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 recently posted a forum about the cover saves, and how I believe troops should get armor saves and cover saves if cover fails. I also wish distance was incorporated with every shot from every unit based on their ballistic skill. Missing point blank range, and hitting a tiny grunt halfway across the board is ridiculous. Also missing a scatter dice at point blank by 4 inches gets annoying.
My main concern is I feel units like the Space Marines are underpowered. With one Marine having a strength and skill of a platoon of men, I should be able to wipe out an Ork squad with 3 guys easily. I thought about what would have to be changed in order to make the game more realistic on all levels. While some other game rules would have to be improved in my opinion, like cover saves and distance, (which are my only two big beefs) the main flaw I see are the six sided dice. The game revolves around the six sided dice and you cannot make distinct changes between races with a D6. If GW had D12, or some larger sided dice as standard dice, with maybe smaller different ones for scatter, they could make more significant the skills of each race. To make a comparison, think of a red, blue, yellow wheel, then think of a rainbow. Much more "color." Then from there they could balance the points of each unit. The structure for the game is already there. Just change some numbers around to match the skills of armies from the well written story books. Otherwise, the rules are spot on. My Space Marines don't feel as badass as I would like, or have read in books. Many units, even Orks, seem underpowered. The game concept wouldn't change, just the numbers. I like realism, and its hard to settle when in my opinion, the game could be even better. Change the "to hits" and "to wounds" values etc. Like I said, mostly the numbers of skills, leaderships, etc, might have to be changed. I've played a lot, and while balancing armies is essential, my army doesn't feel unique on the battlefield. They are too much like other armies, and those armies alike. I say, allow for an over skilled army, just cost them more with points on deployment. Each army should have more of its strengths and weaknesses shown. I feel the lines of the races and armies are blurred.

(Making the proper scale size of each unit, especially the tanks to soldier ratio, would be cool, but that may never happen. It would suck, since people would have to buy their units all over again. (Space Marines should stand higher than Imperial Guard, etc.)

Would GW ever consider changing the rules? I know they have changed a helluva lot between these rules and the 2004 ones that came with Battle for Macragge.

I love this game, its one of the coolest things ever made. If GW wants to make a realistic game, which they have now, for me, it could be better. Much better. What do you all think?

Hmm. If the game really shouldn't, or couldn't be changed, are the rules currently in your opinions balanced? Also, if GW is not willing to make any more rules, which I don't see how that is considering they've been making and updating rules for the past decade, who will be able to make the rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

akon4643 wrote:
Back in second edition days and even before, they did in fact use multiple dice beyond the 6 sided ones. They were mostly used for damage for various weapons and not for your typical to hit roles. The issue that 40k has is that it has an identity crisis between being a skirmish game with very intricate rules and a larger scale game with broad rules. It just doesn't know which it wants to be. Sadly, games workshop from a business standpoint has no motivation at this moment to change that because they do not consider themselves to be a game company anymore. They are a company that makes "collectible" miniatures that happen to have some rules to play with vs the exact opopposite. I feel your pain though and as an avid 40k player I too wish that the rules were more exciting and enjoyable.

Well, can't it be both? I don't see how GW won't make rules anymore, considering they've been making rules for about a decade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bookwrack wrote:

timebandit3077 wrote:
and how I believe troops should get armor saves and cover saves if cover fails.

Why? If you fail your cover save, you already failed a save better than what your armor would've been.

If I'm behind a wall, and I get a 4+ save, that is not better than an armor save of 3+. The cover save is because it is harder to hit units behind cover. Therefore, once they do land a hit and a wound on a unit behind cover, they should not only get the cover save to see if the enemy hit, but also an armor save, if that hit wounded. All units should still get their armor save behind cover, its not like their armor disappears when they enter cover.

I was using the Marines as an example because its the only race I know. Maybe the books made them more badass then they actually are. Well, I'm the guy who always looks to improve things, but don't fix what truly isn't broken.

Interesting. O.k. Well I always wondered why they didn't make the models accurate to the books. It seems so much cooler. Yea the cover thing seems to be the only thing that bugs me. The "to hit" verses distance as well. I hate missing a target 4 inches a way with a scatter dice. I also hate missing a massive Tyranid a foot a way but am able to hit a grunt halfway across the battlefield.