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.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't believe that a 2+ invulnerable save has a place in a wargame. It's too much durability for one model to have. I guess it wouldn't be bad if the 2+ was temporary but having it as base is just stupid.

I don't see how having cover save be a minimum of a 6+ makes cheap models and MEQ worse. It just means that, if an AP 3 "Ignores cover" weapon hits them, they have a 1/6 chance of living. I just want cover to be valuable again rather than being entirely optional in this day and age of mass Ignores Cover.

Shadowfields go away if they fail once and Gazghkull only gets his for one turn.

That's perfectly fine. What I am talking about is a unit that just plain has it all the time. That is just not a good element for a competitive game.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't believe that a 2+ invulnerable save has a place in a wargame. It's too much durability for one model to have. I guess it wouldn't be bad if the 2+ was temporary but having it as base is just stupid.

I don't see how having cover save be a minimum of a 6+ makes cheap models and MEQ worse. It just means that, if an AP 3 "Ignores cover" weapon hits them, they have a 1/6 chance of living. I just want cover to be valuable again rather than being entirely optional in this day and age of mass Ignores Cover.

Not cheap models worse, only MEQ.

MEQ can't stand up against the meta's other issue, tons of shots that don't care about what your armor is, it'd just mean that MEQ models are screwed on another front while cheaper models get to keep a bonus, not to mention making flamers even more useless to take.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
That's perfectly fine. What I am talking about is a unit that just plain has it all the time. That is just not a good element for a competitive game.

I think a few weapons that outright ignore invulnerable saves or force successful ones to be rerolled should be introduced back to the game.

Perhaps not D-weapons as they right now make gargantuan creatures virtually unplayable in apoc.

That and D-weapons basically erase everything else as well. I wouldn't quite say I like entirely removing invulns but re-rolling successful saves I'd be okay with.

In a year I expect there to be a pile of the new starter sets dusting on top of the pile of Dark Vengeance boxes still in my FLGS.

 Kain wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
That's perfectly fine. What I am talking about is a unit that just plain has it all the time. That is just not a good element for a competitive game.

I think a few weapons that outright ignore invulnerable saves or force successful ones to be rerolled should be introduced back to the game.

Perhaps not D-weapons as they right now make gargantuan creatures virtually unplayable in apoc.

That I can also agree with. Cover and armor saves have weapons that can screw with them. Invuln should have it too. Though, what I am afraid of is that, should such weapons be introduced, they will be handed out like candy to everyone and their mother. Sort of like what ignores cover today.

@Zebio

How is a guaranteed cover save by being in cover screwing with MEQs? They'd get their normal cover saves if being shot at with weaponry that doesn't mess with cover. And if you get hit with a template weapon you'd only have a 1/36 chance of surviving. That's a lot better than 1/2 which doesn't make flamers useless.

I think I will retract that wish and say Ignores Cover is fine on the basis that 40k has enough die rolls as it is. It just needs to be given more sparingly.

My Expectations:
>They will address many issues, some that needed to and some don’t
>Though there will be some improvement, a large number of people will rage of the fact the issues where not addressed like they would have.

Just like every Edition.

Make hth a bit more viable and tighten up some of the more ludicrous rules.

Would also like to see more varied missions than killpoint and C&C. Perhaps a throwback to 2nd ed where you had everything from killing the enemy psyker to assaulting a bunker complex.

for normal 40K only I care less about Apoc..
My wish list:


1. Either lose the allied matrix or lose the Battle Brother status. I'd prefere the first one

2. Fix the army composition example: 2 HQ max even in games of 2000 pts

3. Fix some of the wargear

4. Either create a dispell system or redo some of the more powerful psychic powers

5. Either force units to wait to fire overwatch during thier turn or get rid of it entirely. maybe they can shoot at full BS if they wait.

6. lose interceptor or similar to above make them choose to wait in thier turn, none of this I'm fireing in my turn then firing interceptor in your turn, then losing a turn of shooting.

7. Fix flying monsters vector stike to one attack on vechiles

8. Fix shooting at flyers in general maybe a 5+ to hit

Things I want to see.

- Change overwatch to BS -2 or 3 (min. 1)
- Failed Charges still move the distance rolled.
- If you overwatch, you cant shoot next turn (may still run).
- May Consolidate into Combat, but it wont be fought until the next (opponents) fight phase.
- Removal of Battle Brothers Allies (Its supposed to be 'GrimDark', not 'happy friends cakewalk to victory')

Remove the allies chart, but allow Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons to continue allying each other.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Well, so long as we're wishlisting our wants without regard to realism, I want to see a way to shoot into combat.

Seriously, I'll take anything. Any restrictions or caveats, just give me something.

I give you Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. Play goblins or the evil side I believe and now you can shoot into combat.

Remember what you wish for. You said you will take anything. So now you will need to play LotR.

Davor wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Well, so long as we're wishlisting our wants without regard to realism, I want to see a way to shoot into combat.

Seriously, I'll take anything. Any restrictions or caveats, just give me something.

I give you Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. Play goblins or the evil side I believe and now you can shoot into combat.

Remember what you wish for. You said you will take anything. So now you will need to play LotR.

Confirmed for LOTR.

However, there's a difference between horizontal gunfire and markedly arced fire like arrows, so for 40k you'd have to differentiate the type of fire, and for horizontal fire, you'd have to find a way to randmize who gets hit, but make sure the majority of hits are against the closest models...in most cases, your own unit.

i doubt it'll be anything more than compiling all the "expansion" rules into one book (thus, making the BRB cost around 100 i bet) and revamp the assaulting rules, since theyre so crap right now. Maybe a few wording fixes to remove some very easy rule-cheesing, namely involving terrain.

Outside that, not much really needs to change. Everything else would just be niceties that we all know they wont do - like straight up explain every vehicle's firing arcs with both default and additional weapon attachments. Far too many are unexplained wtf their arc is.

I would like to see a way to get around those invul saves.

 Sour Note wrote:
I would like to see a way to get around those invul saves.

Besides the "D"

 Sour Note wrote:
I would like to see a way to get around those invul saves.

You've missed the point of an invuln save. The problem isn't the invuln save, it is it's prevalence and severity in current meta.

I think, outside of obvious removal of battle bros, invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable (no + or -, no re-rolls) outside of maybe the daemon warp storm's +/- effect.

kingleir wrote:
Things I want to see.

- Change overwatch to BS -2 or 3 (min. 1)
- Failed Charges still move the distance rolled.
- If you overwatch, you cant shoot next turn (may still run).
- May Consolidate into Combat, but it wont be fought until the next (opponents) fight phase.
- Removal of Battle Brothers Allies (Its supposed to be 'GrimDark', not 'happy friends cakewalk to victory')

I absolutely agree with this, I strongly feel this would solve a great deal of problems.I never quite understood why over watching allows you to shoot next turn and interceptor does not, both should be the same. I will raise you one however, I think if you over watch you should forgo all attacks in melee. The fact that my Tau can obliterate most squads and still nerf bat them in melee is silly. I do however think one of your suggestions needs to be rewritten. I think consolidations into other melee should allow the units in that melee to fire over watch if they are not already in combat, again forgoing their melee attacks to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also feel D weapons should do D3 wounds not cause instant death.

I have no issue with allies, but battle brothers is just plain silly.

Im just glad well be able to still play with old rule books. Rumor has it there will be a pdf out with the new rules for those who dont want to buy the new book, which should be valid for 2-3 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arrias117 wrote:

 Sour Note wrote:
I would like to see a way to get around those invul saves.

You've missed the point of an invuln save. The problem isn't the invuln save, it is it's prevalence and severity in current meta.

I think, outside of obvious removal of battle bros, invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable (no + or -, no re-rolls) outside of maybe the daemon warp storm's +/- effect.

Whats the point of god mode characters in a strategy game? Thats like pay to play games and D weapons although cool, i feel are over powered and shouldnt be a part of >2k pts games. Even in the fluff those war engines arent mobilized for small skirmishes.

Yeah battle brothers is a little odd. But i disagree with getting rid of it. Because IG and SM can and have worked together like that against the enemies of the imperium. And eldar and DE can cone together against mutual threats. Yeah tyranids got the short end of the stick on the allies matrix but hey its a logical explanation. Maybe they could get a little more survivability?

This is just my opinions.

I don't agree with trickling in more ways to ignore invulnerable saves. The entire point of an invuln is to be... a save that is invulnerable, I.E. it can't be dispelled.

Frankly, I don't even approve of things like the VIndcare's Invuln negating shot. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing you should be able to do to an invulnerable save is force successful ones to be re-rolled (ala Swarmies' old ability).

On the other side of that scale though, invulnerable saves should be extremely rare and should almost never be lower than a 4+. The only army that should have wide-scale invulns is Daemons, and they're also the only ones who should get invulns below a 3+ (Fatey and LoC only, the manifestations of the God of Magic can get 3+ invulnerable saves), but no one should get a 2+ invulnerable, not even Daemons. Not even Gazzy (I'd give Gazzy a 3++).

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Frankly, I don't even approve of things like the VIndcare's Invuln negating shot. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing you should be able to do to an invulnerable save is force successful ones to be re-rolled (ala Swarmies' old ability).

Well, they interact with Inv-saves differently. Forcing re-rolls will hurt bad inv. saves (e.g. 6++ and 5++) relatively worse than good inv. saves (e.g. 3++). Ignoring them outright arguably hits the good 3++ types harder, who lose "more", than the poorer inv.-saves.

Two interactions with two very different results. Why shouldn't a game designer have access to both to create either effect, as he (or she) sees fit?

Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.

pax_imperialis wrote:
Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.

Raptors, Talons, Mutilators, Oblits (although bad idea they could), and Terminators. Am I missing anybody?

pax_imperialis wrote:
Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.

More importantly my Trygons, Jump infantry/MCs, Mawlocs, and Raveners will now violate gunlines with gusto. As will my genestealers.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Frankly, I don't even approve of things like the VIndcare's Invuln negating shot. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing you should be able to do to an invulnerable save is force successful ones to be re-rolled (ala Swarmies' old ability).

Well, they interact with Inv-saves differently. Forcing re-rolls will hurt bad inv. saves (e.g. 6++ and 5++) relatively worse than good inv. saves (e.g. 3++). Ignoring them outright arguably hits the good 3++ types harder, who lose "more", than the poorer inv.-saves.

Two interactions with two very different results. Why shouldn't a game designer have access to both to create either effect, as he (or she) sees fit?

Because they'll be a paying a massive premium for that 3+ invulnerable save.

Just because something can be done, or implemented into the game, doesn't mean that it should.

- - - - - -

Regarding assault from deepstrike, reserves or what have you. ... idk. I was a big proponent of changing those rules at the dawn of 6E, when the sting of how badly assault got mangled in this edition was still strong. After thinking about it for a couple of years though, I'm now of the opinion that 1st turn assaulting shouldn't be a thing. I feel that one of the basic tenets of a wargame should be that as player you have an opportunity to react to anything your opponent does. If 40K was a you-go-I-go game where you moved, he moved, you shot, he shot, you assaulted/ran he assaulted/ran, first-turn assaulting would be okay because your opponent could try to at least shuffle his units around to try to mitigate your assault. But with 40K turns being how they are, if you had, say a Trygon with the ability to assault after deep-striking, you basically have the power to point to a unit on the enemies' side of the board and say "That unit is now dead." and there's really nothing the opponent can do. Bad game design, imo.

Of course, the scenario I outlined above isn't much different from what we have now with armies like Tau who can wipe 500 points of stuff off the board turn 1, but that signifies 6E shooting is too powerful.

If I were to change any rules for assault, it would be the removal of random charge distance and not being able to assault out of vehicles.

 Sour Note wrote:
Im just glad well be able to still play with old rule books. Rumor has it there will be a pdf out with the new rules for those who dont want to buy the new book, which should be valid for 2-3 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arrias117 wrote:

 Sour Note wrote:
I would like to see a way to get around those invul saves.

You've missed the point of an invuln save. The problem isn't the invuln save, it is it's prevalence and severity in current meta.

I think, outside of obvious removal of battle bros, invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable (no + or -, no re-rolls) outside of maybe the daemon warp storm's +/- effect.

Whats the point of god mode characters in a strategy game? Thats like pay to play games and D weapons although cool, i feel are over powered and shouldnt be a part of >2k pts games. Even in the fluff those war engines arent mobilized for small skirmishes.

Yeah battle brothers is a little odd. But i disagree with getting rid of it. Because IG and SM can and have worked together like that against the enemies of the imperium. And eldar and DE can cone together against mutual threats. Yeah tyranids got the short end of the stick on the allies matrix but hey its a logical explanation. Maybe they could get a little more survivability?

This is just my opinions.

Get outa' here Blackjack! (If you don't get this apologies, your paint scheme is far too similar for its own good with something else)

I'll agree god mode characters are stupid but, in a game that point costs, I'd be fine if balanced. I wouldn't really want to see invuln ignoring attacks but re-rolls are right down my taste, then again, I prefer BlaxicanX's interpretation of invulns being something rare and largely restricted to a small few (and not having a way to get heralds to be re-rolling 2++ saves).

As per allies, honestly I'd rather see them go. I will still ally but that's more because my group is more casual with a preference for narrative games. BB would be fine, in my opinion, if you couldn't place units within one another. Kind of like how CSM and Daemons work. You can't mix them but they can buff each other. I'd like to see that in general. The only exception I can think of is maybe Inquisitors getting to walk into any unit that is BB and possibly a special rule for the fireblade guy to possibly lead a squad of guardsman. Still, I'd rather it be yanked out with a caveat of recommending it for some narrative games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:

pax_imperialis wrote:
Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.

More importantly my Trygons, Jump infantry/MCs, Mawlocs, and Raveners will now violate gunlines with gusto. As will my genestealers.

Imagine it Kain. Just imagine a game where daemons and nids make peace? The Imperial guard stand there peacefully and see a small horde of tyranids charging forth. They man their arms firing ammo into the horde. Suddenly, there are shreaks, screams, and putrid sounds as Trygons and Mawlocs rip out of the ground, Ravenors, genestealers, and MCs tear through even more. When they finally felt safe, the fabric of reality breaks as monsterous creatures charge every foe, bloodthirsters, bloodletters, and more crash into units and promptly tear them apart. (seriously everything can DS in CD. That'd be nasty)

 Sour Note wrote:
Im just glad well be able to still play with old rule books. Rumor has it there will be a pdf out with the new rules for those who dont want to buy the new book, which should be valid for 2-3 years.

Wait someone is going to Post the 7th ed rules right away? Or is someone releasing a decent, unbiased home brew set?

 StarTrotter wrote:

pax_imperialis wrote:
Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.

Raptors, Talons, Mutilators, Oblits (although bad idea they could), and Terminators. Am I missing anybody?

yep that's about it. Would it be too much to ask for outflanking units to do the same? Huron's fun club storming in from the sides to rip and tear

pax_imperialis wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

pax_imperialis wrote:
Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.

Raptors, Talons, Mutilators, Oblits (although bad idea they could), and Terminators. Am I missing anybody?

yep that's about it. Would it be too much to ask for outflanking units to do the same? Huron's fun club storming in from the sides to rip and tear

Swooping hawks coming out of nowhere and ganking vehicles like its nobody business?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or ganking Imperial Knights just for the LOL's