is assault 1 or rapid fire 3, that sort of thing

or las guns going from rapid fire 2 to assault 1,ap 5 for increased power

DaemonJellybaby wrote:I would love to have flyers!
0-1 FOC slot!
OK how about having a slightly modified damage table?
this means that the occupants are safe from small arms fire but are vulnerable to anti tanks weapons
this is slightly biased because I like explosions and the explosions would certainly spice up your game @Melissia
so here goes nothing!

On the result of a 5, roll on the chart with a -1 modifier
on the result of a 6, roll with no modifier.

other modifiers do not apply to this table (like ap1=+1)
When I say you fall back you fall back, you have been shaken like a Bond Martini
When I say you take a pinning check, you take it cos that tank is going everywhere and that shrapnel will take your head off or go through your eyepieces! (represented by rending)
I am unsure if Fearless should be ignored. Are fearless units just too out of their mind to care?

1 Wrecked. Every model inside suffers a S3 hit AP- then disembark
this represents the tank crew being killed. the passengers are hit by some shrapnel but are generally ok
2 Wrecked. Every model inside suffers a S4 Rending hit. Survivors must take a LD check then disembark
the crew has been killed and an ammo box has cooked off
3 Wrecked. Every model inside suffers a S5 rending hit. Survivors must disembark then immediately make a fall back move
several ammo boxes have cooked off, crew is dead
4 Explodes D6 inches from the edge of the tank, all models touched suffer a S4 rending hit. Every model inside suffers a S5 Rending hit. Survivors must take a LD check
primary weapon ammo cooks off, crew is dead
5 Explodes 2D6 inches from the edge of the tank, all models touched suffer a S4 rending hit and must take a pinning check. Every model inside suffers a S6 rending hit. Survivors must fall back and take a pinning check
a fuel tank has exploded and some ammo has cooked off, crew is dead
6 Explodes 3D6 all models touched suffer a S5 Rending hit and must take a pinning check. All models inside are very very dead
all the ammo and all the fuel has blown up, all models inside are shredded by the shrapnel and fires, crew is flying across the battlefield in bits

This is absolutely insane.

Rending s6 hits? No one will ever take vehicles.

the 2d6 system sounds better, but more complicated and more difficult to keep track of.

I mostly like vehicles the way they are, and cover saves. I'd like them to loosen the rules about shooting/charging the same target, especially if you wiped out your shooting target and there is another target in charge range, and the idea about specialized/heavy weapons shooting at different targets than regular weapons.

Honestly, the 2d6 system would be almost exactly as complicated as the current 1d6 system. When you're learning it, you look up the results in the back of the rulebook. When you've learned what a '6' means, you don't need to look that result up. When you've learned what every result means, you don't need to look it up.

We memorize many more complicated rules for this game, what's six more results on a table?

Technically it's fewer since 6, 7 and 8 are all the same.

Platuan4th wrote:Reading this thread makes me think that no one here has played 2nd ed, as some of this(throwing grenades, cover modifies to hit, vehicle damage changes, Fantasy style assault, target selection, etc.) existed then and it made the game so slow it was unplayable at certain points levels.

I remember second edition fondly, and yes it did take about 6 hours to play a 3,000 point battle, but it was the best time of my week. If they dumb down 40K any more, it will be a Milton-Bradley board game with the entire rules and all the codexes printed on the inside of the box lid.

warpcrafter wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Reading this thread makes me think that no one here has played 2nd ed, as some of this(throwing grenades, cover modifies to hit, vehicle damage changes, Fantasy style assault, target selection, etc.) existed then and it made the game so slow it was unplayable at certain points levels.

I remember second edition fondly, and yes it did take about 6 hours to play a 3,000 point battle, but it was the best time of my week. If they dumb down 40K any more, it will be a Milton-Bradley board game with the entire rules and all the codexes printed on the inside of the box lid.

Hyperbole much?

Actually, being able to outfit each guy individually like in the old rules would be nice, instead of the current 'x special weapons, and x generic ones' we currently have.

It would be nice if there was less emphasis on money and more on the hobby.

BaronIveagh wrote:Actually, being able to outfit each guy individually like in the old rules would be nice, instead of the current 'x special weapons, and x generic ones' we currently have.

That's a codex change, though, not a rules edition change.

Platuan4th wrote:Reading this thread makes me think that no one here has played 2nd ed, as some of this(throwing grenades, cover modifies to hit, vehicle damage changes, Fantasy style assault, target selection, etc.) existed then and it made the game so slow it was unplayable at certain points levels.

You forgot OVERWATCH!!!!

Where for 2 turns nothing occurred until someone wa forced to attempt to contend a table quarter or kill something...

Then the CSM havocs around the corner nailed their arses to the wall they just crept around...

Melissia wrote:Yech, Chris' one looks way too damn complicated to remember when you have about a dozen or more vehicles in your army...

This would discourage the current Mech-flavour we seem to see alot of.

A solution would be to record it somewhere in writing as you go... simlar to Warmachine wet-wipe cards.

BaronIveagh wrote:Actually, being able to outfit each guy individually like in the old rules would be nice, instead of the current 'x special weapons, and x generic ones' we currently have.

So basically you see armies of marines with nothing but flamers and meltaguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:This would discourage the current Mech-flavour we seem to see alot of.

If only because it's so stupidly designed noone wants to deal with it. Kinda like DnD's grapple system.

Melissia wrote:So basically you see armies of marines with nothing but flamers and meltaguns.

I don't see that as a winner, but, granted, I tend to forget that most people play Warhammer 40k now like they play M:tG, super competitive and no fun.

Oh yes, I definitely see that done. All that would result in is a bunch of people taking (relatively) cheap five man squads with drop pods and melta or flamers and filling the rest of hteir points with maxed out terminator squads or tanks. Five heavy flamers in a drop pod kills basically everything in one phase, while five meltas in a drop pod can kill any vehicle on turn one.

Melissia wrote:Oh yes, I definitely see that done. All that would result in is a bunch of people taking (relatively) cheap five man squads with drop pods and melta or flamers and filling the rest of hteir points with maxed out terminator squads or tanks. Five heavy flamers in a drop pod kills basically everything in one phase, while five meltas in a drop pod can kill any vehicle on turn one.

Unless your opponent is playing grey knights, at which point most of your army dies to automatic deep strike mishaps.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Unless your opponent is playing grey knights, at which point most of your army dies to automatic deep strike mishaps.

Oh yes, lets screw up the meta game further so that the only competitive armies are Marines deep striking with special weapon spam, and Grey Knights with their counter deep striking abilities.

Melissia wrote:If only because it's so stupidly designed noone wants to deal with it. Kinda like DnD's grapple system.

I didn't think it was stupidly designed. I base it off of BFG's critical damage table, and while that requires some note taking, it's not too hard to remember to be honest. I didn't think it qualified as 'stupidly designed', besides the added complexity (which I see as a virtue, not a loss) what parts are badly designed?

Melissa, sorry if this comes across wrong, but you sound like you don't really want any changes at all, ever. I don't think i've ever seen you say that you like an idea. I don't mean this to be insulting or anything, i'm just saying it as i see it.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Then maybe a higher strenght hit or an actual AP. Personally it sucks when you blow a land raider and the power armored SMs inside only suffer a lasgun blast.

This would disproportionately spank races like Eldar and have other unintended consequences though.

90% of the posts on this thread are basically just ideas tossed out there where the poster hasn't considered the bigger picture much at all...

mercury14 wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Then maybe a higher strenght hit or an actual AP. Personally it sucks when you blow a land raider and the power armored SMs inside only suffer a lasgun blast.

This would disproportionately spank races like Eldar and have other unintended consequences though.

90% of the posts on this thread are basically just ideas tossed out there where the poster hasn't considered the bigger picture much at all...

How about a poison style hit on an actual AP? 3+ or 4+ will wound, then a standard armor save to save out. That means the 8 point troops with a 6+ save have a greater change of dieing than the better armored (and more expensive) MEQs. An even and fair chance to wound brought about by the vehicle exploding around your guys universally balanced out by the wargear of the actual troops inside the vehicle.

I think some variation of this idea would work very well.

a little rule to change, i would like to be able to choose to roll for reserves or delay them if it is too dangerous.

for example, a favourite tactic of a few guard players where i am is, against an outflanking army, to take al-rahem and say 40-50 men, then bring them on a flank and sit them there. for example, i saw this at a tournament and such a big blobbed unit takes up the ENTIRE board edge. This meant when 600 points of something, i think 2 units of stealers, outflanked to their, they couldn't deploy- and thus were destroyed.

It seems silly to me that they would go, right strategic insertion over there.
But we can't fit sir
then go and die profitlessly...

MightyGodzilla wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Then maybe a higher strenght hit or an actual AP. Personally it sucks when you blow a land raider and the power armored SMs inside only suffer a lasgun blast.

This would disproportionately spank races like Eldar and have other unintended consequences though.

90% of the posts on this thread are basically just ideas tossed out there where the poster hasn't considered the bigger picture much at all...

How about a poison style hit on an actual AP? 3+ or 4+ will wound, then a standard armor save to save out. That means the 8 point troops with a 6+ save have a greater change of dieing than the better armored (and more expensive) MEQs. An even and fair chance to wound brought about by the vehicle exploding around your guys universally balanced out by the wargear of the actual troops inside the vehicle.

I think some variation of this idea would work very well.

I think this is the best solution of all. Something like, 'Explosive damage always wounds on a 3+, and has an ap value of 3.' This means all troops, discounting terminators and such, are hit equally hard. Kudos to you for think that up sir.

Melissia wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Actually, being able to outfit each guy individually like in the old rules would be nice, instead of the current 'x special weapons, and x generic ones' we currently have.

So basically you see armies of marines with nothing but flamers and meltaguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:This would discourage the current Mech-flavour we seem to see alot of.

If only because it's so stupidly designed noone wants to deal with it. Kinda like DnD's grapple system.

Hey, the d20 grapple rules are actually pretty simple, it's just no-one ever bothers to learn them, because they usually don't use them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

loota boy wrote:

MightyGodzilla wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Then maybe a higher strenght hit or an actual AP. Personally it sucks when you blow a land raider and the power armored SMs inside only suffer a lasgun blast.

This would disproportionately spank races like Eldar and have other unintended consequences though.

90% of the posts on this thread are basically just ideas tossed out there where the poster hasn't considered the bigger picture much at all...

How about a poison style hit on an actual AP? 3+ or 4+ will wound, then a standard armor save to save out. That means the 8 point troops with a 6+ save have a greater change of dieing than the better armored (and more expensive) MEQs. An even and fair chance to wound brought about by the vehicle exploding around your guys universally balanced out by the wargear of the actual troops inside the vehicle.

I think some variation of this idea would work very well.

I think this is the best solution of all. Something like, 'Explosive damage always wounds on a 3+, and has an ap value of 3.' This means all troops, discounting terminators and such, are hit equally hard. Kudos to you for think that up sir.

Nah, no AP. It's concussion and fire, meaning it'd ignore cover and any sort of 'I jump out of the way' stuff, and pretty much jelly and burn everyone equally, but that jelly and burning would be offset by wearing good armour that would absorb the concussive force and stop the flames from licking flesh.

That would actually be a full edition rules change, too- adding Concussive damage, which would be dealt by certain Blast Template weapons like Frag missiles and Kannons, Lobbas and other artillery, and maybe even certain other weapons, in the vein of Plasma or Melta (Thunderhammers). Stuff like Shokk Attack Guns wouldn't be Concussive, nor would Krak missiles, and things like Slaaneshi Noise Marine Sonic Blasters could have a Flame Template with Concussive damage.

There might even be certain options for Grenades, either as upgrades or wargear.

What I really want?

th edition updates to all the codices AT THE TIME OF CORE RULES RELEASE.

Don't need new units or special rules...save that for the actual codex...but GW, there is this thing called the internet...it allows for free distribution of information and updates in an almost instantaneous fashion....

Now see, the problem GW has with that idea is that little word "free." When they hear it their skins start to boil.