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.

Simple really, are there any reasonable alterations you would make to the game given the chance?

Personally, i would get rid of stupid units that make the army lists too long - [SM, SW, IG and Nids have the most of these IMO]
It appears as if GW is making up too many new unit types. What do you think?

What would like to see changed?

I like the large variety of units.

If it were anything, I would put all the IA stuff in regular codexes, the more variety the better (albeit far harder to playtest).

So you would take out a lot of character from armies? I agree on changing certain aspects of the codex, and if adding units to make them actually useful. Like changing the points of the Carnifex and the Hive Tyrant. That is reasonable. Or giving the Tyrant an invulnerable save. Or giving them both more options. that would be pretty great.

Wound allocation. I would make it that squad formation truly matters. If you are in range of the front of the squad but not the back, take the guy that is IN RANGE from the squad. I am so tired of hitting the power klaw, and killing a boy.

I would like the cost (money) of everything to be at least halved.

Tanks to be more limited on the battlefield.

Would that be including transports? Because every Ork player I have ever faced has used copious amounts of trukks and battle wagons.

Less emphasis on special characters and their ability to completely change the dynamic of the game. Make these purchasable upgrades fo your army. This would be great in the next rendition of the Chaos Codex and would actually encourage legion based army design. can you tell I dislike special characters?

Um more equipment options around the table for all squads and HQ's. I dont see why I cant take my vanilla tac squad with chainswords if they exchange their bolters etc.

Faster codex release cycles. In my opinion we shouldnt have another incarnation of the rules until every codex has been brought current, we dont need a new model range every codex release.

No more odd numbers for equipment. Either 5 or 10 not 3 or 7 points.

Just my 2 cents.

New chaos codex for every legion. Iron warriors =D

I would change GW. Come out with the codexes for all armies in a timely manner. Collecting new armies when they might be gutted by a new codex is the most disheartening thing. I can't bring myself to start a Necron army when the Codex might come out any time...

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I would like the cost (money) of everything to be at least halved.

Truth

I'd like to see the point costs for chimeras, rhinos, and razorbacks increased back to where they were in 4th edition and glancing hits only be a -1 on the damage chart. Mech-hammer 40k is getting a little stale.

Th3ee Legged Dog wrote:
Less emphasis on special characters and their ability to completely change the dynamic of the game. Make these purchasable upgrades fo your army. This would be great in the next rendition of the Chaos Codex and would actually encourage legion based army design. ... I dont see why I cant take my vanilla tac squad with chainswords if they exchange their bolters etc. ... No more odd numbers for equipment. Either 5 or 10 not 3 or 7 points.

Also true

I also wish white dwarf would offer more realistic insight and tactical advice.

I think codexes should launch with the new rules book, with these periodic updates to codexes available online when they launch new models for armies.

Get rid of UGOIGO and go to a unit activation system.

I'm new to this game but I'll tell you what I don't like so far:

1. Tau - They seem completely out of place to me. I don't have a problem with their play style, but they look as if they belong in a japanese cartoon and not in 40k. They need a complete visual overhaul IMO.

2. I don't like how turns work. It seems a bit unfair in the favor of who gets to go first. I think they need to rework it somehow so that you don't get to utilize your entire army before the other player gets a chance to respond. Not sure if it was ever like this in older editions, but surely they can make it better than it currenlty is.

3. I'm the type of guy who sucks at and never wants to paint or model anything. I just want to play the game. I wish they sold some generic, already painted models for people like me. I know a lot of my friends would be playing if they didn't have to paint their own models.

4. The real dollar prices seem extremely high. I'm not sure if this is necessary or what but good god $30-$50 for some little plastic toy that isn't even assembled? Jesus Christ.

The shooting phase.
The assault phase.
Vehicle rules.
Mission rules.

Most of the Codices.

I would change the vehicle damage chart around to make pens more likely to destroy a target and I would bring back overwatch!!

I would make the codex's more individualized.

So certain Space Marine groups and Guard regiments are more viable.

I would make the models true-scale. Unless we're only talking about rules here, then I'd definitely have all the codex's updated and released simultaneously for 6th edition next year, not giving a screw about GWs financial benefits and loses.

Hell, their rep would go up a lot.

I would:

Change charge range to be equal to a unit’s initiative (if the unit contains ICs it would be the lowest initiative value)

Implement something similar to charging in Warhammer Fantasy, giving the unit being charged three options:
-Stand and fight (being charged as it happens currently)
-Stand and shoot, each model gets one shot at the charging unit, but the unit hits last in combat
-Run, both players roll a D6 and add the initiative of the model with the lowest initiative in the unit, if the unit being charged rolls higher then they run directly away from the charging unit with a value in inches equal to the value they rolled (including the added initiative). If both sides end up with equal values for the test then the unit gets charged. If the unit successfully runs the charging unit ends were it would have come into contact with the unit if it had charged normally. (I hope that one makes sense)

Make codexes a lot bigger with multiple options on how you can set up your army. At the start of the codex it would say you can choose to run this type of army (eg options for all the first founding chapters in the Space Marine Codex would be present) and that would enable you to select special characters, war gear and units from pages x to y, possibly adding restrictions as well. You could easily have this for Space Marines, Chaos, Imperial Guard, Eldar and Dark Eldar; and I’m sure other armies could have different inner-factions created for them. This would enable you to play your Imperial Guard as a mechanized, siege or armoured regiment or your Chaos as Daemons, Legion Chaos Space Marine or rebels (etc) with specific rules and it would get rid off spin-off codexes (eg the Space Marine chapter codexes).

Another possibility would be to overhaul the turn system, having turns run semi-simultaneously. Still having the different phases, but each player takes it in turns to move/shoot/charge a unit, making the game faster paced.

And finally, +1 to your to hit roll when within 6 or 8 inches (not sure which) of your target. However this wouldn’t be applied when standing and shooting against a charging opponent.

All I can think of for now

I like those ideas, Drruum. Maybe you should put some of them in the proposed rules board and see what people have to say?

Darkvoidof40k wrote:I like those ideas, Drruum. Maybe you should put some of them in the proposed rules board and see what people have to say?

Post xmas model influx I'll convince one of my friends to play test some of the rules, I'll then post (in battle reports, general discussion, proposed rules, depending on how I type it up) how it went. I might try out some rules I've been considering on AP altering cover saves as well, it always annoys me when some small fence saves somebody from a railgun.

Drruum wrote:

Darkvoidof40k wrote:I like those ideas, Drruum. Maybe you should put some of them in the proposed rules board and see what people have to say?

Post xmas model influx I'll convince one of my friends to play test some of the rules, I'll then post (in battle reports, general discussion, proposed rules, depending on how I type it up) how it went. I might try out some rules I've been considering on AP altering cover saves as well, it always annoys me when some small fence saves somebody from a railgun.

Make sure to also use multiple saves. Cover/Invulnerable/Armour.

Realism for the win!

I wish they would actually spellcheck their codexes. seeing little typos in releases i have been waiting years for just makes me rage. Who is proofreading this?!?!?! YOU'RE FIRED!

Simultaneous codex releases.
All army entres have a model to go with them.
Balance tanks a touch more.

Ya, the destroyability(It's a word now!!!) of cover...

Cover Chart
Save of Cover....What Destroys it
6+ Save............Strength 3+
5+ Save............Strength 4+
4+ Save............Strength 7+
3+ Save............Strength 9+
2+ Save............Strength 10/D

Assault grenades destroy cover that provides 5+ and 6+ saves. Does not apply to Unit Provided Cover/Special Rule applied cover. Cover is targeted seprately, however, if a blast/large blast hits cover, then resolve all attacks against units first, then remove cover, as the cover provided one last protection act, before faltering and collapsing under the sheer force of the weapon.

I also like drrrum's ideas

IMO, there may always be a trade-off between making the game realistic and utterly rational, and keeping it simple.

Like what was said above, organizing the release schedule and keeping things balanced. More playtesting of codexes, so there doesn't have to be as many FAQs. And more units for each codex, provided they are balanced. (Forgeworld, I'm talking to you here ) I'm personally willing to wait longer in between codexes if there are balanced and not like SW or BA. Condense the Space MArines into two codexes: original legions and second founding and beyond. Same with Chaos, make a undivided book, that also contains Lost and the Damned. Then a book with the 4 cultist legions and included Daemons of chaos with them. Make a list of USRs and stick with them, don't have a SC modify them, that just creates headaches for everyone. Remember KISS, above all else. [/color]

WarsmithFerrus wrote:Like what was said above, organizing the release schedule and keeping things balanced. More playtesting of codexes, so there doesn't have to be as many FAQs. And more units for each codex, provided they are balanced. (Forgeworld, I'm talking to you here ) I'm personally willing to wait longer in between codexes if there are balanced and not like SW or BA. Condense the Space MArines into two codexes: original legions and second founding and beyond. Same with Chaos, make a undivided book, that also contains Lost and the Damned. Then a book with the 4 cultist legions and included Daemons of chaos with them. Make a list of USRs and stick with them, don't have a SC modify them, that just creates headaches for everyone. Remember KISS, above all else.

What's with the annoying text colour? Unnecessary.

Another thing I would change is to make it so that there would be less WAAC/Tournament lists available to people making lists, and many more ways to personalise your force, like the 4th ed SM chapter traits (except a lot better ).

That way, all the armies would become much more "fluffy" and if people really wanted to win tournaments, then it would have to be out of skill with their own force rather than the rules carrying the day all by themselves.

Oh yeah, and I'd definitely have 6th edition become more realistic.

And more HQ options..

What I would see changed today?

Rhinos and Chimeras go back to their previous post costs. These vehicles were overpriced back in 4th under the old vehicle rules, but now they are waaay too cheap under the better 5th edition vehicle rules.