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.

I'd reprint 2nd with codices for the new(er) races

Staggering and blending the turns would be nice. Something like I move you move, I attack you attack, I assault you assault.

Something with terrain would be really nice. I read a WHF battle report in WD and was impressed about how much then used terrain and what they did with it.

I also whould like to see the different books like cites of death, planet strike, Apocalypse blended together into a more connected system. Also make them more core to the game.

Well I am thinking here, why not just include more games we can use are mins for.

All vehicles use the Fast vehicle rules for moving and firing. Fast vehicles are just that, faster, not magically better at shooting.

Otherwise, clean up and incorporate the various FAQ answers into the core rules, clear up ambiguities like 'can a squad in a vehicle fail a Morale check and if so what happens?' and add in a psychic phase or similar which allows all armies to have psychic defence, job done.

Brother SRM wrote:

Blood and Slaughter wrote:1. It might be possible to go to a system of Player 1 move - player 2 fire - player 1 assault -player 2 move - player 1 fire - player 2 assault, but I'm not sure that would actually improve the game overall. Personally I don't mucjh fret over first turn but I do agree for most armies it's a problem.

2. Reduce most monstrous creatures to T6. Allow vehicles to be stunned by any fire directed at them (not quite sure how this mechanic would easily work but plastering a vehicle with small arms fire is often effective in 'real life'.

3. It's possible that a solution would see vehicles and heavy weapons rise in cost and basic infantry perhaps drop.

4. All terrain should be 4+ cover. That's simple and where I play almost universal.

1. Who knows what that would do for game balance, but it's confusing as hell in practice. That doesn't flow well at all.

2. If all vehicles can be stunned by small arms fire, then people won't take vehicles anymore. The reason to take them is because it keeps that fire off your guys. Monstrous Creatures are fine as is.

3. Basic infantry don't need a price drop, heavy weapons are already more expensive than they were in 4th.

4. Most terrain is 4+ cover - the only distinctions are for hedges and fences, and fortified bunkers. There's decidedly little that isn't 4+ anyway, which I actually think is a bit of a problem.

Personally, I would put more danger into riding in vehicles but by no stretch make them the rolling coffins they were in 4th. I would love to revamp the vehicle damage chart to include things like damaged drive (can only move half speed) damaged optics (-1 BS to a minimum of 1) out of control results, and more dangerous explosions. You could do this on a 2D6 system, or a D6 system as is but with more modifiers.

I think an interesting change to the instant death rule would be that it had to be target's toughness x2 +1 for instant death to take effect. In other words, a Tyranid Warrior with toughness of 4 can only be instant killed by something of strength 9 or 10. Adding in multiple levels of rules like Feel No Pain would be cool too, like FnP on a 6+ for some units, 5+ for others, etc. In addition, I would like some kind of suppression mechanic. If a unit has to take a number of saves equal to it's number, it must take a LD test regardless of whether or not it's fearless. If it fails, it has to move at half speed/shoot at half range for the round or something like that.

Generally I'd like to see the game become a little more complex, but not by a whole lot.

I really like your suppression mechanic and will be stealing it

If a vehicle is stunned then the dudes inside cannot get out.

If a vehicle is wreaked then s3 hits. If it explodes save-1 or DIE (invunerable saves can be taken as normal)

Reduce most cover to 5+

Remove 'gets hot' OR reduce plasma costs by 5 pts

Make a heavy bolter assault 2 or heavy 4 (pinning)

Phototoxin wrote:If a vehicle is wreaked then s3 hits. If it explodes save-1 or DIE (invunerable saves can be taken as normal)

Of all the hilariously bad suggestions I've seen for transport death this is the absolute worst. Do you think only Marines use vehicles or something?

Jollydevil wrote:

Flaming Troll wrote:If I was a game designer, I wouldn't make a new edition. Simply because I would realize that people are tired of forking over money for things like this, and it is increasingly frustrating for new players.

This exactly. You need to completely re learn half the rules, and if thts not bad enough, you need to shell out another 50$ for a new set of rules.

Yeah seriously. 6th edition comes out just means I have to spend more money. Sigh. 50 bucks for a rule book and probably another 25-30 for a new codex and relearning the game in some ways.

Ian Sturrock wrote:The only big fix I would want to make to the game design process (sorry if you've already heard me rant on this subject) is iterate, iterate, iterate.

That is -- it really doesn't matter how off-the-wall your design first draft is. You playtest the hell out of that first draft, then write your 2nd draft, then playtest a load more, etc. By the time you've done your 5th or 6th draft you should have a pretty good game.

(And no, calling each draft "an edition", and selling your entire playerbase each new draft, doesn't count as playtesting.)

EXACTLY! Instead of 'restarting' each edition from the same basic framework, GW needs to actually make incremental changes that improve the game. Instead, they start over each time. It's led to very few improvements in the basic game in decades. Instead, each edition just has its own distinct set of problems.



Also, I don't know if anyone told them, but their models use points values. If something is working the way you want it to work (vehicles aren't vulnerable to small arms fire), but that leads to a result you don't want (domination of Mechanized armies), then you can adjust the points of the vehicles upwards, rather than coming up with some new mechanic to make infantry better or vehicles worse.

As the one ruining your game I may:

- move on to a scalable game, thus integrate the expansions. Maybe an expanded FOC where you activate additional slots/choices at certain point-levels. Should work both ways, so a few restrictions in smaller games and based on mission type may happen.

- size of the "battlefield" increases from a small , 1k game? , to an epic battle. You could footslog it or be mobile but certainly bigger games should have transports of some sort.

- more variety of terrain and terrain effects who are not random.

- less hack&slay, more ammo spent.
- special rules as few as possible.
- vehicle squadrons and tankshock/ramming changed. A squad of skimmers and a squad of SHV need different treatment.
to shock and to ram should not aim at morale. Rather have evasive move based on ini for shock and the move in a ram should hit terrain too.

- present an alpha version to the design team, present the (free) beta to the masses for a second test run, sell a completed version after the reports have been digested and changes and errata implemented.

Brother SRM wrote:

AndrewC wrote:
1. Get rid of run.

Why for the love of god would you ever want this? This is literally the only thing keeping foot-based armies mobile in any capacity whatsoever. The game is mech enough as is.

Because IMO it is the biggest promoter of the superiority of CC over shooting.

Mech armies should be more mobile than foot, now I will admit that as a game mechanic it allows foot to keep pace with mech, but I think it is artificial and contrived. As the game stands just now there is little reason to have a gun, you're better off with a CCW or two.

Cheers

Andrew

Corrode wrote:and add in a psychic phase or similar which allows all armies to have psychic defence, job done.

With bonuses for being, say, Mark of Khorne or Shadow in the Warp.

AndrewC wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

AndrewC wrote:
1. Get rid of run.

Why for the love of god would you ever want this? This is literally the only thing keeping foot-based armies mobile in any capacity whatsoever. The game is mech enough as is.

Because IMO it is the biggest promoter of the superiority of CC over shooting.

Mech armies should be more mobile than foot, now I will admit that as a game mechanic it allows foot to keep pace with mech, but I think it is artificial and contrived. As the game stands just now there is little reason to have a gun, you're better off with a CCW or two.

Cheers

Andrew

What world do you play in where CC armies are dominant? All the strong builds I can think of recently (Razorback MSU everywhere with Wolves with GH/LF, Angels with ASM/Devs, Leafblower Guard, Psyback GKs) are focused on shooting.

Either go 100% abstract or 100% realistic.
BW with deffrolla and the boys can disembark from the spikes on the deffrolla? How does that work?
9 guys behind a solid 4 inch wall and one sticking out. All 10 can be killed? Hows that work?
Can see the hand of one guy sticking out from a bunker and he can be killed? Hows that work?
Grot behind a wall has a 1 in 3 chance of surviving (saving) a lascannon hit? Hows that work?
You get the point.

Scenery needs an overhaul too, specifcally BLOS and making it more attractive to use in games. Thats where TLOS falls down badly imo. No one really cares about putting down decent scenery since ones troops can still be shot to hell through that 2cm hole in that wall.

Bring back individual movement stats for units. Simplification is not always the best road to go down.

And hire some decent frigging writers to clear up the frankly atrocious rules debates. Me no speaky the englyish.

Get rid of the shooting phase.

terranarc wrote:Get rid of the shooting phase.

Milksop. Get rid of the entire turn, then we'll be make progress. Battles to be decided by whoever makes the best diorama / staring contest.

Although I was a big fan of consolidating into cobat in 3rd it is good that it no longer exists. Turn 2 rihnos get there, I assualt you I stay in assualt until everythig is dead.

It made for boring games.


The big change I would make would be Core rulebook would have the core armies in it, expansions would introduce new models. It would help to balance the game.

I'd like the Turns to be revised to something more along the lines of

my movement-your movement- my shoot- your shoot- assault.

Granted it can't work with heavy revision of almost every codex but it seems more streamlined.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I see it as nearly impossible to make all vehicles worthwhile (4th Ed Problem) while at the same time making them not completely dominate the game (5th Ed Problem).

People look it as a rules problem, but in fact it is just as much a Codex problem. When game moved to 5th edition, they both made the rules more vehicle-friendly AND dropped the cost of vehicles. 40 points for Razorback is just ridiculously cheap. I like the vehicles being survivable, but there are sometimes too much of them.

Backfire wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I see it as nearly impossible to make all vehicles worthwhile (4th Ed Problem) while at the same time making them not completely dominate the game (5th Ed Problem).

People look it as a rules problem, but in fact it is just as much a Codex problem. When game moved to 5th edition, they both made the rules more vehicle-friendly AND dropped the cost of vehicles. 40 points for Razorback is just ridiculously cheap. I like the vehicles being survivable, but there are sometimes too much of them.

Agreed. I'd like to see vehicles being much tougher, much more shooty, and a damn sight more expensive.

I make 6th Ed with these following changes

Wound Allocation
Only models that can be seen can have wounds assigned to
Models behind cover, but can be seen are the only models that can be killed. A caveat to this is that to represent the weapon being picked up by another trooper the one model can be removed from any of the models in the squad.

An example: You have a squad of 10 marines behind cover, but you have the Missile launcher marine out in the open. Then your opponent can target that squad, but they can only kill one model, since only one model can be seen.

Multi-Wound Models
Whole models must be removed without deference to wargear or stat lines.

True-Line-of-Sight would remain, but would affect the game more. Such as:
Better define area terrain under TLOS.
All area terrain start at 5+ save
The cover save can only get better if there are elements that actually block line of sight.
If the unit that LOS is being determined to is 25% blocked then give them a 5+; 50%=4+, 75%=3+, 100%= No LOS.
Again only models that can be seen can be killed, no more wrap around wounds.

Vehicles are under the same system of 25%=5+, 50%=4+, 75%=3+
Smoke, KFF, etc…will count as obscured.
Obscured will count as a 4+ save Obscured would also confer that bonus to the troops that are dis-embarking or embarking that turn.

Intervening units Would still provide cover to the unit behind them, but only 5+
Any shooting misses on the targeted unit, would be re-rolled and resolved against the intervening unit.
Example: You are shooting at a mob of boys behind a kan wall. You fire 10 shots, and 6 of them hit the mob of boys. The other 4 shots that missed would be re-rolled against the Kans, and any hits would be resolved in the normal fashion

Vehicles

2d6 damage table
1 Crew Shaken (can't shoot)
2 Crew Stunned (Can't move faster than 1/2 cruising speed, plus can't shoot)
3 Crew and Passengers Shaken (even if the passengers disembark,ie: Passengers can't shoot)
4 Crew and Passengers Stunned (even if the passengers disembark, ie: Passengers move only 1/2 speed, and can't shoot)
5 Steering damaged (determine how far you will move and roll scatter dice, move in direction of arrow)
6 Main weapon destroyed (any weapon if main weapon is already gone, or if no main weapon. Main weapon is defined by highest strength weapon)
7 Any Weapon Destroyed
8 Minor Drive system damage (Permanently can only move Combat Speed)
9 Major Drive System Damage (Permanently immobilized)
10 Minor Wreck (roll for pinning)
11 Major Wreck (Pinned automatically)
12 Explosion (roll 2 dice and take the highest for radius. Str 4 hit outside vehicle, str 5 inside vehicle. Embarked units Pinned, units outside roll for pinning)



Just a few ideas...

In a loose-leaf folder ready to accept the reams of errata.

@UsdiThunder: I like it, but a few points:
---Under your second bullet point for Wound Allocation, do you mean the wounds can be taken on any visible models? (ie, if 3 wounds are scored on a tac marine with 4 guys in the open, 3 bolters and a Missile launcher, you can pick off the bolter guys and save the missile launcher)

---I would say vehicles start with a 5+ save for 50% obscured and a 4+ for 75%, making Smoke Launchers more valuable (But probably should up costs). Otherwise it'll be even harder to pop transports on a mech army if you put them in a lance formation to each give the one behind a smidge of cover to get a 5+

---I love the intervening units rule. Honestly, why that isn't already in the rules is beyond me. However, does this also apply to shooting at your own units, or do they not get attacked by the misses?

---You can't roll a 1 on 2D6
I'd say bump everything below a 7 up by 1, and make 7 a Minor Drive damage and 8 an Any Weapon Destroyed (Remove the Main Weapon Destroyed, since the shooting player gets to pick what is destroyed anyhow, and they'll probably pick the main gun anyways). Also, will there be any AP for the explosion? Especially for any occupants? Perhaps 1D6 for AP versus any troops inside or something...

Those sound good though, and I think your changes would really help remove some of the silly shenanigans in the main rules!

darkPrince010 wrote:@UsdiThunder: I like it, but a few points:
---Under your second bullet point for Wound Allocation, do you mean the wounds can be taken on any visible models? (ie, if 3 wounds are scored on a tac marine with 4 guys in the open, 3 bolters and a Missile launcher, you can pick off the bolter guys and save the missile launcher)

Yes, that is what I mean. You have the option of choosing your casualties like it is in game now, just that it is limited to who has LOS to how many models. If 4 guys are out in the open all you can really kill is 4 guys.

---I would say vehicles start with a 5+ save for 50% obscured and a 4+ for 75%, making Smoke Launchers more valuable (But probably should up costs). Otherwise it'll be even harder to pop transports on a mech army if you put them in a lance formation to each give the one behind a smidge of cover to get a 5+

This could work too.

---I love the intervening units rule. Honestly, why that isn't already in the rules is beyond me. However, does this also apply to shooting at your own units, or do they not get attacked by the misses?

If I had to write it I would say yes. Unless they went to ground your own intervening unit would be susceptable to your misses.

---You can't roll a 1 on 2D6
I'd say bump everything below a 7 up by 1, and make 7 a Minor Drive damage and 8 an Any Weapon Destroyed (Remove the Main Weapon Destroyed, since the shooting player gets to pick what is destroyed anyhow, and they'll probably pick the main gun anyways). Also, will there be any AP for the explosion? Especially for any occupants? Perhaps 1D6 for AP versus any troops inside or something...

No you can't roll a 1 on a 2d6, but the result can go down because of a glancing result. I'd say the AP inside should be something like 1d6+1 with a seven counting as -, with outside being less penertrating like AP 4,5,6, or -


Those sound good though, and I think your changes would really help remove some of the silly shenanigans in the main rules!

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I see it as nearly impossible to make all vehicles worthwhile (4th Ed Problem) while at the same time making them not completely dominate the game (5th Ed Problem).

Really, the major problem is transports being ubiquitous, which is negating small arms fire being useful. Maybe go back to having the 6 destroy a vehicle on a Glancing hit?

Dunno who else tried to fake a game with those rumored 6th ed rules a while back, but the results are interesting.

Only disembarked units can seize objectives. This is particularly impactful because you score VPs for objectives *every turn*, beginning at the end of the 2nd turn. So transports stay useful as actual transports, but gunline them with embarked infantry and you risk handing your opponent a sizable VP lead. Small arms get a boost just because you have to have your infantry out and exposed if you want to score VPs.

Footslogging Orks and Tyranids also scream across across the table under the rumored movement rules, which should also make things harder on vehicle gunlines.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'd bring back overwatch.

Also, remove the prohibition on charging from deepstriking or disembarking units.

Overwatch is in the rumored rules but seems to be very limited. Charging off deepstrikes is allowed, but it's risky DSing close enough to pull it off. Still, with teleport homers...

The rumors might be a bunch of bunk, but there does seem to be a playable game there with some good ideas and an actual design approach. *shrug*

I wouldn't Fix anything, I Like 40k The way it is

And Thats The Bottom Line Coz Da Boys Said So

I might look to get rid of sweeping advance as it IMHO slants the game in favour of CC armies. Once powerful CC troops reach the enemy they are likely to wipe out unit after unit in quick succession, whereas even the most powerful shooting troops cannot destroy units with a second bite like this.

I would start by making the box set BT vs Daemons, giving plastic Plaguebearers, plastic Fiends and cool BT molds a shot at the limelight, and this of course would make players like Mr. Timetowaste85 VERY happy, as he plays both armies. Please, let's all make this wonderful person on Dakka VERY happy, and give the man what he wants