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.

 tenebre wrote:
I would love to implement several changes.

1. overwatch happening in opponents turn as reaction fire. as in if a unit enters line of sight you can choose to fire at them.
2. dashing cover. i.e. if running from cover to cover a bonus is conferred
3. vehicle hull down and ammo tracking. Hit locations on vehicles etc.

3 might complicate the game a little to much, and just using Only War as a baseline, vehicles seem to keep enough ammo for a battle in their clips alone. LRBTs for example have 6 shot clips.

Reaction Fire is a good idea that I have written rules for before. It was essentially that a unit must has -1 to the shot default, -1 if it shot last turn, and -1 if the target does not stop in it's weapon range. Might be to prohibitive, but let me know what you think. Also if Reaction Fire is declared, whoever has the highest Initiative resolves their shots first, which might help with an earlier complaint about four stars for CC and only one for shooting.

Some thoughts on the debate about Hull Points' accuracy in reflecting real life. Sometimes a game works better if you sacrifice realism and add abstraction. Hull points are doing that and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Same with rolling armor saves after wound rolls. It's backward but the game flows better.

Secondly the weapons are futuristic and won't necessarily effect armor in the same way modern era weapons interact with armor. The glancing melta/lascannon/plasma/gauss hit may damage hull integrity without doing damage to other stuff leaving the vehicle more susceptible to future impacts. The melta may liquidify half the thickness of the armor at the point of impact. Now the armor is six inches thick instead of 12. Next hit spends less energy defeating the armor and more damaging important stuff.

--

Fourth edition terrain rules are huge for me. The basic criticism of the rules is essentially that they were poorly understood by some, so write them with better clarity instead of scrapping them altogether.

I don't like flyers and super heavies and would prefer that they not be part of the standard game, but get that some think they are super cool and want to have them. The rules should allow pickup games without a bunch of haggling. One way to do this could involve rolling at the start of the game (I know I know random everywhere is evil but here it had a real purpose) and depending on result game has no flyers/super heavies, one of the two or both. Players coming to a pickup game should have lists ready for each possibility. Probably have a floor point level where you just play without them and an upper point level beyond which they are automatic.

Scale back damage output.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Some thoughts on the debate about Hull Points' accuracy in reflecting real life. Sometimes a game works better if you sacrifice realism and add abstraction. Hull points are doing that and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Same with rolling armor saves after wound rolls. It's backward but the game flows better.

Secondly the weapons are futuristic and won't necessarily effect armor in the same way modern era weapons interact with armor. The glancing melta/lascannon/plasma/gauss hit may damage hull integrity without doing damage to other stuff leaving the vehicle more susceptible to future impacts. The melta may liquidify half the thickness of the armor at the point of impact. Now the armor is six inches thick instead of 12. Next hit spends less energy defeating the armor and more damaging important stuff.

But still, it does not make any sense and unless you are one of the pants on head idiots whom refused point blank to bring anything other than token AT then whined about how that enemy tank was so OP (as a lot of people did back in 5th) then dealing with tanks should present no problem what soever for you under the old rules. Under the new rules though you dont even have to bring a single dedicated AT gun - in fact you are better off bringing a dozen low middle strength high rate of fire weapons and blitzing the tank to death.
It is stupid and to see your tank die from a hail of HMG fire, or your Chimera APC boltered to death by some tac marines, it just feels stupid.

Fourth edition terrain rules are huge for me. The basic criticism of the rules is essentially that they were poorly understood by some, so write them with better clarity instead of scrapping them altogether.

No arguments here, flyers are poorly represented within 40K at the moment and are way way waaaayyyyyy too powerful.

I don't like flyers and super heavies and would prefer that they not be part of the standard game, but get that some think they are super cool and want to have them. The rules should allow pickup games without a bunch of haggling. One way to do this could involve rolling at the start of the game (I know I know random everywhere is evil but here it had a real purpose) and depending on result game has no flyers/super heavies, one of the two or both. Players coming to a pickup game should have lists ready for each possibility. Probably have a floor point level where you just play without them and an upper point level beyond which they are automatic.

Flyers I utterly hate and I fully agree that they have no place in the game as they are at the moment. Super Heavies I also agree should have no place in any sub apocalypse game. However I, as an IG player - one of the weakest armies right now - am forced to use our slightly over priced Super Heavies just to stay on par with my opponents, and even then I am still behind them.

Scale back damage output.

This... Just this.

With the massively inflated damage output that we have seen within the past couple of editions the game is becoming more and more ridiculous. The average damage output needs toning back. No SM player should be removing most of an IG infantry section in a single turn with only 10 marines.

I'd streamline the rule set and the codices.
Moreover, I'd make the rule book and codices much cheaper.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Scale back damage output.

Thinking about this I first thought right on with this, damage output is crazy, but it might not be so bad if the IGYG nature of the game was altered. High damage output sucks in 40k because in one turn you lose so much capability of your army. If there was some kind of alternate activation scheme where you could not use every unit in your army and hence also not lose every unit in your army each turn, the high damage output might not be so bad. You would get a chance to react to the attack at least before you are wiped out. Actually that change might make the game flow better and make it move faster as well.

First Fast attack should go. Then HQ/Elite, then Troops, then Heavies. For borth players. Would make the game much more playable and interactive. As it is I usually doze off from all the sugar and nicotin I ingest while my opponent moves his pieces in IGYG.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Some thoughts on the debate about Hull Points' accuracy in reflecting real life. Sometimes a game works better if you sacrifice realism and add abstraction. Hull points are doing that and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Same with rolling armor saves after wound rolls. It's backward but the game flows better.

Secondly the weapons are futuristic and won't necessarily effect armor in the same way modern era weapons interact with armor. The glancing melta/lascannon/plasma/gauss hit may damage hull integrity without doing damage to other stuff leaving the vehicle more susceptible to future impacts. The melta may liquidify half the thickness of the armor at the point of impact. Now the armor is six inches thick instead of 12. Next hit spends less energy defeating the armor and more damaging important stuff.

But still, it does not make any sense and unless you are one of the pants on head idiots whom refused point blank to bring anything other than token AT then whined about how that enemy tank was so OP (as a lot of people did back in 5th) then dealing with tanks should present no problem what soever for you under the old rules. Under the new rules though you dont even have to bring a single dedicated AT gun - in fact you are better off bringing a dozen low middle strength high rate of fire weapons and blitzing the tank to death.
It is stupid and to see your tank die from a hail of HMG fire, or your Chimera APC boltered to death by some tac marines, it just feels stupid.

I didn't really fully express my thoughts on hull points. I neither fully endorse nor fully oppose them. Glancing to death especially with lower strength weapons does seem off to me, but so does shrugging off many penetrating hits like in the rhino/las cannon anecdote earlier. The main points were (1) I think you can make a fluff justification for it, and (2) sacrificing realism as a conscious game design decision is ok with me...to a point.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Some thoughts on the debate about Hull Points' accuracy in reflecting real life. Sometimes a game works better if you sacrifice realism and add abstraction. Hull points are doing that and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Same with rolling armor saves after wound rolls. It's backward but the game flows better.

Secondly the weapons are futuristic and won't necessarily effect armor in the same way modern era weapons interact with armor. The glancing melta/lascannon/plasma/gauss hit may damage hull integrity without doing damage to other stuff leaving the vehicle more susceptible to future impacts. The melta may liquidify half the thickness of the armor at the point of impact. Now the armor is six inches thick instead of 12. Next hit spends less energy defeating the armor and more damaging important stuff.

But still, it does not make any sense and unless you are one of the pants on head idiots whom refused point blank to bring anything other than token AT then whined about how that enemy tank was so OP (as a lot of people did back in 5th) then dealing with tanks should present no problem what soever for you under the old rules. Under the new rules though you dont even have to bring a single dedicated AT gun - in fact you are better off bringing a dozen low middle strength high rate of fire weapons and blitzing the tank to death.
It is stupid and to see your tank die from a hail of HMG fire, or your Chimera APC boltered to death by some tac marines, it just feels stupid.

I didn't really fully express my thoughts on hull points. I neither fully endorse nor fully oppose them. Glancing to death especially with lower strength weapons does seem off to me, but so does shrugging off many penetrating hits like in the rhino/las cannon anecdote earlier. The main points were (1) I think you can make a fluff justification for it, and (2) sacrificing realism as a conscious game design decision is ok with me...to a point.

The penetrating hit issue could easily be fixed with a far more brutal penetration table, something like the one from Bolt Action: A 1 stops the vehicle from doing anything next turn, a 2 immobilises it, a three has a massive chance to kill it off and even if it does not reduces its capabilities next turn and a 4+ kills it outright.

 master of ordinance wrote:

The penetrating hit issue could easily be fixed with a far more brutal penetration table, something like the one from Bolt Action: A 1 stops the vehicle from doing anything next turn, a 2 immobilises it, a three has a massive chance to kill it off and even if it does not reduces its capabilities next turn and a 4+ kills it outright.

It really should be that Glance gets you on the table but no hull point, while pens take em away.

while a Pen gets a +1 to the table so its possible for a ap 3+ to pop it.

They also need to fix what glancing does to the guys inside. getting stunned or shaken should feth them up if they try and leave the vehicle and charge something or shoot something.



Suddenly tanks would be the battle bunkers and transports that they are supposed to be without worrying about how many missile pods the enemy is spamming. (or St7 equivalents)

Apart from the fact vehicles should not resolve damage differently to any other unit.

And the whole way shooting is resolved needs complete revision anyway.
And mobility needs to be added back .(Movement rates in the form of stats or unit type.)
And close combat needs to be simultaneous to speed up the game.
And the game turn need to be more interactive.
And damage resolution in general needs defining better.
And as at least 60 special rules need culling, the above is a good starting point IMO.

Lanrak wrote:
Apart from the fact vehicles should not resolve damage differently to any other unit.

And the whole way shooting is resolved needs complete revision anyway.
And mobility needs to be added back .(Movement rates in the form of stats or unit type.)
And close combat needs to be simultaneous to speed up the game.
And the game turn need to be more interactive.
And damage resolution in general needs defining better.
And as at least 60 special rules need culling, the above is a good starting point IMO.

Which special rules would you start culling? Other than that, again, just have Glances roll on the current chart with -1 to the die result, best of both arguments.

@saithor.
Any special rules that is not a special ability , that can not be covered by normal game mechanics and resolution methods .
I would just get rid of.
EG
Chemical weapons ignore cover, is a special ability of the way chemical weapons work differently to beam and projectile weapons.
But the special rules for movement could be simply covered by mobility stat.

Why do vehicles have to have different damage resolution to other units?

What exactly is the difference between a walking vehicle and a Monsterous Creature?

What is so wrong with using a system that covers all units in the same way?(But still gives much more diversity of results than the current system!)

Get a competent Editor....

@Jinx Dragon.
If GW had professional levels of editing and proof reading,it would improve the clarity of the language used in the presentation.

It would not fix the over complication in the rules, or the massive imbalance at the core of the game between shooting and close combat.

I think the best way forward would be too look at the transition between 2nd ed and 3rd ed.
As this was an '11th hour rush job' to get the 40k battle game finished, after the devs had spent nearly 18 months working on a refined skirmish game, that got canned!

It was here the rules for shooting were over simplified, that effected the rest of the game play, in a negative way.

Bring back assault from reserve/outflank.

Make Jink for skimmers/bikes a +1 to your cover save. It's kind of silly that a Jetbike squad out in the open can avoid half the damage of a large explosion that happened in their midst by taking evasive maneuvers.

Remove Fear/fearless. Useless rules are useless.

Cover saves are now by unit majority. The current system is too complicated for a game on the scale of 40k. Make casualty removal the choice of the owning player for the same reason.

On second thought, I would like to see at least 50% of the USRs culled and consolidated into the statblocks.

Allow assault out of deep strike. Make it so that it counts as a disordered charge or something.

Change how multiple barrage works. The way they do it now is tedious as hell. Make it so that the owning player can place the blast markers wherever they want after the initial one is rolled for as long as they overlap.

Vehicles should be able to overwatch. Maybe restrict to hull mounted/pintle weapons only?

Allow blast weapons and template weapons to snap fired. I never quite understood the reasoning about that restriction. Is it so that units with those weapons don't get away with having their BS reduced to 1? I mean, it's not like you needed to be particularly accurate with high explosives and flamers anyway.

Throw a bone to dedicated AT weaponry. Right now they are languishing at performing their assigned roles. We are now living in a design paradigm where it is more effective to fire at a tank from the side with HMGs than high caliber anti-tank guns.

Add a damage chart for MCs or make vehicles more like MCs. The gap in power is very noticeable between the two.

Nerf cover or have mechanics that allows units to reduce a cover save without removing it entirely.

i'd go back to Rogue Trader and start the whole palaver again!