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:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Second edition was consistent and intuitive? Yikes.

Well 3rd was an unorganized mess that was rushed out the door to try and make 40k "tournament compatible". We can still see the ramifications of that mess, so in a way it might have been somewhat?

I think this is remembering things a bit rosily.

I never played 2nd, so I wasn't stating it to be true, just pointing out that 3rd was a mess that has hurt the game in the long run. Sure things got better, but only after it spent some time down in the ICU.

 pretre wrote:
3rd was rough at the start but was good towards the end. But 2nd being all 'consistent and intuitive' not so much. A better skirmish game than 3rd? Sure.

Yeah, 40k doesn't really do "skirmish" outside of Kill Teams anymore.

We really need a patrol mission back again.

 pretre wrote:
3rd and 2nd really aren't comparable. They are different games entirely. IMO, 40k had 'the skirmish years' Pre-3rd and 'the wargame years' post-3rd.

You forgot 40k: the RPG years.

2nd edition had more rules abuses than almost any other table top game I've seen. Remember the HTH? WS was a godly stat.

I think the problem there was the fact that there were no bonuses to the armor save across the board. Here is how I wouls handle the save system.

There is no cover and armor save nor fnp. Instead you get a flat save and bonuses to indictate resiliency. For instance, plague marines get a +1 to their save making them a 2+ save base. You also get bonuses from being shot wt night etc to maximum of 1+. However, the ap system decreases your save. A boltgun has a -2 save for example.

Cover, in addition to giving bonuses, also decreases the BS of the attacker. Flamers deny all cover bonuses as do blast weapons. Ignore cover weapons simply allow the shooter to fire at full BS.

Then there are last ditch saves. These are emergency shields and other such things. They can be boosted but only up to a 4+.

Now obviously this needs fine tuning and would be abused to hell by the gee dubs dev tea...

You know what, maybe the current system is as good as we are going to get with the current devs

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
If 7th edition returns to 2nd edition save modifiers, I will happily cheer. I miss those modifiers so...

I wish we could do away with the AP mechanic in favor of a Save modifier mechanic.

AP1 could be save -5
AP2 could be save -4
AP3 could be save -3
AP4 could be save -2
AP5 could be save -1
AP6/- would be save -0

Then take Invulnerable Saves after armor.

I'm sure that would not cause any more complaints about the game at all.

Oh wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not against the idea, but I just know we'd hear so much complaining it's not funny.

Plus Stormshields would need to be more than double their cost then.

Obviosly its a rough idea, but would lead to a much more granular distribution. It would take a large overhaul and the reason we don't get major overhauls is the staggered release dates. Hell, look at the outrage to Flyers, and that is an addition, not a rework of a base mechanic.

in defence of the new codexes, i actually really, really like them. They feel like intrinsically beautiful things that are a real pleasure to own, the coloured artwork is sublime. I can see why people would be concerned by them being easily damaged through wear and tear though...never been a problem for me but then i'm never short on space.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
If 7th edition returns to 2nd edition save modifiers, I will happily cheer. I miss those modifiers so...

That's funny. Those modifers were things that made marines near useless. Do you remember they had to let terminators roll 2d6 for their saves because the modifiers were so bad?

A bolter was a -2 IIRC, which means that the model went from a 66.67% save to a 33.33% save, or twice as likely to fail. It was a bad mechanic that punished good saves and gave buffs to xenos armies -- something we don't need any more of at this time.

6th edition still has its bugs, but its by far the best edition of warhammer 40k to date. Earlier editions were much more clunky and entire threads could be written on the flaws within.

 Zagman wrote:
I wish we could do away with the AP mechanic in favor of a Save modifier mechanic.

AP1 could be save -5
AP2 could be save -4
AP3 could be save -3
AP4 could be save -2
AP5 could be save -1
AP6/- would be save -0

Then take Invulnerable Saves after armor.

I actually like this mechanic. But I prefer my own concoction where an armor save is only reduced by 1 if it becomes the target of a weapon with 1 AP higher.

E.g. an AP4 weapon does not modify a 2+ armor save in any way, but an AP3 weapon raises it by +1. Apply similar logic to AP5 weapons and 3+ armor saves and AP4 weapons. Etc.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
My main gripe with sixth is how needlessly complicated the rules are. The book basically lists a ton of rules and then the exceptions to that rule. Then the codices tell you further exceptions to the rule and how to override other exceptions. On top of that, you have to memorize in which case an exception is valid and if there is an exception to that.

For example, the save system. You get your basic save but there are weapons that deny you it. Fair enough, not all armor is equal. But not so fast! There is the cover save which kinda makes sense since walls can save you. Though how a concrete wall will save you from a shot that went through termie armor is anyones guess. Okay, so you have the wall of safety but there are guns thatll wreck your wall and ignore cover. Which weapons do that is sort of strange. On top of that, these guns can somehow shoot better at night since night fighting provides a cover save. But not so fast! You can only shoot out to 36 inches. Okay. Well if your armor wont save you and the wall wont then your shields will! And nothing can stop that! However, if your shields dont work you can always just pretend you didnt feel it. But no so fast! Weapons that are strong enough will make you realize that hurt. Why that wasnt obvious before is a question best left unanswered.

And then you get to apocalypse.

Um....what? You just listed the basic shooting mechanic of 40k that hasnt been changed since the past three editions.

My personal gripe with 6th is that it is more complicated than 5th (I dont think anyone will disagree with me here). You have a truckload of more rules you need to remember that differ from the more straightforward 5th (Hammer of Wrath, Concussive, Lookout Sir, Soulblaze, Fear, Smash, Swooping, Gliding, Grounded Tests, Dive, Snapshots, Skyfire, Interceptor, Evade, Get Him Boss, Glorious Intervention, Sweep Attack, Beam, Nova, Maelstrom, Witchfire, Deny The Witch, Warp Charges, Precision Shots, Gunslinger, Wall of Death, Focus Fire, Salvo, Vector Strike, Blind, Disordered Charge, etc.) None of these existed in 5th, making the game easier as you didnt have to remember a bucketload of special rules new to this edition.

The AP system is total garbage.

Either your attacks wipe the enemy out or basically bounce right off. what kind of dumb game mechanic is that? The balance of it is terrible, just like the rest of the game/game balance.

apparently they forgot about save modifiers. or maybe they think their customers are too stupid to subtract or add numbers.

kb305 wrote:
The AP system is total garbage.

Either your attacks wipe the enemy out or basically bounce right off. what kind of dumb game mechanic is that? The balance of it is terrible, just like the rest of the game/game balance.

apparently they forgot about save modifiers. or maybe they think their customers are too stupid to subtract or add numbers.

Or it was an attempt at streamlining things for tournament play they haven't reversed yet.

The whole paper-scissors-rock nature of the game is pretty disappointing to me.

Fliers are hard countered into the ground by skyfire. Terminators get shat on by AP2. Tanks get reamed by lance and melta. Etc etc.

It's just like buying a dozen little papers and a dozen little rocks and pretending to play war with them. The real deal is a hell of a lot faster and cheaper IMO, and more balanced as well =/

 Dakkamite wrote:
The whole paper-scissors-rock nature of the game is pretty disappointing to me.

Fliers are hard countered into the ground by skyfire. Terminators get shat on by AP2. Tanks get reamed by lance and melta. Etc etc.

It's just like buying a dozen little papers and a dozen little rocks and pretending to play war with them. The real deal is a hell of a lot faster and cheaper IMO, and more balanced as well =/

That's how real war works though too. Your enemy designs something, you design something to counter it, and then they try and counter your counter and so on. It's just one endless game of rock, paper scissors.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
The whole paper-scissors-rock nature of the game is pretty disappointing to me.

Fliers are hard countered into the ground by skyfire. Terminators get shat on by AP2. Tanks get reamed by lance and melta. Etc etc.

It's just like buying a dozen little papers and a dozen little rocks and pretending to play war with them. The real deal is a hell of a lot faster and cheaper IMO, and more balanced as well =/

That's how real war works though too. Your enemy designs something, you design something to counter it, and then they try and counter your counter and so on. It's just one endless game of rock, paper scissors.

and then they built nukes that could destroy the whole planet. what is your point again? sorry but your argument is pretty irrelevant. it's a game.

kb305 wrote:
and then they built nukes that could destroy the whole planet. what is your point again? sorry but your argument is pretty irrelevant. it's a game.

and then America built Star Wars

 Sir Arun wrote:

kb305 wrote:
and then they built nukes that could destroy the whole planet. what is your point again? sorry but your argument is pretty irrelevant. it's a game.

and then America built Star Wars

didnt read all that but isnt that project generally regarded as a FAIL?

does the interceptor missile somehow suck up all the radiation too and sprinkle rainbows and butterflies instead?

kb305 wrote:
The AP system is total garbage.

Either your attacks wipe the enemy out or basically bounce right off. what kind of dumb game mechanic is that? The balance of it is terrible, just like the rest of the game/game balance.

apparently they forgot about save modifiers. or maybe they think their customers are too stupid to subtract or add numbers.

there are three possible results actually, or at least three different outcomes. First, whether or not the armour is capable enough of stopping tne shot in the first place. That is reflected in the ap value of weapons. The second 'branch' of outcomes is the chance of the shot hitting the armour and being stopped, or missing the armour and getting the fleshy bits underneat (or at least, the weak points as in space marines' power armour).

You could re-write the rules to give armour two seperate values - coverance and strength, and the outcome would be the same. I actually quite like it as a system, though i'd like to see it added to somehow. Armour should have some special rules, iirc they had this in 2nd. I remember imperial guard had a 6+ armour save, 5+ vs blast.

Tldr; i have many problems with 6th but the armour save mechanic isn't one of them.

 Sir Arun wrote:

12) Drop Pod Assault. Granted, this was already introduced in mid to late 5th edition but now that Black Templars have FAQ'd access to it in 6th, as a BT player I can smell the ridiculous cheese half a mile away. For 35 points, guaranteeing that one of my 10 man Crusader Initiate squads will arrive as close to the enemy as possible on turn 1 itself? That's plain nasty. Especially since it means they only have to wither 1 turn of enemy fire instead of 2 (or 3 if the opponent got 1st turn!) before going into CC means Drop-pods are a MUST now in every assault oriented space marine army from 500 points all the way up to 2k or more. Granted, only half of the pods you have in your army benefit from the Drop Pod Assault, but since this is rounded up, 1 is all you need to make sure that at least one of your squads won't get hurt.

It gets even better when you drop-pod a venerable dread with a multi-melta next to the tank. That's a very good chance of getting rid of a 150+ point vehicle that would have made life hell for your guys if it could get its shots off. Once this is done, the drop-podded Dread can use its HF to fry infantry.

If the drop pods costed twice as much as they currently do, it would be fairer, but right now I don't see any point whatsoever in ever taking Rhinos for my BT army, since 6th edition doesnt allow me to assault on the same turn as I disembark, even if I didn't move the transport (back in 5th I would move out of cover 12" with the Rhino on my turn 1, then an additional 12" on turn 2 and pop smoke, and disembark and charge on turn 3. So even if the enemy went first, it would only give him 2 turns to take out the rhino (during one of which the rhino has a 50% chance to negate all incoming hits) either way making my guys more survivable than if they were footslogging.

You get to drop half your pods turn one, shoot some stuff and then get whiped out because you took on the entire enemy army with half of yours. Drop Pods are viable, but if you don't know what you're doing (or scatter into a gakky position) you're going to die. Drop Pods really aren't OP when the things in them don't live that long. Had it been stuff like Paladin Deathstars or Seer Councils coming out of them they'd have been OP, but the hardiest Drop Pod unit I can think of is Honour Guard, and it's an awful lot of points that can't assault on the turn they arrive.

and then they try and counter your counter and so on

40k is lacking this aspect of the arms race. Weapons get better, but defenses do as well - in 40k, the weapons got better, then all the scientists shrugged their shoulders and went to lunch for 10,000 years

That's because GW does not like change.

Look at games like battletech. The battletech game 20 years ago is dramatically different than the last version. They evolved the game.

GW has forced their universe to be as stagnant as star wars. Grav guns are their latest big advancement. Before that was ... tau?

1) Allies. I started in 2nd edition, so allies aren't such an out-there concept... most armies had the ability to add allies back then. Some of the choices on the allies matrix are a little peculiar, though, and others (like the lack of a guard/tyranid team up to allow for Genestealer Cults) are disappointing.



2) Psychic disciplines. - Yeah, random psychic powers are one of the things from 2nd edition that I liked losing in later versions of the game. I don't have a problem with everyone having access to a pool of identical powers, given that they also have the specialised powers for each faction. It's just the random generation that bugs me.


3) Fortifications - the big problem with fortifications is just the half-assed rules for them. With adequate rules to allow them to function, I have no problem with allowing people to buy fortifications. And the number of ADLs on the field will drop off once everyone has access to anti-air through their own codexes. So 7th or 8th edition, probably...


4) Flyers. - Related to the above... the issue with flyers isn't with the flyers themselves, but with the fact that pre-6th ed codexes have trouble dealing with them. So the real problem here is GW's insistence on taking 8 years to update all of their armies.


5) Rapid FIre - I actually love the change to rapid fire weapons, as they make a lot of Troop options a little more attractive.


6) Power Weapons - Terminators needed a boost. No problem with these rules, other than the 'just go by what's ont he model' idea, and the silliness that ensues for models like Death Cultists, where there is no point taking two of the same weapon, and every reason to mix them.


7) Codex Price - yeah, I have complained about this at length elsewhere. GW's refusal to include the cheaper softcover as an option is mind-boggling, and has resulted in me going from buying every codex since 2nd edition to buying one 6th edition codex new, so far. Anything else I need I will be picking up second hand.


8) supplements - this was a bad idea from the get go, as GW should have been well aware from the commotion caused by them in 3rd edition. If they had just been released as collectable fluff books, they would be awesome. But including 4 pages of rules and then charging as much as a codex for a book that will be useless when the codex is redone... yeah, that's an awesome plan!


9) Wound Allocation - Yeah, not a fan. 5th ed's version was open to abuse in units with mixed armour and multiple wounds, but I can't help thinking that there was a better solution than 'closest guy always dies first'.


10) random assault charge ranges - this as a necessary balance for being able to measure distances whenever you want. They should have left a minimum distance in there, though... at the very least, you should always be able to charge as far as your normal movement, regardless of how you roll.


11) Challenges. - Yeah, as an option they would be great. But the idea of everyone being penalised for refusing them is just stupid. It should be completely optional, and refusal should only have a downside for specific units.


12) Drop Pod Assault. - this has never been as nasty as it seems on paper. Too many things that can go wrong.

And who takes Venerable dreads in 6th edition...?


13) All over again. - welcome to GW.

I wish GW would host in their stores - at least once a month or so - a game type for veterans where you could play previous editions with previous codices. Like a "5th edition veterans' night" or even a 2nd edition one if you really have retro rulebooks and such in your collection. The card game Magic the gathering does this with their vintage and legacy format, so why not 40k?

You don't need GW to host that. If you want to play previous editions, just do it.

huh? didnt they introduce stormravens and stormtalons before grav weapons?

or dynastic necrons before that?

or xenophile grey knights (in regard to wargear) before that?

or the golden throne's life support systems failing before that?

or hive fleet leviathan heading straight towards terra before that?

 insaniak wrote:
So the real problem here is GW's insistence on taking 8 years to update all of their armies.

Have you noticed the schedule release of GW lately.
This is how many codex's have been released in just over a year.
- CSM
- DA
- CD
- Eldar
- Tau
- C:SM
- SoB
At this rate they will have all the codex's covered in 2.5 years. Gone are the days of waiting 8 years for an update.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Arun wrote:
huh? didnt they introduce stormravens and stormtalons before grav weapons?

or dynastic necrons before that?

or xenophile grey knights (in regard to wargear) before that?

or the golden throne's life support systems failing before that?

or hive fleet leviathan heading straight towards terra before that?

Ok, I retract my sarcastic comment

 labmouse42 wrote:
At this rate they will have all the codex's covered in 2.5 years.

You're assuming they will keep up that release rate.

Once they have worked through their backlog of pre-prepared books, past experience suggests that it will slow down. Dramatically.

 Dakkamite wrote:

and then they try and counter your counter and so on

40k is lacking this aspect of the arms race. Weapons get better, but defenses do as well - in 40k, the weapons got better, then all the scientists shrugged their shoulders and went to lunch for 10,000 years

Waveserpent and shield eternal...there I proved that wrong. Defense are always more costly than more offense, that is pretty realistic actually.

shield eternal is just a storm shield glued to an adamantine mantle with adamantium will thrown in as a freebie.

 insaniak wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
At this rate they will have all the codex's covered in 2.5 years.

You're assuming they will keep up that release rate.

Once they have worked through their backlog of pre-prepared books, past experience suggests that it will slow down. Dramatically.

that doesn't bother me so much, what with the release of digital codexes/uppliments. Even after they update your book there are going to be other things you're into, you'll no longer have to spend an entire edition waiting for something new to drool over.

I think a force commander would bring the psyker that knew the power that would work best with his force, to start with. He doesn't roll randomly to see what units he takes to battle. (should I delete that quickly? don't blame me!)

Random charges are a wargaming holdover from horse and musket games that mimic the reluctance of horses to charge a wall of pointy things that hurt. There's no reason why a unit of SM or Eldar, etc wouldn't know if they are in range of an enemy unit or not, before charging. It's what they do!

Challenges. <puke> Sorry, had to get that off my che..., er, stomach. This should have stayed in Fantasy.

Flyers and Allies, meh.

Grim Dark wrote:
I think a force commander would bring the psyker that knew the power that would work best with his force, to start with. He doesn't roll randomly to see what units he takes to battle.

Yes and no. A general won't always have any control over the units at his disposal for a given battle.

That being said, in a system that allows you to choose the rest of your force, having a psyker who randomly forgets and remembers particular powers from battle to battle is just irritating.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
If 7th edition returns to 2nd edition save modifiers, I will happily cheer. I miss those modifiers so...

I wish we could do away with the AP mechanic in favor of a Save modifier mechanic.

AP1 could be save -5
AP2 could be save -4
AP3 could be save -3
AP4 could be save -2
AP5 could be save -1
AP6/- would be save -0

Then take Invulnerable Saves after armor.

I'm sure that would not cause any more complaints about the game at all.

Oh wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not against the idea, but I just know we'd hear so much complaining it's not funny.

Plus Stormshields would need to be more than double their cost then.

Why? It would work out almost the same, no save and having to take you 3++ like it is now for ap1/2

I still like the idea of giving armor a re roll if a weapon is not within so many AP factors of the armor. Say 2. So bolters and such going against 2+ armor, the armor gets a reroll on each unsaved wound.

Martel732 wrote:
I still like the idea of giving armor a re roll if a weapon is not within so many AP factors of the armor. Say 2. So bolters and such going against 2+ armor, the armor gets a reroll on each saved wound.

I will second this.