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.

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Obviously I agree about RT, but I just can't agree with your statement about 2nd edition. We used to have multi game "black shirt" tourneys at 2000 pts. No big deal.

We have a very different experience then. 2nd had multiple tables for everything, wargear cards, complicated statlines and very heroic characters. Things had a tendency to bog down when your vehicle could take hits in specific areas, then flip over, explode and kill a bunch of folks.

One persons "bogged down" is another person's awesome. You obviously prefer SimpleK, where some people kinda liked the complexity of the older versions. I think 2nd Edition was heavily flawed, but the things you're complaining about were not really among those flaws. The vehicle cards gave the individual vehicles a lot more character. It wasn't like anyone fielded more than a a couple of them at a time in the old days. Their point values were much higher (comparatively) and they were more vulnerable than they are today. My buddy played his I Guard with a Hellhound, and it was just automatically assumed that it was going to die horribly in the 2nd round, lol.

It's really just a question of what you want in a wargame. 40K these days is set up to place a lot of models, roll a lot dice, remove a lot of models, go home. 2nd Edition wasn't like that. There was a lot more emphasis on tactics, movement, cover, etc. You didn't play with nearly as large of armies, with nearly as many vehicles. I won't lie and say 2nd Edition was perfect, because it wasn't. It had balance issues out the wazoo. But the ruleset was pretty sound. I'd say the ideal version of 40K would involve a "halfway" point between the detail of 2nd and the streamlining of 3rd. People who played a lot of 2nd edition fondly remember back when Orks were Orkier and you had to get your opponent's permission to use Special Characters (many tournaments straight up banned them).

How about the following for sniper rifles:

on a to hit roll of 6 with a to wound roll of 4+, the sniper gets to pick the target and unless otherwise stated in the individual model rules, the model allocated the wound has a 5+ roll to potentially avoid the shot and the hit is reassigned to the unit instead (which may be allocated back onto the same guy by the receiving player) Wounds caused this way still retain the rending rule. The unit will still check for pinning as usual even if it was an IC that was removed by the selected shot.

On that point, I think a change to pinning may also be in order as I've almost never seen that thing get used. Maybe instead of unsaved wound to just having the unit be hit to cause a pinning check? Or would that be too much of a change?

I think the wound allocation should change. I like the older edition (i think 3rd) when they say something like: "allocate the wound to anyone in the squad because if the missile launcher guy dies, someone else in the squad will pick it up and keep shooting it." That way when a lascannon turns someone into pink mist, the next lascannon shot will do it to someone else instead of stacking on the same guy. It is silly that I just gave you 4 regular wounds and 2 no-save wounds to your 5 man squad but only 1 guy takes the no-saves because he is holding something stupid like a scanner. I hope that made sense...

sudojoe wrote:How about the following for sniper rifles:

on a to hit roll of 6 with a to wound roll of 4+, the sniper gets to pick the target and unless otherwise stated in the individual model rules, the model allocated the wound has a 5+ roll to potentially avoid the shot and the hit is reassigned to the unit instead (which may be allocated back onto the same guy by the receiving player) Wounds caused this way still retain the rending rule. The unit will still check for pinning as usual even if it was an IC that was removed by the selected shot.

On that point, I think a change to pinning may also be in order as I've almost never seen that thing get used. Maybe instead of unsaved wound to just having the unit be hit to cause a pinning check? Or would that be too much of a change?

Thats a good idea for the sniper rifle. I was thinking of more a "look out sir" rule from WHFB.
Yeah, pinning definitely needs an improvement. It's kinda useless atm, and for it to take effect on a hit would make more sense.
If you watch war films, the soldiers also duck for cover when a sniper's about, even if they didn't take any casualties.

Why are people obsessed with sniper rifles?
Anyway, you should be able to charge after rapid firing; and assault weapons give you +1 attack.

aquilaenet wrote:I think the wound allocation should change. I like the older edition (i think 3rd) when they say something like: "allocate the wound to anyone in the squad because if the missile launcher guy dies, someone else in the squad will pick it up and keep shooting it." That way when a lascannon turns someone into pink mist, the next lascannon shot will do it to someone else instead of stacking on the same guy. It is silly that I just gave you 4 regular wounds and 2 no-save wounds to your 5 man squad but only 1 guy takes the no-saves because he is holding something stupid like a scanner. I hope that made sense...

Wait, you can do that? I thought it was that everyone had to have at least one wound allotted to them before stacking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:Why are people obsessed with sniper rifles?
Anyway, you should be able to charge after rapid firing; and assault weapons give you +1 attack.

Because they have so much potential that is never explored in the game. IRL they are such a instrumental and legendary weapon (see: Stalingrad), yet 40 thousand years in the future, it apparently does nothing except tickle carnifexes.

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

I would disagree, actually. Overwatch, particularly when you had two shooty armies facing each other, tended to result in very static games with both players waiting for the other to make the first move.

And grenades were ridiculous. There was little point in ever using Marines' pistols, as it was far more effective to go lobbing all those blast markers around instead.


Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with Overwatch to an extent, but it shouldn't be an automatic ability. I'd like to see it as something that can be issued as an order, and require a Ld test to actually shoot at the emerging enemy.

Likewise, GW's kneejerk removal of grenades as a weapon went a little too far, IMO. I'd love to see grenades return to actual weapon status, but limited to one per unit each turn rather than allowing everyone to throw them.

insaniak wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

I would disagree, actually. Overwatch, particularly when you had two shooty armies facing each other, tended to result in very static games with both players waiting for the other to make the first move.

And grenades were ridiculous. There was little point in ever using Marines' pistols, as it was far more effective to go lobbing all those blast markers around instead.


Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with Overwatch to an extent, but it shouldn't be an automatic ability. I'd like to see it as something that can be issued as an order, and require a Ld test to actually shoot at the emerging enemy.

Likewise, GW's kneejerk removal of grenades as a weapon went a little too far, IMO. I'd love to see grenades return to actual weapon status, but limited to one per unit each turn rather than allowing everyone to throw them.

Great points and agree!

I think 2nd was too detailed. Part of the appeal of SimpleK as you call it is that it is fairly east to learn and can be played in a reasonable amount of time. I enjoy the current level of complexity and think that the move to third was a good one. Since then the game has just gotten better.

And to the "warhammer not warcraft" guy, 40k has always been about OTT action and big damn heroes.

If they want to tone down the Herohammer factor, all they need to do is fix wound allocation and tone down the use of 3++ saves in codices (via errata). You’d see less deathstar units on the table if this was done.

I think snipers would help take away hero hammer. Oh, did my 50pts of ratlings just kill your 200pt hero. Guess they did their job. Hate herohammer in 40k.

>Bring back the old armory style. I really miss veteran sergeants with weird options.
>One or two hero's per codex only please. A good armory system will help with this.
>Lets find a happy medium between the fifth edition damage tables and the fourth edition damage tables for vehicles. Please.
>Running is good, so lets see a bit more of a bonus for units that have fleet of foot. That was a HUGE bonus to a unit back in 4th.
>Please don't tinker with shooting and close combat overly much. Its working, there aren't many problems, don't tinker with it.
>Except for true line of sight.

I'd like to see Deep Striking made more worthwhile - make it only 1 D6 scatter for everyone that can deep strike and give any unit arriving by deep strike a cover save. When I say cover save, I am also of the opinion that cover saves should be to hit modifiers. Don't know what this would mean for Descent of Angels but I'm sure GW could think of some way to enhance it for BA. Maybe allow more of their units to assault in lieu of shooting on the turn they arrive.

Something else I was also thinking to try to help shooting balance out a bit more would be to weaken power weapons a bit - like make power weapons rend on a 4+ instead of just negate all armour. I don't mean add an extra D3 against vehicles - it would only do that where the rules state it does. I also realise that this could have a knock on effect for things like Thunder Hammers - should they still be Initiative 1 or change it to 4? Or could you allow them to re-roll missed hits? Then you'd have to think about other things like a Vulkan list as it would lessen the impact he has on thunder hammers but I don't think GW thinks so far ahead tbh.

If this were to be implemented then I would change force weapons to all unsaved wounds cause a second wound. This wouldn't have much effect against most models but those with more than 2 wounds would feel it more. I've just been thinking about this today and it's more of an attempt to balance out shooting and CC but by making CC less of a 'this is how to win' button rather than increasing the effectiveness of shooting which could only really be achieved by making more ranged weaponry AP3/AP2/AP1. And those changes would benefit marines way more anyway so I think weakening CC a little is the way forward (Tau need to have improved shooting whatever happens though) but this also brings me onto...

...Fleet of Foot. I'd kind of combine it with Furious Charge. Basically, have two levels of FC. FC on it's own should just give +1 I. Models with fleet should be able to run in the shooting phase and then benefit from +1 I and +1 S if they assault right after.

ColdSadHungry wrote:

Something else I was also thinking to try to help shooting balance out a bit more would be to weaken power weapons a bit - like make power weapons rend on a 4+ instead of just negate all armour. I don't mean add an extra D3 against vehicles - it would only do that where the rules state it does. I also realise that this could have a knock on effect for things like Thunder Hammers - should they still be Initiative 1 or change it to 4? Or could you allow them to re-roll missed hits? Then you'd have to think about other things like a Vulkan list as it would lessen the impact he has on thunder hammers but I don't think GW thinks so far ahead tbh.

If this were to be implemented then I would change force weapons to all unsaved wounds cause a second wound. This wouldn't have much effect against most models but those with more than 2 wounds would feel it more. I've just been thinking about this today and it's more of an attempt to balance out shooting and CC but by making CC less of a 'this is how to win' button rather than increasing the effectiveness of shooting which could only really be achieved by making more ranged weaponry AP3/AP2/AP1. And those changes would benefit marines way more anyway so I think weakening CC a little is the way forward (Tau need to have improved shooting whatever happens though) but this also brings me onto...

Some interesting points in here, but the PWs are what I'd like to focus on, or rather assaults like you have. I am not sure if rending is the way to go with PWs, rather if we gave any weapon with the 'chain' keyword rending (on a 6 of course), but power weapons were designed to use the electrical fields to sort of bypass armor. I think that GW went with lower initiative on PFs and THs, because they boost the strength of the user so much, and to have a thunderhammer boosted up to the users natural I would be OP i think.

If we were to alter how power weapons worked, to balance shooting out with assault, I think they would "need" to alter the standard Ork boy, to keep them being monsters in CC, and the same with Tyranid Gaunts, or any other unit that has no shooting attack (minus Greater Daemons)

But back to the chainswords, I think that obviously tactical marines shouldn't get them (except for SW grey hunters of course), and any unit that has them would get probably a 1 point increase in cost, but at the same time, the effectiveness of the chainsword in the fluff does not match its abilities on TT.

Love the idea of grenades, pref vortex ones.

ColdSadHungry wrote:I'd like to see Deep Striking made more worthwhile - make it only 1 D6 scatter for everyone that can deep strike and give any unit arriving by deep strike a cover save.

Deep Strike is already really good with many units have nigh immunity to DS issues. This would make way too many things ridiculously broken. There's no reason units should be able to arrive wherever they want on the field with even less chance of mishap and a cover save or to-hit modifier to boot.

dæl wrote:Love the idea of grenades, pref vortex ones.

Grenades in 2nd made getting to close to Tac SM scary. x2 str for distance(if I recall correctly).

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Because they have so much potential that is never explored in the game. IRL they are such a[sic] instrumental and legendary weapon (see: Stalingrad), yet 40 thousand years in the future, it apparently does nothing except tickle carnifexes.

instrumental and legendary? No they're just featured a lot in films.
40k would be just fine without them, but as it is the rending rule suits them well.
Maybe it's a pyscology thing. The lone elite huntsman probably has a large appeal to the average 14 year old who plays 40k these days.

Vaktathi wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:I'd like to see Deep Striking made more worthwhile - make it only 1 D6 scatter for everyone that can deep strike and give any unit arriving by deep strike a cover save.

Deep Strike is already really good with many units have nigh immunity to DS issues. This would make way too many things ridiculously broken. There's no reason units should be able to arrive wherever they want on the field with even less chance of mishap and a cover save or to-hit modifier to boot.

I don't know about that - I play DW and GK which can both deep strike a lot of units and simply don't deep strike at all because of bad experiences doing it. Plus we're talking about major rules changes so GW could easily cut down on the number of units that can deep strike or add in different rules to restrict when it can be done. It's just that actually doing it is so risky it's hardly worthwhile and I'd like to have the option to do it more which I would do if it offered me something more than it currently does. Obviously there's a lot of drop pods that can deep strike in more easily and that would have to be taken into consideration but simply bringing in units on their own via deep strike is too risky to make it viable imo.

Joey wrote:
Maybe it's a pyscology thing. The lone elite huntsman probably has a large appeal to the average 14 year old who plays 40k these days.

They certainly still appeal to me, and I'm 23. While a group of guys wielding shotguns while riding around in an APC is crazy awesome, a group of guys sporting high powered rifles off in the distance is cool too.

Me thinks you botched that quote there.
I was thinking, "when did I type that?! Was I drunk at the keyboard again?"

Edit: Nevermind, got fixed.

One thing I woud like to see changed is the Almighty, Powerfull Space Marines not hide and cower in vehicles and only come out on the last turn, or even worse, stay in their vehicles to claim objectives.

I say to claim an objective you can't be in a vehicle but have actual troops within 3" of the objective.

ColdSadHungry wrote:
I don't know about that - I play DW and GK which can both deep strike a lot of units and simply don't deep strike at all because of bad experiences doing it.

Deep Strike is generally only risky if you're trying to drop extremely close to the target. I can count on one hand the number of time I've suffered a mishap. There's plenty of wargear in this game that negates or reduces Deep Strike scatter or mishaps (teleport homers, chaos icons, drop pods, mycetic spores, etc). Being able to appear anywhere on the board without the enemy able to do a thing about it is very powerful and doesn't need to be any safer. My CSM's rely heavily on deep striking terminators and obliterators to succeed, of my 2000pt list, 900-1000somethig pts of my army is deep striking. I never really have significant issues with Deep Strike and mishaps.

Plus we're talking about major rules changes so GW could easily cut down on the number of units that can deep strike or add in different rules to restrict when it can be done.

that'd be talking about codex re-design which is a bit different, and would mean many units lose their valuable ability to DS.

It's just that actually doing it is so risky it's hardly worthwhile and I'd like to have the option to do it more which I would do if it offered me something more than it currently does.

It's only really risky if you're trying to drop super close to them. Unless you *need* to be within 6" of an enemy unit, there's very little chance of a mishap, and even if you do, chances are 50/50 you'll either hit or only scatter a little distance and on top of that you'll likely not scatter towards the enemy unless you're trying to drop right amongst a huge group of them.

Obviously there's a lot of drop pods that can deep strike in more easily and that would have to be taken into consideration but simply bringing in units on their own via deep strike is too risky to make it viable imo.

I do it all the time, and again, can count the number of mishaps I've ever had on one hand. As is, DS is plenty safe as long as you aren't trying to fit a squad of 40mm base dudes into a tiny gap in the enemy lines.

I'd like to see GW attempt to make balanced armies so when 6th comes out a series of proper errata/FAQs are released to not only make most units playable but to correct oversights/overpowered rules. Following this release new errata/FAQs when needed as new dexes are released or its discovered a rule/unit is broken (either way). I don't expect a perfect game - just a reasonable attempt would go a long way to making the game more enjoyable for so many players and keep their armies/units useable. (And having a decent army will not stop most players I n]know from building new armies so GW still gets money).

I don't care, as long as the rulebook doesn't go up in price.

I had an idea for sniper rifles. You can fire at a squad for normal bs, but firing at separate units suffers a reduction to the unit's BS, because is it easier to shoot at a group of people, or to single out one target and kill him specifically?

moom241 wrote:I had an idea for sniper rifles. You can fire at a squad for normal bs, but firing at separate units suffers a reduction to the unit's BS, because is it easier to shoot at a group of people, or to single out one target and kill him specifically?

"Realistically" (as if that is an option in 40k) a sniper would still be shooting a single guy, not a nebulous blob of dudes.

Brother SRM wrote:

moom241 wrote:I had an idea for sniper rifles. You can fire at a squad for normal bs, but firing at separate units suffers a reduction to the unit's BS, because is it easier to shoot at a group of people, or to single out one target and kill him specifically?

"Realistically" (as if that is an option in 40k) a sniper would still be shooting a single guy, not a nebulous blob of dudes.

Not to mention that snipers typically don't operate as entire squads

Aren't there sniper teams IRL?
I know they do tend to act solo, but don't they also band together to lay traps and crossfires and so on?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Aren't there sniper teams IRL?
I know they do tend to act solo, but don't they also band together to lay traps and crossfires and so on?

Usually they operate as a 2 man gunner/spotter team, sometimes with multiple teams in an area, but not anything like 40k's sniper units where it's basically infantry squads that swapped their assault rifles for sniper rifles.