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 would make tanks suck less.

Right now, we are using the 3rd edition rules for vehicles, with ramming added in. Basically, if it isn't a Lehman Russ or Land Raider, it's not worth the points to field it. I can understand wanting tanks to be less powerful than they would be in real life (they would dominate the game otherwise) but I think GW has gone too far in the other direction. The only tanks that can move 6" and fire more than one gun that isn't pintle mounted are the Russ and the Raider. All those guns on a Predator, and you can't fire more than one if you move 7"?

Seriously?

Let's re-instate the 4th edition vehicle rules (but keep ramming). If it's less than strength 7, and/or isn't ordnance, you can shoot that beyotch, as long as you didn't move 12". Just because GW wants to sell more infantry models doesn't mean that all tanks should suck harder than a Slaaneshi prostitute.

Also, I like re-working the WS to-hit tables to make the different numbers actually mean something. I want WS 4 vs WS 5 to mean more than "I'm hitting on a 4+"...

squidhills wrote:Let's re-instate the 4th edition vehicle rules (but keep ramming). If it's less than strength 7, and/or isn't ordnance, you can shoot that beyotch, as long as you didn't move 12". Just because GW wants to sell more infantry models doesn't mean that all tanks should suck harder than a Slaaneshi prostitute.

I don't think you've thought that through very well...

Vehicles in this game need to be better like I need my legs sawed off.

squidhills wrote:I would make tanks suck less.

Right now, we are using the 3rd edition rules for vehicles, with ramming added in. Basically, if it isn't a Lehman Russ or Land Raider, it's not worth the points to field it. I can understand wanting tanks to be less powerful than they would be in real life (they would dominate the game otherwise) but I think GW has gone too far in the other direction. The only tanks that can move 6" and fire more than one gun that isn't pintle mounted are the Russ and the Raider. All those guns on a Predator, and you can't fire more than one if you move 7"?

Seriously?

Let's re-instate the 4th edition vehicle rules (but keep ramming). If it's less than strength 7, and/or isn't ordnance, you can shoot that beyotch, as long as you didn't move 12". Just because GW wants to sell more infantry models doesn't mean that all tanks should suck harder than a Slaaneshi prostitute.

Also, I like re-working the WS to-hit tables to make the different numbers actually mean something. I want WS 4 vs WS 5 to mean more than "I'm hitting on a 4+"...

Not sure if serious...or just hasn't read the rule book.

Illeix wrote:

But it's not just brick walls and such. It's shrubs, tin sheeting and a few branches that simply wont stop projectiles more menacing than paintballs, let alone Lascannons and Railguns, that are stopping half your shots.

If it were a 5+ for simply being behind something and a 4+ for being behind something SOLID, things would be much improved.

In order

page 21 of BRB

6+ save is "Razor wire, Wire Mesh" I think that would cover tin sheeting
5+ save is "High grass, crops, bushes," I think that would cover "a few branches" or "shrubs."

In other words, the thing you mentioned wouldn't grant a 4+ save in the BRB, and thus the change your proposing is already written into the rules.

I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.

Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.

Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.

Chimaera wrote:I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.

Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.

Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.

Only a 1/6 chance to cause a wound, and if you have power armor there's only a 1/3 chance it can kill you. That's only about a 6% chance.

TedNugent wrote:

Chimaera wrote:I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.

Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.

Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.

Only a 1/6 chance to cause a wound, and if you have power armor there's only a 1/3 chance it can kill you. That's only about a 6% chance.

Not if you are an IG...

TedNugent wrote:

Chimaera wrote:I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.

Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.

Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.

Only a 1/6 chance to cause a wound, and if you have power armor there's only a 1/3 chance it can kill you. That's only about a 6% chance.

I may be playing wrong but I thought normal saves apply so no power armour save as the Plasma has an AP of 2?

Chimaera wrote:

Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.

Actually it makes perfect sense. The damage the weapon causes is worth the life of the firer. And besides, all weapons have a chance of blowing up in the firer's hand IRL. You won't believe how many were killed by their own grenades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chimaera wrote:

I may be playing wrong but I thought normal saves apply so no power armour save as the Plasma has an AP of 2?

No. It is not a wound inflicted by the plasma weapon. Its just a normal wound with no armor save modifier.

No. It is not a wound inflicted by the plasma weapon. Its just a normal wound with no armor save modifier.

LOL you learn something new everyday. Cheers for that!

Scrub that from the change list

Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM

Stormshields to 4++ from everywhere.

Psykic test changed to be failed more often, same chance of perils or same chance of success but perils more often. you choose when you use the power.

Save modifiers probably were a good idea

Range reduces when you move, even on a vehicle.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

TedNugent wrote:

Chimaera wrote:I would love to see a change to the "get's hot" rule for Plasma weaponary. It's a shame one of the coolest looking weapons in the game I shun as I don't like the thought of it blowing up in the wielders face.

Surely an "overheat" rule would be sufficient and you cannot use it the next turn while it cools. Just seems stupid that any soldier would take a weapon out of the armoury that has a high probability of killing him.

Even more bizarre it costs more than Melta weaponary that has higher S & AP ratings.

Only a 1/6 chance to cause a wound, and if you have power armor there's only a 1/3 chance it can kill you. That's only about a 6% chance.

Not if you are an IG...

Meh, IG is 5 points a model. The only thing you're losing there is the Plasma Gun.

remove saves for units inside transports when they explode, but change the blast rules for transports to only models hit on a roll of 6, and change the blast strength based on the type of vehicles

ie if its a rhino, strength 5 ap 3 blast. If it is a leman russ that blows up then its a strength 10 ap 1 blast.

This reflects the ammunition, fuel, machinery and sheer bulk of armor plating flying in random directions as the vehicle explodes

this would also hopefully make foot lists see a bit of a comeback

Exergy wrote:Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM

Stormshields to 4++ from everywhere.

Psykic test changed to be failed more often, same chance of perils or same chance of success but perils more often. you choose when you use the power.

Save modifiers probably were a good idea

Range reduces when you move, even on a vehicle.

1 - No. Ork players will be pissed off
2- Yes
3-No
4-No

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Exergy wrote:Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM

1 - No. Ork players will be pissed off

Huh? I would love to see marines die for a change when their vehicle turns into a mushroom cloud, rather than just shrugging it off. Screw our t-shirt save.

If I could change something, I would change the way how vehicles are damaged to something like structure points, but at higher numbers. Weapons would deal damage to them based on how high their penetration roll was above AV, and systems would be destroyed based on how much damage the vehicle has taken in total, shaken and stunned would work off how much damage was taken last turn. Glances would have a 50% chance to deal damage. This would take the luck out of the whole vehicle thing for everyone - vehicles no longer randomly shrug off or explode to the same weapon shot at the same strength and distance.

- All vehicles would have 4 structure points base, so direct hit(rolled a 6) with a rocket on AV10 rear armor would destroy a vehicle. Seems right to me.
- Any vehicle that loses 1 structure point is shaken, any vehicle that loses more than that is stunned.
- A damaged vehicle may only shoot as many weapons as it has structure points left. Damaged walkers also have their attacks capped at their structure points. Undamaged vehicles are not limited in any way.
- A vehicle with only 1 structure point left is immobilized.
- If, after all simultaneous damage has been resolved, a vehicle has 0 structure points left it is wrecked, at less it explodes.
- Open topped causes glances to always do damage.
- Tanks ignore single points of damage on a 5+.
- Repairs add structure points up to the start value.
- Extra armor and equivalents work the same way they do now.
- Melta, Lance, Ordnance, Tank hunters and Rending work the same way they do now.
- AP1 will now allow you to roll an additional penetration dice and then have the lowest dice not count.

TedNugent wrote:

Illeix wrote:

But it's not just brick walls and such. It's shrubs, tin sheeting and a few branches that simply wont stop projectiles more menacing than paintballs, let alone Lascannons and Railguns, that are stopping half your shots.

If it were a 5+ for simply being behind something and a 4+ for being behind something SOLID, things would be much improved.

In order

page 21 of BRB

6+ save is "Razor wire, Wire Mesh" I think that would cover tin sheeting
5+ save is "High grass, crops, bushes," I think that would cover "a few branches" or "shrubs."

In other words, the thing you mentioned wouldn't grant a 4+ save in the BRB, and thus the change your proposing is already written into the rules.

Yes, you are indeed correct, but how many times do you see the game played that way. Too many newbs in my area think that cover is cover, so it's 4+. My change is to make things more clear, not attempt to cover every possible thing to hide models behind. simply changing the rules to a simple either/or option would go a long ways to keep the kiddies in check.

I don't really see much wrong with the current rules to be honest, just a bunch of tweaks to the individual codexes, though I do agree that plasma weaponry should simply stop you from shooting for the next turn. 38,000 years into the future, I'd have thought with all the lasers and plasma flying around, they could have a little warning light to say "stop firing or this'll explode in your face"

TedNugent wrote:

Illeix wrote:

But it's not just brick walls and such. It's shrubs, tin sheeting and a few branches that simply wont stop projectiles more menacing than paintballs, let alone Lascannons and Railguns, that are stopping half your shots.

If it were a 5+ for simply being behind something and a 4+ for being behind something SOLID, things would be much improved.

In order

page 21 of BRB

6+ save is "Razor wire, Wire Mesh" I think that would cover tin sheeting
5+ save is "High grass, crops, bushes," I think that would cover "a few branches" or "shrubs."

In other words, the thing you mentioned wouldn't grant a 4+ save in the BRB, and thus the change your proposing is already written into the rules.

My "friendly" local gaming group uses cover properly - 5+ for greenery, 4+ for rocks, ruins etc. And 4+ cover is still endemic. Unless firing indirectly or deepstriking/outflanking, I'll virtually never get to shoot at an uncovered enemy. Sure it's annoying, but it also means my T3 veterans get a 3+ cover save(GTG) against everything too (though obviously it's useless in CC).

Jidmah wrote:

If I could change something, I would change the way how vehicles are damaged to something like structure points, but at higher numbers. Weapons would deal damage to them based on how high their penetration roll was above AV, and systems would be destroyed based on how much damage the vehicle has taken in total, shaken and stunned would work off how much damage was taken last turn. Glances would have a 50% chance to deal damage. This would take the luck out of the whole vehicle thing for everyone - vehicles no longer randomly shrug off or explode to the same weapon shot at the same strength and distance.

Armor saves are random, and so are vehicle damage tables. Makes sense to me. Hit - wound - armor save. But more than that, vehicle damage isn't based on penetration. It's based on vehicle damage. If you hit a gas tank, the vehicle explodes. If you hit a track, you will immobilize the tank. If you hit the turret ring, the weapon cannot function. If you hit the ammunition box, all hell breaks loose. Or, you could potentially go straight through the front and rear armor without striking anything important or damaging any of the critical components of the vehicle. You could penetrate the front of the vehicle, and the HE tip of the tank shell decapitates the driver, but otherwise fails to kill any other crewmen or destroy any other components.

Also, glances are almost certain not to deal damage. If you have a projectile that literally bounces off the front glacis of a tank, it will be flung harmlessly off to the side. Such a thing happened to German gunners in World War 2 against the T-34 -- shells bounced harmlessly off, doing no damage. And even if they did manage to hit something critical, as in the case of the Tiger I tank that was knocked out in Africa by a British gunner, they managed to lodge it in the turret ring and make the Tiger gunner unable to return fire. It's based on a certain amount of randomization, which partially is there to illustrate the random skill levels of the gunner, positioning, and so forth. Actually, penetration is a much more reliable science than is damaging a vehicle, in much the same way as getting AP2 will reliably penetrate Terminator armor in infantry combat. That is to say, you increase the kinetic energy, or weapon Strength in 40k terms, which gives you a proportionate increase in penetration depth into a given thickness of armored plate. Although, even there, there is a certain degree of randomization, because if you strike the plate at an unfavorable angle, it will affect the likelihood of deflection or depth of penetration.

I hate to say it, but I actually think the vehicle damage model in 40k is pretty fabulous. Adjust vehicle costs and anti tank weapons accordingly

Jidmah wrote:
- Open topped causes glances to always do damage.

This I don't like especially. It's the same thing as cover. Sometimes you would manage to hit the open compartment, dealing catastrophic damage (hence the +1 damage modifier), sometimes you would only hit the front of the Battlewagon, failing to penetrate and thus failing to do any damage.

If anything, if you wanted to abuse open topped vehicles, you could say add +2 to the damage roll instead of +1 (god forbid this happens), or you could allow damage to open topped transports to transfer to the riders (e.g. you would sustain some Lascannon shot on your Nobz).

TedNugent wrote:
Armor saves are random, and so are vehicle damage tables. Makes sense to me. Hit - wound - armor save. But more than that, vehicle damage isn't based on penetration. It's based on vehicle damage. If you hit a gas tank, the vehicle explodes. If you hit a track, you will immobilize the tank. If you hit the turret ring, the weapon cannot function. If you hit the ammunition box, all hell breaks loose. Or, you could potentially go straight through the front and rear armor without striking anything important or damaging any of the critical components of the vehicle. You could penetrate the front of the vehicle, and the HE tip of the tank shell decapitates the driver, but otherwise fails to kill any other crewmen or destroy any other components.

Also, glances are almost certain not to deal damage. If you have a projectile that literally bounces off the front glacis of a tank, it will be flung harmlessly off to the side. Such a thing happened to German gunners in World War 2 against the T-34 -- shells bounced harmlessly off, doing no damage. And even if they did manage to hit something critical, as in the case of the Tiger I tank that was knocked out in Africa by a British gunner, they managed to lodge it in the turret ring and make the Tiger gunner unable to return fire. It's based on a certain amount of randomization, which partially is there to illustrate the random skill levels of the gunner, positioning, and so forth. Actually, penetration is a much more reliable science than is damaging a vehicle, in much the same way as getting AP2 will reliably penetrate Terminator armor in infantry combat. That is to say, you increase the kinetic energy, or weapon Strength in 40k terms, which gives you a proportionate increase in penetration depth into a given thickness of armored plate. Although, even there, there is a certain degree of randomization, because if you strike the plate at an unfavorable angle, it will affect the likelihood of deflection or depth of penetration.

I hate to say it, but I actually think the vehicle damage model in 40k is pretty fabulous. Adjust vehicle costs and anti tank weapons accordingly

You didn't quite hit my point. I don't want a simulation, I want a good game. I don't want to roll a d100 and a list of vehicle parts to find out that I shot off armorplate 31. I don't mind, it's elves and orks fighting knights in Space!
Besides that, hitting the gas tank or ammunition would be the equivalent of rolling a 6 (outright destroying an AV10 vehicle), and the shell bouncing off as a 1. In my opinion, strong weapons should destroy vehicles more reliably than weak ones. Thanks to cover being everywhere, it's more like the other way around right now. A direct hit from a railgun should reduce a trukk to a molten ball of scrap and a demolisher shell which, in fluff, was made to blast their way through fortifications should do a bit more than shake a rhino. On the other hand, a heavy flamer should not be able to blow a chimera's tracks off or down a wave serpent (which is supposed to be able to fly in space). Sure, if a bunch of flamethrowers are shooting at it, or one for some time, they will damage them - but that's the whole point of my system.

As for the hit-wound-save thingy, that's exactly the problem. Vehicles have hit-penetrate-save-damage these days, basically giving every vehicle the equivalent of FNP for free.
Right now its utterly stupid that the first melta hitting a landraider might destroy it, while at the same time a rhino can keep on driving after taking six penetrating hits. As someone driving four AV14 vehicles in cover right at the enemy in at least half my games, I can tell tales of the randomness of vehicle damage. The mathematical odds are in my favor, but sometimes it's outright ridiculous how many lascannons, railguns and vindicator shells simply bounce off them. I simply ignore anything less than immobilized, so a battlewagon which took two glancing hits and a penetrating hit is still as good as new. Next turn it will shrug off another two penetrating hits, simply because my opponent is unlucky with dice. And then Lady Luck comes around next game and blows them all up on turn one.
With my suggestion that wagon would be heavily damaged and no longer moving, and a crater after that. In either game.

On the other hand, vehicles like vindicators, deff dreads, leman russes or fire prisms don't become completely useless after the first hit destroying a weapon/immobilizing it. You now actually have to put some effort into destroying vehicles, but you are guaranteed that the effort is not wasted. Unlike now, where shooting vehicles with anything besides melta weapons (and maybe auto-/assault cannons) is gambling. My goal is to keep the average amount of shots it takes to down a vehicle the same, while taking the randomness out of it.

Jidmah wrote:
- Open topped causes glances to always do damage.

This I don't like especially. It's the same thing as cover. Sometimes you would manage to hit the open compartment, dealing catastrophic damage (hence the +1 damage modifier), sometimes you would only hit the front of the Battlewagon, failing to penetrate and thus failing to do any damage.

If anything, if you wanted to abuse open topped vehicles, you could say add +2 to the damage roll instead of +1 (god forbid this happens), or you could allow damage to open topped transports to transfer to the riders (e.g. you would sustain some Lascannon shot on your Nobz).

Can I propose something else that might be an effective compromise?

Vehicles are affected by cover....sounds sensible, when a tank is hull down, you're not likely to hit it.

Vehicles have penetration tables - if you can't penetrate the armor, you're not going to be able to damage the tank.

Vehicles have damage tables - even if you penetrate the tank, there's no guarantee that you will destroy the tank.

However, vehicles are large targets. Very large targets! This is the downside to driving a tank! You're driving in a big, hulking monstrosity with a rotating turret, sponsons, bristling with twin-linked Lascannons and hull machine guns! You are a rolling ball of death, firing off plasma shots and red, tinny laser beams are blasting off your armoured carapace as you belch exhaust smoke.

Vehicles should be automatic hits, or at least should models should receive hit bonuses vs vehicles. These hit bonuses would be mitigated by the movement the tank has made the preceding movement phase. Have you ever tried to hit a tank moving 30 km/h at a 30 degree line of motion with a tank shell? It's not easy! Subtract a few points from your hit roll on moving targets.

Let's say....a 2+ hits a stationary tank. At combat speed, that becomes 3+, and at cruising speed, that becomes 4+. Yes, even for Orks! (Okay, maybe they could get a further -1 hit modifier)

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Exergy wrote:Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM

Stormshields to 4++ from everywhere.

Psykic test changed to be failed more often, same chance of perils or same chance of success but perils more often. you choose when you use the power.

Save modifiers probably were a good idea

Range reduces when you move, even on a vehicle.

1 - No. Ork players will be pissed off
2- Yes
3-No
4-No

I wrote 5 things not 4

Orks would love vehicle explosions not allowing armor saves. their 6+ isn't doing much for them but they hate how hard they have to work to kill a rhino, chimera or landraider only to see its contents, completely unharmed charge them the next turn.

Transports should give you mobility and some protection, but not make you nearly invulnerable as they do now.

If I had my druthers with making rules for 40k, I would make it so that every weapon on the wargear charts for codices are viable.

1) Make sniper rifles allow wound allocation on a to-hit roll of 5+, rend on 6 and force pin tests with a penalty of -1 to the ldrship of the unit.

2)Grenade Launchers should allow a friendly unit assault the target unit as if they had assault grenades, or make the target unit that tries to assault the Grenade Launcher unit to be affected by defensive grenades, making it a viable support option.

3) flamers should force a morale test on the affected units. fire is terrifying and deadly. With the exception of fearless units, the psychological effects of fire should be reflected.

4) multiple penetrating hits on vehicles should add +1 to the damage roll table.

5) melta instead allows you to reroll on the damage chart.

Exergy wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Exergy wrote:Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM

Stormshields to 4++ from everywhere.

Psykic test changed to be failed more often, same chance of perils or same chance of success but perils more often. you choose when you use the power.

Save modifiers probably were a good idea

Range reduces when you move, even on a vehicle.

1 - No. Ork players will be pissed off
2- Yes
3-No
4-No

I wrote 5 things not 4

Orks would love vehicle explosions not allowing armor saves. their 6+ isn't doing much for them but they hate how hard they have to work to kill a rhino, chimera or landraider only to see its contents, completely unharmed charge them the next turn.

Transports should give you mobility and some protection, but not make you nearly invulnerable as they do now.

Yeah, ok...You have a point there
oh and 5-No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SoliderSnake wrote:If I had my druthers with making rules for 40k, I would make it so that every weapon on the wargear charts for codices are viable.

1) Make sniper rifles allow wound allocation on a to-hit roll of 5+, rend on 6 and force pin tests with a penalty of -1 to the ldrship of the unit.

2)Grenade Launchers should allow a friendly unit assault the target unit as if they had assault grenades, or make the target unit that tries to assault the Grenade Launcher unit to be affected by defensive grenades, making it a viable support option.

3) flamers should force a morale test on the affected units. fire is terrifying and deadly. With the exception of fearless units, the psychological effects of fire should be reflected.

4) multiple penetrating hits on vehicles should add +1 to the damage roll table.

5) melta instead allows you to reroll on the damage chart.

1) I like. Sniper weapons should act like it.

2) Its ok I guess. I can't see any problem with it.

3) No. It would be insanely powerful against IG, who only have 5+ saves and ld7

4) That would be difficult to manage

5) No. There has to be something that reliably pops AV14

Now none of these points are meant to improve balance. Just make things so they make more sense. I can only comment on the IG and and SM sense I dont know too much about the other races

1) "Get Hots" Rule is completely idiotic. It doesnt fits is description at all and no one would EVER use this weapon in anything but a video game. Right now a soldier can pull the trigger ONCE and it blows up in his face and kills him? Who thought this weapon was a good idea?
Way to fix it? Change it so it is a rolling chance like with reserves. The first shot of the game no risk, if you fire a second shot it is on a 6. (When using FRFSRF and firing 3rd shot roll 5 or 6)
In the second shooting phase the first shot is a 6, 2nd 5 or 6. ETC.. If you elect to not shot in a phase, it resets the value (it is giving the gun time to cool down)

I have no idea how balanced that would be but at least it makes a bit more sense now and I could see people realistically using it.



2) Less reliance on transports. I just dont like them, that all with this one. I prefer infantry and tanks, I dont want to be fething with APCs, expecially something like a Rhino.

3) Not factoring in balance but I would like to see the Lasgun get a basic AP rating instead of the basic -. Not enough to penetrate IG armor but enough to ignore Ork Boys armor or Termigaunts which dont even have ammo. (Not factoring in balance) In a similar way, shouldnt Firewarriors have the same armor as an IG man? I dont see why they should have such great armor when IG Flak vest are suppose to be modern day Kevlar.

4) Make armies unique in some way. Doctrines for IG, Chapter Tactics for SM, etc... Something so that armies actually feel different.



Again that was just from a makes more sense way. Not a balance way. I cant make any comments on balance. Not enough games under my belt

Galdos wrote:

In a similar way, shouldnt Firewarriors have the same armor as an IG man? I dont see why they should have such great armor when IG Flak vest are suppose to be modern day Kevlar.

I should hope they're not modern day Kevlar, because Kevlar can't stop anything more powerful than a pistol round. e.g. it is defeated by the standard issue small arm of every single army and paramilitary group the world over.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Exergy wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Exergy wrote:Remove armor saves for units inside transports when it goes BOOM

Stormshields to 4++ from everywhere.

Psykic test changed to be failed more often, same chance of perils or same chance of success but perils more often. you choose when you use the power.

Save modifiers probably were a good idea

Range reduces when you move, even on a vehicle.

1 - No. Ork players will be pissed off
2- Yes
3-No
4-No

I wrote 5 things not 4

Orks would love vehicle explosions not allowing armor saves. their 6+ isn't doing much for them but they hate how hard they have to work to kill a rhino, chimera or landraider only to see its contents, completely unharmed charge them the next turn.

Transports should give you mobility and some protection, but not make you nearly invulnerable as they do now.

Yeah, ok...You have a point there
oh and 5-No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SoliderSnake wrote:If I had my druthers with making rules for 40k, I would make it so that every weapon on the wargear charts for codices are viable.

1) Make sniper rifles allow wound allocation on a to-hit roll of 5+, rend on 6 and force pin tests with a penalty of -1 to the ldrship of the unit.

2)Grenade Launchers should allow a friendly unit assault the target unit as if they had assault grenades, or make the target unit that tries to assault the Grenade Launcher unit to be affected by defensive grenades, making it a viable support option.

3) flamers should force a morale test on the affected units. fire is terrifying and deadly. With the exception of fearless units, the psychological effects of fire should be reflected.

4) multiple penetrating hits on vehicles should add +1 to the damage roll table.

5) melta instead allows you to reroll on the damage chart.

1) I like. Sniper weapons should act like it.

2) Its ok I guess. I can't see any problem with it.

3) No. It would be insanely powerful against IG, who only have 5+ saves and ld7

4) That would be difficult to manage

5) No. There has to be something that reliably pops AV14

Pardon me, I meant to say that the AP1 associated mostly with melta weapons should allow a reroll. as for multiple pens, that would NOT be difficult to manage. If say a Vendetta pens a rhino with 2 shots, both rolls of the dice on the chart would be at +1. Nothing hard about that. It keeps the appropriate randomness while rewarding the success of multiple penetrating hits.

If you could reboot the 40k RULES, what would you change?

Reboot 2nd edition rules set.

Overwatch! (I hear its coming back, yay!)
HeroHammer, yes, my space marine termie captain just killed half your army
Stacked saves, armor and invuln both get a shot, makes more sense right, before the point of impact do you get to decide which you are gonna use ? so unrealistic
Modifiable armor saves (termies roll a modifiable 3+ on 2 d6 and could also use a storm shield save if the armor failed.... shrug off any lascannon hits lately ?)
DISPLACER FIELDS (3+ invulnerable save that moves you a D6 + Scatter, better hope you scatter out of the blast radius)
The Foot of Gork and Mork
Wargear Cards & Vehical wargear cards (remember the vet. scout srg with vortex grenade trick.... bye bye titan!) ablative armor for vehicals (ignore first vehical penetration)
PSYCHIC PHASES - sometimes an hour long, warp cards, amazing powers, game changing moments
Games took 4-6 hours of epicness... not this speed gaming version of today
2000 pts of troops was not that many troops and not as hard on the wallet.
Vehical cards, rolling location of hit, rolling pen... getting a more interesting result
Modifiable to hit dice, you think gretchen are gonna hit anything in cover ?! no way!
Ork weapons tendency to kill its own crew, becoming an ineffectual piece of terrain. Squig catapault anyone ?
I dont recall combi weapons being a one time use deal either.
Sword weapons parried, power weapons conferred strength, power sowrds str 6, power axe str 7, power fist str 8 with no effect on initiative.

With so many more options available to every army really meant there were a lot of wild cards floating around

That being said... the current edition is at least fun to play, especially compared to the previous one. I look forward to the new rules coming out soon.

2nd edition anyone ?

~Lion~

Almost forgot, rolling crazy dice for vehical pen, 6 + D4 + 2 D6 etc. different for every gun, but really made the lascannon a tankbuster

Galdos wrote:Now none of these points are meant to improve balance. Just make things so they make more sense. I can only comment on the IG and and SM sense I dont know too much about the other races

1) "Get Hots" Rule is completely idiotic. It doesnt fits is description at all and no one would EVER use this weapon in anything but a video game. Right now a soldier can pull the trigger ONCE and it blows up in his face and kills him? Who thought this weapon was a good idea?
Way to fix it? Change it so it is a rolling chance like with reserves. The first shot of the game no risk, if you fire a second shot it is on a 6. (When using FRFSRF and firing 3rd shot roll 5 or 6)
In the second shooting phase the first shot is a 6, 2nd 5 or 6. ETC.. If you elect to not shot in a phase, it resets the value (it is giving the gun time to cool down)

I have no idea how balanced that would be but at least it makes a bit more sense now and I could see people realistically using it.



2) Less reliance on transports. I just dont like them, that all with this one. I prefer infantry and tanks, I dont want to be fething with APCs, expecially something like a Rhino.

3) Not factoring in balance but I would like to see the Lasgun get a basic AP rating instead of the basic -. Not enough to penetrate IG armor but enough to ignore Ork Boys armor or Termigaunts which dont even have ammo. (Not factoring in balance) In a similar way, shouldnt Firewarriors have the same armor as an IG man? I dont see why they should have such great armor when IG Flak vest are suppose to be modern day Kevlar.

4) Make armies unique in some way. Doctrines for IG, Chapter Tactics for SM, etc... Something so that armies actually feel different.



Again that was just from a makes more sense way. Not a balance way. I cant make any comments on balance. Not enough games under my belt

Disregarding the "ORCS IN SPAAAAAAAAAACE" silliness of the setting for a second, Realisim should never be a higher priority over balance and game mechanics. The rules are ABSTRACT, meaning that they're not to be taken at face value. Does it make sense? no, but it doesn't have to so long as it works. And besides, you're asking for realism in a game with, say it with me, ORKS! IN! SPAAAAAAAAACE!

And on your fourth point, if people want to make their army unique, then it should be because they want to, not because of the bonuses.