67475
Post by: chuxfm
Just read an article online proposing a 40k rules change question:
If you could change one single rule from the main rulebook, or any of the codices, what would it be?
Please bare in mind the balance of the game when sharing and not just something silly or overpowered.
This can be something that you think is balanced badly or just makes sense with the narative side of the game.
I personally think they change when a play deploys their fortifications. In the rulebook it states you're meant to put it down before other scenery. This seems rediculous to me as someone could just place a huge line of sight blocking piece in front of it.
74677
Post by: Chris Lysander
true but that's why you should use the other version not the d3 twatty scenery version of deploying terrain in a "mutually agreeable fashion"
45565
Post by: cormadepanda
To make charging a little more even to all the shooting make the range
2d6 + 3" that way you can at least make a 5" charge at minium over two.
55847
Post by: Buttons
 cormadepanda wrote:To make charging a little more even to all the shooting make the range
2d6 + 3" that way you can at least make a 5" charge at minium over two.
Still, then you would have an average charge distance of 10". Granted it isn't like assault is overpowered. For me it would probably be to modify the to hit rolls in melee so that someone who is 2 WS higher than their target can hit them on a 2+, and someone who is 2 below their target needs a 6+ to hit them. It is stupid that an Avatar of Khaine or a Space Marine Captain can only hit a guardsman on a 3+, plus it makes WS 6 more useful since you can now hit marines and Orks on a 2+.
69483
Post by: shamikebab
Charge out of stationary vehicles. It's ******* stupid that you can't.
8933
Post by: gardeth
Make Night Scythes a 0-3 choice.
70348
Post by: deathmagiks
I would remove the pile in at every initiative step and only pile in at the end of combat. It doesn't make sense that if my guys wreck the first 2-3 rows of termagaunts that I then have to let the remainder pile in 3 inches and hit me back.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Assaulting out of outflank please thanks
71151
Post by: Waaaghpower
 shamikebab wrote:Charge out of stationary vehicles. It's ******* stupid that you can't.
Yes please.
Barring that, assault from outflank and the old Fleet would be nice.
26997
Post by: Enigma
Let cover modify to hit instead of granting a save...
OR
Give weapon an armour save modifier instead of A
OR
let every unit have its own M value
...heh, there's quite a lot I'd like to change 
61618
Post by: Desubot
 Enigma wrote:Let cover modify to hit instead of granting a save...
OR
Give weapon an armour save modifier instead of A
OR
let every unit have its own M value
...heh, there's quite a lot I'd like to change
We could just play mordhime 
31885
Post by: chrisrawr
"All dice rolls are replaced by statistical averages. Partial wounds can happen, and must be kept track of. Round all numbers to the 5th decimal."
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
As Enigma said, but also modifiers for distance, movement (yours and theirs), night fight etc.
46877
Post by: Mythal
"At the start of each of your movement phases you generate D6 Faith Points for each Primary or Allied Detachment of Sisters of Battle in your army. The value rolled for a given Detachment is how many Faith Points that Detachment has available..."
With the consequent errata that Jacobus only grants a reroll to the detachment he belongs to, and that Laud Hailers return Faith Points to the pool of the detachment of the unit that triggered the relevant Act of Faith.
11783
Post by: illuknisaa
I would replace the igougo -turn system with warpaths activation system.
I'm hoping I'll get to try this someday.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
If I must pick one and nothing else...
Hull Points - drop 'em and go back to the 5E vehicle damage table.
65177
Post by: Warp Angels
Enigma wrote:Let cover modify to hit instead of granting a save...
This for sure !
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
There can be no more Space Marine Codex update or replacements until all the other Non-Space Marine ones have been brought up to 6th Edition..
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
There are too many things that need to be changed.... Too many! I mean.... what do I pick from? Deploying fortifications is idiotic how they wrote it, at least make charging a bit more reliable. I would much rather accept as 3+d3 or better yet a 3+d6 (I'm biased :U) maybe even your initiative plus certain other things (problems with MC though perhaps but gosh darn it how is it that somehow MC move at the same speed as your troops?), area cover shouldn't be giving cover saves to a MC if it is a small blast, make WS a bit more meaningful than it is now, be able to charge out of a stationary vehicle, old fleet, old hitting out of reserves, balance shooting and cc so we don't have one being better (assault in 4th ed shooting in 6th and no 5th vehicle shooting), cover influencing to hit (cool part is marines will be more wise to use terrain. Negative is it will be even harder to kill em). How is barrage a better sniper than snipers themself. PSYKERS! Warlord traits. Why so random?
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
 illuknisaa wrote:I would replace the igougo -turn system with warpaths activation system.
I'm hoping I'll get to try this someday.
Forget what I said before, this x1000
23071
Post by: MandalorynOranj
Either adding a movement stat or to-hit modifiers based on range and cover.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:There can be no more Space Marine Codex update or replacements until all the other Non-Space Marine ones have been brought up to 6th Edition..
There can be no more whining about how unfair it is that Space Marines get all the updates when the oldest book is a Space Marine Codex and there's only been two so far in 6th, of which one was Chaos. Seriously, the reason so many Space Marine Codices, Vanilla aside, got updated in 5th is because they were ancient and desperately needed to be updated.
72313
Post by: Blackskull
 chrisrawr wrote:"All dice rolls are replaced by statistical averages. Partial wounds can happen, and must be kept track of. Round all numbers to the 5th decimal."
nice idea but this will make a long game drag on for an eternity
give furious charge back the +1 intiative, and assalts after outflanking, and if you are going to make charge and run move randomised at least alow some units to do them together, ie run and charge admittedly this shouldnt be allowed for jump units but for everything else.
66712
Post by: Enceladus
Fortification placement AFTER terrain placement.
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
The ability to shoot into close combat.
I would take anything. (ANYthing.) Shots that miss your enemy automatically hit any friendlies? Okay. The whole combat is treated as a single unit, with ALL wounds being allocated to friendlies first, with only the remainder applying to enemies? Likewise fine. Really, anything that circumvents a squadron of Leman Russes and two artillery batteries from firing into a huge seething mass of gaunts because one lonely guardsmen managed to both survive the first round of combat AND roll snake eyes for his leadership test.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Jimsolo wrote:The ability to shoot into close combat.
I would take anything. (ANYthing.) Shots that miss your enemy automatically hit any friendlies? Okay. The whole combat is treated as a single unit, with ALL wounds being allocated to friendlies first, with only the remainder applying to enemies? Likewise fine. Really, anything that circumvents a squadron of Leman Russes and two artillery batteries from firing into a huge seething mass of gaunts because one lonely guardsmen managed to both survive the first round of combat AND roll snake eyes for his leadership test.
On a similar note, except the complete opposite, allow Consolidate moves into close combat once per turn. I don't want to be penalized for finishing my enemy on the charge. As it is now, you want your assault units to break the enemy during your opponents turn as opposed to your own, which is just silly.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Jimsolo wrote:The ability to shoot into close combat.
I would take anything. (ANYthing.) Shots that miss your enemy automatically hit any friendlies? Okay. The whole combat is treated as a single unit, with ALL wounds being allocated to friendlies first, with only the remainder applying to enemies? Likewise fine. Really, anything that circumvents a squadron of Leman Russes and two artillery batteries from firing into a huge seething mass of gaunts because one lonely guardsmen managed to both survive the first round of combat AND roll snake eyes for his leadership test.
Please no. Pleeeeeaaaase no. For the sake of assault don't make close combat any worse than it already is. Shooting doesn't need another buff. And to hit means for most armies a 3+ to hit and seriously tau gunning into tau just no. I can see it now. Riptides in cc tau shooting since the riptide won't get wounded.
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Jimsolo wrote:The ability to shoot into close combat.
I would take anything. (ANYthing.) Shots that miss your enemy automatically hit any friendlies? Okay. The whole combat is treated as a single unit, with ALL wounds being allocated to friendlies first, with only the remainder applying to enemies? Likewise fine. Really, anything that circumvents a squadron of Leman Russes and two artillery batteries from firing into a huge seething mass of gaunts because one lonely guardsmen managed to both survive the first round of combat AND roll snake eyes for his leadership test.
On a similar note, except the complete opposite, allow Consolidate moves into close combat once per turn. I don't want to be penalized for finishing my enemy on the charge. As it is now, you want your assault units to break the enemy during your opponents turn as opposed to your own, which is just silly.
I will happily allow limitless consolidation from one combat straight into another in exchange for the ability to shoot into close combat penalty free. 
StarTrotter wrote:
Please no. Pleeeeeaaaase no. For the sake of assault don't make close combat any worse than it already is. Shooting doesn't need another buff. And to hit means for most armies a 3+ to hit and seriously tau gunning into tau just no. I can see it now. Riptides in cc tau shooting since the riptide won't get wounded.
I'd be willing to go with the 'treat the CC as one big unit,' in which case the Riptide WOULD get wounded. (Since the majority toughness would be whatever unit he'd charged into.) And ALL the wounds would go to the Riptide until he was dead. That option would be better than NO ability to shoot into close combat at all. 
60945
Post by: Digriz
Any model that can take a missile launcher can choose to take 1 of the following 3 missiles, Frag, Krak or Flakk. The choice must be made at the start of the game before deployment.
In tournaments you can choose each game which missile you take, but are stuck to that choice for that game.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
cormadepanda wrote:To make charging a little more even to all the shooting make the range
2d6 + 3" that way you can at least make a 5" charge at minium over two.
If we must have random charge. Roll 3 d6 discard the lowest d6
75427
Post by: reidmc
I really like AP modding saves rather then negating them, really my autocannon is no better at piercing power armour then a lasgun. Also would make balancing less finnicky, having the exact ap as opponents armour is currently a big deal and if you prepare wrong youve either wasted allot of points or brought allot of crap weapons on the field. With modding saves your points arent wasted just because you ran up against the wrong army.
The general rule (though I would modify spec. weapons) I would use would be
ap 5 = -1 save modifier
ap 4 = -2 save modifier
ap 3 = -3 save modifier
ap 2 = -4 save modifier
ap 1 = -5 save modifier
I also like the idea of greater WS difference and still random but normalized charge ranges.
-1 BS over half range seems a decent idea, though it has a funny effect on rapid fire (conscripts would do 4x close range damage as long range damage)
While all those things are just comments, the rule I would personally add is a wacky perils of the warp table that makes taping into the warp strange not just mildly dangerous. It would have things like demon summonings, teleportation, mass possession, and other hidden fun stuff.
50107
Post by: Silentspy22
I'd make Waaagh! let you assault after running, like it was before.
9202
Post by: Solorg
Drop points for Grots to 1 each, Ork Boyz to 2 each and Nobs to 3 each. Points for troops in other armies double.
Har har har.
Boss Solorg
68166
Post by: rohansoldier
1. Make it so snapshot (and overwatch) is at half BS rather than BS 1
2. Allow units to assault out of a vehicle that has moved 6" or less (maybe up disembarking and shooting to 12")
3. Different movement rates for armies and units (i.e. dark reapers would be 4 or 5 but howling banshees would be 6 or 7)
4. Modifiers to hit for moving, range, cover and night fighting (i.e. like warhammer fantasy). No moving modifiers to hit for pistols or assault weapons as they are designed to be fired on the move.
5. Assault after outflanking and 1st turn assault allowed for infiltrators. Why would a sneaky unit stand and get shot for a turn before charging in?
7403
Post by: Accipiter
Roll to hit.
Then have cover/armour/invul saves go.
Then roll to wound.
Or
Allow units to assault out of transports, but their assaults count as disorganized and as assaulting through difficult terrain.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Accipiter wrote:Roll to hit.
Then have cover/armour/invul saves go.
Then roll to wound.
But why? That changes nothing.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
For me it would probably be to modify the to hit rolls in melee so that someone who is 2 WS higher than their target can hit them on a 2+, and someone who is 2 below their target needs a 6+ to hit them. It is stupid that an Avatar of Khaine or a Space Marine Captain can only hit a guardsman on a 3+, plus it makes WS 6 more useful since you can now hit marines and Orks on a 2+.
this - a thousand times this  I would go further - if they are more than double thier WS they get a re-roll. High BS is rewarded much more than high WS................
28305
Post by: Talizvar
I agree with this change for one reason it has always bugged me that the order now makes no sense.
First you roll to hit, what did you hit? = Armour, make an armour save, when you get past that what did you hit? The squishy insides (or you pulped him inside his armour from the impact) = roll to wound.
Not a game changer but makes the OCD people feel better.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Talizvar wrote:
I agree with this change for one reason it has always bugged me that the order now makes no sense.
First you roll to hit, what did you hit? = Armour, make an armour save, when you get past that what did you hit? The squishy insides (or you pulped him inside his armour from the impact) = roll to wound.
Not a game changer but makes the OCD people feel better.
Ah, I see it like this:
Roll to hit to see if you hit at all.
Roll to wound to see if your hit was good enough to do anything other than glance the enemy.
Roll armour save to see if your armour blocked the effective hit.
After all, if the shotdidn't even have the potential to cause damage, why roll saves for it? I can see where you're coming from, though.
34456
Post by: ColdSadHungry
Give some dedicated CC units fnp against overwatch shots. I know overwatch isn't alawys a huge problem but depending on armour values of the assaulters and/or ap values of the shooters, it can really balance the game in favour of non cc armies.
Id suggest the idea behind this is that some units are just so hell bent on getting into a scrap that their adrenaline helps them to shrug off wounds as they close on their foe.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Fortifications are placed after terrain
OR
Remove Hull Points and go back to where each type of hit (Glancing, Penetrating, Ordnance) had their own damage tables.
OR
Reintroduce 0-1,0-2 etc for certain units. Granted that GW will never do this as they'll sell fewer kits but it'd stop a certain degree of list-spamming.
23071
Post by: MandalorynOranj
One other thing I thought of: remove random psychic powers and just give them all appropriate point costs.
75427
Post by: reidmc
 Valkyrie wrote:
Reintroduce 0-1,0-2 etc for certain units. Granted that GW will never do this as they'll sell fewer kits but it'd stop a certain degree of list-spamming.
I disagree with this because units should be designed so spam does not = success and it means some of the units people have bought will become useless. Not that GW hasn't done things like that in the past though.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
 MandalorynOranj wrote:One other thing I thought of: remove random psychic powers and just give them all appropriate point costs.
agreed, should be this way
66265
Post by: bahzakhain
Bring something in to represent maneuver outside of the tabletop, as in logistics and stuff. I mean, how are my Eldar supposed to constantly fight battles against armies that are evenly matched? Their tactical doctrine focuses on force concentration, force concentration so great that they can slaughter the enemy without losing much from their own. I've been working on this for a time, making something like a five-minute minigame before the battle starts. you could then concentrate your forces like that, but at the cost of the enemy making an unhindered advance on all other fronts.
60966
Post by: jifel
Have Overwatch have some kind of penalty attached. Anything! personally it'd make sense for a unit to not be able to attack if you overwatch. This way, it is at least a choice of whether or not you should overwatch. Or, have it be like Interceptor in the assault phase, and you can't shoot in the turn after.
68972
Post by: Slaanesh-Devotee
I'm loving how many people are suggesting reincorporating rules that were present in 2nd Ed
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
What about if you overwatch with a weapon it is what you use in the combat. So a model with a power fist and flamer for example has to choose to use the flamer in overwatch and not get any special attacks, or use the power fist. If you want to get the bonus attacks you only get to overwatch with a bolt pistol instead of the bolter.
It would also make you lose the ability to use grenades in combat, such as if you were charged by a walker.
You could even have an extension of rules that would allow bayonet style weapons like on Kroot guns.
69272
Post by: tommse
Something like no firstblood for dedicated transports except of Land Raider would be neat.
59923
Post by: Baronyu
WS table, someone who can't even tell the right end of a sword to hold should not be able to touch my high WS character, likewise, my high WS god/goddess shouldn't have the same chance at hitting a superhuman soldier as they have hitting a dimwit. Last I checked, I wasn't able to land a punch on a MMA champion in a serious fight, but then my memory has been a bit fuzzy since... What are we talking about again? Yes I'll have some of that cake. Thanks. Sorry. Can I change channel?
57665
Post by: Malthor
Either the aforementioned changes to the WS table, or have Fear actually do something against Marines, at the moment it's a rule I might as well not have with Daemons/CSM. Maybe have Marines test at LD 10 because of ATSKNF, or at normal LD with re-rolls?
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.
8221
Post by: Zathras
Give Gauss weaponry Rending vs non-vehicular targets.
59923
Post by: Baronyu
Savageconvoy wrote:I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.
On one hand, I'd like to think it is a necessity for a low model count army who, unlike necrons, aren't rolling with RP/ EL and ld 10. But on the other, I have CSM who are basically marines without ATSKNF, and they seem to be doing fine-ish... And on my 3rd hand(don't judge), I think it was meant to be a rule to ease new players into the game, like extra wheels on a bike, except in this case, these extra wheels allow them to race against supersonic jets in these imaginary jet vs bike races that I have in my mind.
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
Well they already have high leadership so they're less susceptible to pinning, moral checks from shooting and melee, and just about any leadership check in generally. Now they get to auto-regroup when every non-marine has to worry about running off the board. They don't get swept up. They aren't affected by Fear.
CSM are 1 point less than DA tactical marines and the only difference is ATSKNF. They get quite a few upgrades for that 1 point to where it really seems more like a punishment that I'm not playing marines.
I play Tau as my primary army and I've had plenty of units run off the board or get swept up. I don't think that almost half the armies out there should get immunity from such things.
60966
Post by: jifel
Oh, one other one! When a single-model unit charges a unit with template weapons, the Templates cause 1 automatic hit instead of d3. Seriously, Flamers shouldn't be better at overwatch than normal against Trygons and such.
68822
Post by: KonTheory
I don't like the proposed rule change near the top of this page..
making AP a negative modifier...
thats no good...
then AP 5, 4, 3 would still punish terminators...
not cool
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
The point is that if you're using a weapon with AP3, you have a weapon that is basically meant to penetrate all but tank armor and it has no effect on a Terminator.
30830
Post by: Purple Saturday
KonTheory wrote:I don't like the proposed rule change near the top of this page..
making AP a negative modifier...
thats no good...
then AP 5, 4, 3 would still punish terminators...
not cool
So then you have terminator armor test on 2d6. Duh. I bet no one has ever thought of that. Wait, what edition is this again?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
While I may not like all of the rules I would like to change one thing -
Go back to 5th edition wound allocation.
75147
Post by: Maurepas
Bring Shroud back to a 4+. It'd make my KFF much more effective.
23071
Post by: MandalorynOranj
In regards to ATSKNF, something easy they can do is to make it so the whole squad needs it to take effect. This won't change the fact that it basically ignores the morale aspect of the game, but it will at least prevent a single librarian from giving it to a blob squad.
And I really don't understand the hate for the current wound allocation system. It makes so much more logical sense than previously, and is one of the few cases where I think GW's effort to be "cinematic" actually improved the game.
43229
Post by: Ovion
Remove 50% reserve Liaoit.
This, more than anything hurts wwp and such lists.
75427
Post by: reidmc
KonTheory wrote:I don't like the proposed rule change near the top of this page..
making AP a negative modifier...
thats no good...
then AP 5, 4, 3 would still punish terminators...
not cool
I agree that some units get nerfed by this, 3+ save models slightly and 2+ save models big time (math-wise, even a bolter on my chart would make a termi fail save on a 2 or a 1, his armour is now half as effective)
My solution would be case by case unit rebalance, I already thought terminators were uselessly underpowered and now Ive kind of killed them, so how about:
+1 wound
or -5 point cost (approx)
or a 4+ invulnerable save
or maybe reroll failed saves (would come with slight price raise, that is really good)
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
MandalorynOranj wrote:In regards to ATSKNF, something easy they can do is to make it so the whole squad needs it to take effect. This won't change the fact that it basically ignores the morale aspect of the game, but it will at least prevent a single librarian from giving it to a blob squad.
And I really don't understand the hate for the current wound allocation system. It makes so much more logical sense than previously, and is one of the few cases where I think GW's effort to be "cinematic" actually improved the game.
I think the reason people hate it (and why I hate it) is because it is another reason assault is worse than ranged combat this edition. I'v seen ork green tides that have tried to march to the enemy but (they were Tau) due to the enemy being a shooting focused army, they would kill more enemies than the orks could advance. Along with that, it makes the random charge distances worse for those rare times the enemy (and even more common with Tau) kills your ftonr guy and then that 2 inch charge becomes a 6 inch charge. It can change a game dramatically. Finally, I still cannot say it makes much sense. So let me get this straight. My super reflexive monsters and marines (etc) don't know how to react to 3 bullets flying at them but when I try to charge you the enemy gets to shoot at me and my guys might fail the charge by a centimeter and in their good will retreat away from the enemy instead of bashing their skulls? In reality, killing from the front doesn't make that much sense. Flamers? Somehow kills guys on the side. Blast? Kill the two guys on the two opposite ends because they are closest. And how is it that every time somebody gets shot.... it is always the front guy?
23071
Post by: MandalorynOranj
 StarTrotter wrote:And how is it that every time somebody gets shot.... it is always the front guy?
It makes a lot more sense than before, when somehow every time somebody got shot it was the guy farthest in the back.
69145
Post by: Asmodai Asmodean
All units which deep strike and outflank may assault from deep strike/outflank. This will make assault and deep strike useful again.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
No Assaulting from Deep Strike has been standard since at least 2nd edition, being able to just appear anywhere on the board and launch an assault is an extremely limited ability for a reason. You'd be able to table many IG or Tau armies on turn 2 if running a massed DS army with that capability. It's part of the reason almost nobody plays Planetstrike.
59721
Post by: Evileyes
Shooting at flyer's is BS2, rather than BS1.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
MandalorynOranj wrote: StarTrotter wrote:And how is it that every time somebody gets shot.... it is always the front guy?
It makes a lot more sense than before, when somehow every time somebody got shot it was the guy farthest in the back.
*shrugs* personally I always took it as, hey, they killed a generic guy with an off shot that hit further back in the ranks and then everybody continued to advance (in other words the deaths were from the front but they continued to march onwards).
99
Post by: insaniak
I would allow blast and template weapons to snap fire. I miss my plasma canon dreadnought, but right now the assault cannon is just to much of a better option due to the snap fire rules. Taking blast weapons on vehicles is just not the best option in this edition.
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
This is pretty minor, but one thing that really, really bugs me about the Grey Knights book is that the Psycannon's profile looks nothing like a heavy bolter, despite the fact that they're supposedly psycannon-bolt-heavy-bolters; I'd go back to the old 36"/S6/AP4/Heavy 3 or 18"/S6/AP4/Assault 3 profile.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 AnomanderRake wrote:This is pretty minor, but one thing that really, really bugs me about the Grey Knights book is that the Psycannon's profile looks nothing like a heavy bolter, despite the fact that they're supposedly psycannon-bolt-heavy-bolters; I'd go back to the old 36"/S6/AP4/Heavy 3 or 18"/S6/AP4/Assault 3 profile.
They're Assault Cannons with Psybolts, not Heavy Bolters with Psybolts.
73662
Post by: joe_deman
1 rule change? I'd change GW policy and have a big sale. 50% off everything
75727
Post by: sing your life
Pick warlord traits instead of rolling for them.
31886
Post by: dkellyj
The Devastator Squad Sergeant gives his unit Skyfire while he is alive.
This would make him something more than just another ablative wound to protect a heavy weapon.
44333
Post by: junk
1 rule change? An allies tax. Either a a point cost increase for your allied detachment, or a cost of entry fee of the overall list price to allow allies; I'd swap out the whole arbitrary matrix for an All/All matrix + tax.
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
dkellyj wrote:The Devastator Squad Sergeant gives his unit Skyfire while he is alive.
This would make him something more than just another ablative wound to protect a heavy weapon.
Broadsides have to pay 20 points per model for skyfire. Giving that to an entire squad would have to rack it up by at least 75 points.
61769
Post by: HiveFleetCollossus
If you choose to fire overwatch against an enemy that is about to assault you, you fight at initiative 1. Or suffer -1 to your initiative. Whatever is more balanced.
26997
Post by: Enigma
It would be interesting to see most of these suggestions in a poll...
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
Get rid of random charge range! nothing more infuriating than my fearless battle hungry orks forgetting how to walk because I rolled snake eyes.
If I had to suggest something that hasn't be said before... get rid of disordered charge. Why should it matter if I'm assaulting 50 guardsmen in one unit or 2 units of 10?
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Maybe not just picking the traits, but something along those lines. How about you roll for the Trait, and then choose one of the three tables, giving you a selection between 3 of them?
25751
Post by: gmaleron
Taking a Leman Russ Battle Tank and giving it the option for shells, if a Hammerhead can have submunition rounds why cant a Leman Russ have Vanquisher shells and Standard Battle Cannon shells, would make perfect sense and fit the fluff.
36241
Post by: Murrdox
Vehicles:
Melee to hit stationary Vehicle - Automatic hits
Vehicle moved Combat Speed - WS1
Vehicle moved Cruising Speed - WS4
Vehicle has a "Jink" Cover save - WS10
Melee attacks against Vehicles are resolved against the facing of the vehicle the model is touching. Attacks are resolved at -2 AV for that facing, taking into account models shooting at vital components.
Increase the amount of Hull Points for nearly all Vehicles by at least 1. Most AV13 Vehicles should have about 4, Landraiders 5. Even light vehicles should have a minimum of 3 Hull Points.
Against Glancing Hits, all Vehicles have a 5+ Save.
Remove the +1 modifier for AP2 from the Vehicle Damage Chart.
71171
Post by: Ironwill13791
Being able to assault out of an arbitrary, stationary transport vehicle.
Nothing more head-scratching then your assault-based crusader marine squad going "Hey, we walked out of the doors of this immobile rhino so we can't assault the enemy. Shoot your pistols!".
It just feels clunky and stupid.
73662
Post by: joe_deman
i like this last one except for the AP2 removal thing.
27932
Post by: noghri
For really huge MC, like Riptide and Writhknight (and the ones that will come :p ), lose something like 2 base attacks but gain +2 attacks for every 5 or 6 minis you're assaulting.
59721
Post by: Evileyes
 Savageconvoy wrote:dkellyj wrote:The Devastator Squad Sergeant gives his unit Skyfire while he is alive.
This would make him something more than just another ablative wound to protect a heavy weapon.
Broadsides have to pay 20 points per model for skyfire. Giving that to an entire squad would have to rack it up by at least 75 points.
To be fair, a broadside is a smidge better than a single devastator marine at shooting vehicles.
44333
Post by: junk
1st choice would still be the allies matrix tax; but another potential thing would be an elimination of random psychic powers in exchange for a fixed cost scheme - Random Psychic powers is so f'ing weird.
63020
Post by: dragqueeninspace
Fliers a 0-1 choice.
55847
Post by: Buttons
 gmaleron wrote:Taking a Leman Russ Battle Tank and giving it the option for shells, if a Hammerhead can have submunition rounds why cant a Leman Russ have Vanquisher shells and Standard Battle Cannon shells, would make perfect sense and fit the fluff.
Well maybe an LRBT shouldn't get Vanquisher shells (since the main reason for the vanquisher's penetration is its long gun), but up the vanquisher should be able to take high explosive shells as an upgrade.
74561
Post by: Sleg
The only Rule I would Change is Drop Pods and Mysetic Spores come in on reserve instead of half come in turn 1. Otherwise, I would allow all reserves, the chance to activate Turn 1.
Pods should be considered Deep Striking in every respect. Meaning if it gets destroyed, the unit inside is destroyed along with it.
11038
Post by: G. Whitenbeard
Valkyrie wrote:
Maybe not just picking the traits, but something along those lines. How about you roll for the Trait, and then choose one of the three tables, giving you a selection between 3 of them?
This is how my club has been playing warlord traits for almost 8 months now. Roll 1 die. You get to select a trait from that number across all three tables. This system almost entirely eliminates the possibility of getting a totally useless trait.
52364
Post by: Engine of War
Give my Hydras Interceptor.
let them shoot at ground targets normally and let them be a threat to aircraft, as opposed to a flying coming on the board and 1 shotting the poor hydra.
67502
Post by: A GumyBear
Tau are not allowed in friendly or tournament play unless against other tau
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Sleg wrote:The only Rule I would Change is Drop Pods and Mysetic Spores come in on reserve instead of half come in turn 1. Otherwise, I would allow all reserves, the chance to activate Turn 1.
Pods should be considered Deep Striking in every respect. Meaning if it gets destroyed, the unit inside is destroyed along with it.
If the Pod is destroyed, so is the unit. That wouldn't be a change.
52309
Post by: Breng77
SO rules changes I would like
1.) WS chart change as has been mentioned perhaps just have it mirror the S vs T chart. Right now high WS is Largely meaningless.
2.) Make snapshots occur at say BS -4 (or 3 or something) to a minimum of 1. That way my BS 8 super sniper can actually hit better in all cases than a BS 2 Ork. The Reward for Super high BS is really not all that great.
72293
Post by: Mitranekh the Omniscient
I'd like to see the old fleet back or something that gives orks a bit of a chance to use an effective Waaagh. And do something about charges, not sure what though. Assault from outflank.
The AP modifier sounds similar to the idea in WHFB where str is the mod, I think it would work. But on the whole it just needs a couple of ways to balance shooting and cc
65757
Post by: PredaKhaine
Savageconvoy wrote:I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.
I completely agree.
Fear? no thanks don't think I'll bother
Being swept? No, again I don't think I'll bother.
Having to test to regroup? erm nope, don't like the sound of that so I won't bother
My csm warlord rolled fear on his warlord trait while fighting SM? - No thanks, you'll just have to accept it does nothing in this game...
58317
Post by: tuiman
I would love to bring back, being able to assault from reserve. Or just anything to make it more balanced to assault than just a shooty edition.
24341
Post by: Riddick40k
The 1 rule i would like changed is the not being able to assault 1st turn for using a scout move... My flesh hounds want first turn assaults!
38926
Post by: Exergy
Savageconvoy wrote:I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.
It's largely better than fearless and given out to half the armies in the game for free.
61618
Post by: Desubot
 Exergy wrote: Savageconvoy wrote:I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.
It's largely better than fearless and given out to half the armies in the game for free.
It would be nice if only the sergeant provide that buff, at least that way precision shots would make a bit more sense.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
PredaKhaine wrote: Savageconvoy wrote:I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.
I completely agree.
Fear? no thanks don't think I'll bother
Being swept? No, again I don't think I'll bother.
Having to test to regroup? erm nope, don't like the sound of that so I won't bother
My csm warlord rolled fear on his warlord trait while fighting SM? - No thanks, you'll just have to accept it does nothing in this game...
oh and don't forget terrify! Fear me! blarghalblargh. Space Marines look at it and laugh. Sorry we aren't fearless! *puffs out chest*
Actually I had a long list but, if anything, I'd like this to be changed entirely. ATSKNF simply invalidates too many rules.
Breng77 wrote:SO rules changes I would like
1.) WS chart change as has been mentioned perhaps just have it mirror the S vs T chart. Right now high WS is Largely meaningless.
2.) Make snapshots occur at say BS -4 (or 3 or something) to a minimum of 1. That way my BS 8 super sniper can actually hit better in all cases than a BS 2 Ork. The Reward for Super high BS is really not all that great.
Oh the second one is a hard one. BS-4 or 3 still causes a problem. The super elite marines shoot at the same capability as an ork xD. Oh and remove overwatch. How the feth are orks some of the best at overwatch in the game!? xD (and how do armies overwatch anyways O.o yeah yeah. They don't stand idly by and wait for the enemy to reach them. ell my daemons of super agility don't dodge bullets, they stands still letting the enemy hit the first guy for each unit, and the enemy gets a turn of volley fire at my guardsman before they shoot back. Oh and apparently my MC moves at the same speed as pretty much all of my other units. Reallly? Oh and marines and guardsman move at the same pace). But yeah, never understood how the most elite of shooters and the novice shoot at BS1 either way
74561
Post by: Sleg
AlmightyWalrus - Killing the unit inside wasn't the change. The secondary change was that it reacts like all units deep striking - instead of bouncing back to it's starting point it would have to roll on the Mishap table.
But the most important change is that it can't take half its numbers to come in on the 1st turn. Either No Unit can arrive 1st from reserve or all reserve units would have the same chance to arrive 1st.
66539
Post by: greyknight12
I would change the building and ruin rules to make them simpler, right now that section of the rules is just a black hole. Make buildings basically vehicles (use the same chart, just give them more hull points and something different for immobilized), and get rid of the special rules about moving around in ruins (just treat them as difficult terrain).
If I can have another one: Get rid of challenges. They slow the game down too much, and kind of clunky. I haven't really seen them have any other effect on an assault other than to slow down an inevitable result.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Sleg wrote:AlmightyWalrus - Killing the unit inside wasn't the change. The secondary change was that it reacts like all units deep striking - instead of bouncing back to it's starting point it would have to roll on the Mishap table.
But the most important change is that it can't take half its numbers to come in on the 1st turn. Either No Unit can arrive 1st from reserve or all reserve units would have the same chance to arrive 1st.
So you'd completely kill off Drop Pod armies? Why?
8932
Post by: Lanrak
My single rule change would be to stop using WHFB rules , and use Epic rules instead.
Then the 40k game makes much more sense!
20392
Post by: Farseer Faenyin
I think my change would be to how Nightscythes allow Troops to deploy from them, with much more restrictions.
Aside from that, all of these I've seen sound amazing:
1.) Fortification deployment and rules cleanup
2.) ATSKNF
3.) Allies Tax
4.) Cost of Skyfire units
52309
Post by: Breng77
StarTrotter wrote:PredaKhaine wrote: Savageconvoy wrote:I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.
Breng77 wrote:SO rules changes I would like
1.) WS chart change as has been mentioned perhaps just have it mirror the S vs T chart. Right now high WS is Largely meaningless.
2.) Make snapshots occur at say BS -4 (or 3 or something) to a minimum of 1. That way my BS 8 super sniper can actually hit better in all cases than a BS 2 Ork. The Reward for Super high BS is really not all that great.
Oh the second one is a hard one. BS-4 or 3 still causes a problem. The super elite marines shoot at the same capability as an ork xD. Oh and remove overwatch. How the feth are orks some of the best at overwatch in the game!? xD (and how do armies overwatch anyways O.o yeah yeah. They don't stand idly by and wait for the enemy to reach them. ell my daemons of super agility don't dodge bullets, they stands still letting the enemy hit the first guy for each unit, and the enemy gets a turn of volley fire at my guardsman before they shoot back. Oh and apparently my MC moves at the same speed as pretty much all of my other units. Reallly? Oh and marines and guardsman move at the same pace). But yeah, never understood how the most elite of shooters and the novice shoot at BS1 either way
My other solution was something like BS-3 but if that would take you Below 1 you need to re-roll successful hits.
if you really wanted differentiation I guess you could do BS -4, and if you would be Below BS1 then you re-roll successful to hit rolls but the re-rolled sucesses hit on your regular BS. SO BS 4 Hits on 6s then re-rolls any 6s looking for 3s, but BS 2 hits on 6s and re-rolls those 6s looking for 5s. Something like this would really be the only way to truely balance snapshoting.
Really though I don't have as much of an issue with Orks and Marines overwatching the same as I do with say a Vindicare not being able to hit flyers any better than a standard marine. IT was more to be a buff to really high BS rather than helping lower BS armies.
73822
Post by: gealgain
My single rule change?
All heavy weapons gain interceptor USR, but fired as snap shots.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
 insaniak wrote:I would allow blast and template weapons to snap fire. I miss my plasma canon dreadnought, but right now the assault cannon is just to much of a better option due to the snap fire rules. Taking blast weapons on vehicles is just not the best option in this edition.
But...the only time the Dreadnought would be firing snap shots with blasts is at flyers (which cannot be affected), overwatch (which is something they couldn't do in 4th or 5th anyway since it didn't exist) or Crew Shaken/Stunned in which case it wouldn't have been able to fire them in 5th either.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Breng77 wrote: StarTrotter wrote:PredaKhaine wrote: Savageconvoy wrote:I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.
Breng77 wrote:SO rules changes I would like
1.) WS chart change as has been mentioned perhaps just have it mirror the S vs T chart. Right now high WS is Largely meaningless.
2.) Make snapshots occur at say BS -4 (or 3 or something) to a minimum of 1. That way my BS 8 super sniper can actually hit better in all cases than a BS 2 Ork. The Reward for Super high BS is really not all that great.
Oh the second one is a hard one. BS-4 or 3 still causes a problem. The super elite marines shoot at the same capability as an ork xD. Oh and remove overwatch. How the feth are orks some of the best at overwatch in the game!? xD (and how do armies overwatch anyways O.o yeah yeah. They don't stand idly by and wait for the enemy to reach them. ell my daemons of super agility don't dodge bullets, they stands still letting the enemy hit the first guy for each unit, and the enemy gets a turn of volley fire at my guardsman before they shoot back. Oh and apparently my MC moves at the same speed as pretty much all of my other units. Reallly? Oh and marines and guardsman move at the same pace). But yeah, never understood how the most elite of shooters and the novice shoot at BS1 either way
My other solution was something like BS-3 but if that would take you Below 1 you need to re-roll successful hits.
if you really wanted differentiation I guess you could do BS -4, and if you would be Below BS1 then you re-roll successful to hit rolls but the re-rolled sucesses hit on your regular BS. SO BS 4 Hits on 6s then re-rolls any 6s looking for 3s, but BS 2 hits on 6s and re-rolls those 6s looking for 5s. Something like this would really be the only way to truely balance snapshoting.
Really though I don't have as much of an issue with Orks and Marines overwatching the same as I do with say a Vindicare not being able to hit flyers any better than a standard marine. IT was more to be a buff to really high BS rather than helping lower BS armies.
Ah understandable. I simply felt it might be best to expand it. As a rule itself, it really wouldn't benefit many units. And really, how is it that Marines that are a BS of 4 fire the same (and over all worse) than orks? Especially since, in reality, a BS of 4 is supposed to be high whilst a bs of 2 is supposed to be low (and bs3 is supposed to be average). I understand your notion. It's a tough one in the end (plus I'm leaning against cause I prefer overwatch to not get better. I already have enough games against tau where an assault has been denied)
51963
Post by: Toxium
I just want my Burning Chariot to be able to move and shoot.
99
Post by: insaniak
 Happyjew wrote:
But...the only time the Dreadnought would be firing snap shots with blasts is at flyers (which cannot be affected), overwatch (which is something they couldn't do in 4th or 5th anyway since it didn't exist) or Crew Shaken/Stunned in which case it wouldn't have been able to fire them in 5th either.
Yeah, that's kind of the point. In 5th edition, you also couldn't fire assault cannons in those situations. It was a more level playing field, although even with 5th's rules the plasma cannon suffered due to blasts being so unreliable.
The fact that the assault cannon and autocannons gained the ability to fire at fliers, overwatch and to fire when stunned/shaken while the plasma cannon didn't (with no change in points costs) relegated the dread's plasma cannon to the 'meh' pile in 6th.
24341
Post by: Riddick40k
Toxium wrote:I just want my Burning Chariot to be able to move and shoot.
Agreed
52309
Post by: Breng77
StarTrotter wrote:Breng77 wrote: StarTrotter wrote:PredaKhaine wrote: Savageconvoy wrote:I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.
Breng77 wrote:SO rules changes I would like
1.) WS chart change as has been mentioned perhaps just have it mirror the S vs T chart. Right now high WS is Largely meaningless.
2.) Make snapshots occur at say BS -4 (or 3 or something) to a minimum of 1. That way my BS 8 super sniper can actually hit better in all cases than a BS 2 Ork. The Reward for Super high BS is really not all that great.
Oh the second one is a hard one. BS-4 or 3 still causes a problem. The super elite marines shoot at the same capability as an ork xD. Oh and remove overwatch. How the feth are orks some of the best at overwatch in the game!? xD (and how do armies overwatch anyways O.o yeah yeah. They don't stand idly by and wait for the enemy to reach them. ell my daemons of super agility don't dodge bullets, they stands still letting the enemy hit the first guy for each unit, and the enemy gets a turn of volley fire at my guardsman before they shoot back. Oh and apparently my MC moves at the same speed as pretty much all of my other units. Reallly? Oh and marines and guardsman move at the same pace). But yeah, never understood how the most elite of shooters and the novice shoot at BS1 either way
My other solution was something like BS-3 but if that would take you Below 1 you need to re-roll successful hits.
if you really wanted differentiation I guess you could do BS -4, and if you would be Below BS1 then you re-roll successful to hit rolls but the re-rolled sucesses hit on your regular BS. SO BS 4 Hits on 6s then re-rolls any 6s looking for 3s, but BS 2 hits on 6s and re-rolls those 6s looking for 5s. Something like this would really be the only way to truely balance snapshoting.
Really though I don't have as much of an issue with Orks and Marines overwatching the same as I do with say a Vindicare not being able to hit flyers any better than a standard marine. IT was more to be a buff to really high BS rather than helping lower BS armies.
Ah understandable. I simply felt it might be best to expand it. As a rule itself, it really wouldn't benefit many units. And really, how is it that Marines that are a BS of 4 fire the same (and over all worse) than orks? Especially since, in reality, a BS of 4 is supposed to be high whilst a bs of 2 is supposed to be low (and bs3 is supposed to be average). I understand your notion. It's a tough one in the end (plus I'm leaning against cause I prefer overwatch to not get better. I already have enough games against tau where an assault has been denied)
Actually if you went with my last solution BS -4 with re-rolls, overwatch in general gets worse. A Marine would only hit 1/9 times an Ork 1/18. SO while Tau could use marker lights to boost up their BS during overwatch chances are good that it would only get back up to 1/6 hits. With a -4 Modifier, it would take them 2 Markers just to get back to standard BS1, and 4 Marker hits to get back to BS3, now it just takes them 2 to get to BS3.
65757
Post by: PredaKhaine
Think the massive multi-quote went wrong there at some point guys - I didn't say anything in it.... I'm getting StarTrotters quote attributed to me
46128
Post by: Happyjew
insaniak wrote: Happyjew wrote:
But...the only time the Dreadnought would be firing snap shots with blasts is at flyers (which cannot be affected), overwatch (which is something they couldn't do in 4th or 5th anyway since it didn't exist) or Crew Shaken/Stunned in which case it wouldn't have been able to fire them in 5th either.
Yeah, that's kind of the point. In 5th edition, you also couldn't fire assault cannons in those situations. It was a more level playing field, although even with 5th's rules the plasma cannon suffered due to blasts being so unreliable.
The fact that the assault cannon and autocannons gained the ability to fire at fliers, overwatch and to fire when stunned/shaken while the plasma cannon didn't (with no change in points costs) relegated the dread's plasma cannon to the 'meh' pile in 6th.
So its not a matter of Blasts getting worse, it is a matter of other things getting better. Gotcha.
47173
Post by: Aeroroot
Turn my hammerhead rule into one I heard online: draw a straight line from the tank to a table edge. After D6- BS scatter at first target, resolve hit. If it glances or pens a tank, resolve shot against next target on the line at -1 strength. Continue against all models along drawn line until a non-glance/pen is rolled, or it hits a piece of something that can't be shot through. When hitting infantry, it hits all models with their base under a tape measure along the drawn line (width of hammerhead gun). No strength reduction in shot when going through infantry.
Either that or BS4 firewarriors....I can't stand being outshot by eldar
75958
Post by: JC1
Sisters of battle faith should either be modified to be proportional to army size, something like d3 faith points per 500 points, or units should just pay points to get an act of faith which does not have to be rolled to see if it works but does use a faith point. A 2000 point sisters army with 4 or less faith points, then failing to get 2 acts to go off really can't compete with most other armies.
74259
Post by: Mojo1jojo
I would get rid of the whole pre-measuring rule. It was fun in the 5th edition to declare shooting at a unite then find out that you are out of range. It is something that was added to turn the game towards shooting instead of melee
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
 Aeroroot wrote:Turn my hammerhead rule into one I heard online: draw a straight line from the tank to a table edge. After D6- BS scatter at first target, resolve hit. If it glances or pens a tank, resolve shot against next target on the line at -1 strength. Continue against all models along drawn line until a non-glance/pen is rolled, or it hits a piece of something that can't be shot through. When hitting infantry, it hits all models with their base under a tape measure along the drawn line (width of hammerhead gun). No strength reduction in shot when going through infantry.
That rule was from the 6th edition leak (Heretical/pancake edition), and it applied to all rail weapons. Thankfully it didn't get used, the last thing this game needs is a str 10 infinite range "Kill Everything" gun
61618
Post by: Desubot
 Luke_Prowler wrote: Aeroroot wrote:Turn my hammerhead rule into one I heard online: draw a straight line from the tank to a table edge. After D6- BS scatter at first target, resolve hit. If it glances or pens a tank, resolve shot against next target on the line at -1 strength. Continue against all models along drawn line until a non-glance/pen is rolled, or it hits a piece of something that can't be shot through. When hitting infantry, it hits all models with their base under a tape measure along the drawn line (width of hammerhead gun). No strength reduction in shot when going through infantry.
That rule was from the 6th edition leak (Heretical/pancake edition), and it applied to all rail weapons. Thankfully it didn't get used, the last thing this game needs is a str 10 infinite range "Kill Everything" gun
you mean current necron doom scythe?  (well its less range but still dang good)
75656
Post by: Helznicht
I find it odd that units are limited to throwing 1 grenade per turn in the shooting phase but when they assault a vehicle, the whole unit can take the time to find a good spot to wedge a grenade. Its even more crazy if you think about them doing that to a walker. We house ruled 1 grenade per assault turn also.
75958
Post by: JC1
I liked old edition you could only grenade an immobile walker. But i think you should be able to throw as many grenades as you want, I think the only reason they didn't do it is because the points cost would be out, and some units would use the grenade as their primary weapon.
99
Post by: insaniak
JC1 wrote:...and some units would use the grenade as their primary weapon.
Pretty much this. In 2nd edition, (the lst time you could throw grenades about willy nilly) once the enemy got within 12" you were far better off just flinging 10 frag grenades at them instead. Which slowed things down considerably.
27782
Post by: Mr.Church13
Assign point values to psychic powers and let you pick em. Greatest edition ever.
70287
Post by: Fandarel
Yo, rolling for psychic powers and warlord traits is kinda stupid.
Its like, "Dude, our Libarians/Psychics are mentally slowed and cant remember their stuff longer than 5 Minutes"
same goes for Warlords
Another thing is the" Accurate Sense" rule. It should be changed to some other kind of Bonus, at least something that more than a couple of units can use (There is a complete Codex where almost every unit got this waste of a rule)
71426
Post by: bodazoka
Assaulting out of transports, IMO should be basically standard practice for most transports. Especially dedicated ones...
If I could assault straight out of a NS.. that would make some units allot more viable.
74621
Post by: thetallestgiraffe
Lower Pricing on tzeentch units; they would be decent if they lowered the pricing a tad
76100
Post by: Theik
While I really would like to change things to make assaulty-armies more fun to play and less "hey I'm target practise for all you Tau players", I think the one thing I'd really change would have to be the ridiculous rule that swooping flying creatures drop out of the sky the moment something so much as looks in their general direction.
Yes, I understand that if you get hit by a rocket launcher, flying becomes pretty darn tricky. But why, please tell, would a massive monster drop out of the sky just because 20 imperial guard shot their little pea shooters at it, only to watch it bounce of its chitin? Or, sillier still, why would it fall out of the sky if you aim a markerlight at it?
I seriously can't find any real reason to use flying monsters as anything other than jump monsters until they fix the absurd ruling on crashing. As long as you throw enough things at it, you're bound to roll some 6's with your snap shots and make the flyer fail its grounding test.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Theik wrote:While I really would like to change things to make assaulty-armies more fun to play and less "hey I'm target practise for all you Tau players", I think the one thing I'd really change would have to be the ridiculous rule that swooping flying creatures drop out of the sky the moment something so much as looks in their general direction.
Yes, I understand that if you get hit by a rocket launcher, flying becomes pretty darn tricky. But why, please tell, would a massive monster drop out of the sky just because 20 imperial guard shot their little pea shooters at it, only to watch it bounce of its chitin? Or, sillier still, why would it fall out of the sky if you aim a markerlight at it?
I seriously can't find any real reason to use flying monsters as anything other than jump monsters until they fix the absurd ruling on crashing. As long as you throw enough things at it, you're bound to roll some 6's with your snap shots and make the flyer fail its grounding test.
I'll give you no grounding, but FMCs claim cover as a vehicle. Eh, who am I kidding? I'd take that in a heartbeat.
23071
Post by: MandalorynOranj
Grounding makes sense as a mechanic, it would just make infinitely more sense if you tested per unsaved wound, not per hit.
61618
Post by: Desubot
MandalorynOranj wrote:Grounding makes sense as a mechanic, it would just make infinitely more sense if you tested per unsaved wound, not per hit.
Well flying around trying to dodge bullets and missiles can slow you down or at least make you lose concentration.
Also LASER POINTER TO DA EYE!
39502
Post by: Slayer le boucher
Rage gives a flat out +2 A, not only when assaulting...
Can assault from an immobile transport.
Dark Apotheosis allows you to keep your Wargear, rules and powers( like in Fantasy).
Scour from the Taus markerlights only worsen your covers save for 1point, not completly negate it...
Freakin Deamon Engines has a better WS and I values...
Fear while not making ATSKNF units flee in terror, inflicts a -1 to their combat resolution.(they are not afraid, just concerned)
When a vehicule reach 0 HP, he isn't automatically destroyed, he just always throws on the damage chart when taking Penetrating Hits or Glancing Hits.
All Missile launchers should have the Anti-air missiles option for free.
Assault ranges are 6+D6".
Eldars Wave Serpents Shields shouldn't gain twinlinked from a scatter laser shooting before that...
Wraithknights; when en Eldar player put one on the table, kneejerk the dude in the jimmies, so hard that his grand kids will still feel nauseous from it.
If he puts more then one on the table, murder his whole familly and frame him for the crime.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Yes. This. Make it happen. Khorne, Sanguinius and Rogal Dorn demands it!
8305
Post by: Daba
Actual incentive for wiping out a unit in close combat on the first round.
Because right now, you have the silly situation of wanting the enemy unit to not die and stay and pass their leadership check as if you wipe them you are facing a load of shooting next turn, but if you don't then you kill them in their turn, then can move again in yours.
Maybe an overrun, so if you wipe the enemy out (either with attacks or they break and you run them down), you can go 2D6" into another enemy unit and lock them in combat, but they get to overwatch you and it doesn't count as a charge.
Assault is weaker at the moment, and overwatch is in so this is a good opportunity to bring back consolidation into combat.
43229
Post by: Ovion
 Daba wrote:Actual incentive for wiping out a unit in close combat on the first round.
Because right now, you have the silly situation of wanting the enemy unit to not die and stay and pass their leadership check as if you wipe them you are facing a load of shooting next turn, but if you don't then you kill them in their turn, then can move again in yours.
Maybe an overrun, so if you wipe the enemy out (either with attacks or they break and you run them down), you can go 2D6" into another enemy unit and lock them in combat, but they get to overwatch you and it doesn't count as a charge.
Assault is weaker at the moment, and overwatch is in so this is a good opportunity to bring back consolidation into combat.
This was third edition.
This was the edition where my Dark Eldar Archon, with her Agoniser, Shadowfield and Incubi wiped out entire armies if she made it into combat (which was often.)
23071
Post by: MandalorynOranj
I dunno, I think it could work. Let them go 2d6 as said, but let the enemy overwatch at BS2 since they are a little better prepared, due to it happening during their turn. Also have it be a disordered charge.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
high initiative tau, how can you be dynamic if you can't think on your hooves? I don't think it would be game breaking because ws2 and str3 and anything that isn't at least one of those is at least 50ppm.
assaulter attacks first as a charge bonus, partially because logic and partially because if paired with the above I would get to try to tickle marines to death before they eviscerated me
8305
Post by: Daba
MandalorynOranj wrote:I dunno, I think it could work. Let them go 2d6 as said, but let the enemy overwatch at BS2 since they are a little better prepared, due to it happening during their turn. Also have it be a disordered charge.
Yeah, Disordered charge (I said not counting as a charge to deny the bonus attack when getting into combat, which is along those lines).
They would be a little more prepared, but would BS2 really work, as it seems unfitting for the edition? How about get to overwatch twice, since you're skipping their turn? (really good for Flamers)
I mean, the thing that bugs me the most is the reverse way it currently works, in how you want your opponent to survive during your turn.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
I would be fine for twice at Bs2
8305
Post by: Daba
How about an initiative test on majority initiative, and if you pass you fire overwatch at full BS (Templates still work per overwatch, and no Blast weapons still), otherwise fire at BS1.
Initiative is a nice, fair stat since the ones that suffer less from going down to BS1 (Orks, Tau) have lower initiative, while the more elite ones that do suffer more thanks to being balanced around BS4 get a larger chance at it (Eldar, Space Marines).
31051
Post by: la'DunX
Daba wrote:Initiative is a nice, fair stat since the ones that suffer less from going down to BS1 (Orks, Tau) have lower initiative, while the more elite ones that do suffer more thanks to being balanced around BS4 get a larger chance at it (Eldar, Space Marines).
wait are you saying that tau would suffer less for failing that initiative test?
8305
Post by: Daba
 la'DunX wrote: Daba wrote:Initiative is a nice, fair stat since the ones that suffer less from going down to BS1 (Orks, Tau) have lower initiative, while the more elite ones that do suffer more thanks to being balanced around BS4 get a larger chance at it (Eldar, Space Marines).
wait are you saying that tau would suffer less for failing that initiative test?
Going from BS 3->1 is obviously less bad than going BS 4->1. Then there's supporting fire on top of that.
25466
Post by: Tara
I say we go back to 5th edition! Problems solved.
71874
Post by: GorillaWarfare
Accipiter wrote:Roll to hit.
Then have cover/armour/invul saves go.
Then roll to wound.
Its done the current way to save time.
57646
Post by: Kain
He's saying simply swap the armor save and toughness roll's spots.
It changes pretty much nothing but it does make more sense.
23071
Post by: MandalorynOranj
Daba wrote:How about an initiative test on majority initiative, and if you pass you fire overwatch at full BS (Templates still work per overwatch, and no Blast weapons still), otherwise fire at BS1.
Initiative is a nice, fair stat since the ones that suffer less from going down to BS1 (Orks, Tau) have lower initiative, while the more elite ones that do suffer more thanks to being balanced around BS4 get a larger chance at it (Eldar, Space Marines).
I like this idea too, I think there's a similar mechanic in Zone Mortalis actually.
71874
Post by: GorillaWarfare
 Kain wrote:
He's saying simply swap the armor save and toughness roll's spots.
It changes pretty much nothing but it does make more sense.
I know it makes more sense, but its slower. If you change then you have player 1 roll to hit, then player 2 takes the dice and rolls armor saves, then we go back to player 1 and roll to wound. It may not seem like a big thing, but half way through the game after dozens of shooting actions it can get tedious.
57646
Post by: Kain
GorillaWarfare wrote: Kain wrote:
He's saying simply swap the armor save and toughness roll's spots.
It changes pretty much nothing but it does make more sense.
I know it makes more sense, but its slower. If you change then you have player 1 roll to hit, then player 2 takes the dice and rolls armor saves, then we go back to player 1 and roll to wound. It may not seem like a big thing, but half way through the game after dozens of shooting actions it can get tedious.
I just have player 2 roll to wound, it's his model after all.
38926
Post by: Exergy
 Slayer le boucher wrote:Rage gives a flat out +2 A, not only when assaulting...
Can assault from an immobile transport.
Dark Apotheosis allows you to keep your Wargear, rules and powers( like in Fantasy).
Scour from the Taus markerlights only worsen your covers save for 1point, not completly negate it...
Freakin Deamon Engines has a better WS and I values...
Fear while not making ATSKNF units flee in terror, inflicts a -1 to their combat resolution.(they are not afraid, just concerned)
When a vehicule reach 0 HP, he isn't automatically destroyed, he just always throws on the damage chart when taking Penetrating Hits or Glancing Hits.
All Missile launchers should have the Anti-air missiles option for free.
Assault ranges are 6+ D6".
mostly yeah
Rage: umm kinda powerful. Maybe no +1 attack further for charging. I liked it better when MoK just gave you +1 attack base and you got +1 from charging.
Hull points renamed damage points-for each damage point already done add +1 to the damage chart. When vehicle has reached it's maximum damage point, any additional shots force it to roll on the damage table for both glances and pens.
Thus if you glance a rhino first turn, then you pen it you do +1 damage.
If you glance a rhino three times first turn, then you glance it again you get +3 damage and likely explode it.
If you glance a rhino 5 times, the 5th one is guarenteed to explode it, unless it was all done by the same unit.
IE a unit of lootas fire at a trukk and do 7 glancing hits, it has 7 damage points. Next a lobba hits it and glances again, it rolls on the damage chart at +7
No way to wreck vehicles though....
31051
Post by: la'DunX
Daba wrote: la'DunX wrote: Daba wrote:Initiative is a nice, fair stat since the ones that suffer less from going down to BS1 (Orks, Tau) have lower initiative, while the more elite ones that do suffer more thanks to being balanced around BS4 get a larger chance at it (Eldar, Space Marines).
wait are you saying that tau would suffer less for failing that initiative test?
Going from BS 3->1 is obviously less bad than going BS 4->1. Then there's supporting fire on top of that.
yes but most races can actually survive cobat, if you're making races fire overwatch with higher bs then melee units shouldn't shouldn't and shooty units should
8305
Post by: Daba
A dedicated shooting unit for everyone apart from Marines don't have good odds in combat. It's not as if Tau are extra crippled, and Tau have more tricks for avoiding combat than anyone else.
Also, this is for the Sweeping Advance proposed change, to stop wiping out an enemy unit in your own turn being a disadvantage. The other solution is to make a unit that won an assault in its own turn plain immune to shooting in the next turn, which is even worse.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
I'm saying that units that are shooty and don't do combat well should be considered, if you're giving an initiative test for units to fire during their own turn you need to help low initiative units such as firewarriors fire at full BS, maybe do away with the check completely and just allow units firing overwatch in this situation to fire at their full BS, I'm not saying this just for firewarriors, but any frail unit whose turn you want to remove.
players in my gaming group use their sweeping advances to retreat into cover from my firing lines after assaulting, why not do that? 6theds focus is away from melee, this means I can finally get some victories rather than just being steamrolled and frankly I'm not keen to give that up.
8305
Post by: Daba
Because fundamentally winning in your own turn being bad compared with the enemy turn is a bad bing for the game. It is a broken mechanic that needs fixing.
Sweeping Advance may fix this, and in this time were assault is much weaker it may be time to bring it back.
Consolidating after winning in your turn into cover (which D6 is not too handy for) is not preferable to fighting it out in the enemy turn.
The initiative test makes things interesting, so not everyone gets to do things for free (which is the direction this game is going in)
The shooting units got close enough to be assaulted in the first place. They should be punished for bad positioning, not rewarded for the enemy winning in their turn.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
la'DunX wrote:
players in my gaming group use their sweeping advances to retreat into cover from my firing lines after assaulting, why not do that? 6theds focus is away from melee, this means I can finally get some victories rather than just being steamrolled and frankly I'm not keen to give that up.
5th edition was already shooting-centric, 6th edition is even more so. Assault needs some love, shooting does not.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
Pretty sure shooting armies that weren't vehicles got smeared in 5th.
The idea that "not everyone gets to do something" is not the problem, entire armies not getting to do something is, assault doesn't need love, mêlée as a concept is flawed logistically. Warhammer is meant to have a little bit of realism and this is where it's at. Remember, mêlée is usually a much surer way of knowing you're going to do some killing than shooting. If closing is not a problem then mêlée is no longer balanced.
57646
Post by: Kain
So a game with a (well four or five actually) god of hitting things in close combat should punish close combat as much as possible?
Better tell Khorne to drop the axe and pick up a gun then.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
la'DunX wrote:Pretty sure shooting armies that weren't vehicles got smeared in 5th.
The idea that "not everyone gets to do something" is not the problem, entire armies not getting to do something is, assault doesn't need love, mêlée as a concept is flawed logistically. Warhammer is meant to have a little bit of realism and this is where it's at. Remember, mêlée is usually a much surer way of knowing you're going to do some killing than shooting. If closing is not a problem then mêlée is no longer balanced.
Tell that to Imperial Guard. Regardless, the fact that shooting was so much better at killing the spammed transports, combined with the fact that said transports usually packed a mean ranged punch, made the edition shooting-centric.
If mêlée can't reliably close, shooting is no longer balanced.
1185
Post by: marv335
If I could pick one, I'd go back to armour save modifiers and drop the AP system.
If I could change anything else, I'd go back to abstract LoS, and I'd give every model a set base size.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
Kain wrote:So a game with a (well four or five actually) god of hitting things in close combat should punish close combat as much as possible?
Better tell Khorne to drop the axe and pick up a gun then.
No, don't punish, just don't solve all of it's problems for it's users
Cover and los provide balance for shooting and closing to mêlée
Just think about how unbalanced chaining mêlées would be
1 you charge into a firing line
2 you destroy the firewarriors in the line in your turn and assault into the next team
Now this can go two ways, you can resolve now or during the enemy turn so let's look at both
3.1 you destroy the firewarriors and a) repeat steps starting at 1, or b) you stop in the open
Now I'm not happy with a and I know you won't be happy with b.
You can also resolve during enemy assault
3.2 the enemy models cannot shoot at the most dangerous unit next to them and must move, let's assume they do their max movement (so 6+1d6, right?) that is probably still in assaulting range so you repeat step 1 either instantly because you're close enough or during your assault phase so that you are even closer
Can I just say no thank you.
57646
Post by: Kain
la'DunX wrote: Kain wrote:So a game with a (well four or five actually) god of hitting things in close combat should punish close combat as much as possible?
Better tell Khorne to drop the axe and pick up a gun then.
No, don't punish, just don't solve all of it's problems for it's users
Cover and los provide balance for shooting and closing to mêlée
Khorne is angry that his chosen need so much trickery to get into assault without getting utterly gutted while cowards wih guns sneer at his angry ragemen. Khorne does not like being low tier this edition.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
Khorne and his peons have awesome toughness and armour saves and maybe deepstrike? I haven't read chaos yet.
8305
Post by: Daba
 marv335 wrote:If I could pick one, I'd go back to armour save modifiers and drop the AP system.
If I could change anything else, I'd go back to abstract LoS, and I'd give every model a set base size.
I would do to for the first one, but the problem is that would require a re-write of pretty much everything. I really hate the AP system, but it currently works reasonably in in the sphere of 6th edition so it's not one of the things I could apply as a 'single rule change'.
More abstract LOS would work for me too. I don't know about specific sizes, but I think granting types of terrain as ' LOS blocking' through it (or through x inches of it), while granting an all round cover save is ok.
40823
Post by: wildboar
I'll second the idea of placing fortifications after scenery that has been placed mentioned a few times already.
To add my own to the discussion, give Mandrakes rending. A codex change rather than a BRB change but I need an excuse to get them out of the case! They're painted and really keen!
1185
Post by: marv335
The main trouble with the AP system is that it creates a very binary armour save system.
It weights 2+/3+ disproportionally.
It's easy enough to fix with an errata listing weapons and the modifier.
As to the line of sight issue, The way I'd implement it is that a model occupies an area equivalent to the area of its base in a cylinder reaching to a set height, this allows for custom bases and exaggerated posing of models/great conversions, because it completely ignores the model itself. (swarms at H1, short units (like grots or halflings) at H2, Humans/marines/eldar/etc at H3 and so on.)
Terrain gets a set height too.
Graduated cover saves depending on the relative heights of the units.
H1 behind H3 gets 4+
H3 behind H3 gets 5+
H3 behind H1 gets 6+
For example.
Going to ground could be used to reduce the H stat of a model to improve the cover save.
51854
Post by: Mywik
Units with interceptor that shot in their own shooting phase cant use interceptor in the opposing players movement phase. So basically exactly the other way around than currently.
This way its a choice if you intercept OR shoot.
57646
Post by: Kain
la'DunX wrote:Khorne and his peons have awesome toughness and armour saves and maybe deepstrike? I haven't read chaos yet.
Nope. No cult terminators, Bloodcrushers were nerfed into having a 6+ save and T4 down from a 3+ and T5 (and three wounds) and now cost 5 more points (and then came the power sword nerf) than they used to. Bezerkers are mediocre and require a distinctly unkhornate amount of trickery and forethought to get them to do a job they get worse at every edition, while the loyalists just around the corner have some of the simplest assault units in the form of hammernators. Bloodletters got nerfed with the new power sword rules and are now only T3 so enjoy dying like guardsmen.
Khornate Daemon Princes really, really stink compared to their counterparts from other gods due to not being able to get psyker powers, Flesh Hounds are awesome and Bloodthirsters are pretty nasty but so much as a single markerlighter can knock these lords of war out of the sky to be shot to crap, Kharne is a cheapish but very much vulnerable beatstick and Skarbrand is an axe induced violation chain (well...until he eats plasma to the face and dies) but cannot hope to compare to Kairos' sheer versatility and power spam. Khornate heralds while not bad per se, usually just get passed up in favor of the heralds of other gods, especially those of Tzeentch.
The Skull Cannon is a pretty nice anti-cover camping piece of kit, but is a fragile vehicle that must be hidden like a coward rather than artillery that can do away with the need for unkhornate tactics such as "cover."
Really, the strongest of the Chaos gods and fourth greatest entity in 40k (after gork, mork, and the hive mind) deserves better.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
T3? My fire warriors are T3, daaaaaamn, khorne does deserve better, but mêlée doesn't, have demons had a codex for 6th yet (sorry I really don't keep track of these things)
31039
Post by: Tehjonny
Talizvar wrote:
I agree with this change for one reason it has always bugged me that the order now makes no sense.
First you roll to hit, what did you hit? = Armour, make an armour save, when you get past that what did you hit? The squishy insides (or you pulped him inside his armour from the impact) = roll to wound.
Not a game changer but makes the OCD people feel better.
I've got a mate who spoke to one of the game designers a couple of years ago, and he brought this exact thing up.
They said the reason they do it like that is for psychological, or playing experience reasons. You've just rolled to hit, you're picking up your hit dice in anticipation of seeing how many wounds you can inflict before you hand those to your opponent for his saving throws (if he has any). It's doubling up on that feeling of anticipation, chance, and hope. You don't want to hand your dice to your opponent halfway through to see his armour saves, so really it's just about that feeling of momentum as you attack a unit more than anything else, hence the saves come last, also psychological because it is your opponents last chance to save his men, following your fluid (in terms of dice rolling) attack.
8305
Post by: Daba
Also rules like rending rely on it.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
la'DunX wrote:T3? My fire warriors are T3, daaaaaamn, khorne does deserve better, but mêlée doesn't, have demons had a codex for 6th yet (sorry I really don't keep track of these things)
Yes, Daemons have had a 6th ed book.
Why dmes mêlée not deserve better? Can you imagine having to roll for range (essentially old night fighting) every time you wanted to fire a weapon? Because that's the level of reliability we're talking about in assaults. Even if you for some ludicrous reason think that CC was too powerful in 5th edition, wouldn't no assault from transports or outflank be enough? Wouldn't casualties from the front and Overwatch be enough?
In fact, I'll steal this post from Ailaros to make my point for me:
 Ailaros wrote:Time to shake this out again:
Ailaros wrote:Godless-Mimicry wrote:Actually they are pretty straight forward; here's a look at what assault lost, and what it gained.
It's actually worse than that. To take your list and expand...
RELATIVE BUFFS FOR SHOOTING
- Your charge distance is at the mercy of the dice. I have seen several assaults that would have been in range in 5th fail in 6th.
- You can no longer run and assault with Fleet.
- Grenades got nerfed for assaulting through terrain.
- Assault grenades no longer hurt vehicles.
- Overwatch
- And, because it really needs to be mentioned twice given the scope of the rule, transported units can overwatch if their transport gets charged, walkers can overwatch, and flamers are overwatch BEASTS. There is now literally no point in attempting to assault a unit of burnaz.
- A unit type that IS IMMUNE TO CLOSE COMBAT was born and became a staple in many lists (fliers)
- You can't assault out of a non-assault vehicle ever and that includes when it is destroyed on you
- Multi-charges were nerfed
- Challenges killed a lot of the potential of combat beast characters
- You can't assault on the turn you come on from reserves
- You can't assault if you Infiltrate or Scout and go first
- The distance from which an assault vehicle brings you closer to the enemy is reduced
- Some random objectives half your assault range
- Furious Charge got nerfed
- Wound allocation forces you to take the models from the front as casualties, this makes an assault unit take an extra turn(s) of being exposed to gunfire before they can get stuck in.
- Wound allocation means that hidden weapons upgrades are no longer hidden. You only need to kill a squad to the point where the upgrade model is the closest to something. This is very easy to achieve with deepstriking.
- Loss of by-unit cover in favor of by-model cover destroys the ability for foot hordes to advance upfield.
- Addition of focus fire
- Addition of Precise Shot.
- Worsening of cover. Intervening units only give 4+, hills no longer area terrain, etc.
- Power weapons got screwed up. Either Ap3, or I1, take your choice...
- You can no longer disembark after moving more than 6" in a transport (killing mech assault units).
- grenades can now be thrown.
- walkers can no longer tie up squads in close combat.
- grenades now work against monstrous creatures in close combat. This hurts dedicated assault units relative to basic infantry that have no desire to be in close combat.
- pre-measuring makes it much easier to make sure shooting weapons are in range, while not helping assault units make it into assault more reliably.
- rapid fire now puts more shots out on the move.
- you can now move and fire heavy weapons. This and the above change to rapid fire mean that you can now back up away from assault units while still shooting.
- parts of a squad can now move without affecting the accuracy of heavy weapons.
- old wound wrapping gotten rid of. I'm glad, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is a boost to shooting more than assaulting.
- pile-in moves reduced to 3" from 6".
- unengaged models in a unit that is locked in close combat must now move closer to the enemy units. Used to capture objectives far away while in close combat with this one in 5th.
- barrage weapons may now fire within their minimum ranges.
- barrage weapons no longer lose strength against vehicles from off-center scatters.
- artillery units got MUCH more survivable.
- models with two pistol weapons can now fire them both.
- vehicles can shoot all weapons at cruising speed.
- in order to charge a vehicle, you must have some way of damaging it.
RELATIVE BUFFS FOR ASSAULT
- hypothetical increase of maximum charge range from 6" to 12". Given that assault range is no longer reliable, I still consider this more of a nerf than a buff. I mean, if you're 12" away, are you really going to attempt to charge? The most likely result is that your opponent will get some free overwatch, and you're still not making it into close combat.
- hammer of wrath.
- assaulting vehicles now gives you much better chance to hit.
- rage rule change
- gets hot now affects those rare vehicles that have it
So, some of these changes are more important than others, and you can uselessly nit-pick them all you like, but the fact is that there were 39 rule changes to make shooting better, and arguably up to 5 rule changes that make assault better.
Put another way, for every rule that made assault better, there were EIGHT rules that make shooting better.
6th ed is a shooting edition. End of.
And that's just the changes in 6th ed. 5th ed also whacked assaulty armies a lot, what with the introduction of real transports acting as automatic speedbump, the lack of consolidating from one close combat into another, etc.
One could make the argument that close combat was overpowered in 4th edition, but assault needed in that case to be toned down a bit, not had its manhood chopped off with a pair of rusty pliers and being forced to watch romantic comedies.
68773
Post by: Aleph-Sama
I personally think that the sniper special rule should increase the BS of the firer by 1. Just a fluff thing. I know that in 3rd edition, sniper rifles always hit on a 2+ which makes sense, considering that you're typically shooting a high velocity round at center of mass, instead of firing "in a general that way direction" 
31051
Post by: la'DunX
Why dmes mêlée not deserve better?
when Encyclopaedia Dramatica was up, did you ever see their 40k page?
I'll go with probably not, for a number of social reasons.
And you'll probably want to discount any points because of the same social reasons (I'll insert appropriate social phenomenon here when I remember it)
But WH40k was mocked for having so much melee orientation when ranged fire is the better tool by far.
Look, you're not going to change my mind and I really don't feel like justifying myself any more, unless you're enjoying this then I'ma just leave it here.
57646
Post by: Kain
la'DunX wrote:Why dmes mêlée not deserve better?
when Encyclopaedia Dramatica was up, did you ever see their 40k page?
I'll go with probably not, for a number of social reasons.
And you'll probably want to discount any points because of the same social reasons (I'll insert appropriate social phenomenon here when I remember it)
But WH40k was mocked for having so much melee orientation when ranged fire is the better tool by far.
Look, you're not going to change my mind and I really don't feel like justifying myself any more, unless you're enjoying this then I'ma just leave it here.
A love of melee even in an era of reliable ranged firepower is a trope as old as musket lines and has been in scifi forever.
Also, ED is essentially /b/'s mouthpiece and /b/ hates everything.
If you want semi realistic scifi with no melee combat go play Tiberium wars.
40k is space fantasy, not science fiction.
1185
Post by: marv335
Melee used to be the preferred method of combat in 40k, and it was ridiculously powerful for a sci fi game. Ever seen this?  I'm glad to see shooting in the ascendant.
9777
Post by: A-P
On topic:
If I have to choose just one, it would be to allow assault out of a stationary vehicle.
11783
Post by: illuknisaa
la'DunX wrote:
But WH40k was mocked for having so much melee orientation when ranged fire is the better tool by far.
This isn't true at all.
The best tool is the one that is better at penetrating enemy's armor.
Which one is better? A blade that disrupts molecular bonds or a flashlight?
23071
Post by: MandalorynOranj
 Aleph-Sama wrote:I personally think that the sniper special rule should increase the BS of the firer by 1. Just a fluff thing. I know that in 3rd edition, sniper rifles always hit on a 2+ which makes sense, considering that you're typically shooting a high velocity round at center of mass, instead of firing "in a general that way direction"
Definitely agree that snipers need something to make them better. Even wounding on a 3+ instead of 4 might do it, or keep the wounding the same but give all snipers the rule that Eldar Long Rifles used to have (any to hit roll of 6 counted as AP1).
43229
Post by: Ovion
MandalorynOranj wrote: Aleph-Sama wrote:I personally think that the sniper special rule should increase the BS of the firer by 1. Just a fluff thing. I know that in 3rd edition, sniper rifles always hit on a 2+ which makes sense, considering that you're typically shooting a high velocity round at center of mass, instead of firing "in a general that way direction"
Definitely agree that snipers need something to make them better. Even wounding on a 3+ instead of 4 might do it, or keep the wounding the same but give all snipers the rule that Eldar Long Rifles used to have (any to hit roll of 6 counted as AP1).
Which would do what exactly?
They're already auto-wounding on a 4+, with Rending (which makes it AP2, and Str3+6+D3 to pen armour) and Pinning.
Making count as Twin-Linked if the unit didn't move or something like that would be fun though.
23071
Post by: MandalorynOranj
 Ovion wrote: MandalorynOranj wrote: Aleph-Sama wrote:I personally think that the sniper special rule should increase the BS of the firer by 1. Just a fluff thing. I know that in 3rd edition, sniper rifles always hit on a 2+ which makes sense, considering that you're typically shooting a high velocity round at center of mass, instead of firing "in a general that way direction"
Definitely agree that snipers need something to make them better. Even wounding on a 3+ instead of 4 might do it, or keep the wounding the same but give all snipers the rule that Eldar Long Rifles used to have (any to hit roll of 6 counted as AP1).
Which would do what exactly?
They're already auto-wounding on a 4+, with Rending (which makes it AP2, and Str3+6+D3 to pen armour) and Pinning.
Making count as Twin-Linked if the unit didn't move or something like that would be fun though.
That rule is in addition to Rending. It just feels like a sniper rifle is not very good at doing what it's supposed to, which is killing a single model. Barrage weapons are better snipers than sniper rifles, which doesn't seem right. Another thing that could be done for sniper rifles is either no LoS!, or LoS! is at a minus one or two.
26273
Post by: Thatguyoverthere
If I had to pick a rule to change, I'd add something allowing units to fire into combat.
In the Grim Dark Future, every single commander is to noble to stoop to something as chivalrous as shooting his own men.
Gaunts are too precious to the Tryanid swarm to risk lobbing spore mines or venom cannon shells into combat.
And Grey Terminators are far to fragile to risk, Inquisitoral henchmen accidentally shooting them with a las gun.
That massive Ork Dreadnought tearing apart poor guardsmen? Cant shoot there with your sluggas boys, it'd be positively un-orky.
1185
Post by: marv335
You do know that sniper rifles get precision shot rule?
Personally the improvement to sniper rifles I'd like to see, is a -1 to the pinning test for every wound caused after the first.
For example.
Cause one wound, test as normal
two wounds, -1,
three wounds, -2
They should be more capable at unit suppression.
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
Let Tyranids have allies.
72809
Post by: Tigramans
MandalorynOranj wrote:One other thing I thought of: remove random psychic powers and just give them all appropriate point costs.
Oh, I'd LOVE that one. On the other hand, that would break some gaming lists.
Imagine a terminator-Librarian with Hammernators and Lysander inside a Land Raider. Librarian successfully rolls a psychic test with Invisibility. That steel box of hate now has a 3+ cover save on OPEN GROUND.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
One single rule? Drop the whole "you lose if you have no units on the table at the end of a game turn".
44272
Post by: Azreal13
My vote is a return to "to hit" modifiers for cover, rather than cover saves, as it stands now, cover does next to nothing against torrent fire, and is largely negated if you're an MEQ or TEQ.
The old 2nd edition -1 for soft cover and -2 for hard cover just felt more natural.
73822
Post by: gealgain
Enigma wrote:Let cover modify to hit instead of granting a save...
I know of at least two other games that do this, and it makes so much sense.
only one save is kind of lame, and i understand a space marine hitting the deck is going to be hard to hit, however even if you hit it, there is still the armor to deal with.
i could see this as:
-1 bs for every +1 for cover saves, but also have other balancing items that reduce cover save effectveness, like true LOS, height advantage, if the opposing model moves or shoots, it loses a hit modifier granted by camoflauge Automatically Appended Next Post:
so a necron/ hive tyrant fistbump? nah.. makes no sense, I would be happy with making them better. Think an "endless assault" rule, where any troops choice unit can be removed from the board, and then come on the board from a table edge as a fresh full strength unit.
37584
Post by: Squat Kid
Vehicles are just like 5th ed...
71874
Post by: GorillaWarfare
Kain wrote:So a game with a (well four or five actually) god of hitting things in close combat should punish close combat as much as possible?
Better tell Khorne to drop the axe and pick up a gun then.
How about a gun that shoots chain axes?
76089
Post by: MadMarkMagee
chrisrawr wrote:"All dice rolls are replaced by statistical averages. Partial wounds can happen, and must be kept track of. Round all numbers to the 5th decimal."
That would have to be the worst idea ever. It would turn the game into accounting, where's the fun in that? It's like going to casino and just giving them 66percent of your money instead going and losing it or maybe even coming out ahead. Or playing monopoly with each player getting an equal distance they can travel.
Luck is needed to produce an accurate* (thus entertaining) simulation of actual warfare. If a Sherman Firefly engages a tiger tank, and fires off the first shot there is a chance that shot will hit, there is a chance that it will penetrate or there is a chance it will bounce off. If the tiger gets a chance to fire back then the sherman could go bye bye, could dodge the shot or by an act of god survive a hit. The loss of a tiger tank could change the whole course of the battle. Their is a a chance that the Germans around it would panic and flee, there is a chance it fill them with rage, and they would fight harder.
Everything is chance. No matter what the statistics, chance is chance unless it's 100 percent certain.
Plus, isn't that above scenario a lot more interesting then, Sherman tank hits (automatically?) (how is this going to be worked without dice), take off 55.55percent health of tiger. Tiger hits, sherman obliterated. German models around tiger tank stand around tiger tank like nothing happened, cause they are plastic toys. DERRRR
* lol accurate
*I know this stuff about decimals may be a troll post :/ ?
24207
Post by: jbunny
Ovion wrote: Daba wrote:Actual incentive for wiping out a unit in close combat on the first round.
Because right now, you have the silly situation of wanting the enemy unit to not die and stay and pass their leadership check as if you wipe them you are facing a load of shooting next turn, but if you don't then you kill them in their turn, then can move again in yours.
Maybe an overrun, so if you wipe the enemy out (either with attacks or they break and you run them down), you can go 2D6" into another enemy unit and lock them in combat, but they get to overwatch you and it doesn't count as a charge.
Assault is weaker at the moment, and overwatch is in so this is a good opportunity to bring back consolidation into combat.
This was third edition.
This was the edition where my Dark Eldar Archon, with her Agoniser, Shadowfield and Incubi wiped out entire armies if she made it into combat (which was often.)
How about this? Declare assault. Resolve overwatch. After combat, Consolidate some random distance into new unit. Overwatch happens. Unit locked but does not fight again this turn. Next turn assault continues. Neither gains advantages of declaring assault.
70507
Post by: fullmetaljacket
--cover modify to instead of cover makes much more sense...
--assaulting from outflank and reserve would be great...
--tanks getting defensive fire / over watch... this would make so much sense and give tanks some kind of defense against assault...
--flying models ( beasts) need to be on a flying base( in other words up in the air until they land.
Please use suitable modeling, im tired of not being able to hit the flying monster thing with my anti air because he is modeled walking and is standing behind a wall but my guys on the ground need 6's to hit him because he is "flying"...
38926
Post by: Exergy
jbunny wrote: Ovion wrote: Daba wrote:Actual incentive for wiping out a unit in close combat on the first round.
Because right now, you have the silly situation of wanting the enemy unit to not die and stay and pass their leadership check as if you wipe them you are facing a load of shooting next turn, but if you don't then you kill them in their turn, then can move again in yours.
Maybe an overrun, so if you wipe the enemy out (either with attacks or they break and you run them down), you can go 2D6" into another enemy unit and lock them in combat, but they get to overwatch you and it doesn't count as a charge.
Assault is weaker at the moment, and overwatch is in so this is a good opportunity to bring back consolidation into combat.
This was third edition.
This was the edition where my Dark Eldar Archon, with her Agoniser, Shadowfield and Incubi wiped out entire armies if she made it into combat (which was often.)
How about this? Declare assault. Resolve overwatch. After combat, Consolidate some random distance into new unit. Overwatch happens. Unit locked but does not fight again this turn. Next turn assault continues. Neither gains advantages of declaring assault.
I think it would be better to prevent the second unit from doing overwatch but give them the +1 attack for charging.
40013
Post by: launcelot7891
Not very exciting, but I'd lower the cost of the Eldar Falcon. Right now the Wave Serpent can do everything the Falcon can do, but better and cheaper (and without taking up a heavy support choice, but that's another story).
23294
Post by: sweetdaddyg
Firing into combat, it makes no sense that you would just stand by with a bolter in hand and watch someone stab your fellow soldiers
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
 sweetdaddyg wrote:Firing into combat, it makes no sense that you would just stand by with a bolter in hand and watch someone stab your fellow soldiers
Yeah. I totally can't see why someone wouldn't fire high caliber explosive weaponry at a moving target mere inches from their comrade. Seriously though, it's completely understandable and explained in the book. The cc is a swirling and writhing mass of bodies. It's hard to draw a bead on an enemy without your allies being at risk of getting hit.
In order for it to work you'd have to basically only allow it to be snap shots, since you're taking your time to aim precisely and not hit your allies. Or you'd have to have your unit in CC take randomized hits, which can cause a morale check or add to the combat resolution to show the unit realizing they're getting caught between a rock and a hard place.
They allow this in Fantasy and it's only done by the most dirty underhanded race against their slaves caste.
55190
Post by: Jacknife
I would change it so that you can take a cover save as well as an armour save. As it is, it doesn't make sense - "power armour's great, i think i'll step out from behind this wall" - WTF?
 jifel wrote:Have Overwatch have some kind of penalty attached. Anything! personally it'd make sense for a unit to not be able to attack if you overwatch. This way, it is at least a choice of whether or not you should overwatch. Or, have it be like Interceptor in the assault phase, and you can't shoot in the turn after.
Yes, even at BS 1, overwatch is very harsh on assault armies. I had 5 Sanguinary Guard, accompanied by a Sanguinary Priest (ie. FNP) assault a squad of thousand sons and get overwatched to death.
Can you overwatch with Psychic powers, because he used the aspiring sorceror, and arhiman who joined the squad, with some template power (bolt of tzeench or something like that).
43229
Post by: Ovion
jbunny wrote: Ovion wrote: Daba wrote:Actual incentive for wiping out a unit in close combat on the first round. Because right now, you have the silly situation of wanting the enemy unit to not die and stay and pass their leadership check as if you wipe them you are facing a load of shooting next turn, but if you don't then you kill them in their turn, then can move again in yours. Maybe an overrun, so if you wipe the enemy out (either with attacks or they break and you run them down), you can go 2D6" into another enemy unit and lock them in combat, but they get to overwatch you and it doesn't count as a charge. Assault is weaker at the moment, and overwatch is in so this is a good opportunity to bring back consolidation into combat.
This was third edition. This was the edition where my Dark Eldar Archon, with her Agoniser, Shadowfield and Incubi wiped out entire armies if she made it into combat (which was often.)
How about this? Declare assault. Resolve overwatch. After combat, Consolidate some random distance into new unit. Overwatch happens. Unit locked but does not fight again this turn. Next turn assault continues. Neither gains advantages of declaring assault.
So exactly how it was in 3rd, minus the overwatch. The point was, it was free, extra movement ( 2D6") and would ensure the squad was safe in combat, where it could rape face and take little to no damage in return, and wouldn't suffer from being shot at. Hell, my army was basically Anti-Tank plus a bulletshield to get my Archon into CC, so I could win.  Jacknife wrote:I would change it so that you can take a cover save as well as an armour save. As it is, it doesn't make sense - "power armour's great, i think i'll step out from behind this wall" - WTF? jifel wrote:Have Overwatch have some kind of penalty attached. Anything! personally it'd make sense for a unit to not be able to attack if you overwatch. This way, it is at least a choice of whether or not you should overwatch. Or, have it be like Interceptor in the assault phase, and you can't shoot in the turn after.
Yes, even at BS 1, overwatch is very harsh on assault armies. I had 5 Sanguinary Guard, accompanied by a Sanguinary Priest (ie. FNP) assault a squad of thousand sons and get overwatched to death. Can you overwatch with Psychic powers, because he used the aspiring sorceror, and arhiman who joined the squad, with some template power (bolt of tzeench or something like that).
You can't overwatch with Psychic Powers, at all. It specifically states such in the Psychic Powers section of the rulebook. Second, statistically, at the end of the day, to put 1 wound on a marine w/ FnP using bolters you need to fire an average of 16 shots. Using AP3 Bolters that'll be an average of 8 each. But then again, Sanguinary Guard have a 2+ save and FnP, which makes it an average of 48 shots of Overwatch to take one out. So by the averages, that'd mean you'd need roughly 250 shots of Overwatch to wipe out your squad of 5 Sanquinary Guard and the Priest. Which means it's a combination of bad luck and your opponent doing Overwatch wrong. At the end of the day, I don't find overwatch to be a problem due to the sheer weight of fire needed to do serious damage, or that much of a bonus - even as Tau with Supporting Fire, it's not that amazing (and then Tau can't really do much in CC anyway and die to a stiff breeze).
8305
Post by: Daba
Rather than consolidate 2D6 (from my initial), maybe 2D6 take the highest (fleet allows per re-roll) will be fine and the unit being hit gets overwatch and it's a disordered charge.
Only applicable if you kill the enemy on the turn you charge into assault, either by wiping out the squad with attacks or sweeping advance.
This means that if you wipe them out in your turn, you get to sweep into another unit, but if the fight is protracted even one turn then you can't and consolidate after winning as normal.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
A total revamp of how cover and line of sight works would be nice.
I'd go back to some area terrain (not all, just some), and make cover -1 to be hit, hard cover -1 to be hit and a 5+ cover save.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
Daba, what about action points, free structure and a combat ready status?
so moving, shooting and charging would all be an action point, but you can spend multiple points on the same action (move, shoot or fire more than once) and in any order you choose
consolidating would be a minor action(it's own point, also different from free action such as deploying grenades during a charge or defensive grendes when you get charged)
ie you move 6" and then assault, wipe out the unit and can then:
A) consolidate back to cover where you can set your squad to fire overwatch at any thing that comes within half range+6"
B) consolidate into combat with an unready for combat status for some disadvantages (no extra attacks, -1 to I, +1 to hit to enemy over watch) after which you still have an action point to spend on getting to cover or advancing into cover or shooting at some stuff or charging into combat with no disadvantages
C)fire twice (and get a slight bonus) preventing that squad that was about to annihilate you from getting it's fangs in
8305
Post by: Daba
la'DunX wrote:Daba, what about action points, free structure and a combat ready status?
so moving, shooting and charging would all be an action point, but you can spend multiple points on the same action (move, shoot or fire more than once) and in any order you choose
consolidating would be a minor action(it's own point, also different from free action such as deploying grenades during a charge or defensive grendes when you get charged)
ie you move 6" and then assault, wipe out the unit and can then:
A) consolidate back to cover where you can set your squad to fire overwatch at any thing that comes within half range+6"
B) consolidate into combat with an unready for combat status for some disadvantages (no extra attacks, -1 to I, +1 to hit to enemy over watch) after which you still have an action point to spend on getting to cover or advancing into cover or shooting at some stuff or charging into combat with no disadvantages
C)fire twice (and get a slight bonus) preventing that squad that was about to annihilate you from getting it's fangs in
I would like this, but it's stepped beyond a 'single' rule change and changes the entire game.
The suggestion sounds like another (and maybe better) game to 40k, so I think goes beyond the scope of this thread unfortunately.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
Daba wrote:I would like this, but it's stepped beyond a 'single' rule change and changes the entire game.
The suggestion sounds like another (and maybe better) game to 40k, so I think goes beyond the scope of this thread unfortunately.
I'm glad you like the sound of it.
And you are right, it is meant for another thread.
Please consider joining the Redux.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
la'DunX wrote:Daba, what about action points, free structure and a combat ready status?
so moving, shooting and charging would all be an action point, but you can spend multiple points on the same action (move, shoot or fire more than once) and in any order you choose
consolidating would be a minor action(it's own point, also different from free action such as deploying grenades during a charge or defensive grendes when you get charged)
ie you move 6" and then assault, wipe out the unit and can then:
A) consolidate back to cover where you can set your squad to fire overwatch at any thing that comes within half range+6"
B) consolidate into combat with an unready for combat status for some disadvantages (no extra attacks, -1 to I, +1 to hit to enemy over watch) after which you still have an action point to spend on getting to cover or advancing into cover or shooting at some stuff or charging into combat with no disadvantages
C)fire twice (and get a slight bonus) preventing that squad that was about to annihilate you from getting it's fangs in
"My Riptide spends one action point shooting at you. Then it spends another action point to shoot at you. Then it spends the last action point to shoot you again. Oh, looks like I've killed your entire army turn 1 without you getting to react, good game!"
31051
Post by: la'DunX
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: la'DunX wrote:Daba, what about action points, free structure and a combat ready status? so moving, shooting and charging would all be an action point, but you can spend multiple points on the same action (move, shoot or fire more than once) and in any order you choose consolidating would be a minor action(it's own point, also different from free action such as deploying grenades during a charge or defensive grendes when you get charged) ie you move 6" and then assault, wipe out the unit and can then: A) consolidate back to cover where you can set your squad to fire overwatch at any thing that comes within half range+6" B) consolidate into combat with an unready for combat status for some disadvantages (no extra attacks, -1 to I, +1 to hit to enemy over watch) after which you still have an action point to spend on getting to cover or advancing into cover or shooting at some stuff or charging into combat with no disadvantages C)fire twice (and get a slight bonus) preventing that squad that was about to annihilate you from getting it's fangs in
"My Riptide spends one action point shooting at you. Then it spends another action point to shoot at you. Then it spends the last action point to shoot you again. Oh, looks like I've killed your entire army turn 1 without you getting to react, good game!"
1) hbc would not reach, IA can only do 6 models max and that's with bonuses, heavy weapons require 2ap (all 3 ap in one go at one squad allows a minor point to go towards firing,) 2) 6 models die, at a push 3) yes I get that it does give tau a certain advantage, but terrain and my trademarked reaction step (return fire or take cover for shooting), you can shoot back at me in my turn (and probably hit) now sniper teams, those will be a bit op (36 48" sniper shots... urk) but I am working on it, I have only had the idea about 24 hours (sniper weapons are probably only going to be able to fire once per turn @ full range for fluffy sniper reasons, like revealing your position)
43229
Post by: Ovion
How do you get 36?
Each Sniper team is 9 shots at 48", 18 shots at 24", 27shots at 24" with an Ethereal nearby.
But yeah - 3 Riptides being able to fire 3-5+ times a turn each will do an extreme amount of damage.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
I get 36 from having 9 fire four times(3ap+1mp), the riptide can only fire twice (and only non-overcharge & novacharge as both would take an mp), it can kill 6 models if I'm lucky
8305
Post by: Daba
As with most 'action point' systems, I wouldn't allow multiples of the same action in one turn. You can adjust and have some with special rules, but that as a general rule is a good one to follow.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Ovion wrote:
Jacknife wrote:I would change it so that you can take a cover save as well as an armour save. As it is, it doesn't make sense - "power armour's great, i think i'll step out from behind this wall" - WTF? Yes, even at BS 1, overwatch is very harsh on assault armies. I had 5 Sanguinary Guard, accompanied by a Sanguinary Priest (ie. FNP) assault a squad of thousand sons and get overwatched to death.
Can you overwatch with Psychic powers, because he used the aspiring sorceror, and arhiman who joined the squad, with some template power (bolt of tzeench or something like that).
You can't overwatch with Psychic Powers, at all. It specifically states such in the Psychic Powers section of the rulebook.
.
Thousand sons have slow and purposeful and can't overwatch. either
38926
Post by: Exergy
Jacknife wrote:
Yes, even at BS 1, overwatch is very harsh on assault armies. I had 5 Sanguinary Guard, accompanied by a Sanguinary Priest (ie. FNP) assault a squad of thousand sons and get overwatched to death.
Can you overwatch with Psychic powers, because he used the aspiring sorceror, and arhiman who joined the squad, with some template power (bolt of tzeench or something like that).
Tsons, nor anyone in the unit, cannot overwatch. They are slow and purposeful, which means they dont get to overwatch.
43229
Post by: Ovion
Ha, didn't realise that they had Slow and Purposeful - the only marked troops I'm really familiar with being Noise Marines. xD
Yeah, then your opponent either doesn't know his rules, or is cheating.
31051
Post by: la'DunX
Daba wrote:As with most 'action point' systems, I wouldn't allow multiples of the same action in one turn. You can adjust and have some with special rules, but that as a general rule is a good one to follow.
Repeated actions is the only reason to have an ap system in warhammer
30830
Post by: Purple Saturday
 launcelot7891 wrote:Not very exciting, but I'd lower the cost of the Eldar Falcon. Right now the Wave Serpent can do everything the Falcon can do, but better and cheaper (and without taking up a heavy support choice, but that's another story).
Easiest fix to this: Make the Falcon an assault vehicle. No other adjustments needed.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
la'DunX wrote: Daba wrote:As with most 'action point' systems, I wouldn't allow multiples of the same action in one turn. You can adjust and have some with special rules, but that as a general rule is a good one to follow.
Repeated actions is the only reason to have an ap system in warhammer
Citation needed.
76347
Post by: AHReese
Been out since 3rd, so go easy on me if I'm forgetting/missing something here.
Has to be Overwatch for me. While I understand the idea, it totally changes the game. The premise of 40k, for better or worse, is a turn base game. But now, in your turn, the enemy is allowed to shoot you. If there is Overwatch for assault, surely there should be Overwatch for shooting? And not Interceptor! If you don't stand idly by when someone charges you, you don't stand idly by when someone shoots you. You either go to ground (already implemented, but poorly - you should come out of it when the enemy is done shooting, or at least at the start of you turn) or you shoot back if able/in range. The latter applies to vehicles especially.
The image that always crosses my mind about this is the intro clip from Dawn of War. While obviously for cinematics, I'm sure most Marine players shake their heads when the Blood Ravens pop out of cover and starting running towards the Orks. Yeah, let's have my shooting unit move towards the #1 close combat lovers. Yet while cheesy, I feel this also shows what Overwatch should be.
As the lines converge, the Marines are shooting and able to take down some Orks. (Of course in an Overwatch setting, the Marines would be standing still) But when the Orks reach them, the Marines are horribly unprepared for CC and start getting punished. In fact, the only guy who is able to do anything is the CCW Sergeant. As others have already mentioned, there has to be a negative affect in the following CC if you decide to Overwatch because that means you're taking your chances to stop the enemy from reaching your lines and not preparing to counter their incoming assault.
Perhaps this should be based on weapons? For example, if you Overwatch with pistols, or other CC weapons/combos/even assault weapons? you aren't affected. However for Heavy and Rapid Fire, you are putting yourself at a major disadvantage. As for the disadvantage itself, I feel it needs to be something big. So maybe, if the assault reaches the lines, the assaulters receive Always Strike First for the first round of combat if they have CC/assault weapons while Heavy/Rapid fire assaulters strike normally. This way, there is the advantage towards, hey, you guessed it, Assault Troops in Assault. Or if there was a change to hitting instead, this would overlap into a much needed rule change in WS, a topic already discussed at length in this thread.
And for a purely selfish codex rule change, how about SM Scouts to BS 4. Because giving sniper rifles to the unit with the worse shooting ability makes so much sense!
31051
Post by: la'DunX
First strike as charge bonus and alpha strike from the leak?
Also return fire (initiative - bs with a minimum value of one)/take cover as a free move after being fired upon
75743
Post by: IcyFireKnight
Incorporate cover saves into To Hit rolls. It is so fething stupid that if you have thick armour you can't use cover saves. And vice versa.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also have armour saves before To Wound.
69848
Post by: ninjafiredragon
Change it so you take armour before to wound.
How does this make since....
Space marine gets hit, oops looks likes he wounded, but wait... What's this??? His helmet actually protected that?
What it should be: he's hit, he passes armour, and he's good. Or he's hit, fails his armour, then sees if he's actually wounded.
30830
Post by: Purple Saturday
Eliminate Overwatch and Interceptor, or force you to have to choose between shooting in your own shooting phase or activating the powers (hmmm, sounds like an oddly familiar concept). Interceptor has a stipulation close to this, but since you are borrowing from future shooting turns, you can potentially be drawing from a turn that will not exist. I would be completely fine with units using their full ballistic skill during Overwatch if this were the case.
It's insane that a model can potentially shoot three times in one turn (shoot in its shooting phase, shoot in its opponent's movement phase, then shoot in its opponent's assault phase).
75743
Post by: IcyFireKnight
Perhaps it would be more beneficial to everyone to have assault range as D3+3, or D3+5 with fleet. Maybe even running is D3+1, or D3+3 with fleet. I think that will help everyone. Although it removes some of the uncertainty, 2D6 is way too random. THis keeps some of the randomness but makes assaulting 4-6" or 6-8" with running being 2-4 or 4-6. Good huh?
|
|
