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.

Horizon9 wrote:
-the expansions probably WILL be written in, works in our favor i guess?

Considering that those expansions are potential sources of additional revenue, I doubt it.

Or at least make a declarative statement in regards to using IA/Planetfall/Cities of Death and other Forgeworld products. Let us know that yes, Forgeworld rules are legal to use in tournies and normal games or no, even though we own them, Forgeworld rules are not supposed to be used in tournies and normal games (whatever normal is).

Not to get into that discussion, but this most likely will not occur either, as this has always been up to tournament organizers, and I dont see this ever changing. Even if GW did put such a thing in the book, TO's would still have the ability to void it.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Or at least make a declarative statement in regards to using IA/Planetfall/Cities of Death and other Forgeworld products. Let us know that yes, Forgeworld rules are legal to use in tournies and normal games or no, even though we own them, Forgeworld rules are not supposed to be used in tournies and normal games (whatever normal is).

That's what I mean

I've been putting dreadclaws into all my CSM lists, since my opponents are all the same people. Best thing FW ever put out, IMO. Something truly unique and fuctional. Too bad the model is like a hundred bucks I could buy three drop pods for the price of one dreadclaw!

chaos0xomega wrote:Not to get into that discussion, but this most likely will not occur either, as this has always been up to tournament organizers, and I dont see this ever changing. Even if GW did put such a thing in the book, TO's would still have the ability to void it.

First, I'm not saying that GW would put this in the next edition. I'm just saying that I think they should.
Second, TO's always have the ability to do whatever they like. They can allow or disallow anything since it's their tourney. For instance a TO could run a tourney and limit the players to non-vehicle units only. GW can't say anything about it and probably wouldn't even care.

I would just like to see an end to the Forgeworld rubric. Either its rules/figures are usuable as Forgeworld has them or they're not for use in an everyday battle. Yes, I know it's up to each individual gamer to decide (see the TO statement above) but it would be nice to know for convenience sake.

Hmmm.
Some things they could add in that would help mitigate the older codices weaknesses:
-Basic psyker defense for all armies- something like a psyker within 6" of a unit can attempt to nullify an enemy power using a dice roll. As it stands, some armies have awesome psychic defense, others have absolutely none.
-System wide FAQ/Errata a la 8th Edition Fantasy
-Re-working combat and wound allocation
-Make hitting tanks be based off of weapon skill rather than flat numbers.

It's apparent GW is already working on 6th edition. If folks think back a bit, products such as Cityfight and Apocolypse to a lesser extent were testbeds for various rules. If you look over Cityfight, most of its rules made it into 5th edition.

We've gotten Planetfall and the Battlemissions book. Planetfall is essentially attacker vs defender with some tweaks and the battle missions are a bit different than what we currently have as missions. I'd doubt they'd remain race specific come 6th edition, but I wouldn't be surprised this stuff is in 6th edition.

As for othe rules, just a few tweaks and I'd be relatively satisfied:

-vehicle cover becomes a max of 5+ (they've been doing this in last couple of Marine books, so I'd thinking this could be doable)

-I liked target priority over what we have now. Cover is simply too prevalant in this edition and reminds me a bit of 3rd edition; I didn't like it back then either.

-if a unit fires from inside a vehicle, the vehicle counts as open topped in the following opponent's shooting phase (I believe this happened in 3rd edition)

-fleet becomes a USR and allows units to assault out of vehicles in addition to the extra d6" move; this would give an additional avenue for units to assault out of a vehicle that isn't Marine centric.

-true LOS for every piece of terrain is terrible. I actually think 4th edition had the better set of rules, but many players were lazy and called everything area terrain and overused the rule

-wound allocation is a bit wonky right now; people can minimize the amount of casualties they take by this rule which I'd imagine is not quite what was intended. I like a previous posters comment about spreading all the same wounds about equally before moving on to another weapon type.

Unfortunately, the biggest issue I have is the codexes. I really don't like how they do this. There are just too many codexes and GW has created it's own vicious cycle. The changes they make to the core rules can't be too drastic as they'd risk invalidating existing codexes which is something they can't/won't do.

I really wish they'd release 3 or 4 major books with all the appropriate updated rules for every existing army (Marine, Imperial, Xenos, Chaos for example). The books would be large enough to hold the fluff that currently exists every army is updated to the current edition.

Sadly, I highly doubt we'll see any real change with 6th edition. 1st to 2nd had some big changes. 2nd to 3rd was a completely different game. 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th have been more like tweaks to the mechanics while the biggest problem was the tome of codexes that come out at a snails pace.

Things that I think need to change:

1) Fearless wounds need to go. All they do currently is let large, hard to take down units get killed in multi-assaults, and penalize larger units of weak models such as Ork Boyz.

I would change Fearless to be a simple +2 modifier to leadership. So you can still break a fearless unit, it's just less likely to happen. It also removes a complicated and penalizing rule from the game.

2) Remove allies. If it's in your codex, you can take it. Otherwise, play teams, or live without. Allies currently only acts to greatly amplify a single codex.

3) Change vehicle damage. You roll to hit, then you roll 2d6 + weapon or cc str. Subtract the vehicle's armor, and consult a table like below:

0 or below - no damage
1 or 2 - shaken
3 or 4 - stunned
5 - immobilized
6 - weapon destroyed
7 or 8 - destroyed
9 - explodes
10 - annihilated (same as explodes, but all units inside die)

So, a bolter or shoota would be a 4 + 2d6. Against a rhino equivalent, your range would be -4 to 6, or similar to what a glance gives today. Against a land raider equivalent (av14), you would have an extremely low chance of shaken.

A lascannon would be a 9 + 2d6. Against a rhino, your range would be 1 to 13, or a decent chance of destroying in some way, and a low (5/18) chance of annihilating. Against a land raider or equivalent, your range would be -3 to 9, so a bit better odds of damaging, but still no chance of annihilating.

4) List ALL USR in the main rule book. For example, ATSKNF is common enough, it doesn't need to be listed in each and every marine codex.

5) Incorporate all FAQ modifications to the BRB in the next BRB.

6) List all common weapons in the BRB. It's easy enough to have a statline for a Bolt Pistol, and under the Ork Codex the slugga description can say "This is a Bolt Pistol in all regards" just like it does with a PF and PK.

Fearless no retreat wounds are not a big problem for the unit itself. For me it is the multi-charge transfer of no retreat wounds. I can't stand the idea of a hive tyrant or other MC assaulting in support of another unit dying because of the damage the other unit took. It totally discourages units supporting each other in CC unless you can definitely over power the enemy, and it is easy to multi-charge a swarmy army and therefore paste a nastier unit without really ever attacking it.

Transport rules have to be modified. Some people here have provided a number of good ideas. Whatever happens, there needs to be more penalties (firing with embarked troops causes vehicle to be open topped; BS penalties for shooting if the vehicle moves or cannot shoot depending on the speed, etc).

There needs to be more LOS blocking terrain. Area terrain is fine that provides a cover save in or behind but the previous idea of things like woods blocking fire or fire can only penetrate so far into the woods would help against the high volume, long-range shooty armies that can pretty much focus most of their firepower where they want.

I personally think that fearless wounds are a big problem. Large units of cheap infantry, such as orks mobs or gaunts, are designed to take more damage than elite units such as tactical space marines. This means they are designed to lose combat. Fearless wounds simply adds more casualties to their already higher losses.

To me, it doesn't add anything to the game balance, but it discourages playing horde armies. And the "fluff" ork or tyranid army is a horde, and not a battlewagon wall with a few grot mobs to hold objectives or a handful of monsterous creatures.

Alternatively to automatically passing all leadership/morale checks, I would like to see Fearless changed so that it makes you leadership 10 and you always test against unmodified leadership.

When I first started I hated fearless wounds in their entirety. I ranted, raved, railed and rambled about how horrible they were. After playing many, many games I've come to accept that they are a part of how things work. Assault is supposed to be fast and nasty. Fearless wounds account for this in that if you are not fearless you can get sweeping advanced and lose everything in one shot.

With the exception of And We Shall Know No Inconveniences Ever Because We're Too Awesome it's pretty well balanced on both sides. Space Marines really need to lose all their various methods of making it only ever a bad thing for the other guys while they just flat out ignore it in multiple ways and even if it does happen to them it's armor saves so they don't care. That needs fixed, not fearless wounds as a concept.

Another thing that needs fixed is fearless wounds transferring. You have Hive Tyrants afraid to lead a brood of little bugs into combat because they're going to get torn a new hole due to rules cheese. 'Scuse me? That's just all kinds of wrong no matter how you look at it, fluff, rules, 'reality' or intent.

6th? I'm still pretty much working with 4th edition rules and don't really have a care to learn the new ones sept the mjor ones. Hopefully they'll do away with kill points or at least stream line them to work with troop heavy armies such as Imperial Guard vs elitist armies, ie space marines. Stupid cover save values are also a bug; "what you get a 4+ save for standing behind that broken lampost do you? Sorting out the running rules a bit so as horde armies can't assault gunline armies by turn two.¬¬ Generally just go back to 4th ed rules and put an end to all the niggly little titbit rules that they added for some good old common sence rules.

How about every turn each unit rolls a d6. On a roll of 4-6, it blows up and is completely destroyed from a chaos meteor/random airstrike, nomatter what it is. It would add some some unpredictability, make games shorter, and tournaments would no longer exist.

It doesn't matter how good you are at removing a guy's heart with a sword strike, it doesn't help you one bit trying to catch their bus. Keep speed>WS.

I'd say they will probably nerf FnP in some form as everyone has it now and thus they need to glorify another USR.

Fixing FnP would be nice since everyone and their 5th cousin has it now. My guess is that FNP will be made a 5+ or 6+ save of some sort, and the 'new' FNP will be 4+ or something along the lines of We'll Be Back.

ok where do i begin.

first of all, i think that people need to stop trying to punish mech list players. i have always loved and played armored company, and if not that, a list with plenty of vehicles, regardless of which edition it was. i just like armor. period. i think the damage tables need to be broadened in range between "i took the usefulness of your tank out of the game" and "i took your tank out with an explosion". one lucky shot on any vehicle is cause to kill how many hundreds of points? i think not. and dont even get me started on the "i automatically hit on your rear armor" bull. if you can just barely get into assault range with the front of my tank, you shouldnt be able to get to the back. simulated or not, weaknesses in armor didnt appear because you got closer. if i went up and shot an abrams from 3 feet away or 20, the result is the same. and for those fo you that would argue differently, i say this: the rest of the game is played by real world model orientation. base to base, range in hth regarding base to base, etc. you cant just change that because you want to nuke my tank first round of combat. you're gonna have to earn it.

second, line of sight: if i can see the models, shoot and kill em, then they (the number i can see) should be removed. taking 3 guys from behind a wall when i was shooting at the other end of your unit is dumb.

third: vehicle squadrons. immobilising a vehicle in a squadron is not cause to destroy said vehicle. it should stay on the field. that one gives me nerd rage unkown to modern man.

fourth: for god sakes would it kill them to make guardsmen more than a speedbump in hth against anything other than tau?

fifth: 4+ cover for every freaking unit on the board is dumb. i'm sick of it.

sixth: vehicle movement and shooting should be re worked.

all in all, i could go on for days. GW needs to make the rules more real world physical as far as LOS, cover, etc. the fluff that "the model could be doing this, this or this", is respectively too overused by them. it needs to be more concrete.

Fontane* wrote:How about every turn each unit rolls a d6. On a roll of 4-6, it blows up and is completely destroyed from a chaos meteor/random airstrike, nomatter what it is. It would add some some unpredictability, make games shorter, and tournaments would no longer exist.

Fool. Dont you know marines SHALL KNOW NO METEORS!

My favourite change would be the possibility for ICs to survive ghost fists... since they can be targeted as single models, thy should be able to target specific models (like fisted sarges) with their attacks in close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... and, even if it's a core assumption of the game, I hate Cover saves!!!! WHy the hell my power armour is irrelevant when I am in a fortification? (guardmen have the same save)... I'd like to see the rule change to be similar to WHFB ( cover inflicts penalties in the to hit roll), or, at least, make that the cover save stacks with the armour save

Mattlov wrote:I'd like to see Rapid Fire change to something that makes sense. It should be simple:

If I move, I can fire once to my max range.

If I don't move, I can fire twice to my max range.

I also agree that hitting vehicles in CC should change.

And dear lord yes, change the WS to-hit numbers. If I'm WS 9 and you are WS 2, I should probably hit you more than 2/3rds of the time. I really shouldn't be able to miss.

Agreed and agreed. But I prefer the Fantasy table for Rapid fire, I think you should still fire twice if you moved but firing at a lower BS. Say -1 or 2 to hit.

For those of you bitching about cover saves, you realize that not all cover saves are 4+ right. Grass, hedges, fences etc are only 5+. So just becuase you are on a grassy hill does not give you a 4+. Maybe people shoudl starty playing some games without so much rocks, ruins, and barricades (4+ cover save). Teh one thing I don't like about cover saves is the fact that you can use your own unit as a 4+ cover save. if those saved wounds transferred somehow to the cover providing unit then maybe it might be OK.

I'll start by disclosing that I started with Orks in Rogue Trader then switched to IG when the Eye of Terror Campaign began. I also play Ultramarines.

Like many others, I'm also in favor of the following:

1. Changes to reduce the prevalence of melta weapons and vehicle armies, but with these caveats:

a. Keep transport costs down (Rhinos and Chimeras are actually worth using now). Drop pods have a reasonable point cost. I play IG because I like armored companies. If they're too powerful then make them less so but don't eliminate the possibility of playing one in a 1500 point game.

b. Make assaults less effective against vehicles (especially Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, Stompas, and Skimmers) but increase the damage table results so that ranged heavy weapons are more effective against the lighter vehicles. Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, and Stompas need to be tougher though. They don't fight their weight right now. Striking on rear armor in an assault needs to be removed.

2. Fix cover saves and area terrain. Maybe a 5+ max cover save for anything short of fortifications. And with TLOS, if you can see more than 50% of the model then no cover save at all. If I can see your chest and head I don't really need to shoot you in the kneecap to kill you. Bring back some type of woods/vegetation area terrain that completely blocks LOS.

3. Allow non-template shooting weapons to be used in assault versus infantry, cavalry, beasts, and walkers. A guy with a melta is not going to swing it at you. He's going to shoot you. If you want to factor in the difficulty of shooting during a swirling melee then make all shooting at BS 2 in assault.

4. Bring back consolidation into a new assault for some units. Yeah, I hated it with my IG but some assault units really should be that killy instead of being hung out to dry. Perhaps a USR - such as assault specialist - that allows this for a very small number of units: all jump troops and cavalry type units, berzerkers, hormagaunts with the right biomorph, some assassins, a few SW and Blood Angel units, flagellants, Ogryns, Necron wraiths, Wyches, Banshees, Striking Scorpions. Resist the temptation to give this ability to every unit in an army (Blood Angels, SW, Tyranids, Orks).

5. Allow rapid fire equipped units to shoot and then assault or fix rapid fire in some other way. Most rapid fire units don't want to assault anyway and vanilla marines really need the +1 A for assaulting. They're pretty lame in assault anyway compared to most assault units.

6. Less special rules in codices. I'm generally OK with them now but I used to play in tournaments a lot and too many special rules really make a shambles of tournaments. On the plus side, the slow release of new codexes may be balancing this problem out for the stronger players that do their homework.

JB wrote:I'll start by disclosing that I started with Orks in Rogue Trader then switched to IG when the Eye of Terror Campaign began. I also play Ultramarines.

Like many others, I'm also in favor of the following:

1. Changes to reduce the prevalence of melta weapons and vehicle armies, but with these caveats:

a. Keep transport costs down (Rhinos and Chimeras are actually worth using now). Drop pods have a reasonable point cost. I play IG because I like armored companies. If they're too powerful then make them less so but don't eliminate the possibility of playing one in a 1500 point game.

I'm personally in agreence with you on this one.These are different sides of the same coin. Melta, Las/Plas/Power etc. prevalence are all a response to the ludicrously low cost and spammability of dirt cheap, no-sacrifice-all-benefits vehicles. You cannot fix the symptom of the disease and totally ignore the cause. Transport costs need to go up or the benefits they provide need to go down. If either side of that balance is satisfied then eventually it will filter down into day-to-day list making and people won't be desperate to shove every single last possible melta/las/plas/power into their army list just to be able to not get massacred. Since GW is pretty terrible at dealing with codex changes it's pretty much reduced to changing the all-benefits-no-sacrifices part of the equation in the basic rule book.

JB wrote:b. Make assaults less effective against vehicles (especially Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, Stompas, and Skimmers) but increase the damage table results so that ranged heavy weapons are more effective against the lighter vehicles. Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, and Stompas need to be tougher though. They don't fight their weight right now. Striking on rear armor in an assault needs to be removed.

And what will you give Tyranids in return to allow them to be at all functional anymore? Assaulting vehicles is pretty much all they have outside of Hive Guard. Hamstring that and you might as well just throw the codex out until it gets an update. Increasing the effectiveness of shooting would be an insult-to-injury slap in the face. Orks would also get hit by this though just not to the same extent.

JB wrote:3. Allow non-template shooting weapons to be used in assault versus infantry, cavalry, beasts, and walkers. A guy with a melta is not going to swing it at you. He's going to shoot you. If you want to factor in the difficulty of shooting during a swirling melee then make all shooting at BS 2 in assault.

4. Bring back consolidation into a new assault for some units. Yeah, I hated it with my IG but some assault units really should be that killy instead of being hung out to dry. Perhaps a USR - such as assault specialist - that allows this for a very small number of units: all jump troops and cavalry type units, berzerkers, hormagaunts with the right biomorph, some assassins, a few SW and Blood Angel units, flagellants, Ogryns, Necron wraiths, Wyches, Banshees, Striking Scorpions. Resist the temptation to give this ability to every unit in an army (Blood Angels, SW, Tyranids, Orks).

Consolidating into assault was too abused and needed to go. These two fix each other by not being able to consolidate into the next assault. You still get your turn of shooting between assaults, you just don't get free shooting for getting engaged which would be silly.

SumYungGui wrote:

JB wrote:I'll start by disclosing that I started with Orks in Rogue Trader then switched to IG when the Eye of Terror Campaign began. I also play Ultramarines.

Like many others, I'm also in favor of the following:

1. Changes to reduce the prevalence of melta weapons and vehicle armies, but with these caveats:

a. Keep transport costs down (Rhinos and Chimeras are actually worth using now). Drop pods have a reasonable point cost. I play IG because I like armored companies. If they're too powerful then make them less so but don't eliminate the possibility of playing one in a 1500 point game.

I'm personally in agreence with you on this one.These are different sides of the same coin. Melta, Las/Plas/Power etc. prevalence are all a response to the ludicrously low cost and spammability of dirt cheap, no-sacrifice-all-benefits vehicles. You cannot fix the symptom of the disease and totally ignore the cause. Transport costs need to go up or the benefits they provide need to go down. If either side of that balance is satisfied then eventually it will filter down into day-to-day list making and people won't be desperate to shove every single last possible melta/las/plas/power into their army list just to be able to not get massacred. Since GW is pretty terrible at dealing with codex changes it's pretty much reduced to changing the all-benefits-no-sacrifices part of the equation in the basic rule book.

Perhaps (as others have suggested in this thread) they should make the damage table for vehicles more dangerous, double melta weapon costs (for IG, I'm not sure SM get much melta as is), and make heavy weapons more dangerous to vehicles (+1 on the damage results for S8 incl. melta but drop the existing +1 for melta, +2 for S9, and +3 for S10).

SumYungGui wrote:

JB wrote:b. Make assaults less effective against vehicles (especially Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, Stompas, and Skimmers) but increase the damage table results so that ranged heavy weapons are more effective against the lighter vehicles. Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, and Stompas need to be tougher though. They don't fight their weight right now. Striking on rear armor in an assault needs to be removed.

And what will you give Tyranids in return to allow them to be at all functional anymore? Assaulting vehicles is pretty much all they have outside of Hive Guard. Hamstring that and you might as well just throw the codex out until it gets an update. Increasing the effectiveness of shooting would be an insult-to-injury slap in the face. Orks would also get hit by this though just not to the same extent.

JB wrote:3. Allow non-template shooting weapons to be used in assault versus infantry, cavalry, beasts, and walkers. A guy with a melta is not going to swing it at you. He's going to shoot you. If you want to factor in the difficulty of shooting during a swirling melee then make all shooting at BS 2 in assault.

I think GW needs to buff up Monstrous Creatures as well as heavy vehicles: Monoliths, Land Raiders, Superheavies, Titans, and Stompas. A four wound monstrous creature is fragile IMO. Monstrous Creatures should be more effective versus vehicles in assault. I see them as the vehicle killers. Gaunts and even genestealers should not be killing tanks unless they are physically on the same side as the rear armor or in the second round of combat (when they've had time to figure out its weaknesses or simply had time to hit every piece of the vehicle till something bad happens). Nobs, Warbosses, and SM or CSM with power fists/klaws might be different due to experience/intelligence. For simplicity's sake though, I'm far less adamant about changing vehicle assault rules than the other points. I don't want the Tyranids to get any weaker. Not enough people play them now as is.

SumYungGui wrote:

JB wrote:4. Bring back consolidation into a new assault for some units. Yeah, I hated it with my IG but some assault units really should be that killy instead of being hung out to dry. Perhaps a USR - such as assault specialist - that allows this for a very small number of units: all jump troops and cavalry type units, berzerkers, hormagaunts with the right biomorph, some assassins, a few SW and Blood Angel units, flagellants, Ogryns, Necron wraiths, Wyches, Banshees, Striking Scorpions. Resist the temptation to give this ability to every unit in an army (Blood Angels, SW, Tyranids, Orks).

Consolidating into assault was too abused and needed to go. These two fix each other by not being able to consolidate into the next assault. You still get your turn of shooting between assaults, you just don't get free shooting for getting engaged which would be silly.

Fine by me. Since I play IG, consolidation into a new assault is all bad for me. I just think some really killy assault units don't earn anywhere near their points in most battles so people stopped using them. Allowing the possibility of consolidation might make some of these units an option again. As for shooting in an assault, I think it adds more realism but agree that smooth gameplay and balance needs to trump realism in 40K. I'm certainly no purist that thinks 40K needs to approximate real war. It wouldn't function well on a 4'x6' table if it did.

After thinking about it a bit more, I agree with the folks that don't like multi-unit assault results. A monstrous creature shouldn't suffer wounds because the weak gaunt unit next to it in the assault took a lot of damage in melee. Not sure how to fix it short of making all assault results independent for each unit involved.

You never listed genestelaers under 4!

They are one the best and most classic assault units in the game

ChocolateGork wrote:You never listed genestelaers under 4!

They are one the best and most classic assault units in the game

I certainly wouldn't deny the genestealers their place as an iconic killy assault unit.

...but this is all crazy talk anyway...killing time on the internet...unless Kid Kyoto starts working for GW.

Sarigar wrote:

-wound allocation is a bit wonky right now; people can minimize the amount of casualties they take by this rule which I'd imagine is not quite what was intended. I like a previous posters comment about spreading all the same wounds about equally before moving on to another weapon type.

And guess what? You imagine wrong.
Reread the example on page 25 and you'll see.

Maybe I am being overly harsh, but I am really tired of people sprouting nonsense about "it isn't the intention to use the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties".

Go read the example.

/rant

I too like the idea about grouping wounds according to AP.

So many poor suggestions in this thread.
People want to go back to VP's? Don't you guys remember 4th ed? Missions didn't really matter, it was all about killing the enemy while preserving your own force in all missions.
Entanglement back? No thank you, no transports on future battlefields is sillier than lots of transports.
No fearless wounds? So all fearless units suddenly become endless tarpits, ork mobs will become hell to deal with.
No reserve? So first turn becomes even more important?
Consolidating into assault? The worst rule in 4th ed
4th ed wasn't really that good people, 5th ed is way more balanced, tactical and fun, even if mech is king.

Some suggestions seem fine though, wound allocation needs to be tweaked, cover saves are too good and too easy to get, vehicle moving/shooting can be improved

Allow terrain to be 'bought' as part of your army points.

They kind of touched upon this in Fantasy with the collapsing watchtower, why not do the same for 40K.

It would give people more reason to buy some of the kits/barricades/razorwire/bastions etc.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC's suggestion is excellent. Warhammer 40,000 needs to better define terrain and its value in the game. 5th edition was a remarkable improvement on 4th in that regard, but it needs more, like what Andy Chambers did for terrain in Starship Troopers and allow players to allocate points to terrain as well as their armies. It seems like part of good strategy should be choosing where you fight your battles.

are we all missing one of the biggest problems with 40k?
Psychology.. or lack there of

If i had my way every army would have its ld reduced by at least 1 point. but thats never going to happen, instead simply re categorize every unit like fantasy did and throw in the fantasy psychology rules (after tweaking them OC).

next is how awful sniper weapons and pinning are, -1 ld (to a max of -3) per casualty would be fine, yes this could mean that power blobs and TH/SS termies keep getting pinned, but it encoureges(SP?) you to think about such things as oposed to just being a no brainer.

the point is things like Ork warboses and Hive tyrants are supposed to be scary, but we have little to no mechanics in 40k to show this.

Now this one is my biggest request, stop please please stop GW, we are not bloody idiots, this game CAN be more complicated, if i can teach my 9 year old niece 2nd ED rules why the hell do you think we cant handle things like "Vehicle moved 12" -2 to your BS to hit" instead of "vehicle moved flat out 3+ cover save... durp durp", give us Some modifiers (not too many, as this isnt fantasy) we can handle it, last but not least... £22.50 for a tactical sqaud and £15.00 for 10 bloodletters... I enjoy being priced out of the hobbly.. durp durp

I love how most of the suggestion would be a net result in the poster's favored army being more powerful...

For me, 5th edition rules are mostly fine, it's the codices that spammed USRs (FnP). Someone at GW needs to learn how to better balance the main rules and the different armies....it'll never happen but since we're all wishlisting here.

How exactly is psychology a problem for 40,000? How would more complex rules improve the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto:

I did some wishlisting, but I did make some specific predictions about how we'll see the rules evolve in 6th edition...