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.

Luna Dragon wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

Are you crazy?! It's almost half of my guardsmen get killed with their transport same with marines! I bet you play dark eldar or orks and want to be better than other people!

He already is. He just wants to bump mech guard down from "can occasionally beat him if his opponent is extremely lucky" to "lol tabled turn one, always". And is probably being facetious.

It's obvious he's being facetious. I play Orks and even I don't like that idea.

However, there no difference from some of the other suggestions, it's only more obvious.

It would be nice to balance out MEC by either;

1) Raising the costs of all imperial vehicles, especially transports, back to their 4th edition cost

2) Make vehicles slightly easier to kill, and then drop all non imperial vehicles, especially transports, down in cost.

I'd like to see vehicles generally cost about three times as much and be about three times tougher and more destructive. Can't say as for what it'd do for the balance of the game, more of a personal preference for the way they play.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Luna Dragon wrote:I bet you play dark eldar or orks and want to be better than other people!

He already is.

This made me smile. From what I've read of Dashofpepper's tacticas, it was exactly what I was thinking when I read Luna Dragon's post.

1) New damage table, keep all the current modifiers to it.

Shaken (same)
Stunned (same)
Damaged (shooters choice of Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed)
Destroyed-Wrecked (same)
Destroyed-Exploded (same)
Destroyed-Annihilated (same as an explosion, but people inside the tank take a S6 AP2 hit [S5 for open topped])


2) If you Destroy an occupied transport in close combat:

a) you deal damage from the explosion as normal (if there is an explosion)
b) the passengers are placed on the battlefield in base contact with the assaulting unit. They are now locked in combat. No one counts as charging. Counts as the second round of combat.

This removes the "surround a vehicle and wreck it, but not explode it, and the people inside are gone"
It replaces this with a different penalty to transports in close combat, but it applies to all types of destroyed results and not just to wrecks.


3) Change wound allocation.

a) You start with the lowest AP the go to the Highest AP wounds.
b) You roll based on save, not on equipment (ei. everyone taking a 4+ save or any type is rolled together, wounds taken out of that group)
c) You start with the highest save group first, then go down from there. (ie, you roll you 5+ INV group, then the 3+ INV group, then the 2+ Armor group)

This limits some of the wound allocation abuse, but there is still probably a way to abuse a system like this too.


4) Glossary of terms.

Amaya wrote:Without wound allocation Nobs and especially Paladins would be overpriced. Paladins would be useless without the current form of wound allocation.

This isn't really a good argument. When an edition changes some things are bound to be made less effective- while others are bound to be made more effective. You can't base an argument that "wound allocation needs to stay- otherwise nobs and paladins will be worse or were balanced according to wound allocation"

Orks and GKs (well probably not GKs until 7th ) will get an updated codex in 6th anyway, which would reflect the changes to that balance.

does there really need to be a sixth ed. im tired of buying new dex's, models, army ideas..... this old man is getting tired in general

GW is a company and company have to produce things if they wanna make a profit. 6th ed will come eventually, whether we want it to or not. At least we know GW reads these forums and might listen to our wishlisting.

1) Wound allocation as people have covered.
2) Some change to the vehicle damage chart, I liked svendrex's idea of being able to pick immobilized or weapon destroyed, the other stuff is a bit much but if 3 and 4 on the chart were damage and then the negative for glancing was only -1 or maybe extend the bonus from AP1 weapons to AP2 or AP1. So lascannns could kill vehicles easier but your lesser weapons like Autocannons would still have to work at it.
3) GLOSSARY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
4) I'd also like to see fewer "special rules" they began 5th by consolidating most of them under rules in the main rule book and then started making new ones like right away.

I'd like to see:

Make vehicles a bit more robust than they are now, or a bit better in terms of armour/hitting power somehow but get rid of dedicated transports. I want them all to be in fast attack or heavy support. I mean, we have to choose between several HQs option to fill two slots, why not make the tank option more cramped? You could still take 6 tank type things if they were in HS/FA.

For armies that rely a lot on mech, then dedicated transports could be special rules in those codices or a character could allow them to be taken as dedicated transports. Basically, i'd like to see less of them but make them more imposing.

Also, some kind of nerf to feel no pain. Whether it's a restriction to how many units can take it, a change to make it 5+ or a wargear cost. Sometimes an army can just spam it and I really think it's far too good to be as common as it is.

And, bring back to hit modifiers. It would really benefit some armies - like allow tau to be +1 BS at 12" so their rapid fire weapons are a genuine threat at that range. I'd also much prefer a -1 BS when shooting at a unit in heavy cover rather than them getting a 4+ or even a 3+ cover save. Cover should make it harder to hit something, not harder to damage after it has been hit.

Commisar Von Humps wrote:"I heard Guard so i loaded up on Dark Lances..." - Kiebler

I do so enjoy when list-tailoring turns around and bites someone in the ass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

akaean wrote:

Amaya wrote:Without wound allocation Nobs and especially Paladins would be overpriced. Paladins would be useless without the current form of wound allocation.

This isn't really a good argument. When an edition changes some things are bound to be made less effective- while others are bound to be made more effective. You can't base an argument that "wound allocation needs to stay- otherwise nobs and paladins will be worse or were balanced according to wound allocation"

Not to mention that Amaya is assuming that the full value of complex unit wound allocation was actually taken into account when those codexes were being written.

Things I'd like to see in 6E:

- No more turn 1 assaulting armies. Because it gives a strong advantage to some armies against others (exemple: BA against Tau, Tyranids against IG). IMHO, units with special movement rules should be able to assault on turn 2, all others should have to wait turn 3.

- A return to the 2D6 armor save system instead of 1D6. With changes to weapons stats and vehicle armor to go with it. Because 1D6 doesn't give enough flexibility when designing and balancing weapons and armors against each others, and that contributed to the invulnerable saves pandemy. Invulnerable saves, FNP or armor or whatever, should be exceptionnal. Cover would just increase a bit the value of normal save. It also gave birth to a system were a tau missle wouldn't be any more efficient against a power armor than a IG laser rifle, which strike me as stupid considering the difference in weapon cost and availability.
The old system was better because it wasn't just a binary choice of full save or no save at all.




PS: Before someone complain I'm biased because I play Tau, I also plan to play Eldars, BA, and maybe even Tyranids.

ColdSadHungry wrote:
And, bring back to hit modifiers. It would really benefit some armies - like allow tau to be +1 BS at 12" so their rapid fire weapons are a genuine threat at that range. I'd also much prefer a -1 BS when shooting at a unit in heavy cover rather than them getting a 4+ or even a 3+ cover save. Cover should make it harder to hit something, not harder to damage after it has been hit.

Shadowsword8 wrote:
- A return to the 2D6 armor save system instead of 1D6. With changes to weapons stats and vehicle armor to go with it. Because 1D6 doesn't give enough flexibility when designing and balancing weapons and armors against each others, and that contributed to the invulnerable saves pandemy. Invulnerable saves, FNP or armor or whatever, should be exceptionnal. Cover would just increase a bit the value of normal save. It also gave birth to a system were a tau missle wouldn't be any more efficient against a power armor than a IG laser rifle, which strike me as stupid considering the difference in weapon cost and availability.
The old system was better because it wasn't just a binary choice of full save or no save at all.

I think that both of these rules speak to something that a lot of 40k players would like to see.

Make rules for a Skimish size game with more complex rules.
Make some REAL "kill team" rules.


The above rules can make the game more complicated and make it take longer to play, especially in larger games.


If you are playing 500 pts or less, you can play with the "kill team" rules.
(stuff like advanced cover, save modifiers, more actions per model)

If you are playing 500-2500 pts, you can use the "normal game" rules.

If you are playing 2500+ pts, you can use the "apocalyspe" rules.
(Only the core rules, no statlines: Gargntuan creature rules, Super Heavy rules, Stratagems, Rules for multiple detachments)


the mini rulebook would only have the "normal" rules.

the larger rulebook would have the "kill team" and "apocalyspe" rules in it in addition to the "normal" rules.

Luna Dragon wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

Are you crazy?! It's almost half of my guardsmen get killed with their transport same with marines! I bet you play dark eldar or orks and want to be better than other people!

Where have you been?

I suppose personally I'd like to see a small reduction in reliance of cover saves and meching up to auto-win. 5+ cover save as standard sounds more reasonable in the long term. Handheld Shields could be made CC-based so it ends using them against range. Kill Points need a rethink but TBH I have little quarrel with the current edition.

Get rid of the extra saves needed to be taken from Fearless units that lose in close combat.

I would love to see a return to 4th were if only 2 models are visible then only those 2 can be seen.

IMHO the game was FARR more im guessing strategic when there was abstract terrain sizes. If we have some kind of clever abstract and LoS terrain rules we could possibly keep the normal generous 4+ cover. If not just make the average cover save a 5+.

Amaya wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

Of course the DE/Ork player would say that...

That doesn't make it any less valid of an opinion.

So, there are three problems I see to 5th ed that I'd like addressed.

1.) TLoS. Which is idiotic. In order to be properly competitive, you need to "model for advantage", which can get you thrown out of competitions. Ridiculous. Art and rules shouldn't mix.

2.) Wound wrapping. Revert back to 4th ed wounding and this problem is fixed

3.)

-Loki- wrote:Game wise, the way it is now, there's simply no drawbacks to meching up.

I don't succumb to the idea that meching up is in any way required, or really even gives THAT much of an advantage. The problem I have is that mech lists are the default, and you have to chose to take certain risks for certain rewards to run a different style.

I think that mech lists should give real rewards for real risks. Transports should be able to move an extra 6" (so that they're ACTUALLY faster than infantry), with dash's idea of everybody dying (instead of everybody getting out scott free, as is what usually happens) or something.

As-is, there being a default play style at all makes things more boring.

how about this for a vehicle damage chart.

1-Passes through- The shot passes harmlessly though the vehicle without hitting anything, however it is a little unnerving, the vehicle counts as having moved one speed faster than it actually does. (for instance a normal tank that moves 6" will count as cruising, and may not fire anything, and a vehicle that does not move counts as moving at combat speed)

2- Shrapnel- the shot causes shrapnel to fly around inside the vehicle, causing major disruption as crew members frantically try to fix punctured hoses, and search for medkits for shrapnel wounds. The vehicle may not fire or move until it's next turn

3- Ricohet- The shot has either richochetd inside the target or outright struck something of import. Either a weapon has been destroyed or the vehicle has been immobilized (firing players choice)

4- Pilot injury- The pilot has been killed or wounded, the vehicle is immobilized and may not fire in the next shooting phase.

5- Wrecked- The shot has hit the main power plant and the vehicle is no inoprable. All weapons are destroyed and the vehicle is immobilized, though troops may still cower inside it's hull. They do not have to disembark. The vehicle is now open topped.

6- Destroyed- the vehicle is destroyed all embarked units must immediately disembark and both the embarked unit and all models within 1" of the model take a single str 3 hit.


in any even if the vehicle has no remaining weapons and is immobilized and takes a single further hit, glancing or penetrating hit, it is destroyed and follows the rules for that.

I'd like to see cover adjusted to a 5+ as well. When the entire table routinely has what are essentially 4+ invulnerable saves at all times, it get a bit absurd.

That said, I'd also like to have it where you can only kill models you can see. If a squad A is firing at squad B, and all of Squad B is behind a wall except one guy, only that one guy should be killable.

I want a change to create different versions of deep striking (no deepstriking a teleporting squad with a jump pack IC-dumbest RAW ever)

I would also enjoy seeing charge reactions-but in order to react you must pass a leadership test and if failed you are automatically hit with no reaction possible. Also fearless units may only hold their ground no matter what (no shooting or fleeing)

Last but not least, I want the rumored BT vs Daemons box set to be truth. My two favorite 40k armies in a single box set? Yes, please smile upon your favored servant oh great GW. Lol

in general i would like to see vehicles make sense. Balanced sense but sense. as it is now they are slow hulking behemoths that can only fire basically when they are moving as slow as in infantry soldier.

Either reduce plasma costs or remove gets hot
Reduce cover to 5+ standard

Glancing hits at -1 on table,
-AP at -1
AP1 at +1

Str 5 hits from exploding vehicle unless open topped (only str 3)

Stormshields will give a 4++ (since GW will then try to sell us more lightning claws!)

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

NO.

There's a reason you never saw Transports in 2nd ed unless they were literally covered in Stormbolters and had a suicide squad inside.

If the game returned to that, I have a feeling I'd leave 40K behind as a gaming venture.

Platuan4th wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that non-open topped vehicles with passengers in them that get wrecked or exploded should auto-kill the passengers.

NO.

There's a reason you never saw Transports in 2nd ed unless they were literally covered in Stormbolters and had a suicide squad inside.

If the game returned to that, I have a feeling I'd leave 40K behind as a gaming venture.

know what, if they made vehicles harder to kill, like a lot harder, I wouldn't mind. Make figuring out what happens to exploded transports easier. just plop them down and if they blow take them off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a few things they could do is:

1. Make troops assaulting a vehicle assault the armor facing they are touching.
2. Make it so that troops in the way of a vehicle that has declared it is moving at cruising speed or better take a str 10 ap 2 hit (and only those models under it can be removed)
3. Make hitting in CC harder. (for moving vehicles) something like 6+ for cruising 5+ for combat and can't hit if it moved flat out. (cause who's going to try and punch something moving at 50mph?
4. All grenades on Vehicles are a 5+ all the time (easier to hit a moving target but still fairly difficult)

1. Run / Fleet fix. Fleet used to benefit assault-oriented units, by getting them closer, and shooting-oriented units, by advancing when not in range. With Run added, assault-oriented units with Fleet took a bit of a hit, and shooting-oriented units lost their benefits altogether. Think Vespid.

2. Vehicles: While not quite as dominant in competitive builds as people seem to believe, mech still holds the majority. Something small needs to be done to either weaken vehicles, or impose penalties on people who take them.

Ailaros wrote:

-Loki- wrote:Game wise, the way it is now, there's simply no drawbacks to meching up.

I don't succumb to the idea that meching up is in any way required, or really even gives THAT much of an advantage. The problem I have is that mech lists are the default, and you have to chose to take certain risks for certain rewards to run a different style.

You don't see that the reson meching up has become the default is because transports are simply too good for the incredibly low points cost right now?

A space marine squad gains, for a mere 35 points, an ablative armour value which has no risk to the squad when destroyed, reliable 12" of movement, and loses nothing. Most cover will also grant said transport a cover save, something that in previous editions was Hull Down, changing penetrating hits to glancing. Coupled with a far more lenient damage table for vehicles, that squad is in pretty good shape to ignore all fire directed at it until it decides to get out of the vehicle or it gets destroyed. When it finally does get destroyed, they've got no penalty when they start running to cover in their next turn.

At the very least, adding entaglement back means there's a chance they're going to be in the open when their transport gets destroyed, and adds a little risk to taking that transport, seeing as a careless player could have their squad in assault range of something nasty.

I've always said, since 5e, that what they need to do is buff shooty infantry to make up for the power of transports.

To that end, allow Infantry to split fire based on weapon type. Rapid Fire weapons can shoot target A, Assault Weapons in the same unit can shoot target B and Heavy Weapons in the same unit can shoot target C.

This might go some way to redressing the balance, however I have to say that Dash's idea isn't without some merit with the cheapness in points of Rhinos and Chimeras compared to how hard they are to bring down. I don't see the problem with having troops transported in enclosed vehicles get removed from play on a 'Vehicle Explodes' result.

I honestly don't want to see mech being completely useless but right now it's certainly a little too good. Open-topped vehicles already suffer enough of a penalty that just blanket nerfing transports would curb stomp the Ork and DE codices. Mech Orks of all builds from the Ork Codex does not need nerfing and the DE book is quite finely balanced.

DeviantApostle wrote:I've always said, since 5e, that what they need to do is buff shooty infantry to make up for the power of transports.

To that end, allow Infantry to split fire based on weapon type. Rapid Fire weapons can shoot target A, Assault Weapons in the same unit can shoot target B and Heavy Weapons in the same unit can shoot target C.

This might go some way to redressing the balance, however I have to say that Dash's idea isn't without some merit with the cheapness in points of Rhinos and Chimeras compared to how hard they are to bring down. I don't see the problem with having troops transported in enclosed vehicles get removed from play on a 'Vehicle Explodes' result.

I honestly don't want to see mech being completely useless but right now it's certainly a little too good. Open-topped vehicles already suffer enough of a penalty that just blanket nerfing transports would curb stomp the Ork and DE codices. Mech Orks of all builds from the Ork Codex does not need nerfing and the DE book is quite finely balanced.

So...by your suggestion Imperial Guard would become unbeatable? No thanks. That kind of change would make everybody a guard player and only a moron with horrible dice luck could lose that game. If a 50 man infantry squad could split lasgun, lascannon and flamer fire...yuck. What's the point in playing against something like that? GW wouldn't do it-everybody would quit.

timetowaste85 wrote:

DeviantApostle wrote:I've always said, since 5e, that what they need to do is buff shooty infantry to make up for the power of transports.

To that end, allow Infantry to split fire based on weapon type. Rapid Fire weapons can shoot target A, Assault Weapons in the same unit can shoot target B and Heavy Weapons in the same unit can shoot target C.

This might go some way to redressing the balance, however I have to say that Dash's idea isn't without some merit with the cheapness in points of Rhinos and Chimeras compared to how hard they are to bring down. I don't see the problem with having troops transported in enclosed vehicles get removed from play on a 'Vehicle Explodes' result.

I honestly don't want to see mech being completely useless but right now it's certainly a little too good. Open-topped vehicles already suffer enough of a penalty that just blanket nerfing transports would curb stomp the Ork and DE codices. Mech Orks of all builds from the Ork Codex does not need nerfing and the DE book is quite finely balanced.

So...by your suggestion Imperial Guard would become unbeatable? No thanks. That kind of change would make everybody a guard player and only a moron with horrible dice luck could lose that game. If a 50 man infantry squad could split lasgun, lascannon and flamer fire...yuck. What's the point in playing against something like that? GW wouldn't do it-everybody would quit.

Actually the army it would benefit most is Marines, not IG. Most of the time with IG the rest of the shooting has no viable targets or isn't going to hurt much anyway. With Marines however, if they could melta a transport to bump a unit out, bolt pistol a squad, then charge *both*? **** that. Or, SM's facing IG, split bolter fire between three IG units, putting enough wounds on all 3 to force morale tests on average? Sillyness. It's not IG you'd need to worry about, it'd be Marines. It'd be a *huge* boost to Marine shooting. With IG, it's pretty much *only* blob platoons that would really see any difference. Vets wouldn't care, non-blob Infantry squads wouldn't care, heavy weapons teams wouldn't care, etc.