So what do you think 6th edition should entail?

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.

**Luke_Prowler**

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

Razorback spam and Mech Guard disagrees with you.

**Lycaeus Wrex**

I'd like to see vehicles become less robust vs shooting (penetrating -> glancing hits in cover) in return for being a little more robust in CC. Hitting the AV you are attacking doesn't seem like it would make all that much of a difference and would actually make people consider taking chainfists and meltabombs which were, y'know, made to kill vehicles.

Units embarked in a transport that get destroyed could be unable to move/assault, but fire as normal. You can imagine the squad bailing out of a burning wreck, trying to regroup and reorganise, calling out for survivors or trying to find their Sergeants, whilst still retaining some semblance of military training by actually firing on the enemy at the same time.

I'd also like to see a blanket reduction in cover. 5+ should be the norm, 4+ for bunkers and other fortified structures, and 3+ for massive installations like the Fortress of Redemption. This would make high risk:reward weaponry (plasma) a more viable choice instead of loading up purely on melta.

Wound allocation needs an overhaul. I just don't think it works the way they wanted it to. I like the ideas posted earlier re: stratifying via AP values; again, high risk weaponry should not be punished by killing less than they should.

That's all I've got for now.

L. Wrex

**warpcrafter**

Phazael wrote: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.

Xarian wrote: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!

Ratbarf wrote: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

You three need to win the lottery BIG, buy out controlling interest in GW, kick Tom Kirby out on his ass and make 6th edition yourselves. That would be a revolution worthy of wide-ranging support.

**newbis**

No more cover saves for vehicles. Obscured = glancing hits or a negative modifier to hit.

-1 instead of -2 for glancing hits.

I'll go with the majority that say most cover saves should be 5+.

Get rid of wound allocation. Broken and time consuming. Torrent was fine.

Fearless models still take pinning tests. I don't care how cool you are, if your buddy's head explodes you may wanna think about finding some cover.

Something to limit psychic abilities. Maybe a set number of "spell points" per side per battle.

I don't like TLOS, but I don't see it going away. It could use some tweaks. If something can shoot at you, it should be able to be shot at in return. No more hiding razorbacks/hydras behind other tanks.

Multi-charging needs some work. People have started spreading that crap out waaaaaay too far.

I wouldn't say no to a charge response of flee. Regrouping after still follows all the normal rules.

Fists and the like should still get the +1 bonus for an additional cc weapon/pistol.

Fleet = 2d6, pick the highest.

**thefarseerofnorthryde**

I think it would be good of models could pick up wepons from fallen comrades and enemys, since this is what they would be doing on a real battlefield.

Although, i dont think there is going to be a sixth edition anytime soon.

**Leigen_Zero**

thefarseerofnorthryde wrote:I think it would be good of models could pick up wepons from fallen comrades and enemys, since this is what they would be doing on a real battlefield.

I think that is the idea behind the current wound allocation shenanigans, i.e. by allocating wounds away from spec weapons we are assuming that a still living soldier picks up the fallen comrades special weapon.

As for biggest change, I would like to see No Retreat! nerfed. It is all too common that a assault unit that rolls badly in one turn is taken out completely. Typically happens to my large mobs of boyz, but creating a fictitious example for this thread:

Mob of Trukk Boyz (12 boyz, so fearless) assaults a large squad of guard, should in theory butcher them easily.
Flubs all the dice rolls, kills 1 guardsman, guard in turn kill 3 orks (9 boyz in mob), so orks lose combat, fail 2 No Retreat! saves (7 boyz).
Next assault phase orks are more than likely to start running, as 1 kill takes mob below half strength.

I've seen this happen to units of 10 boyz in assault with some bad dice rolls, for me ork assaults have been more about the luck of dice than any actual statistics.

**Hawkward**

Cheaper models.

Better fluff. I mean, is Nurgle going to be a god of despair or joy? Why is Slaanesh called the God of Pleasure when it gets off equally on pain? Why is the Outsider not eating souls, when that's its raison d'etre? Why doesn't the Emperor just communicate telepathically with the High Lords the way he did with that one Inquisitor? I just want consistency.

Rules for making homebrew Chaos warbands, Tau septs, Tyranid splinter fleets, Necron Tombs, IG regiments, Inquisitorial Ordos, Eldar Craftworlds, Space Marine Chapters and the like that have relatively unique rules but are legal to use in tournaments. Things like "Mark of Lust" with bonuses for Slaaneshi units focusing on CQC, "Stealth Tactics" for SM chapters that focus on long range shootiness, that sort of thing. It wouldn't have to be an expansive mechanic, but it would give additional options to players when they make an army.

Men of Iron. Seriously, this would be metal as hell (no pun intended). If the AdMech and the Iron Men and the Void Dragon had their own faction, it would be most excellent. I like the Necrons, but robot zombies are no replacement for ROBOCOP.

More worldwide campaigns. I missed the last... all of them.

**mugginns**

Xarian wrote: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.

There isn't any drop in effectiveness. You haven't addressed the prime reason that cover saves are 4+ in this edition. TLOS. Very often you can see anything, granting the enemy a cover save. TLOS + less cover saves = even more Marinehammer. I'll just leave it at that until you address that reason.

**Xarian**

Leigen_Zero wrote:As for biggest change, I would like to see No Retreat! nerfed. It is all too common that a assault unit that rolls badly in one turn is taken out completely.

Would anything really be lost if No Retreat were removed completely? Are Fearless units really that powerful in close-combat? Is it because some fearless units can become inescapable tarpits?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mugginns wrote:There isn't any drop in effectiveness. You haven't addressed the prime reason that cover saves are 4+ in this edition. TLOS. Very often you can see anything, granting the enemy a cover save. TLOS + less cover saves = even more Marinehammer. I'll just leave it at that until you address that reason.

There is a drop in effectiveness - for exactly the reasons that I discussed earlier. Cover saves block plasma and other low AP weapons. Armour does not. If a model has a 4+ cover save, plasma shots and autocannon shots are exactly the same. Can you get more Plasma shots, or more Autocannon shots for the same points cost? It's pretty cut and dry. I realize that you play Orks and probably don't even consider your units' armor saves at all, but against most other armies, A S4 AP5 weapon is significantly worse than a S4 AP3 weapon.

It's a pretty common theme in this thread that people want TLOS changed, too.

Here is what I wrote before:

Xarian wrote: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)

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.

I already did address this. Did you miss those parts?

Your boyz would be the same as they currently are if they are if they are hiding in low or area terrain. They would actually be better off when hiding behind large buildings - the enemy would not be able to shoot them at all, because TLOS wouldn't be there to let the enemy "see your Warboss's toe", for example. They would be worse off hiding behind each other or vehicles, because anyone shooting at the models in the back would hit the models in the front. Blanket cover saves would be gone, replaced by terrain-specific cover saves and terrain-specific LOS blocking.

Basically, if you stood out in the open, a bunch of Orks would get shot to death no matter how many Boyz were behind each other (though the ones in the rear would be more likely to survive). If you hid in a forest, you'd get a cover save. If you hid behind a bunker, they couldn't shoot you at all, even if the enemy could see your Boy'z left arm through a small window.

**Melissia**

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

Razorback spam and Mech Guard disagrees with you.

So? That's a problem not with assaul t not being powerful enough, but with mechanized armies having no drawbacks.

Assault and Mechanized aren't necessarily exclusive.

**creeping-deth87**

I don't have THAT big a problem with wound allocation, but I'd love to see the following change: any wounds which are allocated to a model of a unit that is NOT in cover should NOT get a cover save. This makes total sense to me, and makes cover less generous without totally breaking it. It also forces you to actually entrench your troops.

To fix snipers, I think the best thing to do would be to keep them as they are BUT allow the firer to choose which model in the unit must take the cover/armour save. Snipers are weapons of precision, the game should reflect that.

I think those who want more dire consequences for units embarked in exploding transports are focusing a little too much on the marines. As a Guard player, when a transport explodes, it hurts. It's not unusual for me to lose a third of the squad, which in turn forces a morale check, which could very easily lead to a routed squad. Pinning Fearless units might make this a little more balanced against marine players, but as it stands the current rules for exploding transports are already a pretty big risk for anyone not playing marines.

It amazes me how many people in this thread want to nerf vehicles. It's actually pretty damn hard to hide HALF a vehicle so I'm not sure I understand the desire to deny them cover, and the fact that you always hit it on rear armour in close combat also makes them pretty easy to neutralize. And with all the fast armies out there, it isn't exactly hard to get side armour.

**Melissia**

Indeed, non-T4 models and non-3+ save models take a hit when the vehicle explodes. When you're both... you take a BIG hit.

**G00fySmiley**

I'd like to see vehicle damage changed. Perhaps in a manner like wounds.

Perhaps call them vehicle system failures. Each type of vehicle has a different amount of systems/backups. a land raider/ battlewagon for example might have 3 , a ork trukk might have 1, a vendetta might have 2 .

I say make the vehicles easier to get a malfunction/wound ie less powerful weapons can still hit/do damage however they suffer on the result table more than a glancing say - 3 or -4 depending on strength

Take the glancing modifier down to a minus 1

This way vehicles are in a sense more likely to last longer against high power fire but still possible to bring down when you have no str 8 weapons on a AV14 . explosion results in a wound/malfunction plus a weapon destroyed or immobilized ( 1-3 weapon, 4-6 immobilized)

And finally once the vehicle does get destroyed the penalty for being in the vehicle should be much more than now.. if when it is wrecked or destroyed i agree they should have a hit perhaps str d6 on wreck and highest str of 2 d6 on a explode result for final system

Just a though you all might hate it, but I think it would be cool

**Vaktathi**

Again on the glancing "-1 instead of -2" thing that many keep bringing up, there are very good reasons for this not to happen. The problem for most people is transports, but this also has a hugely negative effect on gun tanks that only now become somewhat useful again after years of neglect. It makes S4 attacks far too effective at destroying vehicles in CC, and makes what should be anti-infantry weapons into effective vehicle attack weapons. We really don't need Multilasers capable of killing Fire Prisms, or bolt pistols killing Leman Russ tanks, or Autocannons destroying predators from the frontal arc.

**G00fySmiley**

I'd argue the opposite, I'd say most weapons with the right hit should be able to hurt even a Russ, a raider, or a monolith

av 14 is just way to powerful in 5th edition... and this is comeing from an ork player who loves battle wagon bash (deff rollas are fun ... but kinds rediculous)

I'd like people to have a chance to destroy my wagons, and i'd like a relable way of dealing with av14 other than ramming or assaulting, there are alot of armies that have very limited options against av14 and i'd like to see that specifically changed

**Luke_Prowler**

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

Razorback spam and Mech Guard disagrees with you.
So? That's a problem not with assaul t not being powerful enough, but with mechanized armies having no drawbacks.

Assault and Mechanized aren't necessarily exclusive.

I was more referring to the "Sit back and shoot" tactics of both lists, but you're right. My bad >_>

**Brother-Thunder**

Hawkward wrote:Cheaper models.

Why is Slaanesh called the God of Pleasure when it gets off equally on pain?

Just wanted to say, pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin. And for some, they are usually one and the same. IT makes sense for Slaanesh to hold dominion over both.

**redeyed**

I would like to see a change to the LOS rules and wound allocation.

I dont mind the rules regarding vehicles/armour values as tbh alot of the time you can pop the bigguns easily (apart from monofilths which seem to survive almost anything!)

**Vaktathi**

G00fySmiley wrote:I'd argue the opposite, I'd say most weapons with the right hit should be able to hurt even a Russ, a raider, or a monolith

av 14 is just way to powerful in 5th edition... and this is comeing from an ork player who loves battle wagon bash (deff rollas are fun ... but kinds rediculous)

I'd like people to have a chance to destroy my wagons, and i'd like a relable way of dealing with av14 other than ramming or assaulting, there are alot of armies that have very limited options against av14 and i'd like to see that specifically changed

AV14 isn't an issue except primarily for Orks. With the more widespread availability of Melta/Lance/S10/etc compared to previous editions and more and more access to Deep Strike & DS scatter mitigation, reserves control, outflanking and Scouting units, AV14 isn't an issue for most armies.

In fact, I can't remember the last time I played a game against an opponent with an AV14 vehicle or multiple AV14 vehicles, and it(they) survived. It's why most competitive IG armies don't take russ tanks over AV12 vehicles because the AV14 doesn't offer much more survivability over AV12 in many cases and they die just as easily in assaults as a Chimera. There's so much melta availability in 5E, in addition to lances, S10, etc. that it just isn't that scary.

**G00fySmiley**

It is a problem for orks and from my experience tyranids. orks need to take very specialized high point items to have a chance at doing something over a glance... and like tyranids we both really need to be in close to av14 to hurt it with pk's or monstrous creatures... l

as for me thinking it is a problem for all vehicles, it takes a while for people to pop my battlewagons even against highly shooty armies (IG/tau/most space marine chapters) usually drop off payload of orks, then get a deff rolla or 2 (usually ramming their vehicles) before getting blow up or wrecked)

i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

now I agree one shot shouldn't stop/ blow up a tank or something, hence why i think they should have some sort of wound type aspect as well due to backup systems before they end up wrecked or exploded .. but make those hits to damage said systems easier to get

**AvatarForm**

I want to see the return of Vortex grenades and Overwatch...

Those were the days...

*Turn 2... and noone has moved from cover

**Deadshane1**

I hope they dont change much.

I wound up quitting Fantasy b/c I hate this version. Fantasy used to require skill....Now luck has much more of a hand in who wins, which I think sucks.

I just finished buying a Dark Eldar army then the new version came out and I quit playing....eagerly waiting next edition when they get rid of stupid random charge ranges.

I hope they dont F@#$ up 40k as its always been my main game. Hopefully they pay attention to the players as rumours start to fly and adjust accordingly....

....even though I KNOW they dont listen to us in the least.

**Melissia**

G00fySmiley wrote:i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

This statement is so smug and obnoxious that it makes me want to punch you in the face.

**warpcrafter**

G00fySmiley wrote:
i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

The obvious solution to this is Ordinance. Orks have access to two shooting Ordinance weapons, but the way that the rules are now, ("Roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest") is only a little help, and in my opinion, these weapons should be more powerful.

The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

**sarpedons-right-hand**

Ok, apologies if someone has written this here before me (at work so no time to read all the replies), but I want grenades back!

I've said this before, grenades now are pretty useless. I would love the old rules from 2nd Ed back again. Being able to throw grenades and actually have the damn things do some damage. Be they Krak, Frag, Melta, or that most awesome weapon the Vortex grenade.

Cmon GW, do the right thing!

**TheRedDevil**

warpcrafter wrote:
G00fySmiley wrote:
i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

The obvious solution to this is Ordinance. Orks have access to two shooting Ordinance weapons, but the way that the rules are now, ("Roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest") is only a little help, and in my opinion, these weapons should be more powerful.

The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

And you're solution for nids is to just suck it up? Although I still would like buffing ordinance weapons, the result is still less reliable transports.

**Vaktathi**

G00fySmiley wrote:It is a problem for orks and from my experience tyranids. orks need to take very specialized high point items to have a chance at doing something over a glance... and like tyranids we both really need to be in close to av14 to hurt it with pk's or monstrous creatures...

At the same time however there generally isn't more than a couple AV14 units on the table, and if there are then it's going to be Battlewagons or LRBT's, then just about any unit in your army can hurt them in an assault and they've got weaker side armor. The Tyranid book deals with AV14 better (lots of MC's, Zoanthropes, rending), but also has the problem of just being poorly done, that's not a core rules issue.

as for me thinking it is a problem for all vehicles, it takes a while for people to pop my battlewagons even against highly shooty armies (IG/tau/most space marine chapters) usually drop off payload of orks, then get a deff rolla or 2 (usually ramming their vehicles) before getting blow up or wrecked)

I can't remember a game against battlewagons where I didn't pop at least one by turn two or all of them by turn 4 (usually 3). That's pretty fast, just because they don't get routinely destroyed on turn 1 doesn't mean they are overly powerful, the point of AV14 is that they *should* take a while to pop.

i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

I don't really field AV14 that much, most IG players don't, it's not that much more survivable than the AV12 stuff. LR's get a huge swath of special rules and can be used as an assault skateboard so they're more popular.

I guarantee you that a lot more than a "handful" of players don't want glancing to be -1. Perhaps not in this thread, but this is exactly the type of place where such opinions would be most expressed. I play many armies, I've got IG, Chaos Marines, Tyranids, Tau, Witch Hunters and Eldar. I have a pretty good perspective on whats going on. I generally play at least 1 game a week and often 2 or 3, and at more than one store. The changing of Glancing hits to -2 as opposed the -1 they were in 4E has been long hailed as one of the best changes of the otherwise side-grade of 5th edition.

Making glancing -1 simply makes anti-infantry weapons and common melee attacks simply far too capable of destroying tanks. Scatterlasers should not be used to defeat AV12, S4 melee punches should not be able to kill Battle Tanks, and Heavy Bolters should not be able to destroy a Rhino from the front. I wouldn't want to try to play DE when bolter glances could kill on a 5+.

now I agree one shot shouldn't stop/ blow up a tank or something, hence why i think they should have some sort of wound type aspect as well due to backup systems before they end up wrecked or exploded .. but make those hits to damage said systems easier to get

Well, if it doesn't have a chance to be outright destroyed then on a glance like that, I'm not quite sure what the point of changing the system would be if the goal of changing the system is to make tanks easier to kill. Not that I don't agree that the fundamental vehicles rules of 40k are flawed, they are deeply flawed and GW has never really gotten them right (hence why there's a radical change in them each edition) but I think that 5E's are the best they've had to far and don't want to see a slide back into 4E's game where tanks all too often just weren't worth it.

Deadshane1 wrote:I hope they dont change much.

I wound up quitting Fantasy b/c I hate this version. Fantasy used to require skill....Now luck has much more of a hand in who wins, which I think sucks.

Personally I find 8E much better. In 7E, if you didn't play one of 3 armies, then you didn't play. No more juggling fractions of an inch in silly dances to see who gets off the first charge that have no place in a wargame, and you don't have 5man knight units plowing through entire armies without ever taking a hit back, no more 20 PD armies, etc. 8E has its issues, but I've definitely noticed a rise in the number of players (i.e. there are some again besides the two dudes that would come in every week for a VC vs Daemons game) and the variation in armies.

**akaean**

warpcrafter wrote:
The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

Yes, lets turn the Leman Russ Battle Cannon into a "melta" weapon.

that would be totally balanced...

Glances have always been a bit more fringe than penetrating hits- for most weapons always at a 1/6 chance. It really only becomes important when glances are the only option available- such as s4 against a tank.

To put the ability of S4 to wreck an av10 tank on a glance into perspective

to statistically kill a tank which moved over 6 inches under the current rules with glances at -1 on the table will require on average,
1 wrecked result (1/6 chance)
6 Glances (1/6 chance)
36 Hits (1/6 chance)
216 attacks

Mob of 30 slugga choppa boyz on the charge: 4*30=120 attacks.

Yea I'm not seeing it- unless the tanks didn't move, but I mean infantry swarm all over that stuff, they try to get into the hatches, etc- its not like they are just beating on the front of the tank with blunt objects... I mean its more narrative letting super humans and mutants bring down a tank- especially one that hasn't moved-

If you want to make it a bit more balance- make it difficult to attack a tank that has moved in your opponents turn; When moving into base contact with an enemy vehicle, which had moved the previous turn, the assaulting unit must make a dangerous terrain check. (To represent the danger of being crushed under the treads of a moving tank,etc)_
If the enemy tank had moved "flat out", in addition to the dangerous terrain check, when a model rolls a 1 to hit, it suffers an automatic wound- with invulnerable saves allowed. (to represent the foolishness of charging into a tank barreling at full speed across the battlefield)

Then I would require a tank to have moved at least 3 inches from its starting location for it to count as having moved for the purpose of close combat. No shuffling chimera's or razors forward or backwards half an inch to count as moving.

**UsdiThunder**

You all realize that shrubs and other forms of "soft cover" already should be a 5+ cover save. It sounds like instead of defining the terrain before the game you are just accepting a blanket 4+ cover. It says it right in the BRB. Certain cover gets 3+, 4+, 5+, or even 6+.

I agree the fix to sniper weapons is to let the shooter pick their targets.

Wound Allocation is ok due to the amount of points you are spending vs. the amount of high power weapons available to most armies. This should be fixed by the codexs allowing more shooting or quality shooting.

The easy fix to transports is increasing the Str of the damage inside and outside of the vehicle when it explodes and adding damage when it becomes a wreck. Right now it's a str4 ap- when a transport goes boom to the troops inside. IF you raise it to a str 6 ap3 only those in the most powerful armour (ie Terminator, Runic, ancient, etc...) would get a save, but it wouldn't be an insta-kill since you'd have to roll to see if a wound occured.

With a wreck, think about this, any damage that is severe enough to stop a TANK from running should be damaging to the occupants inside. I'd say this would be a perfect place for a str4 ap- hit to the troops inside. I think either way those outside should have to take wound test as well, on a STR4 AP6.

IMHO opinion i think those who carry pistol class weapons should get a free shot at those assulting them. That is what they are designed for at this time in real life.

**warpcrafter**

TheRedDevil wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:
G00fySmiley wrote:
i think there is a reason that so many people think glancing should be -1 and only a handful (mostly imperium players) wanting it to stay the same

And there is a reason you a marines/IG player wants to keep his av 14 stuff almost untouchable to some armies (and protected from most)

The obvious solution to this is Ordinance. Orks have access to two shooting Ordinance weapons, but the way that the rules are now, ("Roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest") is only a little help, and in my opinion, these weapons should be more powerful.

The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

And you're solution for nids is to just suck it up? Although I still would like buffing ordinance weapons, the result is still less reliable transports.

Tyranids can still do Nidzilla despite the raise in points to Carnifexe and they have, rending genestealers, what more do they need?

akaean wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:
The way I would re-word it is this. "If the center hole of the template is not over the vehicle, you roll two dice for armor penetration and pick the highest. However, if the center hole of the template IS over the vehicle, you roll two dice, add them together and add the weapon's STR." Even with the halving of the weapon's strength for not having the center of the template over the vehicle, it would still give a somewhat better chance of a penetrating hit, which it seems to be was the purpose of ordinance weapons in the first place.

Taking into account the limitations on firing ordinance weapons, their randomness and high points cost, they would still not be as common as they are in imperial guard armies, but would be a little more attractive.

Yes, lets turn the Leman Russ Battle Cannon into a "melta" weapon. that would be totally balanced...

Glances have always been a bit more fringe than penetrating hits- for most weapons always at a 1/6 chance. It really only becomes important when glances are the only option available- such as s4 against a tank.

To put the ability of S4 to wreck an av10 tank on a glance into perspective

to statistically kill a tank which moved over 6 inches under the current rules with glances at -1 on the table will require on average,
1 wrecked result (1/6 chance)
6 Glances (1/6 chance)
36 Hits (1/6 chance)
216 attacks

Mob of 30 slugga choppa boyz on the charge: 4*30=120 attacks.

Yea I'm not seeing it- unless the tanks didn't move, but I mean infantry swarm all over that stuff, they try to get into the hatches, etc- its not like they are just beating on the front of the tank with blunt objects... I mean its more narrative letting super humans and mutants bring down a tank- especially one that hasn't moved-

If you want to make it a bit more balance- make it difficult to attack a tank that has moved in your opponents turn; When moving into base contact with an enemy vehicle, which had moved the previous turn, the assaulting unit must make a dangerous terrain check. (To represent the danger of being crushed under the treads of a moving tank,etc)_
If the enemy tank had moved "flat out", in addition to the dangerous terrain check, when a model rolls a 1 to hit, it suffers an automatic wound- with invulnerable saves allowed. (to represent the foolishness of charging into a tank barreling at full speed across the battlefield)

Then I would require a tank to have moved at least 3 inches from its starting location for it to count as having moved for the purpose of close combat. No shuffling chimera's or razors forward or backwards half an inch to count as moving.

I didn't intend that everyone should have this rule, just Orks. Sorry about the lack of clarity.