Let’s say the 40k ruleset was to be rebooted/rewritten, with YOU being the primary person in change. You are allowed to re-write any aspect of the rules, codices, supplements or errata as you are the big kahuna in the hot seat.
What would you change?
(Note: this is supposed to be a casual thread with no right or wrong answer so remember Dakka rule 1 when posting)
This is what I would do:
1. Split competitive and narrative based gameplay into two distinct rulebooks. One designed for tournament gameplay in mind (with very tight, clearly defined rules for deployment/placing, wound allocation etc). The other rulebook would be similar to 2nd edition and be specifically designed for fluff/narrative based gameplay in mind (less balance but more flexibility and craziness). Codices would be compatible with both version of the rules (although supplements would only be compatible with the narrative ruleset)
2. Reduce the emphasis on APCs. Gameplay would be balanced around troops in mind and the physical amount of APCs a player can take in any list is capped.
3. Rework pt costing and rules mechanics to allow 40k to scale better at lower pts levels.
I especially agree with point 3. Some good skirmish rules with just a couple of models would be nice.
Generally I just want it to be less random. There are too many important results based on a single dice roll. Maybe it would help if it was wrapped in a fun narrative package.
The line of sight and cover save rules feels very strange. A true line of sight in a game where everything else is abstractly represented seems wrong.
4. Change the rules to sweeping advance. Its just silly now.
A single basic infantry model should not have the chance to kill an entire enemy squad by himself in 1 turn of CC
Space Marines would cost twice as many points, but for that a basic marine would have a 2+/5++ save, 2 wounds and all the stats that are 4 now would be 5. Termies would be 2++.Bolters would be assault 3.
Ork boys would have a 5++ save and the old "Without number" rule would be brought back.No change in points cost. They would have counter attack in addition to furious charge, and THEY WOULD FETHING STACK!
Eldar would have BS 5 and the ability to disembark from a transport, shoot then re-embark in the assault phase. Slight points uptick.
Chaos Space Marines, Daemons and Mutants/Traitors would be in the same book. Daemon summoning would be like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
15MM miniatures would be used, but the same movement distances, weapon ranges and blast template sizes would apply.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:4. Change the rules to sweeping advance. Its just silly now.
A single basic infantry model should not have the chance to kill an entire enemy squad by himself in 1 turn of CC
Agreed. Or 1 surviving tyrranid sweeping advancing 2 separate squads of boys...
No Retreat! Should not cause automatic wounds. Such a thing doesn't even make sense. It should grant extra attacks equal to combat resolution instead of automatic wounds, such a thing is abusive towards high WS, high toughness, low armour save models and is only designed to abuse Ork players.
I also do not like the fact that you can assault immediately after Regrouping after a failed leadership test. When combined with ATSKNF and Combat Tactics this rule can be abused to allow any Marine Squad to turn around a failed combat. How? By running away? That's just ridiculous.
fire warrior costing 5 points extra but BS is 4 not 3
markerlight has the ability to negate line of sight in the form of you dont see rhino cause of smoke markerlight then lights it up you should be able to spot it through your scope and tau are rather weak so mora dakka so we dont get killed so easily cause we cant get them killed before they get in cc
candy.man wrote:2. Reduce the emphasis on APCs. Gameplay would be balanced around troops in mind and the physical amount of APCs a player can take in any list is capped.
Futuristic battles should not be fought man to man, rather Tank to tank.
Not sure where I have heard that before, but futuristic warriors would rarely be engaged in Hand to Hand combat.
Pssh what's with all these small scale changes? I'd do a total grounds up rule rewrite. No more of this 25 year old statline with WS, BS, etc. ported over from Warhammer. A sci-fi game shouldn't have half the stats be for melee. I'd like all the army lists to be in a single book with a "fluff" codex version available with tons of background and the like. I honestly don't know why GW can't release codexes at the same time (besides financial motivation). But yeah, grand sweeping changes would be my vote.
bosky wrote:Pssh what's with all these small scale changes? I'd do a total grounds up rule rewrite. No more of this 25 year old statline with WS, BS, etc. ported over from Warhammer. A sci-fi game shouldn't have half the stats be for melee. I'd like all the army lists to be in a single book with a "fluff" codex version available with tons of background and the like. I honestly don't know why GW can't release codexes at the same time (besides financial motivation). But yeah, grand sweeping changes would be my vote.
Notably, you don't go into the details on any of these changes. Such a rewrite would require a total overhaul of all of the codeces, the entire thinking and philosophy behind the book, and would require an inordinate amount of theorycrafting and playtesting. Not to mention, it's totally unnecessary. This is probably why you haven't gone into the details of this sweeping overhaul you've proposed. Are you even sure you'd be willing to go through the trouble even if given the opportunity?
I wouldn't change a whole lot really. I like the game but there are some big things that bug me. Feel No Pain shouldn't be so abundant. I'd make it a bit more scarce. Also, I'd make assaulting and melee combat much less important in the game. It's the future and everyone still fights like it's 1193. Kinda kills the sci-fi aspect somewhat. I wouldn't get rid of it, of course, but I'd try to put a bit more emphasis on shooting. 5th edition is all about melee.
Other than that, I'd get rid of ridiculously overpowered characters like Mephiston. No model on a small base should have Monstrous Creature stats. (I may have just opened a can of worms there). I don't enjoy fighting against one man squads that can smash through an entire army. Just not fun at all.
First and foremost, get rid of KP's as a victory condition. Stupid victory mechanic, was never intended as a balance mechanic the way some make it out to be, and leads to super wonky game results.
Second, make defensive weapons S6 again.
Make vehicles hit on rear armor only after 1st round of combat, initial round hits normal facing (no, that ork screaming up on his warbike with a powerklaw probably isn't trying to attack through a vision slit, he's grabbing a chunk of whatever he narrowly avoids hitting and pulling)
Change no-retreat so that it only applies to how much each unit lost in combat, not how much all units lost by (e.g. if a carnifex and gaunts are in the same combat, carnifex kills 2 enemies and takes no wounds, but the gaunts lose 12 dudes, only the gaunts take the 12 no-retreat wounds). Also likely reducing No-Retreat wounds by the number you outnumber and opponent by to a minimum of 1 (e.g. orks lose 8 dudes, inflict 3, lose by 5 but still outnumber by 3, take 2 no-retreat wounds, not 5).
Give infantry the ability to interact with the board like they can in other wargames, such as Flames of War dig in mechanic (spend a turn not moving/shooting, make it so that enemies have to hit you with weapons powerful enough to blast through cover and have a harder time hitting you). E.g. spend a turn not doing anyting, enemies are at -1 to hit you and you get a 5+ cover save or +1 to whatever cover save you do have, if you go to ground in response to shooting becomes +2 to cover.
warpcrafter wrote:
Ork boys would have a 5++ save and the old "Without number" rule would be brought back.No change in points cost. They would have counter attack in addition to furious charge, and THEY WOULD FETHING STACK!
Vaktathi wrote:
First and foremost, get rid of KP's as a victory condition. Stupid victory mechanic, was never intended as a balance mechanic the way some make it out to be, and leads to super wonky game results.
Second, make defensive weapons S6 again.
Make vehicles hit on rear armor only after 1st round of combat, initial round hits normal facing (no, that ork screaming up on his warbike with a powerklaw probably isn't trying to attack through a vision slit, he's grabbing a chunk of whatever he narrowly avoids hitting and pulling)
.
I agree with the first completely.
I think defensive weapons need to be upped in strength, but may not all the way to 6.
I hate the new rules that you always strike rear armor when you assault, though the thing is that after the first assault, most units can maneuver around to the rear of the vehicle anyways.
bmoleski wrote:I wouldn't change a whole lot really. I like the game but there are some big things that bug me. Feel No Pain shouldn't be so abundant. I'd make it a bit more scarce. Also, I'd make assaulting and melee combat much less important in the game. It's the future and everyone still fights like it's 1193. Kinda kills the sci-fi aspect somewhat. I wouldn't get rid of it, of course, but I'd try to put a bit more emphasis on shooting. 5th edition is all about melee.
Other than that, I'd get rid of ridiculously overpowered characters like Mephiston. No model on a small base should have Monstrous Creature stats. (I may have just opened a can of worms there). I don't enjoy fighting against one man squads that can smash through an entire army. Just not fun at all.
Lastly, I'd make tanks/vehicles cost more.
Reduce melee? Have you ever watched a futuristic movie? Starwars, starship troopers,etc? They are melee based!!!! Light sabres battling talon weilding monsters!
Sorry but you areso wrong here. This game is sci fi no question about it
Vader could take on an army no problem. There are sci fi characters with amazing abilities so mephiston isnt all that out of character
warpcrafter wrote:Space Marines would cost twice as many points, but for that a basic marine would have a 2+/5++ save, 2 wounds and all the stats that are 4 now would be 5. Termies would be 2++.Bolters would be assault 3.
Ork boys would have a 5++ save and the old "Without number" rule would be brought back.No change in points cost. They would have counter attack in addition to furious charge, and THEY WOULD FETHING STACK!
Eldar would have BS 5 and the ability to disembark from a transport, shoot then re-embark in the assault phase. Slight points uptick.
Chaos Space Marines, Daemons and Mutants/Traitors would be in the same book. Daemon summoning would be like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
15MM miniatures would be used, but the same movement distances, weapon ranges and blast template sizes would apply.
Add a 7+ result to the vehicle damage table:
Vehicle Annihilated: As vehicle explodes result but models within 6" suffer a S4 hit, and if the vehicle was transporting anything the embarked unit is instantly destroyed.
Change the WS "to hit chart" to be more like the "to wound chart".
Maby not forcing units to hit on a +6 but atleast make it so a WS 7/8 or hit a WS 1-3 on a +2.
Maby giving MC a bonus for hitting infantry but in return also become easier to hit.
And maby also give diffrent weapons +/- on the WS chart.
skycapt44 wrote:
Reduce melee? Have you ever watched a futuristic movie? Starwars, starship troopers,etc? They are melee based!!!! Light sabres battling talon weilding monsters!
Sorry but you areso wrong here. This game is sci fi no question about it
Vader could take on an army no problem. There are sci fi characters with amazing abilities so mephiston isnt all that out of character
Of course once the storm troopers turned their weapons on the jedi it was instantly adios jedi.
Star ship troopers didn't have humans in HTH (either the movie or the book). They died in HTH. Same for aliens.
skycapt44 wrote:
Reduce melee? Have you ever watched a futuristic movie? Starwars, starship troopers,etc? They are melee based!!!! Light sabres battling talon weilding monsters!
If one remembers in Starship Troopers they killed ridiculous numbers of elephant sized killing machines with tac-nukes, airstrikes, and rifle fire.
When defending the outpost on P the bugs had to climb atop of mountain of dead against a relatively lightly equipped, lightly supplied, and unsupported infantry platoon to get at them, losing hundreds of truck sized bugs in the process and having to bring in gigantic bugs that burrowed underground to burn the defending infantry out along with lots of flyers and the like. So yeah, there was melee combat. The melee guys needed a ridiculous numerical and physical advantage and then also attacked from multiple vectors to overrun a relatively measly infantry platoon.
Likewise, in Star Wars, almost everything is shooting. The Jedi are very rare and one will notice it's dudes with guns that destroy them.
Vader could take on an army no problem.
Hrm, there's nothing to suggest that, he never really fought anyone outside of what amounted to duels in any of the movies (my knowledge of anything outside of that is limited however), and one will notice when the Republic turns on the Jedi, they get gunned down by stormtroopers who don't actually take all that many casualties for it. The Jedi may take on opponents at a numerical disadvantage, but they aren't that hard to swamp with a relatively small numbers advantage as shown in the movies, and die just fine to gunfire.
The WS chart needs to be redone for sure, you shouldn't have to have twice plus 1 to hit on fives, A space marine always hits on 4+ unless they are attacking an Avatar, This seems wrong to me. It would be nice to have units that are made for shooting be good at shooting. Scouts with sniper rifles being BS 3, is just plain stupid.
I would also like to see the rules for buildings gone a way with. If i am pushing the lines, the last thing i want to see is people running into a building and sitting there. Also the assault rules being changed would be nice,
Heavy weapons and fire and assault, you can double tap with rapid fire and assault, So it would be heavy can move and assault, or fire and assault. Rapid fire can move fire and assault. There isn't a point in being able to shoot more and not be able to assault, it doesn't make sense to me. I run up, unloading a clip into a squad, but i can't keep running in and hit you with the gun? but i can run up, shoot a pistol or a melta gun, and then hit you with it? doesn't make much sense. Maybe make it so if you rapid fire you can't claim the extra attack for 2 weapons.
And i would like to see some points changes, and a Wargear section. Having my Hq limited to only being able to take 4 things (chaos lord) is boring and makes people run the same damn thing. Also i want allies back. Chaos being able to take daemons, marines being able to take wolves.
And of course the base missions, Its either take objectives or Kill points. There isn't any thing else. Maybe something a little better, maybe like a king of the hill type mission. AND GET RID OF DAWN OF WAR, maybe if that is in all caps a GW test player will troll this web site and see that. Dawn of war is the dumbest thing ever.
Reduce melee? Have you ever watched a futuristic movie? Starwars, starship troopers,etc? They are melee based!!!! Light sabres battling talon weilding monsters!
Sorry but you areso wrong here. This game is sci fi no question about it
I'm wrong because I have an opinion? The OP asked what we each individually would change, and I answered. How does that make me wrong?
skycapt44 wrote:
Reduce melee? Have you ever watched a futuristic movie? Starwars, starship troopers,etc? They are melee based!!!! Light sabres battling talon weilding monsters!
Sorry but you areso wrong here. This game is sci fi no question about it
Vader could take on an army no problem. There are sci fi characters with amazing abilities so mephiston isnt all that out of character
Of course once the storm troopers turned their weapons on the jedi it was instantly adios jedi.
Star ship troopers didn't have humans in HTH (either the movie or the book). They died in HTH. Same for aliens.
A couple things.
One, have you ever read Dune?
For a refresher:
By the way, Dune is one of the greatest sci-fi novels in history. In it, most individuals are equipped with personal force fields. These force fields react violently with the standard small arm, a lasgun, in such a way that it is considered virtually unusable. As a result, close combat...including knives, takes the stage as the premier combat weapon and mastery of it is the mark of the warrior. See Duncan Idaho.
That, aside from the fact that in Star Wars canon, Jedi have been known to deflect blaster shots using their lightsabers....this is fundamental to Star Wars lore. The first introduction of Luke Skywalker to the force, in fact, is on the Millenium Falcon, where Obi Wan Kenobi demonstrates how to use the force to deflect blaster shots with a lightsaber. In fact, in the original trilogy most recently released, Jedi are shown deflecting a multitude of blaster shots, spinning and jumping acrobatically before severing scores of their opponents in close combat.
The fact of the matter is that science fiction affords writers an opportunity to change the rules of combat to suit a particular fantasy. In the case of Dune, it's though personal force fields. In the case of Star Wars, it's through the Force. In 40k, well, power weapons and power armor make small arms and armor obsolete, respectively. If a man was equipped with armor substantial enough to rival a tank, as is the case in 40k, it would be conceivable, however unlikely, that he would arrive at the front lines of his opponent with his lightning claws to carve them to pieces bit by bit.
Apart from that it is worthy of mention that Warhammer attracts aspects of fantasy to their fiction. It might be apt to describe 40k as "sci-fi fantasy." In fantasy, well, sometimes the rules of common sense don't always have to apply.
But that aside, if you rewrote the BRB you could write it however you want, with whatever rules that you want. You should take ownership of your new text. If you want more shooting, there could be more shooting.
skycapt44 wrote: Reduce melee? Have you ever watched a futuristic movie? Starwars, starship troopers,etc? They are melee based!!!! Light sabres battling talon weilding monsters!
If one remembers in Starship Troopers they killed ridiculous numbers of elephant sized killing machines with tac-nukes, airstrikes, and rifle fire.
When defending the outpost on P the bugs had to climb atop of mountain of dead against a relatively lightly equipped, lightly supplied, and unsupported infantry platoon to get at them, losing hundreds of truck sized bugs in the process and having to bring in gigantic bugs that burrowed underground to burn the defending infantry out along with lots of flyers and the like. So yeah, there was melee combat. The melee guys needed a ridiculous numerical and physical advantage and then also attacked from multiple vectors to overrun a relatively measly infantry platoon.
Likewise, in Star Wars, almost everything is shooting. The Jedi are very rare and one will notice it's dudes with guns that destroy them.
Vader could take on an army no problem.
Hrm, there's nothing to suggest that, he never really fought anyone outside of what amounted to duels in any of the movies (my knowledge of anything outside of that is limited however), and one will notice when the Republic turns on the Jedi, they get gunned down by stormtroopers who don't actually take all that many casualties for it. The Jedi may take on opponents at a numerical disadvantage, but they aren't that hard to swamp with a relatively small numbers advantage as shown in the movies, and die just fine to gunfire.
True Jedi die to gunfire...lots of it in fact. But who ends up winning the war...The guy with a sword made of light. Vader could choke out a trygon or simply grab a rock and crush it. Hell, Luke took out a damn Rancor in Melee. It is a key part of sci fi not to be lost. Where would be right now if ewoks fought with lasers? The is something epic about staring down your enemy up close and personal.
My point is Melee is a large part of science fiction and is evident in virtually every science fiction base. To drop it or make it less important does not make sense.
By the way, Dune is one of the greatest sci-fi novels in history. In it, most individuals are equipped with personal force fields. These force fields react violently with the standard small arm, a lasgun, in such a way that it is considered virtually unusable. As a result, close combat...including knives, takes the stage as the premier combat weapon and mastery of it is the mark of the warrior. See Duncan Idaho.
One will notice that in Dune many military forces are highly restricted in what weapons/forces they can have, and was always more about politics and intrigue than about the warfare. If you look at the prequel books written by Herbert's son and Anderson, they are *way* more techie than the original books.
And close combat isn't always premier, it just happens to feature a lot.
That, aside from the fact that in Star Wars canon, Jedi have been known to deflect blaster shots using their lightsabers....this is fundamental to Star Wars lore.
Yes, in limited numbers, when they can are aware/can sense they are being shot at. Most Star Wars weapons have relatively low rates of fire compared with modern and 40k weaponry. One also will notice that the Jedi used essentially more typically as commando's and not as line-troops engaging in open battle most of the time, and when they do engage in the latter, there's huge numbers of conventional troops.
The first introduction of Luke Skywalker to the force, in fact, is on the Millenium Falcon, where Obi Wan Kenobi demonstrates how to use the force to deflect blaster shots with a lightsaber. In fact, in the original trilogy most recently released, Jedi are shown deflecting a multitude of blaster shots, spinning and jumping acrobatically before severing scores of their opponents in close combat.
The foes mocked in just about every medium for being unable to hit the broad side of a barn, their inability to hit is ridiculous the the point of being legendary.
skycapt44 wrote: Reduce melee? Have you ever watched a futuristic movie? Starwars, starship troopers,etc? They are melee based!!!! Light sabres battling talon weilding monsters!
Sorry but you areso wrong here. This game is sci fi no question about it
Vader could take on an army no problem. There are sci fi characters with amazing abilities so mephiston isnt all that out of character
Of course once the storm troopers turned their weapons on the jedi it was instantly adios jedi.
Star ship troopers didn't have humans in HTH (either the movie or the book). They died in HTH. Same for aliens.
Actually, I think I recall in the book where the M.I were forced to engage the bugs in HtH due to the cramped conditions in their layer. It didn't really go well; but it still existed, and they did receive training for HtH as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, there's nothing to suggest that, he never really fought anyone outside of what amounted to duels in any of the movies (my knowledge of anything outside of that is limited however), and one will notice when the Republic turns on the Jedi, they get gunned down by stormtroopers who don't actually take all that many casualties for it. The Jedi may take on opponents at a numerical disadvantage, but they aren't that hard to swamp with a relatively small numbers advantage as shown in the movies, and die just fine to gunfire.
You have to remember that the jedis were taken by suprise. When Yoda engaged the clone troopers they were completely massacred.
There's also the battle on that desert planet in ep2 (I forgot the name...the one with bug people), where the jedi landed in force and they were really competent.
....Though on the other hand, they do have the force, which could be seen as a powerful ranged weapon.
I'd change a couple of rules as having helped run a 2nd ed game in my local store at the weekend I realised there are some rules I really missed:
1) Save modifiers - even if you're in power armour an autocannon and stub gun should have different chances of penetrating it.
2) When a vehicle explodes get rid of the stupid S4 AP- D6 hits to the squad. In 2nd ed when I vehicle exploded each model was taking D6 S10 hits with a -3 on the save. Much better considering if you've dealt enough damage to total a vehicle there is alsorts of crazy stuff e.g. reactor power cores that have just exploded in your face so it should probably exploded with more force than a bolt gun (in fact worse due to the AP -)
3) Modify the WS to hit table so that differences in WS make more of a difference (add in 2s and 6s to hit) then drop the sweeping advance rule.
Get rid of the wound allocation rules. I know that the special/sergeant always dying last wasn't great but it is better than the stupid stuff we get now, with pointlessly complicated units and more weapons = less casualties.
You have to remember that the jedis were taken by suprise.
Yes, however also IIRC a fair number of jedi die in Ep2 in the arena thing and can't by any means block every shot.
When Yoda engaged the clone troopers they were completely massacred.
Yoda also was amongst the most powerful of his kind, he killed the only two who were around when they came for him and at basically arms reach and escaped with assistance from Wookies. When he fought them later, they for some reason decided running straight at him with guns at their hips and firing hap-hazardly or not firing at all was a great plan
There's also the battle on that desert planet in ep2 (I forgot the name...the one with bug people), where the jedi landed in force and they were really competent.
Notice they were surrounded and many died and required rescue from via an airborne assault by clone troopers to safely escape, otherwise facing imminent annihilation.
....Though on the other hand, they do have the force, which could be seen as a powerful ranged weapon.
It helps when you can throw large objects at high speed when your mind
I think a good way to balance the reliance on CC, shooty armies (actually any army) should be able to do something like.......if being assaulted, the unit can take a Ld test with a negative modifier and if they pass, they can make a shooting attack against the assaulting unit or something. That sounds a little OP as it is, but with some balancing and playtesting it could become a useful and effecting way to counter a lack of CC prowess.
I'd add in Pinning and Defensive Fire rules, a la Flames of War. I'd also remove TLOS rules and probably take out the Gets Hot! rule, with a corresponding increase in points.
I'd work with the basis that Kill Team is more of the standard size game, with just a couple handfuls of models on each side. That is what combat should be in the future if we leave the armor out of it. Make any sort of vehicle only available at higher points games, with an emphasis on vehicles instead of infantry at higher points. And by higher I mean 1250+ points.
An immediate change to the current rules is makes Morale/Fall Back checks from SHOOTING with the same modifiers as CC. Frankly, it is more terrifying to see guys gunned down around you than have guys die around you in a melee. If there enough combatants in a melee, you might not have any idea you are getting half your squad killed. You WILL notice if they get shot down around you because your dumb ass isn't in cover.
Mattlov wrote:I'd work with the basis that Kill Team is more of the standard size game, with just a couple handfuls of models on each side. That is what combat should be in the future if we leave the armor out of it. Make any sort of vehicle only available at higher points games, with an emphasis on vehicles instead of infantry at higher points. And by higher I mean 1250+ points.
An immediate change to the current rules is makes Morale/Fall Back checks from SHOOTING with the same modifiers as CC. Frankly, it is more terrifying to see guys gunned down around you than have guys die around you in a melee. If there enough combatants in a melee, you might not have any idea you are getting half your squad killed. You WILL notice if they get shot down around you because your dumb ass isn't in cover.
The game needs to get off the close combat streak it is on.
By the way, Dune is one of the greatest sci-fi novels in history. In it, most individuals are equipped with personal force fields. These force fields react violently with the standard small arm, a lasgun, in such a way that it is considered virtually unusable. As a result, close combat...including knives, takes the stage as the premier combat weapon and mastery of it is the mark of the warrior. See Duncan Idaho.
One will notice that in Dune many military forces are highly restricted in what weapons/forces they can have, and was always more about politics and intrigue than about the warfare. If you look at the prequel books written by Herbert's son and Anderson, they are *way* more techie than the original books.
And close combat isn't always premier, it just happens to feature a lot.
If you actually read Dune, the description given is that lasgun fire, when it comes into contact with a personal force field, produces a catastrophic explosion, and military forces are actually restricted in what weapons they can use precisely for that reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_of_the_Dune_universe#Lasgun
This is actually Frank Herbert's canon explanation: "LASGUN: continuous-wave laser projector. Its use as a weapon is limited in a field-generator-shield culture because of the explosive pyrotechnics (technically, subatomic fusion) created when its beam intersects a shield."
Also, the most significant event in Dune, the climax of the book,
Spoiler:
When Paul besieges the Imperial palace to stage a coup against Emperor Padishah, they do so by riding out of the desert on giant sand worms with Fremen, or desert nomads, and they immediately overwhelm their conventionally armed enemies, professional military forces and obviously the military's finest.....Sardaukars. Paul and his desert nomads then proceed to walk into the Emperor of the known universe's throneroom and force him to abdicate, using a combination of knives, sandworms, and psychic powers.
That is to say -- the most significant event in the history of Dune canon, short of the Butlerian Jihad, takes place by means--almost exclusively, of knives and other desert shenanigans.
That, aside from the fact that in Star Wars canon, Jedi have been known to deflect blaster shots using their lightsabers....this is fundamental to Star Wars lore.
Yes, in limited numbers, when they can are aware/can sense they are being shot at. Most Star Wars weapons have relatively low rates of fire compared with modern and 40k weaponry. One also will notice that the Jedi used essentially more typically as commando's and not as line-troops engaging in open battle most of the time, and when they do engage in the latter, there's huge numbers of conventional troops.
In Star Wars canon, Jedi are a dying breed. That doesn't stop them from continually changing the course of battle, and when they do engage in combat, they are typically destructive and unquestionably the best single troop on the battlefield.
***Yea probably before your mother was born. If you’ll recollect: Guy with a lasgun can vaporize everything like a nuke strike. They don’t use them only because they are terrified of them. Maula weaponry is extensively used.
That, aside from the fact that in Star Wars canon, Jedi have been known to deflect blaster shots using their lightsabers.
***And yet they exterminated pretty easily by storm troopers. Note, its not the light saber, its their use of the force, to see ahead in the future to know where those bolts are coming from. Joe six pack couldn’t do it. Side note, I find the Jedi insufferably boring at this point.
Most sci fi combat is not HTH. Only when the odds get ridiculous does that occur, or the hero is trying to sneak up and get a weapon. A few examples:
*War of the Worlds is all about the death rays and poison gas. Pointy sticks need not apply.
*Forbidden Planet. Death rays except for the creature from the id that required power to the X level to survive being disintegrated.
*Flash Gordon (ok good mix there)
*Starship Troopers. The STs never fought in HTH. Everything was with nukes and hand flamers and they would kill thousands without taking a casualty.
*Enders game – space love shooting style
*Battle LA. Dakka Dakka burning love.
*Independence Day. Pardon me while I blow up your city.
*The Day the Earth Stood Still. Gort wasn’t encased in acrylic because he was waving a sword about over his head.
*BSG. More Dakka Dakka, now with Chrome!
*Babylon Five. Very little HTH. Usually more Dakka and the occasional game of lets kill a planet.
*Star Trek. Usually only when boarding parties got into it and that’s Klingons and JemHadar.
*Mote in God’s eye. All weapons.
*FootFall (hard science version of alien attack on Earth) all weapons
Okay, that's a fair point and a pretty heavy list.
Even still, I would like to contest Star Trek if only because it is an excuse to post this:
YEAH. So there.
Anyway, if I could really lay out the case for why we have melee combat in sci-fi, who would do such a thing in a world of high velocity ballistics, well, A) we're doing so in a world with fictional materials so resistive that they are literally on par with tank armor and B) the illustrative "Power Weapon." Two things about those. One, a Power Fist has armor penetrative capabilities that a Lascannon would be envious of, two, Power Armour is capable of resisting all but the most outrageously powerful ballistic weapons in the 40k universe. If you will, it is a fictional world in which knights in shining armor have such extraordinary resistance to ballistic weapons that they are the functional equivalent of medieval knights against bows and arrows. Virtually no small arm in the game can consistently defeat Terminator armor, and even then you get an invulnerable save, which is supposed to represent a force field or something.
If that was the case, you could mount your trusty steed, in this case a Rhino or a Landraider if you are a Termie, delivering you quickly and safely through the fuselage of small arms fire where you can plant a Karate chopping Power Fist in the face of whatever Flak Armour wearing pedestrian had the audacity to fling some of his peashooter bolts at you while you strode in his direction.
This is keeping in mind the fact that the standard armament of a Space Marine is not a bullet but basically a grenade with a ballistic cap, and yet is still completely incapable of dinging power armor.
This is Medieval times in space. This is the beauty of science fiction. You could conceivably have a time in which personal armour advanced to the point where it again surpassed man-portable ballistic technology, as it did around the 14th or 15th century, and thus you would have close combat specialists capable of bashing your head in with a Power Weapon.
That said, I totally respect some people's inclination towards a "shootier" sci-fi experience to distinguish 40k from Fantasy.
1. Rule of Paint: "Grey" unpainted models cost twice their regular cost stated in the Codex.
2. Rule of cinematic modelling: In each unit, one model without a helmet (e.g. Space Marines), a cool scar, or similar make-up ignores all armour-saves in shooting and close combat.
3. Rule of quick-and-dirty-play: If at least one player disagrees with an interpretation of a rule, roll a D6immediately to decide the matter and move on.
My grandfather used to tell stories about soldiers jumping tanks with "grenades" that were basically socks full of black powder in WW2, and actually seriously damaging them. Why would a dedicated anti-tank grenade not damage a tank in close combat? It's not like you use a krak grenade for anything else.
Jidmah wrote:My grandfather used to tell stories about soldiers jumping tanks with "grenades" that were basically socks full of black powder in WW2, and actually seriously damaging them. Why would a dedicated anti-tank grenade not damage a tank in close combat? It's not like you use a krak grenade for anything else.
It's not a "dedicated anti-tank grenade", that would be a melta bomb.
A blob of guardsmen can have 30-40-50 of these grenades. How many battles did your grandfather win when him and his mates simply ran around tanks slapping grenades on their hull?
Maybe krak grenades should just be rarer. Melta bombs definitely need to be upped to +10pts, 5 seems too cheap.
Joey wrote:
A blob of guardsmen can have 30-40-50 of these grenades. How many battles did your grandfather win when him and his mates simply ran around tanks slapping grenades on their hull?
Maybe krak grenades should just be rarer. Melta bombs definitely need to be upped to +10pts, 5 seems too cheap.
Probably less, because in 20th-century warfare, battle-tanks were viciously guarded against these sort of things by.. you guessed it.. infantry (or light APCs/Jeeps; later air-support if you're lucky). And you likely wouldn't even need a grenade against and "unprotected tank". Just hold the business end of an automatic weapon into an air-vent and let it rip. Ricocheting bullets in a confined metal box will take care of the rest rather quickly.
For a fighting force (Space Marines) that is supposed to be so rare in the galaxy that they're almost mythical, there are a lot of space marine armies on the table top. And I think that is the problem with the whole "40k not being sci-fi enough" issue. They are supposed to be the force that can handle anything both at range and in close combat, and with 5th edition's bias toward CC, and the abundance of Space Marine players, CC has become the mainstay even though the fluff and lore isn't so heavy on it. It's just too hard to equate the fluff with the gameplay in a d6 reliant game.
Why all the rage against CC ? I'd rather beat a Fire Warrior with a chunk of rock than sit around looking very menacing while he's taking pot shots at me with his superior ranged weapon. Makes sense.
If the argument is "it's sci-fi therefore sophisticated weaponry and shooting should be emphasized", heck, all the more so. I don't want to be on the receiving end of a railgun or of a Gauss cannon or of a Super Doomy Death Ray of Doom™, thank you very much ; if I have some fellow soldiers who're equipped to tie them up and prevent them from firing at will, not going to protest.
Nah, if I were to do something to improve shooting armies' lot, I'd get rid of that universal 4+ cover save. In game terms it looks much too generous.
Hyd wrote:Why all the rage against CC ? I'd rather beat a Fire Warrior with a chunk of rock than sit around looking very menacing while he's taking pot shots at me with his superior ranged weapon. Makes sense.
If the argument is "it's sci-fi therefore sophisticated weaponry and shooting should be emphasized", heck, all the more so. I don't want to be on the receiving end of a railgun or of a Gauss cannon or of a Super Doomy Death Ray of Doom™, thank you very much ; if I have some fellow soldiers who're equipped to tie them up and prevent them from firing at will, not going to protest.
Nah, if I were to do something to improve shooting armies' lot, I'd get rid of that universal 4+ cover save. In game terms it looks much too generous.
A 4+ cover save is pretty realistic, though, because realistically anyone involved in a firefight would be almost completely concealed to gunfire with the exception of their shoulders. Heads peeking over brick walls and outside windows would be a likely target in 40k.
Hyd wrote:Why all the rage against CC ? I'd rather beat a Fire Warrior with a chunk of rock than sit around looking very menacing while he's taking pot shots at me with his superior ranged weapon. Makes sense.
If the argument is "it's sci-fi therefore sophisticated weaponry and shooting should be emphasized", heck, all the more so. I don't want to be on the receiving end of a railgun or of a Gauss cannon or of a Super Doomy Death Ray of Doom™, thank you very much ; if I have some fellow soldiers who're equipped to tie them up and prevent them from firing at will, not going to protest.
Nah, if I were to do something to improve shooting armies' lot, I'd get rid of that universal 4+ cover save. In game terms it looks much too generous.
A 4+ cover save is pretty realistic, though, because realistically anyone involved in a firefight would be almost completely concealed to gunfire with the exception of their shoulders. Heads peeking over brick walls and outside windows would be a likely target in 40k.
But it's not just brick walls and such. It's shrubs, tin sheeting and a few branches that simply wont stop projectiles more menacing than paintballs, let alone Lascannons and Railguns, that are stopping half your shots.
If it were a 5+ for simply being behind something and a 4+ for being behind something SOLID, things would be much improved.
^The BrB has modifiers for cover saves in there somewhere, can't remember which page (don't have it on me), It's just no-one uses them for some reason. Everytime i bring it up to someone when they start to roll 4+ saves for being behind a barbed-wire fence, they just look at me and say "It's simpler this way." *Sigh* that entry is in there for a reason...
I would end the wound allocation shenanigans. It slows down the game so fricken much if the person that is using it is new to it or if you get an opponent that questions when you do it.
loota boy wrote:^The BrB has modifiers for cover saves in there somewhere, can't remember which page (don't have it on me), It's just no-one uses them for some reason. Everytime i bring it up to someone when they start to roll 4+ saves for being behind a barbed-wire fence, they just look at me and say "It's simpler this way." *Sigh* that entry is in there for a reason...
Not modifiers, no.
But it does have a list of the different types of cover.
Bushes and tall grass, IIRC, give 6+ cover.
Barbed wire gives 5+
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ivangterrace wrote:I would end the wound allocation shenanigans. It slows down the game so fricken much if the person that is using it is new to it or if you get an opponent that questions when you do it.
Yeah, I don't like it either. Too much busy work. I preferred it back in 4ed when it happened only if there are more wounds than models, not if there is more than 1 wound.
loota boy wrote:^The BrB has modifiers for cover saves in there somewhere, can't remember which page (don't have it on me), It's just no-one uses them for some reason. Everytime i bring it up to someone when they start to roll 4+ saves for being behind a barbed-wire fence, they just look at me and say "It's simpler this way." *Sigh* that entry is in there for a reason...
Not modifiers, no.
But it does have a list of the different types of cover.
Bushes and tall grass, IIRC, give 6+ cover.
Barbed wire gives 5+
Yeah, my bad, modifiers aren't the right word. You know what i mean though.
If I was to make a major change, I'd would allow for more stratagetic options, like a less random outflank/deepstriking and allowing infantry to effect the game board.
@CC haters: Umad
People need tostop thinking that Sci-fi is just Modern With Shiny Gubbins. It's whatever the writer wants, and GW wanted a setting where shooting takes place with the whirl of melee. Now, your allowed to have your opinions. I want to plays Orks.
loota boy wrote:^The BrB has modifiers for cover saves in there somewhere, can't remember which page (don't have it on me), It's just no-one uses them for some reason. Everytime i bring it up to someone when they start to roll 4+ saves for being behind a barbed-wire fence, they just look at me and say "It's simpler this way." *Sigh* that entry is in there for a reason...
Not modifiers, no.
But it does have a list of the different types of cover.
Bushes and tall grass, IIRC, give 6+ cover.
Barbed wire gives 5+
Yeah, my bad, modifiers aren't the right word. You know what i mean though.
Actually it does for vehicles... It says that if you can't tell if a vehicle is 50% obscured or not, then it gets its save at -1 (so 5+ instead of 4+)
loota boy wrote:^The BrB has modifiers for cover saves in there somewhere, can't remember which page (don't have it on me), It's just no-one uses them for some reason. Everytime i bring it up to someone when they start to roll 4+ saves for being behind a barbed-wire fence, they just look at me and say "It's simpler this way." *Sigh* that entry is in there for a reason...
A simple fix I can think of is just seperating soft cover (5+, things that dont quite stop bullets) and hard cover (4+, things that can stop bullets). being behind a few trees wouldn't be that great of cover, but better than being in the open. On the other hand, putting a cement wall in front of you is better still. This is certainly a simplification, but it at the very least is a better basis than "cover iz 4+! lolololol!"
TedNugent wrote:
If you actually read Dune, the description given is that lasgun fire, when it comes into contact with a personal force field, produces a catastrophic explosion, and military forces are actually restricted in what weapons they can use precisely for that reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_of_the_Dune_universe#Lasgun
This is actually Frank Herbert's canon explanation: "LASGUN: continuous-wave laser projector. Its use as a weapon is limited in a field-generator-shield culture because of the explosive pyrotechnics (technically, subatomic fusion) created when its beam intersects a shield."
Did I ever challenge any of that?
That said, Laser weapons were not the most ubiquitous weapons in use by Laansrad or Sardakar forces, they had them, but didn't deploy them with everyone or everything for that reason, solid projectile weapons still were more common and still highly effective as Shields were also not ubiquitous by any means.
Also, the most significant event in Dune, the climax of the book,
[spoiler] When Paul besieges the Imperial palace to stage a coup against Emperor Padishah, they do so by riding out of the desert on giant sand worms with Fremen, or desert nomads, and they immediately overwhelm their conventionally armed enemies, professional military forces and obviously the military's finest.....Sardaukars. Paul and his desert nomads then proceed to walk into the Emperor of the known universe's throneroom and force him to abdicate, using a combination of knives, sandworms, and psychic powers.
After breaching a mountain with a nuclear bomb, sporting ornithopter air support. It's been a while since I read the book, but IIRC the Fremen weren't devoid of ranged weapons either.
In Star Wars canon, Jedi are a dying breed. That doesn't stop them from continually changing the course of battle, and when they do engage in combat, they are typically destructive and unquestionably the best single troop on the battlefield.
Their abilities and contributions often however aren't simply because of Lightsabers, the movies showed them quite easily being killed by ranged weapons. When you can throw large objects at high speeds, reach into the mind of an enemy, manipulate objects at a distance, sense approaching or hidden enemy troops, communicate by touching minds, guide the trajectory of projectiles, see potential futures, etc. there is a huge value there that is far and beyond that provided by the simple melee weapon, a great analogy would be Farseers. They've got a fairly powerful melee weapon and a great ability to deflect damage (4+ invul save), nobody takes them because they can take on a dozen guardsmen and likely emerge victorious in close combat, they take them because they can enhance the rest of the army.
Right now, we are using the 3rd edition rules for vehicles, with ramming added in. Basically, if it isn't a Lehman Russ or Land Raider, it's not worth the points to field it. I can understand wanting tanks to be less powerful than they would be in real life (they would dominate the game otherwise) but I think GW has gone too far in the other direction. The only tanks that can move 6" and fire more than one gun that isn't pintle mounted are the Russ and the Raider. All those guns on a Predator, and you can't fire more than one if you move 7"?
Seriously?
Let's re-instate the 4th edition vehicle rules (but keep ramming). If it's less than strength 7, and/or isn't ordnance, you can shoot that beyotch, as long as you didn't move 12". Just because GW wants to sell more infantry models doesn't mean that all tanks should suck harder than a Slaaneshi prostitute.
Also, I like re-working the WS to-hit tables to make the different numbers actually mean something. I want WS 4 vs WS 5 to mean more than "I'm hitting on a 4+"...
squidhills wrote:Let's re-instate the 4th edition vehicle rules (but keep ramming). If it's less than strength 7, and/or isn't ordnance, you can shoot that beyotch, as long as you didn't move 12". Just because GW wants to sell more infantry models doesn't mean that all tanks should suck harder than a Slaaneshi prostitute.
I don't think you've thought that through very well...
Right now, we are using the 3rd edition rules for vehicles, with ramming added in. Basically, if it isn't a Lehman Russ or Land Raider, it's not worth the points to field it. I can understand wanting tanks to be less powerful than they would be in real life (they would dominate the game otherwise) but I think GW has gone too far in the other direction. The only tanks that can move 6" and fire more than one gun that isn't pintle mounted are the Russ and the Raider. All those guns on a Predator, and you can't fire more than one if you move 7"?
Seriously?
Let's re-instate the 4th edition vehicle rules (but keep ramming). If it's less than strength 7, and/or isn't ordnance, you can shoot that beyotch, as long as you didn't move 12". Just because GW wants to sell more infantry models doesn't mean that all tanks should suck harder than a Slaaneshi prostitute.
Also, I like re-working the WS to-hit tables to make the different numbers actually mean something. I want WS 4 vs WS 5 to mean more than "I'm hitting on a 4+"...
Not sure if serious...or just hasn't read the rule book.
But it's not just brick walls and such. It's shrubs, tin sheeting and a few branches that simply wont stop projectiles more menacing than paintballs, let alone Lascannons and Railguns, that are stopping half your shots.
If it were a 5+ for simply being behind something and a 4+ for being behind something SOLID, things would be much improved.
In order
page 21 of BRB
6+ save is "Razor wire, Wire Mesh" I think that would cover tin sheeting
5+ save is "High grass, crops, bushes," I think that would cover "a few branches" or "shrubs."
In other words, the thing you mentioned wouldn't grant a 4+ save in the BRB, and thus the change your proposing is already written into the rules.
I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.
Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.
Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.
Chimaera wrote:I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.
Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.
Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.
Only a 1/6 chance to cause a wound, and if you have power armor there's only a 1/3 chance it can kill you. That's only about a 6% chance.
Chimaera wrote:I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.
Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.
Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.
Only a 1/6 chance to cause a wound, and if you have power armor there's only a 1/3 chance it can kill you. That's only about a 6% chance.
Chimaera wrote:I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.
Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.
Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.
Only a 1/6 chance to cause a wound, and if you have power armor there's only a 1/3 chance it can kill you. That's only about a 6% chance.
I may be playing wrong but I thought normal saves apply so no power armour save as the Plasma has an AP of 2?
Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.
Actually it makes perfect sense. The damage the weapon causes is worth the life of the firer. And besides, all weapons have a chance of blowing up in the firer's hand IRL. You won't believe how many were killed by their own grenades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chimaera wrote:
I may be playing wrong but I thought normal saves apply so no power armour save as the Plasma has an AP of 2?
No. It is not a wound inflicted by the plasma weapon. Its just a normal wound with no armor save modifier.
Chimaera wrote:I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.
Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.
Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.
Only a 1/6 chance to cause a wound, and if you have power armor there's only a 1/3 chance it can kill you. That's only about a 6% chance.
Not if you are an IG...
Meh, IG is 5 points a model. The only thing you're losing there is the Plasma Gun.
remove saves for units inside transports when they explode, but change the blast rules for transports to only models hit on a roll of 6, and change the blast strength based on the type of vehicles
ie if its a rhino, strength 5 ap 3 blast. If it is a leman russ that blows up then its a strength 10 ap 1 blast.
This reflects the ammunition, fuel, machinery and sheer bulk of armor plating flying in random directions as the vehicle explodes
this would also hopefully make foot lists see a bit of a comeback
Exergy wrote:Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM
1 - No. Ork players will be pissed off
Huh? I would love to see marines die for a change when their vehicle turns into a mushroom cloud, rather than just shrugging it off. Screw our t-shirt save.
If I could change something, I would change the way how vehicles are damaged to something like structure points, but at higher numbers. Weapons would deal damage to them based on how high their penetration roll was above AV, and systems would be destroyed based on how much damage the vehicle has taken in total, shaken and stunned would work off how much damage was taken last turn. Glances would have a 50% chance to deal damage. This would take the luck out of the whole vehicle thing for everyone - vehicles no longer randomly shrug off or explode to the same weapon shot at the same strength and distance.
- All vehicles would have 4 structure points base, so direct hit(rolled a 6) with a rocket on AV10 rear armor would destroy a vehicle. Seems right to me.
- Any vehicle that loses 1 structure point is shaken, any vehicle that loses more than that is stunned.
- A damaged vehicle may only shoot as many weapons as it has structure points left. Damaged walkers also have their attacks capped at their structure points. Undamaged vehicles are not limited in any way.
- A vehicle with only 1 structure point left is immobilized.
- If, after all simultaneous damage has been resolved, a vehicle has 0 structure points left it is wrecked, at less it explodes.
- Open topped causes glances to always do damage.
- Tanks ignore single points of damage on a 5+.
- Repairs add structure points up to the start value.
- Extra armor and equivalents work the same way they do now.
- Melta, Lance, Ordnance, Tank hunters and Rending work the same way they do now.
- AP1 will now allow you to roll an additional penetration dice and then have the lowest dice not count.
But it's not just brick walls and such. It's shrubs, tin sheeting and a few branches that simply wont stop projectiles more menacing than paintballs, let alone Lascannons and Railguns, that are stopping half your shots.
If it were a 5+ for simply being behind something and a 4+ for being behind something SOLID, things would be much improved.
In order
page 21 of BRB
6+ save is "Razor wire, Wire Mesh" I think that would cover tin sheeting
5+ save is "High grass, crops, bushes," I think that would cover "a few branches" or "shrubs."
In other words, the thing you mentioned wouldn't grant a 4+ save in the BRB, and thus the change your proposing is already written into the rules.
Yes, you are indeed correct, but how many times do you see the game played that way. Too many newbs in my area think that cover is cover, so it's 4+. My change is to make things more clear, not attempt to cover every possible thing to hide models behind. simply changing the rules to a simple either/or option would go a long ways to keep the kiddies in check.
I don't really see much wrong with the current rules to be honest, just a bunch of tweaks to the individual codexes, though I do agree that plasma weaponry should simply stop you from shooting for the next turn. 38,000 years into the future, I'd have thought with all the lasers and plasma flying around, they could have a little warning light to say "stop firing or this'll explode in your face"
But it's not just brick walls and such. It's shrubs, tin sheeting and a few branches that simply wont stop projectiles more menacing than paintballs, let alone Lascannons and Railguns, that are stopping half your shots.
If it were a 5+ for simply being behind something and a 4+ for being behind something SOLID, things would be much improved.
In order
page 21 of BRB
6+ save is "Razor wire, Wire Mesh" I think that would cover tin sheeting
5+ save is "High grass, crops, bushes," I think that would cover "a few branches" or "shrubs."
In other words, the thing you mentioned wouldn't grant a 4+ save in the BRB, and thus the change your proposing is already written into the rules.
My "friendly" local gaming group uses cover properly - 5+ for greenery, 4+ for rocks, ruins etc. And 4+ cover is still endemic. Unless firing indirectly or deepstriking/outflanking, I'll virtually never get to shoot at an uncovered enemy. Sure it's annoying, but it also means my T3 veterans get a 3+ cover save(GTG) against everything too (though obviously it's useless in CC).
If I could change something, I would change the way how vehicles are damaged to something like structure points, but at higher numbers. Weapons would deal damage to them based on how high their penetration roll was above AV, and systems would be destroyed based on how much damage the vehicle has taken in total, shaken and stunned would work off how much damage was taken last turn. Glances would have a 50% chance to deal damage. This would take the luck out of the whole vehicle thing for everyone - vehicles no longer randomly shrug off or explode to the same weapon shot at the same strength and distance.
Armor saves are random, and so are vehicle damage tables. Makes sense to me. Hit - wound - armor save. But more than that, vehicle damage isn't based on penetration. It's based on vehicle damage. If you hit a gas tank, the vehicle explodes. If you hit a track, you will immobilize the tank. If you hit the turret ring, the weapon cannot function. If you hit the ammunition box, all hell breaks loose. Or, you could potentially go straight through the front and rear armor without striking anything important or damaging any of the critical components of the vehicle. You could penetrate the front of the vehicle, and the HE tip of the tank shell decapitates the driver, but otherwise fails to kill any other crewmen or destroy any other components.
Also, glances are almost certain not to deal damage. If you have a projectile that literally bounces off the front glacis of a tank, it will be flung harmlessly off to the side. Such a thing happened to German gunners in World War 2 against the T-34 -- shells bounced harmlessly off, doing no damage. And even if they did manage to hit something critical, as in the case of the Tiger I tank that was knocked out in Africa by a British gunner, they managed to lodge it in the turret ring and make the Tiger gunner unable to return fire. It's based on a certain amount of randomization, which partially is there to illustrate the random skill levels of the gunner, positioning, and so forth. Actually, penetration is a much more reliable science than is damaging a vehicle, in much the same way as getting AP2 will reliably penetrate Terminator armor in infantry combat. That is to say, you increase the kinetic energy, or weapon Strength in 40k terms, which gives you a proportionate increase in penetration depth into a given thickness of armored plate. Although, even there, there is a certain degree of randomization, because if you strike the plate at an unfavorable angle, it will affect the likelihood of deflection or depth of penetration.
I hate to say it, but I actually think the vehicle damage model in 40k is pretty fabulous. Adjust vehicle costs and anti tank weapons accordingly
Jidmah wrote:
- Open topped causes glances to always do damage.
This I don't like especially. It's the same thing as cover. Sometimes you would manage to hit the open compartment, dealing catastrophic damage (hence the +1 damage modifier), sometimes you would only hit the front of the Battlewagon, failing to penetrate and thus failing to do any damage.
If anything, if you wanted to abuse open topped vehicles, you could say add +2 to the damage roll instead of +1 (god forbid this happens), or you could allow damage to open topped transports to transfer to the riders (e.g. you would sustain some Lascannon shot on your Nobz).
TedNugent wrote:
Armor saves are random, and so are vehicle damage tables. Makes sense to me. Hit - wound - armor save. But more than that, vehicle damage isn't based on penetration. It's based on vehicle damage. If you hit a gas tank, the vehicle explodes. If you hit a track, you will immobilize the tank. If you hit the turret ring, the weapon cannot function. If you hit the ammunition box, all hell breaks loose. Or, you could potentially go straight through the front and rear armor without striking anything important or damaging any of the critical components of the vehicle. You could penetrate the front of the vehicle, and the HE tip of the tank shell decapitates the driver, but otherwise fails to kill any other crewmen or destroy any other components.
Also, glances are almost certain not to deal damage. If you have a projectile that literally bounces off the front glacis of a tank, it will be flung harmlessly off to the side. Such a thing happened to German gunners in World War 2 against the T-34 -- shells bounced harmlessly off, doing no damage. And even if they did manage to hit something critical, as in the case of the Tiger I tank that was knocked out in Africa by a British gunner, they managed to lodge it in the turret ring and make the Tiger gunner unable to return fire. It's based on a certain amount of randomization, which partially is there to illustrate the random skill levels of the gunner, positioning, and so forth. Actually, penetration is a much more reliable science than is damaging a vehicle, in much the same way as getting AP2 will reliably penetrate Terminator armor in infantry combat. That is to say, you increase the kinetic energy, or weapon Strength in 40k terms, which gives you a proportionate increase in penetration depth into a given thickness of armored plate. Although, even there, there is a certain degree of randomization, because if you strike the plate at an unfavorable angle, it will affect the likelihood of deflection or depth of penetration.
I hate to say it, but I actually think the vehicle damage model in 40k is pretty fabulous. Adjust vehicle costs and anti tank weapons accordingly
You didn't quite hit my point. I don't want a simulation, I want a good game. I don't want to roll a d100 and a list of vehicle parts to find out that I shot off armorplate 31. I don't mind, it's elves and orks fighting knights in Space!
Besides that, hitting the gas tank or ammunition would be the equivalent of rolling a 6 (outright destroying an AV10 vehicle), and the shell bouncing off as a 1. In my opinion, strong weapons should destroy vehicles more reliably than weak ones. Thanks to cover being everywhere, it's more like the other way around right now. A direct hit from a railgun should reduce a trukk to a molten ball of scrap and a demolisher shell which, in fluff, was made to blast their way through fortifications should do a bit more than shake a rhino. On the other hand, a heavy flamer should not be able to blow a chimera's tracks off or down a wave serpent (which is supposed to be able to fly in space). Sure, if a bunch of flamethrowers are shooting at it, or one for some time, they will damage them - but that's the whole point of my system.
As for the hit-wound-save thingy, that's exactly the problem. Vehicles have hit-penetrate-save-damage these days, basically giving every vehicle the equivalent of FNP for free.
Right now its utterly stupid that the first melta hitting a landraider might destroy it, while at the same time a rhino can keep on driving after taking six penetrating hits. As someone driving four AV14 vehicles in cover right at the enemy in at least half my games, I can tell tales of the randomness of vehicle damage. The mathematical odds are in my favor, but sometimes it's outright ridiculous how many lascannons, railguns and vindicator shells simply bounce off them. I simply ignore anything less than immobilized, so a battlewagon which took two glancing hits and a penetrating hit is still as good as new. Next turn it will shrug off another two penetrating hits, simply because my opponent is unlucky with dice. And then Lady Luck comes around next game and blows them all up on turn one.
With my suggestion that wagon would be heavily damaged and no longer moving, and a crater after that. In either game.
On the other hand, vehicles like vindicators, deff dreads, leman russes or fire prisms don't become completely useless after the first hit destroying a weapon/immobilizing it. You now actually have to put some effort into destroying vehicles, but you are guaranteed that the effort is not wasted. Unlike now, where shooting vehicles with anything besides melta weapons (and maybe auto-/assault cannons) is gambling. My goal is to keep the average amount of shots it takes to down a vehicle the same, while taking the randomness out of it.
Jidmah wrote:
- Open topped causes glances to always do damage.
This I don't like especially. It's the same thing as cover. Sometimes you would manage to hit the open compartment, dealing catastrophic damage (hence the +1 damage modifier), sometimes you would only hit the front of the Battlewagon, failing to penetrate and thus failing to do any damage.
If anything, if you wanted to abuse open topped vehicles, you could say add +2 to the damage roll instead of +1 (god forbid this happens), or you could allow damage to open topped transports to transfer to the riders (e.g. you would sustain some Lascannon shot on your Nobz).
Yeah, I'm not that happy about that one myself. Open topped vehicles are supposed to be destroyed more easy than fully closed counterparts. However, in my opinion, a heavy artillery shell, a rail gun or a melta mess up a trukk just as much as they mess up a rhino, so I decided to make glancing hits more deadly, so weaker weapons benefit more from the exposed vehicle parts than strong ones. Adding a flat bonus to everyone makes it too easy to destroy open topped vehicles, especially the more sturdy ones, like the battlewagon or necron skimmers. It's not like I will ever play those rules, but it should be based around the philosophy that regular weapons are more lethal to open topped vehicles.
As for your passenger suggestion, mind that open topped is not exclusive to transports.
I really don't see the point in increasing the open topped penalty to the current vehicle damage chart. Open topped is not the problem, the chart is.
Can I propose something else that might be an effective compromise?
Vehicles are affected by cover....sounds sensible, when a tank is hull down, you're not likely to hit it.
Vehicles have penetration tables - if you can't penetrate the armor, you're not going to be able to damage the tank.
Vehicles have damage tables - even if you penetrate the tank, there's no guarantee that you will destroy the tank.
However, vehicles are large targets. Very large targets! This is the downside to driving a tank! You're driving in a big, hulking monstrosity with a rotating turret, sponsons, bristling with twin-linked Lascannons and hull machine guns! You are a rolling ball of death, firing off plasma shots and red, tinny laser beams are blasting off your armoured carapace as you belch exhaust smoke.
Vehicles should be automatic hits, or at least should models should receive hit bonuses vs vehicles. These hit bonuses would be mitigated by the movement the tank has made the preceding movement phase. Have you ever tried to hit a tank moving 30 km/h at a 30 degree line of motion with a tank shell? It's not easy! Subtract a few points from your hit roll on moving targets.
Let's say....a 2+ hits a stationary tank. At combat speed, that becomes 3+, and at cruising speed, that becomes 4+. Yes, even for Orks! (Okay, maybe they could get a further -1 hit modifier)
Exergy wrote:Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM
Stormshields to 4++ from everywhere.
Psykic test changed to be failed more often, same chance of perils or same chance of success but perils more often. you choose when you use the power.
Save modifiers probably were a good idea
Range reduces when you move, even on a vehicle.
1 - No. Ork players will be pissed off
2- Yes
3-No
4-No
I wrote 5 things not 4
Orks would love vehicle explosions not allowing armor saves. their 6+ isn't doing much for them but they hate how hard they have to work to kill a rhino, chimera or landraider only to see its contents, completely unharmed charge them the next turn.
Transports should give you mobility and some protection, but not make you nearly invulnerable as they do now.
If I had my druthers with making rules for 40k, I would make it so that every weapon on the wargear charts for codices are viable.
1) Make sniper rifles allow wound allocation on a to-hit roll of 5+, rend on 6 and force pin tests with a penalty of -1 to the ldrship of the unit.
2)Grenade Launchers should allow a friendly unit assault the target unit as if they had assault grenades, or make the target unit that tries to assault the Grenade Launcher unit to be affected by defensive grenades, making it a viable support option.
3) flamers should force a morale test on the affected units. fire is terrifying and deadly. With the exception of fearless units, the psychological effects of fire should be reflected.
4) multiple penetrating hits on vehicles should add +1 to the damage roll table.
5) melta instead allows you to reroll on the damage chart.
Exergy wrote:Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM
Stormshields to 4++ from everywhere.
Psykic test changed to be failed more often, same chance of perils or same chance of success but perils more often. you choose when you use the power.
Save modifiers probably were a good idea
Range reduces when you move, even on a vehicle.
1 - No. Ork players will be pissed off
2- Yes
3-No
4-No
I wrote 5 things not 4
Orks would love vehicle explosions not allowing armor saves. their 6+ isn't doing much for them but they hate how hard they have to work to kill a rhino, chimera or landraider only to see its contents, completely unharmed charge them the next turn.
Transports should give you mobility and some protection, but not make you nearly invulnerable as they do now.
Yeah, ok...You have a point there
oh and 5-No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SoliderSnake wrote:If I had my druthers with making rules for 40k, I would make it so that every weapon on the wargear charts for codices are viable.
1) Make sniper rifles allow wound allocation on a to-hit roll of 5+, rend on 6 and force pin tests with a penalty of -1 to the ldrship of the unit.
2)Grenade Launchers should allow a friendly unit assault the target unit as if they had assault grenades, or make the target unit that tries to assault the Grenade Launcher unit to be affected by defensive grenades, making it a viable support option.
3) flamers should force a morale test on the affected units. fire is terrifying and deadly. With the exception of fearless units, the psychological effects of fire should be reflected.
4) multiple penetrating hits on vehicles should add +1 to the damage roll table.
5) melta instead allows you to reroll on the damage chart.
1) I like. Sniper weapons should act like it.
2) Its ok I guess. I can't see any problem with it.
3) No. It would be insanely powerful against IG, who only have 5+ saves and ld7
4) That would be difficult to manage
5) No. There has to be something that reliably pops AV14
Now none of these points are meant to improve balance. Just make things so they make more sense. I can only comment on the IG and and SM sense I dont know too much about the other races
1) "Get Hots" Rule is completely idiotic. It doesnt fits is description at all and no one would EVER use this weapon in anything but a video game. Right now a soldier can pull the trigger ONCE and it blows up in his face and kills him? Who thought this weapon was a good idea?
Way to fix it? Change it so it is a rolling chance like with reserves. The first shot of the game no risk, if you fire a second shot it is on a 6. (When using FRFSRF and firing 3rd shot roll 5 or 6)
In the second shooting phase the first shot is a 6, 2nd 5 or 6. ETC.. If you elect to not shot in a phase, it resets the value (it is giving the gun time to cool down)
I have no idea how balanced that would be but at least it makes a bit more sense now and I could see people realistically using it.
2) Less reliance on transports. I just dont like them, that all with this one. I prefer infantry and tanks, I dont want to be fething with APCs, expecially something like a Rhino.
3) Not factoring in balance but I would like to see the Lasgun get a basic AP rating instead of the basic -. Not enough to penetrate IG armor but enough to ignore Ork Boys armor or Termigaunts which dont even have ammo. (Not factoring in balance) In a similar way, shouldnt Firewarriors have the same armor as an IG man? I dont see why they should have such great armor when IG Flak vest are suppose to be modern day Kevlar.
4) Make armies unique in some way. Doctrines for IG, Chapter Tactics for SM, etc... Something so that armies actually feel different.
Again that was just from a makes more sense way. Not a balance way. I cant make any comments on balance. Not enough games under my belt
In a similar way, shouldnt Firewarriors have the same armor as an IG man? I dont see why they should have such great armor when IG Flak vest are suppose to be modern day Kevlar.
I should hope they're not modern day Kevlar, because Kevlar can't stop anything more powerful than a pistol round. e.g. it is defeated by the standard issue small arm of every single army and paramilitary group the world over.
Exergy wrote:Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM
Stormshields to 4++ from everywhere.
Psykic test changed to be failed more often, same chance of perils or same chance of success but perils more often. you choose when you use the power.
Save modifiers probably were a good idea
Range reduces when you move, even on a vehicle.
1 - No. Ork players will be pissed off
2- Yes
3-No
4-No
I wrote 5 things not 4
Orks would love vehicle explosions not allowing armor saves. their 6+ isn't doing much for them but they hate how hard they have to work to kill a rhino, chimera or landraider only to see its contents, completely unharmed charge them the next turn.
Transports should give you mobility and some protection, but not make you nearly invulnerable as they do now.
Yeah, ok...You have a point there
oh and 5-No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SoliderSnake wrote:If I had my druthers with making rules for 40k, I would make it so that every weapon on the wargear charts for codices are viable.
1) Make sniper rifles allow wound allocation on a to-hit roll of 5+, rend on 6 and force pin tests with a penalty of -1 to the ldrship of the unit.
2)Grenade Launchers should allow a friendly unit assault the target unit as if they had assault grenades, or make the target unit that tries to assault the Grenade Launcher unit to be affected by defensive grenades, making it a viable support option.
3) flamers should force a morale test on the affected units. fire is terrifying and deadly. With the exception of fearless units, the psychological effects of fire should be reflected.
4) multiple penetrating hits on vehicles should add +1 to the damage roll table.
5) melta instead allows you to reroll on the damage chart.
1) I like. Sniper weapons should act like it.
2) Its ok I guess. I can't see any problem with it.
3) No. It would be insanely powerful against IG, who only have 5+ saves and ld7
4) That would be difficult to manage
5) No. There has to be something that reliably pops AV14
Pardon me, I meant to say that the AP1 associated mostly with melta weapons should allow a reroll. as for multiple pens, that would NOT be difficult to manage. If say a Vendetta pens a rhino with 2 shots, both rolls of the dice on the chart would be at +1. Nothing hard about that. It keeps the appropriate randomness while rewarding the success of multiple penetrating hits.
If you could reboot the 40k RULES, what would you change?
Reboot 2nd edition rules set.
Overwatch! (I hear its coming back, yay!)
HeroHammer, yes, my space marine termie captain just killed half your army
Stacked saves, armor and invuln both get a shot, makes more sense right, before the point of impact do you get to decide which you are gonna use ? so unrealistic
Modifiable armor saves (termies roll a modifiable 3+ on 2 d6 and could also use a storm shield save if the armor failed.... shrug off any lascannon hits lately ?)
DISPLACER FIELDS (3+ invulnerable save that moves you a D6 + Scatter, better hope you scatter out of the blast radius)
The Foot of Gork and Mork
Wargear Cards & Vehical wargear cards (remember the vet. scout srg with vortex grenade trick.... bye bye titan!) ablative armor for vehicals (ignore first vehical penetration)
PSYCHIC PHASES - sometimes an hour long, warp cards, amazing powers, game changing moments
Games took 4-6 hours of epicness... not this speed gaming version of today
2000 pts of troops was not that many troops and not as hard on the wallet.
Vehical cards, rolling location of hit, rolling pen... getting a more interesting result
Modifiable to hit dice, you think gretchen are gonna hit anything in cover ?! no way!
Ork weapons tendency to kill its own crew, becoming an ineffectual piece of terrain. Squig catapault anyone ?
I dont recall combi weapons being a one time use deal either.
Sword weapons parried, power weapons conferred strength, power sowrds str 6, power axe str 7, power fist str 8 with no effect on initiative.
With so many more options available to every army really meant there were a lot of wild cards floating around
That being said... the current edition is at least fun to play, especially compared to the previous one. I look forward to the new rules coming out soon.
2nd edition anyone ?
~Lion~
Almost forgot, rolling crazy dice for vehical pen, 6 + D4 + 2 D6 etc. different for every gun, but really made the lascannon a tankbuster
Galdos wrote:Now none of these points are meant to improve balance. Just make things so they make more sense. I can only comment on the IG and and SM sense I dont know too much about the other races
1) "Get Hots" Rule is completely idiotic. It doesnt fits is description at all and no one would EVER use this weapon in anything but a video game. Right now a soldier can pull the trigger ONCE and it blows up in his face and kills him? Who thought this weapon was a good idea?
Way to fix it? Change it so it is a rolling chance like with reserves. The first shot of the game no risk, if you fire a second shot it is on a 6. (When using FRFSRF and firing 3rd shot roll 5 or 6)
In the second shooting phase the first shot is a 6, 2nd 5 or 6. ETC.. If you elect to not shot in a phase, it resets the value (it is giving the gun time to cool down)
I have no idea how balanced that would be but at least it makes a bit more sense now and I could see people realistically using it.
2) Less reliance on transports. I just dont like them, that all with this one. I prefer infantry and tanks, I dont want to be fething with APCs, expecially something like a Rhino.
3) Not factoring in balance but I would like to see the Lasgun get a basic AP rating instead of the basic -. Not enough to penetrate IG armor but enough to ignore Ork Boys armor or Termigaunts which dont even have ammo. (Not factoring in balance) In a similar way, shouldnt Firewarriors have the same armor as an IG man? I dont see why they should have such great armor when IG Flak vest are suppose to be modern day Kevlar.
4) Make armies unique in some way. Doctrines for IG, Chapter Tactics for SM, etc... Something so that armies actually feel different.
Again that was just from a makes more sense way. Not a balance way. I cant make any comments on balance. Not enough games under my belt
Disregarding the "ORCS IN SPAAAAAAAAAACE" silliness of the setting for a second, Realisim should never be a higher priority over balance and game mechanics. The rules are ABSTRACT, meaning that they're not to be taken at face value. Does it make sense? no, but it doesn't have to so long as it works. And besides, you're asking for realism in a game with, say it with me, ORKS! IN! SPAAAAAAAAACE!
And on your fourth point, if people want to make their army unique, then it should be because they want to, not because of the bonuses.
TedNugent wrote:
I should hope they're not modern day Kevlar, because Kevlar can't stop anything more powerful than a pistol round. e.g. it is defeated by the standard issue small arm of every single army and paramilitary group the world over.
Eh good point. I kind of just used it as an example. Not really thinking my example through completely.
Luke_Prowler wrote:
Disregarding the "ORCS IN SPAAAAAAAAAACE" silliness of the setting for a second, Realisim should never be a higher priority over balance and game mechanics. The rules are ABSTRACT, meaning that they're not to be taken at face value. Does it make sense? no, but it doesn't have to so long as it works. And besides, you're asking for realism in a game with, say it with me, ORKS! IN! SPAAAAAAAAACE!
And on your fourth point, if people want to make their army unique, then it should be because they want to, not because of the bonuses.
Hence why I was saying Im not sure how things would balance. However would you honoslty refuse to accept a change to the "Gets Hot" rule if it was perfectly balance AND made sense from a realistic standpoint.
As I said, I cant speak for balance sense I havnt played enough games but I could give my opinion on other things.
I was refering more to the fact that if you play a Cadian player, he is going to feel exactly no different then a Catachan player even though the soldiers are very different soldiers. In the last codex for the IG there were special doctrines that went along with the guys that werent game changers but they did add a little flavoring to the armies that doesnt currently exist right now.
Again if one could make these changes so armies would feel unqiue (Catachan armies would feel different then Cadian who are different from Krieg) and still perfectly balanced would you reject it?
My whole things is just changes I would have liked to seen so they rules make more sense now these changes will improve the game drastically or anything.
^ I agree with my fellow Guardsman on this one. I play Catachans , and it's heresy to even suggest that the fighting styles of philosophies of the Cadians and Catachans are remotely the same. I have the 3rd edition Catachan dex which I love with all my heart. Little things like WS4, and the ability to have some units ambush made the playing style of the Catachans fluffy but effective.
SoliderSnake wrote:
as for multiple pens, that would NOT be difficult to manage. If say a Vendetta pens a rhino with 2 shots, both rolls of the dice on the chart would be at +1. Nothing hard about that. It keeps the appropriate randomness while rewarding the success of multiple penetrating hits.
Oh, I thought you meant over the course of the game! Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheLionOfTheForest wrote:If you could reboot the 40k RULES, what would you change?
Reboot 2nd edition rules set.
Overwatch! (I hear its coming back, yay!)
HeroHammer, yes, my space marine termie captain just killed half your army
Stacked saves, armor and invuln both get a shot, makes more sense right, before the point of impact do you get to decide which you are gonna use ? so unrealistic
Modifiable armor saves (termies roll a modifiable 3+ on 2 d6 and could also use a storm shield save if the armor failed.... shrug off any lascannon hits lately ?)
DISPLACER FIELDS (3+ invulnerable save that moves you a D6 + Scatter, better hope you scatter out of the blast radius)
The Foot of Gork and Mork
Wargear Cards & Vehical wargear cards (remember the vet. scout srg with vortex grenade trick.... bye bye titan!) ablative armor for vehicals (ignore first vehical penetration)
PSYCHIC PHASES - sometimes an hour long, warp cards, amazing powers, game changing moments
Games took 4-6 hours of epicness... not this speed gaming version of today
2000 pts of troops was not that many troops and not as hard on the wallet.
Vehical cards, rolling location of hit, rolling pen... getting a more interesting result
Modifiable to hit dice, you think gretchen are gonna hit anything in cover ?! no way!
Ork weapons tendency to kill its own crew, becoming an ineffectual piece of terrain. Squig catapault anyone ?
I dont recall combi weapons being a one time use deal either.
Sword weapons parried, power weapons conferred strength, power sowrds str 6, power axe str 7, power fist str 8 with no effect on initiative.
With so many more options available to every army really meant there were a lot of wild cards floating around
That being said... the current edition is at least fun to play, especially compared to the previous one. I look forward to the new rules coming out soon.
2nd edition anyone ?
~Lion~
Almost forgot, rolling crazy dice for vehical pen, 6 + D4 + 2 D6 etc. different for every gun, but really made the lascannon a tankbuster
You know, 2nd ed rules already exist.
They're in the 2nd ed rulebook.
Also, hell no to herohammer. We already have enough problems with mephiston and paladins.
No, I guess I wouldn't reject it if it was balanced and realistic
As an Ork player, I don't have the same problem. If I want to play Evil Sunz, I take a lot of trucks and buggies and other fast things. Bad moon, I take Flash gitz and Meganobs, and load up on special weapons. Snakebites, good old fasion greeentide with some big gunz and grot screen. Blood axe, kommandoes and stormboyz. An army is only as different as a player makes it
I would also do something to Heavy Bolters to make them more attractive to take as an anti-infantry weapon. I would probably make them Heavy 3 with rending, kind of like a poor man's assault cannon.
1- Instant Death meaning additional wounds instead of just offing any non-EW. Change the name to Grievous Injury or something. Kharn the Betrayer and other legendary warriors should not fear generic Sergeant Powerfist more than they fear Vulkan He'Stan or the Avatar of flipping Khaine!
2- Most non-transport Vehicles should be able to fire an additional weapon, but it should be at half-BS if they moved. POTMS should let vehicles do so without the BS halving.
3- Jump infantry, flying Monstrous Creatures no longer check for dangerous terrain when landing or leaving terrain.
4- Meltaguns and plasma guns switch point cost.
5- Extra Armor on vehicles becomes a single re-roll on the damage charge per game.
6- All walkers gain Move Through Cover. Ironclads ignore terrain.
7- All poisoned weapons get a regular S value used when the target's S would allow for a better number to be made in order to wound.
8- Heavy Bolters become Assault2/Heavy4. Heavy weapons can be fired on the move...at BS 1.
When a vehicle explodes, models embarked inside at the time suffer a Str 4, AP 2 wound.
Melta would gain "Gets Hot"
You can fire into CC, but missing means you hit your own models.
That's really all I would change.
I would say less for open topped vehciles, really I think just allowing no saves is best. I think FNP should work...
Gets hot. I like it! Otherwise I would say make meltas only useable on vehciles.
Firing into CC, ehh I dont really like it all swirling melee and all. if at all I would say randomize hits 4+ their models, 1-3 your models. Keeps twinlinked models from being combat snipers.
Exergy wrote:Firing into CC, ehh I dont really like it all swirling melee and all. if at all I would say randomize hits 4+ their models, 1-3 your models. Keeps twinlinked models from being combat snipers.
Actually the 3 player FFA from the BRB has that rule. It's terrible.
I had a situation two weeks ago where a vindicator shot at a unit of recruits and a unit of guardsmen in close combat with a Warboss on a bike and two biker nobz. The vindicator hit 12 recruits (the blast wasn't anywhere near my bikers) and my warboss+nobz took 6 S10 AP2 wounds, while the 30+ imperials around those three orks also took 6 wounds total. Shooting into melee should be balanced around the number of models involved, anything else makes tarpitting too powerful.
There are only a few minor changes that I would make.
1) A 2D6 vehicle damage table- I'm working on one right now that I use with my brother in friendly games but it still needs some work.
2) The AP of a weapon affects cover saves (oh, your scrapped together wall just deflected my railgun shot ? that makes sense)
3) Long/medium/short distance BS modifiers come back- I also use this with my brother in friendly games, it is balanced and makes things much less frustrating. (what's that? my dreadnought with a multi-melta just missed your tank that's less than 3 inches away ? nuhuh)
Right now, we are using the 3rd edition rules for vehicles, with ramming added in. Basically, if it isn't a Lehman Russ or Land Raider, it's not worth the points to field it. I can understand wanting tanks to be less powerful than they would be in real life (they would dominate the game otherwise) but I think GW has gone too far in the other direction. The only tanks that can move 6" and fire more than one gun that isn't pintle mounted are the Russ and the Raider. All those guns on a Predator, and you can't fire more than one if you move 7"?
Seriously?
Let's re-instate the 4th edition vehicle rules (but keep ramming). If it's less than strength 7, and/or isn't ordnance, you can shoot that beyotch, as long as you didn't move 12". Just because GW wants to sell more infantry models doesn't mean that all tanks should suck harder than a Slaaneshi prostitute.
Also, I like re-working the WS to-hit tables to make the different numbers actually mean something. I want WS 4 vs WS 5 to mean more than "I'm hitting on a 4+"...
Not sure if serious...or just hasn't read the rule book.
I AM serious, and I HAVE read the rule book, but upon looking at my post, I realize I may not have been very clear in what I was saying. I know you can move up to 12" and fire ONE weapon (of any strength) on a vehicle, I was referring to the 4th edition rule that said you could move up to 6" and fire one "main weapon" (str > 8 ) and as many "secondary weapons" (str < 7... or was it 6 ) as you wanted, as well as any pintle mounted weapons (which were vehicle upgrades).
Now you can move 6" and fire ONE weapon (any str) and any weapons of Str 4 you have (which are all pintle mounted weapons) which is exactly the way tanks functioned in 3rd edition. Sponsons on a tank now encourage tanks to be played like bunkers, rather than ... well, tanks. Back in 4th edition, tanks moved around the battlefield. Nowadays, if that tank has sponsons, it isn't going to move very far from where its owner places it during set up.
THAT was what I was complaining about. Apart from the Russ and the Land Raider, no other tank can move and fire more than one gun (at least, not a gun worth firing) @ 6" of movement. I find that offensive on a religious level.
The problem with that idea is that the tanks will have to made less fragile. The reason why their firepower is limited is because if they were both resilient and lethal, then they would become ridiculously effective. And we already have a problem with vehicle heavy lists.
2: Less dependance in general to just copy and paste a single unit into all your FOC slots.
Eg: Blood Angels Troops:
5 Assault Marines, Meltagun, Las/Plas Razorback
It's annoying when a single unit just taken en mass is the main way to win, there should be more emphasis placed on using other units as well as these.
3: More flavour to Perils of the Warp, rather than just an automatic would. Something like the Miscast table from WHFB would be good.
4: Go back to the 3 different Vehicle Damage Tables, instead of this nonsense with one and just using modifiers.
5: I would also like to see GW become more stringient with their rules, instead of this current attitude they appear to have "Although we like to say we put effort into our rules, they're far from perfect but we'll let you to fill in the holes"
I would have fixed the 2nd edition rules instead of coming out with an entirely new ruleset. I would probably keep the FOC because it's interesting, however I would make it so that it would scale with games as opposed to being incredibly inflexible.
I would also have made it so that the psychic rules are like the Warhammer fantasy battle rules instead of watering psychic powers to taking a psychic test.
tl;dr: fixed and balanced 2nd edition rules with a FOC and psychic powers using the WHF magic template=best way to play 40k
Vladsimpaler wrote:I would have fixed the 2nd edition rules instead of coming out with an entirely new ruleset. I would probably keep the FOC because it's interesting, however I would make it so that it would scale with games as opposed to being incredibly inflexible.
I would also have made it so that the psychic rules are like the Warhammer fantasy battle rules instead of watering psychic powers to taking a psychic test.
tl;dr: fixed and balanced 2nd edition rules with a FOC and psychic powers using the WHF magic template=best way to play 40k
Yes! The FOC needs to be modified so it can work better with larger games. Granted, there are the detachment rules, but sadly these are not enough.
I also agree that the psipower rules need to be toned down abit. At the moment, it requires hardly anything to activate them. They need to be riskier, or every army should have countermeasures.
Though maybe not the WHFB magic system. It needs to be something distinct.
Valkyrie wrote:2: Less dependance in general to just copy and paste a single unit into all your FOC slots.
An interesting idea, the question is : how ?
Probably by having better specialised units and worse jack of all trade units. Most of the netlist "All comers" armies I've seen usually have one type of unit pulling double or even triple duty and doing it as well as a more expensive specialised unit.
Valkyrie wrote:2: Less dependance in general to just copy and paste a single unit into all your FOC slots.
An interesting idea, the question is : how ?
Probably by having better specialised units and worse jack of all trade units. Most of the netlist "All comers" armies I've seen usually have one type of unit pulling double or even triple duty and doing it as well as a more expensive specialised unit.
Valkyrie wrote:2: Less dependance in general to just copy and paste a single unit into all your FOC slots.
An interesting idea, the question is : how ?
Look at Warmachine. The best lists are the ones that are full of specialization roles.
The best way to do this with 40k would be to make sure that every unit had unique abilities (and not just USRs). That way it would punish players that spammed a single unit, because they would be very situational.
Luke_Prowler wrote:Probably by having better specialised units and worse jack of all trade units. Most of the netlist "All comers" armies I've seen usually have one type of unit pulling double or even triple duty and doing it as well as a more expensive specialised unit.
Like in the necron codex?
I haven't really studied the necron codex, so I don't really know what you're refering too. An example I'd use would be like the leman russ vs a vanquisher LR, or purifiers vs purgation squad.
Didn't expect to actually spark reactions, but so far I fully agree !
My idea is that more synergy would be welcome as well, like Tau markerlights or (IIRC) WFB's Skinks and Kroxigors, to encourage combinations.
(I know little about Warmachine, would Menoth's buffing units be an example ?)
Menoth would be the poster-boys for Warmachine's synergy, however every army needs to utilize internal diversity.
One of the elements that Warmachine incorporates is resource management- each turn you have a finite number of resources, so the way the army behaves must be more dynamic than 40k's static build-your-army-then-watch-it-play mechanic. Another is the negation of abilities. In Warmachine, models are at a distinct disadvantage when they are "knocked down" as they can almost be auto-hit. So, high-powered but inaccurate ranged attacks mesh very well with that combo. But you cannot rely on it because of the prevalence of models that cannot be "knocked down", or grant that same ability to other units. Similarly, ranged weaponry cannot hit units with the "stealth" ability unless they are right up close, thus negating the ranged advantage. However, there are units that can overcome the "Stealth" rule. Some units gain strength from killing units and collecting soul tokens; whereas many units prevent soul tokens from being collected.
Compare this to 40k's system of seeing who can bring the biggest stick for the cheapest price, and then repeating as often as can be afforded during list construction.
2: Less dependence in general to just copy and paste a single unit into all your FOC slots
+1 to this suggestion.
I’ve been recently thinking a lot about mechanics and the impact of transports and I’ve come to the conclusion that the current 40k ruleset doesn’t really work with large amounts of transports/armour. Reason being is because most squads can only bring a single anti tank weapon and it usually requires some lucky rolling to defeat a tank with said weapon (especially in 5th).
When you bring a list where everything is mechanised (such as razorback spam), unless you’re opponent brings a specialised list, it is going to be a one sided battle. This in turn, shoe horns the meta game into a very small handful of build arch types. The game just wasn’t designed for APC/AV spam otherwise the wargear rules would be completely different.
Personally I’d like to overhaul the current AV system completely as the system is too restrictive (as well as punishes players who don’t pack melta into every unit). Ideally I’d like something similar to the damage box system from warmachine (as well as replacing the F/S/R AV stat with a T stat instead).
I'd toss out igougo, it's tactically limiting and is even with saving throws, it's not terribly interactive. Instead, I'd move to alternating unit activiation.
Then I'd reintroduce overwatch. 40k is a rather silly place to begin with, but it's reculous to me that a unit can charge across open ground toward an enemy or between two buildings in front of an enemy and that enemy won't have a chance to take a shot.
FOC changed to a percentage instead of slots(ie:50% troops; 30% elites, FA, & HS; 20% HQ)
Shots against units with an intervening unit providing cover have a chance at hitting the interveneing unit.
Monstrous creatures gaining EW and 5++ save due to the shear size of the Monster.
Super heavys and FW allowed in normal games. Think WHFB 2500 points bring what you can fit.
Vehicle explosions more deadly.
Gets Hot! removed.
Wargear back instead of the short menu we get nowadays.
Defensive fire please.
Power weapons getting + to strength to represent the power of the weapon being able to do more damage.
infantry assulting using side armor vs. vehicles to represent vulnerability as well as the strength of vehicles.
1kp = per 100 points killed. So if you killed 900 points you get 9 KP. Reflects the thing about if you kill all their piddly crap but couldn't kill their death star it would show.
Alternating unit activation. Makes the game more tactical and strategic. Try it sometime it turns the game on it's ear.
Abolish cover saves and institute cover modifiers. soft cover = -1, hard cover= -2.
Remove DT from Tanks, and skimmers. makes no sense.
Remove Rapid fire, instead move to model like psy cannon. 2 shots assault stationary, 1 shot moving.
So, fluff talk and tiny rules aside, apart from cleaning up a few obviously stupid rules (like wound allocation - the SMF of 5th ed), I think the game is basically well designed. There are a few things I'd probably change, though:
- everything would cost more in points. Especially for horde armies, the current points cost system is insufficiently high in resolution. For example, a guardsman costs 5 points. How much do you make an ork boy cost? By power level, they're somewhere between 6 and 7 points base, but you can't charge 6.8 points per model, it has to be either 6 or 7. Which it is will make a HUGE difference for a horde army. If they just took existing points costs and multiplied everything by 10, you would have the resolution able to more finely balance things.
- You would roll more dice. Having so much depending on the result of a single D6 makes talking about expected values (and thus making rules based on them) rather silly. Were I to revamp 40k, I would make a LOT more things rely on a 2D6 (or more), so that you would actually have somewhat predictable values. That you can have your plans ruined by just a few 1's on your part, or just a few 6's in a row seems like a bad move for a game that purports to be a strategy game. Likewise, I think there should be a lot more chances to make things be rerollable.
Basically, taking the game and move it more within its standard deviations would allow for more player skill without even needing to change much of the game's fundamentals.
- psychic powers would be fixed. Nuff said.
Having an option that some armies are practically invincible against while others are completely vulnerable to / have virtually no access to makes no sense at all. Either roll psychic powers into shooting (make them normal weapons), or make it its own phase (like in WHFB), or do SOMETHING to fix it.
- mission objectives would be cleaned up. Currently, there is a lame attempt and making certain types of armies more or less risky, that, in the end, just makes them more or less viable. This is especially true at tournaments where they use the missions in the book as a loose template for how they determine who wins their games. The mission set needs to be made much larger and more comprehensive, so that players need to make serious sacrifices to run an army in one way or another. This would also be required to end some of the rock-paper-scissorsness of the game that people so easily complain about.
Vladsimpaler wrote:I would have fixed the 2nd edition rules instead of coming out with an entirely new ruleset. I would probably keep the FOC because it's interesting, however I would make it so that it would scale with games as opposed to being incredibly inflexible.
I would also have made it so that the psychic rules are like the Warhammer fantasy battle rules instead of watering psychic powers to taking a psychic test.
tl;dr: fixed and balanced 2nd edition rules with a FOC and psychic powers using the WHF magic template=best way to play 40k
Yes! The FOC needs to be modified so it can work better with larger games. Granted, there are the detachment rules, but sadly these are not enough.
I also agree that the psipower rules need to be toned down abit. At the moment, it requires hardly anything to activate them. They need to be riskier, or every army should have countermeasures.
Though maybe not the WHFB magic system. It needs to be something distinct.
Fair enough about needing to be distinct, that was something I was thinking as I was actually typing the post yet neglected to actually include.
Granted I don't have any ideas of what we would do to replace it, though all I know is that it should be more like the WHFB system where there are levels of Psykers and where there is more design space.
As it is, the current 40k psionics have really crowded design space and don't have much more room for development. WHFB magic, on the other hand, can have tons of different spells that have tons of different effects and range in power. There is also countermagic, which should be available to every army no matter what.
So yeah, there was melee combat. The melee guys needed a ridiculous numerical and physical advantage and then also attacked from multiple vectors to overrun a relatively measly infantry platoon.
? that makes sense)
my dreadnought with a multi-melta just missed your tank that's less than 3 inches away 
? nuhuh)