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.

Personally, I find 5th edition fun a lot more exciting than previous editions, and it seems also to run a lot more smoothly.

I don't really play any other wargames so lack anything to compare it against. Just wandering; if you could change one of the rules (from the rulebook, not codexes), what would it be? Or do you like it how it is?

Please feel free to vote on the current poll, and if "other" specify so i can add it to the poll options.

One rule? Even though it does no impact me personally, the defensive weapon rule is too stupid for words. The moment I saw it in the rule book I immediately knew they had messed up.

How would you change it?

i'd make Defensive weapons strength 5 instead of 4, 4 means there are next to no defensive weapons any more. There are a few other rules interactions that I don't agree with, such as because you can no longer consolidate into CC, the templar righteous zeal rule is now useless. Generally however its how the rules interact with the codexes rather than the rules that i have issue with. Oh and TLOS madness, 'if you can see it you can shoot it,' is silly, if you can see more than 25% of it you can shoot it woulda been better, also, too much stuff gives you a 4+ cover save. There should be more gradation, (e.g chain fences give you a 4+, WHY?!!!!)

Id changed the vehicle damage charts back to what they were.. stop this total mech land raider spam nonsense. Also will lessen the need for a million meltas.

Sirius42 wrote:i'd make Defensive weapons strength 5 instead of 4, 4 means there are next to no defensive weapons any more.

I'd go with 6 before 5. 4 at least punishes all armies about equally. 5 means that everyone except the eldar get their anti-troop guns counted as defensive, while the eldar are SOL.

Other rules I'd change;

Wound allocation is insanely stupid in 5th ed.

For shooting, I'd say casualties were limited to models that you could see. Just because one guy doesn't fit behind a building doesn't mean all ten should be able to be gunned down.

For assault, I'd say casualties had to come from engaged models only. An army with higher initiative should be able to fight an army with more models and actually reduce the number of incoming hits. The defenders should get their pile-in move, to prevent silly tricks, but after that, the only guys dying should be those in range to swing.

Multiple-model wound allocation is pretty dumb too, as is allocating before rolling. When a unit with a plasma cannon and some bolters can shoot with just the cannon and the target takes 5 casualties, but if they shoot the bolters too, then it only take 3 casualties, something is wrong. Shooting more guns at something shouldn't increase the likelihood that it survives. Maybe the answer here is that any model allocated a wound that it doesn't get a save against cannot have further wounds allocated to it. As for the multi-wound problem, I don't know the solution, but it needs to be changed somehow.

What would I change?

1. True Line of Sight. Make it so it is actually true Line of Sight. Right now TLOS allows you to remove models that are out of range, out of LOS, or even out of range and out of LOS. That's stupid. You should only be able to remove what you can see and what is in range. It's really simple.

2. Wound allocation. Owning player should just allocate successful wounds, then roll all like-saves at the same time (so if a unit is all 3+ saves, roll all 3+ saves at once, then just remove whole models). It's really simple.

3. KP. Remove them.

4. The entire Vehicle Rules. Allow vehicles to move and shoot their guns. Allow Defensive Weapons to shoot at targets separate to the Main Weapons. Make Defensive Weapons S5. It's really simple.

HBMC I like those changes go take over GW and implement them.

spread out the cover saves so that 90% of stuff that you actually encounter on an average tabletop is not 4+. get rid of TLOS and go back to actually having someone behind 2 units, a ruined building, a wall, AND a forest actually not be in LOS despite the fact that you can see half his chest using a laser pointer. defensive weapons should be strength 5 (but not strength 6 as a previous poster mentioned). strength 5 is the lowest strength of what is generally considered a "heavy" weapon upgrade for most armies and allows generally one weapon from each army to fire "defensively". allowing strength 6 allows way too many additional weapons and defeats the purpose of that rule. (redbeard, i'm guessing you play eldar alot if you want strength 6 as defensive, lol).

Firstly, RENDING. There are so many things that have been completely nerfed because of the new rending rules.

Secondly, the vehicle damage (as others have said). As opposed to 4th, glancing now means nothing. It basically goes like this: "Oh, I glanced, well at least you won't be able to move... Oh, you have a special rule that ignores crew shaken/stunned, well that was a total waste and I have no chance of stopping you. Awesome!" I play bugs so I stand no chance but I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like the automatic -2 modifier for glancing.

Thirdly, COVER SAVES. They benefit me incredibly, but I've gotten into the habit of calling it 'cover save 40k'. As one of my friends said recently, "AP means nothing anymore, does it?" By and large I think he's correct.

Wound allocation is my only big complaint about 5th over 4th/3rd. I rather liked the 'Torrent of Fire' rule from 4th and feel it did an adequate job of solving the "heavy weapon/Sergeant' always die last issue.

I have some more general complaints about the basics of 3.x edition 40k but those aren't really specific to 5th.

I see folks grousing about Kill Points a lot, and while I appreciate the issues revolving around them, I do rather like the way they provide a counterbalance to choosing multiple smaller units in games where the org chart is otherwise not fully utilized.

Jack

Wound allocation needs to go back to 4th OR I should be able to shoot model to model as in Warmachine. I hate the rule so much that it's pretty much the reason I refuse to play 5th.

Redbeard wrote:

Sirius42 wrote:i'd make Defensive weapons strength 5 instead of 4, 4 means there are next to no defensive weapons any more.

I'd go with 6 before 5. 4 at least punishes all armies about equally. 5 means that everyone except the eldar get their anti-troop guns counted as defensive, while the eldar are SOL.

S6 is instant kill weapon for all those T3 armies so making it defensive is a nono.

Shaman wrote:HBMC I like those changes go take over GW and implement them.

I swear I'd have a massive orgasm if Yak and Lego somehow bought GW, put H.B.M.C. and a few others here in charge of rules for 40K, put Therion and ManfreddvonDrakken(as well as a few others) in charge of Fantasy, put derflaM and Kyoto-sama in charge of Black Library, and had GWAR! and a few other YMDC-ers as proof readers for the rules.

Oh, and GreyDeath and Migsula would have to be in charge of 'Eavy Metal.

Maybe have Frazzled as the WD Editor.

Platuan4th wrote:

Shaman wrote:HBMC I like those changes go take over GW and implement them.

I swear I'd have a massive orgasm if Yak and Lego somehow bought GW, put H.B.M.C. and a few others here in charge of rules for 40K, put Therion and ManfreddvonDrakken(as well as a few others) in charge of Fantasy, put derflaM and Kyoto-sama in charge of Black Library, and had GWAR! and a few other YMDC-ers as proof readers for the rules.

Oh, and GreyDeath and Migsula would have to be in charge of 'Eavy Metal.

Maybe have Frazzled as the WD Editor.

I agree so much. Especially the part about Gwar! His dubious talents are wasted arguing with casual gamers like me when he could be streamlining the game so that RAI and FAQ's are a thing of the past. (Are you happy now? )

my biggest problem would have to be the TLOS thing. I really do feel like it took away a degree of tactics from the game.

I mean before both sides had to really really consider their set up wheter they were cc or shooty. people had to use terrain much more and shockingly maybe even choose to stay behind cover and wait for the right time, unlike now how just set up anywhere and shoot and just move forward through everything you get a 4+ cover anyway

Wound allocation is annoying. Why do I have to kill 29 Ork Boyz to get to the Nob with a PK even though he's the only one in combat?

Vehicle rules are stupid. Plain and simple.

Cover saves are even stupider. Cover prevents you from being seen or hit. Why am I taking a save after I've been hit and wounded?

I like TLOS, it's just everything else surrounding it that sucks

I prefer the tougher vehicles myself, I played 3rd and 4th and I like the fact that transports are useful but not OMGUBERRUSH!!!!!! and heavy tanks take specialised troops to deal with (plus they go down in cc like a cheap hooker).

the new LOS are a breeze to work with although I agree HBMC that you shouldn't be able to kill models out of range.

cover is fine it has only just become useful.

wound allocation is stupid and fiddly and could do with being restored to how it worked previously.

i dont think you should be able to get a 6+ cover save for "keeping your head down" I'd be glad that they made it easier to destroy buildings, except the ruins it leaves give the defender a 4+ save, and count as difficult terrain. FML

pguard36 wrote:How would you change it?

Defensive Weapons should stay S4 (or less), but also include any Assault weapons. So things like Flamers, Heavy Flamers, and anything Eldar would be Defensive, whereas Imperial Heavy Bolters can just suck it.

Other, minor stuff:
1. Cover saves are 5++, not 4++

2. Victory Points go away entirely, and Kill Points become the "alternate" scoring mechanic

3. Addition of Minor Objectives (random & secret, per player) for graduated Margin of Victory

4. Adjust Wound allocation to kill Nob Bikers dead.

JohnHwangDD wrote:2. Victory Points go away entirely, and Kill Points become the "alternate" scoring mechanic

Really? You like KPs? I think they are incredibly stupid. Why is a drop pod worth the same as a unit of 10 Terminators?

John seems to think that what he's said hasn't already happened. Victory Points have gone away, and KP's are the alternate scoring method. It's like he exists in his own little bubble world that's yet to catch up with the rest of us.



Um, anyway, yes. Cover Saves. That was something I forgot about. All Cover Saves reduced to a standard 5+. Make AP mean something (as simplistic as it is) and make cover saves something that helps you, not something that you can use to negate 50% of everything the enemy throws at you.

So add Cover Saves to my list of things that need to change in 40K.

anticitizen013 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:2. Victory Points go away entirely, and Kill Points become the "alternate" scoring mechanic

Really? You like KPs?

They're OK as a footnote option for a different game, for when both players just want to kill stuff instead of play objectives.

I want 6E to have all objectives all the time. But leave the option for KPs as a non-standard mission.

Elric of Grans wrote:One rule? Even though it does no impact me personally, the defensive weapon rule is too stupid for words. The moment I saw it in the rule book I immediately knew they had messed up.

Tanks are basically pillboxes.
That's a shame.
Defensive weapons should have at least S5 (or S6 for Eldar players).

Tanks are OK, IMO.

Imperials have static heavy artillery / weapons batteries, slow-moving pie-throwers / snipers, and mobile transports. Each type has a distinct role, and there are tactical considerations for each precisely because of the S4 Defensive Weapon rule.

What's a problem is that the Tau and Eldar got caught up in the mess.

Hi all.
Depending on what you want from 40k, depends on what you think needs fixing!

A marketing exercise to sell toy soldiers, it works well enough.
A fun dice rolling game for ages 11 and up,it works well enough.

A straightforward tactical simulation of percived warfare of the 41st milenium.It is a MASSIVE fail.
A wargame suitable for ballanced competative play.It is a MASSIVE fail.

Things I would change.
The game turn mechanic for something more interactive.
The AP ,Inv, AV systems for a simple unified system.
The inanly complicated current movement (special) rules, for more straight forward movement rates, and movment rate modifiers for terrain.
The characteristics to be more focused on unit abilities.
The BASIC rules to cover ALL interaction.
The special abilities to be applied more sparingly to keep them ,you know ,SPECIAL!

In short keep player turns and rolling D6s, but write the rules using the most suitable game mechanics for the current 40k game play.
(STOP using WHFB game mechanics !)

TTFN
Lanrak.

I'd like to be able to shoot into an existing melee so you can't tediously lock units in close combat for most of the game. The fact that most games are decided through assault bores me to tears and seems ridiculous for the 41st millenium. After all there is already a reason modern rifles don't have bayonets on them :/

For Defensive Weapons, what I'd really like to see is that any weapon can be fired Defensively, with the following modifications:

1. All Assault and Template (not blast, just the teardrop) weapons fire normally.

2. Blast Weapons and Barrage weapons can not be fired Defensively.

3. All other weapons can be fired Defensively, subtracting 1 from the number of shots that they get.

Pretty straightforward, and gets rid of much of the arbitrary nature of Strength values.

So it seems that defensive weapons and cover saves are the biggest issues people have. I for one, completely agree on both counts.

What if cover just resulted in a BS modifier like in necromunda? 4+ cover becomes -1 on the BS roll, except for blast weapons which keep current rules. It wouldn't work (probably) with the codices as they are because a marine would get just as much benefit as an ork, but it makes sense.