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 really like AP modding saves rather then negating them, really my autocannon is no better at piercing power armour then a lasgun. Also would make balancing less finnicky, having the exact ap as opponents armour is currently a big deal and if you prepare wrong youve either wasted allot of points or brought allot of crap weapons on the field. With modding saves your points arent wasted just because you ran up against the wrong army.

The general rule (though I would modify spec. weapons) I would use would be
ap 5 = -1 save modifier
ap 4 = -2 save modifier
ap 3 = -3 save modifier
ap 2 = -4 save modifier
ap 1 = -5 save modifier

I also like the idea of greater WS difference and still random but normalized charge ranges.

-1 BS over half range seems a decent idea, though it has a funny effect on rapid fire (conscripts would do 4x close range damage as long range damage)

While all those things are just comments, the rule I would personally add is a wacky perils of the warp table that makes taping into the warp strange not just mildly dangerous. It would have things like demon summonings, teleportation, mass possession, and other hidden fun stuff.

I'd make Waaagh! let you assault after running, like it was before.

Drop points for Grots to 1 each, Ork Boyz to 2 each and Nobs to 3 each. Points for troops in other armies double.

Har har har.
Boss Solorg

1. Make it so snapshot (and overwatch) is at half BS rather than BS 1

2. Allow units to assault out of a vehicle that has moved 6" or less (maybe up disembarking and shooting to 12")

3. Different movement rates for armies and units (i.e. dark reapers would be 4 or 5 but howling banshees would be 6 or 7)

4. Modifiers to hit for moving, range, cover and night fighting (i.e. like warhammer fantasy). No moving modifiers to hit for pistols or assault weapons as they are designed to be fired on the move.

5. Assault after outflanking and 1st turn assault allowed for infiltrators. Why would a sneaky unit stand and get shot for a turn before charging in?

Roll to hit.
Then have cover/armour/invul saves go.
Then roll to wound.


Or


Allow units to assault out of transports, but their assaults count as disorganized and as assaulting through difficult terrain.

 Accipiter wrote:
Roll to hit.
Then have cover/armour/invul saves go.
Then roll to wound.

But why? That changes nothing.

For me it would probably be to modify the to hit rolls in melee so that someone who is 2 WS higher than their target can hit them on a 2+, and someone who is 2 below their target needs a 6+ to hit them. It is stupid that an Avatar of Khaine or a Space Marine Captain can only hit a guardsman on a 3+, plus it makes WS 6 more useful since you can now hit marines and Orks on a 2+.

this - a thousand times this I would go further - if they are more than double thier WS they get a re-roll. High BS is rewarded much more than high WS................

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Accipiter wrote:
Roll to hit.
Then have cover/armour/invul saves go.Then roll to wound.

But why? That changes nothing.

I agree with this change for one reason it has always bugged me that the order now makes no sense.
First you roll to hit, what did you hit? = Armour, make an armour save, when you get past that what did you hit? The squishy insides (or you pulped him inside his armour from the impact) = roll to wound.

Not a game changer but makes the OCD people feel better.

 Talizvar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Accipiter wrote:
Roll to hit.
Then have cover/armour/invul saves go.Then roll to wound.

But why? That changes nothing.

I agree with this change for one reason it has always bugged me that the order now makes no sense.
First you roll to hit, what did you hit? = Armour, make an armour save, when you get past that what did you hit? The squishy insides (or you pulped him inside his armour from the impact) = roll to wound.

Not a game changer but makes the OCD people feel better.

Ah, I see it like this:

Roll to hit to see if you hit at all.
Roll to wound to see if your hit was good enough to do anything other than glance the enemy.
Roll armour save to see if your armour blocked the effective hit.

After all, if the shotdidn't even have the potential to cause damage, why roll saves for it? I can see where you're coming from, though.

Give some dedicated CC units fnp against overwatch shots. I know overwatch isn't alawys a huge problem but depending on armour values of the assaulters and/or ap values of the shooters, it can really balance the game in favour of non cc armies.

Id suggest the idea behind this is that some units are just so hell bent on getting into a scrap that their adrenaline helps them to shrug off wounds as they close on their foe.

Fortifications are placed after terrain

OR

Remove Hull Points and go back to where each type of hit (Glancing, Penetrating, Ordnance) had their own damage tables.

OR

Reintroduce 0-1,0-2 etc for certain units. Granted that GW will never do this as they'll sell fewer kits but it'd stop a certain degree of list-spamming.

One other thing I thought of: remove random psychic powers and just give them all appropriate point costs.

 Valkyrie wrote:

Reintroduce 0-1,0-2 etc for certain units. Granted that GW will never do this as they'll sell fewer kits but it'd stop a certain degree of list-spamming.

I disagree with this because units should be designed so spam does not = success and it means some of the units people have bought will become useless. Not that GW hasn't done things like that in the past though.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
One other thing I thought of: remove random psychic powers and just give them all appropriate point costs.

agreed, should be this way

Bring something in to represent maneuver outside of the tabletop, as in logistics and stuff. I mean, how are my Eldar supposed to constantly fight battles against armies that are evenly matched? Their tactical doctrine focuses on force concentration, force concentration so great that they can slaughter the enemy without losing much from their own. I've been working on this for a time, making something like a five-minute minigame before the battle starts. you could then concentrate your forces like that, but at the cost of the enemy making an unhindered advance on all other fronts.

Have Overwatch have some kind of penalty attached. Anything! personally it'd make sense for a unit to not be able to attack if you overwatch. This way, it is at least a choice of whether or not you should overwatch. Or, have it be like Interceptor in the assault phase, and you can't shoot in the turn after.

I'm loving how many people are suggesting reincorporating rules that were present in 2nd Ed

What about if you overwatch with a weapon it is what you use in the combat. So a model with a power fist and flamer for example has to choose to use the flamer in overwatch and not get any special attacks, or use the power fist. If you want to get the bonus attacks you only get to overwatch with a bolt pistol instead of the bolter.

It would also make you lose the ability to use grenades in combat, such as if you were charged by a walker.

You could even have an extension of rules that would allow bayonet style weapons like on Kroot guns.

Something like no firstblood for dedicated transports except of Land Raider would be neat.

WS table, someone who can't even tell the right end of a sword to hold should not be able to touch my high WS character, likewise, my high WS god/goddess shouldn't have the same chance at hitting a superhuman soldier as they have hitting a dimwit. Last I checked, I wasn't able to land a punch on a MMA champion in a serious fight, but then my memory has been a bit fuzzy since... What are we talking about again? Yes I'll have some of that cake. Thanks. Sorry. Can I change channel?

Either the aforementioned changes to the WS table, or have Fear actually do something against Marines, at the moment it's a rule I might as well not have with Daemons/CSM. Maybe have Marines test at LD 10 because of ATSKNF, or at normal LD with re-rolls?

I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.

Give Gauss weaponry Rending vs non-vehicular targets.

Savageconvoy wrote:I think ATSKNF should be changed entirely. It provides too many positive leadership buffs that really limits leadership issues to units besides loyal marines.

On one hand, I'd like to think it is a necessity for a low model count army who, unlike necrons, aren't rolling with RP/EL and ld 10. But on the other, I have CSM who are basically marines without ATSKNF, and they seem to be doing fine-ish... And on my 3rd hand(don't judge), I think it was meant to be a rule to ease new players into the game, like extra wheels on a bike, except in this case, these extra wheels allow them to race against supersonic jets in these imaginary jet vs bike races that I have in my mind.

Well they already have high leadership so they're less susceptible to pinning, moral checks from shooting and melee, and just about any leadership check in generally. Now they get to auto-regroup when every non-marine has to worry about running off the board. They don't get swept up. They aren't affected by Fear.

CSM are 1 point less than DA tactical marines and the only difference is ATSKNF. They get quite a few upgrades for that 1 point to where it really seems more like a punishment that I'm not playing marines.

I play Tau as my primary army and I've had plenty of units run off the board or get swept up. I don't think that almost half the armies out there should get immunity from such things.

Oh, one other one! When a single-model unit charges a unit with template weapons, the Templates cause 1 automatic hit instead of d3. Seriously, Flamers shouldn't be better at overwatch than normal against Trygons and such.

I don't like the proposed rule change near the top of this page..
making AP a negative modifier...

thats no good...
then AP 5, 4, 3 would still punish terminators...
not cool

The point is that if you're using a weapon with AP3, you have a weapon that is basically meant to penetrate all but tank armor and it has no effect on a Terminator.

KonTheory wrote:
I don't like the proposed rule change near the top of this page..
making AP a negative modifier...

thats no good...
then AP 5, 4, 3 would still punish terminators...
not cool

So then you have terminator armor test on 2d6. Duh. I bet no one has ever thought of that. Wait, what edition is this again?

While I may not like all of the rules I would like to change one thing -
Go back to 5th edition wound allocation.