What a good 7th would look like

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lobokai**

Here's my run at what a good 7th edition would look like (all considered as modifications to existing 6th ed rules)

7th edition

Assault:
Charge distance = init +d6
Can assault out of transports if it didn’t move
Can assault out of dedicated transport if it moved 6’ or less
Fast transports have above limits increased by 6’
Can assault from reserve with d6 charge
Charging through cover 1/2s initiative

Challenges:
Turning down challenges means model cannot use leadership for morale that turn, ½ attacks
If must challenge and turns it down, above restrictions, but also goes at init 1

Overwatch:
Leadership check to overwatch

Ignore Cover:
Reduce cover by 2

Snapfire:
Any unit that didn’t move may snapfire at +1 BS

Deepstrike:
d6” scatter

Scoring/Contesting:
Only models bought as troops can score
Only elite, fast, and troop models that are not vehicles can contest

Alliance Matrix:
Move all alliances down one level (ie Battle Brother becomes Allies of Convenience)

Equipment:
Rapid fire are assault 2 if didn’t move (otherwise as before)
Power weapons all gain rending
TDA: +1 T

Vehicles
Remove AV… toughness by facing attacked, cannot be lowered by effects targeting a toughness value, but can by things affecting AV
AV10 = T6
AV11 = T7
AV12 = T8
AV13 = T9
AV14 = T10
WS 2, 3+ save, HP become wounds
Melta weapons at ½ range, against vehicles, do x2 wounds and have poison 3+ (ceramite removes this)
Armourbane weapons ignore any save and x2 wounds when unsaved and poison 3+
D weapons: AP1, armourbane, fleshbane, ignores cover, pinning, reroll saves, unsaved wounds do +1 wound to target

All vehicles gain eternal warrior, when assaulted, take lowest toughness
Walkers take highest T in combat, treated as a monstrous creature for close combat purposes

Tank shock. Treat as S(front toughness) AP4 strike on any models moved over or contacted, and morale check if any wounds are unsaved

**sing your life**

I like these ideas. But I think vehicles only need to be put back to n5th edition rules.

why ws2 for vehicles?

**ClockworkZion**

sing your life wrote:
I like these ideas. But I think vehicles only need to be put back to n5th edition rules.

why ws2 for vehicles?

We don't need near-unkillable Razorback spam back. Hullpoints are a good concept that prevents that, they just need a tweaking (I liked the idea I saw that for every HP lost you add +1 to the pen roll).

**welshhoppo**

I think overwatch should resolve around either an init test or a leadership test. Makes it less likely to act like a second shooting phase for some armies.

**Lobokai**

welshhoppo wrote:
I think overwatch should resolve around either an init test or a leadership test. Makes it less likely to act like a second shooting phase for some armies.

Agreed (why I added that)... I thought the change to rapid fire with a ld check would keep overwatch in the game, but change the mechanic a bit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If this list generates a little interest, I might go through the 6th ed codices too and tweak them lightly.

**rabidguineapig**

welshhoppo wrote:
I think overwatch should resolve around either an init test or a leadership test. Makes it less likely to act like a second shooting phase for some armies.

Should also work like interceptor where if you fire overwatch you can't use that same weapon in your next shooting phase. This way getting overwatched and failing a charge doesn't mean you're completely screwed, and adds a layer of thinking with overwatch and long charge distances.

**Lobokai**

rabidguineapig wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
I think overwatch should resolve around either an init test or a leadership test. Makes it less likely to act like a second shooting phase for some armies.

Should also work like interceptor where if you fire overwatch you can't use that same weapon in your next shooting phase. This way getting overwatched and failing a charge doesn't mean you're completely screwed, and adds a layer of thinking with overwatch and long charge distances.

Or could work in reverse... if you choose to not fire a weapon, it can fire at full BS in overwatch before your next turn

**Formosa**

Ow on ld.. Nah, 40k has far too many high ld units and ld rules for 40k are a joke too, let's not add more to a bad bunch

**sing your life**

ClockworkZion wrote:
sing your life wrote:
I like these ideas. But I think vehicles only need to be put back to n5th edition rules.

why ws2 for vehicles?

We don't need near-unkillable Razorback spam back. Hullpoints are a good concept that prevents that, they just need a tweaking (I liked the idea I saw that for every HP lost you add +1 to the pen roll).

I don't it...

Razorbacks have only AV11 at the highest, so they're pretty easy to destroy with hull points or the old chart.

And why you think pen idea would be anyway good? Vehicles are easy to glance to death already.

**Lobokai**

Formosa wrote:
Ow on ld.. Nah, 40k has far too many high ld units and ld rules for 40k are a joke too, let's not add more to a bad bunch

While there are a lot of high LD models, that still makes keeping them alive vital. Looking at my Tau and IG lists, having overwatch linked to Ld makes sense. I'd really like to have overwatch be the standard thing from other systems (don't fire, but be able to fire if something moves into range). But that seems like too radical of a change, and I'd like 7th to be a refinement of 6th, not a new system. Adding the +1 BS for not moving and snapfiring needed to be counterbalanced somehow.

if 7th is horrible and central IL goes homebrew, I'd revisit this... but as its wish listing, meh

**ClockworkZion**

sing your life wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
sing your life wrote:
I like these ideas. But I think vehicles only need to be put back to n5th edition rules.

why ws2 for vehicles?

We don't need near-unkillable Razorback spam back. Hullpoints are a good concept that prevents that, they just need a tweaking (I liked the idea I saw that for every HP lost you add +1 to the pen roll).

I don't it...

Razorbacks have only AV11 at the highest, so they're pretty easy to destroy with hull points or the old chart.

And why you think pen idea would be anyway good? Vehicles are easy to glance to death already.

It was harder to glance them to death with the old rules which is why they were seen as so good.

**welshhoppo**

It was impossible to glance them to death in the old rules was it not?

**Daston**

Dont like the idea of D6+int for charging it hurts armies like Orks who should be all about the charge.

I am happy with overwatch if they put a cone of fire, say 90 degrees to the front of the unit. I hate how you can jump behind a squad with jump packs only for them to swing round and overwatch you to death.

**GorillaWarfare**

sing your life wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
sing your life wrote:
I like these ideas. But I think vehicles only need to be put back to n5th edition rules.

why ws2 for vehicles?

We don't need near-unkillable Razorback spam back. Hullpoints are a good concept that prevents that, they just need a tweaking (I liked the idea I saw that for every HP lost you add +1 to the pen roll).

I don't it...

Razorbacks have only AV11 at the highest, so they're pretty easy to destroy with hull points or the old chart.

And why you think pen idea would be anyway good? Vehicles are easy to glance to death already.

The +1 to pen is usually in conjunction with the idea that vehicles can't be destroyed from loss of hullpoints ( glancing). Only the destroyed result on the pen chart can destroy a vehicle.

I am in favor of removing overwatch all together. You have plenty of opportunity to shoot at the closing enemies in your own shooting phase, you don't need a extra 'shot'.

**Lobokai**

Daston wrote:
Dont like the idea of D6+int for charging it hurts armies like Orks who should be all about the charge.

I am happy with overwatch if they put a cone of fire, say 90 degrees to the front of the unit. I hate how you can jump behind a squad with jump packs only for them to swing round and overwatch you to death.

Well that would be a codex issue (say something to WAAAGH!!)... or a better ork mechanic. I can't see editing an edition to accommodate a 4th ed codex

**jason1977**

I rather see this:

From Tom Kirby
To: All 40k Players who own a 6th ed book
Ref: 7th ed

Sorry we messed up so bad. To make up for it, please tear off the front and back cover of your hard back 6th ed book and we will send you a copy of 7th for free.

Thanks,

TK

**Lobokai**

jason1977 wrote:
I rather see this:

From Tom Kirby
To: All 40k Players who own a 6th ed book
Ref: 7th ed

Sorry we messed up so bad. To make up for it, please tear off the front and back cover of your hard back 6th ed book and we will send you a copy of 7th for free.

Thanks,

TK

...if it was a thought out and tested ruleset... a thousand times this

**Kain**

Do the ally rules loop around and make everyone battle bros with the Tyranids?

:B

**MWHistorian**

A good 7th would curb the most OP and useless units, streamline combat a bit while maintaining options and diversity.

**Yonan**

Looks like a lot of good changes to me. While i'm a fan of allies, it's probably better for competitive to nerf them down like that, and you can just battle brother them again in friendlies if you want. nfi how the vehicles would mathhammer out, you'd need to test it (if you haven't already) but I like the principle.

**BrianDavion**

"multiply all hullpoints by 1.5 for transports and 2 for battletanks" would be a good start.

**Davor**

What would be AV 15 if AV 14 is 10?

**sing your life**

Davor wrote:
What would be AV 15 if AV 14 is 10?

I guess toughness 11.

**XdeadpoolX**

Dude love the allies idea, i think they are to op at times. and there is a lot of great ideas to streamline the game and make vehicles more viable but the few things i noticed

Charge distance = init +d6
Necron wraiths can charge a max of 8?
Doesnt really seem fair to a close combat based expensive points cost unit.

Can assault out of dedicated transport if it moved 6’ or less
Flyers
I think assault vehicle should be on more ded transports

Rapid fire are assault 2 if didn’t move (otherwise as before)
Either you Rapid fire or assault. Doing this allows you to do both'

Power weapons all gain rending
Did my Gk Paladin squad with i6 and insta death weapons just get a million times better lol
Power weapons used to be the bis but their day had to end eventually lol

**AnomanderRake**

Even if power weapons aren't brought back to AP2 or otherwise buffed they really need a price drop. The existence of AP2/3 Ignores Cover template/blast weapons really needs to be reconsidered, stacking Blessings needs to go away.

**BlaxicanX**

Not a fan of the initiative+d6'' assault distance. I don't see what the point in tying initiative into it is supposed to be, as units with higher initiative don't necessarily move faster than units without them, they just have higher reflexes.

6+d6'' assault move makes the most sense to me.

**Plumbumbarum**

Active overwatch, you put units on it in your turn and they can shoot in opponents phase, maybe with a penalty or a cone of fire to avoid stale games. To hit roll could be dependent on initiative of the unit you are firing at or sth. Maybe movement modificators.

Overrun rule, if you kill entire unit with a charge you can make another one (only once a turn)

All space marines should have precision shots rule. I'm xenos player but elite is elite.

Shooting into combat, resolved from closest model, on 1s you always hit yours, on 6s enemies for example.

Split fire for all except maybe IG, in a way that you can shoot a different target with each modelor at least between heavy weapon models. So much micromanagment in the rules now that this wouldn't hurt.

Superheavies enter play in first turn but may attack only from second, or even only in 2,4,6 to simulate the influence of their size on targeting and let normal armies have a chance against them.

**XdeadpoolX**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Even if power weapons aren't brought back to AP2 or otherwise buffed they really need a price drop. The existence of AP2/3 Ignores Cover template/blast weapons really needs to be reconsidered, stacking Blessings needs to go away.

I agree completely with the price drop. Each GK player still pays for their power weapons, and you can argue " but they pay like 9 points for a insta death weapon" but in truth we pay a lot more by not having missiles or any real ranged models outside of inquisition and dk that can hit over 24 inches.

I think if you wanna stack blessing there should be a warp test or something like that. that much warp around 1 squad just sounds dangerous.

something like -1 ld for each additional blessing cast on one squad

so if 2 seers are buffing 1 unit it gets harder for each to do so

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overrun rule, if you kill entire unit with a charge you can make another one (only once a turn) I like this. It makes Close combat viable again. my only question is.
Does the second squad getting charged get to overwatch too?

**insaniak**

Davor wrote:
What would be AV 15 if AV 14 is 10?

It would be 10.

Introducing AV15 to the game was one of the pieces of 6th edition stupidity that would be better off forgotten.

**pocketcanoe**

Deepstrike:
d6” scatter

It would be nice if psykers could influence deepstrike scatter, especially if the deepstriking unit is teleporting in.
maybe -1 warp charge = -1 scatter dice

then again, i play GK so i would say that