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.

With Fantasy v8 done GW is probably starting work on 40k v6 for 2012. As always there's 2 questions here, what will GW probably do, and what do we want them to do.

Anything jumping out as a likely change for GW?

Kill points.....gone.

I wouldn't be surprised if I opend the new 6th ed rule book and the first thing I saw,

'All models MUST be accompanied by dedicated transports'

My biggest gripes with the current edition have not been many. Certainly there are things that make me scratch my head but for the most part the version is good.

Allocating Wounds needs to go back to just removing the models of the players choice to streamline that part of the game and make it less confusing.

I still feel resolving HtH combats needs some tweaking as does multiple HtH combats.

Lastly area terrain needs a bit of a reworking to have maybe some more specific designations. I really hate a squad sitting on a hilltop gets a cover save when there really is no freaking cover available to them.

Hmmm...

Apart from everything, there isn't much wrong with 5e, IMO. What I mean is, there is no one simple thing I can point at and say, change this and it will fix everything.

It would be nice to get away from UGOIGO. That wouldn't be hard.

The codexes are the main problem.

Fix No Retreat! for multiple combats.

I'm quite sick of my Hive Tyrant being so distraught at the sight of so many Termagaunts getting stomped that he suffers a heart attack.

Rejigger the damage table. A 2d6 table or something of the sort with more results between "paint scratched" and "nuclear explosion" would be a start. Damaged drives, damaged optics, and so on.

I could see Gw possibly doing something like a Perils of the warp table instead of the take a wound thing.

Dunno if that would improve the game much.

I'd like the balance to be shifted back to infintry and less so on mech. But that's a personal thing rather than anything.

I would like to see a perils table. Make psykers a touch more unpredicatbe.

With a roll of a 12 being your unit becomes possesed by a greater daemon, who immediately charges the closest unit...

But seriously, infantry being more viable than Transport/Vehicle spam. But a proper mix being the more viable among them.

Footsloggin wrote:With a roll of a 12 being your unit becomes possesed by a greater daemon, who immediately charges the closest unit...

But seriously, infantry being more viable than Transport/Vehicle spam. But a proper mix being the more viable among them.

Maybe on an 11 he explodes?

Yeah I think I'd like to see the allocation go away a bit. Only different statlines should need allocating, I don't see why marine A must be the one to use the meltagun, marine B should be able to pick up the weapon if marine A dies anyways.

I think I'd like to see something changed for cover saves too, I'm not a fan of all the 4+, I feel most cover should be 5+ (trees, craters etc, ruins are fine at 4+).

I'm pretty happy with 5th overall, and am not itching for a change so much.

Footsloggin wrote:With a roll of a 12 being your unit becomes possesed by a greater daemon, who immediately charges the closest unit...

Exactly. Loads of fluff about pyskers losing a little control and getting possessed. That and have some other effects (maybe some positive ones). Less psykers would propably be feilded but ah well.

purplefood wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:With a roll of a 12 being your unit becomes possesed by a greater daemon, who immediately charges the closest unit...

But seriously, infantry being more viable than Transport/Vehicle spam. But a proper mix being the more viable among them.

Maybe on an 11 he explodes?

9 His head just pops, 10 he explodes with a small blast, 11 he explodes with a large blast!

I like the fact that transports are strong choices in 5th edition, but it brings me to the point of nerd rage at how psykers and psyker-like powers have this magic one-way wall with transports where if inside they can affect everything around them, yet somehow no psychic power can affect them. There has to be a better solution.

Make Transports more expensive, the psyker USR maybe gets a power within itself to disable vehicles to some extent?

A perils of the warp chart would be pretty cool, but I'd hope it wouldn't completely general to all psykers. A Daemon Prince having the same chance of catching head-explodingitis as a common librarian? I hope not.

Footsloggin wrote:Make Transports more expensive, the psyker USR maybe gets a power within itself to disable vehicles to some extent?

That's not really what I'm talking about. I hate the inconsistancy between psykers being unaffected by SitW and similar things while in a transport, yet they can still use powers like Shield of Sanguinus that project outside of the transport and affect units around them. If a transport is going to be a barrier, then let it be a barrier both ways. If it's going to be transparent to powers, let it be transparent both ways.

Maelstrom808 wrote:That's not really what I'm talking about. I hate the inconsistancy between psykers being unaffected by SitW and similar things while in a transport, yet they can still use powers like Shield of Sanguinus that project outside of the transport and affect units around them.

RAW is actually pretty clear/consistent, it's just that BS FAQ ruling of SitW that's messed up.

Tzeentchling9 wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:That's not really what I'm talking about. I hate the inconsistancy between psykers being unaffected by SitW and similar things while in a transport, yet they can still use powers like Shield of Sanguinus that project outside of the transport and affect units around them.

RAW is actually pretty clear/consistent, it's just that BS FAQ ruling of SitW that's messed up.

Not really...from the BRB FAQ:

Q: Can a model use a psychic power that is not a Psychic
Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport vehicle? (p50)
A: Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still
worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will count as
one model shooting through that fire point if the power is
used in the Shooting phase).
If the psychic power does not require line of sight and has
a range or an area of effect that is normally measured
from the model using it, these are measured from the
vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking section on
page 66.

Q: Can Psychic powers be used on a unit embarked on a
transport? (p50)
A: For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a firm ‘No,
unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported’

So if you have any sort of aura power that affects units within X inches and are outside of the transport, it does nothing to the units within...yet if you are within the transport, you not only can affect units around you, but you get a little bonus range because you measure from the hull of the transport.

this is more of a codex thing, but:
no mephiston MC BS.
no SW riding wolves BS.

for the BRB?
I'd love to see it so that mech armies aren't as good. I get fed up with having to pop tin cans before I can kill anything of interest.

Footsloggin wrote:Make Transports more expensive

That wouldn't be too bad an addition, except it couldn't be applied within the Rulebook, it would have to be changed in each individual Codex, which wouldn't work.

For me, just balance out Mech/Infantry usage would be the biggest change needed.
No Retreat Wounds and Cover would need to be fixed too IMHO.


For me though, my greatest desire would be to keep the Troops/Objective Need as I LOVE that rule.

Chaos Lord Gir wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if I opend the new 6th ed rule book and the first thing I saw,

'All models MUST be accompanied by dedicated transports'

Perhaps they will make tanks less powerful, making infantry more important than just holding objectives.

Probably the best thing they could do aside from the psyker thing is remove the ability for transports to count as scoring if they have troops embarked. That way the contents have to come out at some point...and it's a bit more realistic.

Get rid of wound allocation, replace it with a more robust and sensible version of the 4E rule. And a return to the 4E area terrain rules. THEY WERE PERFECT!!!!! Unless you want to treat 40K like a skirmish game and spend hours every game arguing about the specific placement of models, just accept a certain level of abstraction. It's not like there is any sort of realistic correlation between miniature scale and ground scale anyway. And get rid of the FOC, replacing it with a percentage-based system, which would be a lot more flexible and would eliminate the irritating trend of HQ's allowing exceptions to the FOC. Gaaah!!!

Really, to me 40K is what it is. I dropped out of the game for ten years to play games that I thought were better. Hell, I helped write two of them. So when 6th edition comes along, I will play it as it is served up to me. I can always find opponents, and the minis and armies are fun, if not necessarily "realistic." I will make my suggestions on improving the game when the Dev team asks me, they know where to find me. Until then, I will have fun with whatever they give me to play with.

It annoys me that the chance to hit a vehicle in CC is based solely on how fast the vehicle moved. There should also be a modifier based on the WS and/or position of the model trying to hit it.
(eg. a carnifex charging a moving vehicle head on should have a much better chance of hitting it than one coming from behind and trying to keep up.)

that.

I'd like to see them get rid of wound allocations tricks.

I'd like them to move more towards "true line of sight" - if you can only see one model, you can only kill one model. Likewise, if only models within a 2" range can make attacks, then casualties from an assault should come from those models within 2".

I'd like to see number of models in the combat count for something in resolution. In 4th, it was all about outnumbering. In 5th, it's all about wounds inflicted. Surely there's some middle ground (If there are three of you, and I killed one, and there are ten of me, and you killed two, did you really win than combat? It was roughly 3:1 before, and now it's 4:1, seems like my side is winning to me.

I'd like to see some risk added back to using transports. I'm okay with the harder-to-damage vehicles (5th compared to 4th) but bring back entanglement at least, so it's not a no-risk no-brainer choice to go mech.

When I first started playing again I was initially outraged by No Retreat! wounds. It just didn't seem fair. Then after I played for a few months I started to see that other people were losing combat and getting sweeping advanced and losing everything in one go (except Space Marines, because they're special and need special rules to make them even more specially special). Assaults are supposed to be short and brutal. Now I don't much care about it anymore and I've also adapted my play style to deal with it on the table top. Part of the game, I accept it and play with it.

No Retreat! wounds and multiple assaults? That crap is just absolutely inexcusable and will infuriate me every, single, time. Watching people game the system by plowing every single last attack they have into gaunts/gants just to rack up as many gimme-wounds as they can and never even taking a swing at a Hive Tyrant confident in the knowledge that he's just going to fall over dead because they got one guy in base contact (who himself never even took a swing at the Tyrant). No acceptable excuses, that needs changed.