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 think 99% of dreadnoughts/titans posed in a "running" pose look terrible, like they're in the process of falling right over because of how unbalanced they are.

 Trickstick wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Bremon wrote:

I miss the old AP system.

This, so much this. A tank doesn't care if you shoot it with an AK47 or a mortar, you're going to bounce either way. Having a stronger weapon doesn't magically make you do more damage to something that you're still to weak to reliably penetrate.

This is the old system, from back in 2nd edition! I can see your side but the other system had disadvantages. It made certain ap values much better than others. An ap3 gun was so much better than an ap4 gun. Now more weapons are worth taking.

2nd edition was ridiculous. 3rd was basically the pinnacle of the game for me. Marines weren’t worried about cover because they were basically superheroes.

To be honest, I even miss the old S/T spread; I loved when heavy bolters would rip Guardians and guardsmen to ribbons on a 2+ to wound, and not 3+ to wound followed by a 6+ save.

Matt Ward is the best thing to happen to GW Fluff & rules ever...






(Kidding)

The Forgemaster wrote:
Matt Ward is the best thing to happen to GW Fluff & rules ever...

Brother...

Get me the flamer...

The HEAVY flamer.

Games Workshop should become a global Wargames Store and finally give up the illusion they are the only thing on the market.

There were entire armies that AP five and four were useless for. Could GW have done a better job? No not at all. You can do better, rules can be better, but any company is never going to do it:

 Haravikk wrote:

shyzo wrote:
If you could change 5 things in the core rules, what would those be?

Hmm, tough to decide what my top 5 would be, but here's a few:

1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.

pelicaniforce wrote:
There were entire armies that AP five and four were useless for.

Quite liked it that way.

I like the AP modifier system, and don’t mind to-hit modifiers... but the entire system would be better with D10’s. You could then have + 2 or +3 strength be more meaningful, as each point of difference would be +1 to the roll, essentially, up to 5 points difference, at which point you either auto-pass / auto-fail. Though I think a “natural 10 succeeds regardless” would keep small arms from being completely useless against Knights and the like.

I think the current rules are the best you can do with a d6, though to-hit modifiers should be capped at +/- 1.

Bremon wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
There were entire armies that AP five and four were useless for.

Quite liked it that way.

With the system posted above bolters could knock aspect warriors and necron warriors down to 5+ and actually be dangerous WOAH. but marines didn’t get scratched. Way better than either third edition or 2nd and eighth editions

Yeah I loved the old ap system except that 1. Chaplains were bad at fighting marines and you’d think a predator mounted autocannon would at least dint power armor and 2. Bolter marines couldn’t kill storm troopers or fire warriors very well.

The heavy bolted was such a common and good looking weapon, but it was poop. The ap4 weapon options on terminator squads were pointless, the heavy flamer might as well not exist. I just think bolters should get -1 against like dire avengers.

 greatbigtree wrote:


I think the current rules are the best you can do with a d6, though to-hit modifiers should be capped at +/- 1.

Couple of natural sources of modifiers would be nice.

Bolter Marines would do as well agaisnt Stormtroopers as Stormtroopers would agaisnt Marines as far as shooting goes.

The rules for Betrayal at Calth and Burning of Prospero are better than 8E.

Apple fox wrote:
Modern 40k as a setting is stale and stupid, with a constant 1up marine never allowing the setting to really stay true to its grim dark feel. And when they have try to grim dark it up it’s done in a rather throw away way, and without much care to the setting as a whole.

Rule of cool is now hinting at how to make something not cool at all.

I dislike "Spess Muhreen" H8Rs. Its soooo 2000's.

Also, IoM H8Rs. Why? Isn't it a quarter past popular to rant about 40k's poster boys?

A basic Guardsman should be 10 points. Adjust everything else up by a factor of 2.5, now there's enough granularity to properly price the rest of the field.

Nothing can be priced properly while Guardsmen are 4 ppm. Nothing.

Rather than points per model, units should have fixed size options. You could have 5 marines for 55 points and then 10 Marines for 95. This would more accurately reflect the value of access to upgrades, and give incentive to using larger squads.

Chaos Marines could have options for 5, 10, and 20 man units.

I think Tau work in units of 6 to 12? Battle suits could be increments of 3?

What do you do with armies that are totally customisable like Deathwatch?

GW should revert to the 3rd/4th edition to-wound rules. Wound on 4 + attack S - target T. No more S4 bolt guns or dudes with sticks doing chip damage to tanks, T5 and T6 actually mean something against the majority of weapons again. Necrons can have their "always wound on 6s" rule back since they need help as is.

The Newman wrote:
GW should revert to the 3rd/4th edition to-wound rules. Wound on 4 + attack S - target T. No more S4 bolt guns or dudes with sticks doing chip damage to tanks, T5 and T6 actually mean something against the majority of weapons again. Necrons can have their "always wound on 6s" rule back since they need help as is.

The Newman wrote:
GW should revert to the 3rd/4th edition to-wound rules. Wound on 4 + attack S - target T. No more S4 bolt guns or dudes with sticks doing chip damage to tanks, T5 and T6 actually mean something against the majority of weapons again. Necrons can have their "always wound on 6s" rule back since they need help as is.

Aside from S3 wounding on 5's instead of 6's, what's wrong or changed with T5/6 units relative to most weapons in the game? Particularly as S7/8/9 isn't wounding on 2's anymore.

Commissars are, and always will be, useless trash that belong in the lore and not on the battlefield.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Commissars are, and always will be, useless trash that belong in the lore and not on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, in the lore, they are constantly on the battlefield.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Rather than points per model, units should have fixed size options. You could have 5 marines for 55 points and then 10 Marines for 95. This would more accurately reflect the value of access to upgrades, and give incentive to using larger squads.

Chaos Marines could have options for 5, 10, and 20 man units.

I think Tau work in units of 6 to 12? Battle suits could be increments of 3?

That's horrifyingly boring and kills choice more than anything. Now if you need a few points for something you can take a man from each squad away but with blocks you just end up with a situation of being five points shy of something but no way to get it without removing whole units.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Commissars are, and always will be, useless trash that belong in the lore and not on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, in the lore, they are constantly on the battlefield.

In the Lore they make a difference on the battlefield though...

leopard wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Commissars are, and always will be, useless trash that belong in the lore and not on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, in the lore, they are constantly on the battlefield.

In the Lore they make a difference on the battlefield though...

And in the lore, they're also in the backfield scheming like a bunch of petulant children when their authority isn't respected thanks to them actually being deskjockeys.

Also the only good interaction with a Commissar is in "Cadian Blood".

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also the only good interaction with a Commissar is in "Cadian Blood".

Well maybe if you just ignore two of Black Library's best series that are centred on Commissars, or one off novels like Dead Men Walking with major Commissar characters.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also the only good interaction with a Commissar is in "Cadian Blood".

Well maybe if you just ignore two of Black Library's best series that are centred on Commissars, or one off novels like Dead Men Walking with major Commissar characters.

You mean the one where the Commissar doesn't summarily execute everyone he meets and is the exception to the rule of "Commissars aren't Commanders"? And the other one where the Commissar's a big coward?

Oh and while we're at it, let's not forget that the main crux of the issue for "Dead Men Walking" was that the commissar in question had to keep his Regiment from crazed suicide charges.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also the only good interaction with a Commissar is in "Cadian Blood".

Well maybe if you just ignore two of Black Library's best series that are centred on Commissars, or one off novels like Dead Men Walking with major Commissar characters.

You mean the one where the Commissar doesn't summarily execute everyone he meets and is the exception to the rule of "Commissars aren't Commanders"? And the other one where the Commissar's a big coward?

Oh and while we're at it, let's not forget that the main crux of the issue for "Dead Men Walking" was that the commissar in question had to keep his Regiment from crazed suicide charges.

Sound like good interactions to me. There is a wide spectrum of Commissars in the vastness of the 41st millenium, of which these are some examples.

Most book characters arent about filling the archetype perfectly. When we get Ultramarines characters in videogames and books, they're always willing to flex on the codex astartes. When we get basix guardsmen books, they're not the ones that all killed in the first 5 minutes of battle. When we get Chaos Marine books, they generally dont center on following the insane characters. When we get books on Inquisitors, it's almost never about the "burn everyone who looks slightly out of place in the hab square" types.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most book characters arent about filling the archetype perfectly. When we get Ultramarines characters in videogames and books, they're always willing to flex on the codex astartes. When we get basix guardsmen books, they're not the ones that all killed in the first 5 minutes of battle. When we get Chaos Marine books, they generally dont center on following the insane characters. When we get books on Inquisitors, it's almost never about the "burn everyone who looks slightly out of place in the hab square" types.

"by the book" characters aren't good character in mot cases. Especially in war drama. These characters have a tendecy to be dull and predictable. For a story to work, the character needs to get himself or herself in trouble once in a while.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Commissars are, and always will be, useless trash that belong in the lore and not on the battlefield.

Lord Commissars allow me to make two Militarum Tempestus battalions, and act as power weapon jockeys, so I think they have utility.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most book characters arent about filling the archetype perfectly. When we get Ultramarines characters in videogames and books, they're always willing to flex on the codex astartes. When we get basix guardsmen books, they're not the ones that all killed in the first 5 minutes of battle. When we get Chaos Marine books, they generally dont center on following the insane characters. When we get books on Inquisitors, it's almost never about the "burn everyone who looks slightly out of place in the hab square" types.

What do you mean? Every game I have seen has had Ultramarines announcing very firmly that said action is not supported by the Codex Astartes.