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.

King Pariah wrote:

Necroshea wrote:

get rid of the rule that you always strike rear armor in assault.

To hit modifiers instead of bloody cover saves.

- I'd like riding in vehicles to be a bit more dangerous, and to make vehicles slightly less durable. I don't want them to be exploding death coffins like in 4th ed, but just a bit more volatile. Strength 3 blast from an explodes result is also a huge joke. Make it half the front armor, rounded up for something fun and dangerous!

- Reduced cover saves across the board. 4+ cover is entirely too prevalent, and I'm saying this as someone who frequently plays Orks. Cover should be important in any wargame, but it shouldn't be so foolproof.

- Morale and leadership to be important. I want morale modifiers, dammit! I seldom see more than one squad break per game, unless I'm rolling LD tests

These are all very nice. I'd also like to add this.

Sniping - Units wielding sniper weapons can move and shoot regularly. If the unit does not move weapon range is doubled.

I like it but I think there should be a few exceptions to the sniping rule you proposed (like the Vindicare, if he could move and shoot that would be a bit op I think. Unless it was something like he can move and shoot only if in the previous turn he did not shoot, if he shot in the last turn, he can only move and not shoot or remain stationary and keep shooting)

Well, while it may make the vindicare quite a bit more powerfull (he's a highly trained assassin after all), it will make several useless units a bit more viable like ratlings and guardsmen sporting sniper rifles. It's always irked me how a sniper rifle was considered a heavy weapon. It's pretty much like saying it takes the same amount of time to look down a scope as it does to ready a rocket launcher/mortar/lascannon/autocannon/heavy bolter for firing, which is silly. Pacing yourself and taking your time would give you time to steady your shot (double the range), while running and stopping for a moment to look down the sights would give you a fairly accurate shot at assault range.

I support the sniping change and range. It makes sense anyway. Also could change BS if stationary maybe?

I like it but I think there should be a few exceptions to the sniping rule you proposed (like the Vindicare, if he could move and shoot that would be a bit op I think. Unless it was something like he can move and shoot only if in the previous turn he did not shoot, if he shot in the last turn, he can only move and not shoot or remain stationary and keep shooting)

actually the Vindicare CAN move and shoot. Most people forgot he's got a pistol that's as powerful as his rifle. Just decreased range from 36 to 12' You could even drive him around in a rhino/chimera and shoot pistols at guys. (goes along nicely with the range modifier thing actually)

As to the IG sarge with pistol vs lasgun, I'd keep the pistol just to get extra power weapon attack.

I am fairly cool with the way vehicles are right now in 5th, but there are a few things that I think would be cool to add into the game...

First thing I would do, and it would only apply occasionally, would be on the damage chart. I think that if you roll a Wrecked result, then there should be a chart similar to the Orks' Ramshackle chart.. BUT!!! I would go a step further, and say that if there is a careening result, and the destroyed vehicle enters the space occupied by another unit, it is dealt with, according to the Ramming or Charging rules (so it has the possibility to wreck or destroy another vehicle, or seriously relocate another unit) I would limit this action to the first vehicle, as while it would be funny to start a chain reaction of careening, destroyed vehicles, it would seriously stop all players from taking a mech army.

I'm not sure how certain rules would affect this, or what rules to put in place, but I would make things more equitable for guys playing Tyranids to take on armor (i know when i bring my bugs out, vehicles of just about any type are a royal pain)

I also like the idea of making vehicles faster than infantry (though not walkers, unless they are Fast Walkers, like Sentinels), but I think that the Leman Russ movement rule would still need to be in place.


How do you guys think the same Ld modifiers used in assaults would affect the game if they came into play during the shooting phase? ie. a unit of marines, led by a commander with Ld 10 are shot up, losing 3 or 4 marines, so they take their morale test, but NOW they take the morale test at a -3 or -4 modifier (based on how many are lost)

-Sniper rifles can choose their targets in a squad (they are SNIPER rifles ffs. They are meant to be precision weapons that pick off high priority targets)

-Some sort of counter to psy powers. Really, psykers at the moment have an unfair advantage in the game. They seldom fail their tests, and they end up causing insane amounts of pain because of it. I know they are meant to dangerous, but they should have some sort of catch, like perils happening on a double or something.

I hope they do go for a comprehensive chance of the whole system. I'm bored.

More variety in the missions, rather than 3 scenarios, 2 of which are the same, and 3 different deployment types, and Battle Missions didn't really change much did it, as it was still just objective games with slightly different deployment zones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, this is an idea I had jumbling around in my head, but I'd like to see some sort of system whereby a unit can, once per game, ignore a result of a particular wargear (some of which can and cannot be affected) on a certain D6 roll, much like the Fate point system (I believe that is the right one) in LotR.

For example, you take a Conscript Guardsman and a Howling Banshee, both of which are vastly different in their respetive skills, slow and numerous or lightning-swift and deadly. Now, you get into combat with a Warrior with Lash Whips for example, and your skills have no effect, you're I1 regardless of how good you are in CC. In the rule idea I mentioned above, the units would be able to ignore the effects of Lash Whips on 2D6, on a 12 for the Conscripts, for example, or a 6 for the Banshees, as they are obviously much more likely to be able to withstand the effects of the whips.

This is just the barebones of the idea, but I think with a lot of refining, it could make the game more interesting, and would solve a lot of arguments about conflicting wargear (Banshee Mask/Lash Whip, etc)

Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

pretre wrote:Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

Ok, what ideas do you find terrible?

pretre wrote:Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

Also, not everyone here HATES 5th, I certainly have enjoyed 5th edition so far, I have merely voice what I think would be improvements on what is currently the rules, thereby making it an even better game than I think it is now.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

Ok, what ideas do you find terrible?

I think that 5th ed is great. Having played since the start of 3rd, I think that it is the best edition we've had. A lot of the ideas in the thread will bring us back to where we were in 3rd, which is a clear step backward.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

- Tighten up wound allocation.
(Perhaps assign or resolve all save ignoring wounds first then non-save ignoring wounds.)
- Make clear the distinctions between cover and that not everything should just be 4+ (something in the book P21, but not used right now). Move a couple around so that 4+ cover isn't quite as ubiquitous (Other Infantry gives you X+, ruins/area gives you X+, etc.) They need to be very careful of this or non-SM armies will be very hurt.
- Errata / update all books at the start of the edition (something they did with fantasy in 8th) but go a step further. Also have a living FAQ that is updated monthly with questions and answers.
(Full point and rule updates for every book at start would be ideal. Release it as a chapter approved cheap splatbook and as a PDF, also update books in the next printing. That way everyone has access to it. I.e. BT now pay X for Typhoon Launchers, GK now must have 5 minimum Henchmen in a squad, etc. Whatever they want.)
- Codify the most common mission types as 'standard missions' to expand standard play. Here's an example 6 x 6 table. 6 x 6 to make the rolling easy:(A table of VP, KP, d6 Objective, Terrain Features, Quarters, Escort/Assassination combined with Deployment (Quarters, Pitched, DoW, Short Edge 3rds, Diagonal, Breakthrough).
- Leave most of the rest alone.

We are very much in a 'be careful what you ask for' position right now. For example, as much as some might not like how we do assault resolution now, I remember assaults dragging on forever in previous editions. I also remember rhino rush, sweeping advance BS. I like that assaults are decisive in few rounds now, you either win big or go home. I remember having your lascannon guy sticking out and the rest of the squad behind cover so that there was no way for your opponent to shoot at the squad. I remember vehicles being deathtraps in multiple editions, etc so on. We don't need those things back.

Change for change's sake is a bad idea.

pretre wrote:
I remember vehicles being deathtraps in multiple editions, etc so on. We don't need those things back.

Ideally, I wouldn't like for vehicles to be deathtraps again, however I think that there is nowhere near enough "punishment" for losing one when you take them (depending on the vehicle), this is why I have suggested the ramshackle rule, with modifications be a part of the BRB, and a standard roll for a certain result on the damage table.

Also, with a S3 explosion resulting from the loss of a vehicle, even my guardsmen have become somewhat notorious for coming out unscathed in those instances... Do you think that S4 would change things THAT much to make vehicles deathtraps again??

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Also, with a S3 explosion resulting from the loss of a vehicle, even my guardsmen have become somewhat notorious for coming out unscathed in those instances... Do you think that S4 would change things THAT much to make vehicles deathtraps again??

S4 inside and S4 explosion would make the whole thing easier to remember; I could get down with that and would stand as an example of tightening/simplifying rules rather than just changing for change's sake. Again, it hurts non-SM armies though.

Re-print 3rd ED with the minor change of having the 3 switched for a 6. 3rd ED was by far the best in my opinion... had the best codex's, with chapter approved had by miles the widest range of different rules (creature creation, minor psychic powers, beast's of the galaxy.. etc etc) not to mention it easily allowed you to sit and shoot or rush forward in rhino's or beyond.

Obviously it might need a 6.5 tweak with the better parts of 5th but I feel most of 5th could be thrown to the flames happily enough.. the ridiculous cover, the disembarking rules, the combat resolution rules (as if you have to wait a turn to charge again!?). The favour for vehicles is alright... I mean it's the future.. they're past the whole amassed unsupported infantry thing i'd hope.

Semper wrote:Re-print 3rd ED with the minor change of having the 3 switched for a 6. 3rd ED was by far the best in my opinion... had the best codex's, with chapter approved had by miles the widest range of different rules (creature creation, minor psychic powers, beast's of the galaxy.. etc etc) not to mention it easily allowed you to sit and shoot or rush forward in rhino's or beyond.

Those are some nice shades you have there. Interesting color lenses.

Necroshea wrote:
Sniping - Units wielding sniper weapons can move and shoot regularly. If the unit does not move weapon range is doubled.

I don't think that will be enough to make snipers worth taking. It doesn't make that much sense either since they'd want to be stationary to draw a bead on a target. I think snipers just need to be more effective altogether.

A big NO to snipers being able to pick targets. There are too many ways to target individual models in the shooting phase in this game as it is. No body pays the money and takes the time to build and paint their Heros to have them shot before they can get into CC. To me, it is one of the worst aspects that this game has ever devised.

Cover is great for those who have worse than 4+ Armour, or anybody facing a low AP shooting army. The shrub is not stopping your Lascannon shot, it is simply obscuring the target and disrupting your aim. I would like to see Terrain and tactical maneuvering matter more, but I would rather they left things as is rather than mucking it up even more.

I would like to see Rapid Fire weapons be able to fire and assault, however reduced to 1 half range shot if they move and/or assault, and 1 full range or 2 half range shots if they don't. Only Heavy Weapons should not be able to assault. Assault Weapons stay the same.

Get rid of AP. How ever much more strength a weapon has over the toughness of a model should reduce their Armour Save by that much. No AP adjustments on the Damage Chart.

Destroyed and Wrecked both leave the embarked unit in the footprint. Models inside the footprint must maintain the 1" separation or be removed as a casualty, and may emergency disembark 2" to do so. How about the Strength of the Destroyed result explosion be equal to the number of hits rolled on the chart, to a minimum of a 6 needed to wound each embarked model?

That rapid fire into assault thing doesn't matter all that much when Space Marines all have pistols to go with their bolters. I know I'm showing a sort of bias here, but IG don't really want to charge that much.

But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Besides, in order to distinguish from the vindicare assasin's rule, there will have be a modification. like, on a 4+ the chosen target "dodges" it and it hits some other guy.

Otherwise, sniper rifles will continue being ignored, which is a pity because I hate seeing redundant things that keep showing up in nearly every codex.
(seriously, there is now a sniper rifle in every dex. DE gets hexrifles, Eldar get rangers, SM get scouts, IG gets ratlings, Crons get deathmarks...thats 5 armies)

Reactions like they have in whfb. Stand and shoot, flee, ect. I hated how my guardsmen would just stand and let someone get out of their transport and charge in. Or how they have to get charged by a deathstar unit.

Ahh, stand and shoot, that won't completely overbalance shooting armies or anything.

Maybe if your unit gets no swings in the ensuing CC round.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Besides, in order to distinguish from the vindicare assasin's rule, there will have be a modification. like, on a 4+ the chosen target "dodges" it and it hits some other guy.

Otherwise, sniper rifles will continue being ignored, which is a pity because I hate seeing redundant things that keep showing up in nearly every codex.
(seriously, there is now a sniper rifle in every dex. DE gets hexrifles, Eldar get rangers, SM get scouts, IG gets ratlings, Crons get deathmarks...thats 5 armies)

personally, I love snipers, from a tactical standpoint, the range is really good and they're fun to plinck around with. They should be able to pick targets, I'm willing to pray for that. I'll be demonstrating the sniper's usefulness in a kill-team game today, I am bringing 5 ratlings, an a squad of IG vets with 3 snipers and a lascannon, I hope all goes well...

pretre wrote:Ahh, stand and shoot, that won't completely overbalance shooting armies or anything.

Maybe if your unit gets no swings in the ensuing CC round.

Its a sci fi game, shooting should be the star. Always hated how in the far future everyone wants to drop their death rays to poke each other with a pointy stick.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

pretre wrote:Ahh, stand and shoot, that won't completely overbalance shooting armies or anything.

Maybe if your unit gets no swings in the ensuing CC round.

Its a sci fi game, shooting should be the star. Always hated how in the far future everyone wants to drop their death rays to poke each other with a pointy stick.

Well, it is a dystopic setting where there is meant to be a constant shortage of supplies (thanks to all the fighting on multiple fronts), so I guess it makes sense that they would train for CC to conserve ammo.

Brother SRM wrote:That rapid fire into assault thing doesn't matter all that much when Space Marines all have pistols to go with their bolters. I know I'm showing a sort of bias here, but IG don't really want to charge that much.

Do all units in all Codices with Rapid Fire weapons also have pistols? I was under the impression not even all of the Space Marines do. For the assault option, if you know you are going to be attacked next turn, I would like to see the option of shooting and assaulting to take away their extra attacks and Furious Charge, albeit at a reduced range and rate.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Besides, in order to distinguish from the vindicare assasin's rule, there will have be a modification. like, on a 4+ the chosen target "dodges" it and it hits some other guy.

Otherwise, sniper rifles will continue being ignored, which is a pity because I hate seeing redundant things that keep showing up in nearly every codex.
(seriously, there is now a sniper rifle in every dex. DE gets hexrifles, Eldar get rangers, SM get scouts, IG gets ratlings, Crons get deathmarks...thats 5 armies)

You are talking about improving the viability of a unit located in at least 5 Codices in such a way as to reduce the overall fun of the game. Your opponent having the ability to remove Characters and models with specific wargear AT WILL through shooting is totally bogus. The units that can do this now are totally bogus as well.

KplKeegan wrote:Units inside a skimmer that went flat-out and gets Explodes! on the vehicle damage chart should die with the vehicle.

Ummm... This is already how it works.

Rulebook FAQ v1.4
Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as
it moved flat out what happens to any embarked
models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

oni wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:Units inside a skimmer that went flat-out and gets Explodes! on the vehicle damage chart should die with the vehicle.

Ummm... This is already how it works.

Rulebook FAQ v1.4
Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as
it moved flat out what happens to any embarked
models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Well. The hard-nosed RAW-crowd has a habit of arguing that the opponent's shooting turn is not "in the same turn" as stipulated by this FAQ, thus the above would only apply if the vehicle gets destroyed in your own movement phase (terrain-difficulties, etc..), not necessarily the next (!) player's turn, when he shoots (or assaults) your transport.

Similarly, even if you see "the same turn" as covering both players, there is need for clarification as to not give an unintended advantage to the player going 2nd "in a turn" (and thus being safe from having his flat-out-stuff shot "in the same turn").

So I guess it is more an issue of clarification, rather than one of changing the rules.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:That rapid fire into assault thing doesn't matter all that much when Space Marines all have pistols to go with their bolters. I know I'm showing a sort of bias here, but IG don't really want to charge that much.

Do all units in all Codices with Rapid Fire weapons also have pistols? I was under the impression not even all of the Space Marines do. For the assault option, if you know you are going to be attacked next turn, I would like to see the option of shooting and assaulting to take away their extra attacks and Furious Charge, albeit at a reduced range and rate.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Besides, in order to distinguish from the vindicare assasin's rule, there will have be a modification. like, on a 4+ the chosen target "dodges" it and it hits some other guy.

Otherwise, sniper rifles will continue being ignored, which is a pity because I hate seeing redundant things that keep showing up in nearly every codex.
(seriously, there is now a sniper rifle in every dex. DE gets hexrifles, Eldar get rangers, SM get scouts, IG gets ratlings, Crons get deathmarks...thats 5 armies)

You are talking about improving the viability of a unit located in at least 5 Codices in such a way as to reduce the overall fun of the game. Your opponent having the ability to remove Characters and models with specific wargear AT WILL through shooting is totally bogus. The units that can do this now are totally bogus as well.

And against everything else the controlling player could select which of his guys can take the wounds in a mixed squad. There are already bogus things like that in the rules.

Zweischneid wrote:

oni wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:Units inside a skimmer that went flat-out and gets Explodes! on the vehicle damage chart should die with the vehicle.

Ummm... This is already how it works.

Rulebook FAQ v1.4
Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as
it moved flat out what happens to any embarked
models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Well. The hard-nosed RAW-crowd has a habit of arguing that the opponent's shooting turn is not "in the same turn" as stipulated by this FAQ, thus the above would only apply if the vehicle gets destroyed in your own movement phase (terrain-difficulties, etc..), not necessarily the next (!) player's turn, when he shoots (or assaults) your transport.

Similarly, even if you see "the same turn" as covering both players, there is need for clarification as to not give an unintended advantage to the player going 2nd "in a turn" (and thus being safe from having his flat-out-stuff shot "in the same turn").

So I guess it is more an issue of clarification, rather than one of changing the rules.

It has nothing to be with being in the 'hard-nosed RAW-crowd', it has to do with the fact that the rulebook says 'If a rule does not specify, it means player turn, not game turn'.

pretre wrote:

It has nothing to be with being in the 'hard-nosed RAW-crowd', it has to do with the fact that the rulebook says 'If a rule does not specify, it means player turn, not game turn'.

This very phrase is "hard-nosed-RAW", precisely because you quote game rules like its legal regulation and would in itself be enough to settle any and all arguments, not even admitting the possibility of RAI possibly overriding RAW or ever admitting the existing of the overriding "golden rule".

[edit]
Indeed. Considering this, I think the most important change to 6th Edition should be that they reprint the golden rule from the rule book, in big bold letters, on every single page of the rule book and every single page of every 6th Edition Codex printed thereafter. Perhaps twice on each page. Just to make sure.

Zweischneid wrote:This very phrase is "hard-nosed-RAW", precisely because you quote game rules like its legal regulation and would in itself be enough to settle any and all arguments, not even admitting the possibility of RAI possibly overriding RAW or ever admitting the existing of the overriding "golden rule".

So wait, wanting to play by the rules is being a 'hard-nosed RAW-player'? There's literally a passage that tells you how to know when a rule means player vs game turn and you're saying I'm a dick for using it? It's not even an unclearly worded rule. It is very clear.

Indeed. Considering this, I think the most important change to 6th Edition should be that they reprint the golden rule from the rule book, in big bold letters, on every single page of the rule book and every single page of every 6th Edition Codex printed thereafter. Perhaps twice on each page. Just to make sure.

The Most Important rule is, as the name implies, the most important rule in the book but, and I know this is crazy, it isn't the only rule in the book. If we just end every dispute with "MI rule!" there isn't a lot of point in even looking at the rest.