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.

This is probably done quite often but here are my opinions of what might need to be changed.

- No random charge distance anymore. With the current set of rules it is hard to get into close combat and losing guys from the front to intercepting fire reduces the number of successful assaults even further. Intrecepting fire itself is a good idea. Random assault is good for itself as well. No attacking after entering play, well...this one i do not like. And the combination of all three just is shutting down most of the close combats IMHO. I liked the following: Infantry/Walkers 6" move/6" attack. Cav: 6" move/12" attack. Bikes 12" move/6" attack. Jump Packs: either 12" move ((ignore terrain) and 6" attack OR 6" move and 12" attack (ignore terrain, doing smash damage). The latter unit may chose in which phase they like to use the jump packs - either move or assault phase. Fire heavy weapon/salvo or rapid fire? Then no charge unless you are relentless (count as stationary while firing those weapons - the old weapon specialist rule).
- Shocking troops or flanking troops may attack again. Why shouldn't they? Now they are magically hindered to act after landing/entering ZoC. If you need balancing then let them do a LD test after entering. If they fail they are disorientated and may not attack but fire snapshot while the Sgt. tries to overcome the confusion. This buffs SM or high LD armies, but then again, they are adept at this tactics and you paid premium points for them. Assault Squads ARE "death from above" not "sitting ducks from above". Keep in mind that after winning a combat you may not reposition to start another one. Also, flanking units would get more bite. I do not flank currently because my flanking units tend to be shot to crap every time. IG sentinel user might know this as well. You may add a -2 penalty to leadership for teleporting troops and a -1 for shocking troops and no penalty for flanking troops. Vehicles are treated as having LD 10.
I even would go so far that you CAN shock jump pack troops into enemy units (attaacking them). This is how they fight usually. Give the attacked unit intercepting fire (no explosive weapons allowed) and lets see, how it works out.
- Vehicles receive either a saving throw against glancing hits or personally I would prefer glancing hits would not remove a structure point but roll a D3 on the damage table. +1 for AP2 and +2 for AP1 weapons still. Extra armour upgrade could subtract 1 from this roll. This will keep the vehicles shaken and unreliable to fire but not be reduced to rubble in a turn by glancing hits. Explosions from piercing hits however should work as before. E.g. I do not play Land Raiders anymore in 6th ed. They are built to bring my terminators to their designated target. Now I am merely happy, if the LR survives to turn 2 with 1 hit remaining. Not cool, GW.
- Explosive template weapons should roll a to-hit. Lay the template to designated point and roll. If hit, good, if not, template scatters D6 (no reduction). Also, they should be able to fire during a snapshot being regarded as having BS 1 (so mostly inaccurate). Hit-symbol scatters towards small arrow then so no direct hits but still, a projectile is launched, hits somewhere and if there is some unlucky guy being hit so this is life (or death in that case). Also, Vehicles should not mind about moving and firing templates unless they are ordnance as well. Those weapons are used to be stabilized and/or firmly mounted. This would also eliminate the strange situation, that a landed drop pod cannot fire deathwind system first turn DESPITE having a machine spirit AND is equipped for clearing the landing zone while the SM hop out (who cares naught about being shaken - read fluff). Or ever tried using flamer weapons from vehicles in that ruleset?
- Give back the SM company champion the "parry shield" option giving a 5+ sv in CC. Raise that to 4+ for the chapter champ. Hey, that guy MUST challenge every time but cannot buy protective gear? C'mon...

The rest of the current rules are surprisingly good and work out well. The rule hierarchy however is somewhat complicated and i'd rather had GW write ALL extra and generic weapon rules in the codex that uses them. Saves lots of time skipping from rule to rule. Also matroskya-puppet like rules are bad for fluent gameplay. E.g. like open vehicles are always assault vehicles - why not add "assault vehicle" to every open vehicle? So you MUST know that the latter is included in another rule. Which can be confusing.

My 5 cts.

I don't think random charge distance should be removed, rather made into 4d3.

Quite Happy with charge rules as is.........

However what I think the rules do need are:

If you have double your opponents WS you hit on 2+ - more than that you get a single re-roll to hit.

Tweek certain Assault units - eg give Wyches a dodge save against overwatch amd make them better in h-t-h combat rather than awesome against tanks :(
Same with Howling Banshees - give them a Assault Variant Falcon etc that can allow them to actually assault

Disagree with most of OP's points, strongly disagree with the blast weapon thing, and agree with everything in the second and third posts.

Personally, I'd love to see WS have more variety as if you know anything about fighting you'd know that a good fighter *is* going to hit on the IRL equiv of a 2+ and get hit on a 6+.Meanwhile shooting is far less reliable than a set chance of a hit all the time no matter the distance or whats in the way or what the target or shooter is doing. I mean they've practically reversed the reality of shooting and assault and thats really, really stupid.

I strongly disagree with double standard rules. For instance, deep strikers can shoot just fine, but close combat troops cannot assault whatsoever. I would prefer that deep strikers can only snap fire.

The other thing is blast templates, but this might be a pet peeve. I personally dislike them because they slow the game down with needing to space out dudes and such. I'd love to see it be; "if a large blast weapon hits, roll a d6 for each model in the target unit. On an X+ they suffer a hit" and such. Same overall effect of "more hits against more enemies" but less logistics. That said I do like flame templates so whatever

Edit: Also the Dreadnaught vs Monstrous Creature nonsense

I think that the real friggin' nonsense starts, when you fire a snapshot from a rocket launcher. Using a AT-missile you can fire just fine. But NO, you are not allowed to use a frag missile because it uses explosive rules. A grenade launcher is a kind of assault weapon for riot control. You may make pot shots with krak grenades but must not use frag grenades in the same situation. CC-performance was hardly the point in my original post. Deep strikers doing snapshots would be not necessary since nearly all of them have assault weapons ignoring all kinds of movement anyways. The problem is: deep strikers cannot attack and the random attack range makes CC even worse. Still not tackling the problem of peeling away vehicles. The current ruleset makes for instance land raiders overpriced gift-boxes. Their weapon arrays are mostly not enough to finish off their worth in points. Same is true for many vehicles. The most popular things i see are dreadnaughts with laser or plasma cannon. They come in quite cheap. The plasma variant especially.
I concur: dreadnaught vs. monstrous creature IS nonsense. It works almost the same but dies differently and can be affected by damage roll results. While the "organic" version does not. So WHAT exactly is an eldar wraithlord? It is dead construct, so why wounds at all? The thing most similar would be a demon-posessed dread by logic.