I couldn't find a thread with this topic, so I figured I would create one. What are your wishes for the 6th edition?

I'm just returning to 40k so my wishes are mostly about stuff I miss from 4th edition.

1. Ogryns with two CCWs
2. More weapon choices for IG commanders - eg. Storm Bolters
3. Official small games rules (like 40k in 40 minutes)
4. Maybe some allowed way to mix armies (like 50 pts penalty to field a SM HQ in an IG army)

My 6th edition wish is that they don't change things just for the sake of change and I hope ALL of the 6th edition rumors I've heard are wrong.

I hope they finally deal with points so a reasonable army can be pitted against an equal opponent.

I'd like to see shooting come back. I like the rumors of shooting being changed back to move and shoot once up to full range. That was one of the changes in 3rd Edition that essentially ruined the game.

I'd like to see a balanced rule book that isn't horribly biased towards one play style.

oni wrote:My 6th edition wish is that they don't change things just for the sake of change and I hope ALL of the 6th edition rumors I've heard are wrong.

Yay, this! 5th is my favorite 40k yet. They can finetune and fix pieces, but don't just throw everything out. That's my wish: Make 6th more like 5.5. Fix the broke parts and if it isn't broken, don't touch it.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I hope they finally deal with points so a reasonable army can be pitted against an equal opponent.

Say what now? Are you complaining about balance or the size of games or what?

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I'd like to see shooting come back. I like the rumors of shooting being changed back to move and shoot once up to full range. That was one of the changes in 3rd Edition that essentially ruined the game.

I lol'd. So you want to bring 2nd back?

Luke_Prowler wrote:I'd like to see a balanced rule book that isn't horribly biased towards one play style.

Umm. Not sure where you're going with this... Are you saying 5th is biased to shooting/assault/mech?

ChronoDK wrote:3. Official small games rules (like 40k in 40 minutes)

This. Having 40k in small skirmish games would be cool

pretre wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:I'd like to see a balanced rule book that isn't horribly biased towards one play style.

Umm. Not sure where you're going with this... Are you saying 5th is biased to shooting/assault/mech?

I am refering to 5th's biased to mech. The balance between shooting and assault is actually pretty good, (barring razorback/chimera spam) and don't let other people fool you on that.

A few wishes...

Game mechanics:

More missions. Not "Battle Missions", but real balanced missions. 6 rather than 3.
More deployment styles. Again, 6 rather than 3.

Cover:

All area terrain now confers a 5+ save with bunkers providing a 4+ cover save.

Tanks now follow the infantry terrain mechanism and gain advantage from area terrain just as infantry, with the exception that vehicles must be >50% in area terrain just as a squad must have 50% of its models in terrain. (This is to cut down on disputes and streamline the system...you can ask your opponent during movement if you're 50% "in" rather than arguing about it during the shooting phase).

Going to ground occurs during the movement phase only, and gives you +1 to cover, but does not prevent you from shooting. Going to ground in the open for a 6+ cover save is OK.

More focus on tactics and less hurr Iz spam X amounts of things. And I would be VERY pleased if we got more missions that acctuly makes a differende in your playstyle once all the moddels are on the board.

Also less need for a massive amount of tanks and vehicles, but not really a problem thou. Just a wsih I have.
Changes in how terrain work just as the user above stated

I hope 6th ed does for 40k what 8th ed did for Fantasy.

In 7th ed, if you didn't play one of about 4 different armies, there was little point in playing the game.
In 8th ed, while the filth still exists, any army can litterly beat any other army and the game isn't 100% predictable anymore. Sure there's still some derp moments, such as most of the #6 spells, steadfast + BSB being too good and war machines sniping both monster + rider, but overall the game has improved in leaps and bounds! (Dwarfs can even get in a charge now!!! )

Right now 5th ed is so fething stale... Mech is godly, shooting is too short ranged and we have about 4 armies that tend to roflstomp everyone else with little effort. I'd honestly like to see things like;
- Basic infantry become viable beyond objective campers.
- Basic guns given a reason to exist beyond being required for WYSIWYG purposes.
- Mech to be viable, but not the 'end all be all' it currently is
- Actual missions. (Capture & Control = most boring games of all time while KP's are all sorts of screwed up)
- Cover saves go to 5+ as the average so that ap vs armour matters beyond tank-hunting
- Psychology comes back into play. (hey, I can dream can't I?!)

I'd also like a viable Daemons codex that doesn't shoehorn me into only 1 or 2 viable lists please!

Equality among the codices, regardless of author or fluff.

pretre wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I'd like to see shooting come back. I like the rumors of shooting being changed back to move and shoot once up to full range. That was one of the changes in 3rd Edition that essentially ruined the game.

Not exactly. But I think this game lost a lot of its flavor when they gimped shooting to make it Fantasy Innnnnn Spaaaace!

In the grim darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, left to quake in terror, hoping the two or three shots he gets do the job before somebody runs screaming across the battlefield to hit him with an energized stick.

I’m also hoping for skirmish rules or at the very least, additional mechanics to make smaller point games (500-1000pts more viable).

Other changes that I’d like to see in 6th include:
• Wound allocation fixed.
• Vehicle damage table and cover save mechanics adjusted to de-mech 40k.
• Embarked units must disembark from a transport to claim an objective.
• Scaled points/unit restriction system similar to fantasy (where x% of army must be troops etc).

demote default cover save to 5+. I'm sick of spending 90% of my game playing Cover Hunter.

- I'd like riding in vehicles to be a bit more dangerous, and to make vehicles slightly less durable. I don't want them to be exploding death coffins like in 4th ed, but just a bit more volatile. Strength 3 blast from an explodes result is also a huge joke. Make it half the front armor, rounded up for something fun and dangerous!

- Reduced cover saves across the board. 4+ cover is entirely too prevalent, and I'm saying this as someone who frequently plays Orks. Cover should be important in any wargame, but it shouldn't be so foolproof.

- Morale and leadership to be important. I want morale modifiers, dammit! I seldom see more than one squad break per game, unless I'm rolling LD tests

To hit modifiers instead of bloody cover saves.

ChocolateGork wrote:To hit modifiers instead of bloody cover saves.

Seconded.

ChocolateGork wrote:To hit modifiers instead of bloody cover saves.

Thirded...ed?

It'd be cool to have the Auspex USR back to combat the safety net of Deep Strikers and Outflanking Units.

Troops must be disembarked to claim an objective.

Units inside a skimmer that went flat-out and gets Explodes! on the vehicle damage chart should die with the vehicle.

English Assassin wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:To hit modifiers instead of bloody cover saves.

Seconded.

This So much, I'm so annoyed with a shrub being able to block a meltagun when it would normally slice armor.
Cover saves need to get changed in one way or the other. To hit modifiers seem like a good way to work it, though I'm not exactly sure how it would work with blast weapons and such.

Cover Saves - 5+ all around instead of 4+. Cover saves are ignored if the shooter is 6" away or less.

Glancing Damage Chart - Remove the -2 to all rolls. Make a new chart so that it looks like the following:

1-2 - Crew Shaken. Vehicle can't move or can't shoot. (Defending player's choice)
3 - Crew Stunned. Vehicle can't move or shoot.
4 - Weapon Destroyed.
5 - Immobilized.
6 - Vehicle Wrecked.

New Penetrating Damage Chart

1 - Crew Shaken. Vehicle can't move or can't shoot. (Attacking player's choice)
2 - Crew Stunned. Vehicle can't move or shoot.
3 - Weapon Destroyed.
4 - Immobilized.
5 - Vehicle Wrecked. Any models inside suffer one S3 hit with AP -.
6 - Vehicle Destroyed. Any models inside suffer one S4 hit with AP -. The unit must also take a single Pinning check. Debris from the vehicle scatters D6". Models hit by debris suffer one S3 hit with AP -.

Sunoccard wrote:This So much, I'm so annoyed with a shrub being able to block a meltagun when it would normally slice armor.
Cover saves need to get changed in one way or the other. To hit modifiers seem like a good way to work it, though I'm not exactly sure how it would work with blast weapons and such.

The modifier could add additional d3/d6 inches to the scatter roll for blast templates.

StoneRaizer wrote:

Glancing Damage Chart - Remove the -2 to all rolls. Make a new chart so that it looks like the following:

1-2 - Crew Shaken. Vehicle can't move or can't shoot. (Defending player's choice)
3 - Crew Stunned. Vehicle can't move or shoot.
4 - Weapon Destroyed.
5 - Immobilized.
6 - Vehicle Wrecked.

I disagree with this, I think the Glancing damage chart is perfectly fine as is.

However I wouldn't mind Preferred Enemy to affect shooting as well.... for obvious selfish reasons *cough* NECRON DESTROYERS AND VARIANTS *cough*

Brother SRM wrote:- I'd like riding in vehicles to be a bit more dangerous, and to make vehicles slightly less durable. I don't want them to be exploding death coffins like in 4th ed, but just a bit more volatile. Strength 3 blast from an explodes result is also a huge joke. Make it half the front armor, rounded up for something fun and dangerous!

- Reduced cover saves across the board. 4+ cover is entirely too prevalent, and I'm saying this as someone who frequently plays Orks. Cover should be important in any wargame, but it shouldn't be so foolproof.

- Morale and leadership to be important. I want morale modifiers, dammit! I seldom see more than one squad break per game, unless I'm rolling LD tests

Right here. This man knows what he's talking about.

I think I'd prefer a 2d6 damage chart, since there's a difference between the chances of something happening rather than a rockets having the same chance as exploding as doing jack all.

I'd be ok if vehicles died easier but as a trade off they should be able to shoot better on the move and can go faster than someone can run. Maybe baseline 12' move and can get 18' on the cruise for baseline while fast/skimmers get 24-28' flatouts.

it'll be a good trade off as you can buzz around the board but at higher risk of getting shot down.

Fix flyer rules. Some skimmers are skimming, others are obviously flying what with very tall bases and such. The rules need to somehow make this different as cover and the like can't be handled the same way.

IG:
1. Give Ogryns power weapons or at least rending weapons.
2. GIVE SERGEANTS LASGUNS! Sorry , bugs me...
DA
1. Make them on the same level as all other Space Marine Codex

General Rules:
1. This may not be popular, but get rid of the rule that you always strike rear armor in assault. I hate when a unit just barely reaches my front armor and then strike the armor that is a further 6 inches away. I know why, but I would prefer a rule that you strike the next arc, ie in the front, hit side.
2. Cover modifying to hit could be fun.

get rid of the rule that you always strike rear armor in assault.

To hit modifiers instead of bloody cover saves.

- I'd like riding in vehicles to be a bit more dangerous, and to make vehicles slightly less durable. I don't want them to be exploding death coffins like in 4th ed, but just a bit more volatile. Strength 3 blast from an explodes result is also a huge joke. Make it half the front armor, rounded up for something fun and dangerous!

- Reduced cover saves across the board. 4+ cover is entirely too prevalent, and I'm saying this as someone who frequently plays Orks. Cover should be important in any wargame, but it shouldn't be so foolproof.

- Morale and leadership to be important. I want morale modifiers, dammit! I seldom see more than one squad break per game, unless I'm rolling LD tests

These are all very nice. I'd also like to add this.

Sniping - Units wielding sniper weapons can move and shoot regularly. If the unit does not move weapon range is doubled.

Necroshea wrote:

get rid of the rule that you always strike rear armor in assault.

To hit modifiers instead of bloody cover saves.

- I'd like riding in vehicles to be a bit more dangerous, and to make vehicles slightly less durable. I don't want them to be exploding death coffins like in 4th ed, but just a bit more volatile. Strength 3 blast from an explodes result is also a huge joke. Make it half the front armor, rounded up for something fun and dangerous!

- Reduced cover saves across the board. 4+ cover is entirely too prevalent, and I'm saying this as someone who frequently plays Orks. Cover should be important in any wargame, but it shouldn't be so foolproof.

- Morale and leadership to be important. I want morale modifiers, dammit! I seldom see more than one squad break per game, unless I'm rolling LD tests

These are all very nice. I'd also like to add this.

Sniping - Units wielding sniper weapons can move and shoot regularly. If the unit does not move weapon range is doubled.

I like it but I think there should be a few exceptions to the sniping rule you proposed (like the Vindicare, if he could move and shoot that would be a bit op I think. Unless it was something like he can move and shoot only if in the previous turn he did not shoot, if he shot in the last turn, he can only move and not shoot or remain stationary and keep shooting)

I want less psyker powers in 6th, I think a psyker test should be failed on an 8+ though perils only occure 11+ (note I think part of this desire comes from the fact I play aganst Gk all the time and I think they need to be taken down a peg or two).

King Pariah wrote:

Necroshea wrote:

get rid of the rule that you always strike rear armor in assault.

To hit modifiers instead of bloody cover saves.

- I'd like riding in vehicles to be a bit more dangerous, and to make vehicles slightly less durable. I don't want them to be exploding death coffins like in 4th ed, but just a bit more volatile. Strength 3 blast from an explodes result is also a huge joke. Make it half the front armor, rounded up for something fun and dangerous!

- Reduced cover saves across the board. 4+ cover is entirely too prevalent, and I'm saying this as someone who frequently plays Orks. Cover should be important in any wargame, but it shouldn't be so foolproof.

- Morale and leadership to be important. I want morale modifiers, dammit! I seldom see more than one squad break per game, unless I'm rolling LD tests

These are all very nice. I'd also like to add this.

Sniping - Units wielding sniper weapons can move and shoot regularly. If the unit does not move weapon range is doubled.

I like it but I think there should be a few exceptions to the sniping rule you proposed (like the Vindicare, if he could move and shoot that would be a bit op I think. Unless it was something like he can move and shoot only if in the previous turn he did not shoot, if he shot in the last turn, he can only move and not shoot or remain stationary and keep shooting)

Well, while it may make the vindicare quite a bit more powerfull (he's a highly trained assassin after all), it will make several useless units a bit more viable like ratlings and guardsmen sporting sniper rifles. It's always irked me how a sniper rifle was considered a heavy weapon. It's pretty much like saying it takes the same amount of time to look down a scope as it does to ready a rocket launcher/mortar/lascannon/autocannon/heavy bolter for firing, which is silly. Pacing yourself and taking your time would give you time to steady your shot (double the range), while running and stopping for a moment to look down the sights would give you a fairly accurate shot at assault range.

I support the sniping change and range. It makes sense anyway. Also could change BS if stationary maybe?

I like it but I think there should be a few exceptions to the sniping rule you proposed (like the Vindicare, if he could move and shoot that would be a bit op I think. Unless it was something like he can move and shoot only if in the previous turn he did not shoot, if he shot in the last turn, he can only move and not shoot or remain stationary and keep shooting)

actually the Vindicare CAN move and shoot. Most people forgot he's got a pistol that's as powerful as his rifle. Just decreased range from 36 to 12' You could even drive him around in a rhino/chimera and shoot pistols at guys. (goes along nicely with the range modifier thing actually)

As to the IG sarge with pistol vs lasgun, I'd keep the pistol just to get extra power weapon attack.

I am fairly cool with the way vehicles are right now in 5th, but there are a few things that I think would be cool to add into the game...

First thing I would do, and it would only apply occasionally, would be on the damage chart. I think that if you roll a Wrecked result, then there should be a chart similar to the Orks' Ramshackle chart.. BUT!!! I would go a step further, and say that if there is a careening result, and the destroyed vehicle enters the space occupied by another unit, it is dealt with, according to the Ramming or Charging rules (so it has the possibility to wreck or destroy another vehicle, or seriously relocate another unit) I would limit this action to the first vehicle, as while it would be funny to start a chain reaction of careening, destroyed vehicles, it would seriously stop all players from taking a mech army.

I'm not sure how certain rules would affect this, or what rules to put in place, but I would make things more equitable for guys playing Tyranids to take on armor (i know when i bring my bugs out, vehicles of just about any type are a royal pain)

I also like the idea of making vehicles faster than infantry (though not walkers, unless they are Fast Walkers, like Sentinels), but I think that the Leman Russ movement rule would still need to be in place.


How do you guys think the same Ld modifiers used in assaults would affect the game if they came into play during the shooting phase? ie. a unit of marines, led by a commander with Ld 10 are shot up, losing 3 or 4 marines, so they take their morale test, but NOW they take the morale test at a -3 or -4 modifier (based on how many are lost)

-Sniper rifles can choose their targets in a squad (they are SNIPER rifles ffs. They are meant to be precision weapons that pick off high priority targets)

-Some sort of counter to psy powers. Really, psykers at the moment have an unfair advantage in the game. They seldom fail their tests, and they end up causing insane amounts of pain because of it. I know they are meant to dangerous, but they should have some sort of catch, like perils happening on a double or something.

I hope they do go for a comprehensive chance of the whole system. I'm bored.

More variety in the missions, rather than 3 scenarios, 2 of which are the same, and 3 different deployment types, and Battle Missions didn't really change much did it, as it was still just objective games with slightly different deployment zones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, this is an idea I had jumbling around in my head, but I'd like to see some sort of system whereby a unit can, once per game, ignore a result of a particular wargear (some of which can and cannot be affected) on a certain D6 roll, much like the Fate point system (I believe that is the right one) in LotR.

For example, you take a Conscript Guardsman and a Howling Banshee, both of which are vastly different in their respetive skills, slow and numerous or lightning-swift and deadly. Now, you get into combat with a Warrior with Lash Whips for example, and your skills have no effect, you're I1 regardless of how good you are in CC. In the rule idea I mentioned above, the units would be able to ignore the effects of Lash Whips on 2D6, on a 12 for the Conscripts, for example, or a 6 for the Banshees, as they are obviously much more likely to be able to withstand the effects of the whips.

This is just the barebones of the idea, but I think with a lot of refining, it could make the game more interesting, and would solve a lot of arguments about conflicting wargear (Banshee Mask/Lash Whip, etc)

Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

pretre wrote:Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

Ok, what ideas do you find terrible?

pretre wrote:Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

Also, not everyone here HATES 5th, I certainly have enjoyed 5th edition so far, I have merely voice what I think would be improvements on what is currently the rules, thereby making it an even better game than I think it is now.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

Ok, what ideas do you find terrible?

I think that 5th ed is great. Having played since the start of 3rd, I think that it is the best edition we've had. A lot of the ideas in the thread will bring us back to where we were in 3rd, which is a clear step backward.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

- Tighten up wound allocation.
(Perhaps assign or resolve all save ignoring wounds first then non-save ignoring wounds.)
- Make clear the distinctions between cover and that not everything should just be 4+ (something in the book P21, but not used right now). Move a couple around so that 4+ cover isn't quite as ubiquitous (Other Infantry gives you X+, ruins/area gives you X+, etc.) They need to be very careful of this or non-SM armies will be very hurt.
- Errata / update all books at the start of the edition (something they did with fantasy in 8th) but go a step further. Also have a living FAQ that is updated monthly with questions and answers.
(Full point and rule updates for every book at start would be ideal. Release it as a chapter approved cheap splatbook and as a PDF, also update books in the next printing. That way everyone has access to it. I.e. BT now pay X for Typhoon Launchers, GK now must have 5 minimum Henchmen in a squad, etc. Whatever they want.)
- Codify the most common mission types as 'standard missions' to expand standard play. Here's an example 6 x 6 table. 6 x 6 to make the rolling easy:(A table of VP, KP, d6 Objective, Terrain Features, Quarters, Escort/Assassination combined with Deployment (Quarters, Pitched, DoW, Short Edge 3rds, Diagonal, Breakthrough).
- Leave most of the rest alone.

We are very much in a 'be careful what you ask for' position right now. For example, as much as some might not like how we do assault resolution now, I remember assaults dragging on forever in previous editions. I also remember rhino rush, sweeping advance BS. I like that assaults are decisive in few rounds now, you either win big or go home. I remember having your lascannon guy sticking out and the rest of the squad behind cover so that there was no way for your opponent to shoot at the squad. I remember vehicles being deathtraps in multiple editions, etc so on. We don't need those things back.

Change for change's sake is a bad idea.

pretre wrote:
I remember vehicles being deathtraps in multiple editions, etc so on. We don't need those things back.

Ideally, I wouldn't like for vehicles to be deathtraps again, however I think that there is nowhere near enough "punishment" for losing one when you take them (depending on the vehicle), this is why I have suggested the ramshackle rule, with modifications be a part of the BRB, and a standard roll for a certain result on the damage table.

Also, with a S3 explosion resulting from the loss of a vehicle, even my guardsmen have become somewhat notorious for coming out unscathed in those instances... Do you think that S4 would change things THAT much to make vehicles deathtraps again??

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Also, with a S3 explosion resulting from the loss of a vehicle, even my guardsmen have become somewhat notorious for coming out unscathed in those instances... Do you think that S4 would change things THAT much to make vehicles deathtraps again??

S4 inside and S4 explosion would make the whole thing easier to remember; I could get down with that and would stand as an example of tightening/simplifying rules rather than just changing for change's sake. Again, it hurts non-SM armies though.

Re-print 3rd ED with the minor change of having the 3 switched for a 6. 3rd ED was by far the best in my opinion... had the best codex's, with chapter approved had by miles the widest range of different rules (creature creation, minor psychic powers, beast's of the galaxy.. etc etc) not to mention it easily allowed you to sit and shoot or rush forward in rhino's or beyond.

Obviously it might need a 6.5 tweak with the better parts of 5th but I feel most of 5th could be thrown to the flames happily enough.. the ridiculous cover, the disembarking rules, the combat resolution rules (as if you have to wait a turn to charge again!?). The favour for vehicles is alright... I mean it's the future.. they're past the whole amassed unsupported infantry thing i'd hope.

Semper wrote:Re-print 3rd ED with the minor change of having the 3 switched for a 6. 3rd ED was by far the best in my opinion... had the best codex's, with chapter approved had by miles the widest range of different rules (creature creation, minor psychic powers, beast's of the galaxy.. etc etc) not to mention it easily allowed you to sit and shoot or rush forward in rhino's or beyond.

Those are some nice shades you have there. Interesting color lenses.

Necroshea wrote:
Sniping - Units wielding sniper weapons can move and shoot regularly. If the unit does not move weapon range is doubled.

I don't think that will be enough to make snipers worth taking. It doesn't make that much sense either since they'd want to be stationary to draw a bead on a target. I think snipers just need to be more effective altogether.

A big NO to snipers being able to pick targets. There are too many ways to target individual models in the shooting phase in this game as it is. No body pays the money and takes the time to build and paint their Heros to have them shot before they can get into CC. To me, it is one of the worst aspects that this game has ever devised.

Cover is great for those who have worse than 4+ Armour, or anybody facing a low AP shooting army. The shrub is not stopping your Lascannon shot, it is simply obscuring the target and disrupting your aim. I would like to see Terrain and tactical maneuvering matter more, but I would rather they left things as is rather than mucking it up even more.

I would like to see Rapid Fire weapons be able to fire and assault, however reduced to 1 half range shot if they move and/or assault, and 1 full range or 2 half range shots if they don't. Only Heavy Weapons should not be able to assault. Assault Weapons stay the same.

Get rid of AP. How ever much more strength a weapon has over the toughness of a model should reduce their Armour Save by that much. No AP adjustments on the Damage Chart.

Destroyed and Wrecked both leave the embarked unit in the footprint. Models inside the footprint must maintain the 1" separation or be removed as a casualty, and may emergency disembark 2" to do so. How about the Strength of the Destroyed result explosion be equal to the number of hits rolled on the chart, to a minimum of a 6 needed to wound each embarked model?

That rapid fire into assault thing doesn't matter all that much when Space Marines all have pistols to go with their bolters. I know I'm showing a sort of bias here, but IG don't really want to charge that much.

But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Besides, in order to distinguish from the vindicare assasin's rule, there will have be a modification. like, on a 4+ the chosen target "dodges" it and it hits some other guy.

Otherwise, sniper rifles will continue being ignored, which is a pity because I hate seeing redundant things that keep showing up in nearly every codex.
(seriously, there is now a sniper rifle in every dex. DE gets hexrifles, Eldar get rangers, SM get scouts, IG gets ratlings, Crons get deathmarks...thats 5 armies)

Reactions like they have in whfb. Stand and shoot, flee, ect. I hated how my guardsmen would just stand and let someone get out of their transport and charge in. Or how they have to get charged by a deathstar unit.

Ahh, stand and shoot, that won't completely overbalance shooting armies or anything.

Maybe if your unit gets no swings in the ensuing CC round.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Besides, in order to distinguish from the vindicare assasin's rule, there will have be a modification. like, on a 4+ the chosen target "dodges" it and it hits some other guy.

Otherwise, sniper rifles will continue being ignored, which is a pity because I hate seeing redundant things that keep showing up in nearly every codex.
(seriously, there is now a sniper rifle in every dex. DE gets hexrifles, Eldar get rangers, SM get scouts, IG gets ratlings, Crons get deathmarks...thats 5 armies)

personally, I love snipers, from a tactical standpoint, the range is really good and they're fun to plinck around with. They should be able to pick targets, I'm willing to pray for that. I'll be demonstrating the sniper's usefulness in a kill-team game today, I am bringing 5 ratlings, an a squad of IG vets with 3 snipers and a lascannon, I hope all goes well...

pretre wrote:Ahh, stand and shoot, that won't completely overbalance shooting armies or anything.

Maybe if your unit gets no swings in the ensuing CC round.

Its a sci fi game, shooting should be the star. Always hated how in the far future everyone wants to drop their death rays to poke each other with a pointy stick.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

pretre wrote:Ahh, stand and shoot, that won't completely overbalance shooting armies or anything.

Maybe if your unit gets no swings in the ensuing CC round.

Its a sci fi game, shooting should be the star. Always hated how in the far future everyone wants to drop their death rays to poke each other with a pointy stick.

Well, it is a dystopic setting where there is meant to be a constant shortage of supplies (thanks to all the fighting on multiple fronts), so I guess it makes sense that they would train for CC to conserve ammo.

Brother SRM wrote:That rapid fire into assault thing doesn't matter all that much when Space Marines all have pistols to go with their bolters. I know I'm showing a sort of bias here, but IG don't really want to charge that much.

Do all units in all Codices with Rapid Fire weapons also have pistols? I was under the impression not even all of the Space Marines do. For the assault option, if you know you are going to be attacked next turn, I would like to see the option of shooting and assaulting to take away their extra attacks and Furious Charge, albeit at a reduced range and rate.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Besides, in order to distinguish from the vindicare assasin's rule, there will have be a modification. like, on a 4+ the chosen target "dodges" it and it hits some other guy.

Otherwise, sniper rifles will continue being ignored, which is a pity because I hate seeing redundant things that keep showing up in nearly every codex.
(seriously, there is now a sniper rifle in every dex. DE gets hexrifles, Eldar get rangers, SM get scouts, IG gets ratlings, Crons get deathmarks...thats 5 armies)

You are talking about improving the viability of a unit located in at least 5 Codices in such a way as to reduce the overall fun of the game. Your opponent having the ability to remove Characters and models with specific wargear AT WILL through shooting is totally bogus. The units that can do this now are totally bogus as well.

KplKeegan wrote:Units inside a skimmer that went flat-out and gets Explodes! on the vehicle damage chart should die with the vehicle.

Ummm... This is already how it works.

Rulebook FAQ v1.4
Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as
it moved flat out what happens to any embarked
models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

oni wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:Units inside a skimmer that went flat-out and gets Explodes! on the vehicle damage chart should die with the vehicle.

Ummm... This is already how it works.

Rulebook FAQ v1.4
Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as
it moved flat out what happens to any embarked
models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Well. The hard-nosed RAW-crowd has a habit of arguing that the opponent's shooting turn is not "in the same turn" as stipulated by this FAQ, thus the above would only apply if the vehicle gets destroyed in your own movement phase (terrain-difficulties, etc..), not necessarily the next (!) player's turn, when he shoots (or assaults) your transport.

Similarly, even if you see "the same turn" as covering both players, there is need for clarification as to not give an unintended advantage to the player going 2nd "in a turn" (and thus being safe from having his flat-out-stuff shot "in the same turn").

So I guess it is more an issue of clarification, rather than one of changing the rules.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:That rapid fire into assault thing doesn't matter all that much when Space Marines all have pistols to go with their bolters. I know I'm showing a sort of bias here, but IG don't really want to charge that much.

Do all units in all Codices with Rapid Fire weapons also have pistols? I was under the impression not even all of the Space Marines do. For the assault option, if you know you are going to be attacked next turn, I would like to see the option of shooting and assaulting to take away their extra attacks and Furious Charge, albeit at a reduced range and rate.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Besides, in order to distinguish from the vindicare assasin's rule, there will have be a modification. like, on a 4+ the chosen target "dodges" it and it hits some other guy.

Otherwise, sniper rifles will continue being ignored, which is a pity because I hate seeing redundant things that keep showing up in nearly every codex.
(seriously, there is now a sniper rifle in every dex. DE gets hexrifles, Eldar get rangers, SM get scouts, IG gets ratlings, Crons get deathmarks...thats 5 armies)

You are talking about improving the viability of a unit located in at least 5 Codices in such a way as to reduce the overall fun of the game. Your opponent having the ability to remove Characters and models with specific wargear AT WILL through shooting is totally bogus. The units that can do this now are totally bogus as well.

And against everything else the controlling player could select which of his guys can take the wounds in a mixed squad. There are already bogus things like that in the rules.

Zweischneid wrote:

oni wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:Units inside a skimmer that went flat-out and gets Explodes! on the vehicle damage chart should die with the vehicle.

Ummm... This is already how it works.

Rulebook FAQ v1.4
Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as
it moved flat out what happens to any embarked
models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Well. The hard-nosed RAW-crowd has a habit of arguing that the opponent's shooting turn is not "in the same turn" as stipulated by this FAQ, thus the above would only apply if the vehicle gets destroyed in your own movement phase (terrain-difficulties, etc..), not necessarily the next (!) player's turn, when he shoots (or assaults) your transport.

Similarly, even if you see "the same turn" as covering both players, there is need for clarification as to not give an unintended advantage to the player going 2nd "in a turn" (and thus being safe from having his flat-out-stuff shot "in the same turn").

So I guess it is more an issue of clarification, rather than one of changing the rules.

It has nothing to be with being in the 'hard-nosed RAW-crowd', it has to do with the fact that the rulebook says 'If a rule does not specify, it means player turn, not game turn'.

pretre wrote:

It has nothing to be with being in the 'hard-nosed RAW-crowd', it has to do with the fact that the rulebook says 'If a rule does not specify, it means player turn, not game turn'.

This very phrase is "hard-nosed-RAW", precisely because you quote game rules like its legal regulation and would in itself be enough to settle any and all arguments, not even admitting the possibility of RAI possibly overriding RAW or ever admitting the existing of the overriding "golden rule".

[edit]
Indeed. Considering this, I think the most important change to 6th Edition should be that they reprint the golden rule from the rule book, in big bold letters, on every single page of the rule book and every single page of every 6th Edition Codex printed thereafter. Perhaps twice on each page. Just to make sure.

Zweischneid wrote:This very phrase is "hard-nosed-RAW", precisely because you quote game rules like its legal regulation and would in itself be enough to settle any and all arguments, not even admitting the possibility of RAI possibly overriding RAW or ever admitting the existing of the overriding "golden rule".

So wait, wanting to play by the rules is being a 'hard-nosed RAW-player'? There's literally a passage that tells you how to know when a rule means player vs game turn and you're saying I'm a dick for using it? It's not even an unclearly worded rule. It is very clear.

Indeed. Considering this, I think the most important change to 6th Edition should be that they reprint the golden rule from the rule book, in big bold letters, on every single page of the rule book and every single page of every 6th Edition Codex printed thereafter. Perhaps twice on each page. Just to make sure.

The Most Important rule is, as the name implies, the most important rule in the book but, and I know this is crazy, it isn't the only rule in the book. If we just end every dispute with "MI rule!" there isn't a lot of point in even looking at the rest.

Bring back Overwatch.

Enable grenades to be thrown again.

pretre wrote: There's literally a passage that tells you how to know when a rule means player vs game turn and you're saying I'm a dick for using it? It's not even an unclearly worded rule. It is very clear.

I am not sure if "hard-nosed" = "a dick".

online dictionary wrote:
hard-nosed
adjective
tough (Informal) practical, realistic, shrewd, hardline, uncompromising, businesslike, hard-headed, unsentimental

So yea, you seem "uncompromising", "hard-headed", "hardline" and "unsentimental" in wanting to use it (or the rules in general), so I think the word wasn't far off. If there's scope in your position for "compromise" and moving away from your "line", I haven't seen it.

I must hurry and say, I didn't expect such harsh critique of 5th edition when I posted. This is not a 5th edition hate thread. So far (two games played) I really like it. I only have those minor wishes.

Also, all those wishing this and that should be weaker or stronger - how about just suggesting point changes? Make powerful units more expensive. Instead of all those rule changes. The rules are quite good as they are I think.

Byte wrote:Bring back Overwatch.

Enable grenades to be thrown again.

Overwatch sounds fun, but would be a bit tricky to introduce. I am sure many will throw fits that they are being shot during their own turn.
should add some more realism in the game (and get those damned DC to GTFO...)

Throwing grenades will be a bit OP though. Just imagine a squad of Assault Marines pepper the guys they are about to charge with some 10 small blasts.

Zweischneid wrote:So yea, you seem "uncompromising", "hard-headed", "hardline" and "unsentimental" in wanting to use it (or the rules in general), so I think the word wasn't far off. If there's scope in your position for "compromise" and moving away from your "line", I haven't seen it.

I completely don't understand your position is the problem. You are saying that asking to play by a completely unambiguous rule is 'uncompromising', 'hard-headed', 'hardline' and 'unsentimental'?

I'm not even sure what compromise you are looking for... You don't want the word 'turn' to mean player turn except when it explicitly is written otherwise?

pretre wrote:
I completely don't understand your position is the problem. You are saying that asking to play by a completely unambiguous rule is 'uncompromising', 'hard-headed', 'hardline' and 'unsentimental'?

I'm not even sure what compromise you are looking for... You don't want the word 'turn' to mean player turn except when it explicitly is written otherwise?

I don't care a rat's ass about the word "turn". I even acknowledged that even if the rule would explicitly mention "game turn", it would still take "work" by the players to not get loopsided results that allow the 2nd player in a game turn to gain unfair advantages.

The very point is that the RAI (possibly) appears to be that a flat-out moving vehicle destroyed crashes and burns with no survivors. As that is not the result of the application of RAW, the "golden rule" may be raised in a bid for cinematics, to produce the intended results despite the written rules, no matter how clear or unambigious they are, because, as by the golden rules, those rules (even the completely unambiguous ones) are mere guidelines to help you create a table-top representation of an unfolding battle. They are not designed or intended for the arbitration of disputes or differences of opinion (for those, the rule book recommends a die-roll instead).

Zweischneid wrote:I don't care a rat's ass about the word "turn". I even acknowledged that even if the rule would explicitly mention "game turn", it would still take "work" by the players to not get loopsided results that allow the 2nd player in a game turn to gain unfair advantages.

But because it means player turn, as listed in the rules, it does not get lopsided results. It makes it so that the player only loses the vehicle if he is exceptionally careless. In exchange for moving flat-out, he gets a cover save and can't shoot. It is a classic trade-off.

The very point is that the RAI (possibly) appears to be that a flat-out moving vehicle destroyed crashes and burns with no survivors. As that is not the result of the application of RAW, the "golden rule" may be raised in a bid for cinematics, to produce the intended results despite the written rules, no matter how clear or unambigious they are, because, as by the golden rules, those rules (even the completely unambiguous ones) are mere guidelines to help you create a table-top representation of an unfolding battle. They are not designed or intended for the arbitration of disputes or differences of opinion (for those, the rule book recommends a die-roll instead).

Sure, if you want to create a cinemetic narrative scenario, go all MI rule all you want. If, instead, you want to be able to play a game with someone from any part of the world, using the same ruleset and be fairly sure that you are playing by the same rules, go by the rules in the book. If there is a dispute, then you roll off. Why roll off if there is no dispute?

pretre wrote:
Sure, if you want to create a cinemetic narrative scenario, go all MI rule all you want. If, instead, you want to be able to play a game with someone from any part of the world, using the same ruleset and be fairly sure that you are playing by the same rules, go by the rules in the book. If there is a dispute, then you roll off. Why roll off if there is no dispute?

There is a dispute the very moment one players raises the (possible) conflict of RAI with RAW. As by the book and MI, rules are not used to settle disputes. Dice-rolls are.

Or, in short, proper gameplay using "the most important rule"

Step 1: We play the game RAW. As long as noone disagrees, no problem.
Step 2: One player makes a case that RAI might not be reflected by the RAW. This opens two options.

Step 2a: Both players agree that RAW do not reflect RAI and agree on a variation to resolve the situation RAI.

Step 2b: Players disagree over RAW and/or RAI. To solve the dispute, a dice is rolled as per the rulebook.

RAW isn't even in the running anymore beyond step 1. Once Step 2 is made, RAW is out. Disputes are either settled by agreement or by dice-roles according to the rulebook and the MI. RAW applies only as long as no controversy is raised.

If you don't like the way 40K has set up the mechanism to resolve disputes, you might want to go play chess instead. It is the very premise of the golden rule: that rules are not sacrosanct, and thus not an arbitration of disputes.

Zweischneid wrote:Step 1: We play the game RAW. As long as noone disagrees, no problem.
Step 2: One player makes a case that RAI might not be reflected by the RAW. This opens two options.
Step 2a: Both players agree that RAW do not reflect RAI and agree on a variation to resolve the situation RAI.
Step 2b: Players disagree over RAW and/or RAI. To solve the dispute, a dice is rolled as per the rulebook.

RAW isn't even in the running anymore beyond step 1. Once Step 2 is made, RAW is out. Disputes are either settled by agreement or by dice-roles according to the rulebook and the MI. RAW applies only as long as no controversy is raised.

This is wrong.

The Most Important Rule wrote:If a dispute does crop up then work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner. Many players simply like to roll-off and let the dice decide who is right, allowing them to get straight back to blasting each other to pieces. After the game you can happily continue your discussion of the finer points of the rules, or agree how you will both interpret them should the same situation happen again. You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a 'house rule').

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours.

So where in there does it say we have to roll off for a dispute? It says we should 'work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner' and it says what many players do, but it does not instruct us as to how to do so. You saying that the dice-off is the final arbiter is simply incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:If you don't like the way 40K has set up the mechanism to resolve disputes, you might want to go play chess instead. It is the very premise of the golden rule: that rules are not sacrosanct, and thus not an arbitration of disputes.

And if you look at my quote as well, it says that you are free to treat the rules as sacrosanct or not, the choice is up to you. At least read what you're professing first.

It does also say that rules are only sacrosanct "if both players agree" (often also the pre-condition to join tournaments).

If I do not agree to treat them as sacrosanct, they are not.

Playing the game thus with RAW as sacrosanct, is merely one optional variant of playing the game that players can agree to by mutual consent. It is not the default way to play 40K.

Zweischneid wrote:It does also say that rules are only sacrosanct "if both players agree" (often also the pre-condition to join tournaments).

If I do not agree to treat them as sacrosanct, they are not.

But all of this is irrelevant. When people talk about rules on a discussion board, they are looking for the 'RAW answer', so when they go to a place where the rules are adhered to (like a tournament in your example), they will be able to give an answer based on factual information.

Of course, you can always answer every rules question with Most Important Rule, but that gets really tiring and doesn't answer the question. As well, you are free to call anyone who is looking for a RAW answer a 'hard-nosed RAW-junkie' but that is an unfair characterization of someone simply looking for the interpretation that will be most accepted by other people at an event or at a store they are unfamiliar with.

This whole dispute comes back to your unfair characterization of players because they want RAW answers. Retract that and there is no dispute.

pretre wrote:
But all of this is irrelevant. When people talk about rules on a discussion board, they are looking for the 'RAW answer', so when they go to a place where the rules are adhered to (like a tournament in your example), they will be able to give an answer based on factual information.

I am not sure what your beef is?

This is what I did. When someone brought up the "flat-out-transport" issue, I DID point out the RAW answer as this was an internet board. I also added a contextual half-sentence that this RAW might not be the RAI because of the larger theme of this thread as a 6th edition wish-list. Thus, it seemed appropriate to point out that playing more to a (possible) RAI despite the current RAW might already yield the desired effects people in this thread wish for in 6th.

Seeing how you take issue with the very idea of how going against RAW, even in a 6th edition "wish-list-game", proves my characterization of "hard-nosed RAW crowd" quite correct I would say. It is reactions precisely like yours, which did promt my initial "warning" that "some players" would take issue, which has again been proven right.

Zweischneid wrote:I am not sure what your beef is?

My beef is that you were being intentionally dismissive and negative towards anyone who prefers to play by the RAW.

Zweischneid wrote:Well. The hard-nosed RAW-crowd has a habit of arguing that the opponent's shooting turn is not "in the same turn" as stipulated by this FAQ,

The whole quote is filled with negative phrasing and appears meant to disparage the target of the statement.

Seeing how you take issue with the very idea of how going against RAW, even in a 6th edition "wish-list-game", proves my characterization of "hard-nosed RAW crowd" quite correct I would say.

No, I have never taken issue with 'going against RAW'. I have consistently taken issue with you characterizing people who wish to play by the RAW as something less than people who choose to play the way you do. I completely agree with you that you don't need to always play by RAW. I don't agree that you need to look down on people who choose to play that way.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Byte wrote:Bring back Overwatch.

Enable grenades to be thrown again.

Overwatch sounds fun, but would be a bit tricky to introduce. I am sure many will throw fits that they are being shot during their own turn.
should add some more realism in the game (and get those damned DC to GTFO...)

Throwing grenades will be a bit OP though. Just imagine a squad of Assault Marines pepper the guys they are about to charge with some 10 small blasts.

Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Byte wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Byte wrote:Bring back Overwatch.

Enable grenades to be thrown again.

Overwatch sounds fun, but would be a bit tricky to introduce. I am sure many will throw fits that they are being shot during their own turn.
should add some more realism in the game (and get those damned DC to GTFO...)

Throwing grenades will be a bit OP though. Just imagine a squad of Assault Marines pepper the guys they are about to charge with some 10 small blasts.

Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Ok, should be worth a shot.

Imagine nuking a squad with the Doomsday ark just as it exits cover
Oh the rage!

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

pretre wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:I am not sure what your beef is?

My beef is that you were being intentionally dismissive and negative towards anyone who prefers to play by the RAW.

I think you are reading things into this. It was you after all who translated "hard-nosed" with being "a dick".

pretre wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:Well. The hard-nosed RAW-crowd has a habit of arguing that the opponent's shooting turn is not "in the same turn" as stipulated by this FAQ,

The whole quote is filled with negative phrasing and appears meant to disparage the target of the statement.

Zweischneid wrote:What is "negative phrasing" in that quote? The "hard-nosed RAW-crowd does have a habit of arguing this", as you've proved to the point of caricature. Seems fairly factual.

Whatever, Zweischneid. You apparently are completely unable to comprehend that someone could take a statement like that negatively. Simply know that you chose your words poorly.

And again, as I have pointed out, I'm not arguing your RAW point. I'm arguing that your statement made you sound like you are looking down on people who play by RAW. If that was not your intention, then fair enough, sorry to have bothered you. You might want to look into how you say some things and how they make you look though.

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

Games in 2nd really took 8 hours?

I thought the old neck beards were kidding

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

Games in 2nd really took 8 hours?

I thought the old neck beards were kidding

Rogue Trader and 2nd were less of a wargame so much as a cooperative war-role-playing experience. 8 hours is a bit of hyperbole, but not by much.

Some 2nd edition games were really short like if you're playing orks and your opponent pulls out a virus bomb.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

Games in 2nd really took 8 hours?

I thought the old neck beards were kidding

Not at all. The legend grows. The games didnt take that long at all.

Byte wrote:Not at all. The legend grows. The games didnt take that long at all.

The games didn't take 8 hours, but they did take significantly more time (with less points/models) than current games.

1. Vehicles can shoot at more then one target
2. Area Terrain only gives a 5+ instead of 4+
3. Oppenents are able to shoot at my guy that is in a tower...
4. (This is just an ork codex thing) make orks 5 or 4 points...!!!

pretre wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

Games in 2nd really took 8 hours?

I thought the old neck beards were kidding

Rogue Trader and 2nd were less of a wargame so much as a cooperative war-role-playing experience. 8 hours is a bit of hyperbole, but not by much.

Some 2nd edition games were really short like if you're playing orks and your opponent pulls out a virus bomb.

Obviously I agree about RT, but I just can't agree with your statement about 2nd edition. We used to have multi game "black shirt" tourneys at 2000 pts. No big deal.

ParatrooperSimon wrote:1. Vehicles can shoot at more then one target
2. Area Terrain only gives a 5+ instead of 4+
3. Oppenents are able to shoot at my guy that is in a tower...
4. (This is just an ork codex thing) make orks 5 or 4 points...!!!

1. Why would vehicles need to shoot at two targets?
2. I don't agree with it for area terrain. Maybe obscured by other models, but area terrain is supposed to be a place where you hunker down.
3. Your opponent can shoot at your guy in that tower as long as he is visible, that's how TLOS works.
4. The problem with orks is not their cost.

ParatrooperSimon wrote:1. Vehicles can shoot at more then one target
2. Area Terrain only gives a 5+ instead of 4+
3. Oppenents are able to shoot at my guy that is in a tower...
4. (This is just an ork codex thing) make orks 5 or 4 points...!!!

1) Not likely. Superheavies and machine spirit can do that already

3) Elaborate?

4) They are 6 points. That is reasonable.

Byte wrote:Obviously I agree about RT, but I just can't agree with your statement about 2nd edition. We used to have multi game "black shirt" tourneys at 2000 pts. No big deal.

We have a very different experience then. 2nd had multiple tables for everything, wargear cards, complicated statlines and very heroic characters. Things had a tendency to bog down when your vehicle could take hits in specific areas, then flip over, explode and kill a bunch of folks.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Well, it is true that snipers would be way more effective in real life than in the game. But in real war situations, there would be a lot more use of cover, sides would stay entrenched for hours, waiting for the chance to strike, there would be excessive and long artillery barrages, air support, etc. Plus, everybody's generals would stay at the rear, doing what they should be doing, coordinating the battle and not trying to fight it.

But this is a game of Napoleonics in Space, with big fancy heroes with big fancy gear and nobody wants them to all die or be gimped in the first round or two, or worse, have to keep them hidden all the time. I mean, I'm with you. I prefer games of 40K that are decided by the troops and not by the command elements or elites, but that's not really 40K anymore, lol.

Can't say Im too unhappy with 5th ed. Overwatch would be pretty sweet, and cover making BS penalty.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Well, it is true that snipers would be way more effective in real life than in the game. But in real war situations, there would be a lot more use of cover, sides would stay entrenched for hours, waiting for the chance to strike, there would be excessive and long artillery barrages, air support, etc. Plus, everybody's generals would stay at the rear, doing what they should be doing, coordinating the battle and not trying to fight it.

But this is a game of Napoleonics in Space, with big fancy heroes with big fancy gear and nobody wants them to all die or be gimped in the first round or two, or worse, have to keep them hidden all the time. I mean, I'm with you. I prefer games of 40K that are decided by the troops and not by the command elements or elites, but that's not really 40K anymore, lol.

True, but even then, the HQ in the current meta ride around in transports, so target picking won't be that big of a deal.
And even then, it'll train people to start acting strategically and not just rush forward with everything.

However, your statement does put another item on my wishlish

3) More of an emphasis on troops, and not on heroes. This is Warhammer, not warcraft.

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Obviously I agree about RT, but I just can't agree with your statement about 2nd edition. We used to have multi game "black shirt" tourneys at 2000 pts. No big deal.

We have a very different experience then. 2nd had multiple tables for everything, wargear cards, complicated statlines and very heroic characters. Things had a tendency to bog down when your vehicle could take hits in specific areas, then flip over, explode and kill a bunch of folks.

One persons "bogged down" is another person's awesome. You obviously prefer SimpleK, where some people kinda liked the complexity of the older versions. I think 2nd Edition was heavily flawed, but the things you're complaining about were not really among those flaws. The vehicle cards gave the individual vehicles a lot more character. It wasn't like anyone fielded more than a a couple of them at a time in the old days. Their point values were much higher (comparatively) and they were more vulnerable than they are today. My buddy played his I Guard with a Hellhound, and it was just automatically assumed that it was going to die horribly in the 2nd round, lol.

It's really just a question of what you want in a wargame. 40K these days is set up to place a lot of models, roll a lot dice, remove a lot of models, go home. 2nd Edition wasn't like that. There was a lot more emphasis on tactics, movement, cover, etc. You didn't play with nearly as large of armies, with nearly as many vehicles. I won't lie and say 2nd Edition was perfect, because it wasn't. It had balance issues out the wazoo. But the ruleset was pretty sound. I'd say the ideal version of 40K would involve a "halfway" point between the detail of 2nd and the streamlining of 3rd. People who played a lot of 2nd edition fondly remember back when Orks were Orkier and you had to get your opponent's permission to use Special Characters (many tournaments straight up banned them).

How about the following for sniper rifles:

on a to hit roll of 6 with a to wound roll of 4+, the sniper gets to pick the target and unless otherwise stated in the individual model rules, the model allocated the wound has a 5+ roll to potentially avoid the shot and the hit is reassigned to the unit instead (which may be allocated back onto the same guy by the receiving player) Wounds caused this way still retain the rending rule. The unit will still check for pinning as usual even if it was an IC that was removed by the selected shot.

On that point, I think a change to pinning may also be in order as I've almost never seen that thing get used. Maybe instead of unsaved wound to just having the unit be hit to cause a pinning check? Or would that be too much of a change?

I think the wound allocation should change. I like the older edition (i think 3rd) when they say something like: "allocate the wound to anyone in the squad because if the missile launcher guy dies, someone else in the squad will pick it up and keep shooting it." That way when a lascannon turns someone into pink mist, the next lascannon shot will do it to someone else instead of stacking on the same guy. It is silly that I just gave you 4 regular wounds and 2 no-save wounds to your 5 man squad but only 1 guy takes the no-saves because he is holding something stupid like a scanner. I hope that made sense...

sudojoe wrote:How about the following for sniper rifles:

on a to hit roll of 6 with a to wound roll of 4+, the sniper gets to pick the target and unless otherwise stated in the individual model rules, the model allocated the wound has a 5+ roll to potentially avoid the shot and the hit is reassigned to the unit instead (which may be allocated back onto the same guy by the receiving player) Wounds caused this way still retain the rending rule. The unit will still check for pinning as usual even if it was an IC that was removed by the selected shot.

On that point, I think a change to pinning may also be in order as I've almost never seen that thing get used. Maybe instead of unsaved wound to just having the unit be hit to cause a pinning check? Or would that be too much of a change?

Thats a good idea for the sniper rifle. I was thinking of more a "look out sir" rule from WHFB.
Yeah, pinning definitely needs an improvement. It's kinda useless atm, and for it to take effect on a hit would make more sense.
If you watch war films, the soldiers also duck for cover when a sniper's about, even if they didn't take any casualties.

Why are people obsessed with sniper rifles?
Anyway, you should be able to charge after rapid firing; and assault weapons give you +1 attack.

aquilaenet wrote:I think the wound allocation should change. I like the older edition (i think 3rd) when they say something like: "allocate the wound to anyone in the squad because if the missile launcher guy dies, someone else in the squad will pick it up and keep shooting it." That way when a lascannon turns someone into pink mist, the next lascannon shot will do it to someone else instead of stacking on the same guy. It is silly that I just gave you 4 regular wounds and 2 no-save wounds to your 5 man squad but only 1 guy takes the no-saves because he is holding something stupid like a scanner. I hope that made sense...

Wait, you can do that? I thought it was that everyone had to have at least one wound allotted to them before stacking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:Why are people obsessed with sniper rifles?
Anyway, you should be able to charge after rapid firing; and assault weapons give you +1 attack.

Because they have so much potential that is never explored in the game. IRL they are such a instrumental and legendary weapon (see: Stalingrad), yet 40 thousand years in the future, it apparently does nothing except tickle carnifexes.

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

I would disagree, actually. Overwatch, particularly when you had two shooty armies facing each other, tended to result in very static games with both players waiting for the other to make the first move.

And grenades were ridiculous. There was little point in ever using Marines' pistols, as it was far more effective to go lobbing all those blast markers around instead.


Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with Overwatch to an extent, but it shouldn't be an automatic ability. I'd like to see it as something that can be issued as an order, and require a Ld test to actually shoot at the emerging enemy.

Likewise, GW's kneejerk removal of grenades as a weapon went a little too far, IMO. I'd love to see grenades return to actual weapon status, but limited to one per unit each turn rather than allowing everyone to throw them.

insaniak wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

I would disagree, actually. Overwatch, particularly when you had two shooty armies facing each other, tended to result in very static games with both players waiting for the other to make the first move.

And grenades were ridiculous. There was little point in ever using Marines' pistols, as it was far more effective to go lobbing all those blast markers around instead.


Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with Overwatch to an extent, but it shouldn't be an automatic ability. I'd like to see it as something that can be issued as an order, and require a Ld test to actually shoot at the emerging enemy.

Likewise, GW's kneejerk removal of grenades as a weapon went a little too far, IMO. I'd love to see grenades return to actual weapon status, but limited to one per unit each turn rather than allowing everyone to throw them.

Great points and agree!

I think 2nd was too detailed. Part of the appeal of SimpleK as you call it is that it is fairly east to learn and can be played in a reasonable amount of time. I enjoy the current level of complexity and think that the move to third was a good one. Since then the game has just gotten better.

And to the "warhammer not warcraft" guy, 40k has always been about OTT action and big damn heroes.

If they want to tone down the Herohammer factor, all they need to do is fix wound allocation and tone down the use of 3++ saves in codices (via errata). You’d see less deathstar units on the table if this was done.

I think snipers would help take away hero hammer. Oh, did my 50pts of ratlings just kill your 200pt hero. Guess they did their job. Hate herohammer in 40k.

>Bring back the old armory style. I really miss veteran sergeants with weird options.
>One or two hero's per codex only please. A good armory system will help with this.
>Lets find a happy medium between the fifth edition damage tables and the fourth edition damage tables for vehicles. Please.
>Running is good, so lets see a bit more of a bonus for units that have fleet of foot. That was a HUGE bonus to a unit back in 4th.
>Please don't tinker with shooting and close combat overly much. Its working, there aren't many problems, don't tinker with it.
>Except for true line of sight.

I'd like to see Deep Striking made more worthwhile - make it only 1 D6 scatter for everyone that can deep strike and give any unit arriving by deep strike a cover save. When I say cover save, I am also of the opinion that cover saves should be to hit modifiers. Don't know what this would mean for Descent of Angels but I'm sure GW could think of some way to enhance it for BA. Maybe allow more of their units to assault in lieu of shooting on the turn they arrive.

Something else I was also thinking to try to help shooting balance out a bit more would be to weaken power weapons a bit - like make power weapons rend on a 4+ instead of just negate all armour. I don't mean add an extra D3 against vehicles - it would only do that where the rules state it does. I also realise that this could have a knock on effect for things like Thunder Hammers - should they still be Initiative 1 or change it to 4? Or could you allow them to re-roll missed hits? Then you'd have to think about other things like a Vulkan list as it would lessen the impact he has on thunder hammers but I don't think GW thinks so far ahead tbh.

If this were to be implemented then I would change force weapons to all unsaved wounds cause a second wound. This wouldn't have much effect against most models but those with more than 2 wounds would feel it more. I've just been thinking about this today and it's more of an attempt to balance out shooting and CC but by making CC less of a 'this is how to win' button rather than increasing the effectiveness of shooting which could only really be achieved by making more ranged weaponry AP3/AP2/AP1. And those changes would benefit marines way more anyway so I think weakening CC a little is the way forward (Tau need to have improved shooting whatever happens though) but this also brings me onto...

...Fleet of Foot. I'd kind of combine it with Furious Charge. Basically, have two levels of FC. FC on it's own should just give +1 I. Models with fleet should be able to run in the shooting phase and then benefit from +1 I and +1 S if they assault right after.

ColdSadHungry wrote:

Something else I was also thinking to try to help shooting balance out a bit more would be to weaken power weapons a bit - like make power weapons rend on a 4+ instead of just negate all armour. I don't mean add an extra D3 against vehicles - it would only do that where the rules state it does. I also realise that this could have a knock on effect for things like Thunder Hammers - should they still be Initiative 1 or change it to 4? Or could you allow them to re-roll missed hits? Then you'd have to think about other things like a Vulkan list as it would lessen the impact he has on thunder hammers but I don't think GW thinks so far ahead tbh.

If this were to be implemented then I would change force weapons to all unsaved wounds cause a second wound. This wouldn't have much effect against most models but those with more than 2 wounds would feel it more. I've just been thinking about this today and it's more of an attempt to balance out shooting and CC but by making CC less of a 'this is how to win' button rather than increasing the effectiveness of shooting which could only really be achieved by making more ranged weaponry AP3/AP2/AP1. And those changes would benefit marines way more anyway so I think weakening CC a little is the way forward (Tau need to have improved shooting whatever happens though) but this also brings me onto...

Some interesting points in here, but the PWs are what I'd like to focus on, or rather assaults like you have. I am not sure if rending is the way to go with PWs, rather if we gave any weapon with the 'chain' keyword rending (on a 6 of course), but power weapons were designed to use the electrical fields to sort of bypass armor. I think that GW went with lower initiative on PFs and THs, because they boost the strength of the user so much, and to have a thunderhammer boosted up to the users natural I would be OP i think.

If we were to alter how power weapons worked, to balance shooting out with assault, I think they would "need" to alter the standard Ork boy, to keep them being monsters in CC, and the same with Tyranid Gaunts, or any other unit that has no shooting attack (minus Greater Daemons)

But back to the chainswords, I think that obviously tactical marines shouldn't get them (except for SW grey hunters of course), and any unit that has them would get probably a 1 point increase in cost, but at the same time, the effectiveness of the chainsword in the fluff does not match its abilities on TT.

Love the idea of grenades, pref vortex ones.

ColdSadHungry wrote:I'd like to see Deep Striking made more worthwhile - make it only 1 D6 scatter for everyone that can deep strike and give any unit arriving by deep strike a cover save.

Deep Strike is already really good with many units have nigh immunity to DS issues. This would make way too many things ridiculously broken. There's no reason units should be able to arrive wherever they want on the field with even less chance of mishap and a cover save or to-hit modifier to boot.

dæl wrote:Love the idea of grenades, pref vortex ones.

Grenades in 2nd made getting to close to Tac SM scary. x2 str for distance(if I recall correctly).

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Because they have so much potential that is never explored in the game. IRL they are such a[sic] instrumental and legendary weapon (see: Stalingrad), yet 40 thousand years in the future, it apparently does nothing except tickle carnifexes.

instrumental and legendary? No they're just featured a lot in films.
40k would be just fine without them, but as it is the rending rule suits them well.
Maybe it's a pyscology thing. The lone elite huntsman probably has a large appeal to the average 14 year old who plays 40k these days.

Vaktathi wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:I'd like to see Deep Striking made more worthwhile - make it only 1 D6 scatter for everyone that can deep strike and give any unit arriving by deep strike a cover save.

Deep Strike is already really good with many units have nigh immunity to DS issues. This would make way too many things ridiculously broken. There's no reason units should be able to arrive wherever they want on the field with even less chance of mishap and a cover save or to-hit modifier to boot.

I don't know about that - I play DW and GK which can both deep strike a lot of units and simply don't deep strike at all because of bad experiences doing it. Plus we're talking about major rules changes so GW could easily cut down on the number of units that can deep strike or add in different rules to restrict when it can be done. It's just that actually doing it is so risky it's hardly worthwhile and I'd like to have the option to do it more which I would do if it offered me something more than it currently does. Obviously there's a lot of drop pods that can deep strike in more easily and that would have to be taken into consideration but simply bringing in units on their own via deep strike is too risky to make it viable imo.

Joey wrote:
Maybe it's a pyscology thing. The lone elite huntsman probably has a large appeal to the average 14 year old who plays 40k these days.

They certainly still appeal to me, and I'm 23. While a group of guys wielding shotguns while riding around in an APC is crazy awesome, a group of guys sporting high powered rifles off in the distance is cool too.

Me thinks you botched that quote there.
I was thinking, "when did I type that?! Was I drunk at the keyboard again?"

Edit: Nevermind, got fixed.

One thing I woud like to see changed is the Almighty, Powerfull Space Marines not hide and cower in vehicles and only come out on the last turn, or even worse, stay in their vehicles to claim objectives.

I say to claim an objective you can't be in a vehicle but have actual troops within 3" of the objective.

ColdSadHungry wrote:
I don't know about that - I play DW and GK which can both deep strike a lot of units and simply don't deep strike at all because of bad experiences doing it.

Deep Strike is generally only risky if you're trying to drop extremely close to the target. I can count on one hand the number of time I've suffered a mishap. There's plenty of wargear in this game that negates or reduces Deep Strike scatter or mishaps (teleport homers, chaos icons, drop pods, mycetic spores, etc). Being able to appear anywhere on the board without the enemy able to do a thing about it is very powerful and doesn't need to be any safer. My CSM's rely heavily on deep striking terminators and obliterators to succeed, of my 2000pt list, 900-1000somethig pts of my army is deep striking. I never really have significant issues with Deep Strike and mishaps.

Plus we're talking about major rules changes so GW could easily cut down on the number of units that can deep strike or add in different rules to restrict when it can be done.

that'd be talking about codex re-design which is a bit different, and would mean many units lose their valuable ability to DS.

It's just that actually doing it is so risky it's hardly worthwhile and I'd like to have the option to do it more which I would do if it offered me something more than it currently does.

It's only really risky if you're trying to drop super close to them. Unless you *need* to be within 6" of an enemy unit, there's very little chance of a mishap, and even if you do, chances are 50/50 you'll either hit or only scatter a little distance and on top of that you'll likely not scatter towards the enemy unless you're trying to drop right amongst a huge group of them.

Obviously there's a lot of drop pods that can deep strike in more easily and that would have to be taken into consideration but simply bringing in units on their own via deep strike is too risky to make it viable imo.

I do it all the time, and again, can count the number of mishaps I've ever had on one hand. As is, DS is plenty safe as long as you aren't trying to fit a squad of 40mm base dudes into a tiny gap in the enemy lines.

I'd like to see GW attempt to make balanced armies so when 6th comes out a series of proper errata/FAQs are released to not only make most units playable but to correct oversights/overpowered rules. Following this release new errata/FAQs when needed as new dexes are released or its discovered a rule/unit is broken (either way). I don't expect a perfect game - just a reasonable attempt would go a long way to making the game more enjoyable for so many players and keep their armies/units useable. (And having a decent army will not stop most players I n]know from building new armies so GW still gets money).

I don't care, as long as the rulebook doesn't go up in price.

I had an idea for sniper rifles. You can fire at a squad for normal bs, but firing at separate units suffers a reduction to the unit's BS, because is it easier to shoot at a group of people, or to single out one target and kill him specifically?

moom241 wrote:I had an idea for sniper rifles. You can fire at a squad for normal bs, but firing at separate units suffers a reduction to the unit's BS, because is it easier to shoot at a group of people, or to single out one target and kill him specifically?

"Realistically" (as if that is an option in 40k) a sniper would still be shooting a single guy, not a nebulous blob of dudes.

Brother SRM wrote:

moom241 wrote:I had an idea for sniper rifles. You can fire at a squad for normal bs, but firing at separate units suffers a reduction to the unit's BS, because is it easier to shoot at a group of people, or to single out one target and kill him specifically?

"Realistically" (as if that is an option in 40k) a sniper would still be shooting a single guy, not a nebulous blob of dudes.

Not to mention that snipers typically don't operate as entire squads

Aren't there sniper teams IRL?
I know they do tend to act solo, but don't they also band together to lay traps and crossfires and so on?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Aren't there sniper teams IRL?
I know they do tend to act solo, but don't they also band together to lay traps and crossfires and so on?

Usually they operate as a 2 man gunner/spotter team, sometimes with multiple teams in an area, but not anything like 40k's sniper units where it's basically infantry squads that swapped their assault rifles for sniper rifles.

Vaktathi wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Aren't there sniper teams IRL?
I know they do tend to act solo, but don't they also band together to lay traps and crossfires and so on?

Usually they operate as a 2 man gunner/spotter team, sometimes with multiple teams in an area, but not anything like 40k's sniper units where it's basically infantry squads that swapped their assault rifles for sniper rifles.

I believe that Elysians have hunter/killer sniper teams like the ones that exist in real life.

Allow the attacker to allocate wounds. However, whenever a (Non-character) model is removed as a casualty, on a 2+ the controller may remove a model of their choice, regardless of the number of wounds that model has left. This is done after all saves have been taken, and should prevent meltas from being stacked on one guy in a diverse squad, but prevent sniping.

Note: If the model that is "saved" suffers any other wounds, these wounds are kept.

Vaktathi wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:
I don't know about that - I play DW and GK which can both deep strike a lot of units and simply don't deep strike at all because of bad experiences doing it.

Deep Strike is generally only risky if you're trying to drop extremely close to the target. I can count on one hand the number of time I've suffered a mishap. There's plenty of wargear in this game that negates or reduces Deep Strike scatter or mishaps (teleport homers, chaos icons, drop pods, mycetic spores, etc). Being able to appear anywhere on the board without the enemy able to do a thing about it is very powerful and doesn't need to be any safer. My CSM's rely heavily on deep striking terminators and obliterators to succeed, of my 2000pt list, 900-1000somethig pts of my army is deep striking. I never really have significant issues with Deep Strike and mishaps.

Plus we're talking about major rules changes so GW could easily cut down on the number of units that can deep strike or add in different rules to restrict when it can be done.

that'd be talking about codex re-design which is a bit different, and would mean many units lose their valuable ability to DS.

It's just that actually doing it is so risky it's hardly worthwhile and I'd like to have the option to do it more which I would do if it offered me something more than it currently does.

It's only really risky if you're trying to drop super close to them. Unless you *need* to be within 6" of an enemy unit, there's very little chance of a mishap, and even if you do, chances are 50/50 you'll either hit or only scatter a little distance and on top of that you'll likely not scatter towards the enemy unless you're trying to drop right amongst a huge group of them.

Obviously there's a lot of drop pods that can deep strike in more easily and that would have to be taken into consideration but simply bringing in units on their own via deep strike is too risky to make it viable imo.

I do it all the time, and again, can count the number of mishaps I've ever had on one hand. As is, DS is plenty safe as long as you aren't trying to fit a squad of 40mm base dudes into a tiny gap in the enemy lines.

I guess it just goes to show how one person's experiences being vastly different to another's can make you wish for different kinds of changes. I play a lot against BA and see them dropping down safely close to me all the time whereas whenever I've tried it, it's not worked out for me. I hear what you say though - I'd just like to see deep striking safer for me which isn't necessarily going to be a good change for the game as a whole. What I would stand by though is a deep striking cover save because it makes more sense to me that suddenly and quickly having to change target to a unit that's just arrived out of nowhere wouldn't be as easy to hit as one that you've watched coming towards you.

I had meant they were firing at a group, not that they were in a group. Maybe I should have said "Shooting a single model, instead of the squad of models," And I never said realistic about anything.