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 HAVE NO INFORMATION ON THE RUMOURED 6TH ED. OF ANY SORT

Jumping off the back of this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/352734.page#2547154, what changes to the game would players like to see?

Changes to wound allocation? How barrages work? Losing True LOS? Let us know.

I want to see a return of Target priority and the loss of cover saves everywhere. It gets so annoying that my Thousand Sons's 4+ Invul save and AP3 bolters are effectively rendered null by a single rule, yet I'm still paying out the ass for it.

First thing, above and beyond anything else.

REMOVE KILL POINTS ENTIRELY

I'd like to see transport rules remain mostly the same but with Explosions being a bit more scary. I'm thinking something like an Init test or take a wound with no armor saves allowed, reroll successfull init tests for *passengers* if the vehicle moved over 12".

Aura effects (e.g. KFF, IG Orders, Sanguinary Priest FNP, etc) I'd also say should subtract 2 or 3" from their area if embarked in a transport to compensate for the increased effect area of the vehicles hull.

I'd like to see troops be able to interact with the board more like in Flames of War (e.g. dig in, stand to repel spot for heavy guns, etc). This would help make non-mechanized infantry a bit more practicable. If infantry could say, dig in anywhere, hide themselves, and prepare to repel a charge (e.g. gain a cover save, count as being under nightfight conditions, and gain counterattack) after spending a turn or two digging in and preparing (or starting the game like that), it would make them frightening indeed, and mitigate many of the calls to "nerf transports".

I'd like to see the vehicle shooting rules redone, along the lines of the following:

Stationary: Fire everything.

Moved 6" or less. Fire one weapon normal BS, all others -1 BS.

Moved 6-12". Fire one weapon -1BS, all others -2 BS.

Moved over 12". One weapon -2 BS, all others -3 BS.

Defensive Weapons: Allow defensive weapons to actually be *defensive* and target a different target from the rest of the vehicle, and be allows to shoot against attackers in CC.


For CC against vehicles, I'd make it so that you only get to strike against rear armor if you reduce your attacks to 1 as per Grenades, otherwise hit normal facing. Let's be honest, that Nob on a bike with his Powerklaw isn't exactly taking his time to find weak spots as he jets by that Predator, he's just whacking it as hard as he can and hoping to tear something off, not taking the time to specifically try and tear open the drivers viewport or anything. Likewise a Carnifex isn't exactly aiming for weakspots either, it's barrelling into a tank at full speed and brute forcing it's way to killing it.

Alternatively, another thing that could be cool would be a "crush and grind" mechanic. Allow vehicles to hit back by running over attackers or grinding them beneath tracks. Something like a WS1 hit at S3+1 for every frontal AV above 10. Assaulting tanks and vehicles in real life is extremely dangerous, and for some of the scenarios in 40k (e.g. attempting to attach an explosive grenade to a hovering tank moving at highway speeds) utterly suicidal.

Fix vehicle squadrons. As is, the rules for vehicle squadrons are horrifically punitive, there's a reason you rarely see them and even then generally only on rather cheap platforms. With 3 LRBT's in a squadron, it's possible to inflict an 2d6 AP1 penetrating hit on a Leman Russ 22" away from a 12" range meltagun. Additionally, the "immobilized=dead" rule was just lazy game design on Alessio's part, the anchoring from 4th edition worked just fine. There was no reason to include that. If they got rid of "immobilized=dead" and only allowed hits to be allocated to vehicles in range and LoS, it would make vehicle squadrons for anything that isn't already somewhat sacrificial a bit more worth it, even if there's still huge diminishing returns from having to all fire at the same thing and be allocated hits as one.


Change more cover to 5+ and/or introduce BS modifiers. Alternatively, go the Flames of War route for cover where instead of a different save, a vehicle would have to pass an AP test (roll equal or over the AP of the weapon) to penetrate the cover and harm the troops. That way, troops in ruins against small arms would be incredibly hard to kill (bolters would have to hit, wound, penetrate cover on a 5+ then troops get any applicable saves), but a Demolisher cannon is going to wreck them (hits, wounds, penetrates cover on a 2+, then penetrates armor saves), like it should. Makes cover much more realistic.

Also change the area terrain rules, get rid of the stupid bit where just being behind it doesn't give you a save, you have to be between two trees or whatever. Nobody pays attention to it really anyway.

Allow Grenades to be used against MC with the same rules as for Walkers (e.g. hit on a 6).

When it comes to CC, add in modifiers for outnumbering. Perhaps not counting it towards winning, but at least mitigating losing. If you lose combat by 7 but outnumber your foe 3-1, reduce the result to 4 instead of 7.

Likewise, when it comes to No Retreat, this should be changed so that wiping out a squad of dire avengers should not inflict 8 hits on the Avatar that took no wounds in combat and killed 3 Grey Hunters. For the purposes of No Retreat, this should only count that single units role in the combat, not all units involved.


Redo wound allocation. Either return it to 4E with a better mechanic for multiple saves, or allocate and resolve all wounds in order of AP (e.g. allocate and resolve AP2 wounds, then allocate and resolve AP3 wounds, etc) to reduce the abusiveness of different multiwound models as well as mixed AP situations where *more* shooting often equates to *fewer* casualties.

Normalize psychic defense, either it all works against stuff in transports or none of it does (e.g. psychic hood vs shadow in the warp).

With regards to Blast Weapons and Barrages, I'd change cover rules for blast weapons. If there is cover intervening, instead of the unit getting a cover save, do one of two things. Either roll the save and the shot gets through or it doesn't (so if it fails the unit gets no individual cover saves) to represent the cover stopping the shell on its way in, or do not allow BS subtraction for Scatter (representing the intervening cover throwing off the aim). It makes little sense for a cover save as they are now to be granted to a unit that's not in cover for a shell that lands amongst them for something in between them and the firer. As to Barrages, lets just get rid of the flipping thing, it'd fiddlyness for the sake of fiddlyness and that's about it.

Get rid of the restriction on Ordnance weapons not allowing other weapons to fire. The restriction exists in the first place because of the Leman Russ after the changeover from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition. The Leman Russ now has a special rule ignoring it as it's a rather silly rule given that Ordnance weapons are not the scary powerhouses they were in 2nd edition or even as scary as they were in 3rd edition due to army changes since then. The only thing this rule really has any effect on at this point is the Defiler. It's not like IG indirect fire ordnance platforms are going to be hitting much with their heavy flamer if they shoot their Earthshaker cannon anyway.

FNP unfortunately has the same problem Rending did in 4E. IT was fine on a couple specialized units. Now that its handed out like Candy it's just too much. Make FNP a 5+ or restrict its availability.

For Skimmers, get rid of the whole "hopping" thing, get rid of dangerous terrain test for ending movement over terrain if they are floating over it.

Make biker Turboboost saves 4+ cover, 3++ makes them a wee bit too no-brainer to jet out in front without any precautions.

Change "Eternal Warrior" from being immune to ID to taking only D3 wounds instead.

Return Force Weapons to what they were originally designed for. They really are supposed to be specialized anti-Daemon weapons, but unfortunately currently are no better than a combat knife, rifle butt, or fist against Daemons due to Daemons having Invul saves and being immune to ID.

Allow more board interaction in general. Let players destroy terrain, attack buildings, deploy minefields, wire fields, trenches, spore chimneys, etc.

I'm not sure how it used to be, but I'd like sniping to be revamped. One idea is it can be shot normally as an assault weapon with the stats it has, or if the user doesn't move the range doubles. I think it's pretty stupid to have a gun with a scope have 33% more range than a lasgun which is fired with iron sights, and not to mention usually fired rapidly.

Codex: Inquisition is really what I'd love to see. Failing that; Codex: Lost and the Damned.

Rules-wise I'm not too bothered.

Stamp out being able to use Psychic hoods, IG orders, KFFs etc... when in a transport. PERIOD.

Revamp the vehicle damage table with more options. There should be more things between "paint scratch" and "nuclear explosion", such as damaged drive (half speed) damaged optics (-1 BS) and so on. I would love some sort of return of crew rules, but those are probably too complex to implement again without doing some real shuffling codex by codex.

Footsloggin wrote:Stamp out being able to use Psychic hoods, IG orders, KFFs etc... when in a transport. PERIOD.

Agree, except on the orders. You're already not allowed to use them in vehicles, the Chimera simply makes an exception, which would remaind even if they added some blurb in the BGB 6.0.