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.

Your letting fluff cloud your judgement.

Don't think about what the squad would be doing during the assault, instead focus on clean rules. Attempting to set up shooting during CC would be a nightmare.

IntoTheRain wrote:Your letting fluff cloud your judgement.

Don't think about what the squad would be doing during the assault, instead focus on clean rules. Attempting to set up shooting during CC would be a nightmare.

I’m not letting fluff cloud my judgment. I’ve considered the background, but only to the extent that background needs to be considered in rules design. It’s fluff that dictates space marines are harder to kill than imperial guardmen, that genestealers are good in combat and that land raiders are tougher than predators. Unit rules are built to represent their background, and the game rules are designed to represent small scale skirmishes in a fictional future world. Yes, there are other elements that need to be considered, such as game balance, tactical considerations and simplicity, and they can sometimes take precedence and force rules away from the background, but background is always the starting point. If you want to argue background plays not part in rules design, you’re probably better off playing chess.

You’ve also assumed I’m arguing for a more complicated system… I’m not. I’m suggesting that if people are going to talk about revising the system to account for WS, IN and other stats, they should take a further step back and decide exactly what it is they want the rules to determine. If people the rules to allow faster, more skilled units to be more likely to bring down a skimmer, shouldn’t there also be some consideration for units armed with teeth and claws being unable to hit a skimmer 100 metres above them? I’m asking people to stop and think about exactly what they think of when a unit assaults a vehicle, and how that is best represented in game.

And you’ve assumed I’m arguing for introducing shooting into assault, when I never mentioned anything of the sort. I’ve argued that suggesting a system that values a model’s WS when attacking a skimmer should probably also account for a unit’s ability to strike that skimmer in the first place. You could account for this by limiting any unit without a ranged weapon to hitting skimmers on 6s, or ruling that they can’t hit them at all. Nothing in there introducing shooting rules into melee.

All I’m saying is that if you want to start bringing more detailed rules for assaulting vehicles into melee, you need to start by figuring out exactly what assaulting a vehicle means. Does it represent climbing over the vehicle and throwing grenades down hatches and firing into view ports, in which case why can’t an imperial guardsmen damage any kind of vehicle? Should the stats that measure striking speed and skill when assaulting infantry be the best measure of taking out a vehicle?

This thread has shifted from "Rumor about 40k 5th Edition" to "What I'd really like for Christmas". Let's get it back on topic, folks.

Some changes to assault have been mentioned, particularly the charging unit going first, regardless of relative initiatives. I think another minor change, which will have positive results, is increasing the S value by 1 of units swinging chainswords. I think they should have more of an effect in combat than they have now. It would be good to distinguish between knives, power weapons, power fists, and chainsaws. I don't think it would adversely impact the system. S3 armies would certainly benefit, for example.

EDIT: apologies to Iorek. I didn't notice your post before writing this.

Since 3rd edition, 40k has seemed to struggle with what to do with IC's, especially in melee. They don't want them to count as 'part' of the unit, because an Ork warboss with 10 nobz has 20 albative wounds. But, if they're individually targetable (and models in units aren't), then you get into the current nonsense - "oh, no, a veteran sgt with a powerfist, run away! I can't defeat him and his 4 albative wounds - I mean, squad mates - because no matter what how much I go after the sgt, these guys keep getting in my way, and then he gives me a fist to the head!"

Changes to vehicles are welcome, but if they give infantry fleet, what's the point of a rhino? Maybe that's why they're not only 35 points.

I tend to defend Jervis, and I think he's pushing the game in a better direction, but there's a lot to do to bring 40k to the level of, say FoW or Warmachine (or, I'd argue LotR, but everyone would say I'm a moron - oh, wait, I just said it).

And I hope there isn't a psychic phase, just let them be "use whenever".

Well, in fantasy, the upgrade character's count as separate models to be able to allocate attacks to. So maybe they are going to change 40k to be more like fantasy in that regard.

Another simple change may be that you have to be in base to base with a character to attack them, and not just be "engaged" within two inches. That seems like a very simple fix for everything.

OverchargeThis! wrote:Some changes to assault have been mentioned, particularly the charging unit going first, regardless of relative initiatives. I think another minor change, which will have positive results, is increasing the S value by 1 of units swinging chainswords. I think they should have more of an effect in combat than they have now. It would be good to distinguish between knives, power weapons, power fists, and chainsaws. I don't think it would adversely impact the system. S3 armies would certainly benefit, for example.

Anyone who's played Fire Warrior knows that's how it is. ZZZZZZZZ-ZZZZZ!!!!!!

OverchargeThis! wrote:Some changes to assault have been mentioned, particularly the charging unit going first, regardless of relative initiatives. I think another minor change, which will have positive results, is increasing the S value by 1 of units swinging chainswords. I think they should have more of an effect in combat than they have now. It would be good to distinguish between knives, power weapons, power fists, and chainsaws. I don't think it would adversely impact the system. S3 armies would certainly benefit, for example.

EDIT: apologies to Iorek. I didn't notice your post before writing this.

As a Tau player my immediate reaction was "oh no, not another thing to make H2H worse!" But this actually could work in the Tau's favour since when threatened by a charge they could charge first and at least receive the benefit of the initiative and attack bonuses.

I would prefer to have close range defensive fire as it seems more fluffy.

I agree. I think it would make sense. One of the FW rules allowed a side receiving a charge to fire rapidfire or assault class weaponry in lieu of hand-to-hand when receiving the charge. I think it allowed just one shot regardless of weapon type, did not allow blast/template weapons, and allowed this only in the turn in which a charge was received. Thereafter, the unit had to use cc weapons. I think this would be a good thing for the game IMHO. It'd make packing plasma pistols worth while, for sure. =)

Kilkrazy wrote:

OverchargeThis! wrote:Some changes to assault have been mentioned, particularly the charging unit going first, regardless of relative initiatives. I think another minor change, which will have positive results, is increasing the S value by 1 of units swinging chainswords. I think they should have more of an effect in combat than they have now. It would be good to distinguish between knives, power weapons, power fists, and chainsaws. I don't think it would adversely impact the system. S3 armies would certainly benefit, for example.

EDIT: apologies to Iorek. I didn't notice your post before writing this.

As a Tau player my immediate reaction was "oh no, not another thing to make H2H worse!" But this actually could work in the Tau's favour since when threatened by a charge they could charge first and at least receive the benefit of the initiative and attack bonuses.

I would prefer to have close range defensive fire as it seems more fluffy.

It's actually perfect since the fish of fury takes out anything within 12" or forces enemies to move around the vehicle's 1" buffer zone. If they move closer, you get the perfect 12" charge.

whitedragon wrote:Well, in fantasy, the upgrade character's count as separate models to be able to allocate attacks to. So maybe they are going to change 40k to be more like fantasy in that regard.

Another simple change may be that you have to be in base to base with a character to attack them, and not just be "engaged" within two inches. That seems like a very simple fix for everything.

Not sure what you mean. Characters already count as a separate unit in H2H, so you have to be base to base with them to attack them. unless you're talking about sergeants and the like.

There's a difference between being engaged with a character and being in btb with it. Current rules only require the former in order to direct attacks at the character.

Nope, read "The Assault Phase" on pg. 51 (in the small rulebook anyway) which is part of the character section. ICs area separate unit for the purpose of close combat.

This is the current summary of the warseer discussion, kept updated in the first post by de Selby:
http://warseer.com/forums/40k-news-rumour-discussion/113811-5th-ed-rumour-compilation-ruleset-14.html

"Since there isn't currently an open thread about it, I thought I'd start a compilation thread for discussion of the rumours of a 5th ed. 40K coming next year (with new starter box). I don't have any info or confirmation myself, I just wanted a thread people can go to to talk about (or possibly debunk) these rumours.

There have been a few rumblings about a rules revision in past months. There's also the fact that the studio don't appear to design codices for the 4th edition rules (at least where things like retinues are concerned). However, it's still possible that all this rumourage will never amount to anything. If you know more, spill the beans!

Story so far:

Shebnar said:
************************************************** *******
OK, I'm going to post these other rumours appeared on GW Tilea: the source is trustworthy.


- First of all, WH40K V Edition will see the light before summer 2008 (yes you read it right), just after the Codexaemons.
There's not much in the new edition that is going to be radically changed, the things which will be modified for sure are:

1) rules about vehicles
2) damage chart for vehicles (MAYBE we'll have one only chart for glancing and penetrating hits, with modifiers according to the weapon which scored the hit - note that this is an uncertain rumour)
3) rules about psychic powers
4) small variations on HtH combat

the source denied any further explaination.

It has been speculated that the new Starter Box will include SM and Orks (both in plastic).


Dosad said:
************************************************** *******

Things I've heard about 5th edition:

It will be released in 2008. I’ve been hinting at this in these forums for months now…I was told September/October, but maybe they are pushing it up for some reason. Maybe they are launching the new edition before they release the next supplement. Could have something to with the rules changes that they need the new system out before the next supplement.

The new starter box will be Orks vs. Marines. Like BfSP it will have two small but complete armies. The new technology lets them put so much more stuff on a sprue and I've heard you get TONS of stuff in this box. I expect a vehicle or two (those rumors of a plastic killa kan have been floating around for some time) but I have no info to say what the contents will be beyond Orks vs. Marines (What do you think they are making those plastic grots for?). As an Ork player I am so very excited about this box…

Rules wise I’ve heard that the vehicle damage chart will look like the Apocalypse one but for standard vehicles.

I’ve heard nothing of a nerf for skimmers or any other major changes to the vehicle system. But that just means my source hasn’t told me anything or may not know himself.

Two big changes I’ve heard about are changes to movement and (everyone wait for it…) changes to Rending! I posted these in a “rules idea” thread a few weeks back to see if anyone would notice…nobody did. I'm not going to go into detail now as I've been tourtured by the =I=nqusition before and do not wish to revist those dark places. But if you search for them, they are out there...posted as my own idea. (see how I do that? Like a f'n ninja!)

I’ve heard that Combat Patrol and Kill Team are gone from the rule book. They will make a reappearance as their own supplement in 2009 with expanded rules for "space hulk" and "Necromunda" style games.
They have been replaced with a much expanded mission system and campaign rules that are based off the Mighty Empires system for FB. I've heard that there are a few 40K specific tiles in the works. One being a hive-city tile.

Dark Eldar are next after Deamons, beyond that I have no clue.

That’s all I’ve got…well almost.

Dosadi

Sakura said:
************************************************** ********
Just a couple of things to add:

~Marching rule:
if your unit is like 12" away from an enemy or something you can run them like a fleet roll to get them in cover.

~Skimmers dont get glances if they move 12" but the vehicle damage rules change so I don't know how this means anything right now.

************************************************** ********

I said: all this stuff sounds like a bigger deal than 3rd/4th. Particularly changes to movement. Is it possible for troops to get generally faster without breaking the game balance of the 4th ed codices (1st turn charges and whatnot). Maybe changes to reserves and deployment (as in Apocalypse) will counteract this? Or maybe some of these changes won't turn out (like the S7 ignores armour saves rule that never was, for apoc)?


NEW!
Summary up to page 5:
Smokedog said (paraphrase)
************************************************** ********
Ivé heard that splitting fire on vehicles will be an option again... looks like they have been reading the 2nd ed rule book a lot recently....

BS 6,7 may now have some meaning gamewise

Mars said (essentially summary)
************************************************** ********

info that hasn't been mentioned yet (from what I've read):

- rending ignores armour/glances automaticly on a 6 to-wound/penetrate, instead of to-hit

- the forced march is basicly Fleet of Foot, but you can't use it within 12" of an enemy, and you can't move in the assault phase. units who actually have Fleet of Foot suffer none of these limits

But Brimstone said
************************************************** ********
Originally Posted by WarpWhisperer
Has anyone noticed that the suggested forced march rule appears to give the green light to pre-measuring? i.e. just 'checking' to see if I can march - oh dear, I can't, but now I know I can assault....

That's assuming the rumour as stated is correct which it isn't.

I think that running would be more like fleet but with added restrictions to still give 'fleet' models an advantage.

I don't see any changes for fleet to be honest more like restrictions on the run ability.


Atrum Angelus said
************************************************** ********

Before summer 2008? There will be no 5th Edition before July 2008. I promise you.


NEW: summary up to page 10
Brimstone on the box set:
************************************************** ********
Well I don't know that much about it except it should feature Marines vs Orks and will contain larger models than just pure infantry on both sides.

Also, Thylacine sent me this by PM:
************************************************** *********
No new rulebook next year, Shebnar made a wrong translation from Italian, mistook the interviewers question for the interviewees answer!



NEW: nothing new to p14 (lots of discussion about forced marching though)
Redshirts say 5th ed. isn't happening next year."

Hey guys long time 40ker here (since the start of 2nd ed '93) First time poster on dakka.

Any way as a person that has watched Gw for over 15 years (space hulk before 40k) I have to say that 5th edition will probley be out around xmas of 2008. Late Summer will see the start of the push, and your looking at a november box set release with a december harbook release.

As we all know gw stumbles upon rules it likes when it puts out supplements CoD,Citi fight, Apoc, 40k in 40 min whatever and incorperates them into the main rules we seen this time and time again. So what are we going to see in the next edition. If i had to bet i would say somthing along the following.

I. 1 Chart for vechiles with modifers. Look at the apoc table -2 for glancing hits so a 1 or a 2 with be a 0 and a -1 wich will result in no effect. This will make vechiles alot better with out making them over powered. What about skimmers you ask skimmers will probley lose the auto glance thing and be -1 if they move 12 inches or more. Open top +1 would be along the lines of keeping things consistent

II. The chart will look like this

O or less- No effect
1. Shaken
2. Stunned
3. Weapon Destroyed
4. Imobilized/Shaken
5. Destroyed
6+. Explosion

This will make regular tanks alot harder to kill skimmer will still be tough to kill, Need to hit then get through armor then roll a 5 or 6 to destroy. Will also make vectored engines and landing gear more of a must buy for eldar and tau players.

Qucik look at an MEq shooting at flacon 3 shoots with lascannons 2 hit. (bs 4) 1-2 nothin 3 glance 4-6 pen. Say 1 pen 1 glance lucky marine. Pen roll 2 dice subtract 1 (halo field) still tough as hell to kill. Almost identical to the old way. However tanks become alot more survivalbe with their higher armor. Relsticly glancing shots should not be able to kill a tank just damage it. This will put tanks on = footing with MCs 3 lascannons at a LR 2 hit 1 glance if lucky. Would make flanking a tank and shooting its side armor very important, and lead to more movment and tactics.

III. More tactics not more complicated.

YOu will see the addition of a force march rule, but will also see a rule for vechiles kicking it into higher gear.
An option to break out of combat in your turn if you pass a leadership test is might occur, but im doubting this.

IV Rending will be nerfed.

Now Things i would like to see

1. Terrain mean more, and cleaned up. Wraithlords in bushs?. Make terrain more along the lines of FoW. Especially the area terrain feature. This would make 40k evolve into alot of close fire fights. And limit the amount of drown 1 unit with fire move to the next. If Gw went totaly flames stlye with the modfiers for conclement and what not i would be real happy, but they wont. Ill just take how FoW works are terrain.

2. Scale the FO for the number of points. This would help greatly with army building based on the size of the battle, and would be a short gap fix till the combat patrol kill team supplement comes out.

3. Detailed Campaign section and ME expansion for 40k would be awsome.

Phausi:

Nope, read "The Assault Phase" on pg. 51 (in the small rulebook anyway) which is part of the character section. ICs area separate unit for the purpose of close combat.

What's your point? A model does not need to be in btb with an IC to attack it. It only needs to be engaged with the IC. You know, just like how it works with separate units?

Dead Horse wrote:
Also, Thylacine sent me this by PM:
************************************************** *********
No new rulebook next year, Shebnar made a wrong translation from Italian, mistook the interviewers question for the interviewees answer!

NEW: nothing new to p14 (lots of discussion about forced marching though)
Redshirts say 5th ed. isn't happening next year."

Sorry but I'll take what Brimstone says over any redshirt. And Brim said: "new book in 2008".

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Phausi:

Nope, read "The Assault Phase" on pg. 51 (in the small rulebook anyway) which is part of the character section. ICs area separate unit for the purpose of close combat.

What's your point? A model does not need to be in btb with an IC to attack it. It only needs to be engaged with the IC. You know, just like how it works with separate units?

Ah, I misread what you were saying. Nevermind.

Captain Sturn wrote:Hey guys long time 40ker here (since the start of 2nd ed '93) First time poster on dakka.

Any way as a person that has watched Gw for over 15 years (space hulk before 40k) I have to say that 5th edition will probley be out around xmas of 2008. Late Summer will see the start of the push, and your looking at a november box set release with a december harbook release.

As we all know gw stumbles upon rules it likes when it puts out supplements CoD,Citi fight, Apoc, 40k in 40 min whatever and incorperates them into the main rules we seen this time and time again. So what are we going to see in the next edition. If i had to bet i would say somthing along the following.

I. 1 Chart for vechiles with modifers. Look at the apoc table -2 for glancing hits so a 1 or a 2 with be a 0 and a -1 wich will result in no effect. This will make vechiles alot better with out making them over powered. What about skimmers you ask skimmers will probley lose the auto glance thing and be -1 if they move 12 inches or more. Open top +1 would be along the lines of keeping things consistent

II. The chart will look like this

O or less- No effect
1. Shaken
2. Stunned
3. Weapon Destroyed
4. Imobilized/Shaken
5. Destroyed
6+. Explosion

This will make regular tanks alot harder to kill skimmer will still be tough to kill, Need to hit then get through armor then roll a 5 or 6 to destroy. Will also make vectored engines and landing gear more of a must buy for eldar and tau players.

Qucik look at an MEq shooting at flacon 3 shoots with lascannons 2 hit. (bs 4) 1-2 nothin 3 glance 4-6 pen. Say 1 pen 1 glance lucky marine. Pen roll 2 dice subtract 1 (halo field) still tough as hell to kill. Almost identical to the old way. However tanks become alot more survivalbe with their higher armor. Relsticly glancing shots should not be able to kill a tank just damage it. This will put tanks on = footing with MCs 3 lascannons at a LR 2 hit 1 glance if lucky. Would make flanking a tank and shooting its side armor very important, and lead to more movment and tactics.

III. More tactics not more complicated.

YOu will see the addition of a force march rule, but will also see a rule for vechiles kicking it into higher gear.
An option to break out of combat in your turn if you pass a leadership test is might occur, but im doubting this.

IV Rending will be nerfed.

What about armies other than meq? I play orks, and have ZERO str 9 or 10 weapons. Does that mean the best I can ever do to a land raider is immobalize it? They better change it so you only need a 6 to hit a moving vehicle if it moves over 12 then. A 4+ to hit a vehicle who moved less than 12 is reasonable. That way power fists and chian fists and thunder hammers arent a joke assaulting vehicles anymore. If vehicles are more survivable, then its only fair to even the odds for armies that have trouble killing them already.

What about armies other than meq? I play orks, and have ZERO str 9 or 10 weapons. Does that mean the best I can ever do to a land raider is immobalize it? They better change it so you only need a 6 to hit a moving vehicle if it moves over 12 then. A 4+ to hit a vehicle who moved less than 12 is reasonable. That way power fists and chian fists and thunder hammers arent a joke assaulting vehicles anymore. If vehicles are more survivable, then its only fair to even the odds for armies that have trouble killing them already.

First Well when you immobilise somthing the next step is weapon destroyed on the next immobilized result so all the sudden you will see weapons getting ripped off of then the vechile will be destroyed. Secondly i belive the land raider is the only all around 14 tank maybe some super heavys it should be hard and the way the above chart works gives vechiles wounds with the ability to auto kill them. Finally no str 9 or 10 weapons. Orks have Shook attack fun (2d6), Boomgun (Ordenance str 8), Rokkits with tank hunter effective (9), ZZzap gun (2d6). So thats 4 ranged weapons that have a chance to mess up a land raider, but ranged weapons arnt how you kill the raider. You just stop it so your boys can get up close and tear it apart. Tankbusta bombs, Nobs with power claws str 10 on a charge. ( 5 attacks str 10 auto hits)

dietrich wrote:Since 3rd edition, 40k has seemed to struggle with what to do with IC's, especially in melee. They don't want them to count as 'part' of the unit, because an Ork warboss with 10 nobz has 20 albative wounds. But, if they're individually targetable (and models in units aren't), then you get into the current nonsense - "oh, no, a veteran sgt with a powerfist, run away! I can't defeat him and his 4 albative wounds - I mean, squad mates - because no matter what how much I go after the sgt, these guys keep getting in my way, and then he gives me a fist to the head!"

If they removed the insta-kill rule from working in hand to hand, the current system would function much better. The fist sargent would be dangerous, but no where near as deadly.

I've heard that they are going to be brining back modifiers into the system. Not too many, they don't want to go back to second edition, but they have realized that a few would be useful in making the game more fun. I believe a few people have brought up their plans to use modifier on the vehicle damage charts. Supposedly there are a couple of other places where they will come in.

The other thing I've heard is that they will be incorporating a lot of the city fight terrain clarifications into the main rules (things like vertical movement, templates hitting one level, and features that are taller than "size 3"). It should go a long way to making large terrain features more interesting and useful in games.

Phoenix wrote:If they removed the insta-kill rule from working in hand to hand, the current system would function much better. The fist sargent would be dangerous, but no where near as deadly.

This would really boost the value swarms, not sure if they need any help.

Phoenix wrote:I've heard that they are going to be brining back modifiers into the system. Not too many, they don't want to go back to second edition, but they have realized that a few would be useful in making the game more fun. I believe a few people have brought up their plans to use modifier on the vehicle damage charts. Supposedly there are a couple of other places where they will come in.

I want to believe it. I really do, mostly because they would be so useful at fixing certain things.

But with GW, I'm still skeptical.

Captain Sturn wrote:

What about armies other than meq? I play orks, and have ZERO str 9 or 10 weapons. Does that mean the best I can ever do to a land raider is immobalize it? They better change it so you only need a 6 to hit a moving vehicle if it moves over 12 then. A 4+ to hit a vehicle who moved less than 12 is reasonable. That way power fists and chian fists and thunder hammers arent a joke assaulting vehicles anymore. If vehicles are more survivable, then its only fair to even the odds for armies that have trouble killing them already.

First Well when you immobilise somthing the next step is weapon destroyed on the next immobilized result so all the sudden you will see weapons getting ripped off of then the vechile will be destroyed. Secondly i belive the land raider is the only all around 14 tank maybe some super heavys it should be hard and the way the above chart works gives vechiles wounds with the ability to auto kill them. Finally no str 9 or 10 weapons. Orks have Shook attack fun (2d6), Boomgun (Ordenance str 8), Rokkits with tank hunter effective (9), ZZzap gun (2d6). So thats 4 ranged weapons that have a chance to mess up a land raider, but ranged weapons arnt how you kill the raider. You just stop it so your boys can get up close and tear it apart. Tankbusta bombs, Nobs with power claws str 10 on a charge. ( 5 attacks str 10 auto hits)

Actually tankbustas lost tank hunter, and gained glory hog! and by "gained" I mean they introduced a rule where they now have to shoot at a vehicle if in line of sight....reguardless of range. If there is a space marine assault squad that just missed charging them, and you really really wanna kill them, but you can see a rhino-45 inches away- you still shoot at it. The rule does NOT say if in range, just that they must always shoot at a vehicle if they can see one. They can no longer take a transport either. Tankbusta bombs are ha because you still need a 6 just to plant the stupid thing! Shokk attack guns not only take up a HQ slot, they are unreliable and half the results are near suicidal-outside of friendly games for giggles you wont see these. Zzap guns on average roll a 7 for strength, so again unreliable, and they kill there crew members on an 11 or 12. Boomgun still only scores a glance. Tankbustas really got the shaft in this new codex, completely killed any chance for our shooting to eliminate av 14. Although our ability to kill av 13 and under has been quadropled heh. Ah well guess I will have to hope I dont face any 3 raider lists for any important events.

Who votes we start a 5th edition wish list thread in dakka discussions instead of this thread spiraling out of control a la all the rumor threads on Warseer?

Hint: I do.

Dead Horse wrote:Who votes we start a 5th edition wish list thread in dakka discussions instead of this thread spiraling out of control a la all the rumor threads on Warseer?

Hint: I do.

Well I don't have a link, but the word over on Librarium is that the 5th Edition rumor has been debunked on Warseer.

Iorek wrote:This thread has shifted from "Rumor about 40k 5th Edition" to "What I'd really like for Christmas". Let's get it back on topic, folks.

lol, most threads end up going this route lately. it's what happens when attention deficit players get in front of a key board and see flasy orc icons. it makes you forget what you were discussing in the first place. hey! what's that shiney thing over there? ..... wanders off to be mesmerized for minutes by some silly bauble..

droidman wrote:

Phoenix wrote:If they removed the insta-kill rule from working in hand to hand, the current system would function much better. The fist sargent would be dangerous, but no where near as deadly.

This would really boost the value swarms, not sure if they need any help.

It would only help them out in hand to hand situations. They still die like flies to shooting attacks so its not such a huge deal. Their point costs can always be adjusted to bring them in line with their power.