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.

If you're going to have a thread about 5th compared to 4th, then don't bother bringing up wound allocation-It was already in 4th in a much simpler/smoother version (torrent of fire).

It wasn't though. All Torrent of Fire did was give me a small chance at taking down the guy with the nasty weapon.

Now, I score 10 hits on 10 models, they are shared out evenly. Any excess are shared out equally as well. You then roll each models save individually. Those who fail cark it.

What could be simpler than that?

H.B.M.C. wrote:...I would posit that the Dev Team has already worked this out but have chosen specifically not to design their game in this way. This isn't because they are incapable of it (as much as cynicism clouds my posts, I am certain that if they wanted to, they could write a damned fine ruleset - they have with other systems), but because they don't want to do it. Or, more accurately, their first loyalty is to their business model, and the above suggestion of Syr's would compromise that model.... sell new model kits...
...
2. Make some bold changes with the rules that don't cater to shiny new model kits and give us a well crafted rules system.

HBMC, I really like your posts and I think you build good cases! I use to think that GW was being true to their business model as well, and that essentially the eternal cycle of releases and inconsistency was planned obsolescence in action... But there are some major points that fly in direct oposition to that. The largest being, why do they write killer rules for models they don't sell? OVER and OVER and OVER? or why do they invalidate rules for armies that are selling? A lot of simple evidence just doesnt ad up to support the idea that GW is changing the rules in a machiavellan way to support model sales, for if so, why would they publish (really effective) rules for models they dont have:

DROP POD (took what, 5 years???)
ORK BATTLEWAGON
WAVESERPENT (Well last ed anyway)
SEER COUNCIL on JETBIKES
ROUGHRIDERS

need I go on?

I share your frustrations as primarily a fellow IG player but remember the thread is about what you like...

ALso, I dont miss super falcons at all, I like how they work now instead.

I like wound allocation - it balances out nicely and give a benefit to larger units (less likely to lose that special weapon than a smaller unit.)

I like that close combat is resolved quicker. I like the balance of fearless being awesome vs. shooting and a potential liability in close combat (but only if you lose combat by a lot.)

I like that there is the potential for stubborn as opposed to fearless and that there is a real difference.

I like that the rules are much more clear in general with numerous pictures/diagrams.

I like that you set up knowing (pretty much) whether you are going first or second.

I like that you have to consider that you might have the initiative seized on you and you can either just hope you get first or you can keep a few things in reserve. (nothing is certain in war)

I like that deepstrike and reserve are on all missions now - units with those abilities factored into their costs are more fairly priced now.

I like that units can enter from the short table edges.

I like that there are now reasons to take both power fist and power weapon (do you wanna give up the attack for higher strength?)

I like that vehicles are better at range and weaker in combat (when I was with the 106th MI attached to the 6th ID we had a motto - "Infantry kills tanks - and we find them.")

I like that deepstrike is a bit more forgiving from being absolutely wiped out but also more dangerous at the same time (can take wounds in difficult terrain.)

I like that the game moves faster as a result of all of the above.

I like that only troops are scoring but anything can contest.

I like that transport vehicles can scout.

I like the 3 different deployment types.

I like the idea of kill points as opposed to victory points (it could be better in execution, but it's cool to not have to know the cost of every unit on the table to determine whether or not I am winning in my target priority.)

I like that objectives are the most important thing.

I like that buildings and ruined buildings are covered in the main rulebook.