# 6th Edition



## InfiniteSwarm (Sep 2, 2011)

Lets talk 6th edition since it will probably becoming out within the year.
what are the changes you'd like to see and and what would you like to keep.
all thoughts are welcome.


----------



## kaboot (Jan 4, 2012)

I think theres has already been a leak with all the new rules. Not sure if it was a "final draft" or not. 

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/10/network-news-this-just-in-6th-ed-leak-can-it-be-true/

Check that out


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/01/6e-leak-its-fake-its-bad-and-its-dumb.html

Plus, I'm sure this thread has deen done _quite_ a few times before.

Midnight


----------



## experiment 626 (Apr 26, 2007)

My understanding was that those so-called 'leaked rules' have been written off as complete fabrications and/or super early drafs?



As for what I want to see?
A new Daemons book that unfairly picks on GK players the way they pick on us!:threaten:

Okay, all joking aside, I'm hoping that 6th ed does for 40k, what 8th ed has done for Fantasy...
Personally, I just find 5th ed to be insanely boring to play as it's devolved into nothing but MSU mech-spam of various flavours. I want to see infantry armies again, and themed forces become viable instead of being forced into spam builds just to stay competitive.

Basically, I want less focus on just 'winning' and bring back the narrative aspect with new missions that have multiple levels of objectives that need to be achived, instead of just;
a) annihilate the other guys
b) play 'capture the flag'
c) play 'bloodbowl with guns'

I'd also like to see the abusive crap like wound allocation shinanigans get kicked in the face and beaten down silly with the nerfhammer!


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

I would like... tactics to play a greater role. For the most important decisions to be on the table; rather than in the list building.

Not hopeful though.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

kaboot said:


> I think theres has already been a leak with all the new rules. Not sure if it was a "final draft" or not.
> 
> http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/10/network-news-this-just-in-6th-ed-leak-can-it-be-true/
> 
> Check that out


I hope a lot of that is false. Otherwise I'll play 40K like I do D&D.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

experiment 626 said:


> Okay, all joking aside, I'm hoping that 6th ed does for 40k, what 8th ed has done for Fantasy...


So you want the game to be almost unplayable at a competitive level without heavy comp?

I want more objective based missions, couldn't give half a shit about narrative, but i understand that some people love that, so i would like to see that play a part as well. Maybe some narrative scenarios and a build your own narrative guide.

I want cover to either be reduced to 5+ or make it more difficult to get in general.

Consolidate into combat should make a comeback in some form

Vehicles stay the same

Wound allocation changed up a bit

5th ed is almost perfect, a few small tweaks would make it an absolutely fantastic game as opposed to a great game.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm with McMuffin I'd rather they went over the existing rules with a fine tooth comb and ironed out the inconsistencies and vagueness. A few tweaks rather than a complete rewrite.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Also, the way things work now.

1: Melee is horrible. I mean, you can have melee units. But melee armies can't do shit any more.

2: This is partly due to the massive buff vehicles got with 5th. This needs to be addressed as 40k was always about infantry with vehicles, not infantry _in_ vehicles. The whole game. I'm not saying make vehicles suck. I'm saying rebalance it.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I want them to go balls out crazy with the mission selection, mix in the three standard scenarios with some random modifiers. Roll up scenario and deployment but have a table of shit that messes with the masses. 
1: Play cityfight rules
2: play jungle fight rules
3: dangerous fauna
4: night fight
5: siege
6: no special rules

something like that but with more of it, it would mean that taking an all mech list could work against you if you rolled jungle fight or that having a kan wall would be actually cinematic if you are attacking a fortified position.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

My list of things I'd like:

Re-balance the game to make foot armies a viable option again. I'd love to try a Sisters Horde army but as it stands it's not feasible so it won't happen.

Add more missions. I'd like to see at least 6 personally. Maybe bring back some of the old ones (Meat Grinder perhaps?).

Adjust cover saves would be nice. A 4+ is nice but really it should be a universal 5+ with modifiers. Or perhaps cover negates AP to allow for regular saves (as most of the energy is burnt up punching through the cover)? I know there is a more detailed cover system in the main rulebook, but honestly I've yet to see the 5 or 6+ reasons come up.

Less specific to the rule set for 40K I'd like to get a real solid update for Sisters of Battle. A nice thick rulebook with a lot of background material, nice rules, pretty pictures and plastic models.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm of the same thinking as mcmuffin, 5th ed is a fantastic game, the best edition yet. What it needs are a few tweaks and not a re write. 

A de-emphasis on mechanised armies, close combat armies made more viable (bring back consolidation?) and the universal cover save being 5+ rather than 4+ would be my preferred changes. 

I certainly don't want 6th edition to do to 40k what 8th edition fantasy did to that game, ie; kill it competitively whilst also making casual players cry. (though i feel that if they just balanced the magic better [taking out the super spells] it would be a good game as some of the mechanics are solid and there have been some fantastic releases for it).


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Whoops, didn't see my previous post.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

I have played siege style games before where the attacker gets 2000 points, and the defender gets 1200, but a very defensible position.

Also, Capture the Flag. That would be awesome.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

a bigger table for missions, anything bigger than the crappy 3x3 table we have.

rules for team games

slight nerf on vehicle damage chart

allow "turret" weapons to shoot at a different unit than the rest of the tank (so dakka preds are more viable etc) - this would be done to counter the nerf'd vehicle damage chart. net result more destructive & can be killed easier.

----

hopefully the BRB will come with some updated Apoc, CoD, Spearhead, and planet strike rules (IE like having the superheavy damage/USR chart). this way GW can release more apoc formation books & sell lots of models.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Iron Angel said:


> I have played siege style games before where the attacker gets 2000 points, and the defender gets 1200, but a very defensible position.
> 
> Also, Capture the Flag. That would be awesome.


Yeh I for one would like to see more of this sort of stuff. Put balance into the game using the parameters of the mission, that way if you opponent wants to use a big force but you only have a small number of models you can still have a game. 

Something like a scout team having to run away from a pursuing horde or whatever.


----------



## Grogbart (Aug 29, 2010)

I'd like to see all targets of shooting, having to be designated before resolving the fist shot. Furthermore, instead of resolving shots unit by unit of the shooting army, resolving them unit by unit of the targeted army. And of course getting a consistent system wound allocation (the only one of my wishes that seems not to be mine alone).

As for cover saves and saves in general.
Cover saves mostly being about obscured vision, I would get rid of cover saves altogether and make cover affect the to hit roll (like having to re-roll successful to hit rolls).
Splitting the remaining invulnerable saves into forcefield, dodge, psychic and divine/demonic saves (or some such conglomeration). Throw Feel no Pain into the mix and have them as additional saves like FnP is now, only with different condition for each one (FnP as it is, forcefields additional to armour saves, dodge instead, psychic requiring an additional psyker test if successful... just making things up on the spot here!)

And a little something that bothers me too. Why is it more dangerous for an Assault Marine to jump off a hill, than it is for a guardsman to try putting a krak grenade on a tank, moving full speed? I'd see the later one to be more fitting for a dangerous terrain test, wouldn't you?


----------



## LordOfAbsolution (Jul 22, 2009)

I want the typical stuff, like cover saves that make sense ( a tree does not have the same safe as a wall), more missions, etc. as well as expanded rules for psykers the whole new psyker mastery level that matt ward introduced is nice, but I want more coverage of the psyker rules than just half a page in the BRB.

I liked the Reaction Fire rule in the leaked version but make it more in depth, and not as OP as Flames of War do it -_-.

as well as split fire! I get for simplicity they have it the way they do, but make it do then the squad leader has to roll a LD test to pass it or something, and make it so then takes can do it automatically... 

Like compare it to real life now-a-days, if a squad comes under fire from several different direction, the sergeant isn't going to be a retard and tell everyone to fire in one direction first and then another, he's going to split his squad to cover the most field of fire and suppress, sure less shots off in one direction but a better tactical solution... and tanks, if the tank commander is ranging in the main gun to fire at an enemy tank or building, the machine gunner on top or at the front IS NOT going to start firing at said enemy tank or building as well, he's going to provide fire support against enemy infantry... so in 38,000 years time the squad leaders and tank commanders are not able to do that? yeah, right... /rant


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Grogbart said:


> I'd like to see all targets of shooting, having to be designated before resolving the fist shot.


This would break certain mechanics, and make taking infantry an even _more_ undesirable choice.


----------



## Grogbart (Aug 29, 2010)

Grogbart said:


> I'd like to see all targets of shooting, having to be designated before resolving the fist shot.





Iron Angel said:


> This would break certain mechanics, and make taking infantry an even _more_ undesirable choice.


Could you please elaborate on both of these claims?
The only thing I can think of being broken right now, is the current searchlight, but that's hardly an insurmountable obstacle in my eyes.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Grogbart said:


> Could you please elaborate on both of these claims?
> The only thing I can think of being broken right now, is the current searchlight, but that's hardly an insurmountable obstacle in my eyes.


I'm a little lost, how is the Searchlight broken? It allows you to target something without checking during a Night Fight, sure, but at the same time everything else can target you too.


----------



## Obinhi (Dec 30, 2008)

I could be reading the cover saves wrong, but the way me and my buddies understand it, my poor gaurdsmen can in theory provide hull down to my tanks just by standing in front of the tank. Then to top it off they do not get damages by providing cover, what happens, the attacker feels bad about creaming some troopers with multimeltas? If I am right about this and it shows up in 6th, I will be sad for everyone.

It would be nice to be able to suppress people. If the eldar are so worried about losses, I should not be able to kill all of them with one well placed battle cannon, they should be able to get down enough to at least have a chance.

I also agree with the fact that cover needs something done about it. I'm liking the cover effecting to hit, not to wound idea.

I am guilty of a mech vet list from time to time, but I would love to be able to really use the 160 troops that are collecting dust on a shelf. To see the horde roam free again and only haveing to worry about 60% dead would be wonderful.

Most of my games I play are lunch time 1000 point quickies, but I would love to have more missions and more involved stuff for weekend parties and stuff like that. And fix the damn codexes. It seems like the codex writers have been trying to one up each other this ed to the detrement of some. My IG are now have the mechine god as a personal patron, but what happened to the poor tau? Half of thier armys war gear was useful in forth ed...

Oh and recombine Chaos and Demons, that way the grey knights will have to do more then just show up to win against the terrors of the warp.:biggrin:


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

Zion said:


> I'm a little lost, how is the Searchlight broken? It allows you to target something without checking during a Night Fight, sure, but at the same time everything else can target you too.


Zion, what he was saying was it'd break things like search lights and targeting troops pouring out of transports because all targets would be picked ahead of time. Though it wouldn't break them, still fire search light vehicles first and anything to follow would still get the benefits.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Grogbart said:


> Could you please elaborate on both of these claims?
> The only thing I can think of being broken right now, is the current searchlight, but that's hardly an insurmountable obstacle in my eyes.


Examples from my own army.

Triarch stalkers. Whatever they hit, if something else shoots at them, it counts as twin linked.

If I have to declare all shooting like that, then what if my Stalker misses? Then I'm wasting firepower on something I don't get the twin-linked bonus to, firepower that could have been used more effectively somewhere else.

As for infantry being more undesirable, it ties in with the previous. Why take more, cheaper infantry when you can take massive tanks and just overkill each unit with a single unit shooting at it? It punishes MSU and rewards FLU. An FLU army with two units shoots at an MSU army's units and kills them both. Just like it normally would. But an MSU army has to divvy up firepower using basically an educated guess, and will likely end up wasting firepower. MSU would be completely wrecked. If you dedicate what you think will be five infantry units worth of shooting at a unit, and the first two units completely annihilate it, those other three units are basically not shooting at all that turn. You can't approximate it all that well, since this is a dice game. Being liberal with your targeting means a few good rolls cripples several of your own units. Being conservative means a few bad ones makes your whole shooting phase irrelevant.

Armor is already way too desirable in 5th. Lets not make it worse.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Lord Azune said:


> Zion, what he was saying was it'd break things like search lights and targeting troops pouring out of transports because all targets would be picked ahead of time. Though it wouldn't break them, still fire search light vehicles first and anything to follow would still get the benefits.


That makes sense now.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Yeah, piling out of transports as well. But that would actually make infantry insanely broken in the overpowered way, because you would have no way to shoot a unit that just came out of a transport, and no reason to ever just drop your cargo off out of assault range. This also makes transports even more deadly, the thing we are trying to _not_ do.

It just wouldn't work for anyone.


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

I concur, that would destroy shooty armies.. like Necron. Our CC is crap for the most part. (yes yes, lynchguard and wraiths.)


----------



## Obinhi (Dec 30, 2008)

I dont know I kind of feel like CC should be less effective then guns. I mean look at history to see how well beinging a knife to a gun fight worked. That said, I do think dedicated CC armys should get buffs of some sort to stay alive as they get accross the map. I know people like to say the DoA tatic works super well for them, but when my BA buddy did that, his crap came in peice meal and it ended up being a slaughter.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Its less that they need survivability, than transports and armor need to be less powerful. This is coming from a Necron player who has some of the most powerful transports in the game.


----------



## Scythes (Dec 30, 2011)

I'd like to see cover saves adjusted, anything sitting in or mostly in cover gets a 4+ save. That's better than the armour save some models get so why not stick them in cover and just camp. I suppose this would mean adjusting a few other rules such as LoS too, but I think it would make the game a bit more realistic. 

That's about it really, only other thing I'd like to see doens't really have to do with core rules. I'd like to see the extra books like from 3rd edition I think it was to make things like craftworlds, specific IG regiments, maybe give some tomb worlds alternate rules, things like that. It would help in being able to make more customizable lists.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Cover is funny in 5th and its in no small part to TLOS. While I wholeheartedly support TLOS as it makes the battlefield a lot more fluffy, it generated a few issues.

The boost to 4+ was also weird. Some armies don't even care about cover saves as their armor saves are better than 4+ anyway like Necrons or SM, so the only thing they need to hide from is AP3 or better (or other very powerful weapons). Others, like Guard or Tau, have horrible saves, so putting them in cover really enhances their survivability to a massive degree (Assuming they aren't in transports, which also get near-broken cover saves). If the cover save just went back to 5+ you'd see a lot more tactical movement as camping in cover is no longer the best option. DE and Tau would have a hissy fit but as these are armies that just park transports in cover this would force them to actually move a bit more and respond to threats (Since there would be more of them).


----------



## experiment 626 (Apr 26, 2007)

I'd like to see some major changes to the FOC. Basically, it needs to scale since games are getting larger and it needs more freedom to allow for theming - especially for older books who are likely to sit around for another 2-3 years before getting a re-do!

The current chart tends to work pretty well for 1500pts and under right now, but I honestly find that come even 1750-1850pts I'm easily running out of slots in certain areas.
Hell, by 2000pts I'm close to filling up the entire chart at times depending on the army!


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

-Base cover save changed to 5+ basis, but allow ruins to still give 4+.
-Rework the mandatory terrain rules for standard games (Min 25% max 50% of board).
-Make pinning checks have a built in -2 or -1 to leadership.
-Make triple weapon skill opponents hit on a 2+ WS9 vs WS3 for instance.
-Make deep striking more safe and reliable (You know for those of us not of the nid or space marine variety)
-Rework kill points system. Units under 150pts=1 kill point. Units 150-300=2 kill points. Units 300+=3 kill points.


----------



## ArchangelPaladin (Jul 7, 2010)

Change up Sweeping advance, a 5 count squad shouldn’t be able to wipe out a 30 count squad because they killed one more guy. It should be something more like every model in the wining unit gets a free auto hit(then role to wound & save) You can even make a new universal rule that lets some units get two hits. Fearless need to be a pro rather than a con, nothing sucks more than no retreat wounds. Honestly no retreat needs to be removed completely. 

Make squad leaders more important. As long as a squad leader is alive the unit can always attempt to regroup. Also change the % requirements for moral test, by this I mean a unit can still try to regroup if it’s above 25% strength instead of 50%, and during shooting make it so a unit only has to take a test if more than 50% have been killed instead of 25%. Hell if we’re really wish listing and dreaming of genie, I’d get rid of moral all together, it’s a realistic mechanic, but it isn’t much fun. 

Defensive weapons should be up to strength 5, and should be able to target a different unit then the main guns.

More modifiers to the vehicle dmg chart. Str 10 gets +2 and str 9 = +1. I’ll let the pros decide if str 8 should get a plus, but 5-7 shouldn’t get anything, and str 4 and less should get -1. A Rending hit should get +1. Armor plates need to be -1. Also allow damage to be less than 1 so if you glance and roll a 1 or 2 you don’t do anything. 

Then of course the normal stock of replies: +5 cover, more missions, victory points instead of kill points, anything that removes unnecessary complexity but retains core mechanics.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd like the squadron rule to have an overhaul. It makes sense that fast squadrons would leave behind an immobile vehicle (so it counts as destroyed) But a leman russ that rarely moves and costs maybe 3 times a viper getting destroyed on an immobilised result seems off. 
Cover saves seem fairly standard in their need for change and the sweeping advance seems to punish low init armies too much especially as they're generally having to weather incomming attacks before they get to do anything.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

I believe everyone wants cover to go to 5+, because that definitely needs to be done.

5 + Cover saves -

Defensive up to strength 5 - (Heavy bolters need to be useful, as they are completely worthless right now)

Swap Melta and Plasma weapons in either costs or in the gets hot rule - 0 Reason currently to take Plasma over Melta (More expensive + can blow up own dudes? really?)

Transports need to be more hazardous to their occupants - Something like if your transport blows up from ordnance weapons everyone takes an auto wound (armor allowed) Parking lot games are boring.

Integrate Imperial Armor rules and other side games (Cities of Death, Apoc etc...) into the main rule set so they can be played freely -


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Archangel, you had some good ideas, but which have history with GW.



ArchangelPaladin said:


> Change up Sweeping advance, a 5 count squad shouldn’t be able to wipe out a 30 count squad because they killed one more guy. It should be something more like every model in the wining unit gets a free auto hit(then role to wound & save) You can even make a new universal rule that lets some units get two hits. Fearless need to be a pro rather than a con, nothing sucks more than no retreat wounds. Honestly no retreat needs to be removed completely.


As a chaos player I'm totally onboard for removing no retreat.

The sweeping advance rule is there, much like the fantasy equivalent, to speed up the game. The idea isn't necessarily that the pursuing unit has Killed every enemy, but in that sort of pursuit the unit has been either killed or hopelessly broken - with no hope of regrouping. And I'm not convinced it is worse than long protracted combats lasting many rounds. Chiefly, because if the rules don't support assault being strong and decisive, it isn't worth the effort of crossing the table and getting stuck in compared to setting up marines napoleonic style - which is incredibly boring.



ArchangelPaladin said:


> Make squad leaders more important. As long as a squad leader is alive the unit can always attempt to regroup. Also change the % requirements for moral test, by this I mean a unit can still try to regroup if it’s above 25% strength instead of 50%, and during shooting make it so a unit only has to take a test if more than 50% have been killed instead of 25%. Hell if we’re really wish listing and dreaming of genie, I’d get rid of moral all together, it’s a realistic mechanic, but it isn’t much fun.


I'm a fan of increasing the opportunities for units to regroup. In second Ed. 25% was the minimum you needed and it wasn't an issue. But I'm wagering GW made this change for game speed / decisiveness reasons too. I think the game really does need morale though. The point of the game isn't fighting until every last model is dead . . . Unless you're tyranids and you missed breakfast. Do you find morale equally unfun as both inflictor of morale tests and taker of morale tests? I know I always cringe when I fail a morale check, but I appreciate it when the enemy does. =)

Oh, and normally I wouldn't point it out, but morale has an 'e' on the end. It occurred to me though, that if there were "moral" checks and "morale" checks then think how funny slaanesh troops would be. They would automatically pass every morale check . . . and automatically fail every moral check!



ArchangelPaladin said:


> More modifiers to the vehicle :good: chart. Str 10 gets +2 and str 9 = +1. I’ll let the pros decide if str 8 should get a plus, but 5-7 shouldn’t get anything, and str 4 and less should get -1. A Rending hit should get +1. Armor plates need to be -1. Also allow damage to be less than 1 so if you glance and roll a 1 or 2 you don’t do anything.
> 
> Then of course the normal stock of replies: +5 cover, more missions, victory points instead of kill points, anything that removes unnecessary complexity but retains core mechanics.


I think those vehicle rules would make vehicles more vulnerable, and I'm not sure if that's necessarily better - despite the vehicle heavy meta-game.

Honestly cover saves aren't the problem. The entire AP system is pretty stupid. 40K needs saving throw modifiers added back in like fantasy battle. They were there before 2nd Ed and they made weapons and armor far more interested and varied. The all or nothing approach is pretty awful. Mind you modifiers don't need to be as inconsistent as they were in 2nd. 

Kill points vs. Victory pts - this is another rule that used to be the other way around. Victory points weren't a bad system per say, but they encouraged player to min-max their unit points to just under the cut-off. Depending on how armies structured their unit costs some armies became pretty obnoxious. It used to be 1 victory point per full 100 points a unit cost . . . So our local league saw a Lot of 99, 199, and 299 point units. A friend of mine even devised a 1500 pt tyranid army in second Ed that was incredibly tough and if you killed the whole army was worth like 8 points instead of the normal 13-17. I know kill points aren't perfect but which do you think is worse?

And on your last point sometimes complexity is a good thing, even when it's not "necessary" the variability of lists from 2nd Ed (armies were based on percentages rather than a strict per choice chart - and it scaled perfectly well), despite being complicated, made for much more interesting games.



Taggerung said:


> Swap Melta and Plasma weapons in either costs or in the gets hot rule - 0 Reason currently to take Plasma over Melta (More expensive + can blow up own dudes? really?)
> 
> Transports need to be more hazardous to their occupants - Something like if your transport blows up from ordnance weapons everyone takes an auto wound (armor allowed) Parking lot games are boring.


I like the plasma melta idea, especially with the vehicle heavy meta making meltaguns more expensive makes sense.

The transport thing . . . The current vehicle survivability rules are in response to the last 3 editions where vehicles were death traps. Vehicles hit by ordinance, which is pretty common, and destroyed with 6's I think resulted in unit killed. Which is a huge gamble in 40k terms, and was likely hurting vehicle model sales.

Having started playing before 2nd ed, I can vouch for the questionability of rhinos in previous editions. They were casualty boxes waiting for the enemy to shoot them.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Here is another suggestion for the next edition remove or revamp plasma pistols. Most models come with a pistol stock so paying the same cost as a plasma rifle for one shot on the move is stupid, especially considering how its only assessable to a handful of units ina given army.


----------



## Antonius (Jan 10, 2012)

Basically, i think that we need to bring certain army types (foot marine etc) back up to a competitive standpoint, rather than simply who has the most cans (and i play mech IG so that equals many). Infantry should somehow be more capable of dealing with tanks (maybe bring back the firing point open topped rule from 4th Ed), as all "solid" army builds in this edition seem to be a case of "spam this, spam that". I would much prefer it if it was possible to avoid all of this "powergaming" and make weaker units more effective (such as Devvy Marines, VVets, Whirlwinds etc). However, i might be a little sad if they nerf transports too much (and tbf all of this EV stuff is adding complexity, and GW has a tendency to SIMPLIFY the ruleset). 5th edition was much better than 4th, but i think it is time for games to simply be less of a case of moving rhinos around and the more classic and cinematic battles. And perhaps bringing back weapons that are now rendered almost redundant (Lascannons) back into the fold could never be a bad thing (could add lance rule if desired).
My tuppence worth
Antonius


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Kreuger said:


> I like the plasma melta idea, especially with the vehicle heavy meta making meltaguns more expensive makes sense.
> 
> The transport thing . . . The current vehicle survivability rules are in response to the last 3 editions where vehicles were death traps. Vehicles hit by ordinance, which is pretty common, and destroyed with 6's I think resulted in unit killed. Which is a huge gamble in 40k terms, and was likely hurting vehicle model sales.
> 
> Having started playing before 2nd ed, I can vouch for the questionability of rhinos in previous editions. They were casualty boxes waiting for the enemy to shoot them.


Yea I knew about the death boxes in old editions and I don't think those rules should come back because of how bad transports were for the costs. I don't think an auto wound for everyone is nearly as bad as it was since it won't totally screw over independent characters. I just wish they could have a balance between parking lots and hordes, and making transports a bit more hazardous may help that.


----------



## TechPr1est (Nov 6, 2011)

god damn sweeping advances piss me off 

i played a game yesterday (for the first time) my 15 ork boyz assaulted 5 imperial guardsman, my orks killed 4 (shitty ws roll) and the guardsman killed 5 orks i failed morale check by 1 !!! then the one guardsman did a sweeping advance and killed all ten orks!!!!!!!!


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Totally fair Taggerung. I think a save per model isn't egregious, but guard and ork players might feel differently!

I'd like to see the rule change to increase weapon useful variety. Heavy bolters are pretty much trash considering the ubiquity of MEq. Under the save mod system almost everything had a place and a statistical point where it was useful.

However I think in all honesty the greatest single improvement GW could make to 40k in it's next edition is a revamp and rewrite of their rules language. All rules should be carefully worded to correspond with a strict convention on rules language. . . Establishing a real rules-set jurisprudence. GW should have editorial controls and technical writers in place to ensure that precisely correct language is used both in the big rule book, and each ensuing codex. 

Rules arguments should be obviated by clear concise authorship.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

TechPr1est said:


> god damn sweeping advances piss me off
> 
> i played a game yesterday (for the first time) my 15 ork boyz assaulted 5 imperial guardsman, my orks killed 4 (shitty ws roll) and the guardsman killed 5 orks i failed morale check by 1 !!! then the one guardsman did a sweeping advance and killed all ten orks!!!!!!!!


History is full of instances where a numerically superior foe was annihilated by the lesser force because they broke and ran.

I like the sweeping advance, particularly in situations like this, gives the hordes a bit of pause for thought rather than just assaulting willy nilly.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I think the problem isn't really that transports are too good, they only went down a small amount of points here and there and got a single table instead of two tables and suddenly became more effective. Who wants to spend 50 points on a Rhino that is pretty much screwed on a penetrating hit AND on a glance of a 6 (turning THAT also into a Penetrating hit. Basically there were 7 Penetrating hit results, and 5 Glancing results. Vehicles used to be JUNK)? Not very many people. 

I think the problem now is that vehicles are finally at the point where they play well for their points but either the infantry is too expensive or just not able to cover the same gaps as effectively as the vehicles can to make foot heavy lists as viable outside of the Guard Blobs and Green Tide lists (For Example: Sure I -CAN- take 20 Battle Sisters in a squad, but I'm limited to 2 Special Weapons, or 1 Special and 1 Heavy, and if I take the heavy I don't get the mobility I need to chase down my opponent and put my numbers to good use, but if I stick to smaller squads I can bring more tanks that allow me to shore up those problems fairly effortlessly, AND without sacrificing mobility or firepower to do it, often for a reasonable price tag to boot! So it's not that tanks are overpowered, it's that when they were improved to be actually viable, they didn't see how it'd affect the foot slogging aspect of the game, which became rather worse. It's not broken, just a little unbalanced at the moment.). 

So I don't really think vehicles need a nerf since they spent 4 Editions being rolling junk heaps, but rather foot lists need a boost to make them more effective. Maybe make it so non-relentless units can move and fire heavy weapons at -1 BS (or maybe at a -2 BS or maybe even make it at half their BS. The idea is to bring functionality back into the armies, not make USRs useless afterall) so they can still use them, but you not only show that they can't hit as well firing from the hip, but also give the armies a reason to take those toys they never take.

I think the cover save system isn't BAD, it just needs to be tweaked a little. MAybea 5+ for a 50% covered model (or for shooting through enemy units (misses resolving against the unit they shot through for non-templates!) and area terrain like forests), a 4+ for a 75% model and a 3+ for 100% covered model (mostly for scattered templates or Barrage templates that hit on the other side of a tall wall or vehicle but still manages to cover a couple models). And a 6+ for anything that is less than 50% but at least 25%. Units could calculate the same as individual models, rounding up for percentages (so if you had an odd number of models you would need 4.5, but instead 5 models in cover to claim the 5+).

The Rapid Fire rule from the "leaked" 6th edition document doesn't seem to bad. 2 shots at full range if you don't move, 1 shot if you do, and 3 shots at half range if you don't move and 2 if you do would make a lot of armies really happy. But then we'd likely see a rise in Tau players. Either way I think Rapid Fire range should be half of the max range of the weapon, not a fixed number. That way you could have more variety between armies based on what they use and it's range instead of all the Rapid Fire weapons acting the same at 12".

I think Fearless needs to keep it's No Retreat rule, but make it a leadership test as normal, with extra wounds being dealt if they fail. After all there is a difference between "Fearless" and "Reckless". On a similar note I think Rage should turn into a Leadership test each turn (no Fearless would not let you auto-pass it) to give the unit a chance to control their fury and focus it towards something more than the closest enemy unit. It'd make them still unreliable (especially if units with Rage had a leadership of around 6 or 7 instead of the unusually high numbers they get) to an extent but give the player a chance to use them more effectively. 

Snipers should be more effective. I'm still not sure how without making them extremely cheesy (after all they shouldn't all be Vindicare Assassins), maybe in addition to pinning they could decrease the armor save by 1 (to represent the accuracy and of those kinds of shots, aiming at weaknesses in their opponent's armor, or soft parts of their body)?

That's all I've got for the moment. Having originally started with 3rd, and then restarting in 5th I have to say the game has gotten a LOT better in recent years. It could just use a few small things to really balance it all out so we can see more dynamic army builds and make the less optimum choices of 5th become viable ones of 6th.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Kreuger said:


> Totally fair Taggerung. I think a save per model isn't egregious, but guard and ork players might feel differently!
> 
> I'd like to see the rule change to increase weapon useful variety. Heavy bolters are pretty much trash considering the ubiquity of MEq. Under the save mod system almost everything had a place and a statistical point where it was useful.
> 
> ...


Completely agree. Heavy Bolters are so useless right now. They need to be at least Heavy 4 or Assault 3 to be useful. Look at the guard codex...Heavy bolter and Autocannons are the same cost?! Who in the right mind would take heavy bolters?!

Note: Open Topped vehicles I think would be exempt from that rule. They would take full squad hits and role to wound normally (At strength 3), just like they do now.


----------



## Mitnal (Jan 20, 2012)

Make it that if you take a transport, units have to be in the transport when it gets deployed to the board(I exploit this to the max). Drop pod contention is the worst


----------

