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.

Black Lantern wrote:Please just keep 'line of sight' makes so much sense

I do not like LoS. Maybe if the minis and their sizes were incorperated into the cost to field them, maybe then, but some minis are way to big compared to other armies.

I want area terrian like in 4th edition I believe, this way 2 or 3 trees can actually represent a full thick forest and still have minis go inside. Stupid True Line of Site forests, all they do is make the minitures not be able to go inside because they don't fit if youi want to field an actual forest.

No True Line of Site actually needs to go. Unless you are a SM hiding in a vehicle that is, so I guess that is why you want to keep TLoS.

Davor wrote:
No True Line of Site actually needs to go. Unless you are a SM hiding in a vehicle that is, so I guess that is why you want to keep TLoS.

TLoS has been around since 3rd edition, I find it unlikely that it's going anywhere. I agree with you on the woods though, but that's easily overcome by playing woods as "counts-as solid terrain for purpouses of shooting through it". That's what house rules are for, right?

Davor wrote:I The Powerfull Allmight Space Marines hiding and cowering in vehicles and some people calling it tactically sound. I would like the game to be played more fluffy so this wouldn't happen. Actually make rules that fit the fluff.

I understand your point from the fluff standpoint. They are space marines why are the hiding like that?

That doesn't change the fact, though, that using your armored personnel carriers as armored personnel carriers instead of weak little tanks is very tactically sound.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:I do not like LoS. Maybe if the minis and their sizes were incorperated into the cost to field them, maybe then, but some minis are way to big compared to other armies.

I want area terrian like in 4th edition I believe, this way 2 or 3 trees can actually represent a full thick forest and still have minis go inside. Stupid True Line of Site forests, all they do is make the minitures not be able to go inside because they don't fit if youi want to field an actual forest.

No True Line of Site actually needs to go. Unless you are a SM hiding in a vehicle that is, so I guess that is why you want to keep TLoS.

True line of sight works fine when *combined* with the concepts of area terrain too. It isn't hard to recognize that that wooded terrain piece blocks sight through it. Happens all the time in other games without difficulty. They are not even remotely mutually exclusive.

Skriker

Feel no pain ability changed. If it was harder than a 50% chance of making it. I would make it be a roll of 2 better than your save, for example, 3+ save gets a FNP roll of 5+. Anything that gets feel no pain gets a 6+. It is just to easy with certain armies (yes you blood angels and DE) to win with that ability alone.

Um...DE in general have 5+ armour or worse, and are T 3- they need the FNP to have a hope of surviving, generally

FNP'd power armour/Termies on the other hands are just dirty...

Less focus on special characters, more power to generic HQs

I could go with a rule that states that you can only have one SC in your list, or one per 1000 pts (max 2)..

I get a little tired of Herohammer. I think the game would be better if you were more worried about the enemy's MBT than his general

martin74 wrote:It is just to easy with certain armies (yes you blood angels and DE) to win with that ability alone.

DE are my main opponent, and I never have trouble with FNP on them. And I play Tyranids.

The main problems are they're still T3 - most armies have enough S6+ shooting to make a unit of Dark Eldar with FNP cry (even Tyranids). They're still a complete glass cannon with FNP. Usual tactics apply.

Ascalam wrote:I could go with a rule that states that you can only have one SC in your list, or one per 1000 pts (max 2)..

I get a little tired of Herohammer. I think the game would be better if you were more worried about the enemy's MBT than his general

Agreed. This is what 2nd edition was all about. Too many armies with barely any troops, but tons of high end special characters and heroes. BOR-ING. If I want to play a hero-centric game I'll pull out the LotR figures. It gets tired to see Magnus Calgar *every* time I play against an Ultramarines force or Abaddon every time I face someone else's chaos marine force. I use an Abaddon fig as my general, but have never actually used Abaddon specifically.

I also do not want to see more special powers on generic HQ choices as another poster requested. The primary reason I moved away from WFB and primarily into 40k was that at least in 40k I can one shot a special character with a lascannon and that one character on its monstrous mount can wipe out my whole army on its own.

Skriker

actual universal psyker rules where every race has a roughly even defense. Not the current, o look i have a powerful psykic power and you have no defense, I WIN. I take the same army against an army with a powerful psykic defense army and i cant use any psykic powers at all.

6th Starter to have no Imperial models (e.g Eldar/Nids or Chaos/Tau)
Eldar codex fixing balance e.g all Shuriken weapons Rending
Shadow Spectres made Legal along with PL
Warp Spiders weapons pinning give plasma grenades
Hawks guns s4
Falcon BS4 (or T/L Pulse Laser)
Starcannon Heavy 3
Could probably think of more but you get the idea

New units for the Black Templars... A reason to play PA sword brethren

You know, it occurs to me that if he just updated ALL of the codexes, most of the complaints people have with Grey Knights would no longer be valid, and the game would end up the best it's ever been.

NO ONE WOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT AGAIN!

Excuse me a second, I think I may have stumbled into an alternate dimension while I was playing video games

I guess I would like to see all units have either a model or an opportunity to make it in another set such as combining the Valkyrie and Vendetta into one box set so people like myself who are not very good at conversions can get access to some of these models.

But the main one I would like to see is the making of armies more unique from each other. Nothing big, small things like chapter rules or doctrines that gave Cadians a different feel from Catachans and Imperial Fist different from White Scars


Now that I think of it a change in the fluff of Codex Space Marine so it isnt so focused on the Ultramarines being the greatest ever

If Ward wrote all of the codices it would be a golden age for the hobby.

It would

"gol'durn Ward wrote another one. Toss THAT army in the Sell pile... Any armies left he hasn't ruined, or shall we just go find a new game ..? '

Thus far he has magnificently fethed up three of my favourite armies, and soured me completely on WHFB.

If he gets his claws into Orks or 40K Daemons it's goodnight, gracie...




A Gol'durn age indeed.

Ascalam wrote:It would

"gol'durn Ward wrote another one. Toss THAT army in the Sell pile... Any armies left he hasn't ruined, or shall we just go find a new game ..? '

Thus far he has magnificently fethed up three of my favourite armies, and soured me completely on WHFB.

If he gets his claws into Orks or 40K Daemons it's goodnight, gracie...

A Gol'durn age indeed.

At least he's better than Cruddace.

At least Ward writes a good list to go with his terrible fluff. Cruddace writes the most terribly internally balanced lists possible to do with his terrible fluff.

Who cares about fluff when you got a good list.... Either way, the history of the army is irrelevant when you got termis as troop choices

Those of us who actually like fluff?

Wards rules are not arbitary like Cruddaces, but are powermunchkin to the max, as a rule. A couple of units are not as good, and get pointed to to prove the codex isn't as powerful as it looks. I'd rather Ward over Cruddace (my poor nids..) but it's like preferring electrocution over drowning. I don't really want to do either, but if i HAVE to pick..

I own both the BA and GK codexes. Both are a powergamer's wet dream.

I'd like clear, well-written rules and wargear options that encompass the entirety of the capabilities of an army, meaning if the army has many CC units, there should be a good amount of CC wargear for HQs that have the same effects. If the army has a bunch of Shooting capabilities/units, then plenty of shooty options, with the HQ using either the normal unit's weapons or other, non-one-shot weapons *cough*Necrons*cough*.

Ascalam wrote:Wards rules are not arbitary like Cruddaces, but are powermunchkin to the max, as a rule. A couple of units are not as good, and get pointed to to prove the codex isn't as powerful as it looks. I'd rather Ward over Cruddace (my poor nids..) but it's like preferring electrocution over drowning. I don't really want to do either, but if I HAVE to pick…

I own both the BA and GK codexes. Both are a powergamer's wet dream.

+1 to this. A lot of people on Dakka confuse the idea of a book being “strong” equalling to being “well written”. It’s entirely possible for a ruleset to much face and be poorly written at the same time and Ward’s stuff is a testament to this. Ward’s books IMO are designed to sell models over anything else.

As a side note, GW’s current dev team appears to be suffering from stagnation and need some fresh blood. Cruddace and Ward make up 2/3 of the dev team (which is crazy) and it’s an unfeasible idea to get Phil to write a codex for everything (which would also be a problem if everything was written to the same quality as Space Wolves).

Phil has his issues too, more's the pity.

He's better, IMO, than the other two, bit he's not THAT good. There tend to be glaring cognitive dissonances in his Dexes and writing also, just less often.

Tankbustas losing Tankhunters, for example..

JOT_fething_WW for another.

Archon's court...


As a whole i prefer Kelly's dexes. They feel a deal less smug, and are often reasonably well balanced with other armies, not just with other SM armies...

I agree, he’s definitely the lesser of the “3 evils”. His codices have a greater level of “external balance” that codices written by the other writers seem lack. He is no where near perfect as his Space Wolves codex was fairly “hodge podge” IMO.

GW definitely needs new blood in their team.

So far 6th codexes make armies too powerful for older stuff. Hope everyone gets a lift .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, ultra marine banner that says "we win, we always win". And a GK banner that says " we get, you don't". LOL