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.

What if you dont know the rules for structure points and D weapons?

If its not in the rulebook and not unit-specific (such as a rule that comes with a FW character and is printed in its profile), then its technically illegal.

I like Escalation. People rarely play it, but I like having it there for big games. Does anyone really encounter some random dude just dropping an apoc unit on the table and ruining a cadual pick up game? I've never seen it happen nor has it happened to me.

You know what does happen all the time though? Someone drops by the flgs to get a game in - and half the community is sporting tourney lists in a casual setting.

If there's something threatening the fun factor in this game it isn't the availability of apoc units in 2k point games. its the embarrassing levels of imbalance from army to army.

Actually I encounter it quite a bit, hence the rant, a lot of my group are super competitive, which using the codexes is fine but when someone rocks up with 3 knights and a turbo laser warhound at 2k..... (it's the list flying around my groups fb page ATM). But I agree on your other points, codex imbalance is a big issue (exacerbated by allies to some extent).

My main concern is that 40K is turning into even more of a "Beer & Pretzels" game than it was before.

I don't want to just put down some shiny, expensive toys and watch the random/"cinematic" battle unfold while rolling some dice, not caring about strategy or tactics, the models are too expensive and time consuming to paint just to be used like that occationally.

I initially had high hopes for 6th edition, since it worked quite decent with the mid-late 5th edition codexes. I thought that: "Now all they need to do is update the very oldest codexes in a fair and balanced way, add some AA for everyone, and this game will get a lot of depth balace wise". That did not happen at all. What GW wants is that every game becomes an Apocalypse game, with formations, allies, fortifications, flyers and super heavies. 40K already was extremely time consuming, now an average game is pushing the amount of time you have available after work or school on a weekday.

I like to play every week, and I like to get something out of every game. I don't like people min-maxing and creating broken combos using broken rulesets to win. Broken rulests allow for abusing, and that doesn't make for a good game. I have learned from past experiences, that some people can't be trusted with broken rulesets, which ends up forcing other players to min-max so they still have a chance of competing.

I prefer a fair and balanced game where both players have a chance to come out on top, and where no game is decided in advance by the lists the players field. That way the game itself can be enjoyed, and you can talk about what tactical decisions were good or bad with your opponent after the battle. That is a game that both players can enjoy and get something out of. That is where I will put my money.

Just throwing this out there based on nothing more than how desperate GW is to sell models. What if they change the rules so that you have to take 1 HQ and 2 Troops from one codex and then allow you to play anything you want for the remainder of the slots. For each 500 points over 1000, you get 1 additional force org slot of each type.

1500 = 3 HQ, 4 Elite, 7 Troop, 4 FA, 4 Heavy
2000 = 4 HQ, 5 Elite, 8 Troop, 5 FA, 5 Heavy

The end result is that when a new model comes out, anyone can field it if they so desire, meaning more money for GW.

Barfolomew wrote:
Just throwing this out there based on nothing more than how desperate GW is to sell models. What if they change the rules so that you have to take 1 HQ and 2 Troops from one codex and then allow you to play anything you want for the remainder of the slots. For each 500 points over 1000, you get 1 additional force org slot of each type.

1500 = 3 HQ, 4 Elite, 7 Troop, 4 FA, 4 Heavy
2000 = 4 HQ, 5 Elite, 8 Troop, 5 FA, 5 Heavy

The end result is that when a new model comes out, anyone can field it if they so desire, meaning more money for GW.

I would never play the game again. I don't ever want to see the Frankenstein's monster of a combo that people would field, and for all the crap people give "forge a narrative", I actually like my games to vaguely make sense. If I field my Tyranids side by side with some Terminators, a Necron Monolith, and a Demon Prince... I will proceed to jump off a bridge immediately afterward. :-p

 Bonde wrote:
My main concern is that 40K is turning into even more of a "Beer & Pretzels" game than it was before.

I don't want to just put down some shiny, expensive toys and watch the random/"cinematic" battle unfold while rolling some dice, not caring about strategy or tactics, the models are too expensive and time consuming to paint just to be used like that occationally.

I initially had high hopes for 6th edition, since it worked quite decent with the mid-late 5th edition codexes. I thought that: "Now all they need to do is update the very oldest codexes in a fair and balanced way, add some AA for everyone, and this game will get a lot of depth balace wise". That did not happen at all. What GW wants is that every game becomes an Apocalypse game, with formations, allies, fortifications, flyers and super heavies. 40K already was extremely time consuming, now an average game is pushing the amount of time you have available after work or school on a weekday.

I like to play every week, and I like to get something out of every game. I don't like people min-maxing and creating broken combos using broken rulesets to win. Broken rulests allow for abusing, and that doesn't make for a good game. I have learned from past experiences, that some people can't be trusted with broken rulesets, which ends up forcing other players to min-max so they still have a chance of competing.

I prefer a fair and balanced game where both players have a chance to come out on top, and where no game is decided in advance by the lists the players field. That way the game itself can be enjoyed, and you can talk about what tactical decisions were good or bad with your opponent after the battle. That is a game that both players can enjoy and get something out of. That is where I will put my money.

It's a shame that it fails so badly as a beer and pretzels game too, for a few major reasons:
1. Cost commitment is too high. If it's purely an excuse for a beer with my friends, it shouldn't cost $500+ each to get into.
2. Time commitment is too high. If it's purely an excuse for a beer with my friends, it shouldn't require dozens of hours in advance getting it ready.
3. It's too complex. Any time you spend looking for or arguing about rules is time wasted.
4. It takes too long. I don't want to be playing a single 4+ hour game, with at least half an hour set up and tear down at each side. It probably takes longer once you fit in all the breaks and people zoning out or getting distracted.

Our current beer and pretzel are:
* Zombie Dice. Costs about $15, takes a few minutes too play and gives you something to do whilst drinking but isn't so involved you can't have a conversation.
* Cutthroat Caverns. Fairly simple card based dungeon encounter game. costs maybe $50, rules are pretty straightforward and you can be horrrible to each other in game.
* Pure wargame wise you also get things like X-Wing, Malifaux and Hail Caesar (which is explicitly designed as a B&P game).

And it fails as a serious game too because of the lack of balance and clarity, so for my serious gaming fix I've got Malifaux, Bolt Action and Flames Of War.

Edit: Don't get me wrong; I do play and enjoy 40K, despite the system, but that's partly because I'm already quite invested and generally house-rule stuff with my gaming friend, and we make an annual trip down to WHW where we spend a couple days gaming on the giant tables when we're down that way anyway. But in all honesty if we didn't do that or I could get him into some other game I'd probably never pick up my Imperial Guard again.

they simpley coudent release 7th this summer, inless every one at GW is writeing and testing, it will take way to long to write and test, I know quite a few people in Canada have strayed from warhammer to hordes and warmachines and it seems other games in other countries, so inless they wana lose a lot more players they would have to take there time

 davieboi wrote:
they simpley coudent release 7th this summer, inless every one at GW is writeing and testing, it will take way to long to write and test, I know quite a few people in Canada have strayed from warhammer to hordes and warmachines and it seems other games in other countries, so inless they wana lose a lot more players they would have to take there time

Why? It could take one editor a week to knock up a new 7th Ed book from 6th + supplements, and thrown in some recycled art and you're done.

Doesn't mean it'd be good for just a phoned in effort, but it's always possible.

I hope the idea of a 7th edition rules overhaul is true. This game needs more fluid rules and more erratta and faqs released to resolve issues that come up much faster then a new rulebook every 4 years. I would love to see a new edition released every year.a yearly paid subscription to the digital version that updates it regularly with new faqs and errata. I would also like to see the changes released via pdf for free during the year for anyone who has purchased a hardcopy. But every year a new update should be released. I know people are crying about price but its better for the game and personally i want to see the following issues main rule book issues addressed and errataed. Personal army issues should have the same thing done at least every 2 years to update thier codexs/supplements.

I would like to see formations NOT be seperate from the FOC. They should be extra rules for an army which purchases the required units normally.
I would like to see Lord of War choices be limited to 20% of an armies total cost.
I would like to see D weapons made into str 10 ap1, ignore cover, insta death, flesh bane, armour bane
I would like to see allies matrix be slightly more restrictive. I would like to see batle brothers adjusted.
Other then a few rare exceptions supplements and codexs used as allies should take up an ally slot
I would like to see stronghold assault and escalation adjusted and be included in the main rule book, with silly things like knights or tanks starting on a skyshield removed.
AP1 weapons should give invulnerable saves -2 to die result, Ap2 should give -1 (very few invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable)
I would like to see vehicles keep thier hull points (think of hull points as wounds and armour value as toughness) and recieve an armour save of 4+. Open topped vehicles can be 5+, The extra armor upgrade can increase this save by +1 (max of 3+ sv) and superheavies can have 2+
Any glance hit is still a shaken result, any penetrating is still a stunned result, At 50% of hull point value every penetrating hit roll for 33% chance 1-2 no additional effect, 3-4 random loss of weapon result, 5-6 immobile.
I would like to see heavy walkers such as dreadnaughts receive a directional 5+ invulnerable save kinda like a mini knight shield.

The above changes fixes escalation, stronghold assault, allies, formations, Str D, vehicles, walkers. And keeps the rules in line with current rules by making vehicle rules more like character rules.

 davieboi wrote:
they simply couldn't release 7th this summer, unless every one at GW is writing and testing, it will take way to long to write and test,

I don't think you understand what 7th edition will really be. Ever since 3rd edition, each subsequent edition is basically the same game with some tweaks here and there with all the special rules that were given out in the previous edition compiled into one place. The main differences are how cover works, true line of sight or not, wound allocation by model or not, and some tweaks around vehicles (hull points, saves, etc.). They add some special rules each edition, but that's just piled on top of the other rules (running, move and shoot, flyers, etc.). 7th will basically add more options, clarify some rules and maybe retract some stuff from 6th, but it is no where near a full rewrite.

GW testing is also fairly limited based on the issues that slip into production. That means they probably make some rules tweaks, run a few games focusing on the changes, stew on it a few days and then move on. They probably run some games the week prior to sending it to the publisher and then call it good.

I could see it taking less than a month to write a new edition of 40K. I'm pretty sure plenty of people on this board could come up with some 40K changes that would be enough to constitute a new edition, play test it and do a better job than whatever GW pukes out in a month or less.

Now if they were going to make a change like from 2nd to 3rd, that would take a while.

Herzlos wrote:

 davieboi wrote:
they simpley coudent release 7th this summer, inless every one at GW is writeing and testing, it will take way to long to write and test, I know quite a few people in Canada have strayed from warhammer to hordes and warmachines and it seems other games in other countries, so inless they wana lose a lot more players they would have to take there time

Why? It could take one editor a week to knock up a new 7th Ed book from 6th + supplements, and thrown in some recycled art and you're done.

Doesn't mean it'd be good for just a phoned in effort, but it's always possible.

That could be the case, but I think that would hurt 40K a lot. They have to do something to stop the fleeing customers, as witnessed by the annual shareholder rapport. IMO they have to go in a different direction than they currently are. Tighter and clearer rules, fewer unit types, updated armies and more managable games would go a long way. They might have to cut some stores and employees, and WD as a whole, while hiring more competent designers and writers, but it would be worth it.

Herzlos wrote:

 Bonde wrote:
My main concern is that 40K is turning into even more of a "Beer & Pretzels" game than it was before.

I don't want to just put down some shiny, expensive toys and watch the random/"cinematic" battle unfold while rolling some dice, not caring about strategy or tactics, the models are too expensive and time consuming to paint just to be used like that occationally.

I initially had high hopes for 6th edition, since it worked quite decent with the mid-late 5th edition codexes. I thought that: "Now all they need to do is update the very oldest codexes in a fair and balanced way, add some AA for everyone, and this game will get a lot of depth balace wise". That did not happen at all. What GW wants is that every game becomes an Apocalypse game, with formations, allies, fortifications, flyers and super heavies. 40K already was extremely time consuming, now an average game is pushing the amount of time you have available after work or school on a weekday.

I like to play every week, and I like to get something out of every game. I don't like people min-maxing and creating broken combos using broken rulesets to win. Broken rulests allow for abusing, and that doesn't make for a good game. I have learned from past experiences, that some people can't be trusted with broken rulesets, which ends up forcing other players to min-max so they still have a chance of competing.

I prefer a fair and balanced game where both players have a chance to come out on top, and where no game is decided in advance by the lists the players field. That way the game itself can be enjoyed, and you can talk about what tactical decisions were good or bad with your opponent after the battle. That is a game that both players can enjoy and get something out of. That is where I will put my money.

It's a shame that it fails so badly as a beer and pretzels game too, for a few major reasons:
1. Cost commitment is too high. If it's purely an excuse for a beer with my friends, it shouldn't cost $500+ each to get into.
2. Time commitment is too high. If it's purely an excuse for a beer with my friends, it shouldn't require dozens of hours in advance getting it ready.
3. It's too complex. Any time you spend looking for or arguing about rules is time wasted.
4. It takes too long. I don't want to be playing a single 4+ hour game, with at least half an hour set up and tear down at each side. It probably takes longer once you fit in all the breaks and people zoning out or getting distracted.

Our current beer and pretzel are:
* Zombie Dice. Costs about $15, takes a few minutes too play and gives you something to do whilst drinking but isn't so involved you can't have a conversation.
* Cutthroat Caverns. Fairly simple card based dungeon encounter game. costs maybe $50, rules are pretty straightforward and you can be horrrible to each other in game.
* Pure wargame wise you also get things like X-Wing, Malifaux and Hail Caesar (which is explicitly designed as a B&P game).

And it fails as a serious game too because of the lack of balance and clarity, so for my serious gaming fix I've got Malifaux, Bolt Action and Flames Of War.

Edit: Don't get me wrong; I do play and enjoy 40K, despite the system, but that's partly because I'm already quite invested and generally house-rule stuff with my gaming friend, and we make an annual trip down to WHW where we spend a couple days gaming on the giant tables when we're down that way anyway. But in all honesty if we didn't do that or I could get him into some other game I'd probably never pick up my Imperial Guard again.

Ah, it seems that I have misunderstood what a B&P game is. I guess my B&P game is Munchkin then, since that is just about the only board/card/tabletop game that I play after a beer or two. For me, a B&P game always include at least 4 people playing. If you are 4 players in a game of 40K with your respective armies, the game is going to take the most of a day to play.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

And I've made it fairly clear I don't. Are they crap for 'nids? Sure, but if that's the argument what you're essentially saying is "I don't get any cool toys, so everyone else should lose theirs too!". Nothing about 40K is in any way, shape, or form balanced and, perhaps excepting short periods in 3rd and 4th editions, it's never even come close. So again, it becomes a choice between more options, or less options without significantly changing how imbalanced the game is - or is your contention that removing Allies in and of itself would make Tyranids viable?

As for Apocalypse, my experience was very much in line with what you acknowledge right there in the post is what "everyone seemed to think" - that it was for massive battles, or special arranged-in-advance narrative battles, and since the entire reason that I like the Allies rules is that it lets me field the armies I want to field at normal points levels without having to endure a bloody UN Summit before every game to negotiate the terms, Apocalypse rules in a context where virtually everyone would have to be "talked into" using them for normal points level games is self-evidently not fit for purpose.

Whereas your argument is basically "I can do what I want to, but you don't get to so I'm okay with that!" Or more succinctly, "Frell you, got mine!"

I understand that nothing is 100% balanced. No game is that uses an IGOUGO system, even basic board games. As we have both agreed, the option to ally any forces you want already existed in the game via Apoc. People's collective ignorance of the system doesn't change the fact that it was there. So this isn't really a choice between "more option vs less options". The option hasn't changed. What the current system creates is "these armies are special snowflakes, these others are plainer snowflakes, and this last army is the gray gunk that gets stuck to your shoe". To be clear, I was never pointing out the imbalance towards Tyranids specifically as much as pointing out the inherent imbalance for almost all armies. There is not even an attempt to make the system balanced for the armies out there (regardless of the overall balance of the game). Your argument basically boils down to "the game will never be 100% balanced, so why bother balancing anything at all?".

But hey, what do you care, you get to be a special snowflake right?

I'll try again, and use smaller words.

My argument is that the game is what the game is, and that any rational position has to be grounded in that reality rather than some imaginary ideal version of 40K that you, I, and everyone else knows isn't going to come out of GW any time soon with the current management in place.

As such, there is no argument against adding more options that does not, eventually, boil down to naked and petty jealousy. Other people are getting shiny toys, you want shiny toys but aren't getting them, so you want other people's shiny toys taken away or never added in the first place. Not because it would make the game more balanced in any measurable, objective way(because it would not; if there are just four ways to build armies which trample all over the less favoured factions instead of five ways, have you gained anything? Does it really matter in the end if you're being walked all over by Taudar or by a Necron Flying Circus?), but because the simple fact of their existence aggrieves you.

The Allies system has demonstrable benefits, and its downsides were already present in the game and would continue to be present if Allies were taken away, absent the complete ground-up rewrite of the rules that we both know isn't going to happen. My argument is not, as you colourfully put it "frell you, I got mine", it is "you're not going to get what you want regardless of whether Allies are in or out, but if they're in I do get some of what I want, so why argue to remove them out of spite?".

The Allies system has demonstrable disadvantages and it's upsides were already present in the game via Apocalypse and multiple detachments in regular games. Force feeding apoc at levels that to many don't match it is the sentiment that you're apparently unable to comprehend. Some NOT insignificant portion of the game's playerbase has responded negatively to this as unit sales are down.

I personally believe the game is WORSE with the addition of allies compared with 5th edition despite the addition of other favorable elements like overwatch. The game itself is worse because you no longer have to worry about the pluses and minus of a particular army because you can simply avoid those minuses instead. This has nothing to do with how those rules affect my armies personally but rather is a reaction to the rules themselves.

I don't think the allies system is completely broken but rather that the implementation is botched. Personally, I think the 2k limit should be the one for allies and multiple detachments should be higher at 2.5k or higher instead of force feeding them (along with lords of war, escalation, and now apparently knights independent of both) into 1500pt or even 1000pt skirmish games.

I just don't understand why allies need to be part of the main rules. Make them a house rule. I played with allies plenty in 5th edition and earlier, going up to my opponent and saying "hey, I don't have enough points of X, mind if I ally them with Y?", or "Hey, I think it'd be cool to ally an imperial guard platoon in with my Space Marines, is that ok?".

If you're so in to "forging a narrative" and like the fluffy elements of allies, I don't understand why you can't just house rule them in and leave them out of the main rules. Wouldn't that make everyone happy? I dunno, lol.

You know it they had writen a better Allies Matrix there would not be a dislike for it. Alot of the Allies and the Level of thier ability to Allie do not make alot of sense.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I just don't understand why allies need to be part of the main rules. Make them a house rule. I played with allies plenty in 5th edition and earlier, going up to my opponent and saying "hey, I don't have enough points of X, mind if I ally them with Y?", or "Hey, I think it'd be cool to ally an imperial guard platoon in with my Space Marines, is that ok?".

If you're so in to "forging a narrative" and like the fluffy elements of allies, I don't understand why you can't just house rule them in and leave them out of the main rules. Wouldn't that make everyone happy? I dunno, lol.

They don't need to be and the game already had multiple routes to include them in previous editions (multiple Force orgs and apocalypse on top of simply asking nicely). The "problem" is that the genie is now out of the bottle so there frankly isn't a realistic chance that they'll be removed completely. I only hope that the system will be reigned in a bit with a severe curtailing of who counts as a battle brother along with a minimum size like 1500-2000pts.

I'll be in the minority I'm sure, but if they update the allies matrix I hope that Tyranids still don't get to ally with anyone, except maybe themselves... and I say this as a Nids player. I just can't see them ever allying with anyone... definitely not for anything more than circumstantial reasons, rather than a true alliance. So I hope they keep that bit, despite the angst it has caused

I agree, background shouldn't really bleed in to game rules, but some things just seem too silly.

 RiTides wrote:
I'll be in the minority I'm sure, but if they update the allies matrix I hope that Tyranids still don't get to ally with anyone, except maybe themselves... and I say this as a Nids player. I just can't see them ever allying with anyone... definitely not for anything more than circumstantial reasons, rather than a true alliance. So I hope they keep that bit, despite the angst it has caused

Gene Stealer Cult says hello......

Genestealer cult needs to be a supplement, just allowing Guard to ally to Tyranids doesn't make it at all, and will just open up the two lists to some horrific combos.

Genestealer cults are often absorbed by the Hive Fleet when they arrive. They serve to sow discord and be a beacon before the Hive Fleet arrives, when the Fleet makes planetfall the Cult is food like all the rest.

You mean like Taudar or DukeDar? I fail to see how letting guard and nids ally would be any worse than the multitude of other IG combinations out there. Oh boy one flyrant and some gene stealers added to my leaf blower army....

 Yodhrin wrote:
As such, there is no argument against adding more options that does not, eventually, boil down to naked and petty jealousy.

What is the problem with naked and petty jealousy ? I am plainly jealous of most other factions, especially space marines. Is it not natural ?

Here is my take on the Allies Matrix. It's something I posted last October or so in another thread. I call it...the grimdark Allies chart. It doesn't fix Taudar, but at least it doesnt rape the lore:




I wish the Hive Mind was Kerrigan so some Space Marine Brother Captain could have a love affair with her

 Sir Arun wrote:
Here is my take on the Allies Matrix. It's something I posted last October or so in another thread. I call it...the grimdark Allies chart:

Spoiler:

I wish the Hive Mind was Kerrigan so some Space Marine Brother Captain could have a love affair with her

I still think that IG should be BB with tau...

I still think that IG should be BB with Tau, CSM, and Chaos Daemons... "

Really I'd rather just see allies be tossed out the window. Then again, it really can't. With the Inquisition book and now the Knight and Legion, it rally has come to an unavoidable location of no return.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Really I'd rather just see allies be tossed out the window. Then again, it really can't. With the Inquisition book and now the Knight and Legion, it rally has come to an unavoidable location of no return.

Not really. The Black Templar and Tau codexes had references to Target Priority long after 4th edition was laid to rest...

gungo wrote:

I would like to see formations NOT be seperate from the FOC. They should be extra rules for an army which purchases the required units normally.
I would like to see Lord of War choices be limited to 20% of an armies total cost.
I would like to see D weapons made into str 10 ap1, ignore cover, insta death, flesh bane, armour bane
I would like to see allies matrix be slightly more restrictive. I would like to see batle brothers adjusted.
Other then a few rare exceptions supplements and codexs used as allies should take up an ally slot
I would like to see stronghold assault and escalation adjusted and be included in the main rule book, with silly things like knights or tanks starting on a skyshield removed.
AP1 weapons should give invulnerable saves -2 to die result, Ap2 should give -1 (very few invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable)
I would like to see vehicles keep thier hull points (think of hull points as wounds and armour value as toughness) and recieve an armour save of 4+. Open topped vehicles can be 5+, The extra armor upgrade can increase this save by +1 (max of 3+ sv) and superheavies can have 2+
Any glance hit is still a shaken result, any penetrating is still a stunned result, At 50% of hull point value every penetrating hit roll for 33% chance 1-2 no additional effect, 3-4 random loss of weapon result, 5-6 immobile.
I would like to see heavy walkers such as dreadnaughts receive a directional 5+ invulnerable save kinda like a mini knight shield.

The above changes fixes escalation, stronghold assault, allies, formations, Str D, vehicles, walkers. And keeps the rules in line with current rules by making vehicle rules more like character rules.

I agree with most everything posted except hull points. That was actually a very positive change to prevent stupid things like stun-lock. Though, I suppose, battling it out on a forum is unlikely to effect anything.

 buddha wrote:

gungo wrote:

I would like to see formations NOT be seperate from the FOC. They should be extra rules for an army which purchases the required units normally.
I would like to see Lord of War choices be limited to 20% of an armies total cost.
I would like to see D weapons made into str 10 ap1, ignore cover, insta death, flesh bane, armour bane
I would like to see allies matrix be slightly more restrictive. I would like to see batle brothers adjusted.
Other then a few rare exceptions supplements and codexs used as allies should take up an ally slot
I would like to see stronghold assault and escalation adjusted and be included in the main rule book, with silly things like knights or tanks starting on a skyshield removed.
AP1 weapons should give invulnerable saves -2 to die result, Ap2 should give -1 (very few invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable)
I would like to see vehicles keep thier hull points (think of hull points as wounds and armour value as toughness) and recieve an armour save of 4+. Open topped vehicles can be 5+, The extra armor upgrade can increase this save by +1 (max of 3+ sv) and superheavies can have 2+
Any glance hit is still a shaken result, any penetrating is still a stunned result, At 50% of hull point value every penetrating hit roll for 33% chance 1-2 no additional effect, 3-4 random loss of weapon result, 5-6 immobile.
I would like to see heavy walkers such as dreadnaughts receive a directional 5+ invulnerable save kinda like a mini knight shield.

The above changes fixes escalation, stronghold assault, allies, formations, Str D, vehicles, walkers. And keeps the rules in line with current rules by making vehicle rules more like character rules.

I agree with most everything posted except hull points. That was actually a very positive change to prevent stupid things like stun-lock. Though, I suppose, battling it out on a forum is unlikely to effect anything.

I love Hull Point myself.