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 find the idea that people hate fixed to-hit/wound hilarious. We already have that. You play SM? You hit on 3's, in shooting. Period. In combat you will typically hit on 4's, sometimes on 3's, and almost never on 5's. Most weapons wound on 4's or 3's. Obviously more specialized weapons make it easier to wound.
But what if my BS/WS is higher? In a AoS version you would have +1 to hit for that model (like a sergeant for example) The effect is exactly the same. And there are plenty of ways to change dice rolls
Fixed amounts make its simpler then saying 7-BS(4)=to hit(3+) and makes it a flat 3+. No charts, no comparisons, easy.
What I want to see:
Changes made to dice rolls and NOT stat lines like in AoS.
Charges are a flat double your Movement like in SWA.
No pre-measuring.
Pull models from anywhere instead of the front.
Less super friends.
Formations with points and no free stuff.
Templates and markers gone, don't think that will happen
Psychic powers back in the shooting phase or incorporated into a Command Phase like AoS Psychic Powers a roll on 2d6, either you get it or you don't.
MC's and Vehicles with degrading abilities. More damage means less effective.
Vehicles are the biggest question. If they go full on AoS then they would have Wounds which I would like to see as AV=Wounds. So Rhinos would have 10 wounds, Landraiders would have 14, ect. Probably can't work everywhere but would be decent start
BomBomHotdog wrote: I find the idea that people hate fixed to-hit/wound hilarious. We already have that. You play SM? You hit on 3's, in shooting. Period. In combat you will typically hit on 4's, sometimes on 3's, and almost never on 5's. Most weapons wound on 4's or 3's. Obviously more specialized weapons make it easier to wound.
but there is not really when it's a d6 there's +/- 1, +/-2 or re-roll ones.
Thats why almost all AoS units are a variation of 3/4 to hit and 3/4 to wound then one of the above 5 options as a "special" rule with it's own custom name(ignoring the dozen other versions of it with different names).
People say it's easier but is there any point in making it easier, then giving basic shields 5 different rules so you have to look up how our opponents work completely differently to yours. The game was basically a shonky 4 page shell of a game they have spent 2 years trying to dress up as a real game.
Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis
BomBomHotdog wrote: I find the idea that people hate fixed to-hit/wound hilarious. We already have that. You play SM? You hit on 3's, in shooting. Period. In combat you will typically hit on 4's, sometimes on 3's, and almost never on 5's. Most weapons wound on 4's or 3's. Obviously more specialized weapons make it easier to wound.
but there is not really when it's a d6 there's +/- 1, +/-2 or re-roll ones.
Thats why almost all AoS units are a variation of 3/4 to hit and 3/4 to wound then one of the above 5 options as a "special" rule with it's own custom name(ignoring the dozen other versions of it with different names).
People say it's easier but is there any point in making it easier, then giving basic shields 5 different rules so you have to look up how our opponents work completely differently to yours. The game was basically a shonky 4 page shell of a game they have spent 2 years trying to dress up as a real game.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
AoS is and has been the superior game since it launched, the things people hated on (goofy rules, model to model measurement) got houseruled out pretty quickly and now barely even exist. The only other problem was army building which the GHB fixed.
Side bar: don't get rid of premeasuring you're not a good player because you know how long 6 inches looks and anyone who knows how long their pointer finger is can get around it.
BomBomHotdog wrote: I find the idea that people hate fixed to-hit/wound hilarious. We already have that. You play SM? You hit on 3's, in shooting. Period. In combat you will typically hit on 4's, sometimes on 3's, and almost never on 5's. Most weapons wound on 4's or 3's. Obviously more specialized weapons make it easier to wound.
but there is not really when it's a d6 there's +/- 1, +/-2 or re-roll ones.
Thats why almost all AoS units are a variation of 3/4 to hit and 3/4 to wound then one of the above 5 options as a "special" rule with it's own custom name(ignoring the dozen other versions of it with different names).
People say it's easier but is there any point in making it easier, then giving basic shields 5 different rules so you have to look up how our opponents work completely differently to yours. The game was basically a shonky 4 page shell of a game they have spent 2 years trying to dress up as a real game.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
AoS is and has been the superior game since it launched, the things people hated on (goofy rules, model to model measurement) got houseruled out pretty quickly and now barely even exist. The only other problem was army building which the GHB fixed.
Side bar: don't get rid of premeasuring you're not a good player because you know how long 6 inches looks and anyone who knows how long their pointer finger is can get around it.
Gotta agree with you there.
Nine inches from pinkie tip to thumb tip.
Twelve inches from elbow to wrist.
Twenty one inches from elbow to fingertip.
Nobody ever looked twice when I rested an arm or hand on the tabletop to move models.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
I haven't played enough of AoS to debate that, so I won't, but there is something that feels inherently wrong about the way this system is set up. Maybe you could adress this issue I have with it:
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat. In a well constructed chart (not necessarily the one we have right now, mind you), this is represented by pitting WS 2 against WS 6, which leads to a very improbable dice roll of 6+.
If said Grot did attack another Grot, however, this would change to a 4+, which makes sense, since it would be easier for them to hit a model that is less proficient in defending or fighting in general.
The chart-system allows for this differentiation, while a fixed value system does not.
Why do I think this is important? Units should be multi-faceted. They should have win- as well as lose-scenarios, not a single average efficiency against every single enemy type. You can, of course, offset that by attaching dice modifiers to unit profiles, but I'd argue that this only makes things more complicated than the alternative (which honestly is really, really simple to learn).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/23 13:41:34
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
I haven't played enough of AoS to debate that, so I won't, but there is something that feels inherently wrong about the way this system is set up. Maybe you could adress this issue I have with it:
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat. In a well constructed chart (not necessarily the one we have right now, mind you), this is represented by pitting WS 2 against WS 6, which leads to a very improbable dice roll of 6+.
If said Grot did attack another Grot, however, this would change to a 4+, which makes sense, since it would be easier for them to hit a model that is less proficient in defending or fighting in general.
The chart-system allows for this differentiation, while a fixed value system does not.
Why do I think this is important? Units should be multi-faceted. They should have win- as well as lose-scenarios, not a single average efficiency against every single enemy type. You can, of course, offset that by attaching dice modifiers to unit profiles, but I'd argue that this only makes things more complicated than the alternative (which honestly is really, really simple to learn).
There's huge variety in how it works in AoS as is. Some units give -1 to hit, some give -1 to wound, some halve wounds, and some can heal. Weak units like Grots could also carry negative abilities like say "Wheedly: Against Heroes and Monsters/Vehicles this unit must reroll successful hits" or some such. Finally there is the tag system so there could be a rule like "Vehicle/Monster: unless the attacking model has anti-vehicle/monster then it has no rend value and only ever inflicts 1 damage." Not useful against Grots since they'd like be no rend 1 damage but against say Bolters it could make a difference.
Also all that making it easier for Grots to wound stuff does is make it so that Grots will actually be used to do something instead of sit on objectives. As it is now that and cheap troops filler is all they accomplish.
There's huge variety in how it works in AoS as is. Some units give -1 to hit, some give -1 to wound, some halve wounds, and some can heal. Weak units like Grots could also carry negative abilities like say "Wheedly: Against Heroes and Monsters/Vehicles this unit must reroll successful hits" or some such. Finally there is the tag system so there could be a rule like "Vehicle/Monster: unless the attacking model has anti-vehicle/monster then it has no rend value and only ever inflicts 1 damage." Not useful against Grots since they'd like be no rend 1 damage but against say Bolters it could make a difference.
Also all that making it easier for Grots to wound stuff does is make it so that Grots will actually be used to do something instead of sit on objectives. As it is now that and cheap troops filler is all they accomplish.
So additional, unit-specific rules is in fact the solution they chose to compensate for the problem I described? If so, how is that easier than having a single chart that applies to everything?
Don't get me wrong, I can see the appeal of the tag system and special rules that work in tandem with it. It's similar to TCGs in a way and I think it's a good way to diversivy units, but we don't really need fixed values for that, do we?
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat.
And why not? Thats like saying a bumble bee should not be able to easily sting me. It can very easily sting me, but its gonna get smooshed pretty quick afterwards and it's gonna need about 200 friends in order for me to start having any serious problems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/23 14:23:23
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
I haven't played enough of AoS to debate that, so I won't, but there is something that feels inherently wrong about the way this system is set up. Maybe you could adress this issue I have with it:
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat. In a well constructed chart (not necessarily the one we have right now, mind you), this is represented by pitting WS 2 against WS 6, which leads to a very improbable dice roll of 6+.
If said Grot did attack another Grot, however, this would change to a 4+, which makes sense, since it would be easier for them to hit a model that is less proficient in defending or fighting in general.
The chart-system allows for this differentiation, while a fixed value system does not.
Why do I think this is important? Units should be multi-faceted. They should have win- as well as lose-scenarios, not a single average efficiency against every single enemy type. You can, of course, offset that by attaching dice modifiers to unit profiles, but I'd argue that this only makes things more complicated than the alternative (which honestly is really, really simple to learn).
Going by Grots in AoS they hit and wound on 5's. Now they get additional attacks for every 10 in the unit up to 30. So lets just say you have 30, just to maximize. Melee weapons in AoS have a range which is 1" for the Grots so only they ones in base-to-base will get to attack. You might squeeze in a few more models but your over-all efficiency will be determined by how many you get in range. You just said a Greater Deamon but didn't specify so I'm going to use a Bloodthirster. They get 4+ save. The Grots might score 1 wound each with 3 attacks and the Bloodthrister would save half the time. Now when the Bloodthirster attacks he only gets 6 attacks but hits on 3s and wounds on 2s, at worst 4s. His axe has a rend which will negate the Grots armor (6+) and each successful wound causes d3 casualties to the Grots. If all 6 hit and Wound that's going to average out to about 12 wounds on the Grots. Even if the Grots go first in combat they will still end up being the losers In the combat barring any terrible rolls.
Now here's the kicker. Battleshock, which GW said was coming to 40k, will destroy the Grot unit. Grots are a whopping Bravery 4. For the test you roll and add your Casualties and subtract your Bravery. Lets say the Unit lots 10 Models so it has 20 left. Grots get to add 2 to their Bravery (1 for every 10) making it a 6. They are already loosing 4 models before rolling and will loose between a total of 5 to 10. The Bloodthirster will stand a bit bloodied and bruised. In one round of combat the Grots have lost upwards of half to a third of its force while the Deamon might have gone down a tier or two in power.
Can the Grots kill the Bloodthirster? Potentially. Will it happen? Probably not. Does it happen? Sure and its funny when it does.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
I haven't played enough of AoS to debate that, so I won't, but there is something that feels inherently wrong about the way this system is set up. Maybe you could adress this issue I have with it:
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat. In a well constructed chart (not necessarily the one we have right now, mind you), this is represented by pitting WS 2 against WS 6, which leads to a very improbable dice roll of 6+.
If said Grot did attack another Grot, however, this would change to a 4+, which makes sense, since it would be easier for them to hit a model that is less proficient in defending or fighting in general.
The chart-system allows for this differentiation, while a fixed value system does not.
Why do I think this is important? Units should be multi-faceted. They should have win- as well as lose-scenarios, not a single average efficiency against every single enemy type. You can, of course, offset that by attaching dice modifiers to unit profiles, but I'd argue that this only makes things more complicated than the alternative (which honestly is really, really simple to learn).
As you say the current WS chart is very poor - the best you can do is hit ona 3+ - thats pathetic, so that Greater Daemon can only hit that Grot 2/3 of the time.
More importanty - we already have fixed to hit rolls when you use BS - considering how important shooting is in the current version of 40K - why is this ok and WS can't be fixed rolls as well?
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
A rework of basic rules to shift up the meta and make assault armies a bit more viable. Streamlining out of over complicated rules. An honest attempt to balance armies as opposed to giving a good army even more toys and doing nothing for the low tier army. Example- my main army is nids and my side army eldar.
As you say the current WS chart is very poor - the best you can do is hit on a 3+ - that's pathetic, so that Greater Daemon can only hit that Grot 2/3 of the time.
More importantly - we already have fixed to hit rolls when you use BS - considering how important shooting is in the current version of 40K - why is this ok and WS can't be fixed rolls as well?
To be fair that's also kinda ridiculous that hitting a building that the guy is stood next to is just as easy as a gretchin at the limits of the weapon range
As you say the current WS chart is very poor - the best you can do is hit ona 3+ - thats pathetic, so that Greater Daemon can only hit that Grot 2/3 of the time.
More importanty - we already have fixed to hit rolls when you use BS - considering how important shooting is in the current version of 40K - why is this ok and WS can't be fixed rolls as well?
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the current chart either, but I think the general concept is solid.
To answer your question: Because shooting is a one-way street and close combat is not. There is no way of dodging a bullet coming at you, but you can block or redirect a blow in close combat if you know what you are doing.
@BomBomHotdog:
Thanks for elaborating. I see how is can still work out fine, but the general problem I posted is still not addressed, is it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/23 14:46:15
As you say the current WS chart is very poor - the best you can do is hit on a 3+ - that's pathetic, so that Greater Daemon can only hit that Grot 2/3 of the time.
More importantly - we already have fixed to hit rolls when you use BS - considering how important shooting is in the current version of 40K - why is this ok and WS can't be fixed rolls as well?
To be fair that's also kinda ridiculous that hitting a building that the guy is stood next to is just as easy as a gretchin at the limits of the weapon range
Indeed - or even worse - a Guardsman has the same chance to hit a Scout Sniper with camo cloaks in cover at maximum range as he does as shooting a Stationary vehicle that has been left parked next to him.
But for some reason - thats all fine and its only in Close Combat that fixed rolls can;t possibly be right? makes no sense does it.
To answer your question: Because shooting is a one-way street and close combat is not. There is no way of dodging a bullet coming at you, but you can block or redirect a blow in close combat if you know what you are doing.
So it shoud be the same chance to hit: a Scout Sniper with camo cloaks in cover at maximum range as a Stationary vehicle that has been left parked next to him??
Actually the fluff has Eldar and others dodging bullets, and you can dodge the muzzle not the bullet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/23 14:47:44
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
So it shoud be the same chance to hit: a Scout Sniper with camo cloaks in cover at maximum range as a Stationary vehicle that has been left parked next to him??
Actually the fluff has Eldar and others dodging bullets, and you can dodge the muzzle not the bullet.
No, range, cover and camo cloaks should put negative modifiers on the to hit roll.
As for supernatural skills: That's what ward saves are for.
To answer your question: Because shooting is a one-way street and close combat is not. There is no way of dodging a bullet coming at you, but you can block or redirect a blow in close combat if you know what you are doing.
But it isn't really though. Shooting a massive Ork that's standing around just enjoying the gunfire and explosions is a lot easier than shooting a grot that's doing his damnedest to look unimportant behind that pebble.
Personally I would prefer a ranged to-hit chart. And I wish both the new shooting and the current melee chart would work a bit like the current to-wound chart but leaping every two difference.
IE If both are equal it's a 4+, but you need to be 2 better to hit on a 3+.
Indeed - or even worse - a Guardsman has the same chance to hit a Scout Sniper with camo cloaks in cover at maximum range as he does as shooting a Stationary vehicle that has been left parked next to him.
Given that Camo Cloaks are likely something that'll decrease the To Hit of the unit..
Semi-AoS stat lines:
Move, Wounds, Save, Bravery
Weapons Fixed Values:Range, Rate, Ranged To Hit, Melee To Hit, Infantry To Damage, Vehicle To Damage, Damage
All special rules as per warscrolls.
Point cost in upper right of each warscroll
This would make a Marine look like:
Tactical Squad
Mv: 5" Wnd: 2, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 75 per 5
Bolter: Rng: 24"/1" Attacks: 1/1 ToHit: 4+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1
Heavy Bolter: 36"/1" Attacks: 3/1 ToHit: 3+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 3+/6+ Dam(I/V): 1d3/1 Rend: -1
A squad of marines is 5 to 10 models.
Rapid fire: Marines that don't move may rapid fire bolters or heavy bolters for double their number of attacks.
One marine in 5 may swap out his bolter for a heavy bolter.
The marine with heavy bolter may swap out his weapon for Lascannon (Special rules), Multi-melta (special rules), Plasma cannon (Special Rules), Gravcannon(special rules), Flamer (Special rules), Meltagun (Special Rules), Plasma gun (Special rule)....
Keyword: INFANTRY
And a vehicle written as follows:
Rhino
Mv: 10" Wnd: 8, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 35
Storm Bolter: Rng: 24"/- Attacks: 1/- ToHit: 4+/- ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1
Transport: May carry up to 10 INFANTRY models
Embark: Models that end within 3" of this model at end of movement may Embark on the vehicle. Place on side of table, units embarked may not be shot at or shoot at anything while embarked.
Disembark: Models that start a turn embarked may disembark anywhere along the movement of the vehicle and move upto half their movement away from the exit point on the vehicle. Disembarked troops may not embark on the same vehicle in the same turn.
Keyword: VEHICLE
I really would like to see semi-AoS rules applied to 40k. I think the one that would seriously help current balance is if eldar jetbikes got the following rule:
A squad of jetbikes consists of 3 to 9 jetbikes, every third jetbike may exchange it's twin linked shuriken catapults for a scatter laser.
Spoiler:
Venerable Ironclad wrote: I would like to see a key word system that would state if something was biological, mechanical, and/or ethereal. Then you would have stuff like poison weapons that do more damage to anything biological, and haywire do the same to mechanical, none of this my giant robot is immune to your haywire because reasons.
You two read my minds.
For that second (rather awesome) idea, I was suddenly reminded of pokemon with two different elemental types (bare with me here). They have twice as many strengths...and twice as many weaknesses too. Just imagine for a second if all marines had the biological and mechanical keyword because of their power armor. Suddenly haywire grenades and arc weaponry can be used to great effect against them (and necrons too). This could be a great way to re-balance things. Make Marines killing machines sure, but there's plenty of ways to use that armor against them.
My hopes for 8th though are:
Return of movement value
Damage charts for big units (with vehicles sharing the same stats as everyone else)
Rend and damage stats for weapons
Cover providing a save modifer
Physic powers using an AoS style system
Bolt action style actions. Anything to break up the I go you go system.
If 40k used AoS's combat system for shooting (one player shoots with a unit, then the other players shoots with a unit and so on) then I would be over the moon.
Removed for circumventing the language filter. You know better. - Lorek
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/23 18:50:01
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Free rules... let us spend money on models
no 2+ save can be rerolled as a blanket rule
Have minor "chapter tactics" like rules for different: chapters, Traitor Legions, various Hive Fleets, Craftworlds, Klanz, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/23 16:27:32
DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+ Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0
QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2 One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
Bobthehero wrote: Cover modifiers don't work on a D6, unless you also give positive modifiers, so far I only see people wanting to reduce BS.
Large target (Tank/monstrous creature) would be a positive for sure. Depending on the weapon range might give a positive modifier (Point blank with a shotgun for example)
It's just a fact that there are more things that would reduce the chances to hit than increase them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/23 18:19:05
Bobthehero wrote: Cover modifiers don't work on a D6, unless you also give positive modifiers, so far I only see people wanting to reduce BS.
Did you ever seen shooting in WFB?
Moved -1
Cover -1
Long Range (over half the distance) -1
Not a "Fast" Weapon -1
Your BS 4 goes from hitting on 3s to hitting on 6s then each 6 needs an additional 4+ to successfully hit. My Darkshards always cried for the first turn or 2 because of needing to move.
Thinking about it, that's actually a thing in SWA. Haven't seen it yet personally but it's there.
Bobthehero wrote: Cover modifiers don't work on a D6, unless you also give positive modifiers, so far I only see people wanting to reduce BS.
They worked just fine in WHFB. There were multiple dice modifications for the To Hit roll for shooting. And they all stacked. i.e. target unit was behind soft cover, giving the shooting unit -1 to hit, and the shooting unit was at greater than half the max range of the weapon, for another -1, giving a total of -2 to hit. Sometimes, you would have all bonuses to hit, or a mix of penalties and bonuses. It honestly worked quite well.
I would definitely like to see something like this introduced into 40k. Most of the rumors that have been semi-confirmed I'm happy with, but I -really- want to be able to assault from reserves again. Not Deep Strike reserves, except in ultra-rare cases, but assaulting from Outflank or deployment edge reserves should never have been disallowed. As a Tau player, I'd like to see a return of our old markerlight rules, the current ones are flat broken. 2 markerlights to remove cover from a unit against -all- shooting from my army?? Ridiculous. The Riptide wing needs to die in a fire too.
Formations need to have a point cost attached to them, if you want crazy special rules for your entire army, fine - but you're gonna pay 10-20pts per unit (or more, depending on bonus) in the formation to do it.
I don't want to see fixed to hit/to wound rolls, but the current tables need to be addressed. Especially the CC to hit table. A WS4 model should not be hitting a WS5 model on 4's. And I think if there are more than 4pts difference in WS, the higher WS should be hitting on 2's. If a sufficiently high BS allows you to hit on 2's, a sufficiently high WS relative to target WS should allow for the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/23 18:42:51
Sometimes, the only truth people understand, comes from the barrel of a gun.
Bobthehero wrote: Cover modifiers don't work on a D6, unless you also give positive modifiers, so far I only see people wanting to reduce BS.
Did you ever seen shooting in WFB?
Moved -1
Cover -1
Long Range (over half the distance) -1
Not a "Fast" Weapon -1
Your BS 4 goes from hitting on 3s to hitting on 6s then each 6 needs an additional 4+ to successfully hit. My Darkshards always cried for the first turn or 2 because of needing to move.
Thinking about it, that's actually a thing in SWA. Haven't seen it yet personally but it's there.
It's exactly because I saw WHFB shooting that I don't want it in 40k
SWA features war gear to increase BS and lower cover penalties, unless this kind of stuff shows up in 40k, I am against BS penalties.
It's exactly because I saw WHFB shooting that I don't want it in 40k
SWA features war gear to increase BS and lower cover penalties, unless this kind of stuff shows up in 40k, I am against BS penalties.
Well I wouldn't be too worried since it looks like 40k is going to a static to-hit and if it's going to be close to AoS then to-hit modifiers are far and few between and usually depend on special rules. Like +1 to hit if 20 more models in the unit or -1 to hit against this unit in close combat (boo Nurgle)
I have another hope for 40k, although I doubt it'll happen. A size stat that determines transport capacity, ability to use cover, grav weapons etc. Like for grav weapons, for each hit you score you roll a dice and if the result is equal to or less than the units size they suffer a mortal wound (oh yeah, make mortal wounds a thing in 40k too). So small units would be almost immune to grav weapons whilst lords of war will be very vulnerable to them. How it should be.
AoS40k i would be happy with ... even an even conversion of the char and combat order ... then all the armies could interchange ... and in a round about way they would have added dwarves in space back into 40k
makes no sense does it.
Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 
Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 
Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 
Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 
Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 
Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 
Crimson Tide 59-4-0 
Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 
Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 
BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 
IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 
RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 
Member of 
DKoK Blog:
Have a look, I guarantee you will not see greyer armies, EVER! Now with at least 4 shades of grey
