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.

timetowaste85 wrote:So...by your suggestion Imperial Guard would become unbeatable? No thanks. That kind of change would make everybody a guard player and only a moron with horrible dice luck could lose that game. If a 50 man infantry squad could split lasgun, lascannon and flamer fire...yuck. What's the point in playing against something like that? GW wouldn't do it-everybody would quit.

IG Codex is currently OP, how is this news? I'll grant that Guard used to suck but the current codex is a massive overcompensation. Easier to fix the core rules and change how Guard works than the other way around.

On the other end of the scale, what exactly is the point of a walking Tactical Squad? Nearly every player in the entire game avoids walking infantry with mixed weapon classes, specifically single heavy weapons, like the plague right now, at least where they can.

Fix the rule for the majority, errata the minority of problems and bring out a new IG codex right after C:SM for 6th. It's not rocket science, even if GW has problems implimenting the simplest of solutions.

I would like hope that Super heavies be integrated into regular 40k instead of apocalypse cause I want to use a baneblade

I also want to see more aircraft for Imperial Guard as well

Implementing air support properly would be cool, as in something flies in and wastes an area and flies off, not just however around the battlefield

I would like to see a change with the line of sight rule. I think it's ridiculous that a Lascannon can see a tiny portion of a tank through the cracks between a Drop Pod and is still allowed to shoot, resulting in a wrecked tank.

I would like to see the following

1.No more wound allocation cheese(I play orks and have over 30 nob models)

2. Make deploying something outside of a transport viable.

3. Overwatch!!!!

4. Bring out alot of OP xeno dexes so we dont have to spend 90% of games killing the same old marines.

A couple of things I'd love to see in 6e:

1. Removing wound allocation or changing how it works.

2. Make damage results a bit better, 5e was an improvement over 4e, but it's gone too far. Maybe make glance/pens automatically reduce the number of weapons the vehicle can fire by 1 next round, and add something like "defensive weapon - destroyed".

3. Reduce cover saves from 4+ to 5+, and get rid of the stupid cover save from shooting through enemies! Also, we really need the Leadership test to shoot anything that's not the closest back. Perfect targetting is balls.

4. Would not miss TLoS if they axed it.

5. Buff snipers somehow! Really!...

i would like to see a change to cover saves. I have had cover saves from behind cover or in cover at 4+. no big deal. however, my opponent with his lascannon devestator shoots at maximum range, within cover, over his troops, between two tanks, and into the building my tank is hiding in, and i only get a 4+?

I'd personally like to see a bike buff, but that's because they look cool, and I want to run more.

Throwing grenades sounds fun, and I would like it if they didn't make vehicles worse, but figured out a way to make infantry better. But I don't know how, but then, I'm not a games developer.

1.) Changes to combat resolution and multiple combats, specifically with regards to fearless units. I.E., you shouldn't be able to kill 10 Gants, ignore a Hive Tyrant, and force the Tyrant to take 6-7 armor saves.

2.) Changes to transport vehicles. Make it carry more of a risk. Something like passengers automatically take a wound in an exploded closed-top vehicle, with armor saves allowed. Open-topped, take a strength 4 hit. Plus, there should at least be a negative modifier to the pinning test. -2 to leadership or something like that.

3.) Fearless units and pinning. Make them able to be pinned, but always ignore any negative modifiers for it.

4.) Stacking shaken and stunned results. 2 shakens = stunned. Perhaps even have multiple stunned results stack for a weapon destroyed.

5.) Make units able to embark transports during a consolidate move, provided that they follow the normal rules for embarking (everyone gets within 2").

6.) Cover. For the love of the Emperor, get rid of the blanket 4+ cover save for everything. Make area terrain a 5+, and reserve the 4+ save for half of a squad being LOS obscured.

7.) Buildings. Flesh out the rules for buildings, bunkers, etc, and give them a more prominant roll in the game. Maybe even make a mission which revolves around a building, like the fantasy Watchtower mission.

8.) Missions. I hate the 3 missions, 3 deployments set up. Give us 6 different missions with their own built-in deployments, like in fantasy.

9.) Make Psykers more balanced. Add a default psychic defense into the rulebook for armies which don't have any of their own. Orks, Tau, CSM, CD, Templars, etc. Give them some sort of protection. Alternatively, make psychic powers more difficult, or dangerous to cast. An Ld 10 Psyker facing Orks or CSM shouldn't get to simply cast any power right and left with almost no chance of being stopped or hurt.

10.) Consider bringing back To Hit modifiers, and consider going back to armor save modifiers. Am I the only one who thinks that Space Marines shouldn't get their full save against Heavy Bolters? Here's an idea; if a weapons AP is one higher than the target's armor save, they take a -1 modifier to their save. Other than that, it's a strict save/no save system.

More details on terrain cover, rather than every shrub giving a +4 !

I would accept a slight nerf on vehicles on ONE CONDITION!!! Any Ork infantry unit can have a trukk. That's right, unlimited access. That way, I can create such target saturation that the odds are enough of them will make it to their targets to do the job. Also wound allocation has got to go.

The new edition should be simple adjustments, similar to the transition from 3rd to 4th.

Wound Allocation- Ditch it and reinstate torrent of fire rule, where one wound can be assigned by the shooter to a specific model every time you wrap the squad. If you want to assign specific wounds to specific saves, fine, but one wound is dealt per failure to the unit and whole models are removed where possible. None of this 8 Nobs with a wound each on them or reducing casualties from a Leman Russ by firing the HB sponsons.

Terrain- Return to abstract terrain and clearly define cover save values so that AP2 weapons mean more than just denying Feel no Pain. Cover is too abundantly available under the current rules (and this is a Xenos player talking).

Models- Dump this TLOS crap and play the bases, like in 4th. If a vehicle has a base, everything is done from that base. If not, the hull is used as the measuring point, to and from, for all shooting and assault. All infantry models use the bases for the same. This ends all the "creative" modeling and (in combination with a return to area terrain) greatly reduce arguments about who can see what and with how much cover. This would also end the debates over models using the oval bases.

Vehicles- If your vehicle expodes, you should be pinned and all affected models wounded on a 4+ (instead of S3). Ditch the flat out skimmer rule and simply make them -1 on the damage table when mobile against shooting attacks only. Establish which weapons are defensive by creating a new weapon catagory for them and allow defensive weapons to split fire onto a seperate target from the primary. Ideally, things like Heavy bolters, Shuriken Cannons, Smart Missle Systems, and Heavy Flamers should be classified as defensive.

Close Combat- Number should matter again. If they are too lazy to reintroduce the unit size rules again, then it should simply be something like "+1 Combat Res for every five wounds in the unit" would likely suffice and give a purpose to certain units again.

Missions- Let anything with a WS characteristic that is not a Swarm (or otherwise excepted) claim or contest objectives. No other units matter. You solve the turn 6 falcon swoop issue and make certain units more attractive again. It also allows for more variation in army design.

Rest of it is just simple clarification.

1) Vehicle damage changes (Transports)
'Annihilated' added as an option for Ordnance weapons (like, 7+ on the chart is Annihilated if the weapon is Ordnance, otherwise like normal). Annihilated would automatically inflict a wound on all passengers with no armour saves allowed

'Explodes' results inflict a wound on a 2+ with armor saves allowed (open topped - 4+)

'Wrecked' results inflict a wound on a 4+ with armor saves allowed (open topped - 6+)

Passengers do an emergency disembark from vehicles that are Wrecked, Explode, or Annihilated (and destroyed if not legally allowed to disembark), placed within 2" of the vehicle as normal, and are automatically pinned (even if fearless)

2) Fleet - Automatic 6" run or at least 2d6 pick highest
3) Hit and armor save modifiers
4) Buildings like shealyr said
5) Revamp of KP system

6) Terrain gives specific rules set by opponents before the game. For example, "heavy forest - small units in this terrain have a 4+ cover save, large units and vehicles have a 5+ cover save. blocks LOS", or "bunker - small units in this terrain have a 3+ cover save, large units and non-skimmer vehicles treat this terrain as impassable. blocks LOS", "low wall - small units in this terrain have a 5+ cover save. does not block LOS". Throw in rules for difficult/dangerous, etc. More fleshed out terrain rules in general (i.e. ignore terrain occupied by firer, defender uses best rules for intervening terrain, etc)

7) LOS in only two varieties - have it or don't have it (so, shoot or cannot shoot)

8) Eliminate "modeling for advantage" - a crawling Wraithlord should be modeled that way to look cool and nothing else. Measure LOS from center-of-base to center-of-base following terrain rules, above. If base center-base center isn't good enough, give models specific heights to measure from (for example, small units could measure from 0-2" above their base, large units 0-4", skimmers using the height of their hover base, etc)

9) More advantage for 'fast' vehicles, and elimination of 'defensive' weapons

10) Some way of assaulting from closed-top transports that aren't a Land Raider - maybe get -1A, or lower initiative

11) Treating ICs the same as any other model for shooting/close combat purposes

12) Screening - leave cover saves in. Tiny units (e.g. grots) - 5+, small units (e.g. infantry) - 4+, large units (e.g. MCs, walkers) - 3+, non-skimmer vehicles - 1+. Any successful saves would be rolled against the intervening unit. For example, shooting at a model hiding behind a land raider would give them a 1+ cover save, but any saves (which would be all of them) would hit the land raider instead.

13) Complete arbitrary splitting for shooting units, subject to a Ld test for each target beyond the first (remaining shots at a transport would automatically re-target to the survivors). "I'm gonna shoot my Lascannon and 3 Tactical Marines' bolters at that Rhino, and these other 6 Tactical marines' bolters at your Scout squad over there (rolls Ld test, fails, so all 9 tacticals have to shoot at the Rhino. The Lascannon blows up the Rhino, so the 9 Tactical marines shoot at the survivors automatically)

14) as shealyr said, some errata to add psychic defense to armies that are sorely lacking (would act as a temporary measure until new codex). This would probably be better as an "official GW rules update" rather than in the main rulebook

15) Wound allocation based on weapon groups, e.g. bolters would have to allocate separate from melta guns. Would prevent people stacking multiple low-AP hits on the same model when firing with mixed-weaponry units - there really should not be an advantage to the defender for being shot at with *more* weaponry!

The amount of people saying 4+ cover should go away is unsettling. You all must play Space Marines.

A better and more realistic method would be to make cover subtract from the to-hit roll. 4+ cover save gets converted to a 5+ to hit for marines, for instance. It would be weird, though, since there are so many twin-linked guns.

mugginns wrote:The amount of people saying 4+ cover should go away is unsettling. You all must play Space Marines.

A better and more realistic method would be to make cover subtract from the to-hit roll. 4+ cover save gets converted to a 5+ to hit for marines, for instance. It would be weird, though, since there are so many twin-linked guns.

QFT

1.) Make shooting better than CC, no one should cower in fear at someone who brings a knife to a gunfight. The main way I would see this happening, while at the same time making sure the game didn't simply revert to two gun lines going at it, is to enhance close range shooting, and make it the far better option over assaulting unless you are a dedicated assault unit. The first thing I can think of is Charge Reactions similar to Fantasy. The second is to bring in to-hit modifiers. Thirdly, I like the idea of being able to arbitrarily split fire based upon a leadership test. Lastly, pinning should be based on either mass of fire, or type of fire. Ergo, if you get pinned if you gt hit by 50 lasgun shots, or took a single hitting lascannon shot, or a sniper took a pot shot at you. If you fail, you go to ground but can get up next turn on a passed leadership test modified by the number of men lost to the shot. If you pass, or are fearless, you take a second round of shooting from whatever units shot you that turn. Running out in the open while under a hail of fire should have more repercussions than simply having to take a test that likely won't even make you stop your suicidal charge.

2.) Armour and Cover should be reworked. Cover should not be a blanket 4+ save regardless of what it is. If it's soft cover, aka you're behind a bush, than take it as a negative to-hit modifier, if it is hard cover, aka, you're actually hiding in gutted building or a in a forest behind trees, then do both a negative to-hit and grant a cover save.

Armour saves really should be based upon the strength of the shot. But unlike fantasy, I would start anti armour save at str 6 and above, with the AP value denoting how much of your armour save it shaves off before you take the str of the shot into account. Cover saves would count as armour save modifiers. There fore, a guardsmen in Carapace armour behind a tree would get a three plus save, but a melta gun still won't give a damn. A bunker busting lascannon really should have no problem shooting through trees or sandbags at the squishy 'umies underneath. (think Call of Duty's cover system)

3.) I currently like tanks roughly how they are, but I would change the results chart and what happens to the unit inside.

1-Shaken
2-Stunned
3-Weapon Destroyed
4-Immobilized
5-Damaged / Shooter chooses weapon destroyed or immobilized.
6-Wrecked
7- Explodes / All models embarked and within D6 inches take 1 D6 str hit.
8-Annihilated / All models embarked take 1 Str 10 hit, all models within 2D6 take 1 2D6-2 Str hit.

Penetrating hits roll normally, but cause crew stunned automatically in addition to other affects unless saved by a Ld test. Also, embarked models must pass a Ld test or immediately disembark.

Glancing hits receive -2 modifier. every 3rd glancing hit roll a dice, on a 1 you become immobilized, on a 2 you receive a weapon destroyed result.

Hits from Ordnance receive a +2 modifier as well as causing a secondary glancing hit.

AP 1 receives a +1
Str 10 receives a +1

mugginns wrote:The amount of people saying 4+ cover should go away is unsettling. You all must play Space Marines.

A better and more realistic method would be to make cover subtract from the to-hit roll. 4+ cover save gets converted to a 5+ to hit for marines, for instance. It would be weird, though, since there are so many twin-linked guns.

Uh, 4+ cover saves help Marines as much as it helps anyone else. For example, all those "marine-killing" weapons (plasma anything, particle whip, etc) would normally ignore armor saves, but instead hit a 4+ cover save. Better just to take a high volume of fire and put up with the 3+ armor save.

Cover subtracting from the to-hit roll would hurt BS4 armies (such as Marines) significantly less than BS3 armies.

Having cover saves all over the place screws up many things in many armies. About the only armies that truly benefit are those that heavily use assault troops.

Other than specific rules, making things clearly and consistently worded in the rulebook. Close combat weapons having a listing similar to ranged weapons, with classifications like 'power' 'special' 'cumbersome (for weapons that attack at I 1) and so on. Include a reference page with many of the 'common' special rules, such as assault ramps, power of the machine spirit, astknf, and so on- allows players to have a better handle of what other codices offer, as well as being able to update all codices that use similar wargear or rules.

Make Tank shocking a more viable option for larger or faster vehicles, giving a penalty to leadership for each point of armor over 11, or inflicting hits on the unit regardless of passing the test for each full 6 inches the unit moved. A unit reacting the same to a rhino moving at a crawl compared to a land raider using its max movement?

Modify the vehicle damage chart to provide a bonus based on the amount you penetrate a vehicle by- a meltagun into the back of a vehicle with double sixes for armor pen should be more deadly compared to just eking out a pen with a missile launcher.

Modify gets hot, or scrap it- people need a reason to take plasma weapons over meltas (Cheaper on average, kills vehicles better, doubles out many multi wound models, and doesnt have the chance to kill the guy firing it?)

Allow wounds inflicted by sniper weapons to be allocated by the shooter- reflects what snipers DO on a battlefield better. snipers do not shoot randomly into a crowd, they take out specific targets.

Slick wrote:Other than specific rules, making things clearly and consistently worded in the rulebook. Close combat weapons having a listing similar to ranged weapons, with classifications like 'power' 'special' 'cumbersome (for weapons that attack at I 1) and so on. Include a reference page with many of the 'common' special rules, such as assault ramps, power of the machine spirit, astknf, and so on- allows players to have a better handle of what other codices offer, as well as being able to update all codices that use similar wargear or rules.

QFT. I'm an Ork player. I started with Orks. I didn't even know what a Powerfist was, and the Powerklaw is described as 'a Powerfist in all regards'.

gendoikari87

3. Make hitting in CC harder. (for moving vehicles) something like 6+ for cruising 5+ for combat and can't hit if it moved flat out. (cause who's going to try and punch something moving at 50mph?

Orks Perhaps allow it on a 6+ if the unit is Fearless?





Personally what I'd like to see is this: All vehicles, whether 'alive' or wrecked on the field count as Difficult Terrain. Craters, and vehicles that've moved a Cruising Speed, count as Dangerous terrain.


I have absolutely no idea why it's apparently impossible for a mob of Orks to clamber over a tank to get to the crew that's disembarked on the other side when the transport's still alive, but it's fine if they blew the transport up just prior to the assault.

Xarian wrote:

mugginns wrote:The amount of people saying 4+ cover should go away is unsettling. You all must play Space Marines.

A better and more realistic method would be to make cover subtract from the to-hit roll. 4+ cover save gets converted to a 5+ to hit for marines, for instance. It would be weird, though, since there are so many twin-linked guns.

Uh, 4+ cover saves help Marines as much as it helps anyone else. For example, all those "marine-killing" weapons (plasma anything, particle whip, etc) would normally ignore armor saves, but instead hit a 4+ cover save. Better just to take a high volume of fire and put up with the 3+ armor save.

Uh no, it helps me way more because my troops have 6+ or 5+ armor saves that get negated by bolters most of the time. Especially with TLOS a 4+ cover save is vital. Of course I understand that cover saves help a marine vs tank-killing weapons; that is fine.

Having cover saves all over the place screws up many things in many armies.

How so? Provide some reasoning, please.

Reduce cover saves for infantry from 4+ to 5+. Armies paying for 3+ and 4+ saves are basically getting screwed as damn near everything in the game gets a 4+ cover save anyway.


Wound allocation needs a SERIOUS do-over. In the current configuration, it's possible to actually cause *less* casualties by inflicting *more* wounds, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Something along the lines of, unsaveable wounds must be as equally distributed as possible.

I'd like more Morale penalties for shooting. Frankly, in close combat you can lose track of how many of your buddies got whacked in a a couple seconds.

But running across open ground? You'll notice if a quarter of your squad gets mowed down, and it is more disconcerting.

I'd also like to see different movement values like in Fantasy.

And since I play Tyranids, hell YES I would like to see the game move away from mechanized forces.

I would also like to see a change in the CC to-hit tables. Frankly, if I'm WS 10 and you are WS 1, it shouldn't be just as easy as if I was 4 to your 3.

Mattlov wrote:I would also like to see a change in the CC to-hit tables. Frankly, if I'm WS 10 and you are WS 1, it shouldn't be just as easy as if I was 4 to your 3.

3 against 4 is 4+, and 1 against 10 is 5+. It would be nice if the to hit got as low as 2+, for when you've got better than twice the target's WS, though.

mugginns wrote:

Having cover saves all over the place screws up many things in many armies.

How so? Provide some reasoning, please.

First, I'm not talking about complete elimination of cover saves - just eliminating the "blanket 4+ cover save that applies all over the place"

So, here are several things having way too much cover screws up:

1) Pricing on weapons. Marine players often think "plasma sucks because it costs way too much" - because most of the time they are using it, it's hitting a 4+ cover wall rather than doing its job (wiping out marines, artificer armor, terminators, wraithguard, and the like by not allowing saves). Eldar players often think "starcannons suck because they cost way too much" - because a Starcannon costs twice as much as a Scatter Laser, has half the shots, and with the 4+ cover save, kills *everything* less effectively than a scatter laser (yes, including terminators)

2) Pricing and popularity of squads. Close-combat units are going to be just as effective as they ever were, but many shooting units are up to 50% less effective. This makes people load up on close-combat units because they aren't affected by cover saves. Anything with a power weapon is going to cut up marines just as well as it did before, for example.

3) Pricing on wargear. Anything that grants invulnerable saves in close combat becomes more valuable due to the proliferation of power weapons. Anything that enhances shooting becomes less valuable unless it also ignores cover saves, which is quite rare. Anything that grants a cover save is going to be worth less, because you can just hide behind a bush (or your other units) to gain the same bonus.

4) Horde armies end up getting tailored against. If you're expecting a 4+ cover save, you might use weapons and units that put out a lot of weak attacks, as opposed to weapons and units that put out a few powerful attacks and would normally ignore armor saves. Because of this, you see a proliferation of assault units (which usually have a higher volume of attacks than the shooting equivalents) and weapons which work the same regardless of cover - like flamers, thunderfire cannons (aerial burst) and the like. Yes, you get your 4+ cover save on your boyz, but now you are more likely to fight someone who can deal with it. Do you think it's a coincidence that Vulkan is so popular?

5) Transport vehicles. Not only are they good (and cheap), but they've also got a very good chance to ignore fully 50% of anything that you shoot at them.

6) Army lists. Players often tend to make their armies of the "well-rounded" sort, including low AP weaponry, anti-vehicle weaponry, and the like. Suddenly, however, none of that stuff is as effective as a plain old "pump out tons of fire" approach, so they start taking even more flamers, assault troops, and power weapons. The whole decision between "quality, or quantity?" gets made for you - because not much happened to "quanity", but "quality" gets dumped on.

7) Games become more boring and less decisive. "Hey, remember that time that I dropped that pie plate on your command squad and all that was left standing was a crater?" becomes "Hey, remember that time that I dropped a pie plate on your command squad and and 4 of your guys dove behind some scouts which for some reason were miraculously unharmed?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Mattlov wrote:I would also like to see a change in the CC to-hit tables. Frankly, if I'm WS 10 and you are WS 1, it shouldn't be just as easy as if I was 4 to your 3.

3 against 4 is 4+, and 1 against 10 is 5+. It would be nice if the to hit got as low as 2+, for when you've got better than twice the target's WS, though.

It should go to 2+/6+.

The Avatar vs Grots, for example...

I also have to agree with the cc fighting needing to be more than your average 4's or 3's, MAYBE a 5 to hit. Look at a professional fighter, now if you match them up against a person who is taking their fourth kickboxing lesson- do you think the newbie even has a shot of landing a telling hit? Units that are trying to hit something double it's weapon skill or more should have a 6+ to hit with a negative modifier on their to wound. There's no way a grot should be able to take out an Avatar.

Sure, that newbie couldn't land a hit in a duel, but this ain't a duel, it's a warzone. Akechi Mitsuhide, the samurai who killed the warlord Oda Nobunaga, was killed in battle by a peasant with a bamboo spear despite his heavy armor and vastly superior skill to a conscripted, and probably scared peasant with a wimpy sharpened wood spear.

Close combat units are deadly enough as it is.

So leave the low-WS attacker vs. high WS defender the same, but make the high-WS attacker vs. low WS defender a lot easier to hit.

Again, I don't see any need for it. Assault armies are already ludicrously powerful.

Personally, all I really want is a skirmish game with mid to short range shooting and maneuver as the corps of gameplay, not walking/riding across a board before being dumped out and assaulting whatever is closest/on an objective. I really hate that in the far future, it's much more powerful to bring a knife to a gun fight.

1/ don't wreck it like they did with fantasy, else i don't know what i will play

2/make snipers better, so give them rending on a 6+ or ignore cover save, or pick who you are shooting. any of those will be fine.