# 6th Edition, what do you want in/out of it?



## Old Man78 (Nov 3, 2011)

Well folks if this has already been covered then my bad, but like the title says what do you want from the rumoured next edition?

Personally I would like to be able to take multiple dedicated transports so I could take 2 razorbacks to transport a full tac squad or whatever for your prefarred army, and I'd like the blast rule tidied up, for example why does a krak missile role to hit but a frag missile scatter, I'm not looking for 100% realism I know it is just a game and you have to have balance but maybe some blast weapons should be more advantageous then others? Some may want the over-watch rule returned!

Your thoughts or ridicule most welcome.:good:


----------



## James Tiberius (Sep 1, 2011)

be nice to just get a feffing decent set of rules out of it, its getting stupid that companies are releasing excellent rule sets first time, and GW have been fecking it up for years and years and years and getting worse every time.

one thing I want is the ability to split my fire everywhere, it makes no sense that a squad of 10 guard or marines or whatever all have to fire at 1 target with everything, is the guy with the lascannon not smart enough to realize maybe he would be better off firing at the massive tank looming overhead instead of the little man no bigger than a squat running at him, or is that far too complex for the 10yr olds?

I want cover to actually be something you MUST have, it looks pathetic when you go to watch a game of 40k and the players have a tree and a small building and maybe a wall, and to them that is cluttered.

actually making the game tactical would be nice as well, instead of "I have more guns, I win"


----------



## Kale Hellas (Aug 26, 2009)

good kill team rules, and as above, split fire and more cover plus true line of sight.


----------



## Shady ed (Sep 9, 2010)

I want better rules but I mostly want models. More models. Better models. Plastic models.


----------



## LordOfAbsolution (Jul 22, 2009)

all sound like good ideas especially the dedicated transport one, I never ever take razorbacks with my BT army cause it's too big, so I have to foot-slog it.

as for the scatter maybe a new type like Blast (D6), Blast (2D6) and so on to show how many dice you roll to scatter.

OVER-WATCH!! would make tau a viable army again getting a free shot to even the odds in close combat.

and like the other's I've always wanted split fire, but I know GW will either over-simplify it or over-complicate it. :dunno:

as far would I would like... something with deep strike where if you roll the hit marker you can either shoot or assault on the turn you arrive, because it states they can still run perfectly fine, so why can't they make that run into an assault (this is mainly for my mate who has deamons and is screwed over a lot) 

Missions with Stratgems in.

and maybe behind the scenes, a bigger talk between writers to make every codex more balanced especially with the SM chapters, so then a certain bearded 'fellow' by the name of Ward doesn't go too mental with things.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

been said, but clear, concise, well-written rules that lend themselves to strategic game-play and not so f-ing list dependent.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

make cover not as riduculous. A couple wooden trees gives the same save as a Tau Firewarrior's armor? Derp?


----------



## Shady ed (Sep 9, 2010)

I want multi-part plastic Chaplains/Terminators.


----------



## Champion Alaric (Feb 17, 2011)

I want the rumored 6th ed rules to be real so I can use my teleport homer with the summoning. Thats it. 

Which basically breaks down to keywords really. If its a teleporting power thats it. No word play with different terms.


----------



## Champion Alaric (Feb 17, 2011)

double post.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

main thing i'm looking for is for the game to take between 1-2 hrs at 2000 points, (assuming your opponent isn't bumbling around).


----------



## Madden (Jan 22, 2012)

Out of 6th I'd like, the heavy weapon in squad to be able to shoot a different target, all armour ignoring/instant death cc attacks to be allocated first, vehicles to split fire, assault after deep striking, and an adjustment to the cc to hit chart so higher WS hits better I.e. WS 6 needs 2's to hit WS 4. Forget overwatch I remember it from 2'nd and it was a pain in the @&££. Though some form of charge reaction would be nice, say brace for charge +1T and or shoot them down single shot at half BS rounding up.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I would like to see deep striking be more reliable or safer. As most armies do not have drop pods of any sort it would be nice if there was some insentive to counteract the retarded nature of massed deep striking.

Any of the following would be great.
-Only scatters 1d6
-3+inv save when the unit deep strikes (Their phasing into reality after all)
-Allow you to pick the turn the unit deep strikes and have a roll against that.

As it is now only idiots deep strike if they don't have something that makes it useful, unless its a suicide squad.


----------



## Madden (Jan 22, 2012)

Or deamons we have to deep strike.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> I would like to see deep striking be more reliable or safer. As most armies do not have drop pods of any sort it would be nice if there was some insentive to counteract the retarded nature of massed deep striking.
> 
> Any of the following would be great.
> -Only scatters 1d6
> ...


This! This more times than I can count. I want my daemons to not suck again. And for Deep striking tactics to be useful for other than marine players.


----------



## Grogbart (Aug 29, 2010)

Most of my ideas would require to change pretty much every single Statline and Special Rule, but nonetheless.

First of all I would change the systems of wounding and armour penetration.
what bugs me: 
Auto cannon, easy to penetrate Chimera side armour, hardly able to kill a Space Marine. (AP on on models and vehicles)
2+ armour saves apply from artificer armour to the most awesome ultra terminator armour (to wide a range I think)
It's the same with armour 10 on vehicles Chimera side armour, ork buggy.
Wish: 
A consistent table of AP to Armour (with values one to twelve, for example) including vehicle armour.
Toughness saves system similar to current armour saves.
And while I'm at it, why not switch the sequence to: HIT - PENETRATE ARMOUR - WOUND.

Cover and Saves system
What bugs me: inconsistency in usefulness of cover and invulnerable saves (e.g. Sisters in cover against bolter fire)
Wish:
Remove cover saves, but instead, to hit rolls have to be rerolled against units in cover. (and special rules allowing rerolls on to hit rolls have to go!)
Apply invulnerable saves cumulatively, like FNP, and diversify them (e.g. FNP saves, Forcefield saves, dodge/evasive saves, psycic saves) (each with their own weakness perhaps?)

Turn Sequence
What bugs me:
"oh, that unit didn't die entirely, then I let this unit shoot at them as well..."
wish:
have a 'Action' phase, where all unit actions are determined (move, shoot and charge) and then Resolving phases for shooting, assaulting (coming next), close combat and what so ever)
Most importantly, all shooting units must have fixed targets before resolving shots and always resolve all shots fired at a single targeted unit in one attempt.

Assaulting/charging
What bugs me:
To me, assaulting/charging, the last steps before diving into close combat, sound like the most interesting moments in battle. Combatants firing their assault weapons, throwing grenades, rapid fire weapons on full auto, and yet it's only dealt with by a single additional attack, right now.
Those neat occasions, a squad of my sisters sits idle for a few turns, not lifting a single finger while a DE Raider drives by, debarking a unit of Wyches, which are then freely allowed to run and assault up to 12 Inch toward my squad, never even once shooting its heavy flamer or bolters.
Wish:
have a special kind of assault shootout, attacker gets one bonus shot per rapid fire weapon, assault weapons get to shoot twice, defenders get to shoot assault weapons once and a single shot with each rapid fire weapon. (rough idea here) And make frag grenades actually kill someone for a change!
This being instead of what is now rapid firing weapons!

Close Combat/ Initiative
What bugs me: almost everything
wish:
get rid of the initiative stat! Instead:
- At the start of close combat roll a D6 for every attack for every model participating in that combat (with Special Rules apply boni of +1 for units like DE Wyches or Death Cult Assassins and mali of -1 for something like Necrons, SCs and ICs are generally allowed a reroll)
- resolve attacks of the same initiative at the same time (starting form highest to lowest) and allocate resolving wounds starting with those models which have rolled lowest for initiative of their attacks or roll an extra dice per model before resolving close combat to determine the recipient oder of incoming blows.
And change the whole mechanic of fleeing and being overrun to something a little less "just black and white" (many possibilities, but none I'm able to recall as an example right now, sorry)


Numbers
what bugs me: Point costs toward cheap models (5 pts to 3 pts) are very rough and even at higher points GW isn't helping by trying to fit everything to multiples of five.
An IG guardsmen gets +100% attacks for charging, while a SM Veteran with two CCW only gets +33% attacks for charging
Vindicator Demolisher cannon having the same rate of fire as a bolt pistol!?
A Landraider can be blown up by a single lucky shot, but a Carnifex will always survive a headshot by a plasma cannon! (one of the things I like the most about this game in contrary to computer games(mostly HP based), is the uncertainty of how many shots it will take to destroy a vehicle)
wish:
redone point costs (basis: IG guardsmen 10 pts, for example)
basis for close combat attacks and shots from regular weapons (boltgun, lasgun...) increased to two.
Get rid of all multi-wound models except for SCs and ICs.
Just the other way round as GW does right now, I wound make all MCs into Walkers or at least a similar vehicle like category.

Long range artillery and fliers
I may be alone on that one, but I'd like them to be gone as models on table.
As with the Artillery guy you can take with the IG command Squad, I'd like artillery, orbital bombardments and even, bombing or vehicle hunting runs by fliers to be, model bound, purchasable like other equipment and maybe even integrate them within the reserve mechanisms.

Reserves, Deep Striking...
A squad of Assault Marines is wiped out because they landed on some grenchin!!!
I'd expect something able to land on a battlefield form sky or even orbit, to be able to evade something they don't want to land on. If you want to include the chance of something not reaching the battlefield make it with the reserve roll (e.g. ones for reserve rolls kill the unit).
Maybe diversify between, landing via Jump pack or parachute (save but unable to act same turn), teleporting/digging/coming form the warp (may fail, but can act the same turn) and landing via transport (save, cover fire by transport, but scatters more) etc. etc. (wild thoughts here again)

general
Squadrons receiving immobilised results -> why can I not have the rest of the Squadron stop/ move within unit coherency, instead of instant destroy.

Twin linked weapons, get rid of them! If its twice the gun it's twice the shots!!!
But they are destroyed as one weapon and may only fire at the same target.

wound allocation, need I say more?

add a slim possibility for a transported unit to blow up with its vehicle.

add a possibility models in transports can be wounded by some weapons (e.g. flamer -> open-topped vehicle)

remove the restriction of only being able to shoot on one unit somehow. (been said before)

get bonus on vehicle damage table for penetrating well beyond the neccessary (Str 10 with AP roll of 6 being more likely to destroy a Rhino than a Str 8 AP roll of 4)

My concentration crumbling to dust right now, so I'll stop here although I'm quite sure I had some more ideas but I'm just not able to recall them. (Looking at my post, maybe its enough already!)

Ingenious Idea by the way oldman, transport squadrons!


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I disagree. This edition has had enough of transports so I want the newer edition to be a lot more riskier to use said transports. Like explodes results insta kill everything inside (which lets face it makes sense, surely whatever killed the crew killed the passengers as well?).

I also would like rending to become unnerfed again or at least made very cheap instead.

I would like charge reactions to units. For example say I played Tau then because the enemy forgot to pack their frag grenades to cover their charge I would like to shoot them some more rather than make them I1. Makes more sense. It also allows the possility to escape from combats that are bad such as those you can never win without retarded Fearless rules.

Fix Fearless rules.

reduce modifiers for running away from combat. I.E. If there is more of my squad rather than the enemy I would think they would feel more confidant about sticking around rather than attempting to run and getting butchered.

Fix true line of sight a bit. Its a great idea but not fully implemented in my eyes. I have played numerous games where 1 man (with heavy weapon) pokes his head from behind tree and starts shooting because he can see me. Thats fine. However when I shoot him one of his expendable buddies jumps in to save him which makes no sense. In short you shoot what you can see but also models exposed get shot at in return.

Reduce cover saves to mainly 5+ in most places.

Introduce more variety in missions. 3rd edition was great for this by giving players completely different objectives. For example in Sabotage one player had to destroy an objective where the other guy tried to fend him off. Either capture this or kill points gets boring fast.

Fix kill points. Bring back victory points since a Land Raider is never going to be worth the same as an Ork Trukk. It works for Fantasy which is not that freaking hard to play.

Balance in armies. Codex creep is very prevalent in 40K and it pisses me off to no end. Most games I play now seem to dominate on who has the better list rather than tactical skill. Again Fantasy requires more skill so why can't 40K? Not mentioning that all but 2 Fantasy books are balanced against each other. If I play against Grey Knights with my Eldar they get pasted by anti psyker abilities and models that are way cheaper for what they get rather than my dudes have.


----------



## James Tiberius (Sep 1, 2011)

I also want a better deployment system, allot of systems these days have you draw the map on paper and deploy units on there, so neither person knows who is where, I want that in 40k instead the stupid system we have now


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

The cc to-hit chart needs to be identicle to the to-wound chart. It should be easier for a WS 7 to hit a WS 4, and the WS 4 needs to have a harder time hitting WS 7. As examples.
"Complicated units" need to be gotten rid of as a concept. Right now it's just one of those weird loop-holes to give some armies massive advantages (ya, looking at Orks and Space Wolves for the most part).
They need to go back to a lascannon or whatever "special weapon" in a squad surviving; irl if the guy next to me manning the M-60 dies, I'm going to happily drop the M-16 and pick up the M-60.
And pistols... I'd have a pistol attack actually use the pistol's stats and the user's BS in cc for the attack that it grants (and ya you don't want a 1 with a plasma pistol).
Make Fearless a benefit again.


----------



## LordOfAbsolution (Jul 22, 2009)

to be honest I've always mainly been a 40k player, but recently my mate and his girlfriend picked up the fantasy stater set, and in all fairness I really like the rules (I used to be put off by the static models) all three of us agree that there are some rules that would work great in 40k. 

- adopt the stand and shoot or flee from a charge rules, but if the unit flees make it risky, roll a Ld test or they go to ground at the end of their fallback move.

- do something more with psykers, have them able to try and counter enemy psyker tests just like dispels and such. (seeing how the psyker mastery levels are coming in the rules)

that's just two I can think of, off the top of my head.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

> As it is now only idiots deep strike if they don't have something that makes it useful, unless its a suicide squad.



True masochists play daemons. It irks me to no end that blood angels have masterful control over deep striking and reserves and yet a greater daemons of the warp can scatter 10 or more inches into some conscripts and be destroyed, if he even decides to show up at all.

Biggest gripes about this edition i'd like to see fixed in 6th are transport spam needs to be high risk, and cover saves. Seriously. Timmy trygon has a blade of grass over his 20ft tail and he gets a 4+ invul? It's getting old. 

Wound allocation has to go away for good.

Pyschic defense. Either everyone has it in some way shape or form (whether it be a USR or a piece of wargear), or noone has it. 

As mentioned, make fearless an advantage not a liability.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Less catastrophic deep strike. It has been said, but as a Tau player, I have what is on-paper the best and most accurate man portable propulsion technology in the universe, yet the 800kg spess muhreen rust buckets manage to do it better. Fucking ridiculous is what it is.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Ravner298 said:


> Biggest gripes about this edition i'd like to see fixed in 6th are transport spam needs to be high risk, and cover saves. Seriously. Timmy trygon has a blade of grass over his 20ft tail and he gets a 4+ invul? It's getting old.


Actually they already did fix timmies trygon, because as a MC it has to be 50% obscured to get any cover save what so ever. Mind you I do agree that the average cover save has to be dropped to 5+.......kinda why I think that people that complain about the power of thousand sons are not playing this edition or are just cheating by playing on naked boards.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

> Actually they already did fix timmies trygon, because as a MC it has to be 50% obscured to get any cover save what so ever. Mind you I do agree that the average cover save has to be dropped to 5+.......kinda why I think that people that complain about the power of thousand sons are not playing this edition or are just cheating by playing on naked boards.


I was being overly sarcastic to emphasize the point Mr. Valentine  It is always humurous to me when people try to claim a cover save when its so clearly, obviously NOT 50% obscured.

5+ would be fantastic. When I field my 1ksons, I just imagine that their bolters reduce armor saves to 4+, rather than being ap3. It's less maddening that way.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Cover going to 5+, wound allocation (multiple wounds, not regular squads), pt costs on weapons (Melta should be the most expensive NOT plasma!), how useless heavy bolters are in any army (tactically worthless, needs to be heavy 4 or assault 3 imo, especially for marines)...and mech needs a nerf, make it so transports explode with more force, maybe str 4 open topped and str 5 standard. 

I really hope they don't do the every 5 or however many models it is, you allocate the wound. Nerfs guard blob squads and ork hordes (Neither of which need it).


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I wouldn't change much. Simply remove all those damnable Options boxes and bring back Armouries (seriously, they're not overpowered if you do them right). Oh, having duelling would be pretty sweet and some kind of awesome Walker combat madness that doesn't end in one or two turns. Make Daemon Princes, Chapter Masters and Ork Warlords ridiculously powerful but hugely expensive, not a dime-a-dozen, equal-to-five/ten-normal-guys dude with a fancy hat and a fancier banner. Oh, and make Grey Knights (hell, all Space Marines) really expensive yet extremely elite. Bring the fun rules back into 40k, like in 2nd ed (but not quite as chaotic), with D-Cannons teleporting shit everywhere and running down hapless midgets with unfeasibly large motorbikes.

Midnight


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

> running down hapless midgets with unfeasibly large motorbikes.


RIP Doomrider


----------



## Loli (Mar 26, 2009)

My biggest want is when transports explode they go an do serious damage to its contents, its bloody anoying when you put numrous ammounts of fire into a transport it finally goes down just for what ever is in to pop out as if its reached its desination.

That and assaulting from DS/Pos/Spore, give me the option to shoot or charge if im not getting both.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Never got why being in a open topped vehicle reduced the threat of your ride getting wrecked. Last time I checked being in a apc that is disabled (Not exploded) was a hell lot safer then being in a blat bed truck that is clipping along at 50mph when it gets disabled and or flipps the hell over.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

The things I would like to see:


Charge Reactions!! I play both 40K and Fantasy and I honestly think that 40K needs charge reactions. As a Tau and Thousand Sons player I can see the need for this. Using my Tau? I will most likely run like a bitch when I am about to be assaulted by 30 Boyz but I might want to take another round of shots at them as well. It makes no sense at all that I would stand there and do nothing while howling 9' tall giants in the equivalent of tank armour run at me with chainsaws in their hands.

SORCERERS SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO DISPEL PSYCHIC POWERS WITHOUT A FUCKING HOOD!!!!!!!

Sorry about that. My main 40K army is the Thousand Sons and I cannot tell you how frustration and utterly ridiculous it is that damn near every army in the game can stop my spells and yet I have no option to do so as well. Tson fluff puts them as THE premier psykers in the galaxy with only Eldar to compete with, yet I can't stop JotWW if needed.

Vehicles NEED to be able to fire on multiple targets, especially tanks. Sorry, you are never going to convince me that a soldier manning a turret sponson is not going to fire at the enemy advancing from the side or rear simply because the main cannon is pointing elsewhere. It is one of the single most idiotic rules in 40K to my mind.

Loli it 100% correct, troops in a vehicle that explodes need to have more damage happen to them, if not outright destruction. I have lost count of the amount of times I have blown up a transport only to leave the passengers completely unharmed.

Deep Strike needs to be made useful. Right now DS is a joke and you couldn't pay me to do it.

Wound allocation is a vile evil that slows down the game and needs to be done away with.


I have a great deal more that I would like to see but sadly GW has not inspired my confidence over the last couple editions.


----------



## Rhino 88 (Jan 1, 2012)

i want the thunder hawk.....for ultras !!


----------



## thefallen (Sep 21, 2011)

Ill second the thunderhawk. 
I would like the return of Overwatch or a reaction to being charged.
Longer ranges on all firearms.
Tougher vehicles but more damage to embarked troops like S5 RENDING &PINNING hits
Twin linked changed to 2x shots but must have same targets.
No more gets hot rule. Its just stupid.
Better WS chart similar to wound chart.
Less random movement. Ie running
All units can split fire.
No more wound allocation tricks. Owner makes all saves at one time then whole models are removed.
More game missions.
Flyer rules. 
More like a streamlined 2nd ed. 
Vortex grenades.


----------



## Barnster (Feb 11, 2010)

Split fire would be ok if there was a penelty for doing it, otherwise it makes marines and other super versitile units way overpowered, and before people say but fluff, i agree but balance on the table is important during a game or you can go back to the 5 marine armies of 2nd. The other issue with split fire is heres my unit of 30 termigaunts 2 going to shot here, 8 going to shot at this target, etc, it could get stupid very quickly

As far as I can think the WS chart in 40k is the same as fantasy and neither have ever let you hit on more than a 3+ and i think its fair enough, its meant to be a swirling melee where each strike is potentially a killing blow, you may actually be hitting more but not telling strikes i think its fair enough

Charge reactions would make sense, maybe based on an initiative value eg units I2 or less must hold rather than flee 

Cover reduction to a 5+ would be good other than for hard cover, eg fortress walls, high strength attacks should ignore or reduce cover though, that wooded tree would not stop a rail gun! 

Flyers being treated as flyers rather than skimmers

Invulnerable saves being allowed after regular armour if you fail eg a ward save

Psychic powers getting streamlined eg auto hit if you pass your psychic test for a shooting attack 

Deep strikers gaining an invuln for the 1st turn they appear to account for the surprise and confusion of their arrival


----------



## kharn_the_blood_god (Aug 8, 2011)

i know it will be a little broken but i think the saves should be like this 

cover saver-inv save-armour save

it makes the most sense right? i meen first you have to shoot through the cover, then through the inv save and then through the armour, not choose with save to take. but i do think cover is a little to strong, i meen how can terminator armour not stop a lascannon shot but a tree can.


----------



## kharn_the_blood_god (Aug 8, 2011)

and for the split fire thing i think it should work like this. any unit that fires against a enemy unit may also target some of the fire power on any unit within 6 inches of the unit they are targeting, as long as there are los to that unit. a weapon may not split is fire between more then 1 unit.


----------



## stephen.w.langdon (Jan 1, 2012)

Ok what would I like to see in 6th Edition rules….. Hmmmmm here goes my thoughts

first of a change to the Turn Sequence, will also list the changes I would like to see for some of them but not all of them lol 

*Movement> Psychic> Shooting> Close Combat> Rally*

*Movement Phase:* The movement phase would be broken down as follows
1. Declare Charges
2.Compulsory Movement
3.Move Chargers 
3.1. Fire assault weapons if you have them
3.2. Unit Reaction, if the unit is more than half its charge range away then the unit being charged can opt to Stand and Shoot/ Flee/ Brace for Charge
4.Remaining Move

*Psychic Phase:* I would like to see this based on a more Warhammer style system as this works really well, each race has a set amount of Psychic Dice at its disposal and based on units, psykers and wargear etc…. you gain extra dice, these are then used to roll over a set level per power, and your opponent can use their dice to counter the power

*Shooting Phase:* as most people have already said I would change Shooting allocation, but only under set circumstances these would be
1. Vehicles can target up to 2 different units
2. Units can target up to 2 different units only if they include different weapons (and only the separate weapon(s) can target the different unit) e.g. Space Marine tactical squad, 8 Bolters, 1 Lascannon, 1 Melta.

All Bolters have to target the same unit, The Las Cannon can target the same unit or a different one, the Melta can then target the same as the Bolters or the Lascannon (limiting this to just 2 units while not realistic would prevent confusion)

3. If all weapons are the same then only 1 unit can be targeted, as the unit is concentrating fire on their opponent.

ok that’s enough of ideas for now, although I could go on for a lot longer, giving ideas for all phases, and the different rules for each, Yes I have thought about this for awhile now but then again who here hasn’t


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

1: CC to hit chart. What the fuck is it, currently? Whoever came up with it is an idiot. It needs to be like the wound chart. Why is a WS9 character hitting some WS3 asshole on a 4+? Retarded. Needs to be changed.

2. If a transport explodes, everything inside dies. No question. Very tired of ork Nobz climbing out of the universe's shittiest truck after it's been blown to tiny bits. Makes no sense, and it breaks the whole game.

3. Psyker powers need to be even more worthwhile, but riskier. They should be outrageously good, but have a very large risk. Currently, the risk is almost nothing. Abilities are alright, but that's about it.

4. What the fuck are the ramming rules? Seriously. Sort it out. I want to be able to turn an enemy unit to jam if I hit them with a fucking land raider. It's enormous. Everything would be turned into a nondescript paste. Even small vehicles.

5. Wound allocation should be totally different. What is this shit about. If I'm stuck into a 30 boy ork squad, shooting into them from the front, why is my opponent removing them from the back? I did the shooting, I remove the casualties. Simple as that.

6. Power weapons. Why can every single guy and his brother get power weapons? They should be hugely limited. I'm tired of turning up and some hidden guy with a power claw tearing through a squad of Sanguinary Guard as though they didn't cost 300 points.

The list goes on.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

Baltar said:


> 1: CC to hit chart. What the fuck is it, currently? Whoever came up with it is an idiot. It needs to be like the wound chart. Why is a WS9 character hitting some WS3 asshole on a 4+? Retarded. Needs to be changed.
> 
> they hit on 3s, but yes it needs to have a wider range on the harder to get hit side, hitting on 3s is about as good i would like the "to hit" low of 3 (minus kharn) being good-ish.
> 
> ...


well...if Power Weapons of any sort need to be rarer, then generic CCWs need a boost. rending against non-vehicles perhaps....

----

DSing i think is alright but you should be scatter free if you want to DS 12.1+" away from any enemy unit. otherwise i think 2d6 is fine.

Ordinance & Barrage rules - Ordinance shouldnt reduce the amount of shots to shoot (ie - defiler). Barrage should be simpler to understand how the cover saves work with it (doesnt help that i never use anything with the barrage rule) and in area terrain etc.

sniper rifles need to get a boost, there is no real reason to take them; not with the amount of fearless, armor, and cover about.

cover needs to be 5+.

Melta needs to be more expensive than plasma, especially if transports are gonna be cheap in the game. plasma pistols need to not be 15 points

I like the idea of taking fantasy's "stand & shoot" aspect to getting charged.

and the usual complaints that others have. the more dice used for generic things (psychic powers, Ld checks (not moral) etc) the more interesting the game would be i think.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I'd like to see the return of save modifiers. AP is stupid and should never have been created. It encourages min-maxing of power/low ap weapons, and bad tactics
 GW needs to have a formula qualitative system for assigning points values, as it is there is a wild divergence 
 Splitting fire with special or heavy weapons makes sense
 I definitely agree that twin linking should just be number of shots x2, this reroll garbage is stupid especially when twin linked weapons cost as much as 2 of that weapon but can never do more damage than a single one.
 chaos needs to get fixed: chaos marines need real daemons and daemon engines, and sensible units
 T(x) units need to be upgraded to just survive instant death - the availability of pie-plate ordinance and powerfists is such that the vulnerability is silly

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## buckythefly (Mar 16, 2009)

Well, I'd like a lot of the wordings clarified, I mean 5th edition works pretty well, but some of the discussions I've heard from rule mongers could be solved with simple rewording.

I dunno what else, Maybe an Ork Codex before 2030...


----------



## stephen.w.langdon (Jan 1, 2012)

Baltar said:


> 2. If a transport explodes, everything inside dies. No question. Very tired of ork Nobz climbing out of the universe's shittiest truck after it's been blown to tiny bits. Makes no sense, and it breaks the whole game.


This would be to powerful, and make taking Transports less worthwhile, and this is not coming from a biased standpoint either as I do not take many transports, most of my army is foot based except maybe 1 unit

Now a more realistic rule would be something like this

Take an initiative test for each model within the vehicle (= or less than models “I” 6 always fails)
Models that fail take 1 Strength 5/6 Hit with normal saves applying

This would represent the ability of the troops inside reacting to the situation, and if they are able to get out before the vehicle.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Most of what I want has already been covered:
-Cheaper plasma.
-Melta adds only D3 rather than D6.
-Exploding transports do lots of damage to embarked troops.
-FnP is 5+.
-Cover is 5+.
-Squads/vehicles can shoot at multiple targets (Make them pass a Ld test or something).
-Massive change to psychic powers, they're just shit and boring ATM.
-Charge reactions.
-etc, etc...


----------



## LordOfAbsolution (Jul 22, 2009)

was clearing out my house the other day 'cause we are planning to move out soon, and I found a 2ND EDITION 40k rulebook... I've not read it fully but the things I have picked up on, is the fact that each individual model counted as it's own firing point, e.g. have five marines, facing five directions and you have a 360 degree fire arc that can fire at different things... it's crazy


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

@LordOfAbsolution - You're half correct about second edition firing. Units still basically had to fire all at the same target typically the closes unit they could hurt, and following a targeting priority beyond that. Those rules did allow heavy/special weapons to fire at different targets, why waste a lascannon on a gretchin when there's a gobsmasha right next to it? BUT in 2nd ed the rules dictated that you had to carefully draw line and arc from each individual model and then roll shots/wounds/saves. Every model wasn't an autonomous shooter, every model was checked for ability and LOS more stringently. 

Casualties were also the exact model being shot at, there was no 'choosing to remove' from a unit. So if my third marine could was half an inch out of range from your next remaining Eldar guardian, that's where the shooting stopped. It wasn't so much unit to unit (I know I'm simplifying the current system here).

In many cases it was a LOT more detail than needed to be in the shooting phase. 5 marines firing 4 bolt guns and a missile launcher could take a while. 


 Declare ALL shots based on perceived range and LOS for all units you believe capable of firing
 Nominate a unit to begin firing (Complete this unit before moving on to another unit)
 Check range & firing model arc
 Calculating range to hit +/- modifiers from each available firing model
 Determine which models are all in range of the same models and with the same to hit modifiers and all using the same ballistic skill and same weapon - This was often only a few shots at a time.
 1- Roll those grouped shots together
 2- Roll to wound
 3- Roll to save (including calculating adjusted armor save from saving throw modifiers - these I miss, they made heavybolters useful against MEQ )
 4- Remove casualties
 Repeat the previous 4 steps for remaining shots within this unit that have unique sets of to-hit modifiers, Ballistic skill, and weapons
 Check morale (this might have waited until the end of the shooting phase, or maybe routed units just fled at the end of the phase if they failed a morale check)
 Nominate a second firing unit for which you declared targets

Plus any special rules by unit, weapon, army etc.

I loved second edition but it many ways it was still too close to a pen and paper rpg, like Rogue trader was. Much detail was in the wrong places. It made for a more precise game, but often not a better one or a more fun one.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> Most of what I want has already been covered:
> -Cheaper plasma.
> -Melta adds only D3 rather than D6.
> -Exploding transports do lots of damage to embarked troops.
> ...


...
-Armour modifiers rather than AP.
-Change ID to the rules in that fake 6th ed rulebook.
-Sniper weapons get to allocate wounds.
-Up the price of transports.
-Give infantry the ability to be issued general orders from their squad leader on a Ld test.
-Give vehicle weapons firing arcs like in BFG (Eg; Front, left, right, back, all round, etc...).
-Going to ground gives 5+ CS or +1 to an existing CS.
-Not that I think GW would do anything this extreme, but I'd like to see a complete revamp of vehicle damage. Something akin to this:


Me said:


> Each Tank has a certain amount of HP.
> Roll to penetrate as normal; Glancing hit = Shaken on 1-3, stunned on 4-5, crit on 6.
> Penetrating hit = HP damage equal to amount armour was beaten by, in addition roll a D6 on a 1-3 tank is stunned on 4+ suffers a crit (Weapon destroyed, immobilized, crew injured, extra HP dmg, ect, etc...).
> once 0 Hp, vehicle is destroyed (wrecked/explodes).


-etc, etc...


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

I would like to see a vehical damage chart like this.

1 Shaken
2 Stunned
3 Weapon Destroyed
4 Immobilized (Units inside transport are wounded with str 3 wounds)
5 Immobilized (units inside transport are wounded with str 4 wounds)
6 Wrecked (units inside transport are wounded with str 5 wounds, and pinning check)
7+ Explodes units are wounded with str 6 wounds and no armour saves allowed.

Open top does not reduce the str of the attacks anymore.


----------

