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.

From Warseer in discussion about the new Ork codex this tidbit came up.

There's going to be a rules revision for 40K come next year, when asked why, he told my friend that there's some 'glitches' in the current rules set that need addressing. He said that in the Chaos, Ork and subsequent Codices there will be certain things, that, under the current rules seem odd or pointless but come the revision they will 'make sense'. Make of that what you will.

We all knows this needs to be done, but will it happen?

Sounds about right. The 'carrying a rapid fire weapon' glitch seems like something that needs a fix. There's plenty of others.

I like the ideas behind 4e, but the execution was really terrible. Hopefully this will give them a chance to clean things up.

I read that thread and it had more of 'I heard it from a friend of a friend of Jervise's son' than I have real information. So someone bring me the salt.

I would not mind a revision if they sent it out to some legit outsource editors and tried to make it understandable at first read. I would like to see changes in the vehicle rules. My rhinos may be cheaper in the DA codex but they still blow up on turn one.

Oy vey.

4.5 ed- they're getting rid of the AP system, right?
RIGHT?

Maybe it clears up the Tau "AP1 regardless of toughness" part of the cyclic ion blasters too. Strength-based AP guys, whee.

yeah, it'd be great if they could do armor saves based on strength like in fantasy, but that would make marine cry too much and they gotta keep them the happiest

Actually it was a friend that went to GW and had a chat and look at the book. Grain of salt yes, but any rumour needs that.

Another regular that posts rumours that hold up didn't shoot it down and speculated that it could be a WD release of rules, with further printings carrying the changes.

It would be good if they did it, and fixed a lot of the issued in the rules, but it may just be a pipe dream.

It all used to be that way.

Chambers brought forth the AP system so that marines could do what their fluff stated. Walk across open ground and take fire. They didn't really need cover as their armour was enough. At first it worked well, but the problem is that more and more armies had access to weapons that negated that save, and marines went back into cover. It looks like they are scaling back a lot more of that to make marines come back out of hiding, but I am not sure if it will help at this point.

I still like the WHFB system the best, and without a run or march move foot troops just don't seem to have as many good options for tactical play on the battlefield. This could be to give APCs a role, but this is just speculation.

They really need to go through a lot of the questions groups like Dakka have posted on the rules, and go from there.

Posted By Da Boss on 08/29/2007 9:51 AM
4.5 ed- they're getting rid of the AP system, right?
RIGHT?

And putting in overwatch!

The huge thing that people forget about the WFB modifiers system vs. the AP system is that the differences go far, far deeper than simply how a model takes a save.

In 40k, a model gets a cover save if better than their armor save. In WFB, cover makes the unit harder to hit.

In 40k, a model gets either an armor, invulnerable, or cover save. In WFB, a model gets all three (though cover is just a modifier to hit)

When you advocate modifiers for armor, you need to radically re-work cover, invulnerable saves, to-hit rolls, etc.

This would be a lot of work for what would probobly amount to small amount of gain in variety, and a decent hit to playability.

You mean 40k 2nd ed? That save mod and to hit mod system worked so much better than it does now.

I don't like the idea of STR-related AP at all:

First is that decoupling these two characteristics ads a lot of diversity - for example the Eldar scatter laser - high STR and poor AP.

Second, all codexes then suddenly have to be updated - people don't like a codex with outdated lists in it.

 

Don't forget that there were a fair number of weapons in 2nd edition that did have the strength and save modifier decoupled; lasguns still got a -1 (just like bolters), and autocannons only had a -2 modifier despite its ST7.  The coupling usually only showed up with close combat weapons and psychic powers.

I think that the easiest way to implement this system and still keep Marines viable is to give each marine two wounds.  After all, any army with two wounds per model has plenty going for it!

>

I want to use my d4, d8, d10, d20 and d12 again and my sustained fire dice!

I find the ap system ok, it works out about the same overall while making heavily armoured troops act more like what they should, I don't like the movement system at all though. Less tactical maneuvering on foot with anything but Eldar. Being able to move 12" only when assaulting, but not by just running 12" really puts the foot troops at a great disadvantage. There are no flanking maneuvers or redirection when on foot.

I wish each Marine had three wounds.

- G

i wish , if this is true, that the "hidden power fist/claw" gets cleaned up.

Posted By Iorek on 08/29/2007 12:23 PM
 autocannons only had a -2 modifier despite its ST7. 

I think that the easiest way to implement this system and still keep Marines viable is to give each marine two wounds.  After all, any army with two wounds per model has plenty going for it!

>

Auto cannons had a save mod of -3.

Currently the best way to play a real space marine small army would be to use the Movie Marine list from WD 300.

Armor Save modifiers and different move rates are the way to go!

But, having said all that, I can't see a "4.5" happening.

I mean, we're still waiting for the promised "frequent" FAQs, aren't we?

Though I suppose their definition of "frequent" could be different than the norm...

Since 4th ed is really 3.5, thos wouldnt be 4.5 but a reak 4th ed!

Posted By davidson on 08/29/2007 2:37 PM

Posted By Iorek on 08/29/2007 12:23 PM
 autocannons only had a -2 modifier despite its ST7. 

I think that the easiest way to implement this system and still keep Marines viable is to give each marine two wounds.  After all, any army with two wounds per model has plenty going for it!

>

Auto cannons had a save mod of -3.

Currently the best way to play a real space marine small army would be to use the Movie Marine list from WD 300.

I stand corrected!  The autocannon was strength 8 as well.  My apologies for the misinformation.

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 12:38 PM
I find the ap system ok, it works out about the same overall while making heavily armoured troops act more like what they should, I don't like the movement system at all though. Less tactical maneuvering on foot with anything but Eldar. Being able to move 12" only when assaulting, but not by just running 12" really puts the foot troops at a great disadvantage. There are no flanking maneuvers or redirection when on foot.

I tend to agree with this the nice thing about the AP system is the simplicity for new players. I realize that a lot of people don't really want easy rules for new players but if GW wants to survive they need to get as many people playing as they can.

This rumor has got to be false. It goes against absolutely everything GW and Jervis has been saying in the last couple of years.

For better or worse 40K is tied to the AP system now and to change it would mean to effecitvely invalidate all of their current codices, which is something they have said they are not going to do anymore.


So in short: this rumor is vapor.

*snort*

The original rumour was that there would be some cleaning up of 4.0 to sometime next year with a 4.5, not that there was an AP or movement change Yak. All the rest of that stuff was us just being dreamers.

A cleaning up wouldn't be off base to fix rules issues in the main book. In fact it would basically be just a big FAQ in a way, unless they did some major changes to sections of the books (vehicles?)

It would be interesting, but I wouldn't hold my breath!

Posted By Janthkin on 08/29/2007 7:32 PM

For better or worse 40K is tied to the AP system now and to change it would mean to effecitvely invalidate all of their current codices, which is something they have said they are not going to do anymore.

*snort*

I guess I should re-state that GW is commited to invalidating their codices, but only at a pace of one at at time rather than with a big reset, which is exactly what it would take were they to abolish the AP system.

 

I think that saying that they would publish the changes in White Dwarf is a rumour buster in itself. The Blood Angels codex was a small thing compared to a rulebook overhaul.

In other news is this the rule book to accompany the prepaints also on the horizon. *snigger* *giggle* *zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

Posted By davidson on 08/29/2007 12:01 PM
You mean 40k 2nd ed? That save mod and to hit mod system worked so much better than it does now.

PREACH IT BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!

I was joking by the way. I realise they'll never do that. (They should do a global reset, and have all the codices worked out ahead of time, goddamnit, but they won't. Because they suck balls.)

The AP system is completely fubar.
An AP4 weapon hits a marine and has exactly the same chance of penetrating his armour as an AP - weapon, but an AP3 weapon gives no save? What?

I'd like to see armour giving a toughness boost exactly like LOTR, and do away with saving throws. That'd be streamlined, and make sense. (Only if they did the whole 6+/4+ thing for high toughnesses though)

I think that overwatch is the rule that most needs a comeback.

My jetbilke autarch can hide behind a hill for a turn and assault a unit of guardsmen 18" away without them being able to fire a shot.

Things get even worse when you start looking at leaping gaunts and the like.

How about:

1. At the beginning of the movement phase you can set your squad onto overwatch mode.
You may then not move or fire for the rest of your turn
2. In your opponents next turn you may fire in their shooting phase after all his shooting has been resolved.
If the squad is forced to take a morale check, pinning check or is hit with any template weapon it loses it opportunity to shoot.
3. All shooting must be directed at the nearest squad with no Ld test permissable to target another. This includes deadnoughts, vehicles etc.
4. Heavy weapons may not be brought to bear unless they are mounted on a vehicle and even then only secondary weapons may be fired.
If the target unit fails a morale check it must flee immediately
5. Units on overwatch lose one attack in the ensuing assault to a minimum of 1

Pretty good i think. Gives players a chance to react to ridiculous long range assaults while giving the assaulting player an opportunity to use covering fire to reduce casualties on the way in.

Covering fire wow! i think i just invented a whole new military doctrine!