# Wishlisting changes for 7th Edition



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Well, based on the rumors (to which I don't lend much credit, but who knows, they might well be true) that 7th Edition is in the distant cards, what rules changes and tweaks do you want to see?

I can think of one right off the bat: making Iron Arm the Biomancy Primaris power, but making it only +1 S and T rather than D3.

I wish that smoke launchers granted Shrouded rather than 5+ cover, certainly.

Monstrous creatures... well, let's be honest. They're the kings of 6e, thanks to being so damned hard to kill. A vehicle, even an AV 14 vehicle, can die with one shot. Not so a 6 wound T8 monstrous creature. We need some way to kill monstrous creatures. Multiple wounds from blast templates like from swarms, perhaps? A S10 Vindi blast might still wipe out 250 points of marines in a single blast, but heaven forbid it inflict more than a single wound on a monstrous creature. That can change.

What do you guys want to see? What pet peeves do you have that you want to be addressed? Do you want to make Assault more powerful, again, somehow? Do you want to modify how fliers work? If so, how do you to do such things without breaking the game balance?


----------



## Moriouce (Oct 20, 2009)

To start with adressing your items of wishlisting an addition to the ordnance rule that make these weapons do D3 wound when wounding. Like some weapons did in 2d edition. 

Now for mine. 
Fliers are great fun but few are competetive. It sucks that most standard weapons can threaten most fliers. A rule that states that only weapons with a range of 18 or longer may fire snapshots against fliers would make them more resilient. 

Chargerange up from 2d6 to 6+d6, making it less of a gamble if you reach or not. 

Sniper USR disallow Look Out Sir! And LOS wounds always allocate to the nearest model to the character. 

That is it for me


----------



## Eva (Mar 16, 2010)

For 40k to go back to 40k. Instead of Apocalypse lite.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

I'd be happy if GW realised that a game can 'forge a narrative' AND be competitive at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.


----------



## The Irish Commissar (Jan 31, 2012)

I know this wont happen but to go back to been able to assault from transport and from outflanking. It made mist combat unit viable and was more fun. Also I would like to be able to pick my psychic powers again :good:


----------



## Old Man78 (Nov 3, 2011)

Split fire for heavy and special weapon guys in a squad would be nice


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

Hmm one rule I always thought was a bit weird was the Overwatch rule. I don't mine the theory behind it, but there will always be situations where those assaulted simply cannot react fast enough to shoot.

I would change overwatch so that the assaulted group would need to do a initiative test against those that assault them. If the assaulted wins, they get to fire - If they don't, they are attacked before they can react and no overwatch is is possible.

Another would be charging - If you don't make your charge, you should be able to move half the range of your supposed failed charge. After all, it makes no sense that if a unit has 10' to their target, they roll a 9 and they just keep standing there. Naturally this could be exploited somewhat, but there are ways around it I believe.


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

Nordicus said:


> I would change overwatch so that the assaulted group would need to do a initiative test against those that assault them. If the assaulted wins, they get to fire - If they don't, they are attacked before they can react and no overwatch is is possible.


I thought about this, but I thought it would punish people for playing orks and other low Init armies. I think I'd rather wargear that comes in and has the same effect - like warp talons/banshees/wytches etc having that as a rule for example.

I'd like something to make walkers good again. I'm not sure what though.
I'd like the old rules for assaulting from vehicles - if the vehicle hasn't moved, then you can get out and assault. If you moved the vehicle first, then you can't.


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

Gret79 said:


> I thought about this, but I thought it would punish people for playing orks and other low Init armie


To be fair, they win by numbers instead of by efficiency, so I don't see the problem I must admit. Even if they don't get to overwatch (let's assume they loose the roll) then they normally have a absurd amount of models in there, that can hit back.

In any case, just a idea


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

I wasn't arguing, just offering a different view 

I'd like to see that rule in some form


----------



## Moriouce (Oct 20, 2009)

I hoped in vain when codex Eldar came out Clause bansheemask would have been great if it disallowed overwatch. Come on GW, give the ladies something!


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm actually finding it hard to find big things I would want changed. This is a pretty rounded version and most of the things I would like changed are actually codex related such as making the hell drakes flame weapon front arc only.


----------



## the_barwn (Jul 23, 2011)

It would be nice to be able to equip troops with 2 pistols & fire both of them at once


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

the_barwn said:


> It would be nice to be able to equip troops with 2 pistols & fire both of them at once


You mean as per the Gunslinger rule on pg 52 of the BRB?



> "All Models with two pistols can fire both in the Shooting phase. This follows the normal rules for shooting."



As to the original question...other than tightening up some of the strange wordings in the rules (Can characters infiltrate with a squad, exactly where do certain actions happen during a turn, etc) I like this ruleset and do not feel it needs any real changes. 

Like @humakt I think most of the "issues" in this current edition have been caused by the codexes.


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

Actually, I'd make it so psychic powers could be used on the turn you arrive from reserve.
Then I could buy a hemlock wraithfighter and enjoy using it.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Ah just remembered one:

Keep the random psychic powers, but rather (or in addition) than having a set primas power, allow people to 'pick' powers for an added cost, like some of the random tables in BFG. This allows strategies to be built around certain essential psychic powers, but there's a trade-off.

Plus more disciplines and pyromancy not sucking would be cool.


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

Explanding the rules on Inv saves. 

I want to see them broken down into types -Demonic, Force Shield, Reflex. and then allow diffrent bits of kit to avoid them... (the same bits of kit that are currently D Strength! )

Oh and make D Strenght Weapons into Strength 10+ Weapons.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

I don't think you need different invulns, just make dodge saves a speacial rule saying it's a x invuln but is ignored by template weapons for instance...


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

Shooting modifiers to stop taudar


----------



## Jdojo18 (May 8, 2012)

I really hope they go with the rumor of cover saves only losing -2 to cover denying weapons unless it's a template, in which case there are no cover saves. Tired of losing my cover save from 60" away when you can only see 10% of my model. Some units don't even need to see you anymore (tau).

I also hope that Monstrous creatures need to be covered 25% just like vehicles tog et a cover save. None of this "his foot is in the forest therefore I get a save" bs.

And one that I think would be kind of nuts, but we are wish listing after all: I think that the jink saves for skimmers and fliers should switch places and fliers should always get a 5+ while skimmers should have to fire snap shots to receive their save. If a flier is hit by skyfire weapons, then they lose their 5+ and can opt to jink and gain their 5+ back but having to fire snap shots.

peaking of Jink, there should have to be a minimum distance a vehicle or jetbike must move to go Flat Out. Going flat out means that you're pushing your vehicle to the limit, not moving an inch in your movement phase and another inch in the shooting phase.

I really hate skimmers and jetbikes if you can't tell


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Jdojo18 said:


> I also hope that Monstrous creatures need to be covered 25% just like vehicles tog et a cover save. None of this "his foot is in the forest therefore I get a save" bs.


Ooooh yes, that's one, certainly.

Assaulting out of transports... might make Rhinos a possible choice to take again, yes. I am hesitant to say assaulting from outflanking should be permitted, as great as that would be for my assaulty armies--shooting armies would be too damned powerless against an enemy that is impossible to ever shoot, aside from one Overwatch.

Hmm, yes warp charge and psykers could definitely use some simplification... simplification that might well allow generation of warp charge the turn one comes into play.

I can't help but feel that vehicles could use some sort of "native save" of some sort above any beyond simply an AV, to make them slightly tougher--a 5+ chance to ignore glances or something. I know that invuln has made my Daemon Engines much more rewarding to play, compared to the non-Daemonic vehicles I've run--you feel slightly less powerless in just accepting all these glances and pens. How this would stack with cover and invulns for vehicles is, of course... up to interpretation. Presumably you could only take one.

But I do agree with the sentiment expressed in some places here that certain codex tweaks are needed more than major rulebook tweaks.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

Just get rid of jink full stop, it's stupid that vehicles should have a carry around cover save. Flyers esspeacially, the buggers are hard enough to hit without jink!
But overall this edition is the codexs at fault, and overall they could be reasonably easy to fix if gw just got off of their arse!


----------



## The Weekly Wargamer (Oct 22, 2013)

What would I like to see? A change back to run and assault from fleet. That would actually allow for a competitive new codex non-MC spam list.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

An initiative test to overwatch? That would completely invalidate tau with 1 fell swoop. 

Mcs die rather quickly to flakk fire. I don't think vindicators need the option to chunk them. The way they receive cover needs to be looked at, as does the fmc crap where they're 'behind' that building out of Los and yet still considered swooping. That irks me. 

The allies system needs some sort of overhaul because the most broken combos in the game are directly related to mixing and cherry picking. 

2++ rerollable needs to burn. Make the reroll a 4 or 5+. Not a 2+/2+. 

Not a big fan of challenge spam tarpits. Keeping a daemon prince or abbadon killing 1 model a turn for several turns is pants.


----------



## JAMOB (Dec 30, 2010)

Ravner298 said:


> An initiative test to overwatch? That would completely invalidate tau with 1 fell swoop.


Not if there was some sort of gear that improved your chances. Also it's not like the only time they shoot is during overwatch...

I really like the fantasy shooting rules, and think cover should be like that, though moving and, for some weapons, long range, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I also like the fantasy AS rules better (no APs, just strength, as wouldn't a missile launcher be more likely to punch through terminators than a lasgun?) but I get why it's not that.


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

Simple tweaks.

Close Combat:

CC needs rebalancing. Charge Range needs sorting. Either make it D6+6" inches for charges or make it the flat 6 again. My preference is the latter because Fleet would allow Assault after running again, frankly flat 6 never needed changing and 12" for beasts is perfectly fine.

Related to this, CC needs Assault from Transports and Outflank again. Shooting needed Over-watch to stop rofl-stomping from transports. It got that. CC didn't need to lose assaulting from transports.

General Changes:

Allies: Allies now share the FOC and you select which HQ is the Primary army. This helps curb silly power-combos where Armies like CSM/BL and Tau/Farsight which work because they abuse the extra slots. 

Flyers - Need to occupy the force organization with their own slot, with a maximum of 2 per army imo; transports that fly should be treated as skimmers. 

Monstrous Creatures - Need 25% to get cover save. FMC's grounded test when wounded, not hit.

A few other tweaks, but its late and I'll get back to you.


----------



## Igni Ferroque (Dec 7, 2010)

Section 1 is my serious contribution to this thread, read that, section 2 is my less serious take on what needs to be changed. 


*Section 1*
I've said this before 6th came out. They need to change the weapon skill chart to make it more beneficial when units have incredibly high weapon skill. At this moment in time, something with WS 1 at min has a 33% chance to hit a something else in close combat even if it is out matched by a close combat monster. Said monsters have the max chance of 66% chance of hitting in close combat even when they overwhelmingly out match their opponent in close combat.

Let me give you an example. The Swarmlord, one of the Universe's most lethal close combat warrior, against a Gretchin, one of the Universe's most pathetic close combat warriors, gains no real benefit from the fact he has a massive advantage in WS. He only has 1/3rd more of a chance of hitting the sniveling little wretches in close combat. No matter how many wars and battles this creature has been through. How many great champions it has dueled with and won, dueled with a died. All the experience it has earned through out the ages in the art of dealing death in close quarters, it can still get whacked much easier than you think by a gretchin with a rent-a-wrench. 

Higher weapon skills should be beneficial. Several things can be done,

1, Give them the fabled 2+ that ballistic skill has. Something that good in combat just shouldn't miss 1/3 of the time. Its just absurd. Hell go one further and make it swing both ways, something with WS 3 against something with WS 8 should hit on a 6+.

2, Or, give them re-rolls. These warriors spend hours perfecting their art of dealing death up close and personal. They practice so hard that the idea of them missing against an inferior combatant should be an alien concept to them. 

3, Or, give them invulnerable saves against other close combat attacks based on how much better their weapon skill is. Give them a parry/dodge/weave save. A basic terminator with thunderhammer is going to be much more clumsy than a great duelist like Lucius of the Emperor's children. Lucius would easily be able to weave away from a hurtling hammer. A Bloodthirster would easily be able to bat away a power weapon from a less skilled opponent. 

The weapon skill chart is easily the weakest part of the rules system fundamentally as it doesnt scale properly with attributes.

*Section 2*

Finally, a whine list:
1, Write the new book from the perspective of the Tyranids. 

2,Stop writing rule-books that revolve around Space Marines. Xenos in general really get shafted with new rules. 
Secondly, dont write a rule-book for Space Marines, then let them trump the rules they dont like. Reserves on turn 1 are absolute rubbish. 

3,(Selfish just for Nids change) remove Hammer and Anvil or change the deployment set up. I currently have to spend 2 turns running across no man's land with 6" move and having to decide whether to fire back with my crappy ranged units and whittle down the fire power coming at me or run a random distance while trying to survive another round of firing. 

4, Make Psychic shooting easier, I have a lengthy response to this that I will post later, but to sum it up
4.1, Everything shouldn't be able to use the ability. A flat 6+ which can only get better is a major pain in the ass. 
4.2, Projectile withfire powers should not be denied because it doesn't make sense that balls of destruction vanish into thin air just because some guy believes "if it isn't real it cant hurt me!"
4.3, Some tweaks to the rule can be made. Only other psychers can deny. Maybe introduce denial bubbles like shadow in the warp.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

I really like those weapon skill changes and agree that things are a little ludicrous.

I mostly don't have a problem with psychic powers, but I suppose it could be argued that most powers aren't so obscenely powerful that 2 rolls must be passed to pop them off successfully (Ld check, Deny the Witch). Looking forward to the more in-depth response, on that account.

I agree with a few other suggestions on this thread. Too bad no one with the power to implement them will never read this thread. :cray:


----------



## Jdojo18 (May 8, 2012)

I think benefits for CC are good. I agree, if something has been practicing the art for war for hundreds of years, they should be able to hit more accurately than a gretchin. However, I would say that hitting something on a 6+ would be too much of a boost. Lower weapon skills ticking with a 5+ is fine I think and here's why:

1. If there is a squad of 5 heavily armed and CC specialized marines/bugs/daemons/whatever against 20 or 30 smaller troops, the smaller troops shouldn't have a problem hitting them with an axe since they are so close and the frenzy of close combat fighting makes it hard to dodge when you are surrounded on all sides. That goes double for MCs. They are so huge that you couldn't possibly miss.

2. The unit is already being protected from being wounded by disallowing other units to shoot at it while it is in combat. If it can't be shot at and you can only be hit by 6s in CC, then what can hit you? Especially if you manage to get into combat by turn two.

But I agree, I think heavy CC units should hit a little more accurately. I hate watching my Warboss roll those 1s and 2s.


----------



## Lanfear (Mar 23, 2011)

I like the idea of adjustment to the WS chart. 
As with instant death for double strength over toughness, why not a simple plus one to hit on the weapon skills chart if you have double your opponents weapon skill. It shows that your opponent is outclassed enough to provide a better chance of hitting him but keep the 5+ for them hitting you back.

I think it would be too big a change to have hitting on 6+ routinely for some. I reckon it is important that the heroic humble trooper/ork/bug can still make a difference and be able to hit back.


----------



## Stormxlr (Sep 11, 2013)

Being able to consolidate into combat for obvious reasons. 
6+d6 charge range for dedicated assault unit's at least. Failed charges go the 6 " or half the range of the failed one.
Being able to counter charge at the same time. 
As already mentioned flat out has to have minimum distance and not 1”。


----------



## High_Seraph (Aug 28, 2009)

Better balance throughout an edition in the codeci(?) and any supplements that come out both internally and externally.


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

units be able to march much like in fantasy.And different races have different movement values it makes zero sense to me that eldar move as fast as guardsmen.


----------



## serphangel (Feb 1, 2014)

There definately needs to be changes to the assault rules, both charge range and overwatch, 6"+D6 would be good, and I think that if you have shot in your shooting phase then you can't overwatch or something similar I also like the idea of an initiative test before being able to overwatch.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

Stormxlr said:


> Being able to consolidate into combat for obvious reasons.
> 6+d6 charge range for dedicated assault unit's at least. Failed charges go the 6 " or half the range of the failed one.
> Being able to counter charge at the same time.
> As already mentioned flat out has to have minimum distance and not 1”。


Totally agreed, especially consolidating into combat.


----------



## serphangel (Feb 1, 2014)

Also get rid of random psychic powers and go back to paying for them!


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Ravner298 said:


> An initiative test to overwatch? That would completely invalidate tau with 1 fell swoop.


Hahahahahahahahahahaha.


----------



## Stormxlr (Sep 11, 2013)

I am more or less fine with random psychic powers. For me it represents that i am using different psychers in each combat. Also building a whole army around a psychic ability seems unreasonable and unrealistic.



Vaz said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahaha.


Ye agreed. I don't see how one can overwatch a Space Marine charging at 60 km/h. Especially why the hell can they do it at better BS than humans when tau are identical to them fluff wise.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

I'd be happy with either.

A very low base points cost for rolls on the table, and moderately higher points cost to select individual powers. This could represent both the chaotic nature of the warp/being a psyker, as well as identifying those individuals who have mastered this or that (by paying for them with an invisible currency called "points").

Initiative test required for Overwatch would hurt Tau too much? Aaaaawwww... poor babies.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

5th edition.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

I understand the nerfing of tau Is widely acceptable, but it would make their 'support fire' codex rule useless. That currently is the only defense they have against assaults (which contrary to popular belief happens quite often).


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

I'm not a huge fan of the rule but it's more that I really enjoy hating on Tau, more than anything else. I was very disappointed that there wasn't a wealth of accurate search results when I typed "Tau getting murdered" into Google. They can Overwatch all they want, I'm still going to unleash as much cheese as possible against them and hope that mine stinks more. :so_happy:


----------



## troybuckle (Nov 24, 2010)

There are a few things that need to change:

Assaulting: 

2d6 is just way to random, ever be 4" from and unit and fail the charge? It should go back to flat 6" as it make strategic positioning a factor. (Ever be 11 inches from a unit and get charged) ahhhh

Bring back assaulting from transports and infiltrateing, outflank could go either way, unless your assult unit can move 12" they never gets into a fight.

Others:
Get rid of intercepter rule... Let flyers have a chance.

Allies share force org not.get.a new one

And finaly.random.physic powers needs to change, perhaps this could work:
Master level + 1D6 rolls for powers (ie ml 3 gets 4 rolls) all at the same time, reroll doubles untill there are none left, then discard one d6 then chouse which one if any you want to switch to the primars power. This still keeps the random feel but gives you better odds on the power you want. Your game plan can go to shit when you end u
p with useless physic powers that can not support the army you picked


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Cap Flyer armour at 11, which immediately balances all the current Flyers into being good, but not broken choices. Makes Dakkajets and Night Scythes able to realistically pull fighter duty, and makes Flakk Missiles relevant rather than the massive waste of points that they are currently.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Flakk missiles should just be a folded into the missile launcher cost. They're a lose-lose situation. They can't do the job they're needed to do effectively, as they don't have Interceptor, and if you've got an opponent without flyers, you're wasting points.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

There are a lot of sensible wishes in this list. If we included all of them we'd basically have 2nd edition again. 

I'd agree with fix assault ranges, allies, and flyers. 

And most of all I'd agree with fix armor saves. They should never have introduced the "AP" value. The reason was to discourage marines from hiding in cover. They look much more heroic marching across the board shrugging off incoming fire. The problem is of course high AP spam, and cover remains essential.

Go back to strength based saves. They are so much better.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

How does that change? Using the WHF system, Plasma still kills Marines; S7 = -4, S8 = -5, hell, S6 nullifies, and Heavy Bolters actually shred them.

Not sure what that would achieve.


----------



## fatmantis (Jun 26, 2009)

baically for me if they wrote the codex's with the rules in mind (ie somebody that actually plays) would probably fix most of the issues.
but my biggest issue is the amount of re-rolling..perseince is just stupid! laser lock..should make the other weapons twin link as the are "supposed to be fired at the same time".
there just is not that "shit i really need to make this count" rolls for shooting any more..oh well if i miss i can just reroll..its boring!!!!
there needs to be more consequences for actions..i e interceptor..decisions need to be made before your next turn...so if you want to intercept you cant shoot this turn.
the other things for me and this is really my own grip..why are snipe so crap at shooting?? they are trained shooters..at my club we feel that every turn they dont move their BS increases +1..so turn 1 3..t2 4 t3 5 etc to show that they are getting into better positions etc..also no look out sir from precision shots.

but more than anything why rewrite the rules? yes i know money..but would it not be better to have a monthly PDF?? for say 1 year...fixing all the bugs and listening to the community and THEN releasing a new rule book? yes i know completely unrealistic.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Vaz said:


> How does that change? Using the WHF system, Plasma still kills Marines; S7 = -4, S8 = -5, hell, S6 nullifies, and Heavy Bolters actually shred them.
> 
> Not sure what that would achieve.


Vaz, it was never that simple. Plasma guns were -2. What it did was make prevent combat from being binary.


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

>> I have a house-rule that i think would work. If a cc unit WIPES-OUT enemy in 1 round, then sweeping advances into a new unit are allowed, but only if they wipe out unit. I see it as yer standard troop/fast attack cc units eg assault marines, are less likely to destroy a unit straight off, yet yer elite cc units eg banshees/incubi are more likely to do this, therefor making them more cc than yer standard "Im just a marine wi a chainsword" types. Obviously it depends on target unit, but...! Hope that makes sense, does to me.


----------

