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.

Ok here's something I was thinking up.  As someone who started 40k about 2 years ago now I've started to notice some kind of Fundamental type problems that exist in the game.  I figured I would post them up and ask if it is something that should be fixed in the next version of the game.

1.) Power Fist/Uber Special Weapon weilding Squad Leaders
 
This is something that is pretty fundamental to the game and as I understand it is actually a 4th edition thing.  It's so basic and expected that I never really batted an eye when making lists and any squad that was going to get anywhere near combat (if I could help it) got a Power Fist.  It wasn't till I came back to a game against my shall we say "Power Gaming Sensitive" friends with my new KoS army and it was remarked about how every Trukk mob had a Power Klaw Nob. 

Think about it.  It makes any squad great in combat and a threat to pretty much anything in the game: infantry, IC's, walkers, monsterous creatures, and vehicles.  Not only does it do all this, but when deployed properly there is almost nothing your opponent can do to stop it other than hitting you with overwhelming force to knock everything out at I1 or hope that the squad isn't arranged well enough that he can clear the kill zone and avoid the fisting. 

Problem is that if they made it like 3rd Ed where you could target specific models in CC, power fists suck and probably wouldn't get used.  If they keep it as now they will be uncontested champions.  So I don't know if it's worth fixing, especially since it gives many squads that would otherwise suck in CC an option of being a threat, it's almost as much of an equalizer than it is a game breaking upgrade. 

2.) Tanks and Vehicles in General

Tanks can be a complete mixed bag.  On one end you have some armies whose entire power base revolves around god-like skimmers (Tau, moreso Eldar).  These tanks are unkillable (Eldar) or very hard to kill (Tau), not so much because of being a Skimmer, but being a Skimmer with access to insane upgrades.  It puts them in a world all their own that makes them each more resilient than any other tank in the game.  Skimmers aren still problematic at lower AV's, Speeders are annoying to kill because you can only ever glance them most of the time, and they have a great shot at coming out of being Glanced relatively unscathed.   

After the God Skimmers you have the Monolith which breaks nearly every rule regarding vehicles in the game.  Because of this and it's high AV Value (which normally doesn't mean squat because of all the rules that exist to bypass strong armor) it's resilient, but not quite as resilient as a Falcon with Holofields, Spirit Stones, and Vectored Engines.

Finally there's conventional vehicles, which by and large are way too fragile for the amount of firepower that exists in this game. Even AV14 isn't all that great because of the great numbers of S9 or better weapons or weapons that ignore the normal rules for armor (Rending, Lances, Auto-Glancing Guns,  Meltas on units that can close distances quickly via Deep Strike, Drop Pods, or just really fast movement). 

After AV14, there's AV13 vehicles which are the mainstay of the Space Marines. These only get taken because they're made dirt cheap and can be made numerous enough where anti-tank weapons can struggle to cope with them (in most general lists).  If it wasn't for the fact that these tanks are generally undercosted for what they do, they'd never get taken. 

And don't get started on AV12, which is the kind of armor you either field in rediculous amounts (IG) or you just don't put on the field as it's incredibly easy to destroy. 

So basically, low end armor is too easy to destroy, but high end skimmers are way too hard to destroy.  It makes Monsterous Creatures and Infantry far more preferable as heavy weapons platforms than Tanks are.  This is something I think should be fixed in the next edition of the game.  I also think Yackfaces proposed vehicle rules are a step in the right direction.

3.) Good Armor Saves (3+ and Above) are undercosted & armies without them or special rules to compensate are at a severe disadvantage. 

This has been harped on time and time again so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it.  In general if I made a "fun, take all comers list" and came up against a 3+ Save army, I'd generally be hosed because I couldn't do enough damage to win the game.  3+ Save Units are undercosted, and things like Necrons who have 3+ Saves followed up by a 4+ WBB are even more undercosted.  This is due to the fact that GW likes to keep 500 Point games an option for people starting the hobby (where it'd be near impossible for Necrons to play if they were costed any higher).  It's also a buisness decision where they want more models in an army and if you need less space marines to play a 1500 or 1850 point game with the most popular army GW is going to lose money.

Given this unique conflict of Buisness Needs and Rules, we're in a situation where I do not see 3+ or better saves being made more expensive point wise, we only have one other solution.  Make units without a 3+ Save base better for their points in other ways.

Eldar are the perfect example of this.  They have many Aspect Warrior units that don't have 3+ Saves, however in general most are worth taking as they have clear ways around this weakness.  Tau get around this in their basic warrior by being proportionally better at shooting than a Space Marine for their points cost, and this is something that can be enhanced by other aspects of the army (Markerlights) where as their survivability issues can be dealt with by putting them in Skimmers and using other tactics (Fish of Fury). 

Other armies like Orks and IG still suffer from the "I die in droves!" problem without real clear ways around it that are as effective as the options Eldar and Tau have. 

4.) Assaulting is either stupidly not worth it or is overpowered

In 4th ed, assault armies generally have a hard time.  The problem is that shooting is so powerful (and many times terrain is so lacking) that being an assault unit is generally not a good thing in the current game.

Best example comes from general trends of advice I've seen on the forums: If it's an assault unit that only moves 6" a turn it's not worth taking.  This is because in general these units will never make it to Combat because of the mobility & firepower of shooty armies.    Anything that's considered "good" in assault has to move faster than 6" a turn, and in general move 12" or more (this is especially true for Close Combat IC's).  Mainly because otherwise there is no real way to get into combat.

Transports are an option, and an army like Dark Eldar can take advantage of this because they have good transports (Skimmers, see problem #2) and special rules & speed to avoid many pitfalls with taking transports (Web Way Portals + long skimmers + Fleet = very long charge range).  Orks and armies like Space Wolves or Black Templars are less fortunate in their transport abilities because of the transport rules in 4th edition and the advent of very mobile, very powerful firepower that is central to most good armies in this game.

Then you get into other areas where assault is stupidly overpowered.  Demonbombs are the perfect example where the enemy can lock you into assault with very powerful assault units that you would otherwise never get the chance to shoot.  Or get you with first turn charges that you can do nothing about if you don't win the dice to go first.  Similar things happen when an army doesn't have the firepower or the mission/special rules/terrain is too dense that transports actually work and an optimized assault army gets its way into your lines 

I've got no ideas on how to fix this one.

5.) Morale is a joke in 40k.

Either LD tests are too easy to pass for most armies, or they're too easy to bypass for most units and armies.  This one is pretty simple  Right now Eldar, IG, & Tau really have to worry about Leadership tests.  Everyone else is pretty much good and doesn't worry a whole lot about it or is outright immune to the affects of Morale.

Fix: Start Modifying army special rules or LD Stats!  Perhapse make base LD lower for almost all armies and give bonuses for being near army commanders?

So that's all I've got for now.  I'd appreciate comments on how to fix a problem or listing more problems that I haven't covered would also be good.

It's funny, because pretty much what you listed is the stuff I've posted 'proposed rules' on this very forum.

Before I get to what you have listed, I'd like to also mention a few 'key points' I think 40k third edition had totally right in the rulebook army lists before they started going all crazy writing the codexes. I'd prefer a return to these fundamental guidelines in the next edition:


A) Invulnerable saves should never be re-rollable. Sure the concept of the invulnerable save has been degraded a little bit, but only vs. a select few pieces of wargear. In general, I think invulnerable saves are still awesome, but for the enjoyment of everyone, no invulnerable save should be re-rollabe, by any means.


B) All characters should be threatened by instant death (or their save should be lessened). In the 3rd ed rulebook lists, every single character was susceptible to instant death. This made players actually think twice about spending too many points on their characters because one Lascannon hit and *poof* there goes their character.

While I don't think we should return all the way to that point, there should be a fundamental guideline in the codex design that limits any model that is immune to instant death to a maximum of a 3+ save and a 4+ invulnerable save. That way opponents always feel like they have a chance to any uber-character if they shoot or fight him enough.


C) Monstrous Creatures should top out at T6 (T7, absolute max). One great thing (IMO) about the 3rd edition rulebook lists was that all the big creatures had a bunch of wounds but if enough joe schmoe lasgun guys fired at him he would eventually die. This is exactly what happens in movies and it is how the game should be changed back to.

The Wraithlord shouldn't be T8, not because that's "cheesy" but because its not as fun. Just give him more wounds and drop him back down to T7.

They souldn't create any mondo characters with T8, they should stick with a level that can be wounded by the basic troops in the game and then just keep balooning up the Wounds characteristic to make him 'Tough Enough'.



Okay, with that out, back to your points:


1) I don't think its an issue. A lot of people forget to use the Torrent of Fire rule, and perhaps in the next edition they can streamline it and definitely make it clearly labeled in the rules so everyone knows it applies in both shooting and CC.

The other thing I think they should do is pehaps improve other CC weapons to make them more of an option when compared to the PFist. Why can a S3 powersword cleave through a marine but it can't hurt a vehicle?


2) I believe that vehicles should change to a T/W/Save statline as I presented in my proposed rules. I really think this would make the game better and vehicles more fun (and simple).

Also, the introduction of a critical wound (or 'headshot') in general would also help against characters immune to instant death or Monstrous creatures wtih a whole bunch of wounds (as I suggested).

The Critical wound rule (if you didn't see it in my vehicle thread) is that any attack that is equal or greater than the Target's Toughness and a '6' is rolled to wound is a Critical Wound. If the player fails its saving throw then the model suffers one wound plus a special D6 roll:

1-2: essentially the model is pinned.
3-4: loses an extra wound (2 total) and is pinned.
5-6: loses two extra wounds (3 total) and is pinned.


3) As I've posted before, I really think they should re-introduce a very limited amor modifier system, mainly based on Strength:

Strength 1-4: No modifier
Strength 5-6: -1 save modifier
Strength 7-8: -2 save modifier
Strength 9-10: -3 save modifier


Certain weapons would have their modifier adjusted up or down one category to represent their armor piercing abilities (like current AP1 weapons would be an extra -1 modifier).


4) I personally agree that any assualt unit should either be given a special movement rule, or have access to a transport.

With my revised vehicle rules, models still couldn't disembark and charge but vehicles could take a bit of punishment, so players could risk driving up their vehicle and leaving the squad inside hoping that it would survive the enemy shooting so that the unit could disembark in the next turn and charge away.

It would be a risk, but it would be a lot more of an actual tactical choice than it is right now.


5) I agree that morale is a joke. They need to throw the codices out and start all over again and just calm the F down when it comes to handing out morale special rules.

They also need to realize that they way they wrote their rules a Fallback move is not 'running away' so there's no reason that a "Fearless" creature can't Fall Back. . .it represents a SMART creature/unit realizing they're walking into a bullet storm and they should probably get out of there.

The only units that should really be Fearless are the crazy bloodthirsty ones like Khorne. Basically if you *have* to charge in the Assualt phase, then you should be Fearless.

Everyone else should be subject to morale again. ATSKNF should just be Morale re-roll and the ability to regroup even under 50% strength, THAT'S IT. No stupid: "I totally want to fall back, cause it will help me out" crap. And certainly no blanket 'Ld10' to the whole army garbage.


I wrote some proposed rules for fixing morale, but they were for converting the current system (and kind of complex). I'd much rather they just started over and calmed things down a bunch when it comes to special Morale rules.


So in short: yes, I agree with you on almost all points and I think they should throw out the codices and start over again with the next edition of the game.

Sounds decent. I, of course, would go on an anti-power-armored-freaks rant (Space Marines), but it wouldn't be productive, and i don't have the time.

Regardless, i also agree on a lot of the problems; the ones that spring to mind are problems with vehicles, with monsterous creatures (in relation to vehicles), morale, AP (break it or take it is stupid), and the like.

edit: OH! This could go under morale, but there should be a mechanic for suppression fire and flanking in 40k. This could easily go under the heading, "40k lacks tactical thinking", or it could be a mix of both.

And, back to work i go.

Well written all! Agreed, here are a few more:

STICKY ASSAULT/SWIRLING MELLEE

Swirling Melle refers to the poorly abtsracted language and all the free assault movement in the BRB, Sticky assault refers to the inability of an army or troops to disengage from assaults, essentially, because of the locked and follow up rules, and order of events once an assault unit gets into melee, it can never be extricated, other than by being beaten in close combat or by the demise of their opponents. This causes troops like Demon bombs, tyranids, Wyches, Assault HQ Characters of all types, etc. to essentially be invulnerable once in assault.  I propose the following changes to fix it:

OVERWATCH fire (In a 90 arc of fire only, set when a unit forgoes its previous moving and shooting phases, units with an attached IC, can be deployed in Overwatch)

Firing into Close combat for and against some armies (IG, orks, chaos, tyranids, necrons), hits hit, and misses hit allied models.

Voluntary fallback, (after an unmodified morale test) with free strikes for attackers if succesful. (morale test involved so that occasionally, troops falling back from an assault just break, it should be risky, but this would make assault units ideal for pushing people back, off board, or off of objectives.)

Elimination of sweeping attacks, follow ups, consolidation and any assault phase free movement outside of the movement and shooting phases. (Unengaged models are obligated to move into ongoing CCs in their own movement phases until they are resolved, and un engaged models can be targeted seperately.

These rules would hurt assault troops somewhat.  But there are some other proposals I have to help them, introduce balanc,e and change the flavor of the game:

Any model with an assault weapon may choose to shoot it in the assault phase in place of it's regular attacks, *flamer template style assault weapons can only be fired on the charge in this manner (after assault moves have been made).

Any model with a pistol or an assault weapon, may participate in a mellee with shots from up to 6 inches away as long as at least 1 model is base to base.

Any models that flee a mellee, and pass their morale check, are susceptible to a single extra attack each, that autohits from every model they flee from, alternatively a model that has its cc opponents voluntarily fall back may ellect to shoot once at them with any assault or pistol weapons they carry.

Models with 2 pistols may always shoot twice, stationary models with 2 pistols may rapid fire them and shoot 4 times.

Flamers in an assaulting unit cause a morale check automatically at the end of the assault phase.

How about these?

 

 

Great post... I really had to reply, although mostly to disagree with some points.

1.) Power Fist/Uber Special Weapon weilding Squad Leaders
 
You hit the nail on the head.  If you let people target who they want, power fists (a unique and very branded games workshop weapon mind you) would fall out of favor.  Here's my real world take on it.  Due to the limitations on which races can even float weapons, it makes it more of a specific answer to monstrous creatures/assault armies for marines chaos marines and orks.  Guard are severely limited in where there fists are going, and they aren't really floating when surrounded by a mere 4 T3 5+save wounds.  Orks are currently using claws offensively in assault units rather than as assault deterrents but hopefully they will have other options after their new book comes out.  I want combat simple, 1750 games take too long already without watching my opponent micro-manage his assault movements.  And roll his assault dice in 10 seperate handfuls.  If it weren't for the popularity of space marines, floating fists would be more of a racial ability rather than a perceived "epidemic"

2.) Tanks and Vehicles in General

Absolutely, vehicle rules need to be torn down and reworked in 5th edition.  Hopefully 5th edition will be a full rework (and hopefully ill still be playing 40k)  Until then, from a practical viewpoint, the uber power ups for tau and eldar just seem to make vehicles an enticing option for them.  From a tourney standpoint, thats great.  The more different types of armies we see, the more different matchups we have, which will make the armies more balanced.  Look at it this way.  These "uber vehicles" are increasing the population of 4+ armor saves in tourneys by a ton. 

3.) Good Armor Saves (3+ and Above) are undercosted & armies without them or special rules to compensate are at a severe disadvantage. 

uggh, my first total disagreement.  There are things in this game that are drastically undercosted, but marines aren't one of them.  I would have agreed with you 8 months ago.  Tourneys now are so fast and tactical, that every unit needs HIGH survivability, and devastating wound output, in short bursts.  The "sluggers" and "grinders" of 3rd edition are dinosaurs.  Good drop pod marine lists feature at least 3 units of terminators, generally more termies than power armor.  Termies at 40 points a piece are fairly costed, and hit harder and can take a hit harder than power armor.  You'll see the occasional vanilla castle army with 6 man las plas, or a blood angel assault army.  But these armies are having a very difficult time providing the VP claiming punch mixed with the VP denying survivability for a 6 turn game in which your opponent has chosen to remain off the table for some portion of it.  I for one love this fast paced teleport/drop pod/skimmer-tank revolution.  It really is starting to feel like futuristic warfare that occurs in the far future, not just a dressed up world war 2 with jet packs knock off.  In casual atmospheres, the perceived "leanness" of necron warriors and basic marines might seem like something to take note of.  But it isn't really a problem even this early on in 4th edition.

4.) Assaulting is either stupidly not worth it or is overpowered

This is a somewhat valid point, although it is something i think I can live with.  I am ok with assault being accessible only to specific races.  We can all buy other armies and play differently for a change of pace.  What I really like seeing is that even dedicated assault armies need to invest in some shooting.  If its a demon bomb it will need some lascannons for trouble units.  If its tyranids it will need devourers and venom cannons to dictate some of the pace in the early turns while their hormagaunts/genestealers/raveners set up for a safer charge.  Orks (although terrible) have always had a devastating number of cheap shots with big shootas and rokkits as they closed the distance.  I would be inclined to agree with you more that it was a problem if the close combat armies completely abandonded shooting, but they don't.  Close combat is not really that much of a problem in tourneys also as it is so difficult to expose and assault units in skimmer tanks.  Thats where i agree with you about the VP denial versus assault, its too bad its not really neccessary for some eldar lists to even get out of their tanks at all.  However the neccessity for speed doesn't bother me.  Again its a faster more sci-fi game.  I wish that rhinos were a little bit more viable.  But its an imperfect world, and they did have a few years in the sun.

5.) Morale is a joke in 40k.

Yes, and lets keep it that way.  This isn't an attack on you, since you are just stating a fact, one that can't be refuted.  Let me say that it breaks my heart to see all of these people who wail and gnash about morale and how meaningless it is, and how many fearless units and atsknf etc.  I feel that these players would enjoy a game like Flames of War so much better than what they are getting from 40k.  I for one, like everyone in my gaming group and everyone who enjoys a competetive game, dont want to see a game lost due to a routine bell curve test falling completely out of whack.  When I watch one of my opponents key units fall off the table on turn one because of a lightning bolt roll (11 or 12 on 2d6 isnt something to tactically prepare for).  There just isn't enough unit redundancy in 40k to cover what happens if a lynchpin unit disappears.  Morale is a joke, thanks the emperor for that

So I wasn't that helpful as i didn't post how to fix them or add any of my own.

Well, the one problem with 40k that I see that needs to be fixed is the spectrum of expectations players have of it.  Far too many players have an extreme sense of fantasy realism, Guys, fantasy realsim is the bane of fun.  The further away from real a game is, the more fun it is.  If you disagree then I strongly advise you to look into great games from other companies, advanced squad leader, axis and allies, flames of war, etc.  Great games that adhere to the laws of logic and physics.  in 38,000 years, things are going to be different from what you understand now.  Especially in a world with fungus people, space elves, robot skeletons giant men with bright blue and red armored suits and jet packs.  The complaints that start from a game balance perspective (most of these were very valid observations from a game balance perspective) are acceptable, but i won't respond to complaints about how plasma gun technology is ridiculous.  The game is so abstract, there is nothing stopping me from envisioning the 6man las plas squad i field to represent a full tac squad in fluff, the fact that it has 6 models is purely abstract wound dispersal.  Too many of you all get too caught up in these ridiculously scaled models representing actual people.

Wow, that almost turned into a full on rant.  Thanks for the great thought and discussion provoking post.

This has truely been one of the more interesting threads on Dakka that I have read.  I really like the points that have been brought up and the rebuttles to each.  I have only been hitting 4th edition hard and heavy for a few weeks now.  Mainly because my main opponent is an Eldar player and he is enjoying his new dex.  But it seems to me that there were not many changes from 3rd to 4th, but the changes that were made were significant.

I am truely not versed enough in 4th edition to make many drastic decisions either way about the correctness or incorrectness of anyones views on the afor mentioned subjects, but I would like to throw my 2 cents in about how to "fix" 40K.

I have been descussing this issue with a friend of mine since 2nd edition and we have only been able to come up with one real answer which was reinforced with the release of 3rd edition.  40K should be now and should have always been a D10 system.  It simply makes more sense because the whole game is based on 10's.  Also there is so much variance in the fluff of different things that with a D6 you can only lump each thing (str rolls, armor saves, etc) into a 1-6 catagory. 

Truth is a unit like swooping hawks get a 4+ regular save which is not THAT much worse than units like marines who have a 3+ and are supposed to be very well armored.  Using a D10 system would allow for a much wider range in all areas of the game. 

As it stands right now creatures like the Avatar and Greater Deamons with WS of 10 is not really that great (im not saying it should be game breaking) but the majority of units still only need a 4 to hit them and they still need 3's to hit.  My personal solution to this with a D10 system would be making stats like WS and BS more like they were in 2nd edition, and causing a direct compairison.  As per standard in the current system a 4 is the basic successful number (50%), you would make 6 that number on a D10 System.  Thus in CC for example units with identical WS's would need 6's to hit and when there is a variation the person with the higher WS gets as +1 per point they are higher by, and the opponent gets a -1 per point they are lower by.

Also with a change like this you would have to impliment something like was mentioned before witht he option for units to "fall back" or "disengage" in CC against units that they would otherwise be slaughtered by (something like a WS difference of 3 or more, gives the unit that option...maybe).

This is my honest opinion of how 40K should have been made.  A D10 system makes room for so much more variation that the whole game would make more (fluff) sense and the game would be more balanced to everyone.

I agree on most of the 'fundamental' flaws of 40k.

My particular peeves are the IGOUGO system, getting locked in hand-to-hand combat and the morale discrepancies between armies.

1.) Power Fist/Uber Special Weapon weilding Squad Leaders

This is just a facet of 40k. It is quite similar to the heavy or special weapon trooper being the last to die. While it is always ridiculous to think that someone will be able to pick up a lascannon that is mounted to another marines armor via cables and such it is equally ridiculous to think that a powerfist wielded by a Sargeant can do the same thing. I just let it go as one of the things that makes 40k what it is. Abjectivity.

But I agree. It is kinda stupid.


2.) Tanks and Vehicles in General

I have no problems with vehicles at all in this game. I find that the randomn nature of vehicles offsets their potential. While certain vehicles are far less randomn than others (falcons and hammerheads) they are also typically quite a bit more expensive. The 'average' falcon costs about 200ish points with and the 'average' hammerhead around 170ish. Both are quite expensive and its not hard to keep them from shooting.

Ground vehicles, as much as they are maligned, are typically at least 30-60 points less and this is because they are less upgradeable (chaos being the exception). The only people that really complain here are Imperial players as they are representing technologically less advanced armies and it shows in their vehicles' survivability. However their combat power is still quite high.


3.) Good Armor Saves (3+ and Above) are undercosted & armies without them or special rules to compensate are at a severe disadvantage.

Every army without exception has access to lots of well-armored/well-protected units. You just have to look closely. Wether it is through cost effective upgrades or just basic stats the survivability of infantry can be very high.

For instance IG can dole out the points to put chameleoline and iron discipline on its troops. Suddenly you are looking 100 or so guys that won't die any where as fast when in the right covers. Tau and Eldar can tranpsort their troops in some of the best tanks in the game or invest points in highly mobile jetbikes, battlesuits. Tyranids can focus on monsters w/ 3+ saves and stealers w/ 4+ saves hiding behind them.

However, to me the T4 3+ sv armies do get an awful lot for an awful little.


4.) Assaulting is either stupidly not worth it or is overpowered

I totally agree with you 100%. Hand-to-hand combat is the worst aspect of 40k. I've seen my Librarian kill 32 termagants on the charge, single handedly (out of synapse, nuff said). How should that be possible?


5.) Morale is a joke in 40k.

Again, I agree 100%.

Mulciber said:


Well, I guess you don't play an army that is susceptible to ld based attacks. I'm guessing marines or guard. This is not an attack on you, I just want to put some perspective on this since for lots of armies failing a Ld test on an 11 or 12 only would be nice. Eldar guardians, Orks and Tau have a Ld of 8. Sure there are ways of getting re-rolls or mob-tests or whatever, but often times they get shot up and are all of a sudden rolling against a 7 and can't regroup below half.

Just my two cents.

Happy Hunting

Vehicles either A) Suck or B) Unkillable. In general basic vehicles are easy to kill but the blame has to goto the codexes for making upgrades to vehicles that make them fortresses.

Hand to Hand is still very powerful in 4th edition, probably even more powerful than in 3rd edition thanks to massacre and sweeping advance. The problem is finding a delivery system to get into combat. The complaints from most players are the demon bombs and that again is due to a codex.

Some of the more sucessful armies now are the tougher armies as you can see with superfalcons, godzilla nids, super non-instakill HQs, etc. I dont have a problem but with the increase of shooting armies out there, people are turning to armies that can bypass the shooting or survive it. Again Demonbombs make use of this by an infiltrating squad or a drop pod army that chooses its battles against you.

Morale has always been a very moot point in 40K back to the 3rd edition days. Every army with the exception of Dark Eldar and Kroot have access to either high leadership or fearlessness. Guard can use vox casters, die hards, iron discipline, commisars, standards, leadership radius to keep alive. Eldar have the Avatar now keeping people fearless and doesnt hurt to have some exarchs with ld 10, Tau can take an ethereal or cower in their devilfishes plus bonding.

I may be annoyed by some of the mechanics of the game but it is by no ways perfect and I dont expect it to be perfect. In the end of it all it is just a game of toy soldiers and really not a way of life .

My main dis what should be fix Is the skimmer rule and speeder rule Since marines get that 3+ save in power armor and hence makes it close top ( right) which makes no since......
My poor little dark eldar with there 3+ armor save (incubi) dont get that same option its still open top and I get lots of dead INcubi..... Just my rant
But i do like the rule that AP 1 should alway pen..... even on skimmers that would rock, would just love too see a tau hammer explode or a falcon blow up with eldar raining down on the field every were..... sorry about

Posted By Kultofthebonedragons on 12/20/2006 12:25 PM
My main dis what should be fix Is the skimmer rule and speeder rule Since marines get that 3+ save in power armor and hence makes it close top ( right) which makes no since......
My poor little dark eldar with there 3+ armor save (incubi) dont get that same option its still open top and I get lots of dead INcubi..... Just my rant
But i do like the rule that AP 1 should alway pen..... even on skimmers that would rock, would just love too see a tau hammer explode or a falcon blow up with eldar raining down on the field every were..... sorry about

I'm just wondering if you purposely attempt to make illegible posts?

We only have your words to understand you by on a forum, so if your post makes no sense that what's the point of posting in the first place?

 

On #1) I guess it is something I will have to live with, and in all honesty I personally don't have a problem with it too much, but I can see the argument of some people stating that it's broken as a concept. With the Powerfist in particular you have what could be described as a Monsterous Creatures with X number of wounds (where X is the number of models in the squad).

It's kind of hard to pull torrent of fire in assault unless you're hitting the unit with incredible force, and that's not possible in many cases - hence the problem. Also this isn't a Marine issue: Orks, Marines, Chaos & Witch Hunters all have their own type of "Fist". IG have one but because of wargear restrictions it's relatively useless. The problem does somewhat involve other armies, DE and Eldar get some kind of nasty Power Weapon that "always wounds on a 4+", Demon Hunters have Justicars (granted they're free, but still the problem applies). The only armies who don't really have this are: Nids (don't need it), IG & Tau (not supposed to be in assault), and Necrons (who can't have squad leaders).

Yes on one hand it's part of what makes Warhammer 40k...well Warhammer 40k. But with the way the rules are now the Power Fist Sarge is a near no brainer choice for almost any army that can take it. And my feeling is when something is such a no-brainer it needs to be fixed. This may be an exception to my rule though since it does make people shy away from overloading on Monsterous Creatures and Godlike Characters because the Fist deters a lot of that.

Now what I wanted to talk about was what Augustus brought up.

Once a unit is locked in assault, there is no getting out.

The problem with your proposed rules I think is that it would seriously screw over assault armies as we have now. Shooting is powerful enough as it is, and with that kind of system it only makes hoard assault armies such even more than they do now (Yes I'm thinking of my own Orks here).

Right now the problem is that the only assault armies that are anywhere near effective are the ones that either ram their assault units down your throat at such a high speed that you do not get the chance to shoot them (Dark Eldar, Kult of Speed), or just deliver their assault units in fundamentally broken ways (Demonbombs) where they simply can not be shot, or they have fast moving and overly resilient units (Flyrant, Demon Prince). Oh I almost forgot about Eldar, who can either get into assault via broken targeting rules (Harlies) or throwing them into near-invincible transports (Falcons) and disembarking the next turn and assaulting.

Sure there are some variations to this with normal assault troops (most either fleeting or moving 12" and having Power Armor) can get into assault, but generally that doesn't work in competitive 40k. Because in competitive 40k everyone has got the guns to deal with any kind of assault threat that would even try to threaten their guns.

Making it even EASIER for shooty armies to stop assault armies in their tracks is not the answer. Yes assault is stupidly powerful for the reasons you mentioned, but with the current game metric it HAS to be in order to be anywhere near proportionally worth it.

Now for a proposed change on the subject:

I believe that making it easier for assault units to get into assault in general combined with Augustus's suggestions may be a way to go. If Rhinos/Trukks/whatever had wounds and could survive a turn of shooting and the occupants could assault out of it (forgoing shooting), then some fundamental changes with how assault works is a good idea. As it is now, it's so hit or miss that by making it easier for shooty armies to deal with the ones that "always hit" (See the above examples) means that you make them even more broken against the sea of mediocre assault units that exist (ie. What's not on the list above).

Making ground vehicles more survivable would go a long way towards getting assault troops into combat, agree.

I like the idea of doing 'pile-in' moves during the movement phase. It seems a bit ludicrous that a CC unit can almost double their movement with pile-in and consolidation, 'leapfrogging' up the board.

Part of the issue with CC units is game length. Often you don't get into assault until turn 4, 5 or 6. If standard games were 8 turns, then even slower assault troops might be worth it. Frankly, the last 3 turns of a game go *very* quickly compared to the first 3, since most things are dead or locked in assault by then (exception: drop troops, deepstrike armies). Adding a couple of more turns at the end would add less than 30 minutes to a typical game.

Poaching the Starship Trooper leadership rules, using a single d10, would be interesting. Part of the problem with leadership in 40k is the bell curve. If your LD is 8+, you're good. If it's not, you're pooched. Using a single d10 and dropping LD by 2 across the board would be much better. SM would fail 20% of the time instead of the <10% of the time they do now. IG out of command radius would fail only 50% of the time. Modifiers to LD might have to be lessened though.

Also, LD is a joke because falling back is so devastating. Failed LD tests would be much less devastating if you only move your normal move instead of 2d6, and if everyone got a chance to rally (regardless of pursuers, unit strength). Morale would then be really interesting: units would fall back, regroup and have to move back into position. Several units would probably do this in each game. As long as falling back doesn't equal 'inevitably run off the board in 1-2 turns', then it would add something dynamic to the game.
You could even let any unit which hits their own board edge get an immediate rally roll, to see if they stop at the last minute and come back into the fight.

Well, i've always thought that if there's a suppressive fire mechanic, assault can be made quite devistating because of the coordination of pulling it off; first, one would need to get the unit into assault position, then suppress the unit to be assaulted, and then assault.

   It'd also be nice to see weapons that can do multiple wounds. The main reason zilla nids, demon princes and formerly wraithlords are such a pain right now is that any weapon that can wound them reliably is usually one shot. I think it'd be more then fair to say that lascannons, rail guns, multi melta's and the like are capable of doing say D3 wounds and would help make it harder to run head long into the teeth of an army like gaurd.

Ogiwan> Well, i've always thought that if there's a suppressive fire mechanic, assault can be made quite devistating because ...

There is a suppresive fire mechanic! It is called pinning, unfortunately it never works, because of the worthless morale rules in 40k.  If a target squad could be pinned, they wouldn't get a chance to fire at an assaulting unit crossing the table at them, but pinning never works because of the rarity of units that do it, and the massive proliferation of LD rules like fearless, rerolls and LD 10 that make it mathematically meaningless.

I like the multiwound thing a lot MTW! Here here!

Here is something to fix:

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES:

Why did they even write universal special rules and then create exceptions and special cases to them,  They should correct (read ELIMINATE) all the exceptions to the universal special rules a few examples:

Scouts that dont have the scout rules... Immunity to instant death and codex creep... AV modifying weapons (lances)... Exceptions to AV Modifying weapons (templars land raider, monolith)... The Monolith Abortion... Vehicles that ignore damage results... (Stealth, Vindicare concealment, the Grey Nights Aura, the Harlequin power.. are all basically NIGHT FIGHT, use the rule already there)

Basically quit creating special cases.

I'd also really like to see some mechanic to represent mid range and supressive fire...as it is, the game is largely spent either blazing away at range or piling in to assault. It would be excellent if there were ways for units to get locked into mid-range firefights instead of quick barrages before one side assaults the other.

Also, I'd love to see a change in the armor system. As it stands, armor 3+ almost always saves, and anything 4+ or worse almost never even gets to TAKE their save, except in close combat. Armor mods instead of 'break it or take it' would go a long way to help this, so would reducing the proliferation of AP4 weapons.

-Adso

Re: A Power Fist in every pot

Part of the problem as I see it is lack of options -- Power Fists are so good because the "hidden fist" mechanic effectively removes their initiative penalty -- unless the other squad can threaten to down the fist before it swings, there's usually no difference between it being at I1 or normal initiative.

Just something like an I+1 Power Weapon available to most armies would change this.

Re: 3+/2+ saves undercosted

I'm not so sure that 3+ saves in and of themselves are undercosted, and I'm fairly convinced that 2+ saves are reasonably costed. After all, it's not the 2+ save that makes Terminators good -- It's the Assault Cannon that makes termies good, and the stable platform that goes with it. You don't see Chaos generals fawning over their Terminators like the loyalist marines do.

The big thing for 3+ saves, as far as I can tell, is weapon availability. AP4 guns are extremely common -- Heavy Bolters are all but free in marine lists, and Heavy Flamers (or, as they are known in the Eldar tongue, "Ender of Worlds") in drop pods are just sick against anything that doesn't have a 3+. AP3 guns, however, aren't very common, so most lists end up with AP1/2 guns to do the anti-3+ heavy lifting. Then you get into assault where everything that modifies saves either ignores all saves or reduces both 3+ and 2+ to 4+.

Whether the point cost favors 3+ or not, the game-wide weapon balance heavily favors 3+, both compared to 4+ and 2+. The end result is a huge gap between 4+ and 3+, and then much less of one between 3+ and 2+ -- and the costs for all armor types assume a smooth gradation.

Posted By Augustus on 12/24/2006 2:17 AM

There is a suppresive fire mechanic! It is called pinning, unfortunately it never works, because of the worthless morale rules in 40k.  If a target squad could be pinned, they wouldn't get a chance to fire at an assaulting unit crossing the table at them, but pinning never works because of the rarity of units that do it, and the massive proliferation of LD rules like fearless, rerolls and LD 10 that make it mathematically meaningless.

The pinning mechanic isn't quite what i mean when i say suppressive fire. You are, though, right in that it's worthless.

What i mean by suppressive fire is a mechanic to enforce the chaos and uncertanty that takes place on the battlefield. I can relate my expierences in ROTC, but i'm on my lunch break, and it'd take a while. Suffice to say, though, that a suppressive fire mechanic doesn't symbolize only fear of gunfire; it also takes into account many factors, like, "Well, Command didn't know about that MG nest, so I'll radio it in and see if they have any new orders", and the like.

Concerning the 3-4 Save gap, well, it's massive. It's something like a 300% increase in lethality when the AP drops 1 point, from 4 to 3. From 3 to 2, it's a 600% increase.

Tagging on the Big L (lowimar?)'s mention of the heavy flamer, well, look at it. It is powerful against Guard, and when I play Deathworld Catachans (which is a hard list to begin with), well, flamers are so lethal it isn't funny. It's a 66% chance to take out a Catachan. Versus a Marine, it's.....what, 16%?

I think one of the most fundamentally wrong things with 40k is their refusal to use modifiers, particularly with weaponry. Imagine how much more balanced things would be if AP was replaced with an armor save modifier? I'm not suggesting a return to 2nd ed days (ugh), but in their attempt at simplifying the rules, by taking away armor save and targetting modifiers, then trying to re-create the results through a vast array of special rules, exceptions, and, yes, even modifiers again (?!?), the developers have instead made it a complicated, inconsistent mess.

I don't think AP should be reversed into what the armor save modifier would be (that would way too overboard), but tone it down a bit and AS modifiers would work. For examples, Lasguns would remain flashlights, but AP5 Hellguns could be -1 armor save and suddenly it's worth taking the things. This should also be carried on to close combat weapons, with AS modifiers based on model strength (ala WHFB), think -1 AS chainswords while power weapons would have a -3 AS or better built in (but no additional modifiers for strength).

On top of that, reintroduce a damage statistic to certain weapons that deserve it. A lascannon should punch a fist sized hole in anything but the most heaviest armored & shielded vehicle, but a multimelta in close enough range will positively atomize it's target. Mr. Space Marine Terminator Commander? Better hope your built in refractor field bounces that blast off or you're vapor buddy. It doesn't even have to be an obscene amount of damage, just limit it to rollable combinations off a d6 (ie: d2, d3 or d6 wounds) and it's permutations.

It could also be folded into the vehicle rules, just calculate penetration by adding weapon strength + weapon damage (which may be a variable roll) + "1d6" luck factor = pen. Increase some AFV's armor ratings by 1 or 2 to compensate for the increased effectiveness, but leave others alone. This will help create a wider range armor on vehicles instead of the five ridiculously constricted AV bands currently. Think of it, Rhinos could be AV12/12/10, immune to small arms fire but one hit with a s9 3d2 damage lascannon and POOF as it gets auto penned.

Cover saves could actually stay, as they are actually a pretty elegant way of resolving how cover works, but reinstate targeting modifiers for units that moved, stood still, are shooting at fast moving targets and so on so forth. Yes, this will make skimmers hard to hit, but throw a weapon up on a AAA mount and it removes those negative modifiers. Ditto with HK missiles, since they are seekers, no negative modifiers for them either. Even make most missile launchers "seekers". Chaff/flares could be used to force a re-roll to hit, but would only be able to be used once a game.

Obviously, for any of the above to actually work, not only would the basic rules need to be completely torn apart and re-written, but so would all of the codices. But if it would bring back an enjoyable game of 40k that both realistically duplicated physical effects while retaining all of it's sci-fi charm, I'd get back into it. Until then, I'll probably keep working on my own bastardized ruleset and playing other companies games.

Following on what our very own Old God said, the AP mechanic should involve modifiers.

However, i don't think that modifiers should be the be-all-and-end all.

Rather, two choices:

1.) Give guns an AP value. If the AP value exceeds the save, no save. If it is equal, then save on a 4+. If it is lower, then....well, full save or some such. Could shift it so if it's one off, save is 4+ or some such

2.) Standard AP rules as now, but some guns (the Hellgun, for example) would have a -1 or -2 save, just to give them different flavor.

Posted By Ogiwan on 01/02/2007 9:31 AM
1.) Give guns an AP value. If the AP value exceeds the save, no save. If it is equal, then save on a 4+. If it is lower, then....well, full save or some such. Could shift it so if it's one off, save is 4+ or some such

So IG would save against bolters on a 4+?  Hmmm... ok.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/02/2007 3:31 PM

So IG would save against bolters on a 4+?  Hmmm... ok.

Hey, i'm coming up with this stuff on my lunch break. There's at least a rough idea there, so play with it.

As things stand now, though, 5+ armor is virtually nonexistant. There are....off the top of my head.....4 weapons? that don't penetrate 5+ armor: las weapons (includes auto guns), the multilaser, the grot blasta, and sniper rifles. So, 5+ and 6+ armor is effectivly no armor, whereas once you get 4+, well, you're highly resistant to all small arms fire. Long story short, that's another AP problem.

How about we just do the good old nerf the fist and boost the other weapons in comparison solution?

For example, if we limit to powerfist to only one attack (and can not be modified), it would make other weapons a far more attractive proposition. A first would reduce the hitting power against most troops while increase them against characters, tough creatures and vehicles. In other words, a valid tradeoff.

A few thoughts:

1.  On P-fists and worthless leadership.

Make snipers be able to pick their targets like the Vindicare.  Snipers should shoot with regular BS but have rending rifles which also wound on 2+.   Pinning from sniper fire is tested at penalty equal to the number of models removed by a pinning weapon, but Ld can not be reduced below Ld6 - or Ld8 for Fearless (but not stupid) troops.  The cost of snipers is increased accordingly (or in the case of SM scouts, increase the cost of the guns).  Getting hit by ordinance auto-pins.  Getting hit by torrent of fire inflicts a pin-check instead of the -choose who gets hit-.

This way, Ld can stay busted, and pinning is made into a credible threat.

2.  Ordinance is slowed.  They are hugely powerful weapons that don't require a to-hit roll, and can cause damage even if they miss.  I am of the opinion that either (a) a to hit roll should be required with no effect from a miss, or (b) a to hit roll should be required with to-hit penalties from moving and firing.  (Mostly affects the Vindicator).

3.  Transport vehicles should be made faster - 18" total (Transport mode).  The 6" for shooting still applies (AFV mode).  The damage table should be streamlined into:

D6 + The amount that you rolled to beat the AV by.

Result - Damage
01   - Can't shoot
02   - Can't shoot
03   - Can't move or shoot
04   - Weapon Destroyed (if no weapons remain, vehicle is immobilized)
05   - Immobilized (if vehicle is already immobilized, vehicle is destroyed as per 7)
06   - Spun to face a random direction and Immobilized - Passengers can't disembark on next turn. (if vehicle is already immobilized, vehicle is destroyed as per 7)
07   - Destroyed.  Passengers are wounded on a 4+ and are entangled
08   - Destroyed.  Passengers are wounded on a 2+ and are entangled
09   - Annihilated. - Embarked passengers killed
10+ - Annihilated. - Vehicle explodes in a fireball affecting models in a D6 radius, causing wounds on a 4+.  Embarked passengers killed

Skimmers moving fast ignore the damage table bonus (i.e. amount that you rolled to beat the AV by).  Extra armor reduces the damage roll by 1.  i.e. D6 - 1 + Amount you rolled to beat the AV by).  Tank hunter changed to ignore protective wargear such as holofield etc.  Every army should be given a tank hunter option.  AP1 confers no bonus.

Anyhow... my 2 cents.

I've always thought that the vehicle damage table should be a 2d6 table that pays attention to the bell curve; i.e. the closer to 2 and 12, the worse things get.

I stopped playing 40K a long time ago (still collect the occasional model, though). I am a dedicated WHFB player, though. And I was struck by Yak's suggestions about giving vehicles S/T/W and giving weapons an AP modifier based on strength, because... well, there are a lot of 40K players at my FLGS that don't want to get into fantasy because the the strength/armor save modifer was too complicated!
Not that I'm going to dust off my BfM teensy rulebook and break out my 'nids again or anything, but I must say this discussion has been a very interesting read. While I don't feel I can contribute anything meaningful, I would like to ask: What do you think the chances are that GW would make 40K more like fantasy in terms of game mechanics? Since that is what some of these suggestions seem to lead to.

I think the chances are terrible.  I personally would like to see variable movement like in Fantasy... something along the lines of:

Heavy Infantry - Mega-Armour, Immortals, Oblits and Terminators - Slow and Purposeful, 4" move, charge 4".

Regular Infantry - Space Marines, Guardsmen, Wraithguard, Scorpions etc. - 6" move, charge 6"

Fast Infantry - 4+sv and worse Eldar, Dark Eldar - 8" move, charge 8"

Jump Pack Infantry - 8" Ignore Terrain, can not charge.  6" regular move, charge 6"

Bikes and Cavalry - 12".  Charge 6"

Jetbikes - 18", ignore terrain, charge 6"

Walkers - Light  - Warwalkers and Sentinels - 8" move, charge 8"

Walkers - Heavy - Dreadnought and Defiler - Move 6", charge 6".

Etc. etc. etc.

I think that apart from ending GWs love affair with Space Marines, the problem lies in the way the game forces players to use the SM round structure. I think there needs to be some provision for other units to act in an order better suited to their strengths (Swap Assault for Shooting etc)