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.

agnosto wrote: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.

Fair enough, cept i didnt propose anything that would make my army any more powerful, infact it would improve almost every army

RE:Nurglitch
To the question about psychology, Almost everything has high LD or ways of ignoring LD atogether (Ref: Stubborn, Fearless, ATSKNF Etc.)
what I would like is a system similer to fantasy's psychology, for example Ogre's cause fear as do Undead, so Lets say a DA interogator chaplain causes Fear and so do Necrons, Or a DE Archon causes Terror, things like that, as oposed to what we have now "Hi im a 15ft walking tank, I can rip you in half with this cool looking power sword... Scared?" "Hi im a 6ft man... and nope im fine"

As to more complicated.
at the moment we have a cover save mechanic that gives everything a 4+ save vs shooting, my way would be "if you shoot from, or into area terrain -1BS" or "That Tank is moving flat out -1 BS" no need for the over simplified cover rules, evidently for my ideas to work they would need playtesting etc. but the point remains, we are not idiots and change in the rules to support modifiers would take some time to learn and get used to (some people faster than others) but we could handle it.
this is just one example of making the rules a bit more complicated.

Formosa:

Except that Fearless doesn't allow a unit to ignore Leadership altogether; only morale and pinning tests. They still suffer from No Retreat. Stubborn and And They Shall Know No Fear definitely do not ignore Leadership: They are specifically vulnerable to Sweeping Advances and regrouping-denial, respectively. Assault in particular makes a mockery of high leadership if you lose by even 2 or 3, and Stubborn is great until you lose a Sweeping Advance (very likely if Initiative if equal).

Then there are psychology rules like Rage, Counter-Attack, Shaking/Stunning, etc that could be grouped together under a "Psychology" title, but don't need to be.

In general:

Speaking of Counter-Attack, I failed to note how the 4th edition version was split into the Universal Special Rule with a Leadership check and the main rules Defenders React. I still expect Hit and Run to be likewise divided in the rules.

Ditto I think they're going to change Eternal Warrior to depend on the characteristics profile of the model with the rule rather than a blanket exception to Instant Death.

I think I could make a case for the Design team changing Instant Death, or at least the non-stipulative part (such as Instant Death caused by Force Weapons and the like). I think we'll see something like a Toughness check (or even a Wounds check - working from the representative notion that a model with fewer wounds remaining is more likely to succumb to Instant Death).

Nurglitch wrote:Formosa:

Except that Fearless doesn't allow a unit to ignore Leadership altogether; only morale and pinning tests. They still suffer from No Retreat. Stubborn and And They Shall Know No Fear definitely do not ignore Leadership: They are specifically vulnerable to Sweeping Advances and regrouping-denial, respectively. Assault in particular makes a mockery of high leadership if you lose by even 2 or 3, and Stubborn is great until you lose a Sweeping Advance (very likely if Initiative if equal).

Then there are psychology rules like Rage, Counter-Attack, Shaking/Stunning, etc that could be grouped together under a "Psychology" title, but don't need to be.

The problems with No retreat have beeen discussed elsewhere on this thread, so i will not go into that

The whole psychology ruleset need overhauling, I agree that Rage should come uder "psychology" but counter attack and shake/stun should not, but I think i see what you are getting at.

I will show you what i am getting at.

Guard sqaud wants to charge a unit of necrons, necrons cause fear, Morale check, if fails, no charge or -1 to hit in CC.
this may seem harsh, but lets look at what these guardsman can use to effectivly ignore the fear.

This is the "normal" platoon i see
Commisar, power weapon
45 guardsman
5 sergeants, power weapons

so if this platoon fails its fear check, on ld8, hey ho no worries, re-roll. this becomes even better if a lord commisar is about.
Now Marines... LD9 nuff said
ok Chaos, hmmm plague marines.. no worries auto pass, bezerkers... auto-pass, Chaos marines Ld 10...
Orks... lol fear

so you see that introducing just Fear into the game does not drastically change it, but it does add a little flavour

I don't see how introducing such a Fear roll adds "flavour" or improves the game.

Agreed, having marines fail fear-checks etc sounds silly. Guard is pretty much the only rase that would fear others according to fluff, and introducing core rules that only really fits one army doesn't seem right

40k has been built up to the point where nobody is afraid of anything, and introducing a Fear mechanic would apply to almost nobody. Even for those it did apply to, when on earth are Guardsmen going to charge Necrons? It'll almost never come into play, it'd be more rules for rules sake.

Nurglich i was useing Guard vs necrons as an example...

Vaktathi has hit the nail of my argument (without intending to lol) "nobody is afraid of anything"
this is the problem, every army has rules to effectivly circumvent the Morale rules, pinning is a joke and the lack of any real kind of psychology rules is odd, but I digress, the game has been watered down (or dumbed down) to appeal to little timmy

Formosa:

Again, it's not your example I find unconvincing, it's your argument. I simply don't see any evidence for your assertions.

Formosa wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Formosa:

Except that Fearless doesn't allow a unit to ignore Leadership altogether; only morale and pinning tests. They still suffer from No Retreat. Stubborn and And They Shall Know No Fear definitely do not ignore Leadership: They are specifically vulnerable to Sweeping Advances and regrouping-denial, respectively. Assault in particular makes a mockery of high leadership if you lose by even 2 or 3, and Stubborn is great until you lose a Sweeping Advance (very likely if Initiative if equal).

Then there are psychology rules like Rage, Counter-Attack, Shaking/Stunning, etc that could be grouped together under a "Psychology" title, but don't need to be.

The problems with No retreat have beeen discussed elsewhere on this thread, so i will not go into that

The whole psychology ruleset need overhauling, I agree that Rage should come uder "psychology" but counter attack and shake/stun should not, but I think i see what you are getting at.

I will show you what i am getting at.

Guard sqaud wants to charge a unit of necrons, necrons cause fear, Morale check, if fails, no charge or -1 to hit in CC.
this may seem harsh, but lets look at what these guardsman can use to effectivly ignore the fear.

This is the "normal" platoon i see
Commisar, power weapon
45 guardsman
5 sergeants, power weapons

so if this platoon fails its fear check, on ld8, hey ho no worries, re-roll. this becomes even better if a lord commisar is about.
Now Marines... LD9 nuff said
ok Chaos, hmmm plague marines.. no worries auto pass, bezerkers... auto-pass, Chaos marines Ld 10...
Orks... lol fear

so you see that introducing just Fear into the game does not drastically change it, but it does add a little flavour

Orks Fear stuff. Just not when they have thousands of da boyz around.

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

I'm curious to know how you came to that conclusion, any chance of specifics?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

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

I'm curious to know how you came to that conclusion, any chance of specifics?

Cheers

Andrew

Have you read the rest of this thread? Of course everyone is going to suggest changes to the rules to benefit their personal favorite army. That's the way the world works. People try to get away with anything that they think that they can get away with and they set priorities that start with them, then ripple out to their toy soldiers and eventually reach family, friends and the rest of the donkey-caves they are forced to tolerate on a daily basis. You're currently very, very low on the list. Can I get an amen?!?

I completely understand that, but I didn't think that any of the suggestions so far particularily favoured any army over another, that was all.

Cheers

Andrew

PS Amen!

AndrewC wrote:I completely understand that, but I didn't think that any of the suggestions so far particularily favoured any army over another, that was all.

There are the Ork players that want to do away with fearless wounds, the IG players that want immobilized vehicles in squadrons to not be destroyed. IG player that wants guardsmen to be better in close combat. Assaulty armies wanting to bring back consolidating into assault. People who don't play Orks wanting to nerf wound allocation (referring to complex nob units). A Necron player wanting to do away with sweeping advance (gee the only thing that gets rid of wbb). Another Ork player wanting premeasurement and another Ork player that wants the game to move away from mechanized armies. Another Ork player that thinks marines should run from Orks regardless of whether the marines are winning the combat or not.

Some examples.

Sure, I'd love my firewarriors to not fall down and die to a strong breeze or run away when an Ork gives them a mean look but I know it's not going to happen and it wouldn't be fun to play a game where every unit is unkillable or doesn't have weaknesses anyway.

Okay, point taken.

Cheers

Andrew

So how about we discuss the predictions I've made about the changes that we might see in the main rules come 6th edition? I think that the trend we saw from 4th to 5th, or special rules being integrated into the main rules, either by being split like Counter-Attack and Fleet, or given a dependency on the unit's characteristics, such as Hit and Run and Preferred Enemy.

Read the first page, but the other pages TL;DR so im just going to say Glancing hits need to go back to 4th edition. Thunderhammers should be able to wreck land raiders.

I am sick of tankhammer 40,000.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Has anyone noticed that tank hunters is almost completely gone from the game?

Thunder Hammers can wreck a Land Raider: You just need to destroy 4-5 weapons and immobilize it.

I have the feeling 6th is going to be a MAJOR overhaul to 40k.

My changes (half of what I'd like to see, half of what I'd expect to see):

1) FNP works only on a 6, but works against things that ignore armor.

2) Vehicle Damage tables go back to 3rd edition tables.

3) Cover saves reduced from mostly 4+ to mostly 5+.

4) Intervening infantry units do not provide cover.

5) Running and not having fleet means you can't charge, but can shoot at -1BS and you're at -2Ld until your next turn.

6) All movement happens in the movement phase, including run moves and charging. (This means if you charge, you won't be able to shoot that turn)

7) Fearless becomes stubborn. Stubborn becomes ATSKNF. ATSKNF only allows re-grouping under 50% strength, you can still be sweeping advanced.

8) TLOS stays, but you have to be able to see 25% of the target unit in order to fire.

9) Deep Strike mishaps gone. You're simply destroyed. Drop pods downgraded from avoiding models to the current mishap table.

10) Removal of KP, VP, and objectives. All games are fought to last man standing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh! I forgot to add my personal favorite change I've been wanting for a decade:

11) Removal of all blast markers and templates. Blast hit 1+d3, Large Blast hit 1+d6, Template hit 2d3.

VPs back..

A hordes rule - if you have spent moar money on your armiy than the other guy you get + 50% victory points

Wound allocation should be dealt with by ruling that each AP of weaponry is resolved seperatly - ie I fire 8 bolter shots, a frag missile and a rapid fire plasma gun at 5 marines. I do 5 bolter wounds and 2 frag wounds (AP5) and 2 plasma gun wounds. (AP3) So the 7 AP5 wounds are allocated and saved, and then 2 die to plasma. (or get cover saves) You can however take the plasma gun wounds first and then assign the rest (although in this case they would have a split of 3/3/2 whereas before it was 2/2/2/2/1

Saves need to go back to 5+ for most non fortified cover (buildings etc 5+, walls 6+, actual bunkers etc 4+)

Remove gets hot from plasma OR increase melta by 5pts.

For Unattached IC/MCs with fearless/no retreat they do not suffer wounds caused to lesser plebs around them.

Also by transports do you mean 35pt rhinos? Because eldar, deldar, black templars tau etc dont have cheap transports.. nids have none... really they needed to have left that at 55 or so pts. But they wanted to sell them!

Remove the 'null zone landraider' ability.

TLOS can GTFO. The hypocrasy of the 5th ed book 'unlike other systems (GW acknowlege other systems WTF?) which use an abstract system of cover and heights (lolz at warmahordez - but wait didn't FOURTH EDITION HAVE THIS??)

An overall reduction in LD.... LD is much too high for some armies yet often too low for others (tau, SoB)

I also agree with Jaon about Tankhammer... it's a bit irriating but its a GW game so expect the person who can spend more $£¥ on the game to have the 'better' army

No infanrty provides bubblewrap coversaves.