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.

Just Dave wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:Make Transports more expensive

That wouldn't be too bad an addition, except it couldn't be applied within the Rulebook, it would have to be changed in each individual Codex, which wouldn't work.

For me, just balance out Mech/Infantry usage would be the biggest change needed.
No Retreat Wounds and Cover would need to be fixed too IMHO.


For me though, my greatest desire would be to keep the Troops/Objective Need as I LOVE that rule.

He did not specifically state "rulebook" however, he simply said 6th edition. And, since 5th edition has already showed dirt cheap transports, I'm hoping 6th edition will make them a tactical choice rather than a *MUST*.

FNP will be nerfed. Can't say much else for sure.

Make infantry more important the the thing they ride in. Men win wars, not empty cans.

Dear GW santa. For xmas this year, please release the 5th ed. Codex for the Tau, Inquisition, Necrons and Eldar in a timely fashion a month or two before 6th edition is released, so that half of our rules will once again remain outdated. We players are so used to being obsolete that if we were to actually coincide with a new rules edition, we would feel overwhelmed.

nice. +1.

Darn, not again! Grey Knights you failed me!

Just fix up the close combats and wound allocation.

Redbeard wrote:I'd like to see them get rid of wound allocations tricks.

I'd like them to move more towards "true line of sight" - if you can only see one model, you can only kill one model. Likewise, if only models within a 2" range can make attacks, then casualties from an assault should come from those models within 2".

I'd like to see number of models in the combat count for something in resolution. In 4th, it was all about outnumbering. In 5th, it's all about wounds inflicted. Surely there's some middle ground (If there are three of you, and I killed one, and there are ten of me, and you killed two, did you really win than combat? It was roughly 3:1 before, and now it's 4:1, seems like my side is winning to me.

I'd like to see some risk added back to using transports. I'm okay with the harder-to-damage vehicles (5th compared to 4th) but bring back entanglement at least, so it's not a no-risk no-brainer choice to go mech.

Damned right. Five space marines should at least consider a tactical retreat when faced with a couple of dozen orks, regardless of just having caused more wounds than they suffered.

SumYungGui wrote:When I first started playing again I was initially outraged by No Retreat! wounds. It just didn't seem fair. Then after I played for a few months I started to see that other people were losing combat and getting sweeping advanced and losing everything in one go (except Space Marines, because they're special and need special rules to make them even more specially special). Assaults are supposed to be short and brutal. Now I don't much care about it anymore and I've also adapted my play style to deal with it on the table top. Part of the game, I accept it and play with it.

No Retreat! wounds and multiple assaults? That crap is just absolutely inexcusable and will infuriate me every, single, time. Watching people game the system by plowing every single last attack they have into gaunts/gants just to rack up as many gimme-wounds as they can and never even taking a swing at a Hive Tyrant confident in the knowledge that he's just going to fall over dead because they got one guy in base contact (who himself never even took a swing at the Tyrant). No acceptable excuses, that needs changed.

I needs to be gotten rid of, simple as that.

Fetterkey wrote:FNP will be nerfed. Can't say much else for sure.

FNP is already worthless unless you have at least a 3+ armor save. It should be changed to a T bonus, perhaps +2.

Also, the to-hit chart for close combat needs to be made more literal. If you totally outclass the enemy, you should be able to hit them on a 2+, and if you're attacking something in close combat that you really shouldn't have messed with, you deserve to hit only on a 6.

The big things I'd like to see.

KP's gone. This is such a terrible mechanic it hurts.

Vehicle weapons need to be changed. Allessio was butthurt that a predator could move and scrap his banshees sitting out in the open. What the current system has done has resulted in huge numbers of ways to bypass this restriction (PotMS, Lumbering Behemoth, Fast becoming increasingly available amongst many armies, Aerial Assault, etc), and those few remaining vehicles that don't have mitigation being restricted to being pillboxes, which primarily means just the Predator, and maybe the Chimera (however this also has some mitigation in the Fire Points it has for its infantry and the fact that it can take a mobility rewarding heavy flamer). Personally what I'd like to see is something like the following.

No Movement-fire everything without penalty
6" or less- Fire one weapon without penalty, all others at -1 BS
6-12"-Fire one weapon at -1 BS, all others at -2 BS
More than 12"-none

Change Defensive Weapons to be pintle mounted weapons that can fire at a different target and be used in an assault (e.g. assault a Rhino with a storm bolter, it gets to fire the storm bolter during the assault). Also, get rid of the restriction on Ordnance weapons, allow vehicles with ordnance weapons to fire other things. The biggest thing this rule impacted was Leman Russ tanks, which can now bypass it, and all the Daemon units with High S/Low AP Blast Weapons are simply Assault anyway. It won't really make too much of a difference for IG artillery (oh god, a heavy bolter which may or may not have range/LoS or a heavy flamer which won't ever be fired with the main gun anyway) or Whirlwinds and Vindicators (which only have the one gun in the first place), but it will allow Defilers and barebones Valkyries to make use of other weapons and make any potential new ordnance bearing units more capable.


In regards to vehicle assaults, I'd really like to see some changes. I'd like to see hits on rear armor *only* if you reduce attacks to 1 as per grenades. A Nob on a bike running at full speed against a moving Predator isn't going to be able to hit the weak spots, or even try for somethign like vison slits. He's going to try and just whack something as hard as he can.

*HOWEVER*, at the same time, I'd also like to see many shooting weapons be useeable in assaults. I see no reason why one shouldn't be able to make use of a Meltagun or Blaster in an assault. Personally I'd probably do something like "any weapon with the assault type, or carried by a relentless model may fire in the shooting phase and be used in the assault phase. Any weapon with the Rapid Fire type may be used in either the Shooting or Assault phases but not both"

As for Transport rules, which seem to be a recurring thing (though I have never minded it) instead of nerfing the crap out of transports or bringing back the stupid Entanglement rule, I'd rather see two things. First, changed "Explodes" to be an Init test or die outright (would result actually in fewer casualties to Eldar, but increased casualties to just about everyone else, and make characters much more vulnerable), and second would be to give footslogging infantry more options. Instead of just allowing them to "go to ground", allow any infantry unit not in a transport to "dig in" and create its own cover anywhere, and if they stay there for a turn after that they gain Counterattack if assaulted (troops anticipating assaults from prepared positions are hard to shift). Or something like that. Don't mash transports, make units outside of transports more capable of interacting with the battlefield. This would also help differentiate armies more, footslogging lists would be kings of defense, while Mechanized lists would clearly be attacker type armies.

I would however change the Aura thing that transports currently have, subtracting 2" from any power or ability used by an embarked model (e.g. embarked KFF would only work if within 4" of the hull, rather than 6"), or just make Aura abilities/powers not work at all if embarked.


I do however really enjoy the current transport rules, it adds a bit more depth to trying to stop a foe. I have to blast them out first, not just shoot the piss out of them from the get go. I'm ok with this.

Also, change wound allocation. Either go back to 4E's, or make it so that wounds are allocated and *resolved* in order of lowest AP or armor save ignoring attacks first, then allocating other attacks to anything that may survive. That way we avoid the stupid situations where more shooting results in fewer casualties.



As for CC, there are definitely some things that need to be resolved. It's much to easy to cheese stuff with the current No Retreat rule or break multiple units with relatively small differences in total combat resolution. I managed to kill an Avatar I hadn't put a single wound on by wiping the Dire Avenger squad that was also in combat with my CSM's and forcing 7 no retreat wounds on him, of which he failed 4. Not average, but still shouldn't be able to force wounds on something by attacking something weaker. I've also seen combats involving up to 5 or 6 units that were won by only 2 casualties after both sides inflicting double digit losses on each other, the difference being exteremly minor, but this causing a couple units to break as a result. Winning the combat should be decided by the overall number of wounds, but that shouldn't be applied to each unit on the losing side, only how much they actually lost in comparision to what they inflicted (or if they actually inflicted more, then no modifier).



The LoS rules come up a lot, but I love 5E's a lot more than 4E's. It distrubs me how many people don't remember the games where, as a result of area terrain, almost nothing could see anything beyond 18-24", making assault and skimmerspam armies ridiculously capable. The easiest fix for 5E LoS rules? MAKE BETTER TERRAIN!

Finally, FNP. FNP has simply become far too widely available, especially on already tough troops. I'd like to see it either as a 5+ instead of 4+, or, as has been suggested, a T bonus (probably just +1).

Vaktathi wrote:
No Movement-fire everything without penalty
6" or less- Fire one weapon without penalty, all others at -1 BS
6-12"-Fire one weapon at -1 BS, all others at -2 BS
More than 12"-none

This is the best idea I've heard in a looong time!!! However, considering how much they've dumbed down the game with each edition, I have little hope of such wisdom making it into the next edition.

Redbeard wrote:I'd like to see them get rid of wound allocations tricks.

I'd like them to move more towards "true line of sight" - if you can only see one model, you can only kill one model. Likewise, if only models within a 2" range can make attacks, then casualties from an assault should come from those models within 2".

I'd like to see number of models in the combat count for something in resolution. In 4th, it was all about outnumbering. In 5th, it's all about wounds inflicted. Surely there's some middle ground (If there are three of you, and I killed one, and there are ten of me, and you killed two, did you really win than combat? It was roughly 3:1 before, and now it's 4:1, seems like my side is winning to me.

I'd like to see some risk added back to using transports. I'm okay with the harder-to-damage vehicles (5th compared to 4th) but bring back entanglement at least, so it's not a no-risk no-brainer choice to go mech.

I liked your entanglement comment in sentiment only. In reality, it's the cheapness/effectiveness ratio that makes transports so good and it has very little to do with what happens if/when you crack one open. The VAST majority of armies could almost care less what happens to their minimum squad of grey hunters. They want their 75pt TL Lascannon, not a 5 wound meltagun. They just had to buy the 5 guys to get the armored TL Lascannon.

What needs to change to shift it back are some rules affecting transports themselves that would make them less desirable as fire platforms. I have no problem with a Leman Russ sitting back as fire support, but a wall of armor 12 Chimeras just didn't really make sense in previous editions.

I wouldn't be opposed to changing the rules of objectives so that you have to actually disembark and sit on an objective to hold one. Some objectives are things to be 'captured' or 'recovered' and tanks don't have grapplers to do such a thing (although that would make for interesting codex vehicle upgrades like Ork grabba-objectives!)

My biggest complaint, movement...WTF is this everything moves 6 inches, except the stuff that doesnt...which is like 60% of things in the game. Just bring back the M stat.

Next would be special rules...not every unit needs a laundry list of special rules. When every unit type has 5 of them, they stop being "special".

No removing casualties from the back of a unit in CC...only remove units in base contact. No more removing an Ork boy from the back of the unit when my SM is in base contact with (and just killed) the Nob w the power claw.

This will never happen but...Id like to see SM be statted more like they are in the fluff. That would make a PA SM more like a termie...and up from there. Boost the points to match. The are supposed to be super elite...equal to or better than all others in the galaxy, not just a bit better, but far and away. However, to do this would mean lower numbers in SM armies, thus less minis sold...and we cant have that now can we.

The problem I think with forcing disembarkation is that some armies, primarily Space Marines, wouldn't have too much of a problem with this. Others, primarily those without T4 and 3+ saves, are going to feel it much more. A unit of Space Marines can sit on an objective for a few turns and repel many assaulters, and can take hits, and will likely pass morale checks or can regroup and retake the objective. A unit of Dire Avengers, Fire Warriors, or Guardsmen is going to get wiped by a single heavy flamer and won't be able to repel many assaults.

As someone with both MEQ armies and GEQ armies, as well as an army that is incapable of mechanization (nids), I'd really rather not see this change made, it's going to make it very difficult for non-SM armies.

It's not really a core rules thing but they're so common it should work:

lascannon S9 Ap1 Rng48
Meltagun S8 Ap2 Rng12 melta
Multimelta S8 Ap2 Rng24 melta

I think it would balance them out a bit more

Redbeard wrote:I'd like to see them get rid of wound allocations tricks.

I'd like them to move more towards "true line of sight" - if you can only see one model, you can only kill one model. Likewise, if only models within a 2" range can make attacks, then casualties from an assault should come from those models within 2".

I'd like to see number of models in the combat count for something in resolution. In 4th, it was all about outnumbering. In 5th, it's all about wounds inflicted. Surely there's some middle ground (If there are three of you, and I killed one, and there are ten of me, and you killed two, did you really win than combat? It was roughly 3:1 before, and now it's 4:1, seems like my side is winning to me.

I'd like to see some risk added back to using transports. I'm okay with the harder-to-damage vehicles (5th compared to 4th) but bring back entanglement at least, so it's not a no-risk no-brainer choice to go mech.

These 4 changes. This would be worth releasing a 6th edition rulebook.

The rest are problems with the codexes, that they could easily fix by putting a bit of restraint on the authors. Just say 'No Robin, Gargoyles don't need that special rule. Find a USR that fits'. 'No Phil, Space Wolves shouldn't be riding Wolves.'

When I got my first grasp of what the game was like when I bought a Battle For Macragge set in Scotland, I saw this game as what I liked to describe "a dramatic painting of two armies facing each other exchanging volleys of gunshots and flurries of punches". When I started actually playing right when 5th Ed came out, I was utterly dissapointed by the fleets of "boring transport hugging sods" of today, as I see little to no character in these faceless cut-and-paste box arrangements. If there is something 6th Ed. should do is fix this reliance, nay, this ADDICTION to transports by making them less worth their points ala-the "feared" 4th ed. rule set.

4E wasn't an edition where transports sucked, it's where they sucked for anyone but Eldar and Tau. Chimeras, Rhinos, Trukks, etc were all...terrible and horrifically expensive, and probably the best way to get your squads killed. You almost never saw Rhino's or Chimeras in armies in 4E, and if you did, it was primarily for mobile terrain that blocked LoS, and little else. For Skimmerspam armies, they were incredibly hard to destroy and the LoS rules meant they were typically out of sight as well, and were for almost all intents and purposes immune to CC attacks. Neither of these are/were good for the game or how Transports should be utilized.

Again, the best way to balance this isn't by making transports worthless or nerfing the crap out of them, it's to make infantry that aren't imbarked able to interact with the battlefield more and have other options. Digging in, deploying minefields, sighting for artillery, etc.

Vaktathi wrote:4E wasn't an edition where transports sucked, it's where they sucked for anyone but Eldar and Tau. Chimeras, Rhinos, Trukks, etc were all...terrible and horrifically expensive, and probably the best way to get your squads killed. You almost never saw Rhino's or Chimeras in armies in 4E, and if you did, it was primarily for mobile terrain that blocked LoS, and little else. For Skimmerspam armies, they were incredibly hard to destroy and the LoS rules meant they were typically out of sight as well, and were for almost all intents and purposes immune to CC attacks. Neither of these are/were good for the game or how Transports should be utilized.

Again, the best way to balance this isn't by making transports worthless or nerfing the crap out of them, it's to make infantry that aren't imbarked able to interact with the battlefield more and have other options. Digging in, deploying minefields, sighting for artillery, etc.

I didn't really mean to say, "they sucked", I only really knew the rules of how deadly they were to use them, hence the aforementioned "no-brainer risk". Which was really the only aspect I was looking at, sorry for not writing specifically what I was trying to project

I only do really wish for them to be less mandatory, realistic/sensible rules or not.

@ Vaktathi

Bad stuff first...

In regards to vehicle assaults, I'd really like to see some changes. I'd like to see hits on rear armor *only* if you reduce attacks to 1 as per grenades. A Nob on a bike running at full speed against a moving Predator isn't going to be able to hit the weak spots, or even try for somethign like vison slits. He's going to try and just whack something as hard as he can.

I'd say a big no to this one. There is no point in it. I can understand what you are saying about bikers, but that is no reason to punish units like genestealers who are going to be crawling all over the thing hitting weak points, yet have no grenades.

Shooting weapons in the assault phase would be another no as it completely unbalances the game. It allows troops that are good at shooting but poor in assaults to now be good at both, yet assault troops are still only worthwhile in assaults.

I kind of like the idea about giving footslogging infantry more options than going to ground, but by forcing footslogging armies into an immobile defensive posture, the mechanized attackers are always at an advantage in objective games. They would be much more capable of reaching and contesting opposing objectives while being able to hold their own than the defensive footsloggers. On top of that, games get boring very quick if you are essentially forced into a defensive battle simply by the army you play (see Necrons). I'd rather leave the transport balance as it is than try to shoehorn armies into "attacker/defender" roles.

The problem with FnP resides in the codexes, not the rule itself. It has a place where it's used sparingly (one unit in an army like CSM plague marines, or Nids where only a couple units can get it), or with Necrons where it's the basis of the entire army (in one form or another). When you give it out wholesale as an aura that can cover the entire army with just a few properly placed units (I'm looking at you Blood Angels) and the army doesn't even NEED it, then it becomes a problem.

and for the good...

I agree, lose the KPs, go back to VPs.

The change to how vehicles fire when moving is interesting, and I'd be willing to give that one a go. I've never liked their idea of defensive weapons. Which leads to your idea for pintle mounted weapons, which I love. It allows them to do what they actually do in the real world.

While assaults should be the most decisive battles in the game, I agree that the current multiple assault rules are pretty much completely effed. Units should be accountable for thier own failings, not the failings of other units around them.

(Just my opinions of course)

I'd like infantry squads to be able to divide their fire. If you've got meltaguns, a missile launcher and lasguns, you should be able to make maximum use of all your firepower. The only restriction should be all weapons with the exact same profile need to shoot the same target. So in the above example, the meltaguns can shoot at a transport, the lasguns can shoot at a nearby squad, and the missile launcher can shoot at a Dreadnought near by. The only limitation is that this all happens simultaneously. So, you can't meltagun a transport and the shoot lasguns at the passenger if it's wrecked.

Surprised no one else has sad it yet but I think they will throw in premeasuring just like it is in Fantasy.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

I'd say a big no to this one. There is no point in it. I can understand what you are saying about bikers, but that is no reason to punish units like genestealers who are going to be crawling all over the thing hitting weak points, yet have no grenades.

I understand that, and perhaps there's a better way to work it out, however I just find that for many things the auto-hit on rear armor simply makes some units way too good at it, it's way too easy for certain things to engage and destroy a vehicle in an assault. Like a CSM DP, hitting with 5 attacks against with a 75% chance to penetrate on each against anything but a Monolith, Demolisher type Leman Russ, Land Raider or some Walkers, or a Dreadnought with a 100% chance to penetrate anything that isn't one of those units, is a bit silly.

Perhaps only for "non-infantry" units? That would encompass most units where it seems to be most silly.

Although that said, even as someone with a Tyranid army, I've never liked the idea of Genestealers as anti-tank units, that's more of a desperation use, there really should be something more in there for that, although I think the ball was dropped *hard* with that book, it really feels like it was written in just a couple days and shoved out the door with multiple conflicting trains of thought.

Shooting weapons in the assault phase would be another no as it completely unbalances the game. It allows troops that are good at shooting but poor in assaults to now be good at both, yet assault troops are still only worthwhile in assaults.

I erred in that I meant only against vehicles. Not against everything. My mistake. And in that regard, I don't think it'd be too bad. It'd also give more units greater opportunities to destroy those much maligned transports. Hive Guard, DE Warriors, Zoanthropes, Melta-sisters, Tankbustas, etc all of a sudden become much more of a threat. Perhaps with a "Gets Hot!" component to represent putzing the attack.




Although, something that just popped into my head so take it as it is, an alternate take on all of this could also be to allow vehicles to attack back, a "crush and grind" approach, where they'd get a single WS1 (not very skilled), I2 attack (goes after most things, but before the slowest of attacks) against everything engaged with it (I would say base contact but that would get *very* gamed methinks, although may be overkill against horde units) with a Strength equal to 3+1 for every frontal AV above 10 (e.g. AV10 would be S3, AV11 would be S4, AV12 S5, AV13 S6, AV14 S7), that would allow all normal saves if stationary, ignore armor saves if the vehicle had moved. This way there's some danger element (as physically assaulting a tank in real life is one of the quickest ways to get killed on a battlefield) that doesn't make vehicle assaults such one-sided no brainer affairs.

I kind of like the idea about giving footslogging infantry more options than going to ground, but by forcing footslogging armies into an immobile defensive posture, the mechanized attackers are always at an advantage in objective games.

Only in say, Seize Ground games that aren't Dawn of War or Spearhead (where they can start with entenched units on objectives). In Capture and Control they could stack a whole bunch of dug in infantry on their objective to lock it down and use their FA and Elites to to nasty things to the other players objective.

Although it was only an example, there could be many things. Units that don't take transports could take a 6"x3" minefield marker for 30pts that's difficult/dangerous and causes an S6 hit on rear armor for any vehicle. There's lots of things one could do to make footslogging lists better without having to smack transports that would add lots of life to the game. Traps, trenches, assault preparations, artillery spotting, etc could all be used to make footsloggers better. If a mechanized unit knows that the big dug in squad sitting on the objective is going to have cover, difficult/dangerous terrain around it, and is going to get Counterattack if they assault in straight away, it makes even a squad of Fire Warriors much more daunting than they would be otherwise. There could also be greater access to stuff like camo netting or equivalents (unembarked units that haven't moved if shot at must be spotted using Night Fight rules) and the like. There's a lot of ways that footsloggers could be made a lot more fun and viable, without needing to nerf transports.

That said, I think trying to footslog infantry across the board *should* be a difficult and dangerous, it is in real life (hence why modern armies *are* mechanized), and should be in the game. For armies that rely on that (Tyranids) they need to have their units built (generally large in number) so that they can make it across and engage or have other avenues of attack (infiltrate, outflanking, etc). In that regard you might also see more of a balance in many armies, with a footslogging defensive "anvil" component and a mechanized "hammer" component that works far better than it does now.

The problem with FnP resides in the codexes, not the rule itself. It has a place where it's used sparingly (one unit in an army like CSM plague marines, or Nids where only a couple units can get it), or with Necrons where it's the basis of the entire army (in one form or another). When you give it out wholesale as an aura that can cover the entire army with just a few properly placed units (I'm looking at you Blood Angels) and the army doesn't even NEED it, then it becomes a problem.

I agree, however if anything we are seeing increased access to FNP across the board, and on units that are harder and harder to kill. Once it becomes so widespread, it's going to take another decade to reign it back in, and thus hitting during an adjustment edition is probably the best way to go.

and for the good...

I agree, lose the KPs, go back to VPs.

The change to how vehicles fire when moving is interesting, and I'd be willing to give that one a go. I've never liked their idea of defensive weapons. Which leads to your idea for pintle mounted weapons, which I love. It allows them to do what they actually do in the real world.

The "defensive" classification was always weird to me (should have been "primary" and "secondary" armament), and so often the pintle mounts were just useless next to the other weapons on a vehicle for its primary role (e.g. storm bolters on Vindicators, heavy stubbers on Bassy's, etc)

While assaults should be the most decisive battles in the game, I agree that the current multiple assault rules are pretty much completely effed. Units should be accountable for thier own failings, not the failings of other units around them.

Exactly, way too easy to cheese units that may have actually won their section of combat or that otherwise wouldn't be facing a threat.



I've also remembered of a couple other things I'd like to see changed.

The vehicle squadron rules as they are are particularly atrocious and heavily incentivize most players not to take squadrons of units. The immobilized=destroyed bit was a cop-out to avoid having to deal with anchor units (which was never really a problem) and the free extra armor was a gimme counterbalance thrown in that doesn't really make up for it in most cases (given that most squadronable vehicles are gun platforms, or they already have EA). The ease with which vehicles are killed in squadrons is just too much. It's possible to inflict melta penetration hits against a tank in a leman russ squadron that's up to 22" away from any enemy models and out of LoS, or inflict Powerklaw hits on one that's 16" away from any enemy models. That's an issue. I don't mind having to all target one enemy unit or that some shooting gets spread around, but only shots/attacks that are in range or actively engaged in CC with should be able to be allocated to other vehicles. If those two changes were made (must be in range & LoS or actually engaged with enemy models in CC to be allocated hits, and no immobilzed=wrecked) it would make them viable in most cases.

Ramming as it currently is is silly. I'd really like it to be reworked or just made back to 4E tank shock where you just moved the enemy vehicle. Not 100% sure how to rework it, but it needs it.

I hope not. I think the occasional failed assault or barrage keeps things interesting.

Rymafyr wrote:

Lastly area terrain needs a bit of a reworking to have maybe some more specific designations. I really hate a squad sitting on a hilltop gets a cover save when there really is no freaking cover available to them.

Then don't designate a hill as area terrain. Done. This is a problem that my group has had since time immemorial. Why they insist on it, i don't know, but we settled it as follows: if its a smooth rolling hill, you only get cover from being behind it. If its a rocky hill w/ outcroppings, trees/brush, then its area terrain.

I only have a couple complaints: mech, assaults, cover, missions, and vehicles.

I think Mech can be fixed easily enough, add a result of 7 onto the damage chart and bring back the old vehicle annihilated result, there are more than enough ways out there to get the +1 from the 6. This would take away some of the surefire safety that makes meching up so attractive. Personally, I think it will happen, simply because Apoc allows something similar to superheavies, and the way I see it, if superheavies can lose all their passengers, than non-superheavies sure as hell can. This one simple change would have a tremendous impact, I think. I just hope it wouldn't tip the scales in the other direction, but considering how cheap transports have become as of late, I feel like it would finally achieve 'zen' between the old 4th ed. system and the current 5th.

I think assaults are still too powerful (but I started life as a Tau player, and it hurts me to see the little blue guys suffer so badly), especially when you now have the ability to deep strike and assault in the same turn (Blood Angels Vanguard Vets or whatever). I personally would like to see a charge reactions system implemented into 40k. I see no reason why a unit wouldn't voluntarily disengage and fall back from an oncoming assault.

Standard cover needs to return to 5+. Giving EVERYTHING a 50% chance of saving almost all the time is totally ridiculous, needlessly drags out games (since the average weapons ap is a 5, but everything is getting a 4+ save anyway), and is open to abuse by armies that don't really need it (guard/ork/nid hordes). Other than that, I don't really mind the current system all that much, I think its much clearer and easier to play than the convoluted and illogical system we had back in 4th.

I have a couple thoughts regarding missions:
-KP's need to be fixed (lets just go back to the good old days of VP's and keep it simple, huh? If the math is too hard for the kiddies to figure out, then they probably could write a list anyway, right?)
-Objectives need to not be capturable/contestable in the last turn (unless they were contested in the previous turn). The most frustrating thing for me is the last turn objective grab by a wave serpent that spent the entire game disengaged from combat hiding out behind some rocks with a DAVU squad riding shotgun.... and I'm primarily an Eldar player.... They kinda fixed this with the random turn length thing, but considering the number of local tournaments I've been to where the scenarios didn't call for that to be the case, and how common having a 6th turn but not a 7th turn is, it doesn't nearly go far enough. Besides that, this rule would make it a bit more realistic. A unit that jealously guarded their objective for most of the game shouldn't lose it simply because an enemy unit swooped in on them at the last second, I mean, at least give them a chance at a rebuttal to the attempt (usually the conniving Eldar player takes the second turn so that you don't have this option).

And vehicles: for the love of god fix this whole defensive weapon nonsense!!!

And the perils table sounds ace, though I doubt that would happen, since GW goes to great lengths to ensure that psykers are not percieved as the 40k version of wizards.

And personally, I like the allocation table, it keeps things fair, and it means you have a realistic shot of wiping out the specialists. What, has everyone forgotten the dark days where you would have to destroy an entire units worth of ablative wounds in order to get to the one special weapon in the squad? At least the current system has done away with much of the min-max spam that used to be so common.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:Make Transports more expensive, the psyker USR maybe gets a power within itself to disable vehicles to some extent?

That's not really what I'm talking about. I hate the inconsistancy between psykers being unaffected by SitW and similar things while in a transport, yet they can still use powers like Shield of Sanguinus that project outside of the transport and affect units around them. If a transport is going to be a barrier, then let it be a barrier both ways. If it's going to be transparent to powers, let it be transparent both ways.

This is a flaw with the SitW power and its faq ruling. Its not an issue that can be fixed by the main codex. All other anti-psycher abilities work against embarked psychers.

My list of things to do in 6th ed. is long and vast, as I personally think 5th ed. is the worst rule set to come out since the change from 2nd to third. However, regardless of what I want I see these changes as coming.

1 - Cover saves will go back to a base of 5+ or infantry will lose the ability to screen other units.
2 - TLOS is here to stay, but they might bring back area terrain for things specifically like forests. Where its a forest can be a forest again and not 4 clumps of shubbery.
3 - Wound allocation will change, for the better or worse is yet to be decided.
4 - Change of the vehicle damage tables. AP1 will no longer do what it currently does to try to bring other assault weapons back into popularity over the melta.
5 - Vehicle movement vs weapon firing will change again.
6 - exploding vehicles will wound based on a defined number again, it will not be an Strength vs Toughness anymore.
7 - I think they will change rapid fire weapons to have a new ability besides just double tap at half distance.
8 - New missions and starting layout. Objective missions are here to stay, kill points gone.
9 - Deep strike mishap will be modified or flat out changed so it wont be as disastrous anymore.
10 - Loose the ability to put the whole army into reserve again, some stuff will have to start on the table with special exceptions because of wargear/droppods/special rules/ etc.
11 - Outflank will stay, but positive results will be 1/2 of the time, not 2/3s as it is now.
12 - Fearless wounds will be completely changed as will how multiple assaults are resolved.
13 - The run rule will stay (no matter how much I hate it) but expect fleet to do something besides just allow assault (lots of things fleet that don't want to get into assault).
14 - They will gain a psychic phase and not just rely it to work during shooting as it is now. It will have more than just 1 paragraph of rules.
15 - Expect new definitions on player turn vs game turn.

These are just a few of the things I'm expecting, but the level of which they will change I cannot even begin to predict.

Better vehicle damage table

Hit modifiers based on range.

Proper cover rules

And an optional advanced version of the game so if you want added complexity you can have it.

It will never happen but i think it would be fun if the game changed from for D6 to D10. so you could show the difference between eldar and tau armour and space amrine and carnifex/hive tyrant armour and the difference between tau and ig shooting
and the difference between eldar guardians and ig training.

Something needs to be done about Deep Striking and the pseudo flyers currently in the game.

And yes, I agree that switching to D10 would help a LOT.

Jayden63 wrote:

My list of things to do in 6th ed. is long and vast, as I personally think 5th ed. is the worst rule set to come out since the change from 2nd to third. However, regardless of what I want I see these changes as coming.

1 - Cover saves will go back to a base of 5+ or infantry will lose the ability to screen other units.

I completely disagree here. It makes horde footslogging armies suicide, even more than they currently are.

2 - TLOS is here to stay, but they might bring back area terrain for things specifically like forests. Where its a forest can be a forest again and not 4 clumps of shubbery.

The rulebook cannot dictate how people use the terrain pieces that they have available.

3 - Wound allocation will change, for the better or worse is yet to be decided.

They need to stop this idiocy of clumping models into groups. If you're going to specifically allocate wounds, resolve them on a model-by-model basis or don't do it at all.

4 - Change of the vehicle damage tables. AP1 will no longer do what it currently does to try to bring other assault weapons back into popularity over the melta.

That's a problem with the AP system. They need to go back to the armor save modifiers system, and then you could just apply this modifier to the vehicle's armor value before the armor penetration roll.

5 - Vehicle movement vs weapon firing will change again.

It had better, otherwise the only weapon I will ever include on my battlewagons is a single big shoota, so that in case of weapon destroyed results, there is something to remove.

6 - exploding vehicles will wound based on a defined number again, it will not be an Strength vs Toughness anymore.

I think this is fine the way it is.

7 - I think they will change rapid fire weapons to have a new ability besides just double tap at half distance.

Perhaps one shot if they move, two if they don't, same range.

8 - New missions and starting layout. Objective missions are here to stay, kill points gone.

I would prefer for victory points to be the base for all missions, with objectives being bonus VP's.

9 - Deep strike mishap will be modified or flat out changed so it wont be as disastrous anymore.

Absolutely. Losing a key unit to a deep strike mishap is infuriating.

10 - Loose the ability to put the whole army into reserve again, some stuff will have to start on the table with special exceptions because of wargear/droppods/special rules/ etc.

Or give the enemy some sort of bonus, perhaps a special move to spread themselves out or something, because they know something is coming.

11 - Outflank will stay, but positive results will be 1/2 of the time, not 2/3s as it is now.

This perhaps needs to be changed more comprehensively. Or it could be my bad experiences with genestealers and striking scorpions.

12 - Fearless wounds will be completely changed as will how multiple assaults are resolved.

Fearless wounds needs to be gotten rid of completely. It's stupidly arbitrary.

13 - The run rule will stay (no matter how much I hate it) but expect fleet to do something besides just allow assault (lots of things fleet that don't want to get into assault).

No giving more armies move-shoot-move. It's bad enough that Tau do that.

14 - They will gain a psychic phase and not just rely it to work during shooting as it is now. It will have more than just 1 paragraph of rules.

So psykers can run or shoot and use a power? No way.

15 - Expect new definitions on player turn vs game turn.

I've never really experienced any problems with that, but then I'm not a tournie player.

These are just a few of the things I'm expecting, but the level of which they will change I cannot even begin to predict.

We should start to see the first rumors surfacing on Warseer (Say what you will, but that is where they always show up first!) sometime late next year. Perhaps this thread will inspire them to pull their heads out of their butts and give us a clear set of rules.

Also THEY BETTER CHANGE KP TO VP

1. Wound allocation needs to be fixed in the worst possible way. When I have my genestealers score 6 rending and 10 normal wounding hits on 6 Death Company 6 models should be off the table. You should not be able to game the allocation rules and have multiple models walk away from it. This will also solve a lot of stupid in some of the rulebooks like nobs squads and thunder wolf squads all with vastly different gear or 2 Tyranid prime and a 2 carnifex squad built just to exploit a rule to their advantage that's supposed to work against them.

2. Reserving your entire army to deny the opponent a shooting phase. Just lame.

3. No retreat and multiple combats. Blindingly unfair to tyranids and needs to go so so badly.

4. 4+ standard cover save. Seems like overkill in my opinion

5. Mech dominating the game at all levels. lighter vehicles need to be more fragile, and heavys need to be tough. Having an almost equal chance to blow up a landraider and rhino with lances and close range melta weapons is slowed. Structure points? Wounds? Bigger damage table with modifiers for total armor? Plenty of solutions possible.

6. Melta needs to be lessened. When every single special weapon you see on the board is the same....well, someone screwed up. Nerfing mech will hopefully solve some of this, but I'd like to see the +1 on the chart go away. Or only get the +1 at close range and not the extra D6. They are doubly more effective against vehicles then any other weapon and it makes them a no-brainer in a mech heavy environment.

It just seems like the "best" units all abuse one of the above issues to some degree.